Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Media, Politics, Religion, Society, Uncategorized

Le Pen Advisor Convicted Of Hate Speech For Complaining About Rise In Muslim School Children

Freedom_of_SpeechWe have been discussing (and lamenting) the rollback of free speech in France where writers and speakers are now routinely prosecuted for what would be protected political or religious speech in the United States.  The latest case involves Robert Menard, mayor of Beziers and a top adviser to Marine Le Pen, who has been found guilty of inciting hatred against Muslims.

Menard  was fined 2,000 euros for saying there were too many Muslim children in his city’s schools.  It is a stupid and insulting statement. However, it is also a statement reflecting his political beliefs about the impact of immigration on the country.

The prosecutor charged that Menard had reduced children “to their religion, regardless of whether they have French nationality or do not practice”.  I agree. However, there remains the question of the right of the government to punish people for expressing such thoughts.  Suppressing such statements does little to change minds. It creates the false impression of uniformity of thought and agreement.  The way to change minds is to allow bad speech to be met with good speech.  Instead, the French government is regulating speech under a highly ambiguous standard that creates a chilling impact on all speech.  Writers and speakers do not know when an individual or group will allege that they are inciting hatred with a comment.

As I have previously discussed, it is terribly depressing to see France (once the bastion of freedom) leading the world in cracking down on free speech.  The desire to silence those with whom you disagree is a natural desire for many and becomes an insatiable appetite when the government enables speech regulation.  Prosecution is not persuasion.  If you want to combat Menard, answer his speech with your own countervailing arguments.  Changing minds rather than silencing voices should be the universal goal of every free nation.

 

183 thoughts on “Le Pen Advisor Convicted Of Hate Speech For Complaining About Rise In Muslim School Children”

  1. Pingback: VIDEO Le Pen RISING, Lacklustre Macron Falling in Polls – Le Pen Advisor Convicted Of Hate Speech,Telling The Truth | Reclaim Our Republic

  2. Two thoughts:
    1. For all the talk about free speech. It’s widely accepted that a exception is to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Is not hate speech (assuming there is such a thing which some here will debate) pretty much the same as yelling “fire?”
    2. The complaints about the large amount of African “immigrants” and France no longer looking like France is greatly due to another phenomenon, conscription. During World War I, France conscripted over 200,000 the great majority against their will. Over 500,000 Africans fought in a French uniform during that war. Much like in the US where Southern blacks were recruited to work in Northern factories. When the war was over and many of the black workers had their jobs taken away. America got slums in Detroit, New York and elsewhere. France got the “banlieue defavorisees” which translates as poor suburbs. BAsically they used them when they needed them (again mostly against their will) and dumped them after the war into their version of ghettos. How could that go wrong? https://enigmainblack.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/the-history-of-american-white-exceptionalism-chapter-eleven/

      1. enigma – you did know that American blacks fought bravely with their French compatriots during the First World War. Unlike the Americans, who would have put them in supply depots or digging ditches, the French honored them by sending them to their death with their French allies.

        The French also had African blacks fighting for them, from one of their colonies. They liked to fight barefoot. They were brave and loyal troops, also.

    2. Hmmm. You asked, “Is not hate speech (assuming there is such a thing which some here will debate) pretty much the same as yelling “fire?”

      Let’s test your theory!

      1. Yelling, “Fire!” In a crowed theater.

      If there is no fire, people may go stampeding out of the theater and may trample several people to death.

      If there is a fire, people may go stampeding out of the theater and may trample several people to death, but possibly more people will not end up burned to death.

      2. Yelling, “Black people are nuts blaming White Privilege for black poverty when they have a 70%+ illegitimate birth rate.

      If there is nothing near a 70%+ black illegitimate birth rate, then the listener corrects the speaker, who looks like an idiot.

      If there is a 70%+ illegitimate birth rate, then black people are empowered to end their poverty by changing the underlying trashy behavior, thus ensuring a better life for their children, and better racial relations.

      No. I don’t think they are pretty much the same thing at all.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      Bonus Video:

    3. The current constitutional standard for prohibiting speech was set out by the Supreme Court in 1969, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s last year on the bench.

      Government can only regulate speech which is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

      Hence, hate speech or falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater cannot be regulated unless its content is intended (the reason for saying it) and likely (more probable than not) to incite or produce imminent (not next year) lawlessness (a crime).

      1. I can accept that’s the standard, let’s say that hate speech that doesn’t generate an immediate danger cannot be regulated. Must it be provided a venue? If say on a college campus the potential for danger is significant, can the school not say no or is there some absolute right the speaker be allowed? If the cost for adequate security is exorbitant, can it be passed along to the speaker or sponsor as a condition for being allowed?

        1. enigma – the school asked for additional funds for additional security. Coulter demanded that the security actually perform as security and students who were arrested for violent acts be expelled. That is when the school cancelled or offered her the non-date of May 2. They didn’t want to have to actually have to protect her and expel students.

          1. I can see her having an expectation of being secure if she was paying for the service. Demanding students be expelled seems like a demand she had no reasonable expectation of being granted, lacking due process if nothing else.

            1. enigma – when I first went to college you could be expelled for a lot less. Today, male students are not given any rights in rape or sexual harassment hearings and are expelled. Surely, a violent incident on campus would be worthy of expulsion.

              1. Being picked out of a crown and arrested does not make one guilty. She seems to me saying if one is accused they are therefore guilty and thus expelled.

                1. enigma – schools have their own procedures, separate from the courts. The levels of evidence are much, much lower for the college.

                    1. Enigma….I knew what you meant…..just couldn’t resist the royalty joke.
                      Between autocorrect and crowded smartphone keyboards, typos are pretty common.
                      The “crown” typo had me visualizing British royalry in full rehalia mixed in with the other protesters.😉

                    2. tnash – I was going to comment on the crown, but was able to restrain myself. 😉

                    3. “royalty” and “regalia”.
                      My typos are helped along when the reply box shrinks to c1/8 of an inch, and I can only type in and see one letter at a time.

        2. enigma:
          Yes, on public campuses. About as absolute a right as we have. No, SCOTUS has already ruled on that one. Let me know if you need citations.

            1. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992), addresses many of your questions. Here’s a teaser: “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob. “Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation.”

              1. Thanks for the response. I did some interesting reading as a result. That case involved public places and streets. Would a State School” be considered a public place or any institution that receives public funding? I could foresee a situation where a group requiring additional security could protest daily or weekly and bankrupt or at least destroy the budget of the unwilling host.

                1. Public schools are arms of the state and their actions are government actions, elsewise you a government could avoid the Bill of Rights by merely declaring its instrumentality (and not the government itself) did the harm to the citizen.

                  1. How about Police Departments, Military Bases, Embassies, National Parks, the White House. Are they not all “arms of the state?. Do I have a right to go to any or all of these and promote hate speech with the government paying security costs.

                    1. Not one of those buildings incorporates a public forum. They are loci of government employment and nothing more.

                      The term ‘hate speech’ is humbug.

