My perception of Megyn Kelly's ambush of Trump at the "Debate".

As I watched later clips of this "Debate" actually, you could tell as time went on WHO FOX NEWS had chosen to be candidates--and who they wanted eliminated.

Angelo Codevilla below cites the old question attorneys in the 70's and 80's would aim at officers and persons not sympathetic with their client:
 “when did you stop beating your wife?” 

One, there is no good way to answer this.

Two, this told you the attorney had NO facts or evidence indicating his/her client's 
innocence. All the facts showed the Client was guilty, but then, attorneys had this motto: If you can't faze them with facts, baffle them with bullshit

Three, it was intended to anger the witness, have an angry response, thereby reducing or eliminating the witnesses credibility. 

Police Officers became accustomed to accusatory questions like this.

The 90's brought us the expanded use of the Internet. Now, there are whole online services that cater to law firms to  do complete search on witnesses. If there is any conflict, indiscretion, obvious character flaw--they will find it. 
CONCLUSION: 
FOX had done this on Trump. 
So, they took minute particles from the episodes of the Apprentice, implied that he had done things in real life and posed it as a combined accusation-question. 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/13/megyn-kelly-shows-how-low-our-political-discourse-has-sunk/

we should return to the debate formats of Lincoln's day.

By Angelo Codevilla

AUGUST 13, 2015

Since presidential debates started in 1960, the journalists who are supposed to “moderate” them have increasingly set the agenda and determined the substance of what the public sees. In the first 2016 presidential debate, Fox News’ “moderators” focused on what might embarrass candidates rather than on their record or proposals. Also, they indulged the Republican Establishment’s animus against its least favorite candidate. Though this made for an exciting show, the biggest loser was the public’s interest in understanding candidates and issues. The public interest would be best served were candidates to question one another. That’s how it was done in Lincoln’s day. We could and should get back to that.

Choosing the president of the United states on the basis of short answers to questions formulated or chosen by journalists was always a bad idea. It has only gotten worse. Limited to two minutes, as in the League Of Women Voters debates (Fox’s limit was one minute answers and 30 second rebuttals) the candidates can only reprise their canned talking points or the cleverish ads that are the foul staples of modern campaigns. Such parodies of debates demean the candidates, and all of us who watch. Along with the candidates, we the people become pawns in a game between the political consultants, the “moderators,” and the commentators who then tell us who played best.

Because no one ever doubted that “moderators” would influence the outcome of presidential debates, much effort went into giving the impression that the persons chosen were such as whom all would consider objective and super partes. Trust in the media’s impartiality, however, had vanished long before “moderator” Candy Crowley helped Barack Obama sustain a lie in 2012’s second presidential debate by instantly and counterfactually “fact checking” Mitt Romney. How, not whether, Mainstream Media “moderators” push the agendas of the Democratic Establishment they represented is the only question. Indeed, by 2012 it was difficult to avoid the sense that the media, Fox News included, was focusing negative coverage on the most conservative candidate who happened to be leading in the polls at any given time.

A public official’s oath, after all, is to “the Constitution of the United States,” not to party bosses.

So, as Megyn Kelly’s team prepared for the first debate of the 2016 cycle, and as trumping Donald Trump’s challenge to the Republican Establishment became that Establishment’s overriding concern, it was clear that Fox’s “moderators” would be the most intrusive ever, and that their push of their employers’ agenda and their “take down” of their least favorite candidate would be explicit. In both regards, the Fox team broke new ground and established precedents that should lead us to scrap the post 1960 format.

The team began by demanding that whoever might not support the Republican Party’s eventual nominee raise his hand. Who, one wonders, empowered these “moderators” to demand an oath of loyalty to the Party hierarchy? 

A public official’s oath, after all, is to “the Constitution of the United States,” not to party bosses. 

Then came questions to the candidates that were one version another of “when did you stop beating your wife?” 

Donald Trump, first target for elimination, was baited particularly. Next time, it will be someone else’s turn. The time after that, yet PAGE 1 another’s. Fox News’ treatment of presidential candidates has less to do with public policy than with the extent to which they match the Republican Establishment. 

