Man In Miami Shot by Police: Two Points

Saw this on NY Daily News

Police in North Miami, Fla., told WSVN-TV officers responded Monday to a 911 call reporting a man with a gun threatening to commit suicide. Yet Charles Kinsey, a behavioral therapist, told the TV station the witness and later the police may have mistook the autistic man’s toy truck for a gun.

Hold that thought for a minute.

“I’m going to the ground, just like this with my hands up. And I’m laying down here just like this. And I’m telling him again, 'Sir, there’s no need for firearms. I’m unarmed, this is an autistic guy. He has a toy truck in his hand,’” Kinsey

First and foremost as you can see in the image this guy is posing no threat at all. That, in combination with his declaration makes for a no reason to shoot. That officer should be seeing felony assault charges. Why not attempted murder? because he shot Kinsey in the leg.

Now my second point is, this is yet another example of "random" people calling police about a [black] man with a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, in a country with a right to carry, calling the police about a man walking with a gun should get a "and?" response. Also I strongly believe that some of these calls are actually citizens trying to get someone killed. It's like swatting without the video games.

One last point: I fully expect there to be a more blatant example of police shooting an innocent person due to the targeting of police by certain people. This may be an example of such an event.

The End Game of Feminism: The Total Control Of Men

back when I was young and naive I thought feminism was about equality for women. I had women who in their early lives could not have their own credit cards. Women who could not own property by themselves. Today such a thing would strike me as odd. Indeed for a couple of generations now, such a thing cannot even be imagined. Yet these kinds of things happened and I was glad to support putting such rules into the dustbin of history. But as I grew older I realized that what passes for feminism now has nothing at all to do with equality and everything to do with control of [heterosexual] men often accompanied by the criminalization of male masculine behavior. Today I saw an article in the Daily Mail that gives us indisputable evidence of this:

A police force revealed today it has become Britain’s first to recognise misogyny as a hate crime. Nottinghamshire Police is recording incidents such as street harassment, verbal abuse, unwanted physical approaches and taking photographs without consent within the hate crime definition.

It also includes using mobile phones to send unwanted messages, unwanted sexual advances and ‘unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement’, possibly including wolf whistling. [my underlines]

Physically approaching a woman is a crime? Do these idiots not know that "uninvited" verbal and physical contact is how people make new friends?

The force’s chief constable Sue Fish said: ‘I’m delighted that we are leading the way towards tackling misogyny in all its forms.

‘It’s a very important aspect of the overall hate crime work being conducted and one that will make Nottinghamshire a safer place for all women.

Firstly. Sue Fish should be removed from office and barred from any government policy making body. Secondly, since when are men second class citizens in the UK? Since she has declared this to be a about the "safer space" for women, it is clear that the "law" is not about equal protection and equal applicability but about conferring special and preferred status to women simply because they are women. This action by the police shows feminism as the farce that it is. Those that approve of this do not think women and men are equal, they think women are weak and in need of special protections from society. This attitude was the exact same reasoning given for denying credit cards and property ownership. Women were too mentally weak to control themselves and property and therefore had to be under the guidance and control of men.

A force spokesman said: ‘Unwanted physical or verbal contact or engagement is defined as exactly that and so can cover wolf whistling and other similar types of contact. If the victim feels that this has happened because they are a woman then we will record it as a hate crime.

‘This doesn’t necessarily mean that a criminal offence has been committed, but means we will carry out risk assessments and offer support as we would to any victim of a hate crime.

About this whistling thing. Personally I find such behavior to be low class. That said though, nobody is harmed by whistling. As a matter of fact such behavior is considered complimentary by those doing the whistling therefore making the designation "hate crime" even that more untenable.

Lets consider the example given by the police:

‘I was eating in a takeaway when a man asked for some of my food. I said no. He started shouting at me, calling me a ‘fat f***ing bitch’ and getting more and more angry. He then threatened to assault me. I felt really scared and had to get a taxi home.’

Apparently this was a homeless man. There are laws against threatening violence against anyone so there is no need for "hate crime" bullshit.

‘A builder near a school shouts vile abuse to every woman, including pregnant women or women with their children. Women are scared to walk past him and go out of their way to walk down other streets in the area.’

Question: WHAT exactly did these men say? Second question: Describe these men.

‘A man stepped into my path and said “Hello” and he then followed me... He came up to me and said “I like you” and tried to put his arms around me, completely invading my personal space. I pushed him away and told him firmly to get away from me and leave me alone. I then witnessed him try the same behaviour to another woman... another man stepped in and challenged his behavior.’

As above; Describe the man. Secondly as said before, once he tried to "put his arm around men" we have a law for that It's called assault.

‘As I child I had men shout comments such as “are you legal yet” at me.’

Again, IMO, low class behavior. But two things: First: It shows the men in question did not want to engage in pedophilia which is a good thing. Secondly had that question been asked by a man this particular woman liked we wouldn't have heard about it. Indeed this author has had women who were of questionable age volunteer their legal status.