        3. Disclaimer: These are my bar review notes from quite a while ago, so they may be dated.

          As a starting point, no speech is absolutely protected if government has a good enough reason to restrain it.

          The highest level of protection is given to speech when government attempts to restrain its content. The government must prove its regulation of content is the least-restrictive means of advancing a “compelling” governmental interest. This is called strict scrutiny. Outlawing the burning of a flag restrains symbolic conduct and is a form of content control which will not be upheld in court. Advocacy of a political position is given the highest level of protection, and this is what all the Ann Coulter fans on this blog site are having a problem with, but it’s not the content of Coulter’s speech that Cal-Berkeley is regulating, as I’ll get to below.

          Most speech receives mid-level protection – commercial speech (only false, misleading, deceitful advertising or proposing an unlawful transaction can be prohibited outright) and other specific areas the Supreme Court believes doesn’t warrant the highest level of protection. With some exceptions, the government must prove the restriction on such speech directly advances a “substantial” (as opposed to a “compelling”) government interest and is no more broad than necessary (as opposed to the “least restrictive means of of advancing that interest). This is generally called “intermediate-level scrutiny.” Broad-based restrictions on commercial speech (e.g., bans on advertising a seller’s prices, and advertising the areas of practice lawyers are engaged, etc.) are unconstitutional. Government can, however, have an all encompassing blanket ban on advertising.

          There are lots of peculiarities that arguably fit into either highest-level or mid-level protection. What if someone is dancing nude in violation of public nudity laws? The Supreme Court says such regulation can be upheld under intermediate-level scrutiny based on its “secondary effects” on public morality. What if the nude dancing is part of a Native American ritual and therefore proved to be content-based speech? In such a case, strict scrutiny of the regulation is required. You can see why these disputes end up in court.

          The lowest level of protection is provided under Brandenburg for a violence-provoking speech, i.e., incitement of the audience to commit violence or conversely the heckler’s veto where there’s a likelihood of imminent danger that the audience will be violent in response to speech which isn’t intended to provoke violence. In both scenarios, the government can shut down the speech, but in the latter circumstance only after using all reasonable means to protect the speaker. This lowest level of protection also includes obscene speech (but the test of whether government’s restraint of such speech is constitutional comes under a completely different test).

          Nonpublic fora (courthouses, airports, military bases, jails, VA hospitals, teacher mailboxes in public schools, government telephone poles, etc.) receive lowest-level scrutiny. Government can restrict speaker identity and the subject matter if the restrictions are reasonable in light of the purpose of the property and if viewpoint-neutral.

          Regarding a public venue for speech which doesn’t violate Brandenburg, government (including public post-secondary schools, not K-12 which operates under a different standard) may regulate the speech only if the regulation passes strict scrutiny. However, government can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the speech in traditional public fora (parks, streets, etc., where access can never be denied) or designated public fora (meaning nonpublic fora where access can be denied but they’re intentionally opened for public discourse).

          Reasonable time, place and manner regulation of traditional or designated public fora is really a blending of strict scrutiny and intermediate-level scrutiny: 1) content-neutral regulation (if the regulation concerns the speaker’s viewpoint, then it isn’t reasonable); 2) it must advance a substantial governmental interest (like safety); 3) it must be narrowly-tailored (i.e., the governmental interest and manner in doing it must be reasonable); and 4) it must allow for reasonable “alternative channels of communication.”

          As for Ann Coulter’s speech, she and her friends on this blog site have argued Cal-Berkeley is regulating the content of her speech rather than conduct related to the speech. Not so. The school apparently canceled the initially-scheduled speech because, even with all reasonable means, it could not protect Coulter against the anticipated, credible threat of violence at the initial site. Cal-Berkeley then revised the time and place the speech would occur.

          I haven’t read the complaint against the University of California, but I’d guess the plaintiffs’ best argument in the lawsuit is that Cal-Berkeley did not use the least-restrictive means of regulation when it outright canceled Coulter’s initial speech. The school remedied the cancellation by allowing for Coulter to speak indoors at a designated public forum next week as a “reasonable alternative channel[ ] of communication.” The plaintiffs will have to come up with a good argument as to what a lesser-restrictive means would have been other than rescheduling the speech. It seems the only less-restrictive means was to close a public forum to everyone but a select few (how does the school select those few?) based on safety concerns and then violate the right of the general public to peacefully assemble at the same public forum to receive information from her.

          Whether Coulter must have been provided a venue depends on whether there was a less-restrictive means than completely canceling her speech for the school’s safety concern and the legitimacy of that concern. At any rate, Cal-Berkeley reasonably provided that means by rescheduling it to an indoor venue next week. Coulter apparently refused because Cal-Berkeley would not meet her condition that no opposition attend. She has an absolute right to speak subject to the school’s genuine safety concerns and its ability to provide an alternative venue, which it did. If I had to guess, the lawsuit gets tossed with or without concessions before trial.

          1. Steve – it is not that simple. Cal-Berkeley demanded more money for protection for Coulter. She came up with the money, however she countered that the security actually do their jobs instead of standing around with their arms crossed (seemingly a habit they have formed with protecting conservative speakers) and that violent students be expelled. Then the school cancelled. The non-date they suggested is when nobody is on campus so nobody would attend. This suit has legs.

              1. Steve – the week before finals is a “dead week”. No class, so the students can study for finals. It is my understanding that many students take this opportunity to vacation rather than study. So, historically, the school population is waaaaay down.

                1. “Steve – the week before finals is a “dead week”. No class, so the students can study for finals. It is my understanding that many students take this opportunity to vacation rather than study. So, historically, the school population is waaaaay down.”

                  Paul: Your argument isn’t very persuasive. Cal is a highly competitive public school. Kids go there because it’s one of the best public educations in the country and relatively affordable, which is important to such a diversified student body because they don’t have the money (or the time) to be jetsetting to Chamonix the week before finals.

                  For full Karen S. disclosure, my father attended both undergraduate (criminology) and law school there, and my sister did her undergraduate work (French) there. She was unable to get into the law school with a high grade average and LSAT score, so she went to the University of San Francisco’s law school instead. She was in the top four students in her class at USF law after her first year and was still turned down by Boalt Hall after applying to transfer before her second year. She’s done very well as an attorney. She was general counsel for ORACLE BMW Racing in the America’s Cup until a couple of years ago, and since that time she’s been general counsel for one of the challengers. The Louis Vuitton challenger series starts next month, by the way.

                    1. Paul, do you have any proof that you are right? That’s not how it was during my seven years of post-secondary education. How about yours? The scales would tip in favor of the argument that students don’t leave school the week before their finals unless their parents are paying their tab as a babysitting service. Wouldn’t you agree?

                    2. Steve Groen – I went to a commuter school, but one of the largest universities in the nation. Most people commuted to school or lived off campus. Out-of-staters lived in dorms the first year, apts after that. While I was there it was one the list of top party schools in the nation. Although, I will say I never went to a good party there.

                      We went directly into finals. Last day of classes on Friday. Monday the final exam schedule started.

                    3. “We went directly into finals. Last day of classes on Friday. Monday the final exam schedule started.”

