Click on the image to magnify it.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
15 POLICE OFFICERS SHOT TO DEATH BY AMBUSH IN 2014
It’s been open season on cops all year long for those who hate the police
The ‘Black Lives Matter’ protesters claim that cops are trigger happy when confronting black men. I suspect the cops have nervous trigger fingers when it comes to all men, not just black men. The number of cops shot to death this year jumped 56 percent over last year. Of the 50 officers shot to death this year, 15 were ambushed. No wonder cops have nervous trigger fingers.
Statistics just released by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund show that 50 cops died by gunfire this year compared to 32 last year. That’s bad enough, but when you consider that 15 of those officers were ambushed, one has to ask what the hell is going on in this country. It appears as though it is open season on cops for those who hate the police.
Some of the cops that were ambushed were lured to their deaths by phony calls to 9-1-1, while others like NYPD officers Ramos and Liu, died as they sat in their patrol cars.
I predict that things are only going to get worse. The post-Ferguson rhetoric, including that of President Obama, NY Mayor de Blasio, racial rabble rouser Al Sharpton and others has poisoned the atmosphere with hatred for the police. But it’s not only some African-Americans that hate the police, it’s also whites from the far-left.
The Daily Kos is a far left website. On December 21 it published a long tirade against the police by an angry author who used the pseudonym xxdr zombiexx. Here are just a few lines of what the zombie had to say:
“Cops are out of control because they never get charged with their crimes. They get away with murder and everybody around the fucking world knows it. That has to stop, cops need to be arrested and charged and tried and jailed in large numbers to send THE MESSAGE that these days of Rogue Cop, Inc are over. None of us are safe from these murderous assholes.”
If you look at the pictures of the anti-police protests, you will see a lot of white people participating. Most of those whites are young, probably college students. Many of them probably share zombie’s hatred of cops. And where did they pick up crap like that? From their leftist professors, of course!
Much is being made over the killing of unarmed blacks by the police. What people don’t seem to realize, or don’t want to understand, is that you do not have to be armed to kill someone. You can do it with your bare hands. Michael Brown, that gentle 6-4, 290-pound giant, was as dangerous as someone armed with a gun, given the chance to physically attack a smaller person. Had an unarmed Trayvon Martin continued to pound George Zimmerman’s head onto the concrete pavement, the former neighborhood watchman might be the one dead.
If I were still a cop, I would definitely have a nervous trigger finger what with all the inflammatory anti-police rhetoric being bandied about. If I thought someone was reaching for a gun to shoot me, I’d shoot that sucker before he had the chance to kill me. If it turned out that he was reaching for a pocket bible, I’d feel terrible about it. But I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by eight.
The ‘Black Lives Matter’ protesters claim that cops are trigger happy when confronting black men. I suspect the cops have nervous trigger fingers when it comes to all men, not just black men. The number of cops shot to death this year jumped 56 percent over last year. Of the 50 officers shot to death this year, 15 were ambushed. No wonder cops have nervous trigger fingers.
Statistics just released by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund show that 50 cops died by gunfire this year compared to 32 last year. That’s bad enough, but when you consider that 15 of those officers were ambushed, one has to ask what the hell is going on in this country. It appears as though it is open season on cops for those who hate the police.
Some of the cops that were ambushed were lured to their deaths by phony calls to 9-1-1, while others like NYPD officers Ramos and Liu, died as they sat in their patrol cars.
I predict that things are only going to get worse. The post-Ferguson rhetoric, including that of President Obama, NY Mayor de Blasio, racial rabble rouser Al Sharpton and others has poisoned the atmosphere with hatred for the police. But it’s not only some African-Americans that hate the police, it’s also whites from the far-left.
The Daily Kos is a far left website. On December 21 it published a long tirade against the police by an angry author who used the pseudonym xxdr zombiexx. Here are just a few lines of what the zombie had to say:
“Cops are out of control because they never get charged with their crimes. They get away with murder and everybody around the fucking world knows it. That has to stop, cops need to be arrested and charged and tried and jailed in large numbers to send THE MESSAGE that these days of Rogue Cop, Inc are over. None of us are safe from these murderous assholes.”
If you look at the pictures of the anti-police protests, you will see a lot of white people participating. Most of those whites are young, probably college students. Many of them probably share zombie’s hatred of cops. And where did they pick up crap like that? From their leftist professors, of course!
Much is being made over the killing of unarmed blacks by the police. What people don’t seem to realize, or don’t want to understand, is that you do not have to be armed to kill someone. You can do it with your bare hands. Michael Brown, that gentle 6-4, 290-pound giant, was as dangerous as someone armed with a gun, given the chance to physically attack a smaller person. Had an unarmed Trayvon Martin continued to pound George Zimmerman’s head onto the concrete pavement, the former neighborhood watchman might be the one dead.
If I were still a cop, I would definitely have a nervous trigger finger what with all the inflammatory anti-police rhetoric being bandied about. If I thought someone was reaching for a gun to shoot me, I’d shoot that sucker before he had the chance to kill me. If it turned out that he was reaching for a pocket bible, I’d feel terrible about it. But I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by eight.
RHETORIC FROM THE PRESIDENT ON DOWN TO SHARPTON AND THE STREET PROTESTERS IMPLIES THAT COPS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN CONFRONTATIONS WITH BLACK MEN
An editorial by Investor's Business Daily accuses the left of starting a war on cops
The relentless anti-police rhetoric that has followed the grand jury decisions on the shooting death of Michael Brown and the deadly arrest of Eric Garner has permeated the atmosphere with hatred of the police. While I am sure that President Obama did not intend to malign all cops, his rhetoric, together with that of Sharpton and the street protesters, has contributed to the war now being waged on cops.
THE LEFT’S WAR ON COPS HAS BEGUN
Investor’s Business Daily Editorial
December 29, 2014
War On Cops: As two NYPD officers were laid to rest, deadly attacks against police have exploded across the country, the outcome of leftist anti-police protests. The left can't wash its hands of this with phony tears at funerals.
The murdered New York officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were barely in their graves after being eulogized by Vice President Joe Biden and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio when new attacks — from targeted shootings to credible Internet threats — flared up across the land.
In Durham, N.C., police were shot at in an unprovoked Christmas night attack, while on Sunday officers were shot at with rifles in Los Angeles, prompting a citywide alert. There was another shooting in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. And 11 would-be shooters in Chicago, Pennsylvania and New York all posted credible Internet threats.
In an atmosphere like this, it's pretty obvious that there's a war against the police, and not surprisingly the security of all law-abiding people is already suffering.
On Monday, the New York Post reported that police were refraining from enforcing penalties for small crimes now, fearful of any confrontation that might inflame racial tensions.
That's exceptionally bad news, given that New York was cured of its ugly "Shattered" and "Fun City" reality (as Mick Jagger and Bill Buckley respectively put it) only by Mayor Rudy Giuliani's emphasis on enforcing punishment for small crimes so that large ones could not occur — the so-called "broken windows theory" of law enforcement.
There's little doubt where the blame lies: with the race-baiters and communist organizing groups who have taken their cues from the wink-and-nod encouragement from political leaders at the top.
Leaders from President Obama to de Blasio have embraced the radical "narrative" that all police are "Bull Connor"-style predators on black people, along with the de facto message that the police do not have the right to defend themselves in a confrontation.
That was clearly evident in these political leaders' stances in favor of mob protests over grand jury rulings, first in Ferguson, Mo., when a thug attacked a cop to a bad end. It was the cop, cleared by a grand jury, who was forced to resign amid protests. Similar incidents occured in New York and Cleveland.
It didn't help that Obama used race-baiter Al Sharpton as a go-to man on race, inviting the "leader" to the White House 81 times. It also didn't help that he made apologetic remarks to the U.N. about Ferguson, again underlining that police have no right to self-defense.
With a message like that, it shouldn't surprise anyone that thugs with rifles and an urge to scream fire in a crowded theatre would act up — and very quickly.
It's a disastrous and foolish action, effectively announcing to criminals that the consequences for hunting down cops is nonexistent to small.
Personal security is the foremost of human rights, as writer Robert Young Pelton has noted, and there's no disputing that cops protect far more than they harm.
It's time for a serious response from political leaders, because the fire this time has already started.
The relentless anti-police rhetoric that has followed the grand jury decisions on the shooting death of Michael Brown and the deadly arrest of Eric Garner has permeated the atmosphere with hatred of the police. While I am sure that President Obama did not intend to malign all cops, his rhetoric, together with that of Sharpton and the street protesters, has contributed to the war now being waged on cops.
THE LEFT’S WAR ON COPS HAS BEGUN
Investor’s Business Daily Editorial
December 29, 2014
War On Cops: As two NYPD officers were laid to rest, deadly attacks against police have exploded across the country, the outcome of leftist anti-police protests. The left can't wash its hands of this with phony tears at funerals.
The murdered New York officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were barely in their graves after being eulogized by Vice President Joe Biden and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio when new attacks — from targeted shootings to credible Internet threats — flared up across the land.
