Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Friday, January 30, 2009

About Juan Williams Comment on Michelle Obama

And so Juan Williams is getting his behind handed to him for comparing Michelle Obama to Kwame Ture (Stokely Charmichael).

Here's the problem I have with the whole incident:

Exactly WHAT is wrong with Kwame Ture that such a comment is not seen as complimentary?

It has been the daily discourse among so called "liberal" and "progressive" whites to shit on black radicals one of the worst incidents appearing in the Daily KOS where they thought it "fun" to talk shit about Fred Hampton, who it should be recalled was shot a half million times, in his bed, next to his pregnant wife by the Chicago PD for the crime of being a black man not taking racist bullshit.

But it's not surprising given the number of black folk who gladly dropped the soap, bent over and greased their own bung holes, in order to get Obama elected. So that they'd not come to the defense of a man who risked his own life and limb to get black folk organized to vote in the south, who was imprisoned for such activities and literally had the Klan chasing him around the state of Miss., comes as little surprise.

Shame on black so called "intellectuals" for not defending the character of the late Kwame Ture. Shame!

Thursday, January 29, 2009

A Quick Note on Blagojevich

I don't pretend to know whether Blagojevich is actually guilty of anything other than having a foul mouth, but the representation by the body of legislators in Illinois that Blagojevich was free to rebut the evidence against him is flat out false. It is clear from the rules that anyone who would be a part of the criminal proceedings against Blagojevich could not be called. It is clear that anyone who Blagojevich had contact with was likely to be a part of that criminal proceeding and therefore was unavailable to Blagojevich. That is patently unfair. You cannot claim to give someone the freedom to defend himself, but then bar him from calling the very people whom he would want to use.

It was a sham proceeding and it was a political show intended for the next election since not a single member wanted to be the vote against impeachment that was used against them in the next election. That makes the members anything but impartial. In fact that puts them under duress.

The whole thing was a sham to begin with. Doesn't mean Blagojevich isn't guilty of anything, but the process was tainted and any honest person knows it.


I wanted to put this in a perspective that everyday people can relate to:

Imagine for a moment that you're a man who has had "private" conversations about a female co-worker that was very crude. Suppose that someone had overheard or had access to these private conversations and turned them over to a lawyer who later went to the company HR to announce that you were being sued for sexual harassment.

Imagine then that being called to HR you were barred from calling the female co-worker in question for questioning in regards to sexual harassment because she is part of the litigation that is going to proceed because the HR department was collaborating with the lawyer who is suing you. Say you were also barred from having the person with whom you were having the conversation with also testify or submit statements on your behalf. Now suppose that the HR department decides to terminate you based on the "conversation" and claims made by the lawyer. No one would say such a thing was fair and it is highly likely that should the harassment lawsuit fail to deliver a guilty verdict, that he company in question would be sued for wrongful termination.

Tell me anyone who if they were in the above situation would think it was fair.

Now clearly in the above scenario a private company can decide to terminate someone on the grounds of private speech since largely private firms can regulate speech on their premises. However, the government cannot make such a discretionary decision because the government is bound by the Constitution which expressly states that speech cannot be abridged by the government.

Furthermore, Blagojevich is correct when he calls the "court" in the senate a Kangaroo court. They made up rules what, 2 weeks ago? And made those rules in collaboration with a prosecutor with a vested interest in a particular outcome.That is not impartial.

Note To Dr. Walters

Bi-partisanship does not mean roll over and play dead.
I may not agree with Republicans on most issues, but I respect a party that understands what being an opposition party is about.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Black That Matters

I suppose this post will not win me places on blogrolls, new audience members or calls from "establishment" blogs and newspapers but sometimes things just need to be said.

So I see this twit from Negrophile in regards to Obama's racial identity:

Though famously talkative about being biracial, Obama has also called himself black and African-American, and says he came to see himself as such in large part because that is how he is perceived.

"If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," he once said in a television interview with Charlie Rose, "they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed-race guy.' "

The article continues on about how being "black" in America in terms that basically were negative. That is, blackness perceived in terms of what white people thought of blacks and did to blacks. In other words a blackness predicated on and defined by white people. It is a sad state of affairs that black people continue to allow white people and their particular notions of the purity of whiteness to continue to control who is black. I'll get more into that later though.

The second problem is how Obama "came" to see himself. I'm black. I didn't "come" to see myself as black. My momma's black. My dad's black. End of story. Not that I didn't have people around me to point out I was a "nigger" (Thanks for the info Jane), but it wasn't something I had to "come" to understand. What I had to "come" to understand was the consequences for being who I was. Now those circumstances may have had an impact on how I then viewed the world, it had absolutely no bearing on what I was and am.

This is what underlies the huge problem of the social status of "Black" or "African-American" is the US as compared to the genetic reality of "breed" otherwise known as races.

