June 9 and 10, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-people-have-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public/

Appeals court: People have no right to carry concealed weapons in public
AP June 9, 2016, 2:03 PM


SAN FRANCISCO -- Dealing a blow to gun supporters, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.

In a dispute that could ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said local law enforcement officials can place significant restrictions on who is allowed to carry concealed guns.

In a 7-4 vote, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must supply a "good cause" to obtain a concealed-carry permit. People who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are often given permits.

The ruling overturned a decision by three-judge panel of the same court that said applicants need only express a desire for personal safety.

The 9th Circuit's rulings are binding in nine Western states. Only two other federal appeals courts have taken up the issue - in cases out of New York and Maryland -- and both ruled the way the 9th Circuit did.

The National Rifle Association called the ruling "out of touch" and said the dispute could ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court, which has so far declined to take up the issue.

"This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection," said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.

Gun-control advocates hailed the decision.

The New York-based gun control organization Everytown called it "a major victory for public safety."

The 9th Circuit decision arose from a lawsuit Edward Peruta filed challenging the San Diego County sheriff's refusal to issue him a permit because he failed to cite a "good cause." The sheriff required applicants to produce supporting documents, such as a restraining order against a possible attacker.

Peruta argued that the requirement violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris called the ruling "a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws."


“In a dispute that could ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said local law enforcement officials can place significant restrictions on who is allowed to carry concealed guns. …. In a 7-4 vote, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must supply a "good cause" to obtain a concealed-carry permit. People who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are often given permits. The ruling overturned a decision by three-judge panel of the same court that said applicants need only express a desire for personal safety. …. Only two other federal appeals courts have taken up the issue - in cases out of New York and Maryland -- and both ruled the way the 9th Circuit did. The National Rifle Association called the ruling "out of touch" and said the dispute could ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court, which has so far declined to take up the issue. …. The New York-based gun control organization Everytown called it "a major victory for public safety." The 9th Circuit decision arose from a lawsuit Edward Peruta filed challenging the San Diego County sheriff's refusal to issue him a permit because he failed to cite a "good cause." The sheriff required applicants to produce supporting documents, such as a restraining order against a possible attacker.”


"The sheriff required applicants to produce supporting documents, such as a restraining order against a possible attacker.” This does appear to be another step away from the Wild West craze that has overtaken this country since my teenaged years. I hope to see more cases of state and local gun restrictions. Those who are devotees of Open Carry declare that while concealed carry can be prohibited, open carry cannot. This is one of the traps of legal thinking these days. The letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law. It has not yet been declared unconstitutional before the Supreme Court, so there is an ongoing fight over the matter, with differing results from place to place. No matter how harmful something is, if the Constitution is not seen to prohibit it, it becomes a right, in the eyes of some. That is our current trend of thinking, at any rate. Groups like the Sovereign Citizens, Militias, and other rightwing nut jobs are deeply in love with parading around in Walmart and such places with their AK47s strapped across their chests.

Why has open carry become so commonplace? I wonder what the rationale for allowing that is. Wikipedia looks at the matter. The Wiki article says nothing about the exact judicial justification of open carry, only the nature of decisions. See the article for a series of public demonstrations by open carry advocates also. It’s one of those States Rights issues.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

Open carry in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of "openly carrying a firearm in public", as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer.

The practice of open carry, where gun owners openly carry firearms while they go about their daily business, has seen an increase in the U.S. in recent years.[1][2] This has been marked by a number of organized events intended to increase the visibility of open carry and public awareness about the practice.[3] Proponents of open carry point to history and statistics, noting that criminals usually conceal their weapons, a stark contrast to the law-abiding citizens who display their sidearms.[4] Encouraged by groups like The Modern American Revolution,[5] OpenCarry.org, GeorgiaCarry.org and some participants of the Free State Project, open carry has seen a revival in recent years,[6][7][8] but it is not yet clear if this represents just a short-term trend.[9][10]

The gun rights community has become supportive of the practice. Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation has been cautious in expressing support,[11] while special-interest groups such as the aforementioned OpenCarry.org and GeorgiaCarry.org, and certain national groups such as the NRA and Gun Owners of America (GOA) have been more outspoken in favor of the practice.

Open carry is strongly opposed by gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.[12][13] . . . .

