The Alton Sterling Video

You can watch the video here:

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/alton_sterling/article_209c1f62-33c7-11e8-a2c8-179ff7c92a3f.html

Two comments on it:

1) As usual, this altercation escalated because Sterling refused to put his hands on the vehicle as requested.

However. The police officer never told Sterling that he was being detained. He never told Sterling why they were detaining him. A citizen has a right to be told he is being detained and for what reason. Personally, since I know that police have a license to kill, I'm going to cooperate, that is, I would have put my hands on the car as requested, while continuing to ask if I was being detained and why I was being detained.

This is particularly important because there was no crime in progress where police have far more discretion in detaining people *right now*. As we see in the video, Sterling has nothing in his hand except for what appears to be a cigarette and was in the middle of a business transaction with a woman. He did not have his other hand in his pocket. His hands were visible to the officers and he was not a threat. Even with the report of a "man with a gun" (none of which we hear on the muted audio) once at the scene the circumstances didn't warrant that approach.

What is worse though is that once Sterling had his hands on the car, the "cursing officer" continued to act extremely aggressively towards Sterling and requested that he be tasered while Sterling once again simply asked why he was being detained (which is his right). His hands were up and at his side. They did not fall until he was shot with the taser. The taser clearly didn't work on Sterling. This may need to be addressed with the manufacturer. What it does tell us though is that the officers attempted to use less than lethal force. Usually this would go in the officer's favor because it would show a lack of intent to kill. However, one officer had already said that he would shoot Sterling in the head. That is intent. That officer should be up for murder charges. Why? Because he (and his partner) escalated a situation while threatening to kill Sterling, then created a situation that lead to a fulfillment of that promise.

Means.
Motive
Opportunity.

Furthermore; while tasing Sterling, the officers kept barking orders. My understanding is that a person hit with a taser essentially loses motor control. That is above and beyond the pain induced by being shocked. To bark orders and expect them to be followed by someone who has a high electric current running through their body is not productive and in my opinion, negligent. The way I see it, if you're going to shock a person into compliance, you wait until they are down, no longer being shocked and then give orders.

2) Once Sterling was brought to the ground he had been partially mounted by one of the cops. At this point the gun that Sterling had was seen/located and the officer announces gun. Fine. Then the shooting starts. Again though, Sterling had just been shocked at least 3 times and could not, from what I saw, be in any condition to get to the gun and fire it at anyone.

Again, I'm not clear on how the grand jury declined to charge the officers. The video presented in the linked page is pretty damning to me. There will be lawsuits and they will be won.

Steve Harvey Told a Bold Lie

On Wednesday morning, I caught Steve Harvey saying that police only shoot black people. By which I assume he meant unarmed black people. None of his co-workers corrected him or even hinted that Mr. Harvey may be wrong. The epic fail that this represents cannot be overstated. Though Mr. Harvey saw his ratings drop after his visit with Trump, he still has a massive audience.

He has been syndicated since 2005 and has been on Majic since then. He is heard weekly by an estimated 7 million listeners.

7 million would be half the US black population, including children. If you eliminate minors that would be a rather large proportion of Black people (assuming that's his main audience). Thus when Steve Harvey says something, there are a lot of people who are going to listen and a large portion of whom will agree and pass along the "info". Hence the statement made by Mr. Harvey was not only damaging to his credibility (and the radio stations that let it pass) but served to misinform a large portion of the public. So lets get into this "only black people get shot by police" comment. The only relevant question is: what do the facts say?

From The Washington Post (accessed 3-29-2018):

As we can see here more white people have been shot by police while running away from police than black people. in fact 50% more white people have been shot by police while fleeing on foot than have black people.

As we can see more white people have been shot by police while fleeing in a vehicle than black people. Once again, 50% more while people have been shot while fleeing in a vehicle than black people.

We see that so far in 2018 the same number of white and black people have been shot by police while unarmed. Clearly these numbers will not go up at the same time since police don't shoot people in racial pairs to "clean up" the numbers.

