Pentagon: Taliban is Now a U.S. Partner

Posted on November 10, 2015November 10, 2015 by Denise Simon

Really? Tell it to those warriors who fought them in Afghanistan. Yet this is not a new standard especially as the Obama White House released 5 of their top commanders back to the ranks of the Taliban.

Shameful…

WASHINGTON: The US Department of Defence has said that it’s no longer conducting counter-terrorism operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan because it views the group as an important partner in its efforts for restoring peace in the war-ravaged country.

“What we’re not doing (is) counter-terrorism operations against the Taliban,” Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis told a Wednesday evening news briefing in Washington.

“We actually view the Taliban as being an important partner in a peaceful Afghan-led reconciliation process. We are not actively targeting the Taliban,” he added.

‘No institutional presence of IS in Pak-Afghan region’

The briefing, however, focused on US efforts to defeat the Middle East-based terrorist group IS (the self-styled Islamic State) which also has some presence in the Pak-Afghan region.

Capt Davis said that some “lone wolves” in Pakistan and Afghanistan were using the IS brand to raise their stature but the group did not have an institutional presence in the region.

He said the IS had a “pretty good” command and control system in Iraq and Syria but those claiming to represent the group in Afghanistan and Pakistan did not have the command and control relationship with the main IS.

The Pentagon official said the United States was working “very extensively” with the Pakistani government in the fight against terrorists.

Capt Davis explained that while the Coalition Support Fund was aimed to enhance Pakistan’s ability to fight the Haqqani Network, it also helped develop other broader spectrum counter-terrorism capabilities.

In Afghanistan, the US ended its combat operations last year and its role there now was simply to advise and assist the Afghan forces, he said.

Capt Davis said the US also had “unilateral role” of being able to conduct counter-terrorism missions in Afghanistan primarily against Al Qaeda and its remnants.

“But IS would be fair game as well,” he added.

(CNN) Here’s a look at the Taliban, a Sunni Islamist organization operating primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Facts:
Reclusive leader Mullah Mohammed Omar led the Taliban from the mid-1990s until his death in 2013.

Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour was announced in July 2015 as the new leader.

Taliban, in Pashto, is the plural of Talib, which means student.

Most members are Pashtun, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan.

The exact number of Taliban forces is unknown.

The group’s aim is to impose its interpretation of Islamic law on Afghanistan and remove foreign influence from the country.

Timeline:
1979-1989 – The Soviet Union invades and occupies Afghanistan. Afghan resistance fighters, known collectively as mujahedeen, fight back.

1989-1993 – After the Soviet Union withdraws, fighting among the mujahedeen leads to chaos.

1994 – The Taliban is formed, comprised mostly of students and led by mujahedeen veteran Mullah Omar.

November 1994 – The Taliban seizes the city of Kandahar.

September 1996 – The capital, Kabul, falls to the Taliban.

1997 – The Taliban issue an edict renaming Afghanistan the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The country is only officially recognized by three countries: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

1996-2001 – The group imposes strict Islamic laws on the Afghan people. Women must wear head-to-toe coverings, are not allowed to attend school or work outside the home and are forbidden to travel alone. Television, music and non-Islamic holidays are also banned.

1997 – Mullah Omar forges a relationship with Osama bin Laden, who then moves his base of operations to Kandahar.

August 1998 – The Taliban captures Mazar-e-Sharif, gaining control of about 90% of Afghanistan.

March 2001 – The Taliban destroys two 1,500 year old Buddha figures in the town of Bamiyan, saying they are idols that violate Islam.

October-November 2001 – After massive U.S. bombardment as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the Taliban lose Afghanistan to U.S. and Northern Alliance forces.

December 2006 – Senior Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani is killed in an airstrike by the U.S.

February 2007 – Mullah Manan, a senior Taliban commander, is killed in an air strike in southern Afghanistan.

May 2007 – Mullah Dadullah Lang, a senior Taliban leader, is killed in a U.S.-led coalition operation supported by NATO.

August 2007 – During a visit to Afghanistan, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies his country is providing the Taliban weapons.

December 11, 2007 – Afghan troops backed by NATO recapture the provincial town of Musa Qala from Taliban control.