‘I have been followed home, chased through the streets by two men, and asked for sexual favours from a taxi driver. I believe the abusers targeted my vulnerability as a young woman or child who would not be able to fight back.’

First and second examples are called stalking. It's illegal. Follow the law. The third example is likely a fireable offense. And no the women aren't targeted because they are young, they are "targets" because they are considered attractive. Heterosexual men make advances on women they find attractive. This is how it works in the natural world.

‘I have been repeated shouted at in the street since 13 years of age. The shouts at times have been very sexually explicit and have caused me to fear for my personal safety, to take a different route, quicken pace, telephone for help etc. I have been followed by strangers and had to take a different more public route to avoid risk of assault I feared may otherwise occur.’

13 years of age meaning: showing secondary sexual characteristics typical of a female having entered mid-late stage puberty. Again I think it's low class to shout at a woman one doesn't know, particularly words of a sexual nature. I would ask again, citing the recent events in places like Rotherham what these men looked like. When we were shown the video of "walking through manhattan" we saw something quite peculiar about the people who were approaching the woman featured in the video. I don't doubt that men are following some women, I'd just like to know if they are importing the problem.

The unfortunate thing about this, aside from confirming that feminists actually believe women to be not equal in capacity is that the "rules" are so broad as to invite abuse by those who wish to mess with a man who has pissed them off somehow.

Drone Warfare Comes Home To Roost

Somewhat lost in the reporting on the Dallas shooting was the use of drones to kill US citizens on US soil. Previously we have had drones kill US citizens abroad such as Anwar Al Awlaki. The reasoning given there that he was an enemy combatant having declared war or joined a group that had declared war on the US.

What is new is that a drone (they need not fly) was used to kill a citizen who at the time he was blown up posed no danger to any civilian. He was holed up. The drone could easily determine whether he had explosives on his person. The drone could have been used to "flash bang" the suspect or used a low yield explosive that would have injured but not killed him.

I have said in the past that the use of drones will negatively impact warfare as the usual inherent risk of man-to-man combat is taken away and killing becomes a cool and easy endeavor. We should be extremely concerned with the use of drones to kill suspects no matter how guilty they seem to be by circumstances.

This Is The Real BLM

I don't like Deray Mckesson. I don't like that institutions that should know better paid him to "teach". I don't like the fact that someone thought it was a good idea to pay the man $165k to do "HR" work. Many members of the BLM crew are unintelligent frauds who have and will continue to get people killed in their pursuit of blowing up their egos (and bank accounts). But in case you think I'm simply "hating" let me present the following:

Note what Deray wants:

Keep disrupting Trump all summer so that martial law can be declared before the election

Deray wants martial law imposed. For what end?

Get martial law imposed so that Obama can stay in office.

Deray wants to stop the proper electing of the president of the US in order to keep Obama in office so that Deray's preferred policies can remain in effect where they exist and implemented where they do not.

Who is the Nazi? Who is the fascist?

The Philando Castile Case Starts to Unravel

On yesterday's post I noted the following:

This seems to me to be a "perfect storm" of events, assuming this narrative to be correct. If it is correct that Philando was reaching for his identification prior to informing the cop that he had a gun, then I think a jury would find reasonable doubt to acquit. An officer seeing a gun and the person in possession of that gun reaching in that direction, can reasonably infer that his life is in danger and generally doesn't have to wait to be shot in the face to shoot that individual. And to be clear, officers have been shot by people in their cars with wives/girlfriends and whomever else in the car. [inserted underlines]

I also noted that it was odd that the officer was so nervous and had his weapon drawn for a traffic stop. Well now evidence has come out to explain a few things:

The Falcon Heights, Minnesota police shooting of Philando Castile is based around an entirely false narrative. Castile and Ms. Diamond Reynolds (Facebook video uploader) were pulled over by police because Castile matched a BOLO Alert for an armed robbery suspect from four days prior.

Yes. I know "fit the description" is a common excuse for harassment but in this case the fellow does look like the person in the robbery.

From the radio dispatch of Officer Jeronimo Yanez: “I’m going to stop a car. I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.” “The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery. The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.”

I had to chuckle at the "wide set nose" because that was NOT what jumped out at me about the similarities.

I'm not going to grab all the information from the other site. Go there and see it for yourself.

If this information holds up to scrutiny it is HIGHLY likely the officer will be exonerated and would unlikely face a trial. But even worse BLM members and sympathizers who stoked emotion rather than even headed thinking will have been responsible for incitement to murder and attempted murder and in all honesty the Race War of 2016.

Philando Castile

So this morning the news shows that an officer shot a man in a car during a traffic stop. Report was that there was live streamed Facebook video footage. Thus far the footage does not show the traffic stop from beginning to end. We only see what happens after Philando is shot.

Reportedly the couple and their child were stopped for having a broken taillight. The NY Times reports the following:

Falcon Heights is a small, predominantly white and middle-class city of about 5,500 residents, bordering St. Paul on the northwest. The two officers who stopped them were from the nearby city of St. Anthony, which provides police services under contract to Falcon Heights, and one officer approached Mr. Castile, who was driving, and said he had a broken taillight, Ms. Reynolds, who is also black, said.