                      Paul, I went to a commuter school for my undergrad degree, too, and there and at law school, we went from final day of classes to finals in the next week with no vacation break. You do understand, however, that the same schedule is practiced at Cal-Berkeley?

                    4. Steve – it is my understanding that there is a week between end of classes and finals at Berkeley. This has been reported nationally.

          4. A government who can’t protect the rights of a speaker from an angry mob is no government at all. It’s a disinterested bystander to the guaranteed rights of its citizens.

            1. mespo – I think in this case, the government (university) was unwilling to protect the speaker from the angry mob, even when she was willing to pay for extra protection.

              1. Of course not. The mob is an extension of the administration and the bulk of the faculty, whose prejudices in schematic outline are similar. Steve Groen is of similar kidney; he’s just being shifty about it (which does not differentiate him from the gamesman in the Berkeley administration). It’s fraud all the way down with progtrash.

    1. No he did not, and no he did not. His account of Brown grabbing his gun was confirmed by the autopsy results and a forensic examination of the gun; the wounds on Brown and the blood splatter on the gun matched Wilson’s account. You would not make worse evaluations if you put a bullet in your head.

    2. No, he did not “admit” he lied. You characterize it as that, because you are unable to bring yourself to admit that a black man needed to be shot, and brought his own death on himself. You were the same with Trayvon Martin. I think you need to move to an inner city black neighborhood, and try your Black Worship routine on the residents there. Patronize gas stations in lower income black neighborhoods, and leave the windows down and the engine running while you run inside to pay, and grab a bag of chips and a coke. Send your grandchildren to predominantly black schools.

      Because honestly, until a black person conks you, or somebody you love, over the head, I don’t think you are going to leave the 1950’s. Maybe not even then.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      Oh, and for fun:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4441694/60-teens-swarm-BART-subway-car-rob-beat-passengers.html

      I think they were robbing people to buy food.

  4. Jon Turley mischaracterizes Menard’s statement. This is on ongoing problem with virtually ALL media today, as they routinely misquote and mischaracterize, and just plain make up stuff.

    According to JT, Menard said that there “too many Muslim children in his city’s schools.” JT then goes on to say that this was “a stupid and insulting statement.” That may be, but Menard NEVER said that as JT himself later acknowledges.

    Here is what Menard actually said in an interview: “In one of the classrooms in my town centre, 91 per cent of children are Muslim. Obviously this is a problem.” Now, to someone unschooled in the English language as JT appears to be, this may be the same as saying there are “too many Muslim children in his city’s schools,” but it’s not if you do actually have a good undertanding of what language means.

    So, let me elucidate those who have difficulty comprehending the meaning of what Renard actually said.

    First, Menard only refers to “ONE OF THE CLASSROOMS.” That’s “one” as in “1.” One classroom is NOT the same as ALL of the city’s schools. Are we clear one that point? If not, JT, read it again 30 times and perhaps the truth will sink in. (I’m an optimistic person, so I believe that even a blind leftist like JT is capable of understanding basic truths when he makes a genuine effort.)

    Second, when Menard says that 91% of the children in that “one” classroom are Muslim and that’s a problem, he is still NOT saying that there are “too many Muslims” in that “one” classroom. Rather, he is saying that the “one” classroom has a disproprotionate number of Muslims, relative to the population. Consequently, if anything, Menard is really saying that there are too many non-Muslims in that “one” classroom and that this is a problem. Now, this series of concepts is, admittedly, a little more difficult to understand that the first point above. However,if the second point is still not clear, please reread the paragraph another 50 times and I believe you will get it.

    Now, for leftists like JT, another way to look at Menard’s statement is to consider an example in the US. Let’s say that in an otherwise integrated city, there was one classroom that had 91% White Christian people, and the other 9% were Black people. If someone were to suggest that this classroom had a disproportionate number of White Christian children, NO leftist would say that was “a stupid and insulting statement.” On the contrary, leftists would AGREE 100% with such a statement. Are you getting it now? If not, reread my entire statement 100 times and perhaps you will.

    1. Correction. Meant to say the following in my second point: “Consequently, if anything, Menard is really saying that there are too FEW non-Muslims in that “one” classroom and that this is a problem.”

  5. He’s an idiot – no self respecting Western woman wants to be told to wrap her head. If people do so out of religious reasons that’s a different story. And no, he’s not a good guy – he was all about TTIP.

      2. That’s great Squeek, for some reason Paula Cole’s song just popped into my mind.

        1. I like that song, too! But I hear they are changing the title to be Where Have All The Cow Herding Persons Gone? so as to be less gender binary.

          Also, I found some sort of new band that is maybe German??? They are an Ostrich Reich Band, and I think they have ostriches in Africa and maybe in Australia??? But they sort of look and sound German-ish. And “reich” is definitely German.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEd0IY4dzg

          Their style also encompasses Gypsy-type jazz, almost to being Klutzes, or whatever:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFhVONZq5QM

          Sort of a strange group, but I like them.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. yes, odd, but definitely a unique sound. BTW – did you ever watch “Even Schultze Gets the Blues” about a former East Germany factory worker who winds up discovering the Bayou?

      1. I think maybe we should all give Fascism another chance! Sure, Hitler and Mussolini had some flaws, and there were all those dead people, but every political system has growing pains, right! Sooo, let’s not be too rough on those new Fascist sorts! Give them a chance!*

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        * If you are thinking about now that I am some kind of a nut, and how could I ever think Fascism could work, just ask yourself this: Why aren’t you asking those same questions of Bernie Sanders, our very own little Socialist, or of the many elite types or super-progressive sorts who are simply gaga over Cuba?

        Why aren’t you engaging in the same lines of reasoning about them? Because socialism has a history in the Soviet Russia, and Red China. Millions died, and even more than in WWII. Currently you have the examples of North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. Life there sucks.

        My goodness, but we have a story on here today about some dog-killers, and everybody is going apepoop on them. But in Venezuela, the poor victims of that Socialist government are having to having to kill their pets and eat them to survive. Can you imagine wringing your dog or cats neck, slicing open its stomach, pulling out the guts, then skinning it, and cooking the meat on your stove?

        Probably you can’t imagine it, yet that is the kind of thing Socialism brings. So think about that the next time Old Bernie’s name comes up!

          1. Bernie, the career politician and lifelong commie who now owns 3 houses tweeted this: “How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can’t have it all.”

            How many houses does one man need?

            He paid a 13.5 percent effective tax rate in 2014.

            He has since deleted the tweet.

            1. The way I look at it is: jobs. For every luxury item (yachts, cars, homes, clothing, etc) that someone is willing and able to buy, it creates jobs for other people, so why begrudge a millionaire buying things that other people got to design, build, market, service, maintain, etc?

              1. Or should we all live with just enough to get by so noone in the ‘collective’ has too much? Where’s the incentive to work hard if we get it all for free? I don’t understand Bernie’s position at all.

