Showing posts with label Paul Huebl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Huebl. Show all posts

Thursday, October 24, 2024

Film Review: “September 5” - A Gripping Journey Back to Munich, 1972



Los Angeles, CA—One of the perks of being a Screen Actors Guild member is exclusive access to film screenings. This time, it was at the stunning theater at Paramount Studios, where not only did I see the film, but I got to meet the talented cast and the young visionary Swiss director, Tim Fehlbaum.

“September 5” transports viewers back to the Munich Olympics of 1972—a global celebration of athleticism that quickly spiraled into a nightmare. The world watched in shock as Palestinian terrorists, under the name Black September, launched a calculated attack, kidnapping and brutally murdering 11 Israeli athletes and coaches, along with a German policeman. Helping orchestrate the horror were infamous German radicals Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof, making the tragedy even more chilling.

What sets this film apart is its unique perspective: we experience the horror through the eyes of ABC News sports reporters and producers, who were on-site in Munich, covering the Olympics. Imagine using the “cutting-edge” equipment of 1972—now laughably outdated by today’s standards—to broadcast a massive international story. The pressure was relentless; these were sports reporters suddenly plunged into a global crisis well beyond their usual scope. Yet, through their determined reporting, they became the eyes and ears of the world.  Nearly 1,000,000,000 viewers watch this unfold worldwide on live television. 


Sean Penn produced this film, and regardless of personal opinions on his politics, there’s no denying his extraordinary talent. The acting is powerful, the cinematography innovative, and the experience immersive. Watching, you feel as though you’re right there in the cramped, chaotic makeshift studio alongside the reporters, experiencing every tense moment as they grapple with a breaking tragedy.


As the story unfolds, you already know that history won’t deliver a happy ending. Yet, the intensity never lets up. This is a film like nothing you’ve ever seen before. “September 5” will keep you on the edge of your seat, captivated by the courage, humanity, and tragedy of that day in Munich. Don’t miss it.


The film opens in select theaters November 29.  It opens nationwide on December 13.  

Tuesday, October 22, 2024

How big city politicians kill crime to bullshit to public.


Chicago, IL – You’ve just heard your local news anchor confidently tell you that despite how it may seem, crime in the Windy City is actually on the decline. But you have to ask yourself, is crime really slowing down, or is someone massaging the numbers with a pencil?

I don’t care what your mayor or the news media says, especially in large cities – the police chief or superintendent does not set policy. Mayors never give up that control. The police brass get their marching orders and either follow them or get replaced. Statistical deception is only limited by the creativity or lack thereof by those in charge of presenting the numbers.


The term often thrown around is “killing crime.” Here’s how it works: police reports are categorized on forms generated by the department. The system, created by the FBI, divides crimes into Part One offenses (the most serious) and Part Two offenses (less serious), all under the Uniform Crime Reporting system (UCR).


Take burglary as an example. A burglar breaks into a home to steal property or commit another crime. If the police make an arrest and clear the crime, it’s reported as a burglary. That crime is then cleared by police efficiency stats. But when they can’t make an arrest, police bosses don’t want it reported as a Part One burglary. So, officers are instructed to categorize it as vandalism and simple theft instead. It’s a clever way to cheat—by not reducing the burglary rate but showing an artificially high rate of solving crimes.


And what happens to officers who don’t play along with this bullshit? For starters, they’re reassigned to districts far from their homes. Their chances for promotion evaporate, and their efficiency ratings tank. You get the picture.


Now, how do they cover up homicides? As an investigative TV news producer, I got a tip from a Chicago homicide detective who spilled the beans. He explained that certain cases, like a murdered prostitute estranged from her family, get dumped into a special file labeled “pending death investigations.” The trick is that since these deaths aren’t officially classified as homicides, they never make it to the UCR system.


I asked the detective how I could get the numbers on these death investigations to expose the system. He told me what I already suspected—it would require a mountain of research, and I’d get no help from the department.