This differs from the rest of the media’s treatment of politics only to the diminishing extent to which the Democratic and Republican Establishments differ.

Why ‘The Establishment’ Doesn’t Matter Anymore

Meanwhile, as the American people have become increasingly estranged from both Establishments, they look for someone, anyone, who takes seriously their concern with issues that these Establishments, jointly, have taken out of political play. These issues are big, heavy, and not articulable in sound bites.

The Fox News debate showed the depths to which our political discourse has sunk.

About immigration laws, many of which are not even enforced, that are changing this country’s way of life? 

What shall we do about a financial system that manufactures literally trillions dollars and channels them through banks and other institutions in ways that benefit a few while putting us all at risk? 

Is it a good idea to redefine marriage? That seems to have happened. Shouldn’t we have a say in that?

Did any of us vote to treat unborn babies as humans for the purposive harvesting their hearts and livers but not human for the purpose of letting them be killed in the first place?

 Why and how have such questions been taken out of our hands as citizens? Is it not our right and duty to take them back? Such questions demand consideration in depth ­ jointly by candidates and by citizens.

The Fox News debate showed the depths to which our political discourse has sunk and that its epitome, the presidential debates ­sound bites orchestrated by inevitably biased “moderators”­ is irremediable.

Any candidate possessed of enough testosterone could distinguish himself by withdrawing from any further such shows and declaring his intention of challenging opponents to Lincoln-­Douglas style debates for the broadcast of which he would raise the cash. Might enough citizens support restoring American politics to the intellectual and moral level of 150 years ago?

Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014.

Tolerating the "Culture" of others.

There is a column at the bottom that backs up what I write here.

As a law enforcer in San Diego County from Nov 1974 to Oct 2001, I had several observations about the "Immigrants" coming from Central America and Mexico:

-- The most brutal man is the most Macho (to be respected and revered) . Many people do not know that the Muslims controlled Spain for 400 years, and some of their practices were carried to Mexico.
The Cartels use this as a strategy to intimidate others. This includes beheading and cutting off genitals before the victim is killed.

In Mexico, the law and policeman are not respected. Cities hire officers, but pay almost nothing because they know that he will shake down every person he contacts. If you "violate" a law, if you can pay "Mordida" you are on your way.
No Pay-You get put in jail, and in a couple of months, you get to try to prove that you are innocent
Secondly, if you don't have the money, and you can beat up or kill that police officer and "Get out of town", you have no worry, because there is no communications between law enforcers in Mexico.
Often, if you arrest someone from those locations, they will threaten you, just to be macho. I wish I had a dollar for every time one of them--in custody--told me, "I get my gun--I choot jou".

Another mark of Macho is how much alcohol you can drink and still walk--or drive a car. In Mexico, there is no law prohibiting driving while impaired.

It is common in Latin countries to be married and have a "Querida" (Mistress). If the wife questions or contests this practice, you slap her around until she drops the objection.

The age of Consent in Mexico in some provinces is 14. You wonder why these invaders pick minors to rape, then claim that she gave permission.


As far as their health practices, I got a big eye opener when I went to give blood for an operation on another officer's mother . At the San Diego Blood Bank in San Diego, they had a map on the wall of Mexico. There was a line--East to west about half way down. When I asked the technician what that was all about, she told me, "If someone comes in from there, we ask them to point to where they lived. If it is below that line, they can not give blood. Too many chances they are carrying some disease".


AS I said--These are my observations. Another observation is that in the 1950's and 60's, with the Bracero program, people came here to work. That program mandated that employers had to furnish housing and access to medical care.

That all changed when Clinton was elected.  With Ted Kennedy's help, the EMTALA law was passed.


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

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation ן9םAct (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening eםוxamination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of [[Citizenship in the United States|citizenship]ש], legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. 

Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.^[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."^[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,^[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, not just to Medicare patients.^[5][6]

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.

As a Private Investigator after my law enforcement career, I found that immigrants (Invaders) were very skilled at fraud. They applied for almost every benefit program.