Plain sight

Broadly defined as not being hidden from common observation; varies somewhat from state to state. Some states specify that open carry occurs when the weapon is "partially visible," while other jurisdictions require the weapon to be "fully visible" to be considered carried openly. . . . .

Preemption

In the context of open carry: the act of a state legislature passing laws which limit or eliminate the ability of local governments to regulate the possession or carrying of firearms.

Prohibited persons

This refers to people who are prohibited by law from carrying a firearm. Typical examples are felons, those convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence, those found to be addicted to alcohol or drugs, and those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. . . . .

Diversity in state laws[edit]

State laws on open carry vary widely. Five states, the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia fully prohibit the open carry of handguns. On the other side, twenty-five states permit open carry of a handgun without requiring the citizen to apply for any permit or license. Fifteen states require some form of permit (often the same permit as allows a person to carry concealed), and the remaining five states, though not prohibiting the practice in general, do not preempt local laws or law enforcement policies, and/or have significant restrictions on the practice, such as prohibiting it within the boundaries of an incorporated urban area. Illinois allows open carry on private property only.[69]

On October 11, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law that it would be a "misdemeanor to openly carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in public or in a vehicle." This does not apply to the open carry of rifles or long guns or persons in rural areas where permitted by ordinance. . . . .

On May 15, 2012, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed Senate Bill 1733, the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, which will allow people with Oklahoma concealed weapons permits to open carry if they so choose. The law took effect in November, 2012. "Under the measure, businesses may continue to prohibit firearms to be carried on their premises. SB 1733 prohibits carrying firearms on properties owned or leased by the city, state or federal government, at corrections facilities, in schools or college campuses, liquor stores and at sports arenas during sporting events."[70]

Constitutional implications[edit]

Open carry has never been ruled out as a right under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by any court. In the majority opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote concerning the entirety of the elements of the Second Amendment; "We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." However, Scalia continued, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."[40]

Forty five states' constitutions recognize and secure the right to keep and bear arms in some form, and none of those prohibit the open carrying of firearms. Five state constitutions provide that the state legislature may regulate the manner of carrying or bearing arms, and advocates argue that none rule out open carry specifically. Nine states' constitutions indicate that the concealed carrying of firearms may be regulated and/or prohibited by the state legislature.[41] Open carry advocates argue that, by exclusion, open carrying of arms may not be legislatively controlled in these states. But this is not settled law.[citation needed]

Section 1.7 [42] of Kentucky's state constitution only empowers the state to enact laws prohibiting "concealed carry".

In 2015, former Florida congressman Allen West opined, regarding the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, "Using the same 'due process clause' argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“[43] This opinion echoes reasoning contained in an Amicus curiae brief in Obergefell.[44]



Why so many progressives have come to hate Clinton


http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/the_democrats_party_derailed_bernie_how_the_establishment_has_worked_to_discredit_sanders_movement/

The Democratic Party derailed Bernie: How the establishment has worked to discredit Sanders’ movement
Party leaders demonized Sanders supporters to stymie debate of the progressive change he's championed
CONOR LYNCH
FRIDAY, JUN 10, 2016 06:00 AM EDT

Photograph -- Bernie Sanders (Credit: Reuters/Carlo Allegri)


Back in April, the Hillary Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record, which is helmed by the former right-wing attack dog David Brock, announced that it would be spending $1 million to “engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.” In other words, the political action committee would spend a cool million on paid internet trolls to pounce on anyone who dared to criticize their presidential candidate.

This announcement was part of a bigger story about the 2016 presidential election: the powerful and far-reaching presence the Bernie Sanders campaign has on social media, and the enthusiasm of young Sanders supporters online, many of whom have been labeled trolls, “Bernie Bros,” “BernieBots,” and — more egregiously — sexists and racists by Democratic partisans and the corporate media over the past year. Sanders has such a passionate online base that David Brock and the Clinton campaign felt it necessary not only to pay legitimate trolls to attack them, but to make bogus generalizations intended to discredit the entire movement.

Throughout the primary season, a narrative has formed — thanks in large part to an uncritical media’s willingness to accept unsubstantiated reports (like chair-throwing and other violence in Nevada) — that Sanders supporters are a bunch of sexist, brutish, violent, and even racist white male trolls and serial harassers (the last charge, which has been exploited by influential journalists and establishment figures to evade any substantive criticisms, is perhaps the most troubling, for the very reason that it undermines people who are genuinely harassed online — which is a very real problem, especially for women and people of color).

