Archive for December, 2015

Morning People Vs. Night Owls: 9 Insights Backed By Science

December 29, 2015

By Maha Hamdan, from HERE:

OwlsVsLarks

Chances are you already know whether you’re a morning person or a night person (and if you don’t, just ask your significant other). What you might not know is that social scientists use pretty specific—and, by academic standards, pretty casual—names for these two chronotypes. “Larks” are up and at it early in the morning, and tend to hit the sack at a respectable evening hour; “owls” are most alert at night, and typically turn in long after dark.

These labels are less an either-or than a spectrum; chronotype can shift over a person’s lifetime, and recent work suggests adding two more subsets to the list: early to wake and late to bed, and late to wake but early bed. But generally speaking the larks-or-owls construct has stood the rigors of research, with evidence really growing since the development of a 19-part Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire in the late 1970s that sorts folks into chronotypes based on things like when they’d ideally get up, how alert they feel in the morning, when they normally get tired, and so on. More involved than asking a spouse, but effective.

An exhaustive list of lessons to emerge from this line of study isn’t possible (or, frankly, something that sounds fun). But we gathered some of our favorite lark-versus-owl studies from recent years and identified nine general insights worth passing along—for your late night, or early morning, pleasure.

1. LARKS AREN’T HEALTHIER, WEALTHIER, OR WISER.

Ben Franklin, that jack-of-all-Founding Fathers, once advocated for a lark lifestyle in a famous saying: “early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.” But a pair of epidemiologists at Southampton University in England—perhaps still bitter over that whole Revolution thing—directly challenged Franklin’s tyranny of the morning people in a 1998 paper for BMJ.

The researchers analyzed a national sample of men and women who’d been surveyed years earlier on sleep patterns as well as measures related to, well, health, wealth, and wisdom. There were 356 larks in the group (in bed before 11 p.m., up before 8 a.m.) and 318 owls (in bed after 11, up after 8). Contrary to Franklin’s decree, night owls had larger incomes and more access to cars than did morning larks; the two chronotypes also scored roughly the same on a cognitive test and showed no self- or doctor-reported health differences.

“We found no evidence … that following Franklin’s advice about going to bed and getting up early was associated with any health, socioeconomic, or cognitive advantage,” the authors concluded. “If anything, owls were wealthier than larks, though there was no difference in their health or wisdom.”

2. IF ANYTHING, OWLS MIGHT BE A BIT SMARTER ON THE WHOLE.

A lark v. owl study published the following year looked more closely at the question of brains. Psychologist Richard D. Roberts of the University of Sydney and Patrick C. Kyllonen of the Air Force Research Lab, measured the chronotype of 420 test participants then gave them two intelligence tests. Together the tasks measured vocational knowledge (e.g. mechanics and engineering), general math and reading comprehension, and working memory and processing speed.

The results, though not overwhelming, did come down slightly on the side of evening types. Night owls outperformed morning larks on most of the intelligence measures—with significant differences on working memory and processing speed. Especially interesting was that the finding seemed to hold up even when the cognitive tests were taken in the morning.

“The results indicate that, contrary to conventional folk wisdom, evening-types are more likely to have higher intelligence scores,” Roberts and Kyllonen reported in a 1999 issue of Personality and Individual Differences. Wise old owl, indeed.

3. NIGHT TYPES HAVE MORE GAME.

Evening types weren’t just good at scoring on intelligence tests. They also proved to be prolific lovers—at least according to a 2012 paper in the same journal.

The study, led by Christoph Randler of University of Education Heidelberg in Germany, tested 284 male participants for their chronotype and their sexual behavior. While both morning and evening types got busy equally often, the night guys reported more total partners. This held true even when Randler and company controlled for age, extraversion, and a tendency to stay out later. Evening types were also more closely linked to infidelity; to take the bird analogy way too far: it seems owls, and not larks, breed cuckolds.

As for why night owls might close more romantic deals, the researchers wonder if “a high activity during evening and night may honestly signal a better performance in sexual activity because most sexual activity in humans takes place around bed time.” That’s a dubious conclusion, though we’d love to see What’s your name, what’s your chronotype? catch on at the bar.

4. NO, LITERALLY, THEY PLAY BASEBALL BETTER.

In a delightful study, a research team that included a representative of the San Francisco Giants issued a morningness-eveningness questionnaire to 16 Major League Baseball players—nine owls, seven larks. The study group then paired this chronotype information with game statistics from nearly 7,500 innings during the 2009 and 2010 seasons. They reported their highly preliminary findings in a 2011 supplemental issue of Sleep.

Baseball players all fared better when game times matched their chronotype—though night owls had better averages than morning larks.
American Academy of Sleep Medicine

When morning types played in early games (with start times before 2 p.m.), they batted a respectable .267. But when evening types played in night games (with first pitch after 8 p.m.), they hit a dazzling .306 as a group—nearly 30 points higher. It’s worth noting owls suffered more than larks when game-time conflicted with chronotype: morning players hit eight points lower in night games (.259), but evening players hit 54 points lower in day games (.252).

5. OWLS ARE PARTIAL TO BAD HABITS—NAMELY, SMOKING AND DRINKING.

Franklin’s adage about morning types being healthy does seem to hold in one regard: larks might be a little less vulnerable than owls to substance abuse.