February 2008 – Taliban operative Mullah Bakht Mohammed is captured by Pakistani forces.

October 21, 2008 – Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal confirms that Saudi Arabia hosted talks between Afghan officials and the Taliban in September. It is reported that no agreements were made.

April 25, 2011 – Hundreds of prisoners escape from a prison in Kandahar by crawling through a tunnel. The Taliban takes responsibility for the escape and claims that 541 prisoners escaped, while ISAF says the number is 470.

September 10, 2011 – Two Afghan civilians are killed and 77 U.S. troops are wounded during a vehicle borne improvised explosive device (SVBIED) attack at the entrance of Combat Outpost Sayed Abad, an ISAF base in Afghanistan’s Wardak province. The Taliban claims responsibility.

September 13, 2011 – Taliban militants open fire on the U.S. embassy and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force headquarters in central Kabul. Three police officers and one civilian are killed. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid tells CNN their target is the U.S. embassy, governmental organizations and other foreign organizations.

February 27, 2012 – The Taliban claims responsibility for a suicide bombing near the front gate of the International Security Assistance Force base at Jalalabad airport in Afghanistan. At least nine people are killed and 12 wounded in the explosion. The Taliban says the bombing is in retaliation for the burning of Qurans at a U.S. base last week.

August 8, 2012 – According to senior U.S. officials, in an effort to revive peace talks with the Taliban, President Barack Obama‘s administration has proposed a prisoner swap under which it would transfer five Taliban prisoners to Qatar in exchange for a U.S. soldier held by the Taliban. The new proposal involves sending all five Taliban prisoners to Qatar first, before the Taliban release Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a member of the U.S. army captured in 2009. The original offer proposed transferring the Taliban prisoners in two groups, with Bergdahl being released in between.

June 18, 2013 – An official political office of the Taliban opens in Doha, Qatar’s capital city. The Taliban announces that they hope to improve relations with other countries, head toward a peaceful solution to the Afghanistan occupation and establish an independent Islamic system in the country.

September 21, 2013 – Pakistan announces that Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, one of the founding members of the Taliban, has been released from prison. Baradar had been captured in Karachi, Pakistan in 2010.

May 31, 2014 – The United States transfers five Guantanamo Bay detainees to Qatar in exchange for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl: Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa, Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Nori, Abdul Haq Wasiq and Mohammad Nabi Omari. It is believed Bergdahl was being held by the Taliban and al Qaeda-aligned Haqqani network in Pakistan.

September 26, 2014 – A Taliban offensive in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, leaves an estimated 100 civilians dead or wounded, including some women and children who were beheaded, according to a provincial deputy governor.

July 29, 2015 – The Afghan government says in a news release that Taliban leader Mullah Omar died in April 2013 in Pakistan, citing “credible information,” and a spokesman for Afghanistan’s intelligence service tells CNN that Omar died in a hospital in Karachi at that time.

September 28, 2015 – Taliban insurgents seize the main roundabout in the Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz, then free more than 500 inmates at the prison. This is the first time the Taliban have taken over a provincial capital since 2001.

Sanctuary City Supporter to Head Border Patrol?

Posted on November 10, 2015November 10, 2015 by Denise Simon

Chief Fong drew criticism in June 2008 for failing to complete firearm recertification for over five years though all San Francisco police officers are required to recertify annually by department regulations. Chief Fong was quoted as saying that she was too busy to recertify. When the controversy erupted in the local media, she was recertified a week later. Additionally, in 2003 there was a police scandal in San Francisco where she was involved but skirted prosecuted.

Sources: Vocal supporter of sanctuary cities on short list to be next head of Border Patrol

FNC: A former San Francisco police chief and vocal supporter of a sanctuary cities policy is on a short list of candidates to become the new chief of the Border Patrol, according to sources.

As police chief, Heather Fong shielded illegal immigrants, including aliens who committed crimes, from deportation. In contrast, it is the job of the U.S. Border Patrol to catch and deport all illegal immigrants, including those with a criminal history.

“If they bring (a police chief) in for political purposes based on the sanctuary cities model, that politicizes the job and I think it completely undermines credibility and morale in the organization,” House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, told Fox News.

“If you have someone who is advocating for sanctuary cities, that’s the opposite side. They welcome these illegal immigrants to stay in the country. And so I think it’s at cross-purpose with the mission itself.”

