January 4, 2015


A salute to the world in the Year 2016. Priceless humor and enlightenment at the same time on a troubling issue:

Karl Sharro
@KarlreMarks
Architect, satirist, blogger and extremely bad cartoonist. Mostly Middle East stuff (My Arabic account: @karlremarks_AR )

London
karlremarks.com



News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-militia-names-themselves-citizens-for-constitutional-freedom/

Oregon militia in standoff with feds names themselves
CBS/AP
January 4, 2016

Photograph -- Ammon Bundy addresses the news media at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon on Dec. 4, 2015. CBS NEWS
Play VIDEO -- Armed activist leader in Oregon on standoff with federal government


BURNS, Ore. - The militia group at the center of a standoff on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon said they are occupying federal land in protest in order to restore the constitution.

Ammon Bundy - the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in an armed standoff with the government over grazing rights - said his group will stay there as long as it takes to see justice served. On Monday, he told reporters that the collective of protesters had decided to name themselves "Citizens for Constitutional Freedom."

The case that brought self-described armed patriots from across the country to Oregon involves a pair of Oregon ranchers convicted of burning federal land. And while the milita group insists they are acting in support of the Hammonds, the Hammonds say they don't want the protesters at the refuge.

Earlier Monday, Bundy told "CBS This Morning": "The wildlife refuge has been a tool that government has used for many years to take the land and resources away from the people. The people of this county are being abused and they're being prosecuted because they're not willing to sell to the federal government, and it's just one of those things that just cannot continue."

Ammon Bundy told "CBS This Morning" they're armed because "we need to defend ourselves."

"There is an imminent threat towards us and it is our right to do that," Ammon Bundy said. "But also we are serious. We are serious about being here, we're serious about defending our rights and we're serious about getting some things straightened out, but we have no intention on using any type of force, intimidation. Those are not our methods."

Tension had been building for weeks in the eastern Oregon over the case of Dwight and Steven Hammond.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and son Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

The two were convicted three years ago and served time - the father, three months; the son, one year. But in October, a federal judge in Oregon ruled their terms were too short under U.S. law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.

The FBI has taken charge of law enforcement efforts to bring a peaceful end to the situation. Many have questioned why there hasn't been a more aggressive law enforcement approach to ending the situation, which is taking place in a sparsely populated part of the state.




“On Monday, he told reporters that the collective of protesters had decided to name themselves "Citizens for Constitutional Freedom." The case that brought self-described armed patriots from across the country to Oregon involves a pair of Oregon ranchers convicted of burning federal land. And while the militia group insists they are acting in support of the Hammonds, the Hammonds say they don't want the protesters at the refuge. …. The people of this county are being abused and they're being prosecuted because they're not willing to sell to the federal government, and it's just one of those things that just cannot continue." …. Dwight Hammond, 73, and son Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. The two were convicted three years ago and served time - the father, three months; the son, one year. But in October, a federal judge in Oregon ruled their terms were too short under U.S. law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.”


This is one of those articles that fascinate me because of what they don’t tell. What’s the actual history of that refuge, what instances are there of coercion by the government when owners refused to sell, what judge jumped in and increased their sentences and under what stimulation? Why did the Hammonds think they wouldn’t be prosecuted for burning government land? Even more interesting, what causes them to refuse affiliation with Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. See more below.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/04/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-what-bundy-wants/index.html

Oregon standoff: What the armed group wants and why
By Ashley Fantz, CNN
Mon January 4, 2016

Video -- Protester: We'll stay until we secure land 02:01


(CNN)—Saturday night, armed men broke into the desolate headquarters of a federally owned wildlife refuge in Oregon and said they weren't going to leave until the government stops its "tyranny."

It just got weirder from there.

The group's spokesman is Ammon Bundy, the son of anti-government Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. The father made national news when he led a huge standoff against the feds in 2014 in which he and his brother participated. The standoff took on racist shades when the elder Bundy wondered aloud to a New York Times reporter whether black people would be better off enslaved.

That is the backdrop against which a very complicated, confusing and tense situation continues Monday with Ammon Bundy and dozens of supporters who have answered his call on social media to join him at the remote outpost about 30 miles from Burn, Oregon.

In a press conference in which a few followers rambled for a long time about Constitutional rights and against the federal government, Bundy said the group had decided to call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.

Who is Ammon Bundy?

Bundy won't say how many armed people are at the refuge. CNN's Sara Sidner is near the headquarters building -- a tiny building at the remote wildlife outpost near Burns, Oregon, and has interviewed Bundy. She has seen mostly men, but said there were at least two women -- one of them a wife of one of the men.