A number of studies support these connections. One analysis of 676 adults from a Finnish twin cohort found that evening types were much more likely to be current or lifelong smokers, much less likely to stop smoking, and at much higher risk for nicotine dependence as per diagnostic criteria, compared with morning folks. Another study of 537 individuals found that owls consume more alcohol than larks.

That’s not a huge surprise when you consider that nightlife is conducive to drinking and smoking. What’s less clear to researchers is whether evening people are more inclined to partake because they’re already out late, or whether the addictive behaviors—at least in the case of a stimulant like cigarettes—keep them up longer in the first.

6. LARKS ARE PERSISTENT, COOPERATIVE, AGREEABLE, CONSCIENTIOUS, AND PROACTIVE.

The tendency to drink and smoke among evening types is consistent with a broad personality trait that researchers call “novelty-seeking.” Multiple studies have connected owls with that characteristic. In a 2011 paper notable for focusing on adolescents, Randler and a Heidelberg colleague discovered a link between night people and novelty-seeking already present among German teenagers (technically, ages 12 to 18).

The same research—which evaluated 346 test participants on both chronotype and a through character inventory—found that larks scored higher than owls (as well people who didn’t fit in either category) in terms of persistence and cooperation. These positive traits among morning types built on other personality work from Randler showing that larks tended to be more agreeable and conscientious, and that they tend to be more proactive than owls. Showoffs.

7. THEY ALSO PROCRASTINATE LESS.

Given that larks are generally more compliant and conformist than owls, it comes as little shock to learn that evening types seem to be worse procrastinators. A 1997 study led by veteran delay researcher Joseph Ferrari of DePaul found that trait procrastinators called themselves “night” people. Based on six days of daily task records, Ferrari and company linked procrastination behaviors with a general tendency to partake in evening activities.

That study focused on college students: night types and procrastinators almost by definition. But the finding held true in a 2008 study of an adult sample with a mean age of 50. Once again, being a night owl was associated with avoiding a task that needed to be completed, the study team (which included Ferrari) reported in the Journal of General Psychology.

The researchers also suspect that this general preference to delay tasks until night could create problems at jobs with strong daytime work expectations.

8. MORNING TYPES MAY BE HAPPIER.

This disconnect between conventional daytime expectations and nighttime preference might make life harder for owls in general. Social scientists call this outcome “social jetlag”: evening types that force themselves to wake up early and perform at their peak during the day might cause themselves some sleep loss and emotional distress. They might also be less happy as a result.

That’s the argument put forth by two University of Toronto psychologists in a 2012 paper. After assessing a sample of 435 young adults (17 to 38) and 297 older adults (59 to 79) on their chronotypes as well as their current moods, the researchers found that morning people had higher positive affect across the board, compared with night people. Mood isn’t the same as general happiness, but the findings may speak in part to the challenges owls face on a daily basis.

“Waking up early may indeed make one happy as a lark,” the researchers conclude in the journal Emotion.

9. BOTH TYPES MAY BE MORE CREATIVE ON THEIR OFF-HOURS.

So there are clear benefits to matching someone’s chronotype with that person’s lifestyle, but the occasional mismatch isn’t the end of the world. It might even brew some creativity, according to a 2011 study by psychologists Mareike Wieth and Rose Zacks.

Wieth and Zacks determined the chronotype of 428 test participants then randomly assigned them to a morning or late afternoon test session. During the session, the participants had to solve six problems. Some were analytical problem, which can be solved with logical thinking, and some were insight problems, which tend to be figured out via “aha” moments or bursts of creative thought.

(Brief pause for an example insight problem: An antique coin dealer gets an offer to buy a bronze coin with the date 544 B.C. stamped on one side, but instead of buying it he calls the police. Why? We’ll give you a moment. No coin truly made in B.C. would label itself B.C.—that’s an A.D. construct)

 

In the journal Thinking and Reasoning, Wieth and Zacks report that, overall, people were more successful at the analytical problems. But participants had a higher solution rate for insight problems when doing them at their non-optimal time of the day—say, an owl doing the test in morning—than at the time that aligned with their chornotype. The results lend support to the incubation theory of creativity: taking a break from a problem, often out of mental fatigue, can produce unexpected insights.

Maybe even insights about morning and night people.

Saudi millionaire acquitted of rape charge after claiming he tripped and fell on teen

December 16, 2015

ONLY IN FORMERLY GREAT BRITAIN…

From here:

VICTOR FERREIRA  12.15.2015

Saudi millionaire acquitted of rape charge after claiming he tripped and fell on teen
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept off a night of drinking on the sofa of his Maida Vale flat.

SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

A Saudi millionaire who claims he accidentally fell on and penetrated an 18-year-old woman in Britain has been cleared of one count of rape.

Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46 was accused of raping the woman as she slept on his sofa after bringing her and her 24-year-old friend home from a London nightclub, the Telegraph reports.

The woman was with her friend, who was known to Abdulaziz, at the Cirque le Soir nightclub on Aug. 7, 2014. After inviting both to join him at his CA$2,000-a-night table, the millionaire brought the two women back to his home.

The court heard Abdulaziz gave the two women vodka to drink before leading the 24-year-old woman to another room to have sex. When the 18-year-old awoke the next morning, she told the court Abdulaziz was on top of her and raping her.

Abdulaziz said he accidentally fell on the 18-year-old woman after she seduced him. He said she pulled him toward her and placed his hand between her legs. He claimed he was only trying to offer her something to wear or a taxi ride home.