“He tells us to put our hands in the air, we have our hands in the air,” she said. “At the time as our hands is in the air, he asked for license and registration.

“My boyfriend carries all his information in a thick wallet in his right side back pocket. As he’s reaching for his back pocket wallet, he lets the officer know, ‘Officer, I have a firearm on me.’ I began to yell, ‘But he’s licensed to carry.’ After that, he began to take off shots – bah, bah, bah, bah, ‘Don’t move! Don’t move!’ But how can you not move when you’re asking for license and registration? It’s either you want my hands in the air or you want my identification.” [my underlines]

This seems to me to be a "perfect storm" of events, assuming this narrative to be correct. If it is correct that Philando was reaching for his identification prior to informing the cop that he had a gun, then I think a jury would find reasonable doubt to acquit. An officer seeing a gun and the person in possession of that gun reaching in that direction, can reasonably infer that his life is in danger and generally doesn't have to wait to be shot in the face to shoot that individual. And to be clear, officers have been shot by people in their cars with wives/girlfriends and whomever else in the car.

In addition at that point it was too late for the "he's licensed to carry" because the "reaching" has already occurred. That is, the perceived threat is already in action. That she yelled could have increased the officer's fear.

Since I do not own a firearm, nor am I licensed to carry one concealed, I would have to ask those who instruct gun owners whether they are told to inform the officer of the gun on their person PRIOR to reaching for anything or not. It seems to me that if a person has a firearm on their person, legally, they would announce it and ask the officer how they want to proceed.

With all this said, unlike Mr. I Don't Follow Directions from yesterday, I think there is a strong wrongful death case here in the minimum. Better communication would likely have prevented this death and if Mr. Castile is in fact licensed to carry then he was breaking no law and he was following the directions given to him by the officer. If there were no warrants pending, then the officer had little reason to be so prepared to shoot which makes for an inquiry about his mental state.

Heather Mac Donald on Chicago Crime

The following two paragraphs sums it up pretty well:

Sometimes support for the cops comes from unexpected places. In May 2016, a 38-year-old drug trafficker named Toby Jones received a 40-year federal prison sentence for repeatedly trying to gun down a federal informant, in the process shooting three people. He told the judge: “Even with all the latest police shootings on minorities in Chicago, I don’t blame these cops one bit for most of their decisions in the field. And the black community has to first come to grips with why these cops are so afraid,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported. Stories of heroic cops go untold, Jones said, “but as soon as a black kid gets shot, everyone is in an uproar.”

Activists and politicians are proposing the usual “root causes” solution to the current crime wave—more government programs—as well as less usual ones, such as abolishing the police department. The mayor’s Police Accountability Task Force wants the mayor and Cook County to “implement programs that address socioeconomic justice and equality, housing segregation, systemic racism, poverty, education, health and safety.” Such top-down spending ignores the normative breakdown that renders government social services largely futile. The bakery where Fisher works has been hiring for the last five years; he tells the “young brothers” about the jobs. “Half of them don’t show up; the others have drugs in their system. Half want to hang out and make the fast money that can get you in jail,” Fisher observes. [my underlines]

Chicago, Alton Sterling and The True Face of BLM

If you are a lover or hater of black people, you don't look forward to the newspaper reports on the first workday after a summer holiday. For lovers of black people this is because we know that in cities like Chicago and Baltimore there will be a not unusual high body count of mostly black men who have been shot or stabbed, but mostly shot, by other black men. We will be further saddened by the fact that white liberals with their pet negroes will do everything in their power to excuse this behavior by placing the blame on anything ranging from inanimate objects to television advertisements featuring "rich" white people. They will lie to our faces as they try to claim that black on black crime "isn't a thing" and that other races have similar levels of crime (they do not).

Unfortunately this July 4th weekend did not fail to deliver.

Yes, even Google's autocomplete knows the deal. 60 people shot in Chicago:

he homicide victims included a man in his 30s who police found shot in his abdomen, another man who was found shot dead in a lot across the street from an elementary school and a 31-year-old man who was killed outside his father’s auto shop. The wounded included a 5-year-old girl and her 8-year-old cousin, who were each shot in the leg as they played with sparklers Monday night, the Chicago Tribune reported.

The city tallied 72 homicides for June, and homicides were up nearly 50% for the first half of 2016 compared to the same period last year. The city is on pace to record well over 600 homicides for the year, a bleak yardstick that Chicago last surpassed in 2003.

Johnson and Mayor Rahm Emanuel have blamed lax laws that allow gang members, who are responsible for the bulk of the gun violence, to return to the streets relatively quickly.

You'd be forgiven if you had no idea that 60 mostly or ALL black people were shot with 7 dead in Chicago because over in Louisiana one Alton Sterling was shot by a police officer.

Yes, While there was nary a peep out of BLM quarters about the usual bloodshed in Chicago (which currently has had more shootings that NY and LA combined), There were massive protests and online signifying from the usual quarters about Alton Sterling.

As I have learned from the recent hoaxes and misrepresentation of BLM persons, I waited to see the evidence for myself and I had one question:

Were directions given and were those directions followed?