Of course, there are indeed anti-Clinton/pro-Bernie trolls on social media — you’d be hard pressed to find any political movement that doesn’t have its share of trolls and assholes, and anyone who thinks their side is troll-free is either naive or self-absorbed. As The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald recently put it on Twitter: “Self-centered people always think their own group is free of trolls because they’re never targeted by them.”

Interestingly enough, polling data indicates that Clinton supporters have been more aggressive than Sanders supporters on social media and the internet, while — not surprisingly — Trump supporters have been the most aggressive by a long shot. A poll supported by Craigslist.com founder Craig Newmark found that 57 percent of Americans say Trump supporters are very aggressive and/or threatening online, 30 percent say the same for Clinton supporters, and 16 percent for Sanders supporters (while 68 percent say Sanders supporters are not that aggressive, 52 percent for Clinton supporters, and 30 percent for Trump supporters).

Unfortunately, “troll” and “harassment” have become terms that are now impulsively hurled by Democratic partisans at anyone who criticizes or disputes their opinion or a claim they’ve made, whether on social media or in a publication. Accusing someone of harassment — even when the person is making a valid argument (admittedly, sometimes substantive arguments can be made in a rude or condescending manner, but is being rude or impolite harassment?) — is an easy way to avoid their argument and discredit them in the future.

A few weeks ago, for instance, former Demos blogger Matt Bruenig (who was later fired for the incident after being rude to Center for American Progress president and Clinton confidant Neera Tanden) responded on Twitter to a column written by Joan Walsh in The Nation that made fairly ridiculous claims, including the declaration that the Sanders movement risked becoming an “angry white male cult” (is this not trolling itself?). Bruenig innocuously wrote that “It’s really about old people versus young people, but you know that,” to which Walsh flatly replied: “Matt, you’re becoming a troll.”

The things that pass for trolling these days!

Of course, Bruenig’s “trollish” comment was factual: the most revealing demographic divisions between Sanders and Clinton have not been gender or race, a narrative that Democratic partisans and the media have pushed incessantly, but age and generational divides. According to a recent analysis from Tufts University, Sanders has now “surpassed Barack Obama’s 2008 Democratic primary totals among young people in the 25 states where we can draw a comparison — whether you count by raw vote total or percentage of the overall vote share,” as reported by Jeff Stein on Vox. Sanders is beating Clinton by a whopping 71-to-28 margin among voters under 30. And even in states where Sanders lost to Clinton by significant margins, like North Carolina, the Senator still managed to take the youth vote.

One constant narrative throughout the primaries has been that Sanders just can’t gain the support of women or people of color, and that his supporters are overwhelmingly white males who back him for the simple reason that he is a man (e.g. Walsh’s “angry white male cult”). But again, this is complete hogwash. Sanders has actually done better with young women than young men — a USA Today poll taken in the midst of the primaries found that Millennial women backed “Sanders by a jaw-dropping 61%-30% while the divide among Millennial men is much closer, 48%-44%.” Similarly, while Clinton has dominated with African American voters overall, young black and Hispanic voters have a more favorable opinion of Sanders than Clinton, according to a Gallup survey from May. Indeed, Sanders is viewed even more favorably among black millennials than white millennials. The survey also found that Sanders is viewed more favorably among millennial women than millennial men, and that millennials were the most left-leaning generation.

This seems to validate the notion that the youngest generation is the most progressive generation and that they like Bernie Sanders because he’s the most progressive candidate (I know, it’s crazy that voters would support a politician because of his or her politics and ideas rather than his or her gender or ethnicity).

In the year leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign season, progressive Americans were eagerly awaiting and encouraging the consumer-advocating Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to announce a Democratic run for the presidency. Sanders was a beloved progressive gadfly who had been fighting for economic and social justice for several decades, but he was also a 74-year old Jewish democratic socialist. Warren was younger, she was a women, and — perhaps most importantly — she didn’t describe herself as a socialist. She was the obvious choice for progressives, and she was deemed infinitely more electable than Sanders.

