Recording Law Enforcement.

 

LEDE: There is no question citizens have the right to monitor law enforcement in the open. Physically interfering with policing is another issue. 

 

When the government wants to preserve its privacy, it may build a fence or close a door—but not ban speech. 

 

U.S. Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez 

Massimino v. Benoit (2026)

 

With the deployment of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents nationwide to finally enforce our border laws, the usual suspects have been screeching about not be allowed to “monitor” their activities. By “monitor,” they mean physically place themselves between an ICE agent and the suspect, block exits from facilities, etc. As I’ve explained to more than a few “legal experts” over my career in law enforcement, recording me with a camera is one thing. Getting close enough it’s threatening, that’s another. 

 

While the Massimino case is a bit different from current events, but it makes two relevant points. First, “the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals stated civilians have the right to monitor police, as long as they don’t physically interfere or obstruct an officer. Next, police retain qualified immunity, if their actions were seen as legal at the time, even if their acts are overruled later.”

 

In 2018 Keith Massimino recorded the outside of a police station in Waterbury CT. Officers approached, said it was illegal to do that, and they arrested him. Massimino was charged with obstruction, a case dismissed later. 

 

In 2021, Massimino sued the officers and the city for violation of his 1^st and 4^thAmendment rights. “While the 2^nd Circuit upheld Massimino’s 1^st Amendment rights, it ruled the precedent was not established at the time, so the Waterbury officers retrained immunity. Also, Massimino’s behavior gave the officers probable cause to arrest, voiding his 4^th Amendment claim.” 

 

I have no issue with people wanting to monitor open police activities. I’m on the street, I conduct my investigation publicly, be them traffic crashes, narcotics cases, burglary, robbery, or driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, once the “monitors” decide to get close, things change. 

 

Years ago I pulled over a car driving the wrong way on a one-way street, classic clue of DWI. After the initial interview, I let the passenger go and started my investigation of the driver. The passenger approached with her phone, telling me she would record this. She was less than three feet away. I instructed her that was fine, but it would be on the sidewalk. She refused, I explained this was the lst time she would be warned, or she would be arrested. She stood there and I  approached with handcuffs in my hand. She got the idea and went to the sidewalk.

 

Recently a Facebook friend posted on how an ICE facility had established a “First Amendment Zone,” for protestors. It separated the rioters from ICE operations, but allowed them to scream, record, etc. In other words, protest. 

 

The 1^st Amendment guarantees the right to protest. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Rushing the agents, throwing items at them, standing in front of the gates or moving vehicles to threaten agents or interfere with law enforcement is not “petitioning the Government for redress of grievances.” It’s a crime. 

 

Also a crime, doxing, “exposing private or identifying information on the Internet about an individual or group without the person’s or group’s consent, usually with malicious intent.” I’ve worked with undercover police in my time. They always cover their face to protect themselves and their families. With current ICE operations, the rioters are using face recognition software to identify agents. The only reason would be to threaten them or their families. Again, not a legitimate redress of grievance. 

 

It’s not just rioters. Politicians are proposing laws to prohibit LEOs from covering their face, making doxing easy. Radicals (and some libertarians) are working to interfere with law enforcement. 

 

Not to be forgotten, the 4^th Estate. Classic case is after the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson MO. The metropolis of 18,000 citizens was flooded with reporters from across the nation. 

 

One “journalist” decided it was in the public’s interest to know when Officer Wilson and his children lived. In the aftermath of the investigation, Officer Wilson and his family went into hiding. Worthy of a Pulitzer Prize their KSDK St. Louis.  

 

The law covering the recording of law enforcement officers is  evolving, as it should. There is no question LEO can be monitored in the public. However, there cannot be tolerance for threatening the agents or their families. When the Sheepdogs fear not only for their safety, but the wellbeing of their families, they will not do their jobs. Cops are out there to enforce the laws and establish order. lose that, we have anarchy. And we can’t have a mob running our streets and country. 

 

A Houston City Member Is Not Concerned About Crime.

A member of the Houston City Council may not want the police cooperating with federal law enforcement. Unfortunately for this dentist turned politician, it's state law.

 

A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.

 

President Ronald Reagan

Recently Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted a six-week operation in the Houston area. Over 3,500 illegal aliens were apprehended. Among them were these fine upstanding members of the community:

 

Leo Michel Acosta Sanchez, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico with an Interpol Red Notice in Mexico for aggravated intentional homicide.

 

Angel Gabriel Ramirez-Robles, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, previously removed TWICE and convicted of sexual assault of a child.

 

Ramiro Ricardo Maldonado-Trevino, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico and known MS-13 gang member, convicted of alien smuggling, who illegally entered the United States SIX TIMES.

 

Noi Ly, a criminal illegal alien from Cambodia, convicted of aggravated kidnapping, burglary, carrying a prohibited weapon, and theft.

 

Gustavo Chacha Cano, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, convicted for aggravated sex assault child.

 

Hector Eugenio Ramirez-Martinez, a criminal illegal alien from Honduras, convicted for sexual indecency with a child.

 

Filomin Palacios Godino, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico with an active warrant for illegal reentry, previously removed TWICE and convicted of sexual indecency with a child and driving while intoxicated.

 

Well, they are only here to do the crimes, err jobs that native born Americans won’t do anymore, right? Now this sounds like good news, getting illegals off the streets of America will separate us from many criminals, which will make us safer. But not all agree. 

 

A Houston city council member, Letitia Plummer, has put forth a proposal that would require the Houston Police Department to change its policy on contacting ICE on warrants on illegal aliens. She wants it changed from "shall" contact, i.e., a direct order to do so, to "may contact" that is, you are permitted to contact ICE.  Putting it politely, that is very dangerous and stupid.

 

For example, if a cop pulls someone over for a traffic infraction, run's his identification, and gets an ICE hit, they are required to contact ICE and have them verify the warrant. The police may detain that person for a "reasonable" time. If the feds say he's wanted, he is taken into custody. He may be booked at the county jail, or ICE may send out a unit to pick the suspect up.