See, if you look at Ferguson, Garner, Grey and others the one thing they all had in common was that the victim refused to follow directions. I don't know what kind of self-preservation motives these people have but you follow directions first and get the lawyer after. And these days lawyers will work your case for free if you have a legit claim. So I went in search of the video.

Right there in the beginning of this video: "Get on the ground! Get on the ground!" Did Alton get on the ground? No. So we can seriously argue that had Alton followed directions that he would be alive today.

Now I also thought this may have been an Oscar Grant situation because I thought Alton was on his chest (face down). After reviewing a second video:

I realized this was NOT the case. Sterling was face up which means that the officers can reasonably argue that they thought Alton was reaching for a gun given that he had not followed earlier instructions (more on this later). Now I'm not making the case for the officer but the evidence is not on Sterling's side. But if you looked at twitter commentary you wouldn't know this.

Then we have to deal with why the officers were there. We know that an "anonymous" caller said that there was a man outside the store who pointed a gun at someone. After all the things that has gone on recently with shooters, anyone with half a brain knows that calling the police about a man with a gun is going to get a very aggressive response. Was this caller trying to get Alton killed?

On a side note, this is also a possible argument as to why, in a country where one has the right to possess a firearm, calling the police about a man with a gun, warrants any response at all. You'd think that in a country with a second amendment, the police would respond with:

"And?"

But back to the main point. As a civilian you have to understand that a police officer is generally not going to be passive when it comes to certain crimes. Since you don't know why an officer is approaching you it would be in everyone's best interest to put the officer at ease by making it clear you are not a threat. After that is established you can argue about why you have been detained. Before I close let me address the point made by the black woman in the second video. She made the claim that because Alton was "subdued" that the officer did not have grounds to pull his gun or shoot. This is what happens when you get people who don't know what they are talking about, but have the "right" politics to speak on your program. If this chick had a clue she would recall that Trayvon Martin had one George Zimmerman similarly situated. Martin was allegedly hitting Zimmerman's head against the ground and yet Zimmerman was able to get his gun and shoot Martin point dead. Therefore any claim that just because Alton was down that we was subdued is false. As Trayvon Martin found out, until or unless you have total control of your opponents hands, you are still in danger.

So there we have it. Black Lives Matter only cares if the black life in question is assaulted by some white person (preferably police), but doesn't matter in the least bit if its a part of the day in and day out killings in our communities by our own community members. Black Lives Matters exists to get it's leaders paid ($165k for one of them) and to ease the guilt-suicide complex of white liberals who enable BLM members by giving them access to media outlets. BLM doesn't care about you or your dead in Any-hood USA. If this doesn't prove it to you then you are probably beyond help.

Brexit as Explained By Star Trek TNG

In Thier Native Land

I saw this comment in regards to Brexit:

let alone Jamelle Bouie's argument at Slate that Brexit was about "embattled whiteness." While concerns about out-of-control migration did play a major role in the push for Brexit, much of that concern (as Reihan Salam explains, also on Slate) was driven by a massive influx of migrants from Eastern Europe, who are neither black nor brown.

For the sake of argument, lets assume all the immigrants WERE black or brown. How is it OK for whites to be "embattled" in their own native land? Would such an analysis such as "embattled blackness" be acceptable? Is black general opposition to gentrification "embattled blackness"?

Two Great Videos

First Gavin on Father's day:

I did not know about Harris-Perry. Explains a WHOLE LOT. Same with Richards. Second a video made PRIOR to the Brexit vote:

And on that EU federated state Why is it a problem? See what the US Federal government is trying to do to North Carolina.

New Locks On The Panama Canal

I have family ties to the Panama Canal. My grandfather worked it and I have the utensils given to him by the US company that hired him. My other interest in the Panama canal is engineering. Until calculus kicked my ass, I was an engineering student and as a child built many a large project out of cardboard. Patience was never strong with me and that is and was a large downfall for me. If you're going to be an engineer you better be patient. Anyway. the NY Times has a great piece on the new locks on the Panama Canal. This picture is great:

And now of course the political angle. All the expertise needed to build and maintain this kind of thing is what my history professor at Tuskegee was talking about, and what Garvey was talking about. When you see these things being done in Africa, it is outside companies, [Mostly?] Chinese doing the design and skilled construction. And note I said "skilled construction." Dragging rocks out of water is not "skilled construction". Right now black people, particularly in the US are able to guilt trip liberal white people into assigning them "worth". But when you see these kinds of projects, the African is rarely present. Many black people get angry when [white] people notice this. Matter of fact, they got mad when Garvey pointed this out.

Where are your men of big affairs indeed.

Was Brexit A Test or Measurement

Those of us paying attention know that the global elite have been using immigration and created refugee producing events to change the demographics of various nations. This is commonly referred to as "importing a new people." As with the proverbial frog that doesn't realize it is in boiling water until it is too late, by the time the native population realizes it is in the throws of colonization, it is often too late.