“I’m fragile,” he said. “I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened.”

His DNA was found inside the 18-year-old girl and he claims he could have had semen on his hands after having sex with her 24-year-old friend.

Prosecutor Jonathan Davies accused Abdulaziz of changing his story after being confronted with the DNA evidence.

“On this occasion he said after he had sex with the complainant’s friend his penis was still erect and he had semen on his hands when he went into the living room,” Davies said.

“He said in the second interview she pushed his hands down on to her vagina. He said that he did fall onto her and his penis may have penetrated her vagina. You may consider, members of the jury, him changing the account he was giving.”

A jury acquitted Abdulaziz after only 30 minutes of deliberations.

BECAUSE HIS EXCUSE MADE SUCH PERFECT SENSE TO THE BRITS!

Obama Set to Sign Deal Allowing Foreign Takeover of America’s Land and Resources

December 16, 2015

From here:

Once shrouded in secrecy, President Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership is now becoming public, and what we’re discovering is absolutely frightening.

Apparently the deal reverses policies in place to protect national security.

Chapter 11 of the deal allows foreign investors the rights to acquire American land, businesses, ports, natural resources, infrastructure and other property.

Chapters 28 and 29 give foreign investors the ability to work around U.S. courts and sue the United States before a dispute tribunal if they feel U.S. law violated their “rights” under the deal.

Additionally, the U.S. government had unfettered power to protect its national security interests as it deemed necessary, but the TPP agreement reverses this power. As a consequence, other countries could maintain that U.S. security interests violate the deal and they could then insist the United States pay billions of dollars in damages.

The TPP is anything but the simple free trade deal Obama wants us to think it is. It is a complex array of rules and regulations intended to control the economic relations between the nations involved in the deal. Furthermore, there is no economic model indicating any benefit to the United States from the agreement.

There is a reason Obama wanted to keep the details of this deal secret. While he wants to tout that it will help workers, the truth is that it does the opposite.

Obama has proven again and again why he cannot be trusted. He goes behind the backs of the American people and institutes legislation whether we like it or not. His actions suggest that he constantly puts Americans at risk.

Even if we didn’t now have the agreement of the text to go by, his track record alone should tell us this is a bad deal and should be stopped.

…….
WND EXCLUSIVE
Obamatrade’s fine print reveals security threat

Would give U.S. protection decisions to international panel

Published: 2 days ago

Curtis Ellis is a political communications consultant and writer.

UNITED NATIONS – The fine print of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a reading has revealed, reverses policies put in place to prevent the foreign takeover of the United States’ ports and other crucial national infrastructure.

And it appears to undermine U.S. national security.

The release of the long-hidden Obamatrade text reveals it gives foreign interests the power to do an end-run around laws designed to protect crucial American infrastructure from national security threats – and the U.S. would be hard pressed to stop it.

Previous U.S. trade pacts stated in no uncertain terms that the national security interests of the United States are determined solely by the U.S. government and supersede any provisions of the pacts.

The U.S. government had unfettered power to protect its national security interests as it deemed necessary – even if its actions might violate the terms of a trade agreement.

But the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement reverses this precedent. As a result, other countries could claim the U.S. national security interests violate the TPP agreement and they could then demand the U.S. pay billions of dollars in damages.

It’s telling that the Obama administration failed to safeguard the U.S. national security while other nations – Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand – made sure they maintained their sole and sovereign authority to control their national security.

Chapter 11 of the TPP gives foreign investors special rights to acquire American land, natural resources, businesses, ports, infrastructure and other investments in the U.S.

Start with “Basic Economics” by WND columnist Thomas Sowell to understand what’s happening in the economic world today.

Under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, these foreign investors could do an end-run around U.S. courts and sue the U.S. before an international panel, known as an investor-state dispute tribunal, if they feel American law violates their “rights” under the TPP.

Currently, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, reviews pending foreign investments in the U.S. to determine if they pose a threat to national security and can recommend the president shut down investments deemed a threat. Under previous trade agreements, foreign investors would have no recourse.

But under the TPP, the sultan of Brunei, the billionaire autocrat who rules his TPP country under Shariah law, could sue for billions of dollars if CFIUS denied his bid to buy a company providing security to U.S. ports and airports.

He would bring his case before a foreign tribunal that could force taxpayers to award him compensation for “lost profits,” under the terms of the agreement.

The tribunal, staffed by three unelected lawyers hailing from anywhere in the world, would have the power to second-guess the U.S. government on what constitutes a threat to national security.

This is not an unheard of scenario.

In 2006, Dubai Ports World (DPW), a state owned enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, sought to buy a company that ran six major U.S. ports. Congress intervened to block the sale after Coast Guard officials raised the possibility of significant security risks.

That controversy came in the midst of congressional debate over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. Like the TPP, the Oman pact gave foreign investors expansive rights to acquire and operate U.S. businesses – and to sue if they felt their rights were violated. After a huge public outcry, the sale was blocked.

Following the Dubai Ports World controversy, language was added in a footnote to all U.S. trade agreements to shut down any second-guessing of U.S. security interests by trade tribunals. The footnote makes clear the U.S. has sole discretion in determining its essential national security interests.

The critical footnote to the “Security Exception” Article 22.2 of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Article 21.2 of the Panama FT, Article 22.2 of the Colombia FTA and Article 23.2 of the Korea-US FT read: ” For greater certainty, if a party invokes [the ‘Security Exception’] Article in an arbitral proceeding initiated under [Investment] Chapter or [Dispute Settlement] Chapter, the tribunal or panel hearing the matter shall find that the exception applies.”

