LOS ANGELES 

U.S. border authorities fired stun guns at least 70 times over four years at people who were runxning away, even though there was no struggle or clear indication that agents were in danger, a newspaper reported Friday.

At least six times, agents used the weapons against people who were trying to climb a border fence and get back into Mexico.

The Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/1M5U2GF ) also said three people had died after being hit by Tasers wielded by border agents or customs officers.

Two people were shocked while they were handcuffed, and two were hit with five cycles of the weapon, even though the agency's policy says no one should receive more than three.

The Times examined 450 uses of Tasers from 2010 to 2013 that were documented by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials.

It found that most of the people subjected to Tasers had been caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border or were suspected of being in the country illegally, not fleeing arrest on more serious charges.

The nation's largest law enforcement agency, which oversees the Border Patrol and inspectors at ports of entry, decided in 2008 to supply agents with the hand-held devices that deliver a paralyzing electric charge as a way to end confrontations quickly and safely.

The program started with a pilot project in Texas and devices were widely distributed to agents beginning in 2010.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske issued a new use-of-force policy last year. Now, agents are instructed to use Tasers only when a suspect poses an imminent threat and to be particularly cautious when subjects are running.

The Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies have become more restrained in using Tasers, Kerlikowske said, even though he still believes "the good far outweighs the bad" with the weapons.

"You're seeing much less of the Taser being used when someone is in a precarious position, or fleeing," said Kerlikowske, a former police chief in Seattle. "I think we've learned a lot, and so has law enforcement."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article41983599.html#storylink=cpy

Paul Ryan: What to expect with new speaker in charge of the House

By David Avella  |  FoxNews.com
Published October 29, 2015

A new beginning is upon us with the election of Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

As almost always happens in Washington, when someone takes a new post of importance, especially after duress, there is a honeymoon period where hope and happy thoughts dominate the discussion.

Republicans and Democrats alike have given loud applause to Speaker Ryan’s early statements.  Off to a good start is surely better than the alternative.

The question is whether there is any prospect of the new atmosphere having some genuine durability.  For once, this observer thinks optimism is also realistic.

Given the poisonous climate of our political conversation, it is fair to demand an explanation of that position.  Well, here it goes.

After running for Vice President in 2012, Paul Ryan took a step back.  He revisited his assumptions about virtually everything under the sun.  Ryan became as much an observer as a participant in the arena.  Think of being the kid in the secret tree house, able to look down on the other children, watching and listening to all there was to see and hear.  From that view, he had the chance to reflect carefully on the policies that he champions.

In April of 2014, Ryan advanced “The Path to Prosperity:  A Responsible Balanced Budget.”  This budget would cut spending by $5.1 trillion over the next ten years.  Not all pain and suffering, the budget constituted a blueprint to also grow the economy to achieve a balanced budget.  Yes, this budget is conservative in nature.  No, it is not rigid dogma or unfairly austere.

The Ryan budget centers itself on five pillars—protecting the nation, expanding opportunity, strengthening the safety net, securing seniors’ retirement, and restoring fairness.  As was the case then, there is little doubt the particulars in that budget will be met with opposition from Democrats.  That is to be expected, and it is fine.

Another, probably minor in the eyes of others, piece of legislation gives some clarity to how it is that Paul Ryan thinks.  That legislation would be the Evidence-Based Policymaking Commission Act of 2015.

Yes, government is already too big.  That does not mean there is no need for government or that it cannot be put to useful purposes.

The Ryan legislation creates a structure and process to “make recommendations on how best to incorporate outcomes measurement, institutionalize randomized controlled trials, and rigorous impact analysis into program design.”

In simple English, what this means is that Paul Ryan wants government to use actual facts and data when it comes to formulating policy rather than just making it up along the way.  This careful and deliberative approach will serve him well in the coming days.

Paul Ryan is a conservative in every respect of the term.  His philosophy, his demeanor, and his words all convey a deep and abiding respect for the foundations that have made America great.

He has specifically stated to the House that it is his intention to return to “regular order.”  This allows for one and all to participate in the lawmaking that is required to move the country forward.  He will respect those who disagree with him without compromising his own views or seeing a need to allow perfection to be the enemy of the good.

Paul Ryan knows who he is, what he believes, and where the House of Representatives fits into the fabric of the nation and its government.  In his first speech as Speaker he commented “the House represented the best of America:  the boundless opportunity to do good.”  He added:  “I am not interested in laying blame.  We are not settling scores.  We are wiping the slate clean.”