CNN Map -- Malheur National Wildlife headquarters

Oregon

The Oregonian has reported that Ammon's brother Ryan Ammon is there. The two participated in their father's fight against the Bureau of Land Management in 2014 when the federal government tried to get Cliven Bundy to move his cattle off protected land. Back then the Bundys encouraged like-minded anti-government folks to join them and many responded. The ordeal ended when the government retreated and the Bundys declared themselves victorious.

Who is with him?

Ammon Bundy, who has lived in Arizona with his wife, sent an appeal for supporters to join him in Oregon.

The Arizona Republic reported that three from the area have answered the call.

One of them, the newspaper said, is Jon Ritzheimer, an avowed anti-Islamist and former Marine who served in Iraq. In 2014 he organized a protest outside a Phoenix Islamic community center during which he wore a T-shirt that said, "F--- Islam." He said his goal was to provoke. "I'm trying to achieve exposing Islam," he told CNN's Anderson Cooper at the time, and compared himself to the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Ritzheimer appears to have posted a video of himself at the refuge on Sunday. It is difficult to follow because of abrupt editing, but in it he says, "We went there. It was completely open. ...We just rolled right in."

Arizonan LaVoy Finicum is also with Bundy. He spoke at the press conference, standing in the snow, flanked by at least a dozen supporters. He repeatedly said he was interested in defending his rights under the Constitution.

Finicum is a rancher who lives in the Kaibab Plateau area of northern Arizona, and has publicly stated he is no longer paying federal grazing fees which he calls "extortion," the Republic reports.

Ryan Payne is also there, the Oregonian reports. The military veteran from Montana worked security to defend Cliven Bundy in 2014, and told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he was in charge of putting snipers in position when the standoff came to a head.

The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks hate crimes and militias.

What do they want?

Though the group's goals have so far seemed hazy, Ammon Bundy has said that they essentially want two things.

First, they want the federal government to relinquish control of the wildlife refuge so "people can reclaim their resources," he told CNN early Monday. And second, they want an easier sentence for a pair of father and son ranchers convicted of committing arson on federal lands in Oregon.

The group's armed action came after they broke off from a group protesting that the pair were being forced to serve more time than their original sentence.

Father and son ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, said they started a fire in 2001 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and to protect their property from wildfires, CNN affiliate KTVZ-TV reported, but that the fire got out of hand. Prosecutors said they set fires to cover up poaching.

The U.S. Department of Justice issued a statement Monday: "The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area," it said.

"Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer" on Bureau of Land Management property. "Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out 'Strike Anywhere' matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to 'light up the whole country on fire.' "

Federal law mandates that the offense carry no less than a five-year sentence. The first federal judge to oversee the case thought the sentence was too harsh and gave them two years which they served. In October 2015, the Ninth Circuit ruled that they had to serve the mandatory minimum.

Bundy has said the case illustrates the government's "abuse" of power.

What do the Hammonds want?

The Hammonds are cooperating, their attorney has said, adding that father and son do not support what Bundy and the others are doing. They are expected to turn themselves in Monday afternoon to begin serving their sentences.

The attorney's statement doesn't seem to hold much sway with Bundy and the others.

"At the heart of this is a complaint that the federal government owns so much land, and that feeling is typical in a lot of western states," said Heidi Beirich, a lead researcher with the Southern Poverty Law Center. "But that land doesn't belong to them. It belongs to all of us and the government is working to preserve it.

"And I don't know where they get off thinking that the land doesn't belong to those who originally had it," she quipped.

CNN's Sara Sidner asked Bundy and other supporters what they think about the argument, widely made on social media, that if they wanted the land to go to the people, it should go back to Native Americans.

The men paused for a moment and told Sidner that they'd welcome anyone to join them, including Native Americans.

Where is law enforcement?

The short answer is visibly no where near the occupied wildlife refuge headquarters. Sidner and her crew are logistically unable to drive into the park where the headquarters are located. The building looks like a place you'd stop to grab a bite and use the bathroom on a long roadtrip, she said. It's away from the road, and in every direction there's tremendous empty expanse. If law enforcement showed up and wanted to be seen, they would be, she said.

The FBI has said it is taking the lead on the situation and is working with state and local authorities toward "a peaceful resolution" to the situation, the agency's Portland office said in a statement.

Citing "safety considerations for both those inside the refuge as well as the law enforcement officers involved," the FBI declined to comment further.