 

Now if an officer stops an illegal alien and he has a federal warrant, he is likely wanted for more than just immigration issues. While there is discretion with Class C warrants (the lowest level of crime, normally punished with a fine of less than $500.00), there is limited discretion with higher crime warrants. But with all federal and out of county warrants, the issuing agency must be contacted. 

 

Does this sound like a minor issue? I remind Ms. Plumber that a man named Timothy McVeigh was stopped for a missing registration on his car. He was then arrested for an open traffic warrant. McVeigh was minutes away from release when a notice was received by the jail he was a suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing. 

 

I would also remind Ms. Plumber that by Texas SB 8, sheriffs are now required to enter into an agreement with ICE. If the jail identifies an illegal alien, they must contact federal authorities to determine their status with ICE. Both the actions of the cop on the street and the jails are for one purpose. To enforce that law. 

 

If you are in this country illegally, you must be returned to your home country. You want to immigrate here, fine, apply for admission. Ms. Plumber, immigration to the United States is a privilege we extend to people who choose, not a right. If you can’t comprehend that, I suggest you go back to people’s teeth. 

 

The 4th Estate Again Shows Why It’s Beneath Contempt

I despise journalists for the most part. The false narrative they put out of being “objective” and “unbiased” is laughable on its face. Plus the arrogant presumption of only they can determine the news fit for public discussion, and they must frame the terms. Plus, they are ignorant of basic facts, which brings us to this article.  

Reading this “news” you swear Immigration Agents are not law enforcement officers. And the officers have no business other than immigration status. I’m a patrol cop and suppose I pull you over for an expired registration, only to find you really did renew it last night. Fine, you don’t get a ticket for that. But when I run your license I find an open warrant for narcotics, I can’t let you go. You are a wanted criminal. Not apparently in the way of “thinking” for these two ladies. 

Immigration Agents Arrest Man in L.A. Raid and Drive Off With His Toddler

​By Jill Cowan and Mimi Dwyer

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents descended on a Home Depot parking lot in Los Angeles this week and detained a Latino man. They secured his hands behind his back, and the man, later identified as Dennis Quiñonez, leaned against his Chevy hatchback.

Immigrant rights activists stood nearby, taking video and shouting at the agents, who were masked and heavily armed…

Ladies, may I enlighten you on law enforcement procedure. You detain someone, you are authorized to secure their hands for officer safety. It’s hands that can harm someone, directly or with a weapon. As far as the agents being “masked and heavily armed,” yes they mask themselves to prevent doxing. Also, law enforcement agents (LEOs) are armed as a rule. Plus, will you please define “heavily” armed? Am I heavily armed by having a pocketknife as well as my pistol? Inquiring minds want to know.  

Mr. Quiñonez was taken away to another vehicle. An armed agent slid into the driver’s seat of his Chevy.

“There’s a baby in the back!” an onlooker shouted. Minutes later, someone cried out, “They’re about to drive!”

Another agent, wearing body armor and carrying a rifle, got into the passenger seat.

Again, ladies, LEOs are armed with rare exceptions (e.g., work inside a jail). Also, body armor is required by all agencies these days. So what is the issue with a federal cop being armed and wearing body armor? Where is the “news” in that? Why do I know you’re trying to make federal agents looks like Imperial Stormtroopers. 

Mr. Quiñonez’s daughter — who relatives said later is a few months shy of her second birthday — looked on, wide-eyed from her car seat. Then the driver reversed the car and drove away.

No kidding ladies, welcome to reality. We can’t leave the kid alone and we can’t just turn a child over to any third party. Plus with a hostile group of people surrounding you, it’s often best to get out of the area for the safety of all involved. Also, while the cops are on scene, it allows the agitators (excuse, activists) rile up people on the scene.

The girl was reunited with her grandmother later in the day. But immigrant rights groups say the episode underscores how federal agents across the country have pushed legal boundaries, sometimes in the presence of children, as they carry out the Trump administration’s agenda to deport millions of undocumented immigrants…

…It is not clear whether Customs and Border Protection has a policy on how to handle minor children at the scene of an arrest or detention. But agents for ICE, a separate Homeland Security agency, are not supposed to drive off with the child of a detainee, according to ICE policy. Local law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County have similar policies requiring officers to call for a social worker.

If I were to hazard a guess the investigators asked Mr. Quiñonez who they could transfer the girl to and he said the grandmother. If he had not, they would transfer the girl to CPS or similar facility for her safety. Welcome to police work ladies, cops have to deal with a suspect’s child or juvenile every day. Rule of thumb, get them to family or a trusted friend as quickly as possible. It's best for the kid. 

… Tuesday’s events began when Customs and Border Protection agents arrested five undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Guatemala, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal authorities said in the affidavit that Mr. Quiñonez got out of his car while holding a hammer “in a threatening manner” about 100 feet away from them. As agents started to drive away, they said they saw Mr. Quiñonez throw two “rock-like” objects at the vehicle before getting back into his own car. After a team of agents boxed in Mr. Quiñonez’s car, he got out and approached agents, who said they believed he had tried to assault them…

According to an affidavit by federal authorities, Mr. Quiñonez, a 32-year-old U.S. citizen, was charged with illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition as someone who had previously been convicted of domestic violence. He was convicted of a misdemeanor for injuring a spouse or cohabitant in 2014, the affidavit said…

OK, a US citizen threatens federal agents in the process of enforcing immigration law. After he is detained, the federal agents discover a weapon and ammunition on him. They run him and discover he has a conviction for domestic violence, which means he cannot carry a firearm (assuming the gun didn’t belong to the girl). That’s called investigation 101.

He is charged with a higher crime (it’s a felony for a man convicted of domestic violence to carry a gun). Also the weapon’s charge is easier to prove (no need for intent, the fact he has it is enough). 

So no, there is no issue here. An idiot decided to threaten ICE agents enforcing federal law and was found to have a kid in the car with him. He endangered her by being an idiot with those agents. When the child was discovered, they took her into protective custody and transferred her in a reasonable amount of time to a family member. 

Reporters trying to make news, that’s par for the course. Correspondents trying to create a false narrative based on a template is also expected. That is too bad. Remember that lie the Washington Post chose as its slogan, Democracy Dies In Darkness? With falsehood like this, you’re the ones cutting off the lights. 