In general white people have been shot by police 2x more than black people. Keep in mind that black people commit crimes (particularly violent crimes such as homicide) far more than white people do so that so many white people are being plugged with state lead shows that police are, if anything, shooting and killing white suspects in far disproportion to their threat level to the public. So having shown that Steve Harvey had no clue of what he was speaking on, the question is why his co-workers let it slide. Why did the stations that carry his show, allow such massive misinformation to go unchecked? And lastly will anyone tell Steve Harvey to apologize and correct the record in the same manner that he lied about it?

Trump: Victim of Revenge Porn

Whether you like Trump or not one should be troubled by these hoes coming out the closet to exact revenge on Trump for having fucked 'em and left 'em.

Whether one agrees with adultery or not is not relevant here. We have a lawyer going on tv talking about how he has a DVD that may have evidence that Trump had consensual sex with [one of?] his favorite porn stars. In any other context this would be a threat of blackmail and this lawyer would be in danger of losing his license. His client would be a target of a police investigation. However; since so many people in the press are against Trump, this kind of smear campaign, and that's what it is, is acceptable.

60 Minutes, a show that at one time was one of the pinnacles of respectable journalism allowed Trump's mistress to essentially brag about having sex with a married man. I mean really. Forget Trump for a minute, why are the news media shitting all over Melania for? Has anyone even considered how she feels about having these hoes on international TV bragging about sleeping with her husband? It's bad enough he did it, but shit why does the media have to broadcast her betrayal worldwide?

This is catty female bullshit of the lowest order. So called respectable news outlets are engaged in teenage girl gossip circles and wonder why half the country thinks they are shit. One of these hoes, and that's what these women are, was talking about how she was given the tour of the Trump pad. I mean, how do you NOT see this is some "I slept with your man and there's nothing you can do about it?" shit?

This is the same media that continues to glorify Bill Clinton, who in addition to [allegedly] raping a few women, "abused" his power while in office to get a blow job while at work on the tax payer's dime. But now these same media personalities are all worked up because some hoe slept with the current president 10 years ago, took cash and now want's to supplement her cam-show income.

And the media is OK with this.

The Stick Em Up Negroes

Generally speaking there are two types of what I'll call Negro Activists: There is the hand out Negro Activist and the stick 'em up negro activist. The former complains about how white people aren't giving them enough. Everything would be a crystal stair if only white people gave us more stuff. The latter is usually a convert from the former. Realizing that the "giving" may either not happen or never be enough, they embark on making white people give stuff. To be sure, these archetypes are not unique to Negro Activists. Feminists have the same types but generally target men. But I'm not talking about them today.

Much of the "black rights movement" was lead by the hand out type. When Garvey came along and announced the "New Negro" that would build his own shit and thereby show the world his equality through the strength of his own work, these hand out Negroes lined up to denounce Garvey. These hand out Negroes worked with the feds to get rid of Garvey and to thwart his plans in Africa and the Caribbean (I'm looking at you NAACP). Now, in the year 2018, hand out negroes and stick 'em up Negroes are in high demand as white people have lost their collective minds and allowed themselves to be guilted into supporting all kinds of bullshit that benefits a small number of Negroes who live off of rent seeking off the success of whites. Today's example comes from Uber:

Bozoma Saint John, Uber's chief brand officer, called on white men to help diversify their workplaces.

"I want white men to look around in their office and say, 'Oh look, there's a lot of white men here. Let's change this,'" Saint John said at the SXSW festival on Sunday.

"Brand officer"? That's corporate speak for someone who did none of the hard engineering work to make the business work. But that's not even the point here. the question that ought to be asked is: Why should white men who collectively worked to make a successful company (legal and ethical issues aside) "look around" and change the environment? That's like asking a championship team with a near perfect record to consider fucking up the team because someone wants in.

Saint John said the onus should not be on people of color to improve diversity at work: "Why do I — as the black woman — have to fix that? There's 50 of you, there's one of me. Ya'll fix it. ... Everybody else needs to make the noise — I want white men to make the noise."