In Durham, N.C., police were shot at in an unprovoked Christmas night attack, while on Sunday officers were shot at with rifles in Los Angeles, prompting a citywide alert. There was another shooting in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. And 11 would-be shooters in Chicago, Pennsylvania and New York all posted credible Internet threats.
In an atmosphere like this, it's pretty obvious that there's a war against the police, and not surprisingly the security of all law-abiding people is already suffering.
On Monday, the New York Post reported that police were refraining from enforcing penalties for small crimes now, fearful of any confrontation that might inflame racial tensions.
That's exceptionally bad news, given that New York was cured of its ugly "Shattered" and "Fun City" reality (as Mick Jagger and Bill Buckley respectively put it) only by Mayor Rudy Giuliani's emphasis on enforcing punishment for small crimes so that large ones could not occur — the so-called "broken windows theory" of law enforcement.
There's little doubt where the blame lies: with the race-baiters and communist organizing groups who have taken their cues from the wink-and-nod encouragement from political leaders at the top.
Leaders from President Obama to de Blasio have embraced the radical "narrative" that all police are "Bull Connor"-style predators on black people, along with the de facto message that the police do not have the right to defend themselves in a confrontation.
That was clearly evident in these political leaders' stances in favor of mob protests over grand jury rulings, first in Ferguson, Mo., when a thug attacked a cop to a bad end. It was the cop, cleared by a grand jury, who was forced to resign amid protests. Similar incidents occured in New York and Cleveland.
It didn't help that Obama used race-baiter Al Sharpton as a go-to man on race, inviting the "leader" to the White House 81 times. It also didn't help that he made apologetic remarks to the U.N. about Ferguson, again underlining that police have no right to self-defense.
With a message like that, it shouldn't surprise anyone that thugs with rifles and an urge to scream fire in a crowded theatre would act up — and very quickly.
It's a disastrous and foolish action, effectively announcing to criminals that the consequences for hunting down cops is nonexistent to small.
Personal security is the foremost of human rights, as writer Robert Young Pelton has noted, and there's no disputing that cops protect far more than they harm.
It's time for a serious response from political leaders, because the fire this time has already started.
RACIAL POLITICS HAVE PROMOTED A LYNCH MOB ATMOSPHERE TOWARD THE POLICE
By ignoring or distorting the true facts in the shootings of black men by the police, the media, politicians and demagogues have led mobs to call for the scalps of America’s cops
The rhetoric of racial rabble rouser Al Sharpton, NY Mayor de Blasio and even the president, is responsible for today’s poisonous anti-police atmosphere. But the media is the biggest contributor to the hatred of cops by publishing reports that ignore or distort the true facts in the shootings of black men by the police.
IN RACIAL POLITICS, FACTS DON’T MEAN MUCH
By Thomas Sowell
Investor’s Business Daily
December 29, 2014
Some of us who are old enough to remember the old television police series "Dragnet" may remember Sgt. Joe Friday saying, "Just the facts, ma'am." But that would be completely out of place today.
Facts are becoming obsolete, as recent events have demonstrated. What matters today is how well you can concoct a story that fits people's preconceptions and arouses their emotions.
Politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, professional demagogues like Al Sharpton and innumerable irresponsible people in the media have shown that they have great talent in promoting a lynch mob atmosphere toward the police.
Grand juries that examine hard facts live in a different world from mobs who listen to rhetoric and politicians who cater to the mobs.
During the controversy over the death of Trayvon Martin, for example, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus said that George Zimmerman had tracked Trayvon Martin down and shot him like a dog.
The fact is that Zimmerman did not have to track down Martin, who was sitting right on top of him, punching him till his face was bloody.
After the death of Michael Brown, members of the Congressional Black Caucus stood up in Congress with their hands held up, saying "Don't shoot."
Kinder, Gentler Arrest
Although there were some who claimed that this is what Brown said and did, there were other witnesses — all black, by the way — who said that Brown was charging toward the policeman when he was shot.
What was decisive was not what either set of witnesses said, but what the autopsy revealed, an autopsy involving three sets of forensic experts, including one representing Brown's family. Witnesses can lie, but the physical facts don't lie, even if politicians, mobs and the media prefer to take lies seriously.
The death of Eric Garner has likewise spawned stories having little relationship to facts. The story is that Garner died because a chokehold stopped his breathing. But Garner did not die with a policeman choking him.
He died later, in an ambulance where his heart stopped. He had a long medical history of various diseases, as well as a long criminal history. No doubt the stress of his capture did not do him any good, and he might well still be alive if he had not resisted arrest. But that was his choice.
Despite people who say blithely that the police need more "training," there is no "kinder and gentler" way to capture a 350-pound man, who is capable of inflicting grievous harm, and perhaps even death, on any of his would-be captors.
Rodney King
The magic word "unarmed" means nothing in practice, however much the word may hype emotions.
If you are killed by an unarmed man, you are just as dead as if you had been annihilated by a nuclear bomb. But you don't even know who is armed or unarmed until after it is all over, and you can search him.
Incidentally, did you know that, during this same period when riots, looting and arson have been raging, a black policeman in Alabama shot and killed an unarmed white teenager — and was cleared by a grand jury? Probably not, if you depend on the mainstream media for your news.
The media do not merely ignore facts, they suppress facts. Millions of people saw the videotape of the beating of Rodney King. But they saw only a fraction of that tape because the media left out the rest, which showed King — another huge man — resisting arrest and refusing to be handcuffed so that he could be searched.
Television viewers did not get to see the other black men in the same vehicle that King was driving recklessly. Those other black men were not beaten. And the grand jury got to see the whole video, after which they acquitted the police — and the media then published the jurors' home addresses.
Such media retribution against people they don't like is part of a growing lynch mob mentality. The black witnesses in Missouri, whose testimony confirmed what the police officer said, expressed fears for their own safety for telling what the physical evidence showed was the truth.
Is this what we want? Grand juries responding to mobs and the media, instead of to the facts?
The rhetoric of racial rabble rouser Al Sharpton, NY Mayor de Blasio and even the president, is responsible for today’s poisonous anti-police atmosphere. But the media is the biggest contributor to the hatred of cops by publishing reports that ignore or distort the true facts in the shootings of black men by the police.
IN RACIAL POLITICS, FACTS DON’T MEAN MUCH
By Thomas Sowell
Investor’s Business Daily
December 29, 2014
Some of us who are old enough to remember the old television police series "Dragnet" may remember Sgt. Joe Friday saying, "Just the facts, ma'am." But that would be completely out of place today.
Facts are becoming obsolete, as recent events have demonstrated. What matters today is how well you can concoct a story that fits people's preconceptions and arouses their emotions.
Politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, professional demagogues like Al Sharpton and innumerable irresponsible people in the media have shown that they have great talent in promoting a lynch mob atmosphere toward the police.
Grand juries that examine hard facts live in a different world from mobs who listen to rhetoric and politicians who cater to the mobs.
During the controversy over the death of Trayvon Martin, for example, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus said that George Zimmerman had tracked Trayvon Martin down and shot him like a dog.
The fact is that Zimmerman did not have to track down Martin, who was sitting right on top of him, punching him till his face was bloody.
After the death of Michael Brown, members of the Congressional Black Caucus stood up in Congress with their hands held up, saying "Don't shoot."
Kinder, Gentler Arrest
Although there were some who claimed that this is what Brown said and did, there were other witnesses — all black, by the way — who said that Brown was charging toward the policeman when he was shot.
What was decisive was not what either set of witnesses said, but what the autopsy revealed, an autopsy involving three sets of forensic experts, including one representing Brown's family. Witnesses can lie, but the physical facts don't lie, even if politicians, mobs and the media prefer to take lies seriously.
The death of Eric Garner has likewise spawned stories having little relationship to facts. The story is that Garner died because a chokehold stopped his breathing. But Garner did not die with a policeman choking him.
He died later, in an ambulance where his heart stopped. He had a long medical history of various diseases, as well as a long criminal history. No doubt the stress of his capture did not do him any good, and he might well still be alive if he had not resisted arrest. But that was his choice.
Despite people who say blithely that the police need more "training," there is no "kinder and gentler" way to capture a 350-pound man, who is capable of inflicting grievous harm, and perhaps even death, on any of his would-be captors.
Rodney King
The magic word "unarmed" means nothing in practice, however much the word may hype emotions.
If you are killed by an unarmed man, you are just as dead as if you had been annihilated by a nuclear bomb. But you don't even know who is armed or unarmed until after it is all over, and you can search him.
Incidentally, did you know that, during this same period when riots, looting and arson have been raging, a black policeman in Alabama shot and killed an unarmed white teenager — and was cleared by a grand jury? Probably not, if you depend on the mainstream media for your news.
The media do not merely ignore facts, they suppress facts. Millions of people saw the videotape of the beating of Rodney King. But they saw only a fraction of that tape because the media left out the rest, which showed King — another huge man — resisting arrest and refusing to be handcuffed so that he could be searched.