So, I took a different route. I filed a public records request with the Cook County Medical Examiner and got access to their case database. I compared the homicides listed in the city of Chicago with what city officials were claiming. The results were shocking: Chicago police had concealed over 350 murders. I passed this information to retired CBS2 reporter Pam Zekman, who confronted former Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline with our findings. That story won an Emmy.


If you’re a mayor and don’t like your crime statistics, don’t worry—you can always cheat. Below is a brief rundown of the Uniform Crime Reporting system. Anyone with half a brain can figure out a way to bullshit the public.


The UCR system is a national crime data collection program managed by the FBI. It classifies crimes into two categories: Part One Crimes (the serious stuff, like violent and property crimes) and Part Two Crimes (less serious offenses). Part One Crimes are what most jurisdictions use to gauge the overall crime rate, and these are the numbers the public hears about the most.


Part Two Crimes, on the other hand, cover a broader range of offenses but don’t carry as much weight when calculating crime trends or shaping public perception.


Now that I’ve told you how officials hide or kill crime, here’s the flip side: some jurisdictions over-report crime to snag more federal funds.


So, how trustworthy is the UCR? About as trustworthy as your local politicians!

Monday, October 21, 2024

Children, Firearms, Safety, and Security

Chicago, IL—Let me begin with my personal story. I grew up in poverty, raised by a dysfunctional single mother who was mostly absent. By the age of 14, I was emancipated, living on my own, working full time at night, and attending high school during the day. Thankfully, I had a good sense to always stay  one step ahead of child protective services and foster care.  I learned early how to survive in a harsh world, and part of that survival was understanding the value of personal protection.


As a child, I was fascinated by guns. TV shows like Roy Rogers and Dragnet portrayed firearms as necessary tools for the good guys. I understood early on that guns weren’t just toys—they were instruments of security in a world with dangerous people. By the time I joined high school junior ROTC at 13, I was handling real weapons: M1 Garands, Browning Automatic Rifles, and .45 pistols. We were taught military discipline and, more importantly, firearm safety.


At 13, I saved up money to buy my own .22 rifle. No bureaucratic red tape, no mandatory age verification. This was before the federal government stepped in with the Gun Control Act of 1968, an overreach that only complicates law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms today. On rifle team day I took that cased rifle and a box of 50 rounds of ammunition with me to school on the CTA bus, and no one batted an eye. Back then, there was a respect for guns and those who handled them responsibly. That sense of responsibility is precisely what’s missing in today’s conversations about children, firearms, and safety.


Now, let’s talk about your kids and firearms. The harsh truth is, in a country with over 400 million guns in circulation, your children will inevitably encounter one. Will they know what to do? If you’ve chosen to shield them from guns entirely, you’re setting them up for danger, not safety. Ignorance is not a safety measure—it’s a liability. The most irresponsible thing you can do as a parent is leave your children ignorant of firearms, thinking that because you don’t own a gun, they won’t encounter one.


Children are curious by nature. Telling them something is “off-limits” without providing context or knowledge only makes it more tempting. If your child stumbles across a firearm—whether in your home, a friend’s, or elsewhere—will they know to handle it safely or leave it alone? That’s a question every parent must answer. And if you haven’t equipped your child with the knowledge and respect for firearms, then you’ve failed in your duty as a protector.


At around eight years old, you should introduce your children to firearms. Teach them firearm safety—every rule, every caution. Then, under your supervision, let them shoot. This takes the mystery out of guns, satisfies their curiosity, and instills a respect for the power of a firearm. The earlier you teach them, the more ingrained this respect becomes. Remember, it’s not just about today’s safety—it’s about preparing them for tomorrow’s reality. Whether it’s participating in shooting sports or, God forbid, defending themselves in an increasingly dangerous world, firearm knowledge is essential. -


In our modern society, we’ve turned firearm ownership into a taboo. The left would rather have you believe that by teaching your child to shoot, you’re endangering them. But the facts tell a different story. Many times, children have successfully defended themselves and their families with firearms. We don’t talk about those stories enough because they don’t fit the anti-gun narrative.