        3. Squeek, “Old Bernie” is a Democratic socialist — look at all the highly functioning nations with thriving economies and less financial disparity gulfs who fall under this category. I think you are confusing this with Communism. The majority of Latin American nations do not have the same social/political structures as first world nations. Apples and pineapples =)

            1. Again Squeek, you are ignoring strong Democratic states which have incorporated elements of socialism – Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Canada, France, the UK, Australia, etc. All these countries offer healthcare to citizens and some free technical training or university. Healthy, educated folks contribute to the economy rather than being a drag relying on welfare checks.

              “The key difference between socialism and democratic socialism is that democratic socialists don’t want the government to own the means of production and socialists do. They believe that certain general social goods like health care should be run by the government, but otherwise support capitalism.”

            2. Squeeky, Any system will work, it just needs a little good faith on everyone’s part to help others rather than themselves. Self interested benevolence. The Golden rule. Without that, all systems fail miserably. We are probably nothing but a computer simulation proving that very point.

                1. Right, if you put a banana in an ape’s hand where the ape is behind the bars and is hand is in front of them, he will not be able to drop the damned banana close to the bars and then carefully pick it up and slip it into the cell later with two fingers. The desire for the banana triggers a brain short circuit that prevents such sequential thought.

                  We seem to be hell bent on proving that humans are worse.

                  And so it goes…

                    1. Steve – clearly you are speaking from personal experience. You just don’t speak for the rest of us. 😉

          2. Squeek, “Old Bernie” is a Democratic socialist — look at all the highly functioning nations with thriving economies and less financial disparity gulfs who fall under this category.

            There are none. Europe has plenty of somnambulant economies with wrecked labor markets, as well as a history of wrecking their housing markets. Most European countries are also incapable of reproducing at replacement levels. State-owned industry was a misbegotten enterprise, as was heavy-duty attempts at Keynesian aggregate-demand management.

            1. “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
              ― Margaret Thatcher

      2. Nope, certainly not a Haider fan. The Austrian election – like the French – arguably like ours had candidates that were so awful it was a terrible choice. I think many people will not vote in France.

      3. There was no fascist candidate. Progtrash never stop lying.

  6. re: “In the most recent controversy, Menard said in an interview that “In one of the classrooms in my town centre, 91 per cent of children are Muslim. Obviously this is a problem”

    Menard is correct – it a problem – for the natives and immigrants alike. How can they be integrated into French society/culture if they are living separate lives? Hirsi Ali wrote about her experiences while living in The Netherlands where entire parts of the cities are cloistered off – and some women don’t even get to attend school or learn Dutch.

    And then there are full-on loonies like Austrian President President Alexander Van der Bellen who suggests all women should wear a headscarf to show solidarity with their Muslim sisters.

    https://heatst.com/politics/austrian-president-calls-on-all-women-to-wear-the-hijab-to-fight-islamophobia/

    1. Alexander Van der Bellen is a member of the Green Party and a good guy. No reason for you to smear him with anti-muslim bigotry.

      1. He’s a manifestation of the occidental professional-managerial class leapfrogging loyalties, i.e. a tedious creature who should get out of public life.

  9. Sooo, I went to the “inciting hatred” linky thing above, and found this little bon mot, which is French for a “good mot.”

    French law prohibits data based on people’s religious beliefs or ethnicity.

    Hmmm. Wonder why that is??? What is it that French law is trying to cover up??? Because isn’t information supposed to be a good thing??? My GUESS is, that the Muzzies are slopping up a bunch of welfare and committing a lot of crimes and if that was made obvious, then people might say NON to more refugees.

    FWIW, our allegedly free and openpress in this country does the same thing as regards the race of criminals. Voluntarily, and without a law being necessary! Sacre Bleu and Mon Dieu!!!

    Why does the [LA Times] Homicide Report give the race/ethnicity of victims and suspects?

    The report includes information on race or ethnicity of each homicide victim, as well as the name, gender, and age and the time, place and manner of death. A number of readers have asked why race is include[d] and some have criticized the practice.

    Racial information was once routinely included in news stories about crimes, but in recent decades newspapers and other media outlets stopped mentioning racial or ethnic information because of public criticism. Racial information came to be perceived as irrelevant to the reporting of crimes because it could stigmatize some racial groups.

    The Homicide Report departs from this practice with the goal of presenting the most complete and accurate demographic picture of who is dying, and in some cases, who the suspected killer might be.

    Race and ethnicity, like age, gender and where you live, are stark predictors of homicide risk.

    According to Homicide Report data and reporting since 2007, Latinos, about half Los Angeles County’s population of about 10 million, have accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims.

    Blacks, just 8% of the county’s residents, have accounted for 32% of all homicides. In 2013, blacks were killed at more than seven times the rate of all other racial and ethnic groups combined — a fact that has remained stubbornly high as homicides have plummeted in the county.

    Given the magnitude of difference in homicides along racial and ethnic lines — and the suffering that the killing inflicts on family members, friends and neighborhoods — we opt to present the racial and ethnic contours so conspicuous in the coroner’s data.

    In making racial designations, The Times relies largely on the coroner’s designation. Occasionally, additional reporting from law enforcement or the victim’s family will lead us to make changes.

    http://homicide.latimes.com/about/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. I love how it’s framed as a left wing problem when Trump is on the record as calling the media “the enemy of the people” and often stood in front of his rabid supporters inciting them to attack the press. The attempt to decimate the first amendment is a BIG problem for America but pretending it is only a left wing problem is stupid and won’t solve the problem.

    1. Yeah, but the “big” media in the U.S. isn’t really a “free” media at all. It is just the Propaganda Wing of the Democratic Party. Sooo, when Trump slams them, it is for being propagandists, not being a free and open media.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

        1. Which to the degree that it true, is mostly concerned with “last mile of cable” providers like Comcast, being swamped by companies like Netflix consumption. Which, while I am against Pai’s moves in that arena, is not per se an assualt on Free Speech and political content.

          HOWEVER, if you are concerned about an end to “net neutrality”, because of possible “free speech” considerations, then you should be absolutely horrified at what Facebook, Google, and Twitter are doing to shut down actual real live conservative and right wing political speech in their bailiwicks. And at what the Democratic Left is doing to physically and violently doing to shut down political speech by right wing speakers.

          I hope you are keeping the dangers in perspective.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. This is dead wrong. Never mind the “per se”, the effort against Net Neutrality has everyting to do with throttling any speech that can not afford to be heard. It means, in effect, only the rich have free speech, which is the diametric opposite of why the World Wide Web (the main public usage of the internet) was created.

            1. I don’t think I am “dead wrong.” I might be a little bit skewed off center. Sooo, let me explain.

              First, I am for Net Neutrality, because it insures less potential tinkering with my content by Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. (Let’s call them VAC.) Plus, I like paying relatively lower amounts for Netflix, and Hulu, etc.

              With that out of the way, let’s address the potential for political censorship by VAC. Presumably, if Net Neutrality ends, sites like Drudge or Breitbart would be affected. These are relatively low bandwidth sites, sooo I think that would be an iffy move by VAC. Certainly possible, but not real likely in short term.