While Asians arrive and apply themselves to speaking our language and learning in our schools, the culture of Hispanics is to resist assimilation, learning English, or becoming Americans 

http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df072015.html


Trump's Stand on Illegal Immigration Enrages Republican Establishment
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
July 20, 2015 

       This is not a brief for Donald Trump, whose attacks on his critics are becoming increasingly bizarre. 

       But the GOP establishment was furious with The Donald long before he mocked Sen. McCain's war record. The billionaire's sudden popularity shows just how much the conservative base despises the leadership of the Republican Party and how desperate they are for someone to shout the truth that illegal immigration is destroying America. 

       Not long after Trump made his murderers-and-rapists remark, the RINO Empire struck back. Karl Rove – who thinks Romney was brilliant in 2016 – says Trump has the ability to "tarnish the GOP brand." McCain charged that the entrepreneur of neckwear "fired up the crazies" at his Phoenix rally. Sen. Lindsay Graham called Trump "a wrecking ball" for the future of the GOP. McCain and Graham are half the Republicans of the amnesty-pushing Gang of Eight. 

       Jeb Bush, who once called illegal immigration "an act of love," decried Trump's "rhetoric of divisiveness." The governor doesn't understand that that's what wins elections: you divide those who share your agenda – assuming you actually have one – from those who don't. Barack Obama won the presidency twice by being constantly on the attack – by being divisive.  

       His stock started to soar when Trump said: "We have drug dealers coming across (our southern border), we have rapists. We have killers. We have murderers." Undeniably true, but not standard Republican rhetoric, which goes something like this: "Illegal immigration may in some way be related to our crime problem. But please don't take offense at this observation, which isn't intended to stigmatize those who come here illegally." 

       The connection between the hordes streaming across our borders and violent crime is so obvious that to deny it takes a strenuous act of will. They come from cultures far poorer and more violent than our own. So it stands to reason that we're getting what – CPAs, registered nurses and engineers? 

       •  Illegal aliens (or "undocumented workers" in amnesty-speak) constitute 25% of the federal prison population. 

       •  They account for 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in Los Angeles County and as many as two-thirds of fugitive felony warrants. 

       •  Every year, on average, 75,000 illegals are arrested for drug offenses. 

       •  According to the Center for Immigration Studies: "State and local sanctuary policies caused the release of more than 6,000 criminal alien offenders sought by ICE for deportation in 276 jurisdictions around the country over an eight-month period." One was the man arrested for the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco on July 1. 

       •  In her new book, "Adios, America: The Left's Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hellhole" (Don't you wish she'd tell us what she really thinks?), Ann Coulter writes: "In June 2014, immigration officials in California decided to round up what sounds like an extremely narrow category of immigration violators: previously deported illegal aliens who had been convicted in the United States of sex crimes and were living in the Los Angeles area. Within three days, they had arrested 31 people who fit that description." 

       "That same month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted raids in six states not known for having large illegal alien populations –Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Missouri. They netted 297 illegal immigrants, nearly 80% of whom had been convicted of crimes in the United States, including aggravated battery of a child, sexual assault of a minor, solicitation of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, battery and domestic abuse." 

       Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could have fought Obama's unconstitutional amnesty-by-executive order. They could have refused to fund Homeland Security until the president stops ruling by imperial decree. (What's the sense of having DHS when the gates are wide open to criminals and terrorists?) Instead they shook their heads sadly and allowed POTUS to continue dismantling America. 

       Now, Obama has decided to bypass Congress completely and take his genocidal Iran treaty to the United Nations, as if the Constitution gave the UN the power to ratify treaties entered into by the United States. What will the cool, calm, deliberative men of the Republican leadership do about it? 

       Instead of passing a bill giving themselves a power they already have (but which can only be exercised with a super-majority), which Obama will ignore anyway, they could have used the power of the purse. They could have used impeachment. They could have used their bully pulpits to expose a presidential dictatorship dressed up in bureaucratic jargon ("prosecutorial discretion," "executive action"). Instead, we'll get measured, nuanced rhetoric while the world spins ever closer to a nuclear Iran intent on annihilating the "infidels," which we will help to fund. 