So I submit this proposal. Brexit vote was a test of how much change has happened in England. There have been a multitude of charts and reports of the breakdown of the voting and two patterns stand out to me that I find most important: 1) Areas with large percentages of foreigner citizens (ie: Not British) had the higher levels of remain. The only group that really stood out in this regard were Sikhs. That deserves a study in and of itself.

2) The younger you were the more likely you were to vote remain. Put another way, the less work you put into England, the more likely you didn't really care about nationalism. Also, the younger the person, the more likely they are to be left leaning and therefore to be averse to anything one would regard as "racist", "Xenophobic", etc. Another way of looking at it, the more likely you had lifelong indoctrination of the leftist type via the educational system, the more likely you were to be a EU-phile (Not necessarily a EURO-Phile which is entirely different).

Now that the powers that be know exactly how many percentage points they need to finallytip the political balance in their favor, talk of "new referendum" in x many years starts to make sense. In a few years, the elderly Exit voters will pass on. Immigration will continue unabated (can't be xenophobic). Lastly more children who have been indoctrinated will become of voting age. Viola. A new voting population more amenable to the wishes of the elites.

This of course is speculation.

Getting The Sharia They Deserve

Having given up their capital city, London to foreigners Londonistan is now getting the sharia law they deserve:

Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, announced Monday that “body shaming” advertisements will no longer be allowed in London’s public transport. “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end,” Khan said.

Of course this is being peddled in feminist bullshit garb about body shaming but the real deal is that Muslims do not like seeing the female body. Period. Of course this goes right to the heart of my last posting. I no longer ally myself with people who trade in censorship and using the state, with it's monopoly on legal violence to enforce it's wishes.

I Concur

The Z Blog has a post entitled Dear Homosexuals which basically covers my position on the Orlando thing....minus the "white guy" portions. Of particular relevance to me:

What you people do in private may revolt me, but as long as you do it in private and don’t hurt anyone, it’s none of my business. It’s a big world and there is plenty of room for all kinds as long as we make reasonable efforts to respect each other’s point of view. It’s not that hard to be polite...

That’s the problem, of course. For the last few decades, you guys in the Alphabet Soup Community (LGBTQQIP2SAA? Really?) have not been holding up your end of the bargain. Instead of respecting the sensibilities of the majority, you have gone out of your way to offend normal Americans, particularly those of us in the honky community...

he Christian bakers would like a little breathing room. The Boy Scouts would like to be left alone. The guys at the office would like to tell a salty joke without fear of being fired, or worse, being sent off to a reeducation camp. In other words, if you want help with Mohamed, you’re going to have to give some stuff back to us. Otherwise, I think I speak for most straight white guys in saying we’ll roll the dice with Mohamed.

To be clear, I have no intention of rolling the dice with Mohamed but I understand where the sentiment comes from. And oh, I still haven't forgiven Mozilla for Brandon Eich. And by the way, this is the same sentiment I have for feminists. I used to be an ally. Then the total rape culture bullshit with African-American women of all people propping up messages of believe the rape claim, even though such thinking got many men lynched and black families burnt out of houses and run out of towns. When feminist moved from equality and equal treatment to preferential treatment and into policing the very nature of men, I turned in my ally card.

So yeah, Orlando was a tragedy but if the LGBTQ[whatever else] crowd wants more than a "sucks to be you" response from me, they should take Z's advice.

Just Take The No Answer and Move Along

For those who are long time readers of this blog you know that I used to post a LOT of religion based material. Some of my favorites being:

Abrahamic What?

Which sadly I need to repost the supporting images and many of the sources are gone.

Also: The Alien Nature of Islam in Africa

And lastly:

Olodumare and the Theistic problem of Evil

This essay perhaps sealed the deal on me being done with any religion that has a "devil as embodiment of bad and God as embodiment of good" ideology. It's worth the time to read the entire essay which is linked in the post.

Now the reasons I have generally refrained from religion posts is largely due to the belated realization that even though this is my space and I'll post what I please, critiquing religions as a means of showing how "wrong" they are, is really just an exercise is mental masturbation. It only does the writer good and even that is a fleeting moment. Also it reeks, IMO of a need for validation from others, which if you are comfortable with your belief system (or lack thereof) you don't need. And lastly for the vast majority of people religion is so fundamental to their mental health that for many a critique of it is deemed an attack on their very person. I have no wish to make such an attack (unless warranted). If a religion helps someone be the best person they can be, then ultimately that's all that matters.

So for example if a person chooses to practice Islam and that helps them be the most moral and productive person they can be, then me pointing out that Mohammed was a pedophile isn't really helping them. It may be true but in the end I haven't helped that person on their journey. All I've done is proven that I know a piece of information. So I basically let sleeping dogs lay about.

Unfortunately I occasionally have people who attempt to proselytize me. I'm polite about it but sometimes folks take it too far. Today's convo:

P:So would you like to come to our Bible study?
Me: No thank you. I appreciate the offer though.
P: Oh why not

This is where the person exited the non-harassment zone. I declined politely. There is no need for further questions but nooooooo.

Me: Not interested. Thanks though. P: Are you a Christian?