Speaker Ryan will encounter more than a few obstacles in the quest to help advance the nation in a forward direction.  Because he understands and advocates the policies that can contribute in a positive fashion to this progress, and because he understands how to go about the business of legislating, we ought to have every hope for a successful Speakership.

                 Page 52 Weapons Bought - Americans

Nour vehicles and weapons they now use to 
B Weapons Bought - Americans

innocent men, women, and children. Obama and Kerry have not only funneled our money to the enemy, but are the reason we see our enemy equipped with our weapons. Those c  were bought and paid for by the American people to defend this country and our friends. Those weapons are now being used to kill women and children to include our Marines. Are we going to sit around and wait until they put nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemy. A nuclear deal with Iran only speeds up that process. Obama and Kerry are guilty of treason and should be formally charged by the people. Innocent until proven guilty, so arrest these traitors and let the courts decide.
The definition of treason defined by our constitution is this. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Our money, weapons, and vehicles are in the hands of our enemy. The very enemy who chants death to America and threaten our children. We the People demand justice and require our leaders to start doing their jobs. Stop these traitors before our enemy gets a nuclear weapon to bring death to us all… God Bless America and may He forever bless you all…

Read more at http://dcgazette.com/bergdahl-not-traitor-obama-kerry-next/

Page 52 Both Foreign And Domestic

When Obama and a majority of Congress sent billions of dollars to support Iran, they broke a solemn oath to their offices and to the Constitution to protect the United States. They swore to protect America from threats “both foreign and domestic,” and to never provide aid and comfort to any enemy.

     <<both foreign and domestic>>Sorry folks but this has not been done! Obama is the biggest failure of our entire nation, but many of our congressmen are failures too! df

The campaign waged on American civil liberties, privacy, and free speech reaches far and wide and now the military must make its move to secure the United States from the traitors masquerading as representatives of American interests.

     <<now the military must make its move>>In other words our Constitution is at risk; we are now faced with a Civil War, between the Obama administration and the rest of the US! Obama, of course, will lose! WE THE PEOPLE Will finally win back our country! We will still, however, not be the nation we were intended to be! We MUST, if we want to be a shining light on the hill again, win back the Lord's favor! Some may ask how do we do that? The way we do it, as a nation, is to bow down on bended knees, and beg for the Lord's forgiveness! 

Next Page: »

Washington (CNN) - 

About half of all Americans oppose stricter gun control laws, a larger segment of the population than those who support tighter controls on guns, according to a new CNN/ORC poll released Wednesday.

Nearly three weeks after the latest mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people, 52% of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws, 6% more than the 46% of Americans who support such laws. That's a wider gap than in June when CNN last surveyed Americans on gun control, finding that the public was equally split at 49% on the issue.

The advantage of those opposed to stricter gun control laws over those in favor is outside of the poll's 3-point margin of error.

But the issue of whether guns can make the public safer remains deeply divisive. Americans are nearly equally split between whether guns in public places make those places safer, less safe or don't make a difference.

Despite those divisions, most say that nationwide gun laws should only be changed with the support of most Americans and most gun owners.

About seven in 10 Americans believe it is important for most Americans to support proposed changes to gun laws before those changes are implemented. And 61% said the same of gun owners.

About half of Americans said it is important for both parties to come to a consensus before making any changes to existing gun laws.

Other polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support expanding background checks to private sales and sales at gun shows, where people can buy guns without undergoing a background check.

There are some outliers when it comes to Americans' overall opposition to tighter laws restricting access to guns.

Most non-white Americans -- 55% -- support tighter gun control laws, while 43% stand opposed.

There is also a gender gap when it comes to support for tighter gun control laws. While 14% more men oppose gun control restrictions, women are nearly equally split on the question with 49% in favor and 48% opposed to such legislation.

And those with a college degree are also more likely to support gun control legislation: 52% of those Americans support stricter gun control while 46% oppose tighter measures.

The largest split is a partisan one: 76% of Republicans oppose stricter gun control compared to just 25% of Democrats. A majority of Republicans say guns in public places make those places safer, while most Democrats believe the opposite, that guns make public spaces less safe.

And two-thirds of Americans who live in rural areas oppose tighter gun control laws.