A now retired Miami cops Burning Bridges on the way out...

All the burning bridges that have fallen after me

All the lonely feelings and the burning memories

Everyone I left behind each time I closed the door

Burning bridges lost forevermore

"Burning Bridges"

The Mike Curb Congregation

I've see a few officers call it a night, but this one shows a serious issue with policing in this country. 

I (and countless other cops) have posted on how the career of law enforcement is in peril, and for the first time in memory, cops are telling others (like three kids) don't come in this career path. The man who Houston Police Department over a quarter century ago is now retired, and he's told his children to not follow in his footsteps. When officers are afraid of making one mistake, or no  mistake and being back stabbed, they will not make any effort to control crime or show any initiative. 

As I've said countless times, cops are joining the fire department. They are signing onto their units, going to their "safe space," and then they will answer their calls for service, but they will not go out or show initiative. And two be effective, law enforcement must by assertive, going out there, interacting with the public and searching for the bad guys.

Well, found this interesting. A Miami Police sergeant was saying goodby, and she let the former great department have it:

Longtime Miami police sergeant rips superiors during retirement radio message

MIAMI – A veteran City of Miami Police Sergeant retired on Thursday, and she may have burned a few bridges on her way out.

It is routine for an officer, when they retire, to announce it over the radio.

But for 33-year veteran Sgt. Marilin Garcia, goodbye was anything but routine.

“This place was an amazing department to work for until the back stabbing and personal attacks started from my immediate supervisors and the First,” Garcia said over the police radio. “And if you don’t know who the First is, the First of nothing. To the chief and the First of nothing, you guys are in denial. You think you’re doing an amazing job, but in reality, you have destroyed this police department and the morale, except for your circle, which is definitely took care of.”

Garcia then refers to the prior police chief, Art Acevedo.

“I thought that Acevedo was bad, but at least one things for sure, I knew where he was coming from. To the First, you have a nasty attitude. So do yourself a favor and take some interpersonal skill classes so you know how to treat people right. And finally, to my immediate supervisor, Maj. Garrido. You are a liar, a snake in the grass, a cancer to this department. The hardest thing of being a female in this department was being surrounded by many males knowing that I was more of a man than you.”

She concluded with this message for her now-former fellow officers.

“Please take care of yourself. Back each other up because they don’t care about you, your family,” Garcia said...

Ouch. When you have people saying that on the way out, what do they think as they are in. And I'll second what she said about Acevedo, I met the man in 2011 in Austin when he was chief there. We were about to have the Police Memorial Ride around the capital and I was speaking with some local cops when he walked up, shaking hands like a good politician. After he left I asked the officers, "What's he like?" Their response, "He'll smile in your face while he's f^&*ing you dry." I found about that a few years later. 

But this shows the continued degrading of policing throughout the country, and it's only going to get worse. A few sheriff's ago in Harris County (Houston TX), I called then sheriff, Ron Hickman, "A Cop's Cop." Sheriff Hickman succeeded a political in uniform, and unfortunately he was succeeded by another politician in uniform. How bad? Well, Biden wanted him for his ICE director. In that position, Mr. Gonzales only job would be to keep our borders wide open and help the invasion continue.

It's taken over a generation to screw this up, but it will take longer for it to be fixed. People inclined to be cops are not trusting to begin with (we deal with a lot of lying people). Getting lied to from our "customers," is expected. Not knowing what to believe from your command group or political leadership is worse. 

To my fellow cops out there, watch your back. The climate is very hostile to you right now, don't stick your neck out, and if any of these liberal sacks of s^&* complain about you, tell them to call BLM or Antifa. 

OK. a Christian church is lying about the birth of Christ...

Again, the People's Democratic Republic of Kalifornia comes through. Whenever you think they have hit rock bottom, someone takes out a pick ax, or a jackhammer (coal powered, of course) and goes deeper.


At the Claremont United Methodist Church, a "nativity" scene. I amazes me that anyone with a basic knowledge of the Bible knows Mary and Joseph did not invade another nation, they were in Bethlehem to participate in a census and pay their taxes. But never let realty get in the way of political correctness. And where is Americans United for Separation of Church and State on this? Isn't a "church" getting involved in a political issue here?

BTY libtards, it was B Hussein Obama who put the illegal aliens into cages.

I wonder if these school staff morons understand the irony....

Much like the BLM protestors in Dallas, showing hatred for cops, until the bullets start flying. Or a BLM leader who calls the cops after he gets held up. The hypocrisy and schadenfreude is delicious.

Posters in OR Elementary School Seem to Call Police Predators

Notice the line, "It doesn't keep out predators,
it give them badges and guns." 

Eugene, OR, school officials say they're still working with police on the possibly unlawful removal of immigrant-friendly posters in a grade school, reports KLCC.

The top of the posters read "IMMIGRANTS WELCOME" – and were hung in hallways and classrooms at River Road /El Camino del Rio Elementary. But part of the poster said, "The border is not a wall…It doesn't keep out predators; it gives them badges and guns."

4-J officials say they believe a contractor took them all down over winter break. The suspect shared photos of the posters on Facebook, prompting accusations of student indoctrination from his friends. The post has since been removed and the contractor barred from the school.

"It wasn't the 'IMMIGRANTS WELCOME', it was what was below that, that spoke about the border wall and that was where it gets a bit tricky with the politics of it all," says 4-J District Superintendent Gustavo Balderas.

"As of right now, we welcome any immigrant posters that are up anywhere across the district," says Balderas. "It's making sure that again we use language that does not politicize this statement. It, this…it's not a political statement, it's "immigrants welcome," we welcome all students."

To the moron who called the cops "predators," then called them to report the theft, please, call the ACLU. You wouldn't want a "predator" in your school.

Can agree we don't need this....

In discussions with people over immigration, illegal aliens (two different groups of people), etc, a point I've made over and over. There may be an issue for debate over people who crossed the border, set up a new life in America, and have become productive members of society (i.e. have supported their families, etc). The people who "do the jobs Americans don't want to do anymore," and that is for discussion.