In order to get a fuller grasp of the inanity of this co-mingling of "breed" and social stratification we should look at an impossibly confused post at Jack And Jill Politics

Obama is BLACK. This bi-racial mess is coming up because he’s successful, and because he made the choice, and I do think it was a choice to be Black

Black how? By what definition? Oh yes, that would be the aforementioned "by what matters" thing. See, there's this assumption here as to what "black" means. Now I will agree that the current push to really pin the bi-racial button on Obama is in large part because he is successful and president, but I did say on many occasions that a large reason for his success was that he is not black. It is because he is bi-racial AND has a father that is not African-American in terms of a connection to US slavery. But you know how well folks paid attention to that.

Jack and Jill continues:

While some purport that Obama is ‘ obviously bi-racial’, to which I call BULL, because if we had done a ‘Barbershop’ test in 2004, passing around the pictures of Barack Obama and Harold Ford, Jr., asking which one was ‘ obviously bi-racial’, who would have chosen OBAMA over the at least 2 shades lighter, green-eyed, born of two BLACK parents- Ford? Come on, now.

Yeah, Come on, now. Jack and Jill clearly fell down the hill here. Before I get into the science part, I'll point out that Mr. Ford was "called out" by the Black Agenda Report for claiming his grandmother was white a claim that I'll probably agree with regardless as to what is on the birth certificate. But lets get at why Jack and Jill are so wrong on this point.

For the sake of brevity and clarity for those unfamiliar with genetics let me introduce the punnet square, sideways as I have no intention of firing up Photoshop or Illustrator to make this point. When one has a purebreed anything you represent it by a (xx) or (yy). In this case we will use (bb) to represent a "purebreed" black person. That is a black person who has no white ancestors. We will represent a white person as (ww) as in a white person with no recent black ancestors, since white people, and everyone else who is not black has a black ancestor.

When you cross a purebreed black person and purebreed white person you have the following outcome:

(bb) x (ww) -> 4 (bw) That is all offspring are biracial.

When you take that biracial child and breed it with another biracial child you get the following:

(bw) x (bw) -> 1 (bb) + 2 (bw) + 1 (ww)

If you breed a biracial child and a white purebreed you see the following:

(bw) x (ww) -> 2 (bw) +2 (ww) There are no purebreed black offspring and a 50 % chance of purebreed white offspring.

and lastly if you breed a biracial child with a purebreed black you see the following:

(bw) x (bb) -> 2(bw) + 2 (bb) 2 biracial children and/or 2 purebreed black children

So it is quite the educated guess to say that Sasha and Malia are biracial mostly because in terms of genetics there's a lot that cannot be seen. Of course if you put Sasha and Malia against Bernie or some Africans with no white ancestry it will be readily apparent that they are not "all black." Such is the case with many African-Americans, but by no means all.

So it is possible for two biracial persons to give rise to a purebreed black or purebreed white offspring, though the odds are for producing more biracial children.

From what little we know (and see) of Harold Ford Jr, it is highly probable that he is in fact as biracial as Barack Obama. So Jack and Jill clearly have no clue as to what they are speaking on.

Please remember that the above examples are highly simplified and do not get into polymorphisms or linked genes or any of that. So don't anyone go writing me about it, I know all about it already.

Jack and Jill then gets to the root of the confusion:

nd, what does this sudden ‘ he’s bi-racial’ stuff really have at its core? It’s to divorce Obama from the Black community, because we’ve ALWAYS been a multi-racial people, from the first time the Slave Owner went down to the slave quarters. That’s how we can claim everyone from late NAACP head Walter White to Bernie Mac.

Always? been a multi-racial group? Oh so now you mean the social group of "African-American." Well that's true. But why? Well we have this little inanity called the "One Drop Rule." This piece of White Supremacist garbage was created for one purpose: The establishment of the purity of "whiteness." The White Supremacist dogma claims that all other human subspecies are degenerate at the biological level. Whites (Caucasians) are placed at the top of this genetic pyramid and other groups are assigned a value relative to their position to whites based on such things as hair texture, skin color and level of "civilization." Thus the Asian (Mongoloid) was assigned a higher value than the African. The Indian was actually granted a level of Caucasian-ness" because it is thought, dark skin notwithstanding, they exhibited a great deal of physical similarities with Europeans as well as showing signs of civilization (including the apparent disdain for the darker members of their society). Etc. etc. etc.

And so with this little rule, anyone with any "known" traces of black ancestry was defined as "black." though until relatively recently non-purebreeds were referred to as "colored" to designate their relatively higher status. A status that in fact remains today. As we've already explained above, the idea of a "one drop rule" is scientifically untenable. Why any thinking black person would even perpetuate this dinosaur of White Supremacy is beyond me.