It isn't relevant whether I am or not. I already declined.

Me: No. P: What do you believe? Me: That would be a long discussion. P: Have you heard the good news? Me: *Playing a total fool* Good News?

I know exactly what the "good news" is.

P: That if you die there is a way for a 100% chance that you will go to heaven.
Me: I see.
P: If you believe in Jesus.
Me: You don't say.
P: Yes. And the Bible is true because there is data, like archeological evidence that shows it is true.
Me: Well in all religions their stories are based on their history so you can find archeology that confirms their story. But in all of them they put their own myths on top of those stories.
P: Myths?
Me: The Egyptians did it. The Greeks did it. Hindus did it...
P: No, but only the Bible is true.

Now usually I don't go this far but I was trapped because I was doing laundry. But I must say that the archeology argument is new. I have no idea how long this has been a part of the sell though.

Me: Look I want you to look up the following phrase when you get a chance. It's in the New Testament if that helps you: "Thus saith The Amen." Look that phrase up. When you do I want you to ask yourself why someone in the Bible is referring to "The Amen"
P: Well you see the Bible has been translated into many languages. First it was in Hebrew, then Greek and so on. So the writers were using phrases and they may not have meant to use certain words.

Stop right here: You can't be trying to convert someone and then say that the words in your book, which you claim to be written by God has words that the writers didn't quite know how to use.

Me: Well they knew enough to put a definite article, The, in front of Amen. Amen is an Egyptian God. In fact Amen is a reference to The God of Egypt. You should look that up and ask yourself why a reference to an Egyptian God is floating around in the Bible. Now I see my clothes have finished drying, you have a great day. P: *dumbfounded look*

And this is how it usually goes. There are VERY few times that I have run across Christians who are very informed about the book and religion they follow. Most of those persons are those who have gone to divinity school or had some extensive formal training in theology. These "street saints" are usually only informed enough to run rings around the uninformed. But let me clue in the reader as to my reference:

In Revelation 3:14 we find the following:

And unto the angel of the church of the La-odice´ans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.

This appears in the King James Version. Many lay Christians recognize "Amen" (Arabic pronounciation: Ameeen) as a prayer closure with an approximate meaning of "so be it." But when you realize that "Amen" does not appear in the Bible prior to the Hebrews being In Egypt it is clear that Amen is a borrowed God and word from Egypt (among a whole lot of other borrowed items). What we find in Revelations (which has some of the oldest references in the Bible) is that the writers recognized Amen (as in The Hidden one) as Amen-Ra which the Egyptians recognized as the Hidden God. Ra being references as the Sun Disk. You know how it is said that you cannot look at God directly or that Moses came down from the mountain with a face that looked like he had been sun burnt? Yeah that's the Amen-Ra. If you are familiar with the creation epic found in The Book of Coming Forth By Day (AKA: The Book Of The Dead) then you know what "the beginning of the creation of God" references.

In Egyptian theology Amen-Ra is preceeded by Khepe-Ra. Khepera is represented by the Dung Beetle and represents the power of creation and reinvention. The Dung Beetle takes excrement and wraps it around it's eggs. Hence life comes from "death" or "nothingness". The first act of creation in the Egyptian mythos is the foundation of the laws of physics seen a the alternate form of Ma'at, Ma'a which is seen as a stone slab. Then Ra bring himself (itself) about as the first act of creation. Hence Ra is the beginning of creation.

Like I said earlier al of this is fun to know and certainly good intellectual material. But how me telling this to your ordinary Christian helps them be the best person they can be is beyond me. This is why I simply do not engage in the conversations. So if you don't want to run the risk of having the foundations of your faith undermined, simply take the "no" answer and move along.

No Religious Tests...Again.

Certainly have refrained from commenting on the Orlando shooting. This is in part because I had a feeling that more information would be forthcoming that would confound a straightforwards Islamic terrorism angle. In the meantime, I see once again that Obama is trotting out the No Religious Tests(tm) argument against the proposed temporary bad on non-citizen Muslims entering the country (particularly from States involved in Jihadi activities). The commander in chief, a proclaimed Constitutional Scholar [sic] apparently thinks that the "no religious tests" commentary, derived from the US Constitution applies to immigration. I've had the opportunity to discuss the No Religious Tests argument back in 2011:

So apparently not only do some people in the Rick Perry camp think that Mormonism is a cult but also think that not being a "true believer in Christ" is a disqualification for the office of President of the United States. While the Ghost could care less what anyone thinks about someone's religion, it strikes him as particularly odd that a party that purports to be about the "protection of the constitution" would apparently have not read the document.

People love to trot out the Constitution when it suits their purposes. Of course it helps to actually know what the document says:

Article VI: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

It would be nice if members of the press would do their job and correct any politician, including our Constitutional Scholar [sic] Obama, that the "no religious tests" portion of the Constitution only applies to those Senators, Representatives, Judicial Officers and other "Office or public Trust". It does not apply to immigration or naturalization.

That is all.

Spanish Speaking Crackas

This is a Jamaican.

Wait. No, this is a peruvian.

No. Sorry. This is actually an American.