              But what is happening already, without any direct action by VAC??? Conservative voices are already being shut down on Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Youtube. For example, Tommy Sotomayor, a conservative Black dude, is constantly getting shut down on Youtube.

              Do we ignore this, and spend our time worrying about potential shutdowns by VAC when censorship is already happening? Another form of censorship takes place in the comment sections of many blogs. For example, I like Naked Capitalism. But I don’t comment there because they are very strict about AGW Deniers, for example, and supposedly want to keep arguments “civil.” Sooo, the net result is that the place is not worth commenting at. Worth reading, but not worth wasting your time commenting, It is a proverbial echo chamber. Other websites don’t even have a comment section at all because they can’t control what people say, usually right wingish people.

              Then you have actual retaliation against people who speak their mind on the Internet. For example, the people who say the Black Lives Matter movement is a silly farce, and then lose their jobs. Or, this wonderful story which would have made a great article for this website:

              http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/04/20/man-who-embarrassed-huffpo-with-hoax-article-loses-job-after-outlet-tracks-him-down-at-work/

              Some countries, like in the EU, already are doing the same thing as the potential VAC fears you are worried about, For example, “hate speech” in the EU, or the subject of this story. By simply passing a law, political speech is banned under the guise of protecting people from “hate speech.”

              That is coming to the United States. You are already seeing the infancy of that in the Berkeley type riots, and the comments by Howard Dean. The Old First Amendment Doesn’t Apply To Hate Speech trick.

              Sooo, while ending Net Neutrality might be another bad step, it is hardly a step that hasn’t already been taken. Which is why I suggested keeping things in perspective. IMHO, The Powers That Be can not tolerate free speech on the internet, and the battle has been joined.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. I don’t think I am “dead wrong.”

                Hey, I wasn’t talking about our very own Squeeky being dead wrong or dead right or dead anything! I was talking about one of your assertions; namely, that throttling the internet (charging producers of content for bandwidth) wasn’t a significant impediment to free speech. It is. In fact, of all the threats to free speech on the internet at this time, it is the greatest.

                Your argument that other particulars are already at work is factually accurate, but topical. What is being proposed is a core shift in the model of the internet. It’s like a full coastal tidal wave coming silently up upon the whole coast while you argue about trends visible at some particular beaches you are (legitimately) concerned with.

      2. The US media is the main propaganda outlet of the Neoliberals and Neoconservatives, not the Dems or Repubs except when the one or the other, serving their interests, are in power.

        All the major media were all over Bush II (or Cheney) as well as the war in Iraq for the simple reason that he was one of them, the establishment, both neoliberal and neoconservative to the nines.

        They are against Trump only because Trump was a wild card and also because they are finding it difficult to tack to starboard with all the momentum they built up for Hillary and Russiagate. Had Trump not capitulated, they would be going for impeachment as we speak and the letter next to his name (R or D) would have made no difference.

        Since Trump has capitulated to his blackmailers, and done his little 180 degree shift on virtually every single campaign promise, I have noticed an appreciable difference in the way PBS (one of the worst of the worst in terms of propaganda) outlets have been treating him. On Syria and missile lobbing, for instance, they almost bow and scrape. Given time, they will be working their magic just as deep in his crack as they were in that of Obama.

        Of course they will always go for Trump’s, or any similar figure’s, flamboyant side. That sells. They can’t resist and it has nothing to do with Tribe, and everything will moving copy.

        It’s about money and power. Ideology is a supporting part, but even then a bit part by comparison.

        1. Also, the analogy, propaganda wing is wrong. In that case, what is the other equal wing of the Democratic party? They have only two parts???

          The “wing” analogy: “That is the Democrat or Republican wing of the Establishment.” works because our duopoly -as dual but equal attributes of the establishment- lends itself to the binary metaphor.

          1. You are really something, Autumn, with you ability to come up with relevant links/videos – poof – like that! I’ve been scanning the Intercept each morning and natch, I kept missing this one.

            First, poor guy. You’d think he had been through enough with the nasty O. Second, in terms of effective abrogation of free speech, or even clamping down on criticism under the ruse of security, this is the VERY WORST thing they could possibly do – make a martyr out of him!

            1. Thanks BB, I tend to have my favs – Tim Black, Jimmy Dore, Jordan Chariton, Lee Camp, The Humanist Report, Styxx – they all seem to be on top of under reported issues.

              BTW – did you see Caitlin Johnstone’s latest fiery tirade? I don’t dare send it out my Dim friends – they still think he’s a god-like figure =)

              “If Progressives Don’t Wake Up To How Awful Obama Was, Their Movement Will Fail”

              https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/if-progressives-dont-wake-up-to-how-awful-obama-was-their-movement-will-fail-291fc214325f

              1. Trump woke a lot of people that were asleep at the wheel. Things are so bad that I had to go out and march for science last weekend.

                1. No, you ‘marched for science/ consequent to your own vanity and self-dramatizing inclinations, not because there is some threat to science.

                  1. Sure, the cutting of funding to NIH and many other agencies does not threaten science. I marched because I value clean air and cancer research among other things. We had 10,000 people at our march and that included many researchers that work in both medical research and environmental research that are deeply concerned about the looming crisis. Your vain ruler is the problem. He wants to divert the funds to the defense industry.

                    1. Dave T – so what you were really marching about was a stoppage in your grants from the federal government. The March for Science was not for science but for money. Be honest, dude.

                    2. Discrete federal agencies of the most defensible sort (i.e. most in keeping with the conception of federal function in Article I) with have institutional missions which incorporate a research component and for which they put skilled personnel on the payroll. The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Census Bureau, the National Institute on Standards and Technology, the Patent and Trademark Office, the r-and-d components of the Defense Department, and (arguably) the U.S. Geological Survey would be such agencies. Other agencies conduct research with salaried employees which requires assembling a large mass of physical capital and equipment and / or occurs across international frontiers. NASA and the Office of Polar Programs would be examples of these, and perhaps the National Laboratories as well. Other agencies are modest enough and discrete from the rest of the political economy inasmuch as their work is conducted by federal employees on salary. Crown jewels like the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, the U.S. Botanic Garden would be examples, as well as the Agricultural Research Service. Other agencies do a great deal of contracting (the Defense Department and the National Laboratories would be examples). As long as the specs and the bids aren’t rigged, that’ll pass.

                      You have, however, and 11 digit distribution of patronage to higher education or for the side-benefit of people who work in higher education. The NIH grant programs are the biggest mother here, followed by the National Science Foundation. The Defense Department, the National Laboratories, and NASA pump some money into these pipelines, though that’s a modest share of what they expend. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting account for small (but frequently comical) shares of this largesse. Even if you fancied public money was beneficial for these purposes, you’d have to ask yourself why it has to be federal money. If there are economies of scale incorporated into this function, why are they not being performed by federal employees?

                      You want public grant money, ask your bloody state legislature. (Or ask the county government if it’s propping up a local theatre company you want).