In plain English, it says if the U.S. invokes national security, that’s final – no foreign “trade” tribunal could overrule it.

But this crucial stipulation was eliminated from Article 29.2 of the final TPP text.

As a result, any company operating in a TPP country could drag the U.S. before an extrajudicial foreign tribunal and demand taxpayer compensation if our government prevented it from buying a crucial American asset based on national security grounds.

Without this footnote to Article 29.2, one of the TPP’s trade dispute tribunals could substitute its judgment for that of the U.S. government with respect to what is considered an essential security interest of the U.S.

The TPP also includes an Annex 9-H, which states that a government’s decision on whether to approve a given foreign investment in its territory is not subject to challenges before an investor-state dispute tribunal. While Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand listed their relevant foreign investment review laws, the United States failed to do so.

WND reported only weeks ago when the text of the TPP finally was released so lawmakers and taxpayers could read it.

TPP was envisioned as the largest-ever economic regulatory treaty, encompassing more than 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product.

Secretary of State John Kerry said the pact will merge the U.S. economy with Mexico and ten others nations, including Canada, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei.

And worse: China and India will be invited to sign-on early next year.

Muslim cleric giving Clinton millions

December 16, 2015

From HERE:

The Clinton family and Hillary Clinton’s campaign are being accused of accepting millions of dollars from what at least one U.S. ally is calling a terrorist network.

The U.S.-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen is a longstanding ally of Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their cozy relationship has included dinners and speaking arrangements throughout the years.

He is suspected of controlling $25 billion in global assets and his followers have reportedly poured millions into the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

But now Gulen has been accused in a U.S. court of being the ringleader of an international terrorist network, and Turkey is calling on America to extradite Gulen.

A Turkish government-backed lawsuit has been filed against Gulen and alleges that the Muslim cleric orchestrated human rights abuses from his residence in Pennsylvania against three men in Turkey.

A lawyer hired by the Turkish government, Robert Amsterdam, provided a copy of the filing in the U.S. district court in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit labels Gulen’s movement, which many have compared to a cult, as a terrorist organization.

Most recently, the lawsuit alleges, Gulen’s followers participated in a plot that led to the false imprisonment of three men in Turkey.

The controversial Islamic cleric’s cozy relationship doesn’t stop with the Clintons. In October, Gulen’s religious movement was accused of secretly funding up to 200 trips to Turkey for members of Congress and staff since 2008, and according to the USA Today report these trips may have repeatedly violated House rules and possibly federal law.

The lawsuit is part of a broad campaign against Gulen’s movement in Turkey and abroad. The government has carried out a purge of civil servants suspected of ties to the movement, seized businesses and closed some of Gulen’s suspected media organizations.

The suit alleges that Gulen targeted the three men because they were critical of his religious teachings, which critics say are almost cult-like.

Gulen continues to live within the U.S. borders carefree, residing in rural Pennsylvania and in regular contact with his Muslim followers.

The Associated Press contributed to this article

Is the West Indebted to Islam?

December 13, 2015

Hypocrite Liberal “Judge” Profiles Blacks in 911 Call!

December 12, 2015

From HERE:

Federal Judge Who Outlawed Racial Profiling is Victim of Black Mob Violence 

By Colin Flaherty

Federal Judge Susan Dlott wrote the book on racial profiling in 2002.

Last week, she ripped it into one million tiny pieces when three black people broke into her $8 million Cincinnati home and started beating her and her 79-year old husband.

“There’s three black men with guns at our house,” Dlott told a 911 operator after she escaped the home invasion and ran to her neighbor’s house one mile away.

And just in case the operator did not hear her the first time, Dlott said it again: “My husband and the dogs are still there. There are three black men with guns and masks at the house.”

That’s Racial Profiling 101: Identifying the criminals by race, as if that had something to do with it.

You remember, the same thing NBC tried to pin on George Zimmerman when it maliciously (mis)edited his 911 call about Trayvon Martin.

Dlott became a national heroine of the movement to outlaw — and define — racial profiling in 2002, the year after the Cincinnati riots. Another memory refresher: That was when thousands of black people rampaged through Cincinnati for four days, burning, destroying, threatening, vandalizing, beating, defying police — all because a police shooting reminded everyone that black people are relentless victims of relentless white racism.

And cops were always picking on black people for no reason what so ever. Even Bill Cosby cancelled a concert. That’s how bad it was.

That is what the NAACP said when it sued the city in federal court. Once the NAACP lawsuit was assigned to Dlott, they consolidated all their cases in her court. Because everyone knew they had a kindred spirit on the bench in Dlott.

At the time, the Cincinnati Enquirer described her as an “unabashed liberal.” Which to them was a compliment. “Now the future of race relations in the Queen City may be in her hands. She’s overseeing an unprecedented effort to resolve a racial profiling lawsuit that accuses Cincinnati police of detaining African-Americans because of their skin color.

“The outcome of the case could set a new standard for resolving decades-old problems in race relations, not only here but nationwide.”

And it did — maybe not the way they expected. Last year for example, it took local media almost a week to figure out that during the Taste of Cincinnati, large groups of black people were gleefully attacking bus riders, commuters, members of a gay country western dance club, little old ladies and even the children of the local DA during and after then annual downtown celebration.