There’s another reality that the left doesn’t want you to face: when the world plunges into war again, or even when your child is drafted into military service, those who know how to handle a firearm will have a head start. Equality means that your 18-year-old daughter could be called into combat just as your son could. Would you want her entering the battlefield without any prior experience with guns? Of course not.


To those parents who shudder at the idea of their child handling a gun, I say this: By refusing to teach them, you’re abdicating your responsibility. Not teaching your child about firearms is, in itself, a form of neglect.


For the adults who have never touched a gun, it’s time to wake up. You’ve been conditioned by a society that wants you dependent on others for your safety. The truth is, when danger comes knocking, the police will not be there to save you. They’ll only arrive to clean up the aftermath and write reports. Self-defense is your responsibility. Don’t outsource it.


It’s time to arm yourself and your children with knowledge, not fear. Firearm safety is about responsibility, discipline, and survival. Those are American values

Friday, September 20, 2024

Is Sean Diddy Combs the tip of the iceberg?

Hollywood, CA— There is no question that the combs indictment allege so many disturbing things.  Simultaneously the department of justice has been building a case against the New York mayor and several other people within his administration.  I remain convinced that the two investigations are part of a much bigger combined picture.

If prosecutors can even convict combs 1/3 of what he charged with he will never live long enough to see freedom.  I have no independent knowledge of facts.  However, if there is a group involved in the alleged crimes Combs should not stand alone.  If there is any truth to all of the charges in the indictment Combs is in a unique position to bring down a lot of people, including politicians and other celebrities.  This also could provide a way for combs to limit the time he has to spend behind bars.  I even suspect that the justice department has floated that idea to Comb’s defense team.  


I actually have a novel idea to get Combs released on bail to home confinement that would guarantee combs is not a threat to the public.  I will save that idea for his attorneys if they contact me.  

We will have to wait and see how this story unfolds.






Saturday, September 07, 2024

Should Negligent School Administrators Be Charged With Crimes After Shootings? Absolutely.

The shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, on September 4, which claimed four lives and injured many others, was devastating. However, the way society responds to such incidents is disgraceful.


The Media:

They consistently shroud every story in political correctness, only highlighting racism if it involves a white majority targeting minorities. Recently, numerous mass murders have been committed by gender-confused criminals, yet the media deliberately avoids discussing the gender fueled mental health crises of these killers. Society cannot adequately address these issues when the press conceals essential facts.


School Administrators:

They must ensure that armed police officers are present to protect students, just as we protect politicians and money—with guns. Schools also need to enact strong anti-bullying policies. Instead of doing so, they often suspend both the victim and the bully after altercations. This is neither fair nor just. Schools should also be required to provide counseling for both the victim and perpetrator when bullying is suspected.


The Police:

Unfortunately, law enforcement has little influence on school security measures or personnel assignments. These decisions are made by politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint.


The Parents:

Parents bear ultimate responsibility for their children's behavior. However, many are ill-prepared for this role due to their own lack of maturity, education, or financial challenges.


The School Boards:

School boards nearly always keep parents in the dark by underreporting violence. Their solutions are always welcome as long as they don’t work. Board members are typically more interested in steering lucrative contracts to friends and family than in running the schools properly. They seek parental support only to gain approval for their disingenuous activities.


Now, let’s examine the recent Apalachee High School shooting. We have a gender-confused 14-year-old boy—his long, obviously dyed blonde, girly styled hair makes that clear. Yet the media ignores this. Many recent high-profile shootings have involved similarly troubled individuals with gender identity issues.


Charging a 14-year-old with capital crimes is shocking and harsh, given his age. This recalls the infamous case of George Junius Stinney Jr., who was executed at 14 in South Carolina, seated on phone books to fit into the adult-size electric chair. His case was later considered a wrongful conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court has since prohibited juveniles from receiving death sentences or life without parole.