                      The arguments for professor’s pork-barrell are the most pretentious and clueless. Trump should recommend the spigot be shut down completely. If federal agencies would like to pick the brains of college and university faculty, fellowships can be offered which incorporate an indemnity to the employing college for the loss of labor.

              2. Great rant, but as far as I’m concerned, the horses have already left the barn. No need for anyone to wake up, the Democrat party is dead, go back to sleep until a tornado or a particularly intrusive high tide wakes you up.

                1. (don’t mean you, Autumn). That should have read,

                  Great rant, but as far as I’m concerned, the horses have already left the barn. No need for anyone to wake up, the Democrat party is dead, let the progressives or liberals or whoever that thinks a little tweaking will do go back to sleep until a tornado or a particularly intrusive high tide wakes them up.

            1. And we all knew it was only a matter of time before the Empire let Israel go to work on its neighbor.

              There is no empire, and Israel has not been at war with any Arab state in over 4 decades. It’s had a few dogfights with Syria over the years.

            2. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that you’re not referring to anything of any importance even if you had a reputable source.

  11. The importance of a Constitutionally rational judicial system can not be overstated. And the liberal leftist attempts to degrade and or irradicate our First Amendment must not be underrated.

    The American public, left, center, right and unknown, will be swept in to one non-homogenous cauldron of despair should our First Amendment fall!

    Our founding fathers have done more to ensure a society of good will than any other political group in the history of mankind. It is up to us to shoulder the load of introspective peace and move forward.
    The only other direction is down!

  12. The percentage of Muslims in the French population has not increased all that much since before France gave up Algeria. Before that and up until recently the ‘White’ French generally looked down on those who immigrated from North Africa, both in France and North Africa. The expulsion of the indigenous ‘White’ French, a substantial percentage of the population of Algeria, perhaps not less of a percentage of that population as the Muslim is of France, by threat of ‘the suitcase or the coffin’ did not help to endear the ‘White’ French to Islam.

    Free speech is only as free as the country that grants it is stable. There has been a traditional ‘getting to know you’ routine going on in France for centuries. This is also reflected throughout Europe. The French/French look(ed) down on the Italian/French in the South East corner, a part that was traditionally Italian. The same is the case in Alsace and Lorraine, a part of France that was swapped back and forth between Germany and France for centuries. However, the present situation resembles somewhat the first Europeans as they ‘took over’ in foreign lands or colonized. The indigenous people, in this case the ‘White’ French are wary of the new comers and their ways. The newcomers are aggressive and counteract their diminutive position by rising themselves above the locals through their religion, customs, etc.

    That a country can profit by the infusion of people(s) that come to appreciate that country and work hard is a given. America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc are examples of that. In these cases the newcomers took over and perhaps that is what scares Americans, French, and other ‘White’ peoples. In almost all cases where the newcomers have been given the same opportunities, looked at as having value, and in a generation or two risen to the same demographics regarding professions, trades, etc., the country has been the better for it. One, but obviously not the only, reason for the ghettoization of the newcomers to remain ostracized and in despair is the very sentiment that is expressed by the right in the US, France, and the other ‘hot spots’.

    Immigration must be regulated. Civil law must dominate religious law. Local tribal and other backward traditions that violate the rights of citizens must be dealt with promptly and with civil dominance. Perhaps this ‘threat’ of losing ‘free speech’ is blown out of proportion by the bookish who don’t experience. Perhaps these bookish should reflect on the hypocrisies closer to home, the threats on the rights and freedoms expounded here. The US and/or its citizens are the last peoples with the right to criticize others. There is no where near the ‘Islamic’ problem here as there is there. Half the population of the US saw fit to elect a known racist and bigot to the Presidency. The US continues to rule itself as an oligarchy with two options, one more than a dictatorship. A life attempting to live in freedom and health in the US must sacrifice everything unless it is rich. But, other people’s problems are always more graphically present than one’s own. It’s the old diversion game. Trump plays it well. Turley plays it well. Yeah, the problem of losing freedoms and rights is over there.

    1. We’re watching the same movie over there that we just finished watching over here. I believe they even invoked the Russian interference narrative. Only I think they will have a different ending. Macron wins it.

      1. Why is that? The banning of halal,kosher and religious head coverings is certainly relevant to free speech.

        1. No it is not. Speech and publication are inextricably bound up with words and thus reason. These are civic values and derive from deliberative processes necessary in electoral systems.

  16. The French Left has done exactly what the Democrats did – play into the hands of the Right by following polls, not principles.

    1. It’s doubtful in the extreme that these prosecutions are a consequence of ‘polls’. These ARE the principles of the French Establishment. (And most fractions of the American Establishment as well).

        1. Legislators want to be re-elected because it pays. They don’t care about principles. I

          And you’re acquainted with how many of them?

    3. [the french] play into the hands of the Right by following polls, not principles.

      While this is technically accurate, it really doesn’t do justice to the situation in France. The French, like the Spanish, Greeks and Italians, (and others such as Portugal and Ireland) are justifiably nervous about any exit from the European Union which both Le Pen and Mélenchon favor yet without support either in L’Assemblée nationale or by any well articulated movement in the public at large. I say, justifiably because both remain and exit have considerable downsides as well as advantages. Moreover, the advantages of exit would take a considerable amount of time to materialize and potentially be very costly. This complexity is being played all over Europe by the neoliberal powers that be to continue participation in these ill conceived financial-political unions and have the downside of looking forward to more austerity and greater disparity between the haves and have-nots.

      Business as usual…, until it isn’t.

      This, more than the polls largely supported by the French MSM which has been selling Macron as if he were de Gaulle II, is why Macron has done well in the first round even though he is part and parcel of the ha,ha,ha, Socialist party in all but name (he couldn’t very well remain in the same party as Hollande who has a favorability rating of 0 or something close – so he created his own fake party).

      Macron, like Hollande, is the quintessential neoliberal who will back any and all toxic globalist trade deals, and shove ever more austerity down the throats of the French as part of the European Union and the Eurozone. So, unlike the US, unless there is an equivalent upset which is quite unlikely, the French people are going for the safest bet – but it is not equivalent to the notion of “the lessor evil.”

      Also, perhaps even more than in the US, the French “left” is in total total disarray.

      Finally, even if elected, Le Pen would almost certainly fail in her effort to exit the European Union and the same for the Eurozone (which though not the same as the EU, would follow almost automatically upon an EU exit), the very thought of her making a concentrated effort is enough to send the important players (the Troika) into a real tizzy and the sums of money involved are mind boggling.

      1. BB – excellent summation! Macron is a carefully groomed corporate player.

        1. Thanks Autumn. Macron, unlike Trump, Sanders or Hillary, is a totally vacuous individual who will be the French Poodle of the USA (probably competing with Britain for the honor) first, and of the worst aspects of the European Union second, particularly the financial sector. He is a centrist’s centrist. The French are in for more of the same and believe me, Hollande, in his obsequious embrace of the European Union’s war against labor and social protections, has done an enormous amount of damage for a nobody. That’s what makes them both so lethal.

          The left is running headless in every direction. As with Syriza or Podemos, no matter who they choose they loose.