No one wanted to say it. No one wanted to report it. Because in Cincinnati, Dlott helped reporters and public officials long ago figure out that identifying criminals by race is a very bad thing.

The lawsuit in Dlott’s court quickly became more of an arbitration than a trial, with lots of community meetings and “input from stakeholders.” In theory, that meant finding out what was really happening. In practice, it degenerated into lot of angry black people talking about how cops were always picking on them.

With a lot of white media and public officials cowering in agreement.

The police were part of this process, but were mostly left to mumble they were not racists and they were just doing their job by catching criminals. Which no one seemed to care about — not enough to risk being labeled as racist, at any rate.

For all the talk of how black criminals were being treated unfairly, there was little or no testimony about black on white crime and black mob violence in Cincinnati. And how it was wildly out of proportion. And little from white and Asian victims of that crime and violence — then and now documented with a letter from a Cincinnati cop in that scintillating best seller, Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry.

From the very beginning of the proceedings, everyone pretty much agreed that black people were victims, not the perpetrators. No matter what those racist crime numbers showed.

Writing in a law journal at Duke University, Andrew Taslitz describes the mob atmosphere that permeated Dlott’s federal court. And yeah, he thought it was a good thing: “The 2001 Cincinnati violence and resulting bad press for the police force created an atmosphere conducive to the defendants settling quickly. Plaintiffs took advantage of this situation by offering to submit their complaint to a mediation.”

Dlott and the NAACP made it clear the case was about more than just one cop beating one black person. Said Taslitz:

“But the protests and resulting violence were about far more than the excessive use of force. Protestors were also angered by what they viewed as years of degrading racial profiling by the local police. A teenager interviewed by the Washington Post seemed to capture the sense of the community:

“The riots are not just a reaction to the killing of an African-American male, but to the injustice to our people for so long,” said Christopher Johnson, 16, as he stood on the church steps. “Just walking down the street I get asked [by police], ‘What are you doing?’ I pay taxes like they do. I should be able to walk down a public street.”

It is not known whether the Post actually confirmed the young man in question actually paid taxes.

Whatever: By the time the trial was over, black people in Cincinnati knew they had a new champion, Dlott. And this champion let everyone know that from then on, police would be keeping better statistics of any disparity between white people and black people who are stopped and/or arrested.

Because any disparity between white crime and black crime was the result of one thing and one thing only: White racism manifest in racial profiling.

The mantra of racial injustice has since become gospel for mayors, governors, lawyers, attorneys general, and even the President of the United States. All of whom agree that the only reason there is a racial disparity in law enforcement is because of overpolicing in black neighborhoods.

Just a few months ago, Attorney General Lynch was the featured speaker at a Black Caucus seminar on this topic, where several black police chiefs and lawyers and government officials agreed that if the same amount of police resources were moved to white neighborhoods, police would make the same kind of arrests in the same amount.

So there really is no difference between black and white crime.

That is the essence of racial profiling.

That is how so many people in Cincinnati and in law journals around the country know Susan Dlott.

And that is why so many people in her hometown and around the country were a bit surprised she was so quick to pull the race card in her call to 911: After all, we know far more black people in Cincinnati are arrested for burglary and home invasion. But in her world, white people do it too. In the same amount. They just don’t get caught.

Her friends took to TV and the internet to remind everyone how Dlott has pioneered so many “civil rights” decisions. And how her wealthy trial lawyer husband is a lifetime board member of the NAACP.

“If we lost her, which we would have but for her smart thinking… and a few coincidences, we would’ve lost one of the great civil rights judges of our time,” her neighbor told a local TV news crew. “It’s because of Susan Dlott that we have community policing here and modeled across the nation. She structured that agreement.”

As if somehow excusing black criminality gave her a pass from the consequences of black criminality that is wildly out of proportion.

It did not.

As if somehow everyone should overlook how Judge Dlott was so eager to racially profile the people who threw her husband down a flight of steps. Many did not, and were happy to say so in the various accounts of this crime on the web:

“She didn’t care about their age, height, weight, clothing, facial hair. Nope. They weren’t, “teens”, now but “THREE BLACK MEN!”

“She sounded like she might clutch her purse too if she had one!,” said another.

“She should have to apologize to these children in court for causing them all these problems. They could have been shot and killed by the very Police she ruled were profiling black children.”

“I hope I’m a juror on that case, ‘they’re victims of white racism, NOT GUILTY.’ “

“Because of people like her. Shaming people who have reason to live with a healthy dose of fear by calling them racists. Judge Dlott’s Ivory Tower was invaded and she became one of us for a moment. Oh the shame! Hello pot? This is the kettle. You’re black.”

The three home invaders who just happened to be black were soon caught. And remain in jail awaiting trial with bail of at least $2.5 million.

That did not sit well with the mother of one of the alleged invaders, who told reporters her son was a good boy who did not normally do stuff like that.

You can find more videos of racial violence and denial at Colin Flaherty’s YouTube channel by clicking on this magical link.

Federal Judge Susan Dlott wrote the book on racial profiling in 2002.

Last week, she ripped it into one million tiny pieces when three black people broke into her $8 million Cincinnati home and started beating her and her 79-year old husband.

“There’s three black men with guns at our house,” Dlott told a 911 operator after she escaped the home invasion and ran to her neighbor’s house one mile away.

And just in case the operator did not hear her the first time, Dlott said it again: “My husband and the dogs are still there. There are three black men with guns and masks at the house.”