So no, Walter is white and Bernie is clearly black and Obama is biracial as is likely Mr. Ford. And yes you do have the first African-American president since African-American is still defined vis-a-vis White Supremacy rather than genetics. And if one supports the "one drop rule" then Diversity Inc. is right with their 5 black presidents poster and Obama is NOT the first black president. If you go by the "can I get a cab at 2 AM rule" then Obama is the first black president. Complicated ain' it?

Now It must be said that the whole idea of separating out "mixed" "black" folk from the "rest of us" is not new for anyone who has studied history. Even old White Supremacist texts point out that a large number of black "firsts" were either "passably" white (a dumb phrase if there ever was one) or had "significant" white genes. Even these White Supremacist claimed that they preferred these types to the "backward" black of Africa of "low intelligence." This sentiment continues today with studies clearly showing that so called "light skinned black" males (another assinine term) are perceived as less threatening and more intelligent than their black bretheren. "Light skinned black" women are perceived as more womanly, feminine and beautiful, even in the eyes of black men, than their black sisters.

Look at African American leadership in many large cities a large proportion of them are clearly "mixed." The current favorites, Obama, Patrick and Booker have to be the yellowest, "good hair" crew I've seen in my life (Cory Booker sports a baldie like I do so we can't be sure on the "good hair" thing in regards to him).

Anyway, here's to hoping that the rest of us "darkies" get to standing up for ourselves and stop allowing ourselves to be put to the side, to have to apologize for being "too black" in our looks and our speech. For not having to excuse not having a white parent to somehow legitimize our "American-ness" or to be seen as "good looking " despite we're so dark or "smart" for someone so dark. or "So well mannered" despite being so dark.

Lasly lets hope we stop defining our blackness in terms of what other people do to us or say about us, and define it in terms of what we are from creation and correct that Bible verse: I am black AND comely.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Poltical Prisoners

Recent statements by Angola warden Burl Cain makes clear that Woodfox and Wallace are being punished for their political views. At a recent deposition, attorneys for Woodfox asked Cain, "Lets just for the sake of argument assume, if you can, that he is not guilty of the murder of Brent Miller." Cain responded, "Okay. I would still keep him in (solitary)…I still know that he is still trying to practice Black Pantherism, and I still would not want him walking around my prison because he would organize the young new inmates. I would have me all kind of problems, more than I could stand, and I would have the blacks chasing after them...He has to stay in a cell while he's at Angola."


Zionist Money

What can I say?

Monday, January 26, 2009

EU...I Mean Israel... Envoy Blames Gaza

Says "envoy":

"At this time we have to also recall the overwhelming responsibility of Hamas," he said.
"I intentionally say this here - Hamas is a terrorist movement and it has to be denounced as such.

We all know how Europe feels about colonialism. I mean every non-european anti-colonial movement has been called "terrorist" by European colonizers, so to expect different from this jackass is to expect a lion to bark like a dog.

To think that the BBC will post this bullshit but won't air an appeal for humanitarian aide because it would make the BBC seem "partial."

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Lincoln Revisited

So I'm doing some reading over at the Angry Indian and run across what I'll quote in a few. The relevancy of this post is due to the numerous references to Abraham Lincoln by not only Obama but just about every talking head that has a microphone and a camera in their face. I will remind the dear reader that the Ghost had posted a piece on president Lincoln some time ago which featured such interesting tid-bits as:

"All the unoccupied territory...shall be reserved for the benefit of the white Caucasian race --- A thing which cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery."

A repost of a piece in the Mohawk Nation News by the Angry Indian serves as double duty. It pointed out that Obama's speech left out a group of people:

When Obama defined America as a nation of “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers”, he deliberately left out Indigenous peoples. We have our value systems. We have our knowledge.
I'll assume that the Mohawk Nation is using the term "Indigenous" to mean the first peoples of America. I would expand that term to mean those of us, aside from Hindus, who practice our native religions, be it Ifa, Juju, etc. Of course this comes as little surprise given that the inaugeration was a nice pagaent of colored folk and celebrities, with certain types activists (you know, the ones who make up the "or" of the either-or relationship America has had with the Civil Rights establishment left uninvited and as invisible as a black grandma of a Dominican family. Anyway, on the subject Lincoln, the Mohawk Nation News points out:

While Mr. Lincoln was earning a fake place in history, he signed the Homestead Act in 1862. This was a law offering huge tracts of our lands to foreign white settlement. It was put through without consultation, without consent and without regard for the rights and needs of our people. Eventually 1.6 million homesteads were granted on our land and 270,000,000 acres of our territories were privatized between 1862 and 1986, which is 10% of all lands in the U.S. In the conflicts that raged over this illegal action, thousands of Ongwehonwe men, women and children were killed and millions of acres of our territories remain unlawfully occupied. This has nothing to do with honesty, courage, fair play and tolerance. Obama’s speech demonstrates clearly his concept of loyalty and patriotism has nothing to do with respect for the Ongwehonwe of Turtle Island and our future generations...