However, the bigger point I've made is we don't need to import people to do "the crimes Americans will not do anymore." Can we at least agree that felons, documented gang members, and other serious criminals who have filled our jails have no business being in this country. Upon completion of their sentences, they should be handed to ICE, have their biometric data recorded, deported and never allowed back into the country.

With that as background, from this morning's Austin Statesman:

Firework set off inside police car during ICE protests

A person smashed the rear window of an unoccupied Austin police patrol car and threw a lit firework inside it early Sunday near the site of recent protests against immigration enforcement operations in the area, police officials said.

The Austin Fire Department is investigating the incident, which took place around 3 a.m. near the intersection of N. Lamar Boulevard and Rundberg Lane and set the interior of the patrol car on fire.

According to the Austin police, officers saw a person damage the patrol car, and then leave as a passenger in another car. The suspect ran from officers on foot after they pulled the car over, but was eventually detained.

So far the suspect has only been charged with evading arrest, police officials said. The investigation of the patrol car fire is still ongoing...

...On Friday evening, more than 100 people gathered at the intersection of Rundberg and Lamar to protest a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation launched last week to capture unauthorized immigrants with criminal records.(Emphasis mine) A smaller group of protesters returned to the area Saturday afternoon, and more showed up a third time Saturday night.

In a separate incident at the site of a protest near the intersection of E. Cesar Chavez Street and Chalmers Avenue, an individual was arrested Saturday evening for aggravated assault, police said.

Thankfully the suspect was arrested and if he's found to be an illegal alien, after his time with Texas law (hopefully) he's sent to ICE for deportation.

I find it interesting that this rag paper calls the illegal aliens ICE deported unauthorized immigrants with criminal records." No, they are not immigrants, immigrants come in through the front door. Illegal aliens are not in the open. What we have now is not immigration, but an invasion.

I really find it ironic they protested near E. Cesar Chavez Street. Cesar Chavez was very much opposed to illegals aliens flooding in from South and Central America. He understood if they were there, they would force the wages of the United Farm Workers members down by increasing the supply of cheap labor. But Mr Chavez, they do provide what the Democrats need. A new pool of supporters and voters to keep power.

STRATFOR: Latin America: Governments Brace For U.S. Immigration Policy Shift, November 7, 2016

I've been catching up on my STRATFOR reports and this one is not that old. South American governments are planning on how to react to the incoming Trump administration. Some of the highlights, emphasis mine.

Latin America: Governments Brace For U.S. Immigration Policy Shift

...The campaign promises made by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to step up deportations of immigrants who have entered the United States without permission have unnerved some Central American governments. On Nov. 16, El Salvador's foreign minister, Hugo Martinez, said that the countries of Central America's Northern Triangle (Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras) plan to cooperate with Mexico to fashion a coordinated regional response to any increased pace of deportations.

If the Trump administration fulfills the rhetoric, each of those countries could expect a significant number of returnees. Of Honduras' 8 million citizens, more than 1 million currently reside in the United States. About 2 million of Guatamala's 16 million nationals live in the United States. And almost half of El Salvador's just more than 6 million people reside in the United States.

The economies of all three nations depend on remittances from these migrants: Wages sent back from the United States make up roughly 20 percent of the gross domestic product of Honduras, 17 percent of El Salvador's and 10 percent of Guatemala's. Mexico is in the same boat: In 2015, it received almost $25 billion in remittances, which overtook oil-related revenue in economic preeminence for the first time in the country's history....

Six million illegal aliens from three countries, and that doesn't count Mexico. But I notice the remittance from Mexico...25 billion a year. A ten percent tax on that would pay for the wall in one term....

We will see how the future unfolds.

American Thinker: Nice attack a blow to Hillary

Fellow Army officer, long time friend and former cop Mike Ford has anther great article in American Thinker. Enjoy and comments are always welcome!

July 15, 2016 

Nice attack a blow to Hillary 

By Mike Ford 

As I watch the reporting of the carnage that just took place in Nice, France, I cannot understand how anyone with two neurons to rub together could support a political party or candidate that allows Muslim immigration, refugee or otherwise, into these United States. I get this insane blood pressure spike every time I see footage of American citizens who were forced to choose between burning to death in agony or plummeting to their deaths from the Trade Center Towers. The footage from Nice instigates those same spikes. 

Our choice is clear: do we support a candidate who puts the interests and security of the United States first? Or do we support a candidate who has a record of criminal activity – who looks at her political career as a way to fill her personal financial coffers? 

Hillary Clinton has a long history of feeding at the public trough, whether as a political spouse or as an elected or appointed official. While her personal corruption may have started as acceptable, she has now blown right through "somewhat unseemly" and arrived well in the middle of "snout down in the trough up to the ears." 

Moreover, as the director of the FBI has stated, Clinton's handling of classified information, some of which is so sensitive that disclosure of it could likely cause the death of U.S. covert agents, was "extremely negligent." 

Then there is Clinton's position regarding Syrian "refugees." She advocates bringing thousands of them here. I have two questions: 

1) First and foremost, how does this benefit the United States and the taxpayers who have to pay for it? 

2) How can they be "vetted"? As Mrs. Clinton knows, the best way to truly vet a foreign national is through that person's government – a government with whom we have friendly ties. How are we supposed to do that with Syrians? 

Donald Trump has none of these issues – especially regarding immigration. Mr. Trump understands, as did President James Earl Carter, that sometimes we as a nation have to turn off the immigration spigot until "we can figure out what is going on." 

Mike Ford is a retired infantry officer, frequently edited by his lovely bride, who is a retired English teacher and high school principal.  

I would add even the disgraced FBI director, James Comey said last year we cannot vet these invaders, err immigrants, oh, yea, refugees, as there is no database to query. So we're importing the people who will lead to a civil war. Again, thanks libtards and B Hussein Obama.

STRATFOR REPORT: What to Expect After the Nov. 13 Paris Attacks. November 14, 2015

What to Expect After the Nov. 13 Paris AttacksFrench security forces evacuate Paris’ 10th arrondissement following a string of Nov. 13 attacks. (KENZO TRIBOUILLARD/AFP/Getty Images)

Analysis 

Update (9:30 a.m. CST): The death toll from the Nov. 13 attacks has now reached over 120, according to France 24. 