          1. Thanks Autumn. Macron, unlike Trump, Sanders or Hillary, is a totally vacuous individual who will be the French Poodle of the USA

            Back in the real world, Macron is the issue of France’s grand-ecoles, to which admission is granted consequent to hyper-competitive examinations and which encompass < 2% of a typical French youth cohort. 'Vacuous' is one thing he's not and never has been.

            1. Typical of the Toads. If he managed some very difficult but utterly narrow exams, and then goes to an elite school, he can’t be vacuous. The other one you like is, If he makes tons of money, he must be smart.

              You really haven’t a clue to what these ideas mean, do you. Macron is an empty suit, Toads, much like you except he’s smart. He is a passionless technocrat; you, a creepy authoritarian. Both, vacuous. That doesn’t mean he won’t drag France further down into the austerity pit than it already is. That he will, but it has nothing to do with personality or conviction. Empathy is as far beyond his means as is any understanding or concern, beyond self aggrandizement, for the consequences of what he does.

      2. Great post, Brooklin.

        Do you believe the EU will collapse on its own at some point in the future due to finances?

        More and more, these global trade deals tend to devolve into pork for cronies, fraud, waste, and negative consequences for the countries involved.

        1. Excellent question. The answer is “Probably”, but it won’t be neat or easy to pin point causes. As it stands now, neither the Eurozone nor the European Union give member countries enough financial leeway to deal with local economic issues such as recessions. It can’t go on like it is, but it’s always possible they patch up the system sufficiently to limp along and extend the misery for a while longer.

          If Frexit does occur, the whole thing is almost certain to collapse with it. Same for Italy. Almost the same were Spain to exit but that is most unlikely. The poorer the country, the harder an exit is in practical terms and the more tempting it is in ideological terms. The costs of reintroducing a national monetary system, for starters, are beyond the pale, not only in effort, but in time and finance, and integration stresses. The switch over to the Euro took easily 5, but probably more like 10 years of planning and careful trial and error. The ATM software alone is built on top of all manner of fragile to antiquated software, often where the source is unavailable, making modification and integration very very difficult.

          1. The costs of reintroducing a national monetary system, for starters, are beyond the pale, not only in effort, but in time and finance, and integration stresses. The switch over to the Euro took easily 5, but probably more like 10 years of planning and careful trial and error.

            Uh huh. Slovakia introduced a new currency with a few days work in 1993. Argentina has had multiple instances of introducing a new currency in the last generation. Abandoning a currency peg can have disagreeable transition costs, but if your alternative is year after year after year of double-digit unemployment, it can be a cost worth paying.

            With regard to the Euro, the coins minted in each country have signature designs. The bills do not, but the locus of origin is indicated with an alphabetic code on the back. You have banks sort their vault cash and stamp the domestically printed Euros with a mnemonic marker, retaining the domestically printed and minted material and sending the remainder to the central bank in return for reserves on deposit on a one-to-one ratio with the new local currency. As foreign-origin euros dribble into banks from the public, customers can be compensated at the day’s official exchange rate and banks themselves can be compensated by the central bank. You’ll have ample media of exchange until you can introduce new currency designs.

            Existing cash accounts can be converted on a one-to-one ratio with a change in the currency symbol. Existing debts between domestic residents can be ruled satisfied with remittances in the new currency of equal nominal value. Bond debt to foreigners could be satisfied in foreign exchange if the bonds were purchased prior to a given date, and in the new domestic currency at a one-to-one ratio if they were purchased later.

            You’d need to introduce exchange controls for an indefinite period of time (15 months might do) and you might have to have quantitative limits on bank withdrawals for some weeks. You’ll need a bank holiday and you’ll have to have the exchange controls in place before you re-open the banks.

            There’s ample precedent for all of this.

            1. You are absolutely full of it. Greece faced this very problem and the obstacles were enormous. Your examples of 93 are pathetically beside the point and inappropriate ( Slovakia was not part of any highly restrictive and vengeful monetary union hell bent on making an example out of it – the EU and the Euro didn’t even exist – and had a minuscule economy even by comparison to Greece with few ATMs and fewer people to use them back then), and your other mumbo jumbo is equally beside the point (you can’t mint a Euro of any type if you leave the Eurozone and you can’t stay in the Eurozone if you leave the EU), not to mention useless other than yet another one of your feeble efforts to impress by obfuscation.

              Anyone who wants can research this problem. It is huge. There was a several month long discussion at Naked Capitalism on this very subject during the Greek crisis a couple of years ago where real bankers weighed in with blow by blow details of the enormous difficulties involved. For anyone interested, using NC’s search facility is all you need to bring up relevant articles.

              1. You don’t need to mint any Euros. The ones in circulation will serve for a transitional period and the countries in question have the plant and equipment to mint and print new ones if that’s necessary. The rest of your remarks are just empty verbiage, as ever.

              2. As for ‘Yves Smith’ of ‘Naked Capitalism’, why not run down a list of predictive statements she made between August of 2007 and the time of the controversies over the MERS system in 2010, and enumerate the ones which proved perspicacious. You won’t find much of consequence on that list. She’s a professional complainer.

                1. Again, you’re full of it. For one, she was not attempting to be predictive, she was explaining what what going on any why people should be concerned. One of her few major predictions was that no bankers would go to jail. As to what you are getting at, MERS, she was almost entirely spot on in every single thing she said. You have zero qualifications to take her on which is why you do so here rather than there.

                  1. or one, she was not attempting to be predictive, she was explaining what what going on any why people should be concerned.

                    I’m sure this sounded sensible to you when you were typing it out. You only know she’s right if the present and future course of events is congruent with her ‘explanations’. It wasn’t and it wasn’t. She was a peddler of disaster scenarios which never came to pass. Ergo, you did not have reason to be concerned.\

                    One of her few major predictions was that no bankers would go to jail.

                    Bad business decisions are not crimes. It’s not terribly surprising that not many people were indicted.

                    As to what you are getting at, MERS, she was almost entirely spot on in every single thing she said.

                    What she was saying was that no household or corporation holding a promissory note which had changed hands since 1995 had a valid legal claim to it. Spot on?

                    1. What she was saying was that no household or corporation holding a promissory note which had changed hands since 1995 had a valid legal claim to it. Spot on?

                      Your usual BS. Provide a link to any place she ever said that or close. You are the one asserting it, Toads. Prove it!

                      Closer to what she said (and I’m no authority) was that the Mortgage Electronic Registry System, MERS, (used to get around local deed registry costs), was deeply flawed software that used in conjunction with derivative mortgage speculation made complex origin of ownership claims difficult to prove and therefore highly subject to manipulation by unscrupulous mortgage servicing companies that were doing very shady (if not downright illegal) bulk processing of foreclosures.

                      Mortgage derivatives are investment securities developed by the financial industry to provide different risk and interest-rate profiles from pools of mortgages. Abuses in mortgage derivatives are given part of the blame for the global financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. Another term used for mortgage derivatives is collateralized mortgage obligations, or CMOs.