Two days after Lincoln signed the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863, he signed an order to hang 38 Dakota Sioux in Mankato Minnesota. There were only about 40 adult men of fighting age left out of 400 “prisoners of war”. The U.S. agent refused to feed the Indigenous people and was selling the rations that were meant for them. The men begged for food for their people who were starving to death. He told them to eat grass.

They killed him and stuffed his mouth with grass.

It seems that a certain number of us are going to have to be diligent in the maintenance of history from the whitewashing and willful forgetfulness that is upon us.

60 Minutes Blows Israel's cover

Watch here. Surly a piece that many in power in Israel did not want being seen. After you watch that. Go over to the Kenyatta Edition and watch the video of US representatives making asses of themselves. Stark contrast. Lets also recall that most members of the CBC also lined up to kiss AIPAC ass as well.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Crisis Zimbabwe

Once across, the two men robbed them all. Because Ms. Shindi had insufficient money, payment was exacted otherwise. “Take off your underpants,” she recalled one gumaguma saying. “Today I am going to be your husband.”

NY Times

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The Slave Reference

So apparently I wasn't the only one that was somewhat bothered by the " endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth" portion of Obama's speech.

Here's Harry Brown's comment:
It gets worse, a lot worse, if you follow the rest of the passage logically in terms of the contrast he has set up. The productive good guys of the next sentence, the doers and makers who brought not just prosperity but freedom – those folks clearly must have preferred work over leisure, or maybe they scored them even. And the final sentence tells us explicitly who he is talking about: farmers and settlers, sweatshop-workers and … slaves.

The idea that slaves helped build American greatness because (among other things) they preferred work to leisure is so offensively stupid that it clearly wandered into Obama’s speech via sloppiness rather than by design. (This is in itself undermines his reputation for wordcraft and attention to detail: the only reference to slavery in the inaugural speech of the first African-American president was permitted to carry this crazed logic.) Maybe we can just write it off as the sort of thing that happens when you’re absent-mindedly knitting together clich├ęs and you drop a stitch. Nobody seems to have noticed it or taken offence anyway.

But that's not all I'm annoyed about being missing from the speech. Perhaps it's not front most in Obama's mind as it would be on mine, but I couldn't make an inaugural speech and not reference the fact that slaves built the city where I'm making this speech. pointing that out is not divisive and could be used to great effect.

Obama Halts Gitmo Prosecutions

Fair is Fair. Thanks President Obama for making the first correct step towards closing Gitmo.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Ivory Buses

This is the kind of development I like to read about:

Commuters in Ivory Coast can now travel around town on the first ever buses designed for and built in the region.
The engineering arm of the national transport company, Sotra, decided it could save money and create a bus better suited to African conditions.
"We want the transfer of technology in Africa, and we want to build our own buses with our own specification," says Sotra Industries director Mamadou Coulibaly.

This is a great development. However I have a problem with this statement:

"In Europe the technology is very sophisticated with lots of electronic devices. In Africa we don't need this.
"We just need robust buses because our roads are not very well done like in Europe. This is an African design for Africa."

This is a bad attitude. While I am all for simplicity in engineering. Saying that Africans don't need (or want) "sophistication" is bad.

Public buses in Abidjan are extremely popular and are frequently tightly packed despite the sweltering heat and lack of air-conditioning.

It's not true that if you're in a civil war you can't do things because you see yourself that during the crisis we tried to build big projects
Sotra's Mamadou Coulibaly
The new urban bus has fewer seats than a Western bus, meaning up to 100 people can be squeezed inside.
"I think it's a good thing. It'll help students to move about in more comfort," says Isaac Gueu, who is studying accountancy in Abidjan.

I didn't see it mentioned but I hope that air conditioning was not one of those "sophisticated electronics" that the company thinks is not necessary.

Anywauy beside that "sophistication" nit pick. This is a good development.

Misleading BBC Headline

The BBC lead a story:

Somali executed for 'apostasy'

Which implied that the Somali, Abdirahman Ahmed, had been executed because of supposed Apostacy. In fact the "Islamists" actual beef with Abdirahman Ahmed was that he had helped the Ethiopians

Mr Ahmed was also accused of spying for Ethiopian forces, said to be backing the forces of warlord Barre Hiraale in trying to recapture Kismayo.
He is believed to be the first politician executed by the Islamists.
Ethiopian forces are pulling out of Somalia, two years after they intervened to try to oust Islamists from the capital Mogadishu.

Which lead to:

Sheikh Hassan Yakub - the spokesman for Kismayo's Islamist administration - told the BBC's Somali Service that Mr Ahmed had admitted during his interrogation that he worked with those backed by Ethiopia. This, he said, was the basis for the court's opinion that he had changed his religion.