       Like the Democrats, RINOS have a stake in maintaining the status quo. For Democrats, illegal aliens are voters. For establishment Republicans, they're cheap labor for their deep-pocket donors. 

       Ted Cruz's autobiography, "A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America," shows how cowardly and corrupt the GOP leadership is. 

       In the introduction, the Texas Senator describes how he was vilified by his own party for opposing the 2014 increase in the debt ceiling without accompanying fiscal constraints. Cruz noted that, by that point, Obama had increased the national debt from around $10 trillion to around $18 trillion. Why should Republicans in Congress just roll over, he asked? Because they're more afraid of the president and the liberal media than their own base. 

       The Senate Republican Conference wanted to give the president the "clean bill" he demanded – raising the debt ceiling without any concessions from the administration. There were only two holdouts, Cruz and Utah Senator Mike Lee. Even though he knew it would fail, as a matter of principle and to put the American people on notice, Cruz filibustered the measure, whereupon he became the focus of Republican rage which should have been directed at Obama. 

       "Unnamed Republican sources" told Capitol Hill publications that Cruz was a "fraud," "a hypocrite," "a wacko bird," who came to Washing to "throw bombs," grab headlines and "fundraise" – all for the unpardonable sin of actually believing what he said on the campaign trail and acting on it once in office. 

       Wall Street Republicans like Rove think it really doesn't matter what they do – or don't do – in office. They believe they can maintain their power every two years by warning conservatives that the end of the world is at hand – that if the Democrats win they'll grab their guns, levy confiscatory taxes and legalize trans-species dating. True, but Republicans will do nothing to stop them. 

       They've been running this scam for years. That it hasn't worked in four of the last six presidential elections has yet to sink in. 

       The conservative base is in open revolt. There are honorable Republicans in Washington to be sure. But for conservatives, viewing the Congressional leadership of both parties increasingly looks like the scene at the end of Orwell's "Animal Farm" – "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which" – other than the rhetoric. 


 Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant.
GrasstopsUSA
8230 Catbird Circle 302
Lorton VA 22079
888-864-1964
888-239-9306 FAX

Statistics don't mean....

THIS STORY WAS POSTED THIS MORNING: 

San Francisco politicians have blood on their hands.

July 6, 2015

  

Matthew Vadum

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259364/progressive-policies-murdered-kate-steinle-matthew-vadum

My complaint involves the "elected Officials" of several cities that think it is perfectly

 O K NOT to enforce current law. 

(Aside: When I used to stop people for traffic laws-that sometimes evolved into felonies, if they told me the particular law that I stopped them for--the one that stands out was "Not wearing a seat belt"-- was a "Chickens**t law"-- my question to them was then.. "What other law would you have me not enforce? And, why stop there. Why should we enforce murder, robbery, and assault?" )

But my main complaint is the "Good Ol' General Public" .

I think the phenomena started with "Remote Wars". I mean Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Less than one per cent of U S citizens are in the military and are sent to fight these far away battles. 

The lesson here for "Good Ol' General Public" was

IF ITS NOT HAPPENING TO ME... Its not happening .

Driving around San Diego County, going to many Hit-and-Run crashes, and having the story usually go like this: 

I was driving down (fill in the road), going (fill in the speed) when this car came out and hit me. When it stopped, the driver got out and ran. The description is male Hispanic, about 18 to 25, 5 ft 8 in tall with black hair. 

Around year 2000, there were around 4,000 cars,trucks, vans, and SUV's stolen from San Diego County alone. 

 My point is this: Although we were sending troops to foreign countries basically to be police officers as opposed to winning a war, although there were multiple hit and runs occurring daily with the usual suspects being probable illegal aliens, and no possible way the victims could recover the costs, or that the usual suspect would be prosecuted , and several San Diego residents coming out to empty drive ways in the morning, .....

There was NO OUTRAGE. 

I formulated this truth. 

Statics don't mean anything (To the Good Ol' General Public)  until they ARE one. 

LET's PRETEND....