That’s Racial Profiling 101: Identifying the criminals by race, as if that had something to do with it.

You remember, the same thing NBC tried to pin on George Zimmerman when it maliciously (mis)edited his 911 call about Trayvon Martin.

Dlott became a national heroine of the movement to outlaw — and define — racial profiling in 2002, the year after the Cincinnati riots. Another memory refresher: That was when thousands of black people rampaged through Cincinnati for four days, burning, destroying, threatening, vandalizing, beating, defying police — all because a police shooting reminded everyone that black people are relentless victims of relentless white racism.

And cops were always picking on black people for no reason what so ever. Even Bill Cosby cancelled a concert. That’s how bad it was.

That is what the NAACP said when it sued the city in federal court. Once the NAACP lawsuit was assigned to Dlott, they consolidated all their cases in her court. Because everyone knew they had a kindred spirit on the bench in Dlott.

At the time, the Cincinnati Enquirer described her as an “unabashed liberal.” Which to them was a compliment. “Now the future of race relations in the Queen City may be in her hands. She’s overseeing an unprecedented effort to resolve a racial profiling lawsuit that accuses Cincinnati police of detaining African-Americans because of their skin color.

“The outcome of the case could set a new standard for resolving decades-old problems in race relations, not only here but nationwide.”

And it did — maybe not the way they expected. Last year for example, it took local media almost a week to figure out that during the Taste of Cincinnati, large groups of black people were gleefully attacking bus riders, commuters, members of a gay country western dance club, little old ladies and even the children of the local DA during and after then annual downtown celebration.

No one wanted to say it. No one wanted to report it. Because in Cincinnati, Dlott helped reporters and public officials long ago figure out that identifying criminals by race is a very bad thing.

The lawsuit in Dlott’s court quickly became more of an arbitration than a trial, with lots of community meetings and “input from stakeholders.” In theory, that meant finding out what was really happening. In practice, it degenerated into lot of angry black people talking about how cops were always picking on them.

With a lot of white media and public officials cowering in agreement.

The police were part of this process, but were mostly left to mumble they were not racists and they were just doing their job by catching criminals. Which no one seemed to care about — not enough to risk being labeled as racist, at any rate.

For all the talk of how black criminals were being treated unfairly, there was little or no testimony about black on white crime and black mob violence in Cincinnati. And how it was wildly out of proportion. And little from white and Asian victims of that crime and violence — then and now documented with a letter from a Cincinnati cop in that scintillating best seller, Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry.

From the very beginning of the proceedings, everyone pretty much agreed that black people were victims, not the perpetrators. No matter what those racist crime numbers showed.

Writing in a law journal at Duke University, Andrew Taslitz describes the mob atmosphere that permeated Dlott’s federal court. And yeah, he thought it was a good thing: “The 2001 Cincinnati violence and resulting bad press for the police force created an atmosphere conducive to the defendants settling quickly. Plaintiffs took advantage of this situation by offering to submit their complaint to a mediation.”

Dlott and the NAACP made it clear the case was about more than just one cop beating one black person. Said Taslitz:

“But the protests and resulting violence were about far more than the excessive use of force. Protestors were also angered by what they viewed as years of degrading racial profiling by the local police. A teenager interviewed by the Washington Post seemed to capture the sense of the community:

“The riots are not just a reaction to the killing of an African-American male, but to the injustice to our people for so long,” said Christopher Johnson, 16, as he stood on the church steps. “Just walking down the street I get asked [by police], ‘What are you doing?’ I pay taxes like they do. I should be able to walk down a public street.”

It is not known whether the Post actually confirmed the young man in question actually paid taxes.

Whatever: By the time the trial was over, black people in Cincinnati knew they had a new champion, Dlott. And this champion let everyone know that from then on, police would be keeping better statistics of any disparity between white people and black people who are stopped and/or arrested.

Because any disparity between white crime and black crime was the result of one thing and one thing only: White racism manifest in racial profiling.

The mantra of racial injustice has since become gospel for mayors, governors, lawyers, attorneys general, and even the President of the United States. All of whom agree that the only reason there is a racial disparity in law enforcement is because of overpolicing in black neighborhoods.

 

Just a few months ago, Attorney General Lynch was the featured speaker at a Black Caucus seminar on this topic, where several black police chiefs and lawyers and government officials agreed that if the same amount of police resources were moved to white neighborhoods, police would make the same kind of arrests in the same amount.

So there really is no difference between black and white crime.

That is the essence of racial profiling.

That is how so many people in Cincinnati and in law journals around the country know Susan Dlott.

And that is why so many people in her hometown and around the country were a bit surprised she was so quick to pull the race card in her call to 911: After all, we know far more black people in Cincinnati are arrested for burglary and home invasion. But in her world, white people do it too. In the same amount. They just don’t get caught.

Her friends took to TV and the internet to remind everyone how Dlott has pioneered so many “civil rights” decisions. And how her wealthy trial lawyer husband is a lifetime board member of the NAACP.

“If we lost her, which we would have but for her smart thinking… and a few coincidences, we would’ve lost one of the great civil rights judges of our time,” her neighbor told a local TV news crew. “It’s because of Susan Dlott that we have community policing here and modeled across the nation. She structured that agreement.”

As if somehow excusing black criminality gave her a pass from the consequences of black criminality that is wildly out of proportion.

It did not.