Fong, according to Border Patrol, DHS and Capitol Hill sources, is one of several candidates to replace current chief Mike Fischer, who announced his resignation last month.

Fong is currently an assistant secretary for state and local law enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. If tapped, she would be the first outsider to lead the Border Patrol in its 90-year history.

That decision is up to Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, who released a statement Monday saying, “”At this time, CBP has not begun the search for the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. It is completely false that any individual could be a potential candidate at this time. We are currently preparing the paperwork to begin the process.”

Rank and file agents were surprised she would be considered.

“The appointment of Heather Fong would prove that the Border Patrol is no longer the enforcement agency that Congress and the American public intended it to be,” according to a statement released by Brandon Judd, head of the agents’ union.

“Heather Fong oversaw a sanctuary city, which is directly contrary to our mission. Her appointment would be for political purposes and the trust of the men and woman of the Border Patrol in DHS and CBP leadership would be lost.”

During her five years as the chief of SFPD, Fong refused to cooperate with ICE, telling reporters in November 2008, “We do not cooperate with ICE when they go out for enforcement of immigration violations of the law.”

A few months earlier, she appeared in a public service campaign telling illegal immigrants they’re welcome in the city. In promoting San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy on TV, radio, posters and brochures in five languages, Fong said illegal immigrants had nothing to fear under her watch. “San Francisco is committed to providing safe access to public services to our communities,” she said.

In a news conference unveiling the campaign, she told reporters, “We do not work on enforcing immigration laws.”

The chief of the Border Patrol position does not require congressional approval. But given the “border security first” mentality among many on Capitol Hill, McCaul said he believes bringing in an outsider could be a hard sell.

Operation Choke Point Overlord

Posted on November 10, 2015November 10, 2015 by Denise Simon

A disgusting program concocted by Eric Holder, former Attorney General was launched called Operation Choke Point. Several Federal agencies are part of this program where government intimidates private business where agency deem them high risk. Banks then are told to no longer do business with them.

Freedom and liberty is threatened.

The current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch is still operating the program and private businesses across the country continue to be squeezed. Across a spectrum of industries, they include ammunition and weapons companies, fireworks manufacturers and payday lenders. The FDIC and the Securities and Exchange Commission are part of the operation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Nomination of Operation Choke Point Overlord

Fairfax, VA -(AmmoLand.com)- On Wednesday; Nov. 4, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Stuart F. Delery for the position of associate attorney general of the United States.

If confirmed, Delery would become the third-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), behind the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. Delery has been serving as “acting” associate attorney general since September 2014.

The NRA is seriously troubled by Delery’s nomination because of his supervisory role over DOJ’s scandalous Operation Choke Point (OPC). Fortunately, committee members had some tough questions for him on this point. Delery’s unconvincing denials and platitudes in response demonstrate that he does not take seriously the harm OPC, whether intentionally or not, caused to legitimate businesses. The fact that the Obama administration continues to push his nomination shows that it is more interested in rewarding ideological and political fidelity than performance in the pursuit of justice.

The functions of DOJ, however, are far too important, and the department’s powers too great, to make politics its main function.

Delery himself had key oversight responsibility for OPC. He approved the operation and its tactics. He also individually approved the investigative subpoenas that resulted in various banks ceasing business with certain industries wholesale, rather than trying to separate good actors from bad within those industries. Attached to the subpoenas that Delery approved were FDIC guidance materials that included a list of supposedly “high risk” merchants and activities. These included sales of ammunition and firearms. This same list appeared in a PowerPoint presentation given in September 2013 to bank examiners at a workshop conducted by officials from the FDIC, Department of Justice, and Office of Comptroller of the Treasury.

Whatever the true intent of OPC (and DOJ has done nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt on that score), the effect of the government’s tactics was clear: banks were interpreting DOJ’s actions as directives not to deal with certain types of legal businesses. As a result, numerous gun shops and manufacturers lost long-established banking relationships or were refused those relationships in the first place.

Questioners at Wednesday’s hearings pressed Delery hard on these facts. In his opening statement, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called OPC a “stunning and dangerous” use of government power.