You know what? She's right! It's not the job of black people (I'm not speaking on the other POC's cause we all know that she's NOT speaking about Asians be they east or south). If Black people, or women since she brought it up, want to see themselves in huge populations in businesses, you START ONE.

Uber, like most tech companies, is working to diversify its workforce. Its first diversity report, released in March 2017, showed that Uber had no technical leaders who are black or Hispanic. Among non-technical leadership positions, 3.7% were black and 1.2% were Hispanic.

Which is in line with the population of Blacks and Hispanics (not a race) with advanced computer science degrees or other non social science advanced degrees.

"The number of African Americans in Silicon Valley is dismal," said Saint John, who left her marketing leadership job at Apple Music for Uber. "It's not up to one company — it's up to the entire industry to make sure that we are moving the conversation forward. Sometimes those walls of competition need to come down so we can move the entire industry forward."[ My underlines]

So competition needs to "come down" so black folks can get jobs? This means that Bozoma doesn't think that black people are intelligent enough to compete with everyone else in high tech. This means that Bozoma thinks black people are inferior to everyone else. People who think they are inferior to others beg for hand outs or try to do the stick 'em up thing. Which is exactly what she's doing here.

It really gets tiring watching lefty racism on display without so much as a peep from the people who are being insulted. These Negro Activists almost universally believe that black people are either children or inferior adults that need for everybody to stop what they are doing to help them. It's hard to imagine that at one time a man and woman walked the earth who thought that black people were actual adults who should be responsible for their own futures regardless of any hostility they faced.

Democracy Dies in The Hands of Women, Blacks and Democrats

You know how certain MSM says that "Democracy Dies in Darkness"? Well a nice handy dandy chart shows where Democracy actually dies. Robbed from Steve Sailer at UNZ who screencapped it from the NYT:

Freedom of Speech is an enumerated right in the US Constitution. Diversity is an ideology not enumerated in the US Constitution. Three groups are clearly a present threat to US Constitutional rights: Women, Blacks and Democrats. 64% of [polled] women think diversity is more important than an enumerated right. 68% of Blacks [polled] think that diversity is more important than an enumerated right to which they were specifically denied during and after slavery and post reconstruction. 66% of [polled] Democrats think diversity is more important than an enumerated right.

Many of these same populations used the "free speech" argument to gain rights and privileges in America. Having come to a point where they have power, they have turned against the very freedom that got them power. It is very clear they have no respect for, as some have put it, "muh constitution".

Glenn Greenwald on The 'Russia Meddling"

At The Intercept

But the more important question is the one these chest-beating politicians and pundits notably refrain from addressing. If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks? Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor prompted U.S. involvement in a world war and, ultimately, dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan; 9/11 initiated wars in multiple countries that still, 17 years later, have no end in sight, along with a systematic and still-worsening erosion of basic civil liberties.

I too had this question when I saw the "news". It just goes to show that a lot of these folks are just out to say anything. You'll note that the above claims have been memory holed. It's not an accident. The MSM doesn't really want people asking these questions. Besides if tweets and Facebook posts are Pearl Harbor then what was the take down of the government in Ukraine?

Disgrace! Follow Up

I promise I did not read this before writing my original post but it definitely underscores the point of that post:

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion, noting that the courts should never have granted standing to this alien to begin with and that the case should immediately be dismissed, not just remanded. Existing law (8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9), 1226(c)) already kicks the courts out of this case altogether, in their opinion. Thomas seemed bewildered that the DOJ didn’t even assert this argument. This is a point I’ve made, that the DOJ didn’t assert a similar jurisdiction-stripping provision (§1201(h)(i)) against litigation pertaining to denial of visas as part of the immigration pause executive order.

Why hasn't the DOJ assert the argument? Politics. Why isn't the DOJ asserting federal law? Because the people running the place do not have the will to do so. Disgrace.

We have the laws. We lack the leadership to implement them.