In 1968. I applied to the California Highway Patrol.

Then, you had to be between 21 and 32 (Average age of applicant was 25)
You were a male, between 5'-8" and 6'6" tall.

You applied, and were told to appear at an address to take a written test. Your score had to be above 70% and it related to your position on the hiring list.

You were then notified of a physical test, and given an address and time to be there.

You were notified of a Physical Agility Test, and an address of where it was given.
There were three arts:
1. Stand Flat Footed, make a mark on the wall as high as you could reach.
   Then, crouch, and leap from flat-footed, and make a mark on the wall AT LEAST one foot higher than your first mark.
2. THREE Pull ups.
3. 23 sit ups with in 30 seconds.

You were then notified of an oral interview by three people in or associated with the CHP. Your questions and answers were recorded, and were given to your background investigator.

Your background investigator researched me back to the third grade.

===============================================

Forward to 1985.

Women were hired as officers after pressure from the Federal Government.
The big hammers the Feds use are:
(1)--We will cutoff any Federal; money you get.  (2)--We will get a Court Order against you saying you can't hire any men until you reach X per cent female Officers.

Some could not pass that agility test, so a few failures sued, A whole new test was designed--that they could pass.

An Asian person from San Francisco was shorter that 5' 8" tall. He sued in Federal Court, alleging that the height requirement discriminated against Asians.
(The height requirement was there to insure that you were able to physically match your average resister out there on the highway/freeway)


============================================

Related but of another Government disabling of  competency.

When Obama began appointing Cabinet members after his 2008 election, it seemed that every one of them had an un-prosecuted offense in their history.
EXAMPLE: A Secretary of Treasury--that had not paid--and essentially cheated on his taxes.

My first thought was: They did not do good background checks.  Then, it hit me: They had. They found the offense, had proof, called in the person and said A La Al Capone." We know you did ______. You are going to take this job. We will tell you how to do it. If you refuse, we will prosecute".

---------------------------------------------------------------
The result is like the Prosecutor in Baltimore. She qualified on two counts as minority.
She had influence (Father was Baltimore Police Officer ).
She gets through College and Law School.  Not really qualified, she gets  elected State's Attorney defeating  Gregg L. Bernstein



And in the General election,
Russell A. Neverdon Sr.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that we are playing a game of "Let's Pretend".

Let's Pretend that the person has all the physical and mental capabilities necessary to be educated to perform all tasks related to the job.

Let's Pretend that the person is competent to DO that job.

Necessary requirements:
Slavish fanatical allegiance to the Democrat Party.
Strict silence on all/all  of any observed violations of laws and civil rights ( IRS vs Tea Party, BLM vs Ranchers, EPA vs Coal)

No one trusts officials now.

The piece below was yesterday.

In my mind--WHY?

Answer: 

You have Officials committing acts that would send one of us to jail for a couple of years stay. Do they suffer ANY penalty? Not at all... There's probably a promotion in it.

You have persons you elected to vote NO on A B & C, and Yes on D E and F. 

Once you donated to them, and voted for them, they go ahead and vote FOR A B & C, and either note NO or just don't show to vote for D E & F. 

Like our Arizona Governor Ducey.  Yes, he is a Republican, and yes, he promised to 

guard our border with Mexico, eliminate Common Core, and vote to have Arizonans in charge of Federal Lands ( The Legislature passed it--he vetoed it) 

Factor 1. He worked for McCain's Wife's Beer Company all the way through college. He picked up tricks from John McCain

Factor 2. He is a Chamber of Corruption (commerce) Republican--Not a Conservative. His answer "Would you have voted for SB 1062 [would have given protection to business to follow their religion, and was altered by the media and Gays to say it was discriminatory and Hate legislation] His answer was NO--It would have been bad for business. 

Factor 3. I knew this fact from being a Highway Patrol Officer. You have seat belt, under-age drinking, and speed compliance laws--Because the Federal Government (NHTSA) dictates that you WILL pass the law, and you WILL enforce the law to 85% compliance--or you will lose Federal Funds for your highways.