Of course, Warren had no real desire to run for president. She is not a born politician (which is one of her best traits) and had only been in the Senate for a couple of years; besides, she has been extremely effective in Congress. Once it became clear that Warren wouldn’t run, and once Sanders announced his own candidacy, many progressives and progressive advocacy groups who had been pushing for the Massachusetts Senator to challenge Clinton quickly began supporting the Vermont socialist. A group called Ready for Warren launched an initiative for Sanders called Ready to Fight, while progressive advocacy group Move On, which had been urging Warren to run, endorsed Sanders, as did Democracy for America. This further corroborates the claim that support for Sanders is broadly about his politics and ideas.

Roughly a year after launching her campaign, Hillary Clinton has now locked up the Democratic nomination. But her campaign and the DNC establishment have also done a great job at alienating young people and the left.

Partisans have been reluctant to acknowledge that a formidable progressive movement fueled by millennials could challenge the neoliberal status quo in the coming years, and have instead tried to tarnish the reputation of the entire Sanders movement. But Sanders isn’t going to fight until the convention because of “sexism,” as Clintonites have started postulating, but because of politics and ideas; his entire campaign has been about combating “establishment politics” and “establishment economics,” which, unfortunately, Clinton epitomizes. Of course, partisans don’t want to debate ideas or address inconvenient truths, like the party’s close ties to Wall Street and corporate America. It’s much easier to make generalizations and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of trolling or harassment.

Until the Democratic establishment is ready to debate ideas, the Sanders movement and the left should keep the pressure on strong and avoid petty or personal attacks against the Democratic party or Hillary (needless to say, this does not include questioning Clinton’s and the party’s financial ties to corporate America and Wall Street). And the online Sanders/progressive community should police any trolls or provocateurs who help prop up the media/establishment’s narrative.

As I noted above, every movement has trolls, and they should be shunned. The Sanders movement must be about ideas in the weeks to come, because real political change can only happen after the battle of ideas is won.

Conor Lynch is a writer and journalist living in New York City. His work has appeared on Salon, AlterNet, Counterpunch and openDemocracy. Follow him on Twitter: @dilgentbureauct.


“Back in April, the Hillary Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record, which is helmed by the former right-wing attack dog David Brock, announced that it would be spending $1 million to “engage in online messaging … In other words, the political action committee would spend a cool million on paid internet trolls to pounce on anyone who dared to criticize their presidential candidate. …polling data indicates that Clinton supporters have been more aggressive than Sanders supporters on social media and the internet, while — not surprisingly — Trump supporters have been the most aggressive by a long shot. …. Once it became clear that Warren wouldn’t run, and once Sanders announced his own candidacy, many progressives and progressive advocacy groups who had been pushing for the Massachusetts Senator to challenge Clinton quickly began supporting the Vermont socialist. A group called Ready for Warren launched an initiative for Sanders called Ready to Fight, while progressive advocacy group Move On, which had been urging Warren to run, endorsed Sanders, as did Democracy for America. This further corroborates the claim that support for Sanders is broadly about his politics and ideas. …. Partisans have been reluctant to acknowledge that a formidable progressive movement fueled by millennials could challenge the neoliberal status quo in the coming years, and have instead tried to tarnish the reputation of the entire Sanders movement. But Sanders isn’t going to fight until the convention because of “sexism,” as Clintonites have started postulating, but because of politics and ideas; his entire campaign has been about combating “establishment politics” and “establishment economics,” which, unfortunately, Clinton epitomizes. Of course, partisans don’t want to debate ideas or address inconvenient truths, like the party’s close ties to Wall Street and corporate America. It’s much easier to make generalizations and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of trolling or harassment. …. The Sanders movement must be about ideas in the weeks to come, because real political change can only happen after the battle of ideas is won.”


I have started collecting information about progressives in general who could become allies either as a new party or a movement to pull the conservative mainstream in the Democratic Party more strongly toward the left. That is Sanders’ goal at this time, and there’s no statement from his lips that he isn’t still going to work at the convention toward that direction and, likewise, what he plans to do after the election. Of course the mainstream members are trying to get him to remain in the Senate and work to keep his followers interested in the party. Whether they like him or not, they like his following. Reid of Nevada made a comment about how “valuable” Sanders has become to the party, and others about what could be done with his email list! They’re going to have to do something to get something, I think, and I don’t think many of those young people will easily become tools without some serious encouragement from Sanders himself and from the DNC.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-meets-with-obama-stays-in-primary-race/

Bernie Sanders meets with Obama, stays in primary race
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
June 9, 2016, 1:31 PM

Play VIDEO -- When will Sanders drop out of the race?