As if somehow everyone should overlook how Judge Dlott was so eager to racially profile the people who threw her husband down a flight of steps. Many did not, and were happy to say so in the various accounts of this crime on the web:

“She didn’t care about their age, height, weight, clothing, facial hair. Nope. They weren’t, “teens”, now but “THREE BLACK MEN!”

“She sounded like she might clutch her purse too if she had one!,” said another.

“She should have to apologize to these children in court for causing them all these problems. They could have been shot and killed by the very Police she ruled were profiling black children.”

“I hope I’m a juror on that case, ‘they’re victims of white racism, NOT GUILTY.’ “

“Because of people like her. Shaming people who have reason to live with a healthy dose of fear by calling them racists. Judge Dlott’s Ivory Tower was invaded and she became one of us for a moment. Oh the shame! Hello pot? This is the kettle. You’re black.”

The three home invaders who just happened to be black were soon caught. And remain in jail awaiting trial with bail of at least $2.5 million.

That did not sit well with the mother of one of the alleged invaders, who told reporters her son was a good boy who did not normally do stuff like that.

You can find more videos of racial violence and denial at Colin Flaherty’s YouTube channel by clicking on this magical link.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/federal_judge_who_outlawed_racial_profiling_is_victim_of_black_mob_violence.html#ixzz3u5CmYxwK
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Obama appoints Hamas-backer his new “ISIS Czar”

December 5, 2015

From HERE:

High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, right, speaks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, center, and U.S. Robert Malley, left, Senior Director for Iran, Iraq, and the Gulf States, National Security Council during a break outside the hotel at the Beau Rivage Palace Hotel as the Iran nuclear talks continue, in Lausanne, Switzerland, Wednesday, April 1, 2015. (AP Photo/Keystone,Laurent Gillieron)

President Obama has appointed a foreign policy advisor known to be a friend of the terrorist group Hamas to be the administration’s new czar in charge of countering ISIS. The appointee, Robert Malley, has a history of sympathizing with Islamists, which makes the appointment all the more appalling.

According to the government watchdog group Judicial Watch, the White House downplayed the controversial appointment by “burying it deep in a press briefingdelivered at a Paris hotel during the recent climate summit.”

The President recently elevated Rob Malley, the NSC [National Security Council] Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, to serve now as the Senior Advisor to the President for the Counter-ISIL Campaign in Iraq and Syria,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during the briefing at the Marriott Rive Gauche Hotel and Conference Center. Before moving onto the next topic Earnest said the president has directed Malley to “support our reinvigorated diplomatic track toward a political transition in Syria…

Obama raised eyebrows last year when he made Malley the senior director at theNational Security Council, but according to the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, he never really left Obama’s circle.

Al-Hayat reported that Hamas engaged in talks with Obama for months through Malley, which among other things resulted in their receiving almost a billion of your tax dollars from President Obama.Robert Malley comes by this honestly. His father Simon was a veryMarxist journalist who shilled for Algeria’s terrorist FLN, Egyptian dictator Gamel Abdul Nasser, African Marxist dictators like Kwame Nkrumah and Ahmed Sékou Touré, Fidel Castro, and of course, Yasser Arafat, of whom he was especially fond. Needless to say, Simon Malley also had an outspoken hatred towards Israel, and the apple definitely did not fall far from the tree.

Indeed, as Judicial Watch reports, “Malley published a piece in a mainstream newspaper declaring that Israel was responsible for the failure of Bill Clinton’s peace talks with the Palestinians.”

Malley was Obama’s informal foreign policy adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign until his cozy relationship with Hamas, long classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, came to light.  Israeli security officials had expressed “concern” about Malley for advocating negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group. This came amid reportage that Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s radical church in Chicago, had  reprinted a manifesto by Hamas in its newsletter. The manifesto defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and compared the terror group’s official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America’s Declaration of Independence.

Fearful of losing Jewish voters, Obama severed ties with Malley in May of 2008 when it was disclosed that he had held meetings with Hamas. The campaign had been telling pro-Israel audiences that Obama would not talk with Hamas unless and until it had renounced terror, recognized Israel, and abided by previous agreements the Palestinians had signed with Israel.

One day after the election, it was reported that Malley had been dispatched to the Middle East to work on Obama’s promise to “improve ties with Egypt and Syria.”

That all worked out so well, he’s been promoted to Obama’s ISIS czar.

The fall of America signals the rise of the new world order

December 2, 2015

From HERE:

flag“The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another.” — Henry Kissinger, “Henry Kissinger On The Assembly Of A New World Order”

“[P]art of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people.” — Barack Obama

“We reiterate our strong commitment to the United Nations (UN) as the foremost multilateral forum entrusted with bringing about hope, peace, order and sustainable development to the world. The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance and multilateralism.” — Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration

“We support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty. We welcome the discussion about the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary system including the composition of SDR’s basket of currencies. We support the IMF to make its surveillance framework more integrated and even-handed.” Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration

Here is where many political and economic analysts go terribly wrong in their examination of current global paradigms: They tend to blindly believe the mainstream narrative rather than taking into account conflicting actions and statements by political and financial leaders. Even in the liberty movement, composed of some of the most skeptical and media savvy people on planet Earth, the cancers of assumption and bias often take hold.

Some liberty proponents are more than happy to believe in particular mainstream dynamics. They are happy to believe, for example, that the growing “conflict” between the East and West is legitimate rather than engineered.