How and when could this end?

Some have criticized law enforcement for this approach, especially on Twitter where the most strident comments have been posted. Many are using the hashtag #OregonUnderAttack to say there's a double standard applied to Bundy and his supporters. If they weren't white, many say, there would be a harsher and swifter response.

Many have said the Black Lives Matter movement has been penalized for far less than what's happening at the wildlife refuge. If they were Muslims, the law enforcement response would be different, others argued.

But several in law enforcement have said there are circumstances to consider. This is a remote area in Oregon in a building where no one -- except those who've voluntarily occupied the building -- are in immediate danger.

"What's going to happen hopefully (is) ... we don't go out there with a big force, because that's what they're looking for," said CNN law enforcement analyst Art Roderick, a retired U.S. marshal who investigated anti-government militias for years. "The last thing we need is some type of confrontation."

Bundy has said he and others are prepared to stay in the building for days, weeks or months if necessary. They have enough food and other supplies, he said, to see them through for a long time.

Bundy has repeatedly warned that the armed occupiers don't intend to harm anyone, but if law enforcement or others try to force them from the building, they will defend themselves.

CNN's Holly Yan and Joe Sutton contributed to this report.



“… said they weren't going to leave until the government stops its "tyranny." …. The standoff took on racist shades when the elder Bundy wondered aloud to a New York Times reporter whether black people would be better off enslaved.” …. In a press conference in which a few followers rambled for a long time about Constitutional rights and against the federal government, Bundy said the group had decided to call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. …. In October 2015, the Ninth Circuit ruled that they had to serve the mandatory minimum. Bundy has said the case illustrates the government's "abuse" of power. …. CNN's Sara Sidner asked Bundy and other supporters what they think about the argument, widely made on social media, that if they wanted the land to go to the people, it should go back to Native Americans. …. The FBI has said it is taking the lead on the situation and is working with state and local authorities toward "a peaceful resolution" to the situation, the agency's Portland office said in a statement. Citing "safety considerations for both those inside the refuge as well as the law enforcement officers involved," the FBI declined to comment further. …. Many have said the Black Lives Matter movement has been penalized for far less than what's happening at the wildlife refuge. If they were Muslims, the law enforcement response would be different, others argued. But several in law enforcement have said there are circumstances to consider. This is a remote area in Oregon in a building where no one -- except those who've voluntarily occupied the building -- are in immediate danger.”

“…. The Hammonds are cooperating, their attorney has said, adding that father and son do not support what Bundy and the others are doing. They are expected to turn themselves in Monday afternoon to begin serving their sentences.” It looks from this article as if the Hammonds (who on the TV News yesterday claimed that they were just burning off some of their land to prevent a larger wildfire) either did commit arson purposely to hide evidence of their poaching as “witnesses” stated, or simply failed to properly manage their controlled burn. Florida uses controlled burning every year because our underbrush here becomes so dense that it is a “tinderbox,” as the weather turns hot and dry. That does contribute to some very threatening fires here and it does sometimes grow too large to handle. The Hammonds don’t, I hope, want to join this anti-government group of the Bundy family. Perhaps they aren’t revolutionaries at all, but instead just normal citizens and ranchers.

There is a problem, however, if law enforcement including the FBI are afraid to tackle them, or afraid of accidentally igniting a true revolution. I can see the National Guard or even regular army troops being called out to handle the situation. There is a dangerous level of highly irrational anti-government feeling in parts of this country, and I’m reminded of the Battle of Lexington when someone, either British soldiers or a colonist accidentally started the Revolutionary War by firing one shot. Some of those militia-type elements actually want a new civil war, and may be willing to start it. At least one militia man last year was quoted as saying he was waiting for “the race war,” and almost seemed to be looking forward to such a thing with relish. If it were merely a handful of dissidents it would be one thing, but this is “dozens” who have come to the area stimulated by their Internet connections. Their use of the Internet is very similar to that of ISIS, and should not be considered any more benign than that murderous group.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-meets-with-loretta-lynch-on-gun-violence/

Obama meets with Loretta Lynch on gun violence
By REBECCA KAPLAN CBS NEWS
January 4, 2016

Photograph -- Attorney General Loretta Lynch (L) looks toward President Obama during a meeting with top law enforcement officials to discuss what executive actions he can take to curb gun violence, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington January 4, 2016. REUTERS/KEVIN LAMARQUE
Play VIDEO -- Obama plans executive actions on guns
Play VIDEO -- Republicans fire back at Obama's gun control move


President Obama said Monday he will begin rolling out initiatives to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands over the next several days and that every recommendation made by members of his cabinet are "well within my legal authority."