He noted that the operation was “sold to the public as merely an initiative to protect consumers from predatory payday lending practices.” Nevertheless, he continued, “we now know based on internal DOJ documents that from the outset it was specifically designed to prey on the banking industry`s fear of civil and criminal liability, with the stated goal of shutting down legal businesses” disfavored by the Obama Administration.

He also criticized the broad net the program cast over the banking industry: “three prosecutions out of 60 subpoenas is hardly a justification for the scattergun approach the Department undertook.”

Sen. Grassley went on to confront Delery with documentation that Delery was aware of the negative affect OPC had on lawful industries. DOJ’s response to these developments was to rationalize that if individual businesses were operating lawfully, they should be able to establish that fact with the banks. Yet the banks themselves had in many cases already made the decision that case-by-case determinations invited more scrutiny and pressure from DOJ than they were worth to the bank.

The toughest questioning, however, came from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz offered a blistering summary of the program and confronted Delery with examples of actual businesses that had lost banking relationships, not because of poor performance, but because the banks had decided to sever all relationships with the firearm industry. Delery insisted that no firearm businesses had even been investigated or prosecuted.

“Choke Point,” Cruz shot back, “was all about using government power to intimidate banks to cut off their money even though they weren’t violating the laws.” “The program as it pertained to firearm businesses,” Cruz continued, “was not targeted on evidence of fraud but based on an antipathy of the Obama Justice Department to the exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by American citizens.”

Delery uniformly denied any intention to use DOJ’s authority to target lawful businesses. In essence, he blamed the banks themselves for misunderstanding DOJ’s intentions. Yet when bank after bank came to the same supposedly unintended conclusion, DOJ did not change course. Only when Congress itself stepped in to investigate DOJ’s tactics did the department issue public “clarifications” of its objectives to target specific fraudulent actors and not entire industries per se.

By that time, however, the damage to lawful industries had been done. Reports from the field, moreover, indicate that these industries continue to suffer the residual suspicion of financial service providers, notwithstanding DOJ’s more recent guidance on the professed scope of the program. For many banks, once burned means twice shy.

One of the more ridiculous aspects of Wednesday’s hearing was the repeated insistence of Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) that NRA “agrees” that OPC did not intend to target lawful businesses. To “substantiate” this point, he quoted from an alert we issued on May 2, 2014, as rumors were swirling about OPC in the media.

We stated at that point that we had “not substantiated … an overarching federal conspiracy to suppress lawful commerce in firearms and ammunition, or that the federal government has an official policy of using financial regulators to drive firearm or ammunition companies out of business.”

We cautioned, however, that “NRA will continue to monitor developments concerning Operation Choke Point and report on any significant activity of concern to gun owners.”

We also noted, “The Obama administration’s record … certainly provides no reason for confidence.”

Three weeks later, we posted an update to that story in which we specifically stated, “At the time of the [May 2] report, we were unaware of a ‘smoking gun’ to tie [banks’ decisions to drop or refuse firearms industry business] back to pressure from regulatory authorities,” and noted, “That may be changing.”

That second report went on to detail additional evidence on OPC that had since come to light, as well ongoing investigative efforts.

Since that time, NRA has reported on OPC extensively, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Anyone who read these reports could not fail to understand that NRA has been gravely concerned about OPC for well over a year and that whatever OPC’s original justification might have been, DOJ was willing to accept or even embrace its negative affect on the firearm and ammunition industries. Yet Sen. Franken cherry-picked one phrase from an early report to falsely portray NRA’s current position and view of the matter. Certainly, this sort of duplicity does not serve the senator’s integrity or the cause of Delery’s nomination well.

Delery’s nomination has not yet been scheduled for a vote. Based on his unconvincing performance at the hearing, however, and continued unanswered questions about the true origins, design, and scope of OPC, NRA remains deeply troubled by this nomination. America deserves better than senior DOJ officials who are merely tools for the political views and schemes of an ideologically-driven administration.

To reward such officials for this behavior with promotions is clearly beyond the pale.

About the NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Facts on Deport Racism PAC and anti-Trump Video

Posted on November 9, 2015November 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

The full document of the Deport Racism Political Action Committee filing to the Federal Election Commission is here. Based in Columbus, Ohio is has some Hillary Clinton supporters’ fingerprints on this video and mission.