Om other words there was an assumption of apostasy based on his backing of Ethiopia. Now that's not acceptable to me, but it is clear that Mr Ahmed did not commit apostasy, rather he aided an "enemy government force" which is treason. That the Somalis put it in religious terms is besides the point. Mr. Ahmed could have recited the Shahada and still be executed.

Ding Dong The Bush Is Gone!

I'm having a Wizard of Oz moment right now.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Please Vote This Man Out

Via Negrophile

Sen. Robert Ford, a former civil rights worker, readily admits he's picking on young black men...

The saggy pants bill would make it illegal for people to wear pants more than three inches below their hips. He wants civil fines ranging from $25 for the first offense to $75, plus up to six hours of community service, for three or more offenses.

Yet another attempt by the government to police the clothing of certain people. Mind you, I don't particularly care for the pants off your ass thing, but legislation? It didn't start with legislation and it ought not be ended by it. If one is concerned with black men emulating prison garb, perhaps one ought to concern oneself with the numbers of black men in contact with said system.

Anyway, that's not the worst thing in the article. Not by a long shot. No, the worst was this:

But Ford said he's targeting a segment of the population ripe for regulation.

"We're talking about teenagers," he said. "They have no rights."

Umm, no, not true in the least bit. Really. And for an agent of the government to make such a comment show just how little respect some "lawmakers" have for the constitution, civil liberties AND the people they serve. Since this fellow, Ford, apparently has such utter disregard for the civil liberties of those in his state, he ought to be relieved of that seat.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Herring Vs. United States: Trampling The 4th Amendment...Again.

Today the Supreme Court decided to once again gut the constitution. As is usual "justice" thomas was on the wrong side of history. Here's the case:

On July 7, 2004, Investigator Mark Anderson learned
that Bennie Dean Herring had driven to the Coffee County
Sheriff’s Department to retrieve something from his im-
pounded truck. Herring was no stranger to law enforce-
ment, and Anderson asked the county’s warrant clerk,
Sandy Pope, to check for any outstanding warrants for
Herring’s arrest. When she found none, Anderson asked
Pope to check with Sharon Morgan, her counterpart in
neighboring Dale County. After checking Dale County’s
computer database, Morgan replied that there was an
active arrest warrant for Herring’s failure to appear on a
felony charge. Pope relayed the information to Anderson
and asked Morgan to fax over a copy of the warrant as
confirmation. Anderson and a deputy followed Herring as
he left the impound lot, pulled him over, and arrested him.
A search incident to the arrest revealed methampheta-
mine in Herring’s pocket, and a pistol (which as a felon he
could not possess) in his vehicle. App. 17–23.
There had, however, been a mistake about the warrant.
The Dale County sheriff’s computer records are supposed
to correspond to actual arrest warrants, which the office
also maintains. But when Morgan went to the files to
retrieve the actual warrant to fax to Pope, Morgan was
unable to find it. She called a court clerk and learned that
the warrant had been recalled five months earlier. Nor-
mally when a warrant is recalled the court clerk’s office or
a judge’s chambers calls Morgan, who enters the informa-
tion in the sheriff’s computer database and disposes of the
physical copy. For whatever reason, the information about
the recall of the warrant for Herring did not appear in the
database. Morgan immediately called Pope to alert her to
the mixup, and Pope contacted Anderson over a secure
radio. This all unfolded in 10 to 15 minutes, but Herring
had already been arrested and found with the gun and
drugs, just a few hundred yards from the sheriff’s office.

This is the summary of events from the majority opinion. Let me also post a section from the dissenting opinion:

A warrant for Herring’s arrest was recalled in February
2004, apparently because it had been issued in error. See
Brief for Petitioner 3, n. 1 (citing App. 63). The warrant
database for the Dale County Sheriff’s Department, how-
ever, does not automatically update to reflect such
changes. App. 39–40, 43, 45. A member of the Dale
County Sheriff’s Department—whom the parties have not
identified—returned the hard copy of the warrant to the
County Circuit Clerk’s office, but did not correct the De-
partment’s database to show that the warrant had been
recalled. Id., at 60. The erroneous entry for the warrant
remained in the database, undetected, for five months.
On a July afternoon in 2004, Herring came to the Coffee
County Sheriff’s Department to retrieve his belongings
from a vehicle impounded in the Department’s lot. Id., at
17. Investigator Mark Anderson, who was at the Depart-
ment that day, knew Herring from prior interactions:
Herring had told the district attorney, among others, of
his suspicion that Anderson had been involved in the
killing of a local teenager, and Anderson had pursued
Herring to get him to drop the accusations. Id., at 63–64.
Informed that Herring was in the impoundment lot,
Anderson asked the Coffee County warrant clerk whether
there was an outstanding warrant for Herring’s arrest.
Id., at 18. The clerk, Sandy Pope, found no warrant. Id.,
at 19.
Anderson then asked Pope to call the neighboring Dale
County Sheriff’s Department to inquire whether a warrant
Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2009)
GINSBURG, J., dissenting
to arrest Herring was outstanding there. Upon receiving
Pope’s phone call, Sharon Morgan, the warrant clerk for
the Dale County Department, checked her computer data-
base. As just recounted, that Department’s database
preserved an error. Morgan’s check therefore showed—
incorrectly—an active warrant for Herring’s arrest. Id., at
41. Morgan gave the misinformation to Pope, ibid., who
relayed it to Investigator Anderson, id., at 35. Armed with
the report that a warrant existed, Anderson promptly
arrested Herring and performed an incident search min-
utes before detection of the error.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is clear "Shall not" Not "sometimes" not "mostly", not "unless there is a clerical error." It says "shall not. As in "cannot happen". In street terms that would be: "Sucks to be you Mr. Fed." Perhaps Roberts, et. al live in some alternate universe where "shall not" implies an exception, but perhaps they ought to be permanently removed to that location.