Television viewers did not get to see the other black men in the same vehicle that King was driving recklessly. Those other black men were not beaten. And the grand jury got to see the whole video, after which they acquitted the police — and the media then published the jurors' home addresses.
Such media retribution against people they don't like is part of a growing lynch mob mentality. The black witnesses in Missouri, whose testimony confirmed what the police officer said, expressed fears for their own safety for telling what the physical evidence showed was the truth.
Is this what we want? Grand juries responding to mobs and the media, instead of to the facts?
SIT NEXT TO A WOMAN? OY VEY, NEVER!
Airlines flying between the U.S. and Israel are having seating assignment problems because ultra-Orthodox Jewish men will not sit next to women who are not close family members
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men, like those of the Haredi sect, are prohibited from touching any women other than their wives and close relatives. That has created seat assignment problems for airlines flying between the U.S. and Israel. In one instance, a Haredi man, who was assigned a seat next to a woman, got up as soon as the flight departed for Israel and stood in the aisle for the whole flight.
DELTA AIRLINES FLIGHT FROM NEW YORK’S JFK AIRPORT DELAYED AFTER ULTRA-ORTHODOX JEWISH MEN REFUSE TO SIT NEXT TO WOMEN
Delta Airlines Flight 468 was delayed for 30 minutes because Haredi men refused to sit next to women and the women refused to move, claiming discrimination
By Sarah Gordon
Mail Online
December 30, 2014
A Delta Airlines flight from New York's JFK Airport to Israel was delayed by half an hour when a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men refused to sit next to female passengers.
Delta Flight 468, bound for Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, was reportedly held up due to several Haredi passengers refusing to to sit in their assigned seats, which were in between two women.
The delay was prolonged when the two female passengers involved reportedly refused to move to accommodate the men's request, claiming discrimination.
According to Israel Radio, the stand-off was eventually resolved when an American travelling to Israel offered to change seats.
Ultra-Orthodox Jews cannot touch members of the opposite sex unless they are close relatives or a spouse.
It is not the first time an international flight has been delayed due to issues about seat arrangements.
In September, passengers flying with Israeli airline El Al from New York reported a delay when Haredi passengers refused to sit next to women and reportedly went as far as offering them money to move.
Fellow passengers reported men standing in the aisles and refusing to take their seats on the flight to Israel, which was due to land in time for the Jewish New Year.
Amit Ben-Natan, a passenger who was on board the plane, said: 'People stood in the aisles and refused to go forward.'
'Although everyone had tickets with seat numbers that they purchased in advance, they asked us to trade seats with them, and even offered to pay money, since they cannot sit next to a woman. It was obvious that the plane wouldn't take off as long as they keep standing in the aisles.'
Passengers claimed that despite the El Al flight crew informing travellers that they did not have to agree to switch, the plane's captain announced the flight would not be going anywhere until everyone was seated.
Once the flight had departed, one passenger claimed the ultra-Orthodox traveller sat beside her stood in the aisle for the journey rather than return to his assigned seat.
After passengers branded the flight 'an 11 hour-long nightmare', El Al promised to look into the issue and take action if passengers were in breach of safety regulations.
The airline stated: 'The company will examine the complaints and if some passengers are found to have acted out of line the company will examine its future steps.'
Following the flight, female passenger Sharon Shapiro, from Chicago, launched a petition to stop ultra-Orthodox passengers 'bullying, intimidating and discriminating against women'.
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men, like those of the Haredi sect, are prohibited from touching any women other than their wives and close relatives. That has created seat assignment problems for airlines flying between the U.S. and Israel. In one instance, a Haredi man, who was assigned a seat next to a woman, got up as soon as the flight departed for Israel and stood in the aisle for the whole flight.
DELTA AIRLINES FLIGHT FROM NEW YORK’S JFK AIRPORT DELAYED AFTER ULTRA-ORTHODOX JEWISH MEN REFUSE TO SIT NEXT TO WOMEN
Delta Airlines Flight 468 was delayed for 30 minutes because Haredi men refused to sit next to women and the women refused to move, claiming discrimination
By Sarah Gordon
Mail Online
December 30, 2014
A Delta Airlines flight from New York's JFK Airport to Israel was delayed by half an hour when a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish men refused to sit next to female passengers.
Delta Flight 468, bound for Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, was reportedly held up due to several Haredi passengers refusing to to sit in their assigned seats, which were in between two women.
The delay was prolonged when the two female passengers involved reportedly refused to move to accommodate the men's request, claiming discrimination.
According to Israel Radio, the stand-off was eventually resolved when an American travelling to Israel offered to change seats.
Ultra-Orthodox Jews cannot touch members of the opposite sex unless they are close relatives or a spouse.
It is not the first time an international flight has been delayed due to issues about seat arrangements.
In September, passengers flying with Israeli airline El Al from New York reported a delay when Haredi passengers refused to sit next to women and reportedly went as far as offering them money to move.
Fellow passengers reported men standing in the aisles and refusing to take their seats on the flight to Israel, which was due to land in time for the Jewish New Year.
Amit Ben-Natan, a passenger who was on board the plane, said: 'People stood in the aisles and refused to go forward.'
'Although everyone had tickets with seat numbers that they purchased in advance, they asked us to trade seats with them, and even offered to pay money, since they cannot sit next to a woman. It was obvious that the plane wouldn't take off as long as they keep standing in the aisles.'
Passengers claimed that despite the El Al flight crew informing travellers that they did not have to agree to switch, the plane's captain announced the flight would not be going anywhere until everyone was seated.
Once the flight had departed, one passenger claimed the ultra-Orthodox traveller sat beside her stood in the aisle for the journey rather than return to his assigned seat.
After passengers branded the flight 'an 11 hour-long nightmare', El Al promised to look into the issue and take action if passengers were in breach of safety regulations.
The airline stated: 'The company will examine the complaints and if some passengers are found to have acted out of line the company will examine its future steps.'
Following the flight, female passenger Sharon Shapiro, from Chicago, launched a petition to stop ultra-Orthodox passengers 'bullying, intimidating and discriminating against women'.
JUSTICE MEXICAN ARMY STYLE
Soldiers executed cartel members who were not killed during a gun battle after they had surrendered
Sometimes I wonder if Mexico’s cops and soldiers aren’t worse than members of the drug cartels.
WITNESSES DESCRIBE THE MASSACRE AT TLATLAYA
El Diario
December 28, 2014
Distrito Federal.-- The military intrusion triggered an uproar inside the warehouse. Some of the armed young men were roused from their sleep by the operation.
"Surrender, sons of bitches! Mexican Army!", they were yelling outside.
"We're being hit by the contras (the rival gang)!", yelled one of the sicarios (gunmen).
"They are not contras, they're military!" said another.
"Wake everybody up!", yelled another young man.
"One of the guys said they should surrender, but another person said no, that they were going to get killed anyway, it was then that the people inside began to fire towards the exterior, hearing the Army yelling at them to surrender and to come out one by one with their hands on the back of their heads," recalls Cinthya Estefany Nava Lopez, one of the two sex workers who were with the alleged criminals, according to statements given before the PGR (Attorney General), and which Reforma had access to.
The soldiers lighted the entrance to the warehouse from their Cheyenne and fired their bursts.
Patricia Campos Morales, the other prostitute, was awakened by the military gunfire.
"The sicarios that were inside the warehouse begin to fire and one of them yells 'man down', that shooting lasted between 5 and 10 minutes, after that the sicarios yelled, 'Don't shoot, we give up.'
"Then one sicario went out and the soldiers fired at him, and he managed to come back inside; he had gone out to tell the soldiers that they had surrendered and the soldiers told them, 'come out, sons of bitches, and we'll let you live!', at that point the sicarios began to surrender. Subsequently, the soldiers asked if there was anybody else, and that they would give us 10 minutes to come out", narrates Campos in her statement.
When the shooting started, Mrs. Clara Gomez ran from the corner where she was sitting up to a white pickup that was on the right side of the building and climbed into the passenger side.
"That's when I realize, thanks to the light (from the soldiers) that my daughter was lying face down, beside another boy, also face down, right by the open passenger side door of the truck I just mentioned. I heard both of them moaning, so then I get closer to look at my daughter and I touch her to see if she shows vital signs and I realize that she is still alive."
"Right then, the shooting starts again and I move to the back of the pickup where I had been a few seconds before," the mother of Erika Gomez told the office of the Mexican Attorney General (PGR; Procuraduria General de la Republica).
Cinthya Estefany Nava recounts that the soldiers reiterated their warning.
"They yelled that they would give them 10 minutes to come out, and if they didn't, they would kill them like dogs, that's when I heard a voice from inside the warehouse say to surrender and go out, and after a 10 minute period, I heard no more shots, only moaning", said the young woman.
"Yes, we surrender!" yelled one of the sicarios.
The crossfire ended and, for the PGR, the casualties up to that moment were one wounded soldier and 14 armed civilians killed.