More details: Hat tip to Heavy.com for the information below.

Deport Racism: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Deport Racism recently posted a video that featured children hurling obscenities at Donald Trump. The group has now offered to pay $5,000 to anyone who yells “Deport Racism” or “Trump is a Racist” during the live TV broadcast of Saturday Night Live while Trump is hosting this Saturday.

Here’s what you need to know.

1. The Video Features Children Yelling Profanity About Trump

The (NSFW) video posted above features two children yelling out obscenities about Trump and raising the middle finger at him. At the time of posting, the video had only 2,198 likes on YouTube and 13,096 dislikes. The video starts out with the words: “Hola, Donald Trump! Screaming, ‘Get out of my country!’ Republicans use offensive words. So here’s a few of our own.”

2. The Group Is Now Offering $5,000 to Anyone Who Yells “Trump is a Racist!” During Saturday Night Live

deport racism trump

Donald Trump will be appearing on NBC’s Saturday Night Live on Saturday, November 7. The Latino community was angered by this news, saying that letting Trump be on the show gives support to his offensive and racist comments, Rise News reported. Deport Racism wants to hold the station accountable and is offering $5,000 in cash to anyone who yells “Trump is a racist!” or “Deport racism!” during the live broadcast, The Hill reported. In a press release, Santiago Cejudo, an organizer with the group, said:

We’re hoping the $5,000 will help people on set or in the studio audience find the bravery to speak out loudly and help focus the national conversation on that we need to deport racism, not people.”

3. Some Suspected That YouTube Deleted Dislikes for the Video

dislikes decreasing deport racism

Deport Racism’s video currently only has 2,198 likes on YouTube, but visitors reported that they saw fewer dislikes on the video after visiting on YouTube multiple times. In a Reddit thread posted here, one Redditor shared a series of photos showing the number of dislikes steadily decreasing. Some commenters mentioned that the number of dislikes decreased even while they were reading the thread on Reddit. The number of dislikes currently stands at 13,096. However, other users said that after awhile, the number of dislikes started increasing again and perhaps the decreasing numbers were simply due to users mistakenly hitting “dislike” at first and then changing their vote.

4. Others Believed Hillary Clinton Was Behind Deport Racism’s Campaign, But It’s Really Just One Activist Who Supports Clinton

deport racism source code

Liberty GB reported that Deport Racism’s website included a link for supporting Bernie Sanders’ campaign. However, digging into the source code of the website revealed links to Clinton’s campaign gear, accessories, and a “White House Wonder Woman” Vimeo file, which is private. The code also linked to a website called Bill for First Lady 2016, which described itself as a “national online grassroots movement of young Americans to support Hillary Clinton for president in 2016…” The website is registered to Luke Montgomery, who is an activist for Hillary Clinton and founder of the Bill For First Lady website.

Some have said that these are signs that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is behind the anti-Trump campaign run by Deport Racism. However, this isn’t actually the case. The truth is that Luke Montgomery, a Clinton supporter and activist, is the person behind all the sites, without any direct connections to Clinton.

5. Deport Racism Is an Online Movement to Fight Anti-Latino Racism in the 2016 Election

deport racism trump snl

Deport Racism is a PAC that was created to fight anti-Latino racism in the 2016 election. The group focuses its work on creating viral videos, social media memes, and “headline-generating confrontations,” according to its website.

Deeper dive on the man behind all of this and he has a dark past.

DEPORT RACISM PAC

PO BOX 10472
COLUMBUS, OH 43201

Treasurer Name: LUKE MONTGOMERY

Committee Designation: U (UNAUTHORIZED)

Committee Type: O (INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE-ONLY COMMITTEE)

Mizzou University President Forced to Resign by Black Demands

Posted on November 9, 2015November 9, 2015 by Denise Simon

The University president did resign on November 9. This has the social justice types at the White House and the Department of Justice fingerprints all over it.

The social media campaign in earnest here and here.

In part: “We want the student body and the administration to know that we are calling for UM System President Tim Wolfe to step down or we risk losing a student,” Ervin said, referring to the possibility that Butler could die.

The group is using Twitter to push its message using the hashtag #BoycottUM.