Ducey wants Federal money to keep coming, so he vetoes a bill that takes back federal lands, and essentially does nothing to rid us of Common Core 

You find that House Speaker Boehner has a nickname.. Toll Booth. Translation: You want some legislation passed? You WILL donate to his campaign fund. 

In the next presidential election, I want some one who worked for what they got--not a privileged Bush, Hillary, or Lindsay Grahamnesty.  Scott Walker or Dr Ben Carson would do. I did like Ted Cruz until he sided with Obama on ObamaTrade (Seems his wife works for Goldman-Sachs--who stand to prosper from this deal) 

I want someone who realizes that not doing anything about Illegal Immigration or free flow of foreign workers will kill our standard of living--and DO something about it.

I want someone who appreciates achievement and being COMPETENT.  Seems like the Obama Administration's only screen is are you a minority, female, or Gay. IF so, you get the job. 

I want someone who believes in PENALTIES for incompetence or actual criminal behavior that harms citizens.  From Obama on down,. you have government employees that have harmed Americans by incompetent, and/or criminal acts--

but none them ever get terminated or prosecuted. They get promoted 

I want someone who realized that Islam is all about killing other human beings. 

They have been doing it since 640 AD, and Obama is GIVING them nuclear weapons to be able to kill us by the millions.  I want someone who us not afraid to use the labels Muslims, Killers. Islamic, Radical interchangeably, and not cower before them. 

==================================================

“The System is Broken”: Americans No Longer Believe In Its Institution

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/06/18/the-system-is-broken-americans-no-longer-believe-in-its-institutions/

"Americans' confidence in most major U.S. institutions remains below the historical average for each one," a Gallup spokesman said in a news release.
[...]
All in all, it's a picture of a nation discouraged about its present and worried about its future, and highly doubtful that its institutions can pull America out of its trough.

There is plenty of good reason, with evidence uncovered daily, weekly and consistently throughout the years of the hypocrisy and failures of government, the failed promises of politicians, the lies and spin of the mainstream media and newspapers, the greed and exploitation of the financial sector and the "just us" mentality of above-the-law enforcers who are supposed to uphold justice.
Just check out how little faith remains in the structure of, well, just about any institution in America, by the numbers:

Only 8 percent have confidence in Congress, down by 16 points from a long-term average of 24 percent - the lowest of all institutions rated.
33 percent have confidence in the presidency, a drop from a historical average of 43 percent.
32 percent have confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 44.
28 percent have confidence in banks, down from 40 percent.
21 percent have confidence in big business, down from 24 percent.
24 percent have confidence in organized labor, down from 26.
24 percent have confidence in newspapers, down from 32 percent.
21 percent have confidence in television news, down from 30 percent.
52 percent of Americans ["¦] are confident in the police [57 percent historically]

What else can be said, but that the system is broken?

Obviously it bears little resemblance to the one envisioned by the founding fathers and their emphasis on separation of powers and limited government.

None of the three branches of government are trusted by even close to a majority of the American populace"¦ maybe that's to be expected, with frequent media criticisms of political figures in a polarizing two party system.

But other pillars of society have lost their backing of the public, too - in astonishing numbers that show not only that the American dream is dead, but that private institutions are widely perceived as being just as corrupt as public ones (or worse).

To top it off - this perception is entirely deserved. The aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis consolidated the power and wealth of the big banks, and gave the Federal Reserve ultimate power over the economy, while average Americans suffered greatly.

Scandal after scandal revealed that corruption for what it is.
Media scandals - such as Brian Williams' fabricated war zone stories and George Stephanopoulos' attempt to conceal his conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation - have left a bad taste in the mouth of media consumers already facing fake news indigestion.

The factors are piling up beyond our capacity to excuse them away: fatigue from endless wars and threats of terrorism; cynically-false promises of hope and change; the repeated, brazen trampling of civil rights; a sharp decline of opportunity at the hands of economic recession; trade deals written in secret to enrich corporations; the rise of job-crushing technology and more have all sapped at the American spirit.