Update (6:00 p.m. CST): According to French media reports, French security forces have stormed and secured the Bataclan theater. The attackers apparently used grenades inside the main concert hall, Aujourd'hui Paris reported Nov. 13. Details are still emerging. 

As many as 60 people died Nov. 13 in multiple terrorist attacks throughout Paris. At least five gunmen – likely jihadists judging from witness's accounts – conducted the attacks.
Timeline of the Attack 

The attacks, which were clearly coordinated, took place in multiple locations and involved different methods. In the first wave, two suicide bombers detonated their explosives at locations near the Stade de France, where a soccer match between France and Germany was taking place. (French President Francois Hollande himself was at the stadium at the time of the attack. He was escorted from the scene and met with French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve in a closed meeting shortly thereafter.) It is unclear whether grenades or other explosives were used, and it is possible a suicide bomber may have been involved. 

Meanwhile, gunmen also opened fire, reportedly with Kalashnikov rifles, on a tightly packed Cambodian restaurant in a drive-by shooting. Shots were also fired at the Bataclan concert hall, where a hostage situation is now underway.
Roughly 25 minutes later, gunmen also opened fire on Rue de Charonne. And about an hour after the initial attacks, attacks by other terrorist cells took place at the Louvre and Les Halles. 

Special police units, including RAID, a police intervention unit, have been rapidly mobilized and are currently securing the areas around the stadium, the bars and restaurants in the area of the 10th and 11th arrondissement, a part of Paris popular with young people and tourists, and the Bataclan concert hall, where at least some of the gunmen, allegedly armed with explosives, are reportedly located and holding up to 100 hostages. 

Events in Paris could evolve rapidly – the standoff with the gunmen at the Bataclan concert hall could end at any moment if the French special police units believe that the gunmen are going to harm the hostages. 

Though shocking, the attacks are not completely surprising. Multiple individuals from France and other European countries have traveled to Syria to join extremist groups there. As the Charlie Hebdo attacks have also demonstrated, there is a persistent risk of terrorist attacks within Europe. An important question going forward is whether the attacks were entirely grassroots in nature or whether the assailants received instruction or assistance from abroad from groups such as the Islamic State or al Qaeda. Furthermore, the recent influx of refugees into Europe from places such as Syria highlights the risk that jihadist groups could have placed some of their members among the large refugee flow in order to conduct attacks in Europe. 

In an address to the nation, French President Francois Hollande said that the country will close off its borders. The French government will prioritize immediately locking down the city, protecting civilians and capturing the attackers. The next piece of that will be to close down transportation and the borders to prevent any perpetrators from escaping. Finally they will begin to investigate to uproot the parties responsible for the attacks. Notably, Hollande has officialy declared a state of emergency.Political Fallout 

The attacks will surely have political consequences. They come five days before France's only aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, is due to set sail for the Persian Gulf for actions against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. France has been carrying out airstrikes in Syria since late September. Should the attacks be traced back to the Islamic State's core area of operation, France will probably deepen its involvement in anti-Islamic State operations in Syria and Iraq at a time when the Syrian battlefield in particular is becoming crowded and complicated. 

From a political perspective, the attacks are a reminder of France's longstanding ethnic frictions following several months in which the focus has been on neighboring Germany. High numbers of migrants have been entering Germany from the east and south, with very few carrying on to France. As a result, France has kept a relatively low profile in the attempts to stem the flow of migrants, though it has been present at the numerous summits on the issue and has supported Germany's push for a relocation of asylum seekers across Europe. Nevertheless, this event can be expected to strengthen the argument of those groups that have been calling for a halt in the flow of immigrants and the closing of borders in countries such as Germany, Sweden and much of Central and Eastern Europe 

In the wake of these attacks, Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front party could see their popularity rise. Le Pen kept a low profile after the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January and still saw an increase in her party's popularity because of its longstanding anti-immigration message. Hollande also saw a brief uptick in popularity after the Charlie Hebdo attack because of his reaction to the events, but a repeat of this trend is not expected because people will now question whether the anti-terrorism measures that were approved this year actually worked. The leader of the center-right Republicans Party, Nicolas Sarkozy, also has a history of taking a strong stance on security issues; he was campaigning on the subject only last week. He is expected to battle the milder Alain Juppe for his party's nomination in the 2017 elections, and voters may swing to his side in the wake of the attacks.

COPYRIGHT:  STRATFOR.COM

Geopolitical Weekly: What Borders Mean to Europe, June 23, 2015

By George Friedman

Europe today is a continent of borders. The second-smallest continent in the world has more than 50 distinct, sovereign nation-states. Many of these are part of the European Union. At the core of the EU project is an effort to reduce the power and significance of these borders without actually abolishing them — in theory, an achievable goal. But history is not kind to theoretical solutions.

Today, Europe faces three converging crises that are ultimately about national borders, what they mean and who controls them. These crises appear distinct: Immigration from the Islamic world, the Greek economic predicament, and the conflict in Ukraine would seem to have little to do with each other. But in fact they all derive, in different ways, from the question of what borders mean.

Europe's borders have been the foundation of both its political morality and its historical catastrophes. The European Enlightenment argued against multinational monarchies and for sovereign nation-states, which were understood to be the territories in which nations existed. Nations came to be defined as groupings of humans who shared a common history, language, set of values and religion — in short, a common culture into which they were born. These groups had the right of national self-determination, the authority to determine their style of government and the people who governed. Above all, these nations lived in a place, and that place had clear boundaries.

The right of national self-determination has created many distinct nations in Europe. And, as nations do, they sometimes distrust and fear one other, which occasionally leads to wars. They also have memories of betrayals and victimizations that stretch back for centuries before the nations became states. Some viewed the borders as unjust, because they placed their compatriots under foreign rule, or as insufficient to national need. The right of self-determination led inevitably to borders, and the question of borders inevitably led to disputes among states. Between 1914 and 1945, Europeans waged a series of wars about national boundaries and about who has the right to live where. This led to one of the greatest slaughters of human history.