Or is he Chinese?

The bright among you already know the point I'm making with this fellow. Simply because someone has a nationality doesn't mean that they are of a particular race. Why would I bring that up?

These are two white people having a spat. But this spat has once again shown the true colors of liberals and conservatives alike. So called "Conservatives" once again showed that they are simply right wing liberals went on and on about how racist it was for Trump to make his absolutely valid objection to the white Mexican who belongs to La Raza, a group known to be hostile to Trump and is reported to be a part of a group that is against the Trump candidacy. If Curiel was a potential juror he would have been removed from the jury pool for these two things alone and we all know this.

On the liberal side we see this idea that if you are Mexican you must not be white. Now I peeped this rather twisted logic some time ago when I heard some black men discuss why their clearly white women were acceptable: Since they weren't northern Europeans they were OK. For them "white" was defined as French, English, German, Nordic and most Italians. Everybody else was "not white" and to some "honorary black" depending on their skin tone or nose width.

Of course the reason for this type of thinking is owed to the One Drop Rule. Those black folks who are not of American extraction usually do not cast such a net. The point being that Liberals in calling Trump a racist for pointing out Curiel's Nationality show that they have defined whites out of Mexico. That is, To be Mexican is to be definitively non-white. Of course my opening example utterly destroys such thinking. But who has time for logic when it's #NeverTrump?

Of course those of us who have studied slavery beyond "Roots" knows full well that white people have colonized other parts of the Americas. There are plenty of Germans, Italians, Arabs, Asians and others in Central and South America. In fact in a post many years ago I pointed out how many of the Beauty contest winners in South American countries are in fact Europeans.

The second thing revealed once again by liberals is their rank hypocrisy. When they discuss diversity they insist that one of the prime reasons for it is that people of different backgrounds bring different thinking to whatever they enter. This is seen as good. Of course different thinking also brings different biases.This is why when you go for jury duty they ask you questions about life experiences and attitudes which may dispose you to be biased against either party in a case.

And speaking of bias, it was none other than Sotomayor who made the statement that as a "wise Latina" she would bring a certain worldview (bias) to the Supreme Court. She said:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sotomayor said in a speech at 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, law school. She made similar statements at other such events.

So she stated outright that she is biased against white males in part due to their experiences. Yet Donald Trump cannot point out the [not so wise] Latino presiding over his case who has "experiences" which ill dispose him for sitting in judgment over Trump.

The very definition of hypocrisy.

Of course when confronted with said blatant racism Sotomayor said the following as clean up:

"I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience."

"The words I chose, taking the rhetorical flourish, it was a bad idea," she said. "I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand why they might have concern."

Yeah, sure you do. Sure we can't read what's plainly said. Sure.

But to the point of the post. We know full well there are plenty of Spanish speaking crackers in Mexico and elsewhere. Simply because one is not a white American doesn't make one not white. And just because one has a nationality or ethnic background that is south of the US border [sic] doesn't make one NOT WHITE. What Trump, and really all of us needs is for someone to spell this out clearly.

Memorial Day Weekend in Chicago

While the public was hollering about Harambe, those of us who were actually concerned about black lives read in disgust about the 60 shootings with 6 dead in Chicago. The NYTimes, which has lent it's pages to making the BLM movement legitimate by acting as if police were the biggest danger to black folks this side of the Slave Trade, has a report on that weekend:

From Friday evening to the end of Monday, 64 people will have been shot in this city of 2.7 million, six of them fatally. In a population made up of nearly equal numbers of whites, blacks and Hispanics, 52 of the shooting victims are black, 11 Hispanic and one white. Eight are women, the rest men. Some 12 people are shot in cars, 11 along city sidewalks, and at least four on home porches.

52 of 64 people (that's 81%) of the shooting victims were black. One (1) white person was shot (1.5%). This confirms the known statistical fact that blacks commit murders at 7-8 times that of the white population. Also according to liberals all groups of people should be equally represented (or at least in proportion to their population in a given geographic area) in all things. Yet it is clear that even though blacks and whites represent a roughly equal proportion of Chicago's population, they simply do not volunteer to do the same things when it comes to criminal activity.

And so the logic of one Chicago mother, who watches another mother weep over her dead son in their South Side neighborhood, is this: She is glad her own son is in jail, because the alternative is unbearable.

“He was bound to be shot this summer,” she says.

When members of a population come to believe that jail is safer than freedom you know you have a problem. I cannot even IMAGINE a scenario where I would think it better for a family member to be in jail rather than at home. Not only that but such a mentality undermines the claim that the police are more of a danger than other black people.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is also pushing for a quiet weekend. At a community event promoting nonviolence on the South Side, he greets men playing basketball, watches children draw, and compliments a mural underway, which reads: “Hearts Up. … Guns Down.”

A few hours later, the shooting starts.

Murals are not the solution.

The police have made no arrests in the case, and a motive is uncertain. Mr. Lindsey was arrested just a day before on a domestic battery charge. He was released on bond.

Neighbors say the shooting shows that the violence is trickling onto blocks that had long been considered safe.