Whether most Americans follow these developments or not, they instinctually sense them. No one trustworthy is steering this ship - worse, no one may be at the wheel at all.
Who or what can turn things around?

That remains to be seen, but few will be willing to buy into the system if it remains on course.
The loss of confidence in the system ultimately relates to the loss of confidence in the freedom of the individual.

It is strong-willed and determined people who have always made this country, and any other, strong and vibrant.
The constant detriment of individual rights and the endless calls to transfer power to the collective - whether inside or outside of government - is the real source of the problem that this Gallup poll reflects.

Our best hope at a better world should start there. Is it still possible?
Courtesy of SHTFplan.com

IF you are in Law Enforcement, you are not allowed to have or show emotions

This episode in McKinney Texas reminded me of this 2013 writing.

As the Old Indian saying goes:"You have have to walk a mile in a man's moccasins before you criticize him. "

An informative piece about the true weight of a police officer's badge and why law enforcement officers are different.

10 REASONS COPS ARE DIFFERENT 
And how these differences impact on their stress!

PERHAPS IT WEIGHS only 2 ounces overall. Large ones may run to 4 ounces. But when that badge is pinned on, there is a weight unknown to most law enforcement officers. The true weight of the badge is not overcome by muscle, not found in the gym, not measured on a scale. This weight requires a strength and conditioning for which few officers are trained. The badge is not just pinned on a chest, it is pinned on a lifestyle. The heaviness of the badge makes the law enforcement officer different from other professionals. Over the course of the last ten years, working as psychologists with police officers, we have identified ten areas which make the badge heavy.

10 REASONS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE DIFFERENT

1.  Law enforcement officers are seen as authority figures. People deal with them differently and treat them differently, even when they are not working. When a problem occurs, everyone looks to the officer to "take charge," to "solve the problem." Some say the cop is never off duty. Even when the officer is not working there is a tendency to attack problems and take charge. Sometimes taking charge is not preferable, and can cause particular strains in our world where many people like to linger with problems, never really solving anything. Recognizing the difference between a "problem solving" situation, where action is desirable, and a more passive situation, where action may alienate others, is difficult for the cop.
    
2. They are isolated. The wearing of a badge, uniform and gun makes a law officer separate from society. This segregation leads to many psychological effects which research shows can create negative personality traits. For example, psychological research shows the wearing of a uniform will tend to make any person de-humanize people who are without a uniform. Just wearing a badge or a gun can cause people to act more aggressively. These are changes that could happen to anyone wearing a uniform, badge and gun, thus these factors are expected to operate in some way on the police officer. Many officers suggest there is a "role," or "mask" which they put on along with their uniform. Sometimes this role leaks into their personal lives and changes the course of their relationships and leisure time.
    
3. Law enforcement officers work in a quasi-military, structured institution. There are mental health concerns associated with working within a "quasi-military structure" and other mental health concerns of working in an "institution." Military organizations require the sacrifice of the individual for the good of society. The "individual" is not a consideration; the "goal" of the group is paramount. In a military organization, the focus is on punishing the individual if he is not up to standards. It is a de-humanizing process to recognize that you are only valued as a part of a machine. The _institution' takes the same attitude, only a step further. In an institution, you are locked in a set process and the process is more important many times than, not only the individual, but also the goal. When an officer does a remarkable job of police work, perhaps even saves a life, he can still be reprimanded if he doesn't file the proper paperwork. The paperwork describing an action in many cases is more important to the institution than the action itself. Both the quasi-military nature of police work and the functioning within an institution combine for a mental health situation that is quite undesirable and very stressful
    
4. Shift work is not normal. The "rotating shift" schedule is very taxing on an officer's life. Our bodies are adjusted on what is called "circadian schedules" which is a repetitive daily cycle. Our bodies like to have a regular eating time, sleeping time, waking time, etc. An officer doing shift work never gets a chance to stay on a schedule. This upsets his physical and mental balance in life. The changing work schedule also upsets the routine patterns that are needed in healthy marriage and family development. Strong marital and family development is based on rituals, like dinners together, "inside jokes," repeated activities, etc. The rotating shift worker has less chance to develop these rituals and his relationships suffer. This predisposes the officer's family to potential problems ranging from divorces, to children acting-out.
    