Natural Law, Second Amendment and Gun Control

So the recent shooting that has not occurred in a black neighborhood, where such things are apparently not worthy of much, if any, attention has the press doing it's usual shtick. Men who are slowly but surely becoming as emotional as women when it comes to these things are generally competing to see who can be the most sympathetic and approval seeking. Rational minded people, both men and women, are being cast as kid killers, Nazis, and klan members for simply upholding their rights and objecting to be treated like criminals. It seems that one of the issues is that perhaps a large portion of US society fails to understand (or even know) natural law and how man made laws sprung out of it.

In all of our genes is the coding for a flight or fight response. Most of us have little control over these reactions. Heart rates increase. Blood pressure goes up. Adrenaline kicks in. Vision narrows. These reactions are nature's means of telling us to defend our lives. Sometimes that defense is running as fast as you can. Sometimes that defense is harming the threat until it isn't a threat any more. The vast majority of times the run response is the path taken. We can call this cowardice if we want to, but it's a natural reaction. Among mammalian species the female typically will fight if her young are threatened. The male on the other hand will not only fight to protect himself, but he will fight to protect his female mate and often his offspring. Mostly because in nature if he does not do so, the next male will kill his offspring and mate with the now available female.

I was watching an episode of Blue Planet where a polar bear had found a female to mate with. This occurrence is apparently a rare event. This bear mated with the female and fought a number of other males, to the point where he was limping and blood was all over his body. Just to make sure he could mate. The female? She was wandering off, pregnant and unscarred. That's some male privilege for you. But I digress. The point being that self defense by whatever means necessary is a natural law. If you are threatened you have the natural right to end that threat.

Armaments are extensions of this law. Not many species can craft weapons. That takes a level of intelligence AND a body capable of manipulating materials. This ability to create weapons is an extension of the natural right to defend oneself. Whether that weapon is a arrow, blade, sword, sling shot, or firearm. There is no doubt that the founders of the Republic understood this. The second amendment was not created as some means to protect "hunting" as so many in the gun control side of the argument like to say. While hunting may be an activity in which guns are used, one should not be fooled into thinking that one needs to have such a justification for gun ownership or ownership of any weapon of any kind.

What has informed the gun control issue is the rapid urbanization of society in addition to racial angles. Modern gun control was initiated as a response to the Black Panther party for self defense. When the Black Panthers decided to patrol the streets with guns and watch police, which was perfectly legal, there was alarm about "armed negroes". Gun control legislation soon flourished. To be sure that is not the first time that alarm about "armed negroes" occurred in America, but it should serve as a reminder to those who are for gun control to know that it has been historically used to control an "undesirable" population. Yesterday that undesirable population was black folks. Today it is white, largely rural, heterosexual males.

Urbanization has come along with often heavily armed police who are often not present when the threat to one's person is actually occurring. Since such threats are, at least for non-blacks, a rare occurrence, it allows non-black persons to believe that no one is in *need* of arms. Even though there is no constitutional requirement of personal *need* in order to have the right to a firearm (or weapon of any kind). While we are inundated with news about criminals (new or old) who shoot up schools or worksites, we rarely hear of the times when a person who is not a police officer used a gun to defend themselves or others. Yet these things happen often.

Incredibly, the fact that gun restriction laws do nothing to stop those intent on breaking the law from obtaining and using guns seems to escape the conversation. It's as if it is inconceivable to a large proportion of US society that there are people who don't give a flip about laws on the books. Murder is illegal, yet it happens. Rape is illegal, yet it happens. Assault and battery are illegal, yet it happens. I could go on and on. The fact is that law breakers don't care what legal obstacles are in place. Their only real concern is whether they can get away with said act (assuming not to be suicidal).

Increasingly society is being turned into "mandatory flight". laws are on the books that if someone is threatening you then you must try to remove yourself from the situation. If you know how to defend yourself and stand your ground and seriously injure or kill a person who poses a threat to you, YOU may end up prosecuted for using unreasonable force or murder. When these school shootings happen, the instructions are to run and hide. Fight only if it's the last resort (the gunman has entered the room you barricaded yourself in and hope you can take him out with hand to hand combat. Sure.