When we look at the summary of events by combining the writings of both the majority and minority opinion we see a trail of bureaucratic errors and what I consider "predatory" policing of Mr. Herring.

1) We have a warrant issued by the court in error for Herring. Why? How? Was Mr. Herring notified that a warrant was put out for him? Was he notified that it was in error and given some sort of document to show law enforcement agents in the case that he was mistakenly stopped? If not why not?

2) Some unidentified person did not update the computer systems as to the withdrawal of the Herring warrant. In fact for 5 months the error remained. Clearly there is no periodic auditing of the warrant database even though such errors have dire consequences for citizens.

In the Herring case, we find that investigator Mark Anderson had probable reason to "fuck" (excuse the non-legal term) with Herring as Herring had made an accusation against Anderson regarding a murder. So it is reasonable to think that Anderson was looking for a way to screw with Herring. In fact by the wording of the dissenting opinion, Mr. Anderson was not usually at this office and happened to have been informed that Herring was at the impound lot. Why? For what purpose would a law enforcement agent inform Mr. Anderson that Herring was at a certain location? What business was it of Mr. Anderson what Mr. Herring was doing at the Clerks office? And how does is very presence warrant an immediate inquiry as to whether he has a warrant for his arrest? This would explain in part what happened next:

So we have admitted at the outset that Mr. Herring was not a suspect of anything at the time that he entered Coffee County Clerk's office. Herring, as per his rights, was attempting to obtain material from his impounded vehicle.

3) It is noted in At this point let me point the reader to the show "Parking Wars" shot in Philadelphia PA. On that show we see that no one can get to their vehicle without showing a driver license, registration, proof of insurance and if necessary the court document showing the proper judgment. You can't go to the parking authority and say: Hey I have a license (or whatever), give me my vehicle. No, you MUST have documented proof. Similarly, if you wanted to get material from your vehicle you must sign a document and be escorted to the vehicle. In fact you can't even go back if you forgot something. You must sign another set of forms.

In this case we find that the court noted that Anderson basically went fishing for warrants. First he tried his county. Not satisfied with the results he then went to the next county. No doubt he would have tried another neighboring county if he could. This is a common thing done by police, who will stop (usually black men) looking for a reason to detain them further even though at the time the citizen has done nothing to warrant such behavior. Anyway, Mr. Anderson motivated for what can reasonably be seen as personal reasons, was told, hearsay style that there was a warrant for Mr. Herring's arrest. I say hearsay because by the evidence given to the court, Mr. Anderson had no actual evidence that there was a warrant. Mr. Anderson, instead of waiting for the fax transmission of the actual warrant, which would have substantiated the hearsay declaration, Mr. Anderson took it upon himself to have Mr. Herring arrested.

So we see the clear contradiction here: A citizen can be denied reclamation of their property for not producing a license, registration or proof of insurance, but an agent of the state can use hearsay declarations to arrest a person and search their person and property. Clear contradiction. That there us usually or "never been" a mistake is irrelevant, the 4th Amendment is clear: Shall not. Period. There was no warrant. Regardless to what the computer said, the actual document did not exist. Had Mr. Anderson followed procedure and waited for the confirmation fax, the arrest would not have happened. It was clear that Mr. Anderson had it in for Herring and therefore skirted policy in order to exact his revenge for the earlier incident between the two.

There was no need to arrest Mr. Herring at that point in time either. From what we find in the evidence, Herring had no clue that he had a warrant out for his arrest (or he would not have walked into a county clerk office). He was not a flight risk, nor was he an immediate danger to the community. All Mr. Anderson had to do was wait for the fax. and upon confirmation of the hearsay declaration, directed the police to arrest Mr. Herring either on sight, or at his known address(es). All would have been legal and fell within the bounds of the 4th Amendment.