5. Camaraderie can be a two edged sword. The law enforcement job nurtures a sense of teamwork and unity with co-workers, what was once called "esprit de corps." The fraternity helps the officer on the job feel secure about getting the needed support in dangerous situations. It also stimulates a sense of belonging that can create an "us and them" view of the world. This makes the law enforcement "clique" harder to leave when retiring and makes officers more protective of each other. It also makes it more difficult to accept someone within the fraternal organization leaving or being killed. This adds to the stress of an officer.
    
6. Even the stress is different. Officers have a different kind of stress in their jobs, called "burst stress." Burst stress means there is not always a steady stressor, but at times, there is an immediate "burst" from low stress to a high stress state. In other words, officers go from complete calm, to high activity and pressure in one "burst." The normal stress situation for most of the rest of the work force consists of a stress building process that can be either reduced or adapted to before it gets "out of control." This is not the case for the officer, because "out of control" can happen in seconds (see "A Cop's Story" for a good example of burst stress). The law enforcement job is reactive, not proactive. Officers cannot usually control entrance into most situations they face, unlike most people who get warnings. They have to react, not prevent problems. It is difficult to defend against burst stress.
    
7. The need to be in constant emotional control. Law enforcement officers have a job that requires extreme restraint under highly emotional circumstances. They are told when they are extremely excited, they have to act calm. They are told when they are nervous, they have to be in charge. They are taught to be stoic when emotional. They are to interact with the world in a role. The emotional constraint of the role takes tremendous mental energy, much more energy than expressing true emotions. When the energy drain is very strong, it may make the officer more prone to exhaustion outside of work, such as not wanting to participate in social or family life. This energy drain can also create a sense of job and social burnout.
    
8. No gray areas. The law enforcement officer works in a fact-based world with everything compared to written law. Right and wrong is determined by a standard. They have a set way of going about gathering the proper evidence for the law and can justify their actions because they represent the "good and right side." In the real world, clear rights and wrongs are not as likely to occur. The newspapers are an opinion-based system, the court system is an opinion-based system and, needless to say, relationship decisions and proper parenting techniques are opinion-based systems. Adjusting from right and wrong, black-and-white systems, to opinion-based systems is very difficult and requires a complete change in mental attitude.
    
9. The "at work" world of the officer is very negative. He sees the bad part of society - the criminal, the abuser of the rules. This may skew the officer's opinions on the character of the average human being. It creates a cynicism, a critical view of the world. It is hard to adjust to trusting a fellow human being when so much of the day is spent with people who are not trustworthy. It is hard to believe in positive intentions of people, when the day is spent with people who are intending to hurt each other. This lack of trust can show up in the way the officer deals with people on a personal level, with neighbors, with a spouse. It can even show up in the way children are raised, as police parents may tend to be stricter in discipline and more careful with privilege.
    
10. Even the children are effected. The children of law enforcement officers have a more difficult adjustment. As a young child, the police officer parent is seen as holding a prestigious, desirable position. The young child and his friends look up to the police officer as a minor celebrity, a person of great respect. As a teen-ager, their parent is part of the authority of society. Since teens rebel against authority anyway, this can cause a double rebellion against the parent both in their role as caretaker and as a symbol of the authority of society. Frequently, the officer's child is either overly compliant because of the rules imposed, thus causing depressive problems or personality restriction, or the teen becomes overly rebellious of the rule-oriented parent - the best child or the worst.

As you can see, there is more to being a police officer than the training received in an academy or on the job. The work has many effects that need to be overcome so as not to effect their personal and family life. This website is designed to help you understand and overcome the effects of these other parts of the job. It is important for an officer to realize that sometimes that shield on your chest or in your pocket can be "A Heavy Badge
 
Reprint from www.heavybadge.com website.

GUEST POST -- Gemma Barlow

"Article from Gemma Barlow  "

DELETED PER REQUEST

Marijuana Legalization – Law And Order Implications