The president's remarks came after a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- who was developing recommendations for potential ways he could use his executive authority -- along with FBI Director James Comey, White House staff, and the deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

"It is my strong belief that for us to get our complete arms around the problem Congress needs to act," the president said. But in the meantime, he has requested that his team "see what more we can do to strengthen our enforcement and prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands."

"We'll be making sure that people have a very clear understanding of what can make a difference and what we can do," the president said, but he added, "We have to be very clear that this is not going to solve every violent crime in this country, it's not going to prevent every mass shooting, it's not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal."

He said the actions will potentially save lives and spare families some of the pain and loss they have felt from losing a loved one to gun violence.

The president said he was confident that the recommendations "are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people's lawful right to bear arms."

"We've been very careful recognizing that although we have a strong tradition of gun ownership in this country that even those who possess firearms for hunting, for self protection and for other legitimate reasons want to make sure that the wrong people don't have them for the wrong reasons," he said.

Mr. Obama will participate in a town hall on gun violence with CNN's Anderson Cooper this Thursday at 8 p.m. He is also meeting Monday with members of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. All of the task force's vice chairs, who are Democrats, have been invited.

The president's actions are already facing stiff opposition from Republicans. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said Monday that the president's forthcoming actions were a "dangerous level of executive overreach." Several GOP presidential candidates have pledged to undo them if they are elected president.

In early October, shortly after the mass shooting at an Oregon community college, the president assigned White House and Department of Justice lawyers to comb the law in search of any unused administrative authority available to him.

One proposal under consideration: make a clear distinction between gun collectors and gun sellers. Under current law, background checks are required for anyone buying a firearm from someone "engaged in the business" of selling guns (like a federally-permitted gun store or dealer). Sales made out of a person's private collection, many of which are done online, are not subject to background checks.

The president could order a threshold be established such that anyone selling a certain number of guns annually would no longer qualify as a collector, but as someone "in the business" of firearm sales. Those buyers would then be subject to background checks.

Adopting this proposal would not eliminate the so-called "gun show loophole," but gun control advocates argue it would be easier to prosecute offenders if the gun seller law is better defined.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group backed by Michael Bloomberg, has also recommended better reporting and tracking of lost and stolen guns. It is unclear whether that will be included in the president's executive action.

In the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre that left 20 six-year olds dead, the president mounted a legislative push to enact tighter gun laws. That effort -- which would have resulted in more far-reaching gun safety laws than any executive action -- failed in Congress. The White House recognizes the bleak political realities of another legislative push in an election year.

President Obama said in July that he has been "most frustrated and most stymied" by the country's inability to enact "sufficient, common sense gun safety laws."

The Obama family returns from their Hawaiian vacation this weekend. The president will deliver his final State of the Union address on January 12th.

CBS News Producer Arden Farhi contributed to this story




“President Obama said Monday he will begin rolling out initiatives to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands over the next several days and that every recommendation made by members of his cabinet are "well within my legal authority." The president's remarks came after a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- who was developing recommendations for potential ways he could use his executive authority -- along with FBI Director James Comey, White House staff, and the deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. …. The president said he was confident that the recommendations "are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people's lawful right to bear arms." …. Mr. Obama will participate in a town hall on gun violence with CNN's Anderson Cooper this Thursday at 8 p.m. He is also meeting Monday with members of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. All of the task force's vice chairs, who are Democrats, have been invited. …. In early October, shortly after the mass shooting at an Oregon community college, the president assigned White House and Department of Justice lawyers to comb the law in search of any unused administrative authority available to him. One proposal under consideration: make a clear distinction between gun collectors and gun sellers. …. The president could order a threshold be established such that anyone selling a certain number of guns annually would no longer qualify as a collector, but as someone "in the business" of firearm sales.”


There are several points that seem important to me. First, I don’t think that “a collector” should be allowed to amass so many guns that it is legitimately viewable as an “arsenal” rather than a mere collection, whether or not the owner sells large numbers of guns, and especially if the collection includes the military style repeating rifles such as AK47s which are more appropriate for combat than for sport.

Second, I don’t see why ALL gun sales should not be regulated by background checks and other legal control measures, no matter who is selling or buying the gun or where the transaction is being planned and carried out. There is a huge black market on these guns. The money involved in it is why so many Congressmen and Senators are firmly under the control of the NRA.