Lined up and executed
Lieutenant Ezequiel Rodriguez Martinez has declared to the PGR that, after the sicarios surrendered, he was the one who ordered three soldiers to enter the warehouse.
"I ordered Sgt. Second Class Roberto Acevedo Lopez and two troopers, Fernando Quintero Millan and Leobardo Hernandez Leonides to reconnoiter the inside of the warehouse, where they stayed between 3 to 5 minutes, reporting 22 dead", declared the Infantry Lieutenant.
The women survivors of the massacre have also stated separately that there were three soldiers who entered the warehouse, but it was not to make sure that there were more than 20 dead.
Cinthya Estefany Nava, Patricia Campos and Clara Gomez testified that the soldiers went in to finish off the dying men and to execute at least 10 persons who had come out of the gunfight unharmed and had surrendered their weapons.
The PGR says that there is only evidence to show that eight were executed; the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH: Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos) says there were 15.
The two prostitutes, in all of their statements before the authorities, have claimed that they were in fact kidnapped and that, at the moment the soldiers entered the warehouse, they had their hands tied.
They insist that, along with them, there were two other kidnapped men, also gagged.
"Only three soldiers went into the warehouse, two stayed guarding us and one went to look around the warehouse", recalls Campos.
The soldiers took the weapons from the sicarios and took the men to a booth located on the left side of the warehouse.
"This guy wouldn't give up even though his hand was messed up, shoot anybody that moves", instructed the one that was looking around the place.
"That's when I heard a shot and, from where I was, I bent down to look at the soldier, and that's when I saw him shoot two boys that were wounded towards the back of the warehouse on the right side. After that we heard more shooting and moans from the people," remembers Cinthya Nava.
When he started to pull the trigger, one of the soldiers who was guarding the captives yelled at him, "don't kill them!", says Patricia Campos.
"It's because he was going to shoot at me," justified the executioner.
"Ah, OK, in that case, do it", agreed his fellow soldier, according to Campos' statement.
After finishing off the two sicarios, the soldier asked those who had surrendered their weapons to come out of the booth and to form a line.
"Right then, a soldier who was guarding us said to the other, 'You don't think the shot will ricochet?', and the other one answered, 'No, it's not a problem,' then the soldier came back to guard us.
"He told us, 'put your face down, don't turn around', right then the soldiers begin shooting at the people who were lined up on the left side of the warehouse. At the same time, I heard more shots from the right side of the warehouse, you could hear moans and cries and the soldiers were saying, 'you thought you were so tough? Now take it! You thought you had balls, sons of bitches?', and they kept on shooting", Campos narrates.
Mrs. Clara Gomez says that one of the soldiers came out of the booth with the last boy who was still alive and took him to the soldier who had a flashlight. He stopped him in front of the soldier, who asked for his name, age, where he was born and his nickname.
"Then the soldiers shot him and I heard him moaning. They brought out several persons like that and they would ask them the same thing and shoot them in the end, leaving them wounded. There were approximately 9 persons that the soldiers shot", states Clara, who says that once they fell to the ground, they were finished off.
When all the sicarios had been executed, the executioners asked the three women and the two men who were tied up to get up off the floor and then they took them to the booth on the right.
They kept the five of them there until 07:00 a.m., when the men in olive green decided to reduce the number of witnesses.
"At that moment, two soldiers took the two (kidnapped) boys towards the back of the room with the pretext that they were going to take their photographs for the record, according to them, and I heard shots", says Campos.
"I became aware that the two boys who had been tied with us were already dead along with two other people, I also saw that there were about eight people dead in the middle of the warehouse, and on the left side, there were about five dead, some on top of others", says Nava.
The landscape was a bunch of dumped bodies.
Well into the morning, Colonel Raul Castro, commander of the 102nd Infantry Battalion, based in San Miguel Ixtapan, came to the scene of the slaughter.
They took on site photographs of the three women survivors and turned them over to the Edomex State Attorney General. The two prostitutes were sent to the Federal Prison at "El Rincon", Nayarit.
Sometimes I wonder if Mexico’s cops and soldiers aren’t worse than members of the drug cartels.
WITNESSES DESCRIBE THE MASSACRE AT TLATLAYA
El Diario
December 28, 2014
Distrito Federal.-- The military intrusion triggered an uproar inside the warehouse. Some of the armed young men were roused from their sleep by the operation.
"Surrender, sons of bitches! Mexican Army!", they were yelling outside.
"We're being hit by the contras (the rival gang)!", yelled one of the sicarios (gunmen).
"They are not contras, they're military!" said another.
"Wake everybody up!", yelled another young man.
"One of the guys said they should surrender, but another person said no, that they were going to get killed anyway, it was then that the people inside began to fire towards the exterior, hearing the Army yelling at them to surrender and to come out one by one with their hands on the back of their heads," recalls Cinthya Estefany Nava Lopez, one of the two sex workers who were with the alleged criminals, according to statements given before the PGR (Attorney General), and which Reforma had access to.
The soldiers lighted the entrance to the warehouse from their Cheyenne and fired their bursts.
Patricia Campos Morales, the other prostitute, was awakened by the military gunfire.
"The sicarios that were inside the warehouse begin to fire and one of them yells 'man down', that shooting lasted between 5 and 10 minutes, after that the sicarios yelled, 'Don't shoot, we give up.'
"Then one sicario went out and the soldiers fired at him, and he managed to come back inside; he had gone out to tell the soldiers that they had surrendered and the soldiers told them, 'come out, sons of bitches, and we'll let you live!', at that point the sicarios began to surrender. Subsequently, the soldiers asked if there was anybody else, and that they would give us 10 minutes to come out", narrates Campos in her statement.
When the shooting started, Mrs. Clara Gomez ran from the corner where she was sitting up to a white pickup that was on the right side of the building and climbed into the passenger side.
"That's when I realize, thanks to the light (from the soldiers) that my daughter was lying face down, beside another boy, also face down, right by the open passenger side door of the truck I just mentioned. I heard both of them moaning, so then I get closer to look at my daughter and I touch her to see if she shows vital signs and I realize that she is still alive."
"Right then, the shooting starts again and I move to the back of the pickup where I had been a few seconds before," the mother of Erika Gomez told the office of the Mexican Attorney General (PGR; Procuraduria General de la Republica).
Cinthya Estefany Nava recounts that the soldiers reiterated their warning.
"They yelled that they would give them 10 minutes to come out, and if they didn't, they would kill them like dogs, that's when I heard a voice from inside the warehouse say to surrender and go out, and after a 10 minute period, I heard no more shots, only moaning", said the young woman.
"Yes, we surrender!" yelled one of the sicarios.
The crossfire ended and, for the PGR, the casualties up to that moment were one wounded soldier and 14 armed civilians killed.
Lined up and executed
Lieutenant Ezequiel Rodriguez Martinez has declared to the PGR that, after the sicarios surrendered, he was the one who ordered three soldiers to enter the warehouse.
"I ordered Sgt. Second Class Roberto Acevedo Lopez and two troopers, Fernando Quintero Millan and Leobardo Hernandez Leonides to reconnoiter the inside of the warehouse, where they stayed between 3 to 5 minutes, reporting 22 dead", declared the Infantry Lieutenant.
The women survivors of the massacre have also stated separately that there were three soldiers who entered the warehouse, but it was not to make sure that there were more than 20 dead.
Cinthya Estefany Nava, Patricia Campos and Clara Gomez testified that the soldiers went in to finish off the dying men and to execute at least 10 persons who had come out of the gunfight unharmed and had surrendered their weapons.
The PGR says that there is only evidence to show that eight were executed; the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH: Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos) says there were 15.
The two prostitutes, in all of their statements before the authorities, have claimed that they were in fact kidnapped and that, at the moment the soldiers entered the warehouse, they had their hands tied.
They insist that, along with them, there were two other kidnapped men, also gagged.
"Only three soldiers went into the warehouse, two stayed guarding us and one went to look around the warehouse", recalls Campos.
The soldiers took the weapons from the sicarios and took the men to a booth located on the left side of the warehouse.
"This guy wouldn't give up even though his hand was messed up, shoot anybody that moves", instructed the one that was looking around the place.
"That's when I heard a shot and, from where I was, I bent down to look at the soldier, and that's when I saw him shoot two boys that were wounded towards the back of the warehouse on the right side. After that we heard more shooting and moans from the people," remembers Cinthya Nava.
When he started to pull the trigger, one of the soldiers who was guarding the captives yelled at him, "don't kill them!", says Patricia Campos.
"It's because he was going to shoot at me," justified the executioner.
"Ah, OK, in that case, do it", agreed his fellow soldier, according to Campos' statement.
After finishing off the two sicarios, the soldier asked those who had surrendered their weapons to come out of the booth and to form a line.
"Right then, a soldier who was guarding us said to the other, 'You don't think the shot will ricochet?', and the other one answered, 'No, it's not a problem,' then the soldier came back to guard us.