Here, the young shooter and his father face the most severe charges under Georgia law. Colin Gray, the father, is accused of unlawfully providing the rifle used in the killings.  He is also charged as a participant and accessory to the crimes.


As for the boy, his current mental state, previous threats to shoot up the school (which officials ignored), and likely being bullied will be significant factors for leniency at sentencing. He’s likely facing at least 25 years behind bars, while his father could receive an even harsher sentence.


Police failures have also played a part in past school shootings,  like at Columbine and Uvalde. In both cases, officers failed to act while the massacres continued, significantly contributing to the death toll.


Society must learn to assign responsibility and force the media to tell the full story, not just the parts they choose. Public officials who act negligently or recklessly must be held fully accountable for their failures.

Thursday, August 15, 2024

The Current Status of Gun Control in America



Washington, DC — In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the landmark case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. 


The Bruen decision struck down most, if not all, laws that restricted the carrying of concealed weapons in New York State. Additionally, several other gun-related cases that were previously decided contrary to the Second Amendment by various federal circuit courts of appeals are now being reconsidered. These cases involve issues such as so-called assault weapons, magazine capacity limits, waiting periods, age requirements for gun ownership, non-violent felons in possession of firearms, and other related matters.


The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the previous opinions of the courts of appeals, and remanded the cases back to the lower courts for decisions consistent with the 135-page Bruen ruling. This process has been ongoing for the past two years, and these cases are expected to resurface as the Supreme Court reconvenes on the first Monday of October.


In its ruling, the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. The Bruen decision effectively invalidated most gun control laws that infringe on the right to possess and carry arms. The Court also made it clear that modern-day public safety concerns cannot justify laws that infringe upon gun rights.


If two-thirds of the American people wish to repeal or amend the Second Amendment, they must go through the rigorous political process required to make that happen.


As a result of the Bruen decision, most gun-related cases will be decided in favor of Second Amendment rights. Anyone charged with a gun possession crime should consider filing motions to dismiss based on Bruen. Currently, the majority of states do not require permits or registration of firearms. In these states, firearms can be carried in public, whether concealed or openly, and there has been no significant rise in crime.


Contrary to media narratives, the Supreme Court has not expanded gun rights but has simply restored rights that were wrongfully violated by various political entities. It's worth noting that many gun control laws originated during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era as a means to disarm newly freed slaves.

Friday, August 09, 2024

The Risks of Open Carry for Handguns: Why Concealment is Wiser.

Phoenix, AZ— For many decades, Arizona only permitted the open carry of firearms, reserving concealed carry solely for sworn peace officers. However, open carry of handguns, in particular, is fraught with risks and is more likely to lead to a breach of peace than firearms carried discreetly.

When you openly carry a handgun, you are more likely to encounter unstable individuals who might confront, complain, or even attempt to disarm you. But there’s an even more alarming scenario: imagine someone sees you with a gun, feels threatened, and falsely reports to the police that you pointed the weapon at them. The police respond to find you openly carrying a firearm, and there’s a so-called “victim” willing to lie under oath. In Arizona, aggravated assault laws, especially those involving gun-pointing, are severe, carrying a mandatory five-year prison sentence without parole.


Even if you know you did nothing wrong, the trial may not go in your favor. The accuser could perjure themselves, and the prosecutor might paint you as a danger to society. With no evidence other than your word, the risk of conviction looms large. Facing such a scenario, many people, fearing the harsh sentence, may opt to plead guilty in exchange for probation or a shorter jail term—yet this still results in a felony conviction and a lifetime ban on owning firearms.