Third, these rightist, racist “militias” are a greater problem, and need to be reined in severely. It would be helpful, perhaps, if all military wannabe groups in the US should be coopted into the US Army or National Guard. That would remove them from the covert and uncontrolled purposes that they now have. Supposedly they are guaranteed a right to exist under the Constitution for the purpose of local defense against enemies of the national government or other attacking forces, but one militiaman in the news recently did acknowledge that to some militia members, at least, their purpose is to prevent the US government from establishing control over local authorities. In other words, no more federal enforcement of a law, as occurred with school desegregation which occurred in 1954 under that rabid communist President Eisenhower – a Republican. To me, what has been going on in these last 20 or so years amounts to “advocating the overthrow of the government” and is covered in the following statute: 18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government – and to respond to it as one of the basic rights of a US citizen is a real mistake. The Bundys in Oregon are part of the same problem seen as an outright threat rather than merely a possible danger at some future point.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 states, “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; ….”

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2385


“Welcome to the LII

Thank you for wanting to learn more about the LII. We are a small research, engineering, and editorial group housed at the Cornell Law School in Ithaca, NY. Our collaborators include publishers, legal scholars, computer scientists, government agencies, and other groups and individuals that promote open access to law, worldwide.

Here you can learn about all the things we do to ensure that the law remains free and open to everyone, which includes supporting global expansion of the free access to law movement, serving government, empowering citizens, serving the legal profession, and developing web science for the law.”





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-bay-area-dangerous-earthquake-faults-may-be-linked/

Alarming discovery with SF's 2 most dangerous quake lines
CBS NEWS
January 4, 2016

Photograph -- In this before-and-after composite image, (Left) Cars are seen covered in bricks from a falling building facade following the Loma Prieta earthquake on October 17, 1989 in San Francisco, California.(Right) Cars are parked along 6th Street near Townsend on October 15, 2014 in San Francisco, California. JUSTIN SULLIVAN, GETTY IMAGES
Graphics -- See map
16 PHOTOS -- Bay Area earthquake, 25 years later


SAN FRANCISCO -- Scientists have discovered an alarming connection underwater: Two of the most dangerous earthquake faults in the Bay Area.

Experts long debated whether the Hayward Fault and the Rodgers Creek Fault connected, but now there's strong evidence they do, reports CBS San Francisco.

U.S. Geological geophysicist Janet Watt made the discovery in an underwater survey using an acoustic instrument over the San Pablo Bay. She says the data is clearer than ever.

"We now have direct evidence that the faults come closer together in the bay and may be directly connected," says Watt. "It would be devastating for an earthquake to rupture at both those faults -- it'd be a very strong earthquake."

Two Bay Area fault lines could potentially trigger a 7.3 magnitude earthquake if they ruptured together. That's stronger than the 1989 Loma Prieta quake.

"If these two faults are connected then that means it would be easier for an earthquake to rupture from the Hayward to Rodgers or vice versa," says Watt.

Old maps showed a gap of at least 2.5 miles between the faults. Watt says the 60-mile long Hayward Fault, which runs from San Pablo Bay to Alum Rock, and the 39-mile Rodgers Creek Fault that runs from San Pablo Bay to Healdsburg, are likely linked by a strand.

Watt's discovery may help determine whether a big quake is ahead of us. After all, the Hayward Fault is the most populated fault in the world. A 7.3 magnitude quake would be devastating.

"People in the Bay Area just need to be prepared that they live in earthquake country," she said.

Now scientists will work to confirm the new data. Watt's survey will go from underwater to land to see if there is a connection above ground, as well.




"We now have direct evidence that the faults come closer together in the bay and may be directly connected," says Watt. "It would be devastating for an earthquake to rupture at both those faults -- it'd be a very strong earthquake." Two Bay Area fault lines could potentially trigger a 7.3 magnitude earthquake if they ruptured together. …. Watt's discovery may help determine whether a big quake is ahead of us. After all, the Hayward Fault is the most populated fault in the world. A 7.3 magnitude quake would be devastating.”


We should be studying the Japanese government’s earthquake preparedness videos and modern building styles such as the flexible foundations that rock rather than falling down, to try to limit the loss and death from a quake of 7.3 magnitude. Personally I will stay on the East Coast, at least until the ocean water rises another 5 feet or so and floods half of Florida. I notice there have been more than a few alarmist films out now, as the number of potential natural disasters are pointed out to the public. We are drawn to films like that to “get in touch” with our repressed fears. I have to admit I have a certain taste for them if they are well-produced and well-acted.