Furthermore, on the subject of confirmation. It is entirely possible for either clerk to have entered Herring's name incorrectly into the computer system. How often do people misspell Google searches? What if either clerk had misspelled Herring's name and came up with a warrant for Herrin? or Herrinh? or Herrinb? or Jerring? you see? This is why confirmation is important. This is why there is verification of records. It is to protect the citizen from the state. Ultimately as pointed out in the dissenting opinion, the purpose of the 4th Amendment is to protect the citizen from the state regardless of whether the state is acting maliciously or accidentally. It is clear to me that Mr. Anderson was acting in terms of a vendetta against Mr. Herring and abused his authority in seeking to detain Mr. Herring.

The majority decision noted that they believe that "The deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system" This was substantial. An agent of the state acting on hearsay, when there is a policy in place to confirm, goes on to arrest a citizen, is substantial. There is no harm to the justice system (though the err should always, IMHO, go to the citizen) because there was already a procedure for the "justice system": The fax copy of the alleged warrant.

So it is my opinion that the majority decision of SCOTUS is wrong and is a further erosion of the rights of citizens under the 4th Amendment.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Michael Neumann on Gaza

This means that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, and the Palestinians fight in self-defense. Under these circumstances, Israel's right of self-defense cannot justify Israeli violence. Israel is certainly entitled to protect its citizens by evacuation and other non-violent measures, but it is not entitled to harm a hair on the head of a Palestinian firing rockets into Israeli cities, whether or not these rockets kill innocent civilians.

Self-defense gives you the right to resist attacks by any means necessary, and therefore, certainly, by the only means available. The Palestinians don't have the option of using violence which hits only military targets - apparently even the Israelis, with all their intelligence data and all their technological might, don't have that option! But suppose a bunch of thugs install themselves, with their families, all around your farm. They have taken most of your land and resources; they're out for more. If this keeps up, you will starve, perhaps die. They are armed to the teeth and abundantly willing to use those arms. The only way you can defend yourself is to make them pay as heavy a price as possible for their siege and their constant encroachment on your living space. You're critically low on food and medical supplies, and the thugs cut off those supplies whenever they please. What's more, the only weapons available to you are indiscriminate, and will harm their families as well as the thugs themselves. You can use those weapons, even knowing they will kill innocents. You don't have to let the thugs destroy you, thereby sacrificing your innocents (including yourself) to spare theirs. Since innocents are under mortal threat in either case, you needn't prefer the attackers' to your own.


Monday, January 12, 2009

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Out of Control Police

Over the holidays we got a chance to see how police all over the US are simply out of control. Not that this comes as any surprise to the author given my commentary (1,2,3,4,5,6,7 among others) on the abomination that was the trial of the officers who killed Sean Bell. I won't get into my discussion of the white boy shot by police for making the mistake of answering a knock on his home's door while holding a PlayStation controller in his hand because he was playing a game.

I won't get into the illegal detainment of reporters at the RNC over the summer either. Nor will I discuss in detail the tasering death of a naked mentally disturbed man who was standing on a ledge being a threat to no one but himself.No these patterns of direct abuse and murders of citizens apparently has not bothered the political leadership of this country including the president elect to even comment on. No what I'm discussing are two events that occurred right about New Years.

Here in NY, about 10 police showed up at a man's apartment over a noise complaint. The police did not realize that they were on camera and acted "normally." After asking for the man's ID (totally unnecessary) the police stormed the mans home, beat his son and wife and harassed, detained and arrested some of his party guests. All of which was caught on tape. The day before this news broke the NY Times published an article about the NYPD policing policies in NY which discussed the 500,000 people, mostly black men, stopped and frisked by the NYPD most of whom, as in 90+ percent have not only done nothing to warrant being stopped (unless you count a hand shake) let alone had anything on their person when searched.

We are talking about the police in Oakland California. We are talking about the stone cold execution of an unarmed man who was "subdued" and laying face down with his hands on his head by a police officer. We're talking about a police officer who shot this man in the back at point blank range, in front of people. The lame excuse that he thought he had drawn his taser (which is located on the opposite hip than the gun, is shaped different and weighs different) is still not an excuse since there is no grounds for tasering a "suspect" who is already subdued.

Across the country there have been reports of police tasering people basically for kicks. It shows the level of disrespect and contempt that some police officers have for the public at large. This is an epidemic that must be addressed.

It would appear that the Democrats are more concerned with petty politics than with the safety of the citizens from the abuse of those who are supposed to protect and serve. It would do well for the president elect to make a public statement in regards to these outrages and to make sure that the justice department investigates and prosecutes police officers who have abused citizens civil rights or who have outright murdered citizens.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Eyewitness in Gaza

Fear of a Tape?