The memory of that carnage led to the creation of the European Union. Its founding principle was that this kind of massacre should never happen again. But the union lacked the power to abolish the nation-state — it was too fundamental to the Europeans' sense of identity. And if the nation-state survived, so did the idea of place and borders.

If the nation-state could not be abolished, however, then at least the borders could lose their significance. Thus two principles emerged after World War II: The first, predating the European Union, was that the existing borders of Europe could not be changed. The hope was that by freezing Europe's borders, Europe could abolish war. The second principle, which came with the mature European Union, was that the bloc's internal borders both existed and did not exist. Borders were to define the boundaries of nation-states and preserved the doctrine of national self-determination, but they were not to exist insofar as the movement of goods, of labor and of capital were concerned. This was not absolute — some states were limited in some of these areas — but it was a general principle and goal. This principle is now under attack in three different ways.

The Movement of Muslims in Europe

The chaos in the Middle East has generated a flow of refugees toward Europe. This is adding to the problem that European nations have had with prior Muslim migrations that were encouraged by Europeans. As Europe recovered from World War II, it needed additional labor at low cost. Like other advanced industrial countries have done, a number of European states sought migrants, many from the Islamic world, to fill that need. At first, the Europeans thought of the migrants as temporary residents. Over time, the Europeans conceded citizenship but created a doctrine of multiculturalism, which appeared to be a gesture of tolerance and was implicitly by mutual consent, given that some Muslims resisted assimilation. But this doctrine essentially served to exclude Muslims from full participation in the host culture even as they gained legal citizenship. But as I have said, the European idea of the nation was challenged by the notion of integrating different cultures into European societies.

Partly because of a failure to fully integrate migrants and partly because of terrorist attacks, a growing portion of European society began perceiving the Muslims already in Europe as threatening. Some countries had already discussed resurrecting internal European borders to prevent the movement not only of Muslims, but also of other Europeans seeking jobs in difficult economic times. The recent wave of refugees has raised the matter to a new level.

The refugee crisis has forced the Europeans to face a core issue. The humanitarian principles of the European Union demand that refugees be given sanctuary. And yet, another wave of refugees into Europe has threatened to exacerbate existing social and cultural imbalances in some countries; some anticipate the arrival of more Muslims with dread. Moreover, once migrants are allowed to enter Europe by any one country, the rest of the nations are incapable of preventing the refugees' movement.

Who controls Europe's external borders? Does Spain decide who enters Spain, or does the European Union decide? Whoever decides, does the idea of the free movement of labor include the principle of the free movement of refugees? If so, then EU countries have lost the ability to determine who may enter their societies and who may be excluded. For Europe, given its definition of the nation, this question is not an odd, legal one. It goes to the very heart of what a nation is, and whether the nation-state, under the principle of the right of national self-determination, is empowered to both make that decision and enforce it.

This question does not merely concern Muslims. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Ostjuden — the Jews coming into Western Europe as they fled czarist edicts — raised the same challenge, even though they sought more vigorously to assimilate. But at that point, the notion of borders was unambiguous even if the specific decision on how to integrate the Jews was unclear. In many countries, the status of minorities from neighboring nations was a nagging question, but there were tools for handling it. The Muslim issue is unique in Europe only to the extent that the European Union has made it unique. The bloc has tried to preserve borders while sapping them of significance, and now there is an upsurge of opposition not only to Muslim immigration, but also to the European Union's understanding of borders and free movement.

The Greek Crisis

The question of borders is also at the heart of the Greek crisis. We see two issues: one small, the other vast. The small one involves capital controls. The European Union is committed to a single European financial market within which capital flows freely. Greeks, fearing the outcome of the current crisis, have been moving large amounts of money out of Greece into foreign banks. They remember what happened during the Cyprus crisis, when the government, capitulating to German demands in particular, froze and seized money deposited in Cypriot banks. Under EU rules, the transfer of deposits in one country of the bloc, or even outside the bloc, is generally considered legitimate. However, in the case of Cyprus, the free movement of capital across borders was halted. The same could conceivably happen in Greece.

In any event, which is the prior principle: the free movement of capital or the European Union's overarching authority to control that flow? Are Greek citizens personally liable for their government's debt — not merely through austerity policies, but also through controls imposed by the Greek government under European pressure to inhibit the movement of their money? If the answer is the latter, then borders on capital can be created temporarily.

The larger issue is the movement of goods. A significant dimension of this crisis involves free trade. Germany exports more than 50 percent of its gross domestic product. Its prosperity depends on these exports. I have argued that the inability to control the flow of German goods into Southern Europe drove the region into economic decline. Germany's ability to control the flow of American goods into the country in the 1950s helped drive its economic recovery. The European Union permits limits on the movement of some products, particularly agricultural ones, through subsidies and quotas. In theory, free trade is beneficial to all. In practice, one country's short-term gain can vastly outweigh others' long-term gains. The ability to control the flow of goods is a tool that might slow growth but decrease pain.

The essential principle of the European Union is that of free trade, in the sense that the border cannot become a checkpoint to determine what goods may or may not enter a country and under what tariff rule. The theory is superb, save for its failure to address the synchronization of benefits. And it means that the right to self-determination no longer includes the right to control borders.

Ukraine and the 'Inviolability' of Borders

Finally, there is the Ukraine issue — which is not really about Ukraine, but about a prior principle of Europe: Borders cannot be allowed to change. The core of this rule is that altering borders leads to instability. This rule governed between 1945 and 1992. Then, the fall of the Soviet Union transformed the internal borders of Europe dramatically, moving the Russian border eastward and northward. The Soviet collapse also created eight newly free nations that were Soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe and 15 new independent states — including Russia — from the constituent parts of the Soviet Union. It could be argued that the fall of the Soviet Union did not change the rule on borders, but that claim would be far-fetched. Everything changed. Then came the "velvet divorce" of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and now there are potential divorces in the United Kingdom, Spain and Belgium.