Just days after Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination, President Obama met with her primary rival Bernie Sanders at the White House to discuss the future of the party and unification efforts.

After Thursday's closed-door meeting, which had been requested by Sanders, he spoke to reporters about his plans to stay in the race through next week.

"I will of course be competing in the D.C. primary which will be held next Tuesday," the Vermont senator said, emphasizing that he is "strongly in favor of D.C. statehood." He pointed out that his home state has about the same number of residents, but has full representation--two senators and a representative with full congressional voting rights.

But he made it clear he intends to work with Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, to defeat Donald Trump, whom he sharply criticized for his inflammatory campaign trail comments.

"It is unbelievable to me," Sanders said, "that the Republican party would have a candidate for president who in the year 2016 makes bigotry and discrimination the cornerstone of his campaign."

"The American people will not vote for or tolerate a candidate who insults Mexicans and Latinos, who insults Muslims, who insults African Americans and women," he added.

Sanders also told reporters that he has personally congratulated Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic nominee, on "her very strong campaign."

"I look forward to meeting with her in the near future to see how we can work together," he said.

Sanders said he would continue to fight for changes to the Democratic party platform until the national convention in July, with a particular focus on income inequality, expanding Social Security, childhood poverty, and alleviating college debt.

He thanked the president and vice president for their "impartiality" and not putting their thumbs "on the scales."

The meeting comes just as Sanders faces rising pressure from party leaders to exit the race and bring the party together, including from President Obama himself.

In an interview with the NBC's "Tonight Show," the president praised Sanders' for a vibrant campaign but expressed his desire to see the Vermont senator unite behind Clinton.

"It was a healthy thing for the Democratic party to have a contested primary. And I thought Bernie Sanders brought enormous energy and his new ideas and he pushed the party and challenged them. I thought it made Hillary a better candidate," Mr. Obama said Wednesday during the show's taping. ''My hope is that over the next couple of weeks we're able to pull things together."

But while Sanders trails by nearly 1,000 delegates, he still maintains some leverage -- he has something the party very much wants: the 12 million people who cast a vote for him and a donor base rivaled only by President Obama.

Sanders will also be meeting with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid Thursday. The Vermont senator plans to hold a rally outside a Washington, D.C. sports stadium later in the evening.



OTHER NEWS


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-duke-jews-behind-donald-trump-opposition/

David Duke: "Jewish tribal nature" is behind Trump opposition
By SHANIKA GUNARATNA CBS NEWS
June 9, 2016, 6:11 PM

Play VIDEO -- Trump on KKK: “Hate groups are not for me”
Play VIDEO -- Trump tries to calm fury over judge comments

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke is once again interjecting himself into Donald Trump's campaign amid an onslaught of criticism over the candidate's treatment of the judge presiding over a class action lawsuit against Trump University.

Trump, according to Duke, is actually in the crosshairs of a much more powerful faction in the United States: Jews.

"The Jewish establishment is absolutely zeroing in now on Donald Trump," Duke said on his radio show on Tuesday. "The viciousness of these Jews is unbelievable."

"I think this whole Trump University case really, if we exploit it, can really expose the entire Jewish manipulation of the American media the American political process, the American control of politics in America, and truly how that they are the dominant and dangerous power that exists in the United States of America today," he said.

It's not the first time Duke has been intertwined with the Trump campaign. In February, the former KKK grand wizard rallied supporters around Trump, saying a ballot cast against Trump would be "treason to your heritage" and calling the Trump movement an "insurgency that is waking up millions of Americans."

That month, Trump was asked in a CNN interview whether he was willing to unequivocally condemn the white supremacist group and its former leader. He dodged the question.

"I don't know anything about David Duke, okay? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists," Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper. He eventually distanced himself from Duke, saying "hate groups are not for me."

On his radio show on Tuesday, Duke specifically attacked the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which filed the nationwide class action lawsuit against Trump University in 2010 on behalf of customers who, it says, "were duped" by the institution.

"The lawsuit was launched by an overwhelmingly Jewish firm. The main players of this Jewish firm are Geller and Rudman," Duke said.

Duke went on to say that the media is especially eager to take down Trump due to the presence of Jewish journalists and executives in the industry. He called out specific reporters: CNN's Tapper, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer ("a Jewish agent"), CNN president Jeff Zucker ("a Jewish extremist") and "the shabbat goy shiksa Megyn Kelly, 'cause they love to have some gentiles doing it. They don't want Jews always out front," he said.