"He told us, 'put your face down, don't turn around', right then the soldiers begin shooting at the people who were lined up on the left side of the warehouse. At the same time, I heard more shots from the right side of the warehouse, you could hear moans and cries and the soldiers were saying, 'you thought you were so tough? Now take it! You thought you had balls, sons of bitches?', and they kept on shooting", Campos narrates.
Mrs. Clara Gomez says that one of the soldiers came out of the booth with the last boy who was still alive and took him to the soldier who had a flashlight. He stopped him in front of the soldier, who asked for his name, age, where he was born and his nickname.
"Then the soldiers shot him and I heard him moaning. They brought out several persons like that and they would ask them the same thing and shoot them in the end, leaving them wounded. There were approximately 9 persons that the soldiers shot", states Clara, who says that once they fell to the ground, they were finished off.
When all the sicarios had been executed, the executioners asked the three women and the two men who were tied up to get up off the floor and then they took them to the booth on the right.
They kept the five of them there until 07:00 a.m., when the men in olive green decided to reduce the number of witnesses.
"At that moment, two soldiers took the two (kidnapped) boys towards the back of the room with the pretext that they were going to take their photographs for the record, according to them, and I heard shots", says Campos.
"I became aware that the two boys who had been tied with us were already dead along with two other people, I also saw that there were about eight people dead in the middle of the warehouse, and on the left side, there were about five dead, some on top of others", says Nava.
The landscape was a bunch of dumped bodies.
Well into the morning, Colonel Raul Castro, commander of the 102nd Infantry Battalion, based in San Miguel Ixtapan, came to the scene of the slaughter.
They took on site photographs of the three women survivors and turned them over to the Edomex State Attorney General. The two prostitutes were sent to the Federal Prison at "El Rincon", Nayarit.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
ARE POLICE BODY CAMERAS REALLY THE ANSWER TO ‘POLICE BRUTALITY’?
A British study on the use of body cameras by Rialto, California cops showed a 59 percent reduction in the use of force and an 87 percent drop in citizen complaints
In the wake of Michael Brown’s shooting, Al Sharpton and Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump have demanded that all American cops wear body cameras. President Obama, evidently heeding the advice of Sharpton, his go-to-guy on matters of race, has announced that he will provide local police agencies with $75 million in grants for body cameras to protect Americans from the unjust use of excessive or deadly force by the police.
A year-long British study on the use of body cameras by Rialto, California police officers conducted by Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology seems to justify Sharpton’s demands. Compared to the previous year, the study showed that since Rialto’s cops started wearing body cameras, the use of force by the police dropped by 59 percent while citizen complaints against the police dropped by 87 percent.
Here is what Jerome Korda, a former homicide investigator and now a crime scene consultant, told the Examiner:
"It stands to reason that when individuals are aware they're being recorded then those involved will want to make certain they act properly in most cases. That's especially true when we are dealing with police and civilians who may be suspected of illegal acts. The mere fact there's a tape, will help the cop when a suspect claims police misconduct or brutality. And the bad guys don't want a jury seeing them in a video being belligerent and threatening towards a police officer.”
"And the bad guys don't want a jury seeing them in a video being belligerent and threatening towards a police officer.” Come on Korda, get real! Those who are prone to get belligerent with a cop are not going to be concerned about what a jury will think of them. They're just doing what comes natural to them.
The Examiner also quotes former NYPD officer Iris Aquino as saying:
"The old adage, 'be careful what you wish for,’ might be appropriate especially if the videos show the public what cops see everyday on the job. So many so-called civil-rights activists may end up with egg on their faces and their credibility compromised.”
Aquino may be onto something there. But are police body cameras really the answer to ‘police brutality’? At first glance the answer would appear to be yes. But, and this is a big but, what happens when the cops have become so used to wearing body cameras that they are no longer conscious of them?
I am sure that during the first year of their use, those Rialto cops were quite aware that during any confrontation with citizens, their conduct was being recorded by the body cameras. But will they still be so conscious of the cameras, let’s say the third year or beyond? Personally, I doubt it.
I am reminded of the cameras that have been installed in the booking areas of law enforcement agencies and inside detention facilities. There have been countless recordings of cops kicking the shit out of prisoners being booked into jail facilities. There have also been quite a few recordings of detention officers doing the same to jail or prison inmates. The cops and detention officers had to know that their actions were being recorded by cameras, yet they chose to kick the shit out of people anyway.
Were those cops and detention officers just plain stupid for letting themselves be recorded using excessive force? Stupidity has nothing to do with it. They had simply gotten so used to being recorded that they were no longer conscious of the presence of those cameras.
Will the same thing eventually happen with officers wearing body cameras? Stay tuned to see.
And there is something else to consider. Today cops are fully aware that their every move may be or is being recorded by citizens with their cell phone cameras. That has not stopped the use of excessive force. When an officer gets real pissed off, his behavior is controlled by his emotions, not by his good judgment, and then the cameras be damned.
In the wake of Michael Brown’s shooting, Al Sharpton and Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump have demanded that all American cops wear body cameras. President Obama, evidently heeding the advice of Sharpton, his go-to-guy on matters of race, has announced that he will provide local police agencies with $75 million in grants for body cameras to protect Americans from the unjust use of excessive or deadly force by the police.
A year-long British study on the use of body cameras by Rialto, California police officers conducted by Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology seems to justify Sharpton’s demands. Compared to the previous year, the study showed that since Rialto’s cops started wearing body cameras, the use of force by the police dropped by 59 percent while citizen complaints against the police dropped by 87 percent.
Here is what Jerome Korda, a former homicide investigator and now a crime scene consultant, told the Examiner:
"It stands to reason that when individuals are aware they're being recorded then those involved will want to make certain they act properly in most cases. That's especially true when we are dealing with police and civilians who may be suspected of illegal acts. The mere fact there's a tape, will help the cop when a suspect claims police misconduct or brutality. And the bad guys don't want a jury seeing them in a video being belligerent and threatening towards a police officer.”
"And the bad guys don't want a jury seeing them in a video being belligerent and threatening towards a police officer.” Come on Korda, get real! Those who are prone to get belligerent with a cop are not going to be concerned about what a jury will think of them. They're just doing what comes natural to them.
The Examiner also quotes former NYPD officer Iris Aquino as saying:
"The old adage, 'be careful what you wish for,’ might be appropriate especially if the videos show the public what cops see everyday on the job. So many so-called civil-rights activists may end up with egg on their faces and their credibility compromised.”
Aquino may be onto something there. But are police body cameras really the answer to ‘police brutality’? At first glance the answer would appear to be yes. But, and this is a big but, what happens when the cops have become so used to wearing body cameras that they are no longer conscious of them?
I am sure that during the first year of their use, those Rialto cops were quite aware that during any confrontation with citizens, their conduct was being recorded by the body cameras. But will they still be so conscious of the cameras, let’s say the third year or beyond? Personally, I doubt it.
I am reminded of the cameras that have been installed in the booking areas of law enforcement agencies and inside detention facilities. There have been countless recordings of cops kicking the shit out of prisoners being booked into jail facilities. There have also been quite a few recordings of detention officers doing the same to jail or prison inmates. The cops and detention officers had to know that their actions were being recorded by cameras, yet they chose to kick the shit out of people anyway.
Were those cops and detention officers just plain stupid for letting themselves be recorded using excessive force? Stupidity has nothing to do with it. They had simply gotten so used to being recorded that they were no longer conscious of the presence of those cameras.
Will the same thing eventually happen with officers wearing body cameras? Stay tuned to see.
And there is something else to consider. Today cops are fully aware that their every move may be or is being recorded by citizens with their cell phone cameras. That has not stopped the use of excessive force. When an officer gets real pissed off, his behavior is controlled by his emotions, not by his good judgment, and then the cameras be damned.
EVEN NYPD ACADEMY GRADUATES ARE BOOING DE BLASIO
As de Blasio addressed the 884 police academy graduates and said they would be confronting problems they did not create, a heckler shouted “You created them!” to loud cheers
More than 25,000 cops attended the funeral of assassinated NYPD officer Rafael Ramos, with many coming from all over the country. Those who were unable to get inside the church filled the street and watched the funeral proceedings on a giant TV screen. Inside the church, Mayor de Blasio received polite applause both before he spoke and when he finished. However, outside the church it was a far different matter. When de Blasio appeared on the giant screen, thousands of officers turned their backs to express their disgust with the mayor, including those officers from other jurisdictions.
The media reported that “hundreds” of officers turned their backs. Those reports were flat-out lies. I may be visually handicapped, but I can still see pictures clearly. The pictures I saw showed a sea of blue – thousands of cops with their backs turned to the TV screen.
It gets even better. An elaborate graduation ceremony was held Monday morning at Madison Square Garden for 884 police recruits. When de Blasio came up to the podium he was met with some loud boos and some shouts of “traitor.” And when he told the new police officers that “You will confront all manner of problems … problems that you didn’t create,” a heckler shouted , “You created them!” The heckler was met with laughter and cheers.