They have also started a www.Change.org petition to remove Wolfe from office.

“I think there are several things in the works to bring attention to what is going on,” Alexis Ditaway, who is an ally of Concerned Student 1950, said. “As minority students on campus this is something that can and will affect all of us. This is an issue.”

The students gathered Tuesday night with one final chant from Assata Shakur:

“It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

During the University of Missouri’s 104th homecoming parade, Saturday, October 10, 2015, eleven Black student leaders on campus interjected themselves into the parade, presenting UM system president, Tim Wolfe, and the Columbia community with a demonstration addressing Mizzou’s history of racial violence and exclusivity. The demonstration covered the raw, painful, and often silenced history of racism and discrimination on the University of Missouri’s campus.

This history of racism at Mizzou dates back to 1935 when Lloyd Gaines petitioned the university to be its first Black law student and was denied admission. The actual year that the first Black student, Gus T. Ridgel, was accepted in the University of Missouri wasn’t until 1950, hence where the concept of “Concerned Student 1950” comes from.

Concerned Student 1950, thus, represents every Black student admitted to the University of Missouri since then and their sentiments regarding racerelated affairs affecting their lives at a predominantly white institution. Not only do our white peers sit in silence in the face of our oppression but also our administrators who perpetuate that oppression through their inaction.

The Black experience on Mizzou’s campus is cornered in offices and rarely attended to until it reaches media. Then, and only then, do campus administrators seek reactionary initiatives to attest to the realities of oppressed students, faculty, and staff. These temporary adjustments to the university’s behaviors are not enough to assure that future generations of marginalized students will have a safe and inclusive learning experience during their time at Mizzou.

It is important to note that, as students, it is not our job to ensure that the policies and practices of the University of Missouri work to maintain a safe, secure and unbiased campus climate for all of its students. We do understand, however, that change does not happen without a catalyst.

Concerned Student 1950 has invested time, money, intellectual capital, and excessive energy to bring to the forefront these issues and to get administration on board so that we, as students, may turn our primary focus back to what we are on campus to do: obtain our degrees.

The following document presents the demands of Concerned Student 1950. This document reflects the adjustments that we feel should be made to the University. We expect a response to these demands by 5:00pm on October 28, 2015.

If we do not receive a response to these demands by the date above, we will take appropriate nonviolent actions. If there are any questions, comments or concerns, you may forward them to [email protected].

The struggle continues, Concerned Student 1950

List of Demands

I. We demand that the University of Missouri System President, Tim Wolfe, writes a handwritten apology to the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrators and holds a press conference in the Mizzou Student Center reading the letter. In the letter and at the press conference, Tim Wolfe must acknowledge his white male privilege, recognize that systems of oppression exist, and provide a verbal commitment to fulfilling Concerned Student 1950 demands. We want Tim Wolfe to admit to his gross negligence, allowing his driver to hit one of the demonstrators, consenting to the physical violence of bystanders, and lastly refusing to intervene when Columbia Police Department used excessive force with demonstrators.

II. We demand the immediate removal of Tim Wolfe as UM system president. After his removal a new amendment to UM system policies must be established to have all future UM system president and Chancellor positions be selected by a collective of students, staff, and faculty of diverse backgrounds.

III. We demand that the University of Missouri meets the Legion of Black Collegians’ demands that were presented in 1969 for the betterment of the black community.

IV. We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty, staff, and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained, and overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color.

V. We demand that by the academic year 20172018, the University of Missouri increases the percentage of black faculty and staff campuswide to 10%.

VI. We demand that the University of Missouri composes a strategic 10 year plan by May 1, 2016 that will increase retention rates for marginalized students, sustain diversity curriculum and training, and promote a more safe and inclusive campus.

VII. We demand that the University of Missouri increases funding and resources for the University of Missouri Counseling Center for the purpose of hiring additional mental health professionals; particularly those of color, boosting mental health outreach and programming across campus, increasing campuswide awareness and visibility of the counseling center, and reducing lengthy wait times for prospective clients.

VIII. We demand that the University of Missouri increases funding, resources, and personnel for the social justices centers on campus for the purpose of hiring additional professionals, particularly those of color, boosting outreach and programming across campus, and increasing campuswide awareness and visibility.