You can list off quotation after quotation and policy action after policy action proving that Eastern governments, including China and Russia, work hand in hand with globalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank and the U.N. toward the goal of global governance and global economic centralization. But these people simply will not listen. They must believe that the U.S. is the crowning villain, and that the East is in heroic opposition. They are so desperate for a taste of hope they are ready to consume the poison of false dichotomies.

The liberty movement is infatuated with the presumption that the U.S. government and the banking elites surrounding it are at the “top” of the new world order pyramid and are “clamoring for survival” as the U.S. economy crumbles under the facade of false government and central banking statistics. How many times have we heard over the past year alone that the Federal Reserve has “backed itself into a corner” or policy directed itself “between a rock and a hard place?”

I have to laugh at the absurdity of such a viewpoint because central bankers and internationalists have always used economic instability as a means to gain political and social advantage. The consolidation of world banking power alone after the Great Depression is a testament to this fact. And even former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted (at least in certain respects) that the Federal Reserve was responsible for that terrible implosion, an implosion that conveniently served the interests of international cartel banks like JPMorgan.

But the Federal Reserve is no more than an appendage of a greater system; it is not the brains of the operation.

In his book “Tragedy And Hope,” Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member and mentor to Bill Clinton, stated:

It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.

In “Ruling the world of money,” Harper’s Magazine established what Quigley admitted in “Tragedy And Hope” — that the control of the global economic policy and, by extension, political policy is dominated by a select few elites, namely through the unaccountable institutional framework of the BIS.

The U.S. and the Federal Reserve are mere tentacles of the great vampire squid that is the new world order. And being a tentacle makes one, to a certain extent, expendable, if the trade will result in even greater centralization of power.

The delusion that some people within the liberty movement are under is that the fall of America will result in the fall of the new world order. In reality, the fall of America is a necessary step towards the rise of the new world order. The Rothschild-owned financial magazine The Economist reaffirmed this trend of economic “harmonization” in its 1988 article “Get ready for a world currency by 2018,” which described the creation of a global currency called the “Phoenix” over three decades:

The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate — and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate — would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case.

The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.

We are now on the cusp of the “prediction” set forth by The Economist 27 years ago. The BRICS nations, including Vladimir Putin’s Russia, have all consistently called for the formation of a global reserve currency system under the direct control of the IMF and predicated on the basket methodology of the SDR. This new global system, as The Economist suggested, requires the marginalization of existing power structures and the end of sovereign economic control. Governments around the world including the U.S. would be at the fiscal mercy of the new financial high priests through the use of new debt based incentives given or withheld at the whim of the IMF.

China is set to be inducted into the SDR basket in 2015, with specific economic changes to be made by September, a development I have been warning about for years. A final vote is to commence this week, though the decision is largely expected to pass after the IMF already gave its approval, with head Christine Lagarde signing off. The addition of China to the SDR, I believe, is the next trigger event for the continuing removal of the dollar as the world reserve currency. The monetary shift may explode with speed if Saudi Arabia follows through with a plan to depeg from the dollar, effectively ending the petrodollar status the U.S. has enjoyed for decades.

This is, of course, the same IMF-controlled SDR system that Putin and the Kremlin have called for, despite the running fantasy that Putin is somehow an opponent of the globalists.

Putin continues to press the “U.S. as bumbling villain” narrative, while at the same time supporting globalist institutions and the internationalization of economic and political governance. While many people were overly focused on his “calling out” of the U.S. and its involvement in the creation of ISIS in his recent speech at the U.N., they seemed to have completely overlooked his adoration of the United Nations and the development of a global governing body. Putin often speaks at cross purposes just as Barack Obama does — one minute supporting sovereignty and freedom, the next minute calling for global centralization:

Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone.

Indeed, it has been Putin’s intention all along to support and defend the internationalist framework while at the same time participating in the theatrical East versus West false paradigm:

In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests.

First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this.

It is rather interesting how the desires of the BRICS seem to directly coincide with the designs of international bankers. This Hegelian dialectic is perhaps the most elaborate public distraction of all time, with the ultimate solution to the artificially engineered problem being a single “multilateral” but centrally dictated world economic system and world government, i.e., the new world order.

Again, the globalists at the BIS and the IMF require a diminished U.S. dollar, greatly reduced U.S. living standards and a much smaller U.S. geopolitical footprint before they can establish and finalize a single global elitist oligarchy.

If you cannot understand why it seems that the Federal Reserve and U.S. government appear hell-bent on self-destruction, then perhaps you should consider the facts at hand. Then, you’ll realize it is their job to destroy America, not save America. When you are finally willing to accept this fact, every disastrous development since the inception of the Fed a century ago, as well as all that is about to happen in the next few years, makes perfect sense.

This is not to say that the ultimate endgame of the new world order will result in victory. But the cold, hard, concrete evidence shows that internationalists do have a plan; they are implementing that plan systematically; and all major governments around the world are participating in that plan. This plan involves the inevitable collapse and reformation of America into a Third World enclave, a goal that is nearly complete, as I will outline in my next article.

As the U.S. destabilizes, we are not escaping the clutches of the Federal Reserve system, only trading out one totalitarian management model for another. It is absolutely vital that the liberty movement in particular finally and fully embrace this reality. If we do not, then there will truly be no obstacle to such a plan’s success and no end to the tyrannies of the old world or the new world.

–Brandon Smith