I suspect that Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who has said it was “very inappropriate” for officers to turn their backs on the mayor, shit in his pants when he heard that heckler. Bratton has been trying to downplay the rift between the cops and de Blasio and has said the officers who turned their backs on the mayor do not represent the ideals of the NYPD. You can bet he will try hard to have that heckler identified so that his career as a NY cop will be over before it gets started.
While it may not be appropriate to turn your back on the mayor or to heckle him at a police academy graduation ceremony, I can understand why cops all over the country are pissed off at de Blasio for warning his black teenage son about the dangers he will face from white police officers.
More than 25,000 cops attended the funeral of assassinated NYPD officer Rafael Ramos, with many coming from all over the country. Those who were unable to get inside the church filled the street and watched the funeral proceedings on a giant TV screen. Inside the church, Mayor de Blasio received polite applause both before he spoke and when he finished. However, outside the church it was a far different matter. When de Blasio appeared on the giant screen, thousands of officers turned their backs to express their disgust with the mayor, including those officers from other jurisdictions.
The media reported that “hundreds” of officers turned their backs. Those reports were flat-out lies. I may be visually handicapped, but I can still see pictures clearly. The pictures I saw showed a sea of blue – thousands of cops with their backs turned to the TV screen.
It gets even better. An elaborate graduation ceremony was held Monday morning at Madison Square Garden for 884 police recruits. When de Blasio came up to the podium he was met with some loud boos and some shouts of “traitor.” And when he told the new police officers that “You will confront all manner of problems … problems that you didn’t create,” a heckler shouted , “You created them!” The heckler was met with laughter and cheers.
I suspect that Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who has said it was “very inappropriate” for officers to turn their backs on the mayor, shit in his pants when he heard that heckler. Bratton has been trying to downplay the rift between the cops and de Blasio and has said the officers who turned their backs on the mayor do not represent the ideals of the NYPD. You can bet he will try hard to have that heckler identified so that his career as a NY cop will be over before it gets started.
While it may not be appropriate to turn your back on the mayor or to heckle him at a police academy graduation ceremony, I can understand why cops all over the country are pissed off at de Blasio for warning his black teenage son about the dangers he will face from white police officers.
COPS ACCORDING TO LEFT-WING CRAZIES
Cops are out of control murderous assholes
The Daily Kos is a far left website. A post entitled “Is Mayor de Blasio going to be safe?” was published by the Daily Kos on December 21. Its author, who used the pseudonym of xxdr zombiexx, had some choice words for America’s law enforcement officers. His view of cops is probably pretty representative of many on the far-left who were probably fed some of that crap in their college classes.
Here are some excerpts from Dr. Zombie’s post:
It would seem the NYPD blames DeBlasio [for the deaths of officers Ramos and Liu] and not their own heinous contempt for other people's lives.
Cops are NOT taking responsibility for their outrageous and totally unacceptable conduct as every day they seem more like death squads and less like the "public servants" they are.
They are out of control, they are resisting efforts to be reined in, they are extremely defensive of what they see as a RIGHT to kill whomever without being so much as quizzed for doing so.
Cops are bringing this [the ambushes] on themselves and blaming others - protesters, Mayor DeBlasio, Lady Gaga, whomever - does nothing but inflame the problem.
Cops are out of control because they never get charged with their crimes. They get away with murder and everybody around the fucking world knows it.
That has to stop, cops need to be arrested and charged and tried and jailed in large numbers to send THE MESSAGE that these days of Rogue Cop, Inc are over.
And cops OWE AMERICANS A MASSIVE MASSIVE apology.
They do NOT need to be turning their backs on Mayor DeBlasio, they need to turn their back on the PIGS who killed Eric Garner.
They NEED to turn their back on that PIG Darren Wilson.
But they are such shitty people about this, one has to ask: IS Mayor DeBlasio and his family actually safe from these killers at this time?
They sure are mad and they sure are not remotely about to take responsibility for their sins against the People.
None of us are safe from these murderous assholes.
They are out of control.
__________
NOTE: I will say this for Dr. Zombie – he did add this special note at the end of his disgusting tirade:
Please do not hurt the police. This will accomplish nothing and interrupt the process needed to get the police to apologize for their unacceptable conduct.
The Daily Kos is a far left website. A post entitled “Is Mayor de Blasio going to be safe?” was published by the Daily Kos on December 21. Its author, who used the pseudonym of xxdr zombiexx, had some choice words for America’s law enforcement officers. His view of cops is probably pretty representative of many on the far-left who were probably fed some of that crap in their college classes.
Here are some excerpts from Dr. Zombie’s post:
It would seem the NYPD blames DeBlasio [for the deaths of officers Ramos and Liu] and not their own heinous contempt for other people's lives.
Cops are NOT taking responsibility for their outrageous and totally unacceptable conduct as every day they seem more like death squads and less like the "public servants" they are.
They are out of control, they are resisting efforts to be reined in, they are extremely defensive of what they see as a RIGHT to kill whomever without being so much as quizzed for doing so.
Cops are bringing this [the ambushes] on themselves and blaming others - protesters, Mayor DeBlasio, Lady Gaga, whomever - does nothing but inflame the problem.
Cops are out of control because they never get charged with their crimes. They get away with murder and everybody around the fucking world knows it.
That has to stop, cops need to be arrested and charged and tried and jailed in large numbers to send THE MESSAGE that these days of Rogue Cop, Inc are over.
And cops OWE AMERICANS A MASSIVE MASSIVE apology.
They do NOT need to be turning their backs on Mayor DeBlasio, they need to turn their back on the PIGS who killed Eric Garner.
They NEED to turn their back on that PIG Darren Wilson.
But they are such shitty people about this, one has to ask: IS Mayor DeBlasio and his family actually safe from these killers at this time?
They sure are mad and they sure are not remotely about to take responsibility for their sins against the People.
None of us are safe from these murderous assholes.
They are out of control.
__________
NOTE: I will say this for Dr. Zombie – he did add this special note at the end of his disgusting tirade:
Please do not hurt the police. This will accomplish nothing and interrupt the process needed to get the police to apologize for their unacceptable conduct.
Monday, December 29, 2014
GIULIANI SINGES OBAMA FOR ASSOCIATING WITH SHARPTON
Rudy maintains that Obama’s post-Ferguson rhetoric and his close association with Al Sharpton have contributed to the widespread hatred of police
Former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared on Sunday’s CBS Face the Nation where host Major Garrett interviewed him about his comments that President Obama has contributed to the poisonous atmosphere against the police. From the Face the Nation transcript:
Giuliani on Obama’s contribution to the hatred of police
GARRETT: Let's clear one thing up. You said awhile ago that President Obama contributed to a rhetorical atmosphere about hating American police. And "The Washington Post" fact-checked you on that. I cover the president every single day. I have never detected anything that comes along the line of propaganda urging the country to hate police. Do you want to recast that or take that back?
GIULIANI: Oh, not at all.
I think you missed one very important point. He has had Al Sharpton to the White House 80, 85 times. Often, when he's talking about police issues, he has Al Sharpton sitting next to him. If you would like to have poster boy for hating the police, it's Al Sharpton.
You make Al Sharpton a close adviser, you are going to turn the police in America against you. You're going to tell the police in America, we don't understand you. I saw this man help cause riots in New York. I have heard his anti-police invective firsthand. To have a man who hasn't paid $4 million in taxes, have a man who has spent his career helping to create riots, phony stories about police, to have that man sitting next to you speaks volumes.
You know, actions speak louder than words. You put Al Sharpton next to you, you just told everyone, I'm against the police.
GARRETT: But what about the president's rhetoric itself? Do you still believe the president's rhetoric, not...
GIULIANI: His rhetoric...
GARRETT: Go ahead.
GIULIANI: Well, look, who you associate with is part of your rhetoric.
If I was talking to you about ending the mafia, as I did in the 1980s, or fighting the mafia, and I had Joe Colombo sitting next to me, you would say I was a big hypocrite, wouldn't you? It wouldn't matter what my rhetoric was. Oh, I'm fighting the mafia. There's Joe Colombo.
I'm for the police and there is Al Sharpton? Every cop in America is going to say, give me a break. I get the point, Mr. President. His interference in the Gates affair, the fact that he pays great attention to these so-called racial incidents, some of which are not racial incidents, sends representatives to funerals of people who were killed in the commission of committing a crime, and I haven't heard him make very strong comments about the deaths of Ramos and Liu to that extent.
So, I think the "Washington Post" fact-checking was substantially inaccurate. And they missed the one big point, Al Sharpton.
Giuliani on Sharpton
GIULIANI: Sharpton -- when Sharpton pays the $4 million he owes the federal government, maybe he should be allowed to sit next to a mayor or a governor, or when Sharpton apologizes to police for all the times that he has maligned them, made false charges against them, helped cause the Crown Heights riot, ruin a man's career over Tawana Brawley, who happened to be in law enforcement.