The opposition to Trump is "very illustrative of the Jewish tribal nature," Duke said. "They're like a pack of wild dogs."

Duke called Judge Curiel's record "absolutely partisan," referencing Curiel's membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association.

"You couldn't even imagine any candidate being a member of the European American National Bar Association. In fact, there isn't one. That wouldn't even be allowed," he said.

On the campaign trail, Trump has consistently brought up Judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage to suggest bias in his handling of the Trump University lawsuit. The federal judge was nominated by President Obama in 2011 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He was born in South Chicago, Indiana to Mexican immigrant parents. On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton called those comments a "racist attack."

David Duke is not the only white supremacist who's been linked to the Trump campaign. Last month, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's team included a prominent white nationalist in its list of 169 delegates from California. The campaign later blamed a "database error" for the inclusion.



"The lawsuit was launched by an overwhelmingly Jewish firm. The main players of this Jewish firm are Geller and Rudman," Duke said. Duke went on to say that the media is especially eager to take down Trump due to the presence of Jewish journalists and executives in the industry. He called out specific reporters: CNN's Tapper, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer ("a Jewish agent"), CNN president Jeff Zucker ("a Jewish extremist") and "the shabbat goy shiksa Megyn Kelly, 'cause they love to have some gentiles doing it. They don't want Jews always out front," he said. The opposition to Trump is "very illustrative of the Jewish tribal nature," Duke said. "They're like a pack of wild dogs." …. David Duke is not the only white supremacist who's been linked to the Trump campaign. Last month, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's team included a prominent white nationalist in its list of 169 delegates from California. The campaign later blamed a "database error" for the inclusion.”


Sigh.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/shots-fired-at-dallas-love-field/

Domestic disturbance ends with man shot at Dallas Love Field
CBS NEWS
June 10, 2016, 1:57 PM

Photograph -- 71d6f7f1-39c1-4e14-9995-efc181254c17.jpg, Police say man broke the windows of this car before being shot by an officer. KTTV DALLAS
Play VIDEO -- Police update on shooting at Dallas airport


DALLAS - Dallas police say a domestic disturbance at Dallas Love Field airport has resulted in an officer-involved shooting of a man.

On a video posted on Instagram more then eight shots can be heard being fired. There are also sounds of a woman screaming and officers yelling "stand down" over and over.

Dallas Assistance Chief of Police Randall Blankenbaker said the incident began with a dispute between a man and a woman in the passenger unloading area of the airport, which is a hub for Southwest Airlines and located inside Dallas city limits.

The man is believed to be the father of the woman's children, Blankenbaker said. The man attacked the woman's car with a rock, breaking the side and rear window.


Blankenbaker said a police officer was in the area and responded. The man rushed the officer with the rock, and the two grappled. The officer was able to separate himself and fired on the man when he charged again.

Traveler Lucinda Fonseca told WFAA-TV that she and her husband were coming out of the baggage claim area when they saw police approaching the man throwing rocks and one of the officers drew a gun. "The man was yelling at the cops, basically saying 'shoot me shoot me, I dare you,' something to that effect," Fonseca said.

The man was shot multiple times and was taken to a local hospital. His condition is not known at this time.

The incident sparked long delays at the airport. Many of the passengers had to be rescreened for security.



“Dallas Assistance Chief of Police Randall Blankenbaker said the incident began with a dispute between a man and a woman in the passenger unloading area of the airport, which is a hub for Southwest Airlines and located inside Dallas city limits. The man is believed to be the father of the woman's children, Blankenbaker said. The man attacked the woman's car with a rock, breaking the side and rear window. Blankenbaker said a police officer was in the area and responded. The man rushed the officer with the rock, and the two grappled. The officer was able to separate himself and fired on the man when he charged again.”


Another police shooting, but not one which is totally baseless. It is a case when the assailant didn’t have a weapon, except a rock of course, and if I could make everything perfect I would say the TWO officers probably could have charged him bodily and brought him down. Having said that, there have been so many scary events by attackers at airports that the first responders are quick to take action. If you’re going to act up in public, don’t do it at an international airport! Throwing rocks at an officer while charging toward him is certainly threatening. The officer did try to overcome his attack, but failed. I hope the man lives, but I don’t see this as “police brutality.” I also hope the man is arrested for assaulting his wife and her car.