And so it appears that the wall barring Burris from being seated in the senate is crumbling rapidly. Harry "No Negroes" Reid is reported to be "open" to having Burris seated should the Sec of State of Ill. sign the paper, voluntarily or not (as in court order). I suspect that the Sec. of State of Ill will do his job. In fact last night it occured to me that the Sec of State of Ill. is an appointment and if Blago wanted to be gangster he probably could fire him for failure to perform his duties and go down the line of his backups until someone does the "right thing." I'm sure the Sec. of State of Ill. has no wish to go down over Burris, especially if Blago survives impeachment (however unlikely).

However though, the real interesting thing about this whole situation is how fast Reid changed his tune when it was revealed that he (as well as Rahm) are on tape actively breaking the law by clearly acting against qualified black people. I'm sure that Reid (and Rahm) have no desire to have their conversations with Blago outed to the public. In fact I would surmise that Once word of "No Negroes" got around to Obama, he may have put the word out to get Burris seated to avoid as much future embarrassment. Or maybe not.

What needs to happen now though is for there to be huge amounts of pressure by black groups, bloggers, etc. including the all but dead CBC to release the tapes with Reid and Rahm.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Puff! There Goes the Magic Negro

You know, it was way to "funny" to watch black folk salivate at the "end of racism" with the election of Obama. Oh I read all kinds of nonsense. But this Burress thing is of real interest. That Obama hasn't supported Burress comes as no surprise since he threw his long term pastor under the bus (along with blatant character assasination of black males for political gain). But recent news linked from the Assault on Black Sanity blog I'd like to offer a new interpretation of the Blagovich tapes:

Supposedly we have this:

that Reid personally phoned Blago on Dec. 3, six days before the scandal broke, to urge him not to name any of three high-profile candidates for the Obama seat.

On the Reid blacklist were, according to the source, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Rep. Danny Davis and State Senate President Emil Jones.

And we have this:

However, this brings us back to the contents of a conversation Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly had with Blago, also before U.S. Attorney Pat Fitzgerald busted the governor for allegedly hawking Obama's seat to the highest bidder.

Valerie Jarrett, Barack's confidante, had by then withdrawn.

Rahm reportedly told Blago he should choose from one of three names: Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Rahm then reportedly called back to add Lisa Madigan.

All four are white. Conspicuously missing from Rahm's list were all four black candidates: Jackson, Davis, Jones and Burris.

Now maybe...maybe the whole Blagovich: "fuck him" rant was in reaction to being told who to and who not to appoint by someone in Obama's camp? Maybe, just maybe Blagovich was mad as hell at being told what to do not only from Obama's camp but also from the Democratic hierarchy.

Heck I could be generous and propose that Blagovich was offended by the clear racial exclusion being practiced by team Magic Negro.

Question: Does Obama know that his right hand man is engaged in political segregation?

But hypothetical racial comradary aside, Perhaps we now know why Blagovich was so insistent on "getting something." i mean if the DNC want's to call you up and tell you who you should pick to benefit the party, shouldn't you, the "decider" get something in return? Sounds fair to me.

Maybe, just maybe the reason the Democrats have such a hard on for Blagovich is because as we may be seeing, he knows where the bodies are, if you know what I mean. See, all that's left now is for Fitzgerald to release the tapes. He can end the speculation right now. As I wrote in the comments section of the Assault blog: Neither Rahm or Reid, while acting in their capacities as public officials have an expectation of privacy in regards to these conversation. Furthermore, if these two conspired to deny the US Senate seat to qualified African-American candidates, then we have a violation of law.

Jesse Jackson, who went on a public attack of his father , when his father was set up by Fox "News", must be feeling the '"love" of having Obama's right hand man put him on the "black list" and he must surely understand what a "black list" is now cause:

The deal being talked about is that Reid may let Burris take the seat if he agrees not to run in 2010. For the fear Democrats have is that no black male in Illinois can for sure hold Barack's seat.

Translation: If you're white you're right
If you're yellow you're mellow (magic)
If you're brown stick around
If you're black
stay the fuck back.

Thursday, January 01, 2009

“I will play music and celebrate..."

There's not much I can say about what is going on in Gaza that I haven't said already. I fully expect the "new" administration to do exactly what the previous administrations have been doing. However I must say for a people, some of whom are descended from people who saw concentration camps this statement:

“I will play music and celebrate what the Israeli air force is doing.”

attributed to Ofer Shmerling, an Israeli civil defense official shows the clear arrogance and lack of perspective on the Israeli side of the story.

Nothing does "more" for the so called "war on terror" than killing 300 Palestinians supposedly (and I use that term loosely) in response to a single casualty of a supposed (absolutely not proven since there are other armed factions in Gaza) Hamas rocket into Israel. And the above statement?

I expect to see that in some Al-Q recruitment video somewhere.