Those of us who do not desire to be rendered sitting ducks by the state are seen as unreasonable. We are called all manner of names because we wish to act in our own defense (and those of others). The state is acting in manner that constrains the law abiding rather than the law breaking. That 10 day waiting period? Won't stop a criminal. That "gun must be unloaded and carried in a container separate from the ammunition" law? Yeah, criminals certainly unload their weapons when traveling. That concealed carry permit that is only good in one state? Yeah, criminals are certainly observing that. Can't have your weapon in an Airport? Sure. All constraints on the law abiding. But this is what is going on in America. The state seeks to constrain the law abiding. Be it gun control or speech.

Disgrace!

So Sessions is annoyed enough by Trump's commentary about him to respond somewhat. That's nice but lets be clear: Sessions IS a disgrace and that fruit has not fallen far from the tree.

The Attorney General generally takes his cue from the executive. After all, he reports to and can be fired by the executive (for whatever reason) regardless of what certain members of congress think. Hence an inactive or distracted justice department is a direct reflection of the executive. Why are both Sessions and Trump a disgrace? All we have to do is look at the states and cities in open rebellion against the union and the non reaction to them.

Lets take a walk down memory lane to when Obama was president. Arizona, a state, decided that it was going to finally "do something" about illegal aliens in it's borders. It passed a law that allowed it's officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stopped. The constitutional basis for this was that once police have probable cause to stop someone, they can use their discretion to inquire about immigration status. "Hispanic" leadership immediately took offense, saying that this amounted to racial profiling (Hispanic is not a race). Never mind that over 70% of illegal aliens in the United States are Mexican nationals and Arizona borders Mexico.

What did the Obama administration do? Did they sit on their ass? Did they give a news conference and then go about business as usual? No. The Obama administration immediately sued the state:

The lawsuit is part of a broader approach by President Barack Obama to deal with the 10.8 million illegal immigrants believed to be in the country, arguing that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government not each state.

“Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, said in a statement.

The Arizona law was passed on April 9, 2010. The lawsuit was filed in July 6, 2010 before the law could take effect. That was 3 months. Three months. What did the Supreme Court say when the case reached them?

“Arizona may have under­standable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues,” he wrote, “but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

The court threw out three such provisions in the Arizona law. It said the state cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to not carry registration documents; criminalize the act of an illegal immigrant seeking employment; or authorize state officers to arrest someone on the belief that the person has committed an offense that makes him deportable.

If it is opinion of the highest court in the land that the states have limited ability to deal with illegal aliens and that they cannot pursue policies that undermine federal law? Then why are all these cities and states getting away with doing just that? Why are Sessions and Trump sitting on their asses on this matter?

In September of 2017 California passes a "sanctuary state" law. How long ago was that? 6 months ago. In January of 2018 the law went into effect. Where is Sessions? Where is Trump?

When Arizona passed its laws, which the supreme court said wasn't within its rights because immigration is a federal issue, the Obama administration went directly into action. They didn't even wait for the law to go into effect. Meanwhile California brazenly proposed, passed and allowed a law that contravenes federal law and the only thing Sessions did was give a speech.

That is a disgrace. thats fucking incompetence or complete dereliction of duty.

In Chicago they are giving ID's and benefits to illegal aliens in that city.

City clerk Anna Valencia is asking for another million dollars to establish the ID program, which would provide cards not only for undocumented immigrants, but also for others who can’t get officials IDs.

However, Ald. David Moore, and others like him, question whether the program is necessary, given that there is a state ID card already available...

Also

The proposal requires all city departments to accept the city card as a valid form of identification, a key point for Emanuel as he seeks to give undocumented immigrants a way to identify themselves while filing police reports, buying city stickers, paying bills or seeking to gain access to public buildings.

Plain as day violation of federal law which prohibit helping an illegal alien to enter and remain in the United States. And Chicago is not alone with this. Where is Sessions? Where is Trump. Federal law is being openly violated. Nobody is hiding the fact that they are committing felonies and are doing so in an organized fashion. Where are the arrests? Where are the indictments?

We have indictments of foreign nationals who are not even in the country for posting shit on Facebook and Twitter, yet we can't indict and arrest government officials for clear violations of federal law?

THAT is a disgrace.