To paraphrase Dr King: A threat to community safety anywhere is a threat to community safety everywhere. You cannot move to another place to be safe unless the habits and customs of that place are non-conducive and intolerant of criminal activity. If you live close to somewhere that has little respect for law and life and you too have little respect for law and life, then those who have little respect for law and life will come to where YOU live with the same results.

Three years ago, he and his wife consulted a Google map before moving here, trying to see if there were people hanging out on the corners. He’s happy with his choice – even though he estimates there have been gunshots on this block about 10 times. “You get some gunshots every day in some neighborhoods — every day,” Mr. Edwards says. “So I say 10 in three years, that ain’t too bad.”

First, had this been a report in which a white couple was looking at Google Maps to see if there were "people" hanging out, they would be called racist.

Second, when you are in a position where hearing or seeing 10 gunshots in three years is considered "ain't bad", then you have a very low set of expectations for your life.

The doors are open at the Universal Missionary Baptist Church in Austin, on the West Side, and a steady stream of people are dropping off rifles, revolvers, even replica guns — 61 weapons by the end of the day. Some are rusty. Some date to the 1920s. Most donors walk away with gift cards for $100, an incentive paid for by the city to get some firearms off the streets.

“That’s one gun gone,” says Cordelia Brooks, who turned in a weapon that had once belonged to her grandfather and had barely been touched in years.

First: As if new guns can't be purchased or obtained.
Second: How many of these guns have bodies on them in which the owner/killer is now immune from prosecution?
Third: If a gun hasn't been used in years, how was it a part of the problem? Did she expect it to up and walk out in the street and fire itself?

Police officials say most shootings involve a relatively small group of people with the worst ratings on the list. The police and social service workers have been going to some of their homes to warn that the authorities are watching them and offer job training and educational assistance as a way out of gangs.

Of the 64 people shot over the weekend, 50 of them, or 78 percent, are included on the department’s list. At least seven of the people shot over the weekend have been shot before.

For one man, only 23 years old, it is his third time being shot.

This is another known fact that must be kept in mind. The vast majority of black folks do not commit criminal acts. Nor are the vast majority of black folks victims of criminal acts. When you look at the data, there is a persistent and deadly underclass that is involved in these activities. Unfortunately instead of coming to the aide of the victims of these groups BLM would rather spend time defending the very people terrorizing the people trying to live an upright life in the "pool" with these wayward individuals. This is why I have no patience for or good words to say about BLM.

About a block away from the Lexington Street shooting, a fight breaks out. Now the anger is aimed at arriving police officers.

Distrust of the police flashes on the streets, again and again.

A lot of fucking nerve that.

Absolute morons. The people who MOST need to cooperate with police don't. Must like those 10 gunshots in 3 years.

So crimes go unsolved. In 2015, the authorities made arrests in just over a quarter of that year’s approximately 470 homicides. That only frustrates residents and fuels resentment.

Because police work is like it is on Law and Order. Everything is solved in under an hour. If it's not happening that way the police must not be doing their job.

She was cleaning ribs in the kitchen when she heard the gunfire and dropped to the floor. Now she smokes a cigarette and sinks her head into her hands.

“I hate the person that invented guns,” she says.

Meaning you hate white people...the ones who invented the thing and somehow by some kind of magic manage to not shoot 60 of their own over the weekend. But you know I understand why black people are fixated on the object. One of the problems with our indigenous (traditional) religions is that we had a habit of imbuing objects with spirit. Even today you can go to places where if you touch sacred objects (or taboo objects) people will freak out and go into a mental state. They literally fear the object itself. Now I understand that the object is merely a representation of some spirit or some concept and thus is disposable but it is a very large leap in thinking to get to that point. For too many black people "guns" are like those taboo objects of our past. It isn't helping that white liberals encourage such thinking.

“There’s always retaliation,” says one resident near where a 17-year-old was shot in the arm, insisting that her name and photograph not be published. “I don’t want them to come back and kill me.”

Retaliation drives a good share of Chicago’s violence, scarring bystanders and relatives and, in a notorious case last year, killing a 9-year-old boy whose father was in a gang.

Residents say it has gotten worse in recent years as gang structure has shifted. Some are vast and highly organized, while others span only a few blocks. New gang names pile on top of old ones, and they can change rapidly. So can their boundaries. And while once the violence associated with gangs was largely related to drug disputes, lately it is driven more by basic rivalries over turf and dominance, the police say.

And here we destroy the "poverty as prime mover" argument from the liberal war chest. This is about impulse control. These young men lacking guidance and impulse control terrorize their neighborhood. It's not drugs. It's not poverty. It is a way of [not] thinking.

Someday we'll all get serious about crime in black communities and we'll be the better for it.

It Was Wrong Then. It's Wrong Now.

Back in the day. Black citizen trying to exercise his rights as a citizen.

Yesterday. A White citizen trying to exericise his rights as a citizen.

If we had a real president he would have a national broadcast to condemn these acts of treason and sedition and bring the full force of the government down on any person, government official, state and/or municipality that failed to vigorously uphold the law.