__________
NOTE: Giuliani is spot on! But the problem is that Sharpton has reinvented himself, and with the help of the media – MSNBC has given him his own news talk show – he has conned President Obama, Mayor de Blasio and other prominent leaders into believing he’s the second coming of Christ in the civil rights movement. In fact though, Sharpton is nothing but a racial rabble rouser, or as actor James Woods has called him, a “race pimp” and “disgusting pig.”
Former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared on Sunday’s CBS Face the Nation where host Major Garrett interviewed him about his comments that President Obama has contributed to the poisonous atmosphere against the police. From the Face the Nation transcript:
Giuliani on Obama’s contribution to the hatred of police
GARRETT: Let's clear one thing up. You said awhile ago that President Obama contributed to a rhetorical atmosphere about hating American police. And "The Washington Post" fact-checked you on that. I cover the president every single day. I have never detected anything that comes along the line of propaganda urging the country to hate police. Do you want to recast that or take that back?
GIULIANI: Oh, not at all.
I think you missed one very important point. He has had Al Sharpton to the White House 80, 85 times. Often, when he's talking about police issues, he has Al Sharpton sitting next to him. If you would like to have poster boy for hating the police, it's Al Sharpton.
You make Al Sharpton a close adviser, you are going to turn the police in America against you. You're going to tell the police in America, we don't understand you. I saw this man help cause riots in New York. I have heard his anti-police invective firsthand. To have a man who hasn't paid $4 million in taxes, have a man who has spent his career helping to create riots, phony stories about police, to have that man sitting next to you speaks volumes.
You know, actions speak louder than words. You put Al Sharpton next to you, you just told everyone, I'm against the police.
GARRETT: But what about the president's rhetoric itself? Do you still believe the president's rhetoric, not...
GIULIANI: His rhetoric...
GARRETT: Go ahead.
GIULIANI: Well, look, who you associate with is part of your rhetoric.
If I was talking to you about ending the mafia, as I did in the 1980s, or fighting the mafia, and I had Joe Colombo sitting next to me, you would say I was a big hypocrite, wouldn't you? It wouldn't matter what my rhetoric was. Oh, I'm fighting the mafia. There's Joe Colombo.
I'm for the police and there is Al Sharpton? Every cop in America is going to say, give me a break. I get the point, Mr. President. His interference in the Gates affair, the fact that he pays great attention to these so-called racial incidents, some of which are not racial incidents, sends representatives to funerals of people who were killed in the commission of committing a crime, and I haven't heard him make very strong comments about the deaths of Ramos and Liu to that extent.
So, I think the "Washington Post" fact-checking was substantially inaccurate. And they missed the one big point, Al Sharpton.
Giuliani on Sharpton
GIULIANI: Sharpton -- when Sharpton pays the $4 million he owes the federal government, maybe he should be allowed to sit next to a mayor or a governor, or when Sharpton apologizes to police for all the times that he has maligned them, made false charges against them, helped cause the Crown Heights riot, ruin a man's career over Tawana Brawley, who happened to be in law enforcement.
__________
NOTE: Giuliani is spot on! But the problem is that Sharpton has reinvented himself, and with the help of the media – MSNBC has given him his own news talk show – he has conned President Obama, Mayor de Blasio and other prominent leaders into believing he’s the second coming of Christ in the civil rights movement. In fact though, Sharpton is nothing but a racial rabble rouser, or as actor James Woods has called him, a “race pimp” and “disgusting pig.”
MEDIA DARLING OF FERUSON PROTESTS BUSTED FOR ARSON AND LOOTING
Joshua Williams, profiled by MSNBC as an advocate of peaceful protest, got caught setting fire to and looting a convenience store in Berkeley, Missouri while protesting the police shooting of Antonio Martin
Joshua Williams, 19, had become the darling of the media among Ferguson protesters. He has been quoted and photographed in numerous media outlets such as The New York Times and USA Today. MSNBC ran an extensive profile on him as an advocate of peaceful protest. MSNBC lauded Williams profusely:
“He hasn’t missed a single day of marching, protesting, or meetings. Like hundreds of other young people in Ferguson, many of whom have born [sic] the weight of a litany of alleged and frequent abuses residents say police have heaped upon the city’s black majority, Williams has found himself thrust into the heart of the city’s protests and civic action sparked by [Michael] Brown’s death.”
Josh was prominently featured in Al Sharpton’s “Justice for All” march in Washington, DC earlier this month where he addressed the crowd:
“The reason we came up here is because we are tired of being shot down in the streets like dogs. Police have a thing called the trigger finger — they can’t control their trigger finger when they see a black person in the street.”
He also told the crowd that he had been arrested five times during the Ferguson protests and each time he was beat up by the cops. He said that upon each release he immediately went back on the streets to let the cops know that “I don’t care about them.”
Well, the advocate of peaceful protest was not so peaceful while protesting Tuesday’s death of Antonio Martin, 18, at the hands of a Berkeley, Missouri cop. Martin was shot after pointing a gun at the cop. Joshua couldn’t refrain from participating in the riots that followed. Early Wednesday, he got caught trying to set fire to and looting a QuickTrip convenience store in Berkeley.
The media darling, has been charged with first degree arson and burglary, both felonies, and with misdemeanor theft for stealing a lighter, chewing gum and money from the store. As of Saturday, peaceful protesting Josh was still locked up in the St. Louis county pokey on $30,000 bail.
Joshua Williams, 19, had become the darling of the media among Ferguson protesters. He has been quoted and photographed in numerous media outlets such as The New York Times and USA Today. MSNBC ran an extensive profile on him as an advocate of peaceful protest. MSNBC lauded Williams profusely:
“He hasn’t missed a single day of marching, protesting, or meetings. Like hundreds of other young people in Ferguson, many of whom have born [sic] the weight of a litany of alleged and frequent abuses residents say police have heaped upon the city’s black majority, Williams has found himself thrust into the heart of the city’s protests and civic action sparked by [Michael] Brown’s death.”
Josh was prominently featured in Al Sharpton’s “Justice for All” march in Washington, DC earlier this month where he addressed the crowd:
“The reason we came up here is because we are tired of being shot down in the streets like dogs. Police have a thing called the trigger finger — they can’t control their trigger finger when they see a black person in the street.”
He also told the crowd that he had been arrested five times during the Ferguson protests and each time he was beat up by the cops. He said that upon each release he immediately went back on the streets to let the cops know that “I don’t care about them.”
Well, the advocate of peaceful protest was not so peaceful while protesting Tuesday’s death of Antonio Martin, 18, at the hands of a Berkeley, Missouri cop. Martin was shot after pointing a gun at the cop. Joshua couldn’t refrain from participating in the riots that followed. Early Wednesday, he got caught trying to set fire to and looting a QuickTrip convenience store in Berkeley.
The media darling, has been charged with first degree arson and burglary, both felonies, and with misdemeanor theft for stealing a lighter, chewing gum and money from the store. As of Saturday, peaceful protesting Josh was still locked up in the St. Louis county pokey on $30,000 bail.
LESSONS IN NEED OF AN AUDIENCE
For the lack of good parenting
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
December 28, 2014
There was a time on this continent, a time before any now living experienced, when a British king ruled thirteen colonies with absolute authority. The colonists were subjects of the crown of England and therefore subjugated by British rule. They were taxed for their labors by a government that neither cared for their concerns, nor represented their needs.
When they protested through legal channels, the king made few concessions and found other oppressive methods of taxation. Then some colonists spoke out against the king and his government. As a result, the military presence in America was increased. Appointed governors and the king’s army enforced the law.
Resentment, indignation, and injustice fueled a great cause that would lead to revolution. But the leaders of this revolution believed that freedom from an oppressive and non-representative government required an agreement among the governed in order to form a new government. Once the revolution had succeeded and the colonists were free of heavy-handed British rule, the leaders of the free American colonists (referred to as the founding fathers) were seen as good parents, those who would guide our new nation and the path it would take. The founding fathers spent years drafting a singular ruling agreement that eventually became our Constitution.
Our founding fathers as new Americans were not perfect. One of the compromises that could not be overcome during the Constitutional convention was the matter of Black slavery. In order to hold the colonies together as a country, to keep the southern states within the greater union, the slavery issue was set aside during the drafting of the Constitution. None of the founding fathers could know, nor would any live to see, the compromise on the issue of slavery would become the impetus for a bloody civil war.
In the decades that followed the enacting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, American freedoms became the envy of the Old World (Europe.) American citizens were free to worship as they pleased. They had the right to vote for their leaders, to speak freely without fear of government reprisal, to protest in public, and to have a press free of government entanglement. They could keep and bear firearms to protect themselves in the event an oppressive government took power. Other rights were guaranteed by this government, unlike any other place in the world. Yet still the problem of slavery remained the great, ugly contradiction within early American life.