Perhaps most importantly, the rule broke down in Yugoslavia, where a single entity split into numerous independent nations, and, among other consequences, a war over borders ensued. The conflict concluded with the separation of Kosovo from Serbia and its elevation to the status of an independent nation. Russia has used this last border change to justify redrawing the borders of Georgia and as a precedent supporting its current demand for the autonomy and control of eastern Ukraine. Similarly, the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia shifted dramatically as the result of war. (On a related note, Cyprus, divided between a Turkish-run north and a Greek-run south, was allowed into the European Union in 2004 with its deep border dispute still unsettled.)

Since the end of the Cold War, the principle of the inviolability of borders has been violated repeatedly — through the creation of new borders, through the creation of newly freed nation-states, through peaceful divisions and through violent war. The principle of stable borders held for the most part until 1991 before undergoing a series of radical shifts that sometimes settled the issue and sometimes left it unresolved. The Europeans welcomed most of these border adjustments, and in one case — Kosovo — Europeans themselves engineered the change.

It is in this context that the Ukrainian war must be considered. Europe's contention, supported by America, is that Russia is attempting to change inviolable borders. There are many good arguments to be made against the Russians in Ukraine, which I have laid out in the past. However, the idea that the Russians are doing something unprecedented in trying to redraw Ukraine's borders is difficult to support. Europe's borders have been in flux for some time. That is indeed a matter of concern; historically, unsettled borders in Europe are precursors to war, as we have seen in Yugoslavia, the Caucasus and now Ukraine. But it is difficult to argue that this particular action by Russia is in itself a dramatically unprecedented event in Europe. The principle of national self-determination depends on a clear understanding of a nation and the unchallenged agreement on its boundaries. The Europeans themselves have in multiple ways established the precedent that borders are not unchallengeable.

There are two principles competing. The first is the European Union's desire that borders be utterly permeable without the nation-state losing its right to self-determination. It is difficult to see how a lack of control over borders is compatible with national self-determination. The other principle is that existing borders not be challenged. On the one hand, the union wants to diminish the importance of borders. On the other hand, it wants to make them incontestable.

Neither principle is succeeding. Within Europe, more forces are emerging that want to return control over borders to nation-states. In different ways, the Muslim immigrant crisis and the Greek crisis intersect at the question of who controls the borders. Meanwhile, the inviolability of borders has been a dead letter since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The idea of borders being archaic is meaningful only if the nation-state is archaic. There is no evidence that this is true in Europe. On the contrary, all of the pressures we see culturally and economically point to not only the persistence of the idea of nationality, but also to its dramatic increase in Europe. At the same time, there is no evidence that the challenge to borders is abating. In fact, during the past quarter of a century, the number of shifts and changes, freely or under pressure, has only increased. And each challenge of a national border, such as the one occurring in Ukraine, is a challenge to a nation's reality and sense of self.

The European Union has promised peace and prosperity. The prosperity is beyond tattered now. And peace has been intermittently disrupted — not in the European Union, but around it — since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992 to create a common economic and monetary union. All of this is linked to the question of what a border represents and how seriously we take it. A border means that this is my country and not yours. This idea has been a source of anguish in Europe and elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is a reality embedded in the human condition. Borders matter, and they matter in many different ways. The European crisis, taken as a whole, is rooted in borders. Attempting to abolish them is attractive in theory. But theory faces reality across its own border.

What Borders Mean to Europe is republished with permission of Stratfor.

Plata o Plombo....silver or lead

The drug cartels have been targeting police, judges and other law enforcement agents in Mexico and South America for years. But this is the first time its come to north of the border.

A chilling message from the cartels: Billboards with hanging mannequins warning cops to choose 'silver over lead' appear in Texas 

Two billboards along highways in El Paso, Texas were vandalized and had mannequins hanging off of them One reads 'silver or lead' in Spanish which is taken to mean that police and business owners can either take drug cartels' bribes or die 

Worries spreading that cartels that have ruled Mexican border towns with violence may be headed north Two frightening incidents of vandalism in El Paso near the Mexican border in Texas have been interpreted as warnings from drug cartels. 

In both instances, a mannequin wearing a suit and tie was tied to a billboard with a noose and messages were scrawled over the placards.     

Local station KHOU reports that one of the signs reads 'Plata o Plombo' which translates to 'silver or lead', a threat used commonly against police officers effectively warning that if they do not accept the cartel's bribes then they will be shot. 

Threat: The translation of the painted vandalism means 'silver or lead' which is meant to mean that police officers and business owners should either accept bribes or expect gunshots... ...The message was different this (second) time, as the paint read: 'Dying for drugs' was written over a wanted poster calling for the capture of drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero. This second mannequin was dressed in jeans rather than the suit and tie from the other instance. 

The mannequins were a particularly jarring image for many familiar with the drug war, as some of the most violent drug lords south of the border regularly hang offenders off highway overpasses. While a warning from drug lords seems like one of the most likely prospects, KHOU reports that prosecutors have another theory that the vandalism also could have been caused by activist groups working against the war on drugs.

In Mexico you can find open recruiting signs for police, offering them multiple times what they make as a cop.  And opening threatening them and their families.  But the border is secure as it's ever been, right Homeland Security.

Yo, little Johnny Boehner, maybe now is not the time for amnesty, oh, excuse me, "comprehensive immigration reform."

Let's see if the Houston Chronicle, LA Times, etc defame police again today.

OK, regularly the Houston Chronicle has a front page report on how bad cops (and firefighters, etc, but that's another story for another day) do their jobs. Thursday morning, here we go again.

Border agents’ use of force criticized

WASHINGTON — Border Patrol agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars to justify shooting at the drivers and have fired in frustration at people throwing rocks from the Mexican side of the border, according to an independent review of 67 cases that led to 19 deaths.

The report by law enforcement experts criticized the Border Patrol for “lack of diligence” in investigating U.S. agents who had fired their weapons. It also said it was unclear whether the agency “consistently and thoroughly reviews” use-of-deadly-force incidents.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which had commissioned the review, has tried to keep the scathing 21-page report from coming to light.

House and Senate oversight committees requested copies last fall but got only a summary minus the most controversial findings — that some border agents stood in front of moving vehicles as a pretext to open fire, and that agents could have moved away from rock-throwers instead of shooting at them.

The Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau obtained the full report and the agency’s 23-page internal response. The response rejects the two major recommendations: barring agents from firing on vehicles unless its occupants are trying to kill them, and barring agents from shooting people who throw things that can’t cause serious physical injury.

The response, marked “Law Enforcement Sensitive,” states that a ban on shooting at rock throwers “could create a more dangerous environment” because many agents operate “in rural or desolate areas, often alone, where concealment, cover and egress is not an option.”
If drug smugglers knew border agents were not allowed to shoot at their vehicles, it argues, more drivers would try to run over agents....

FYI, Law Enforcement Sensitive means it's a law enforcement distribution, not general publication. A wanted notice saying John Smith, White Male, wanted for robbery is located generally not put out if we don't want Mr Smith to know he's wanted. It's not the report is Top Secret with a codeword. And a report that normally is an internal document used to identify issues is not something you want put out to the public. Houston Chronicle, you want your dirty laundry put out for all to read?

Now this is interesting.

Complaints by Mexico

...Mexico has complained for years that U.S. border agents who kill Mexicans are rarely disciplined, and that the results of investigations are not made public for years. Critics warn that more deaths or abuses are inevitable unless stricter limits on use of lethal force are imposed.
“There needs to be a level of accountability if you want to change the culture and the pattern,” said Christopher Wilson, an expert on U.S.-Mexico relations at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a think tank in Washington. “People are being killed that don’t need to be killed.”

The review was completed in February 2013 by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit in Washington. Experts from the group were allowed to examine internal Border Patrol files on 67 shooting incidents from January 2010 to October 2012.

Often no direct threat

The authors said the files suggested border agents in some cases stood in the road to shoot at drivers who were trying to avoid arrest and who posed no direct lethal threat to them or others.

“It should be recognized that a half-ounce (200-grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000-pound moving vehicle, and if the driver is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat,” the report reads. “Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents.”

The authors recommended training agents “to get out of the way” instead of intentionally standing in the oncoming vehicle’s path.

They also recommended that the Border Patrol adopt policies used by most U.S. police, which bar officers from firing at a moving vehicle unless deadly force is being used “by means other than a moving vehicle.”

First, Mexico, you don't want your citizens shot by our Border Patrol, keep them on your side of the border or let them go through the authorized crossing spots. Or as Chris Rock used to say, "Rule number one, obey the law."

Two, if you are deliberately driving a vehicle at a peace officer, you are using deadly force. This may shock some of the geniuses at this think tank, but driving a motor vehicle over a human will likely cause death or serious bodily injury. And that is definition of the legal justification for the use of deadly force. See comments above, obey the law and we don't have this issue.

The secure border....

We have had an open border with Mexico for generations, but the issue has become problematic over the last few decades. Narcotics, illegal immigration and now human trafficking made this a crisis in no exertion of the word. Now if you listen to the DHS and other idiots, the "border has never been more secured". This picture and the enclosed article show that as a flat out lie.

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported that tunnels along the southwest border are a growing and significant threat to security.

According to a report by the DHS OIG released December 11, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, charged with protecting the U.S. borders, lacks the technological capability to detect subterranean tunnels.

“Illicit cross-border tunnels along the southwest border are primarily used by criminals to transport illegal drugs into the United States, and they are a significant and growing threat to border security,” noted the report. “In an effort to counter this threat, CBP has modified its operations through patrols, intelligence gathering, and closing of illicit cross-border tunnels, but it does not yet have the technological capability to detect the tunnels routinely and accurately.”

“To best address this capability gap, CBP needs to develop and acquire tunnel detection technology, but it has not been able to identify existing technology that functions effectively in its operating environment,” the IG added.

“CBP is creating a Tunnel Detection and Technology Program to address capability gaps in countering the cross-border tunnel threat,” noted the IG. “As part of this effort, CBP is drafting the documents required by DHS to fund, develop, and acquire tunnel detection technology. Additionally, CBP plans to establish a Program Management Office to provide leadership, strategy, and organization to department-wide, counter-tunnel efforts.”

The link has a great video on the tunneling over the border.

The end of Marco Rubio

Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, Bennet, Graham, Flake McCain, Rubio...who didn't belong here.

There was such promise with the election of Marco Rubio. He came from literally nothing, challenging a sitting (notional) Republican governor, beat him in the primary and again in the general election when Christ somehow became an independent (later an open Democrat). He was right on the issues, calling for the repeal of Obamacare, limits on government and securing the border before any pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

But something happened on the way to the presidency. Yes, he was presented as the key note speaker at the 2012 Republican Convention, a sign he's being groomed for bigger and better things. The facet he was selected by the RINOs in the party leadership should have given pause. He gave the response to B Hussein Obama's State of the Union speech in January to the ridiculous criticism of taking too many sips of water.

Now he's working to pass the amnesty bill that will destroy the Republican Party he comes from, as well as destroy the nation as we know it. It will put tens of millions of new leftists voters into the electorate who will gladly vote for more benefits (i.e. for Democrats). Low skilled/no skilled workers will be an overall drain on the economy but they will provide something B Hussein Obama finds critical. The need for a permanent underclass. The Democrats are the party of big government (to a much greater degree than the Republicans) and for that, you need a large group of voters who can be relied on to vote for more. To paraphrase an old saying "Anyone robbing America to pay Mexico can always count on the support of Mexico."
So why did Rubio jump onto this? Maybe the powers that be in the Republican Party told him "You want to run for President, you need our support and money and our supporters in big business want the cheap labor." Or maybe this is the real Rubio. Or maybe he honestly had a change of heart. But if so, I wonder if it's looking around and asking "If I'm a young up and comer, why am I surrounded by these mostly old white men?...Do I really belong here" I guess Rubio has answered the question yes and he's cut his own wrist. He may win the nomination (God know the Republicans can always pull defeat from the jaws of victory.) but without the base he will never win the general election. And he's dead to them now.

Sorry to see Rubio kill himself off like this. I hope Allen West challenges him in 2016 so the Republicans can support a real conservative in FL.

UPDATE: From this previous post.  Here is Senator Rubio trying to jusify his push for amnesty.  I hate to say it, he's either a liar or a fool




.