                      – SFGate

                      That this was a huge problem, as Yves said, was proven over and over again by thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of illegal and questionable foreclosures of families.

                    2. Your usual BS. Provide a link to any place she ever said that or close. You are the one asserting it, Toads. Prove it!

                      That was the linchpin of her complaint contra MERS, that transfers of ownership via MERS were legally invalid. It doesn’t seem to have persuaded the court system.

                    3. The link Toads. The link. Your assertion. Prove it!!! (if you even read anything she said in the first place).

                    4. I quit reading her at all about seven years ago. You can search her archives yourself if you’re interested. It’s very strange you’ve offered a set of quotations and complaints congruent with my summary of Yves Smith and then complained I’ve mischaracterized her.

                    5. That this was a huge problem, as Yves said, was proven over and over again by thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of illegal and questionable foreclosures of families.

                      No, the huge problem didn’t have much to do with MERS, but with uncertainty about the book value of mortgage-backed securities, which was in turn derived from uncertainty about the quality of the mortgages, which in turn was derived from lax underwriting standards at originators and at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

                      As for ‘illegal and questionable foreclosures’: were the homeowners in arrears or not? Were the appropriate procedures for effecting a foreclosure followed or not? If not, what do the courts and the civil divisions of various Sheriff’s departments have to say about it? And if the foreclosures were ‘illegal’ because the initiating party does not have proper title to the promissory note, why do you keep complaining when I reminded you Yves Smith said the legal architecture of MERS could not provide for a valid transfer of ownership of a promissory note?

                    6. It’s very strange you’ve offered a set of quotations and complaints congruent with my summary of Yves Smith and then complained I’ve mischaracterized her.

                      All you do is smear. It’s all you’ve got. If you had looked up the quote, you would have seen it has nohting to do with Yves Smith, (the quote is from SFGate as I plainly stated), and I did not quote any of her statements on MERS. And I made special mention of the fact that I am not an authority on her.

                      So indeed, if you want to make assertions about Yves Smith and what she thinks of MERS, then PROVE IT TOADS! Otherwise you simply prove beyond any doubt what a con artist on smear you really are (not that most people don’t already know it).

              4. I’m having difficulty linking to anything at NC. which makes it difficult to respond to Toads with facts as opposed to his singular opinions.

                For those interested, go to NC and look up, The Operational Issues of a Grexit Part Two: Organizational Capacity, Capital Controls and Bootstrapping a New Monetary System in the Search box (half way down the main page). That should bring you to an exhaustive article, Posted on June 15, 2015 by Nathan Tankus. It is well worth reading to debunk once and for all any of Toads obfuscation on the subject.

                Time (and moderator) permitting, I may include a few paragraphs.

                1. Abandoning a currency peg is something that’s been done before and will indubitably be done again.

                  1. You aren’t even touching on the issues raised in that post. Just hissing air Toads.

                    1. You just suggested I read an article by a college student in Manhattan who is enrolled at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, an institution which has no business school. It has the oddest of economics departments: they offer no courses in monetary economics or finance, have only two faculty who’ve ever published anything even tangentially related to the topic at hand, and seem to have recruited most of their faculty out of the graduate program of the New School for Social Research. Where Mr. Tankus is supposed to have learned about monetary systems I have no idea.

                    2. Smear tactics, Toads. As usual. Try discussing the content. Trump has no political experience. So what? As you like to say, it’s what he does that counts and what Tankus writes is what counts by the identical logic. Obviously, all you’ve done is look for ways to smear the author rather than discuss content. Typical. It’s all you’ve got.

                      And the addendum by an experienced Banker on ATM’s, added to Yves’ introduction, supports Tankus thesis and makes the article even more compelling (it stands on its own anyway) regardless of your usual smear tactics.

        2. From Yves Smith’s intro to, The Operational Issues of a Grexit Part Two: Organizational Capacity, Capital Controls and Bootstrapping a New Monetary System

          The conventional analyses generally ignore or wave off the element of a Grexit that Nathan Tankus focuses on here: the operational implications of a Grexit. Launching a new currency would be every bit as demanding as launching the Euro was in 1999 [emphasis mine and note the process did indeed take ten years], and arguably more so [em], since the Greek government will also have to contend with a large market of Euros circulating as currency and may come to find it necessary, at the outset or later, to offer dual currency payment processing services. We’ve attached a paper at the end that gives an idea of the amount of planning and lead times that were required for this to go smoothly. Now admittedly the Euro launch had an added factor of complexity, which was a large number of existing currencies involved. However, the Eurozone was also able to force citizens off the legacy currencies in 2002, three years after the launch of the Euro. By contrast, with the Euro the currency of Greece’s major trade partners and Greek bank customers already hoarded large amounts of Euros as cash, the Greek government will have a currency it does not control playing a significant role in its economy.

          We believe that the impact of the one-two punch of a conventional currency depreciation combined with the disruption of the imposition of a bank holiday, capital controls, and the chaos accompanying an un or underplanned transition to a new currency on an already deeply depressed economy is greatly underestimated by most commentators.

          1. The last two paragraphs are from Yves intro and should be in block quotes (indented paragraphs). My bad.

  17. The latest case involves Robert Menard, mayor of Beziers and a top adviser to Marine Le Pen, who has been found guilty of inciting hatred against Muslims.

    I used to wonder why they reeled Brigitte Bardot into court for hand slap, fines and whatever else, going back years. She is one of their true monstres sacres…. THEN I found out her husband is a wealthy German industrialist who was or is a long time advisor to Marine LeP.
    et voila.

  18. There are groups of people out to get Le Pen and her supporters. This is just one more attack. It might even help her election chances.

    3. Paul, I agree you. During the primaries Bernie was called a sexist, racist and the DNC even considered whether focusing on his Jewish religion could work against him.

  19. “West notes that the government’s purpose is to secure the natural rights of all who are under its auspices. Government violations of the people’s rights may justify the people to resort to what John Locke called an “appeal to heaven”—the natural right of the people to revolt and institute a new government that secures their safety and happiness.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/28/the-american-founders-knew-a-virtuous-republic-requires-virtuous-people/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=fc905f15e5-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-fc905f15e5-79248369

  20. Why is the truth considered “hate speech?” I can’t even say it’s the culture over the pond since Ann Coulter was accused of the same. If I don’t like what I may hear, I change the channel or don’t go listen. So bizarre.

    1. It’s bizarre, and it’s dangerous. If this comes to pass here, I think it’s time for a full scale revolution. What is more bizarre to me is how formerly sensible people are siding with those on the extreme left. They couldn’t be more right leaning if they tried. That too is very disturbing to me. The lies and double speak are out of control.

    2. Yes, bizarre is the word. It matters not that this is a genuine concern. France is threatened with a demographic change which will virtually guarantee civil strife, terrorism and loss of national identity for France and her children’s children.

      There are times in history when the course of events promises death and destruction, yet we persist in that direction until something breaks. This is obviously one of them. There is no people, no culture, and no religion more incompatible with Western values and no group of people less likely to be absorbed and more likely to cause human suffering.

Comments are closed.