In states that only permit open carry, it might actually be safer to risk violating a misdemeanor law that forbids concealed carry. In a self-defense situation, how you carried the gun won’t be easily proven unless you self-incriminate. Arizona, after 14 years of my lobbying efforts eventually allowed for concealed weapons permits and later removed the requirement altogether. Therefore, there’s no practical reason to openly carry a handgun, as doing so diminishes any tactical advantage you might have in a self-defense scenario. It’s best to keep your firearm out of sight and out of mind.


As one of the first firearms safety instructors in the state, I’m proud to say my students have always acted responsibly. When it comes to long guns, however, situations of unrest may necessitate openly carrying rifles or shotguns. Recent history has shown us examples, such as Korean shopkeepers during the Rodney King riots in LA and that Kenosha riot that showed Kyle Rittenhouse defending himself against three thugs trying to kill him. 


While we must defend open carry laws for such situations, it is generally wiser to conceal handguns to avoid unnecessary and potentially life-altering conflicts. Never forget when you’re carrying a weapon conflict avoidance is rule number one.

Thursday, August 08, 2024

Television today is like a rotting corpse, decomposing before our eyes


The late Newton Minnow, former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, nailed it when he called television a "vast wasteland" of senseless violence, mindless comedy, and ads that make you want to throw up. And that was in 1961! If he could see the state of TV now, he'd probably throw himself off of a broadcast tower just to make it stop.


Reality shows? More like asinine fantasy shows where people compete to see who can be the most ridiculous for the least amount of money. And let’s not forget those Court TV programs featuring folks who seem to think brushing their teeth is a once-in-a-lifetime event. These people parade their petty grievances on national television, seemingly unaware that they should be mortified.


As for network news, it’s like watching a soap opera written by conspiracy theorists. The radical left has hijacked the narrative, and they repeat lies so often, they become truths—at least to anyone still watching.


Newspapers? Well, with over 70% of Americans barely able to read beyond a stop sign, print media doesn't stand a chance.


If it weren’t for streaming services like Netflix and Prime Video, my TVs would’ve been tossed into a landfill years ago. Thank goodness for the internet, or I’d have nothing but static and regret in my living room.

Monday, July 08, 2024

Abortion the reality and truth behind Roe v. Wade



Washington, DC—Let me start by saying I don't have a personal stake in this issue. While I find abortion generally troubling, I acknowledge its necessity in many cases. Roe v. Wade is often misunderstood. The Supreme Court should adhere strictly to the Constitution, not sway with public opinion. However, justices sometimes allow their personal political beliefs to influence their decisions, which is problematic.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court legalized abortion through a complex interpretation, declaring an unwritten Right to Privacy. This right, which wasn't explicitly included by the Founding Fathers, was effectively created without a constitutional amendment. To be clear, there has never been an inherent reproductive right or right to choose—these are terms born out of advocacy.

For "pro-choice" advocates, it's important to note that there has never been a simple majority (50%+1) to legalize abortion nationwide, nor a consensus on when abortion should be permitted in terms of weeks or months. The recent Supreme Court, with a different set of justices, reversed the earlier Burger Court's decision, leaving the abortion issue to individual states. In regions like the Bible Belt, opposition to abortion is strong due to deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of unborn life.

Given the longstanding division on abortion, achieving the support needed for a constitutional amendment is unlikely.

The Supreme Court's makeup during the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 was as follows:

1. Harry Blackmun (appointed by Richard Nixon) – wrote the majority opinion.
2. Warren E. Burger (Chief Justice, appointed by Richard Nixon) – joined the majority.
3. William J. Brennan Jr. (appointed by Dwight D. Eisenhower) – joined the majority.
4. William O. Douglas (appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt) – joined the majority.
5. Thurgood Marshall (appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson) – joined the majority.
6. Lewis F. Powell Jr. (appointed by Richard Nixon) – joined the majority.
7. Potter Stewart (appointed by Dwight D. Eisenhower) – joined the majority.
8. Byron White (appointed by John F. Kennedy) – dissented.
9. William Rehnquist (appointed by Richard Nixon) – dissented.