A constitutional crisis threatened to tear apart the Union of the United States of America. Common practice had held that Blacks could live free of slavery only if they could escape to Northern States. In 1857, with its infamous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court overturned twenty-six years of legal precedence in the Northern States (where escaped slaves were granted freedom and citizenship as freed men) by declaring (whether slave or free) no one of African descent could be a citizen of the United States. The divisive nature of this court ruling gave rise to the abolition movement (and the Republican Party) in the North, and fear of the anti-slavery movement among slaveholders in the South.
Now a much larger country, with territory spanning the width of the North American continent, the southern slave states seceded from the rest of the nation to form a confederacy in an act of open rebellion. Four bloody years of struggle, pitting friends and family against one another, resulted in a defeat of the confederacy, the assassination of the first Republican president, the preservation of the Union, and the abolition of Black slavery. In 1865, one hundred forty-nine years ago, for the first time in the United States of America, all Blacks were given rights as citizens.
Unfortunately, though defeated in battle, the heavily Democrat southern states did not relinquish power easily, nor welcome freed slaves as equal citizens under the Constitution. A divided, segregated South existed for almost one hundred years, where Black citizens were excluded from full and equal participation in daily life. The White South made no attempt to hide its contempt for Blacks in general with signs like “Whites only” posted in restaurants, restrooms, and on water fountains.
It was not until the mid-1950’s, that a dynamic and brilliant Christian pastor named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., raised his voice against the entrenched segregation policies of the Democrat-Party-held South. He organized peaceful protests and engaged his followers to participate in non-violent civil disobedience. Wherever segregation was strongest in the South, Dr. King would march. In short, King was often arrested and jailed for violating the laws prohibiting him, a Black American citizen, from accessing public areas deemed White by legal ordinance.
To his memory and credit, Blacks in America are no longer prohibited or restricted by legal precedent in the United States of America. Dr. King was assassinated in 1968. That was forty-six years ago.
I am an American, of Irish descent, who happens to have been born White. I grew up during the turbulent 1960’s. I remember the protests. I remember the Watts riot. I remember the assassinations of the Kennedys and Dr. King. I have not forgotten.
I am very proud of some of my fellow Americans who happen to be Black. Some of those Americans have succeeded in the entertainment industry and have risen to prominence—Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Harry Belafonte, Michael Jackson, Oprah Winfrey, Whoopie Goldberg (to name a few.) There are other Americans who have risen to high level positions within our government who make me proud (whether I agree with them politically or not)—Barack Obama, Condoleeza Rice, Eric Holder, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell. They are success stories who owe their good standing as citizens to Dr. King, Abraham Lincoln, the Constitution, and their parents who taught them first to be good citizens.
But I am also proud of some of my fellow Americans who happen to be Black and are also police officers. Three in particular that I worked with at Upland PD for many years are Steve Turner, Virgil Rush, and Pete Brown. I love them not because of the color of their skin, nor for the blue uniforms they wear, but because they remain faithful public servants, great cops, good men, and loyal friends. I trusted them with my life on the job, as they trusted theirs with me. And I would lead or follow them to the gates of Hell if they needed me. I never met their parents, but having known Steve, Virgil, and Pete, I have no doubt each came from an excellent upbringing.
I am less impressed, however, with what I have seen and read about American citizen Michael Brown, who was killed at the hands of a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014. His actions were abherrant, his conduct unacceptable, and his manner threatening. In the aftermath of the shooting, Brown’s parents leave an even less favorable impression. I cannot help but wonder, had Michael Brown received a better upbringing, would he be dead now, and would ex-Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson have suffered such ignominious treatment by the press and protestors?
So I take exception to the cop-haters, race-baiters, and anti-American instigators who insist that insurrection is the answer to this particular perceived injustice. The American press brought two instances into focus; where in two separate incidents White cops killed unarmed Black men in America. Our media made it appear as if all White cops spend their on-duty time making sport of killing unarmed Black men.
Out of hundreds of thousands of police calls everywhere across this land, every day, where no one is shot or killed by police, why have these two events been deemed worthy of extreme focus by the media? Now the cross-hairs of hatred for authority have resulted in the sacrificial assassination of two NYPD officers, by a lawless thug— an adherent to this cause and cry of injustice.
Now the lawless take justice into their own hands. This is what the right of freedom of the press, coupled with irresponsible journalism, has wrought. (By the way, no one has mentioned that neither of the slain officers were White; however, they were wearing blue.)
This tragic mess is a lesson in need of an audience. Words mean something. Pictures tell stories. And sometimes, these days more often than not, some of those story-tellers are habitual liars, unfit citizens, and bad actors. For the lack of good parenting, our media has become a tool of despots, cheats, and opportunists. Who will hold them responsible?
To all my brothers and sisters in blue or tan and green: Please watch each others’ backs. The press has unleashed the whirlwind upon you! May God watch over and keep you safe.
I pray all of you make it home to your families this Christmas, and many more to come.
By Greg ‘Gadfly’ Doyle
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
December 28, 2014
There was a time on this continent, a time before any now living experienced, when a British king ruled thirteen colonies with absolute authority. The colonists were subjects of the crown of England and therefore subjugated by British rule. They were taxed for their labors by a government that neither cared for their concerns, nor represented their needs.
When they protested through legal channels, the king made few concessions and found other oppressive methods of taxation. Then some colonists spoke out against the king and his government. As a result, the military presence in America was increased. Appointed governors and the king’s army enforced the law.
Resentment, indignation, and injustice fueled a great cause that would lead to revolution. But the leaders of this revolution believed that freedom from an oppressive and non-representative government required an agreement among the governed in order to form a new government. Once the revolution had succeeded and the colonists were free of heavy-handed British rule, the leaders of the free American colonists (referred to as the founding fathers) were seen as good parents, those who would guide our new nation and the path it would take. The founding fathers spent years drafting a singular ruling agreement that eventually became our Constitution.
Our founding fathers as new Americans were not perfect. One of the compromises that could not be overcome during the Constitutional convention was the matter of Black slavery. In order to hold the colonies together as a country, to keep the southern states within the greater union, the slavery issue was set aside during the drafting of the Constitution. None of the founding fathers could know, nor would any live to see, the compromise on the issue of slavery would become the impetus for a bloody civil war.
In the decades that followed the enacting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, American freedoms became the envy of the Old World (Europe.) American citizens were free to worship as they pleased. They had the right to vote for their leaders, to speak freely without fear of government reprisal, to protest in public, and to have a press free of government entanglement. They could keep and bear firearms to protect themselves in the event an oppressive government took power. Other rights were guaranteed by this government, unlike any other place in the world. Yet still the problem of slavery remained the great, ugly contradiction within early American life.
A constitutional crisis threatened to tear apart the Union of the United States of America. Common practice had held that Blacks could live free of slavery only if they could escape to Northern States. In 1857, with its infamous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court overturned twenty-six years of legal precedence in the Northern States (where escaped slaves were granted freedom and citizenship as freed men) by declaring (whether slave or free) no one of African descent could be a citizen of the United States. The divisive nature of this court ruling gave rise to the abolition movement (and the Republican Party) in the North, and fear of the anti-slavery movement among slaveholders in the South.
Now a much larger country, with territory spanning the width of the North American continent, the southern slave states seceded from the rest of the nation to form a confederacy in an act of open rebellion. Four bloody years of struggle, pitting friends and family against one another, resulted in a defeat of the confederacy, the assassination of the first Republican president, the preservation of the Union, and the abolition of Black slavery. In 1865, one hundred forty-nine years ago, for the first time in the United States of America, all Blacks were given rights as citizens.
Unfortunately, though defeated in battle, the heavily Democrat southern states did not relinquish power easily, nor welcome freed slaves as equal citizens under the Constitution. A divided, segregated South existed for almost one hundred years, where Black citizens were excluded from full and equal participation in daily life. The White South made no attempt to hide its contempt for Blacks in general with signs like “Whites only” posted in restaurants, restrooms, and on water fountains.
It was not until the mid-1950’s, that a dynamic and brilliant Christian pastor named Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., raised his voice against the entrenched segregation policies of the Democrat-Party-held South. He organized peaceful protests and engaged his followers to participate in non-violent civil disobedience. Wherever segregation was strongest in the South, Dr. King would march. In short, King was often arrested and jailed for violating the laws prohibiting him, a Black American citizen, from accessing public areas deemed White by legal ordinance.
To his memory and credit, Blacks in America are no longer prohibited or restricted by legal precedent in the United States of America. Dr. King was assassinated in 1968. That was forty-six years ago.
I am an American, of Irish descent, who happens to have been born White. I grew up during the turbulent 1960’s. I remember the protests. I remember the Watts riot. I remember the assassinations of the Kennedys and Dr. King. I have not forgotten.
I am very proud of some of my fellow Americans who happen to be Black. Some of those Americans have succeeded in the entertainment industry and have risen to prominence—Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Harry Belafonte, Michael Jackson, Oprah Winfrey, Whoopie Goldberg (to name a few.) There are other Americans who have risen to high level positions within our government who make me proud (whether I agree with them politically or not)—Barack Obama, Condoleeza Rice, Eric Holder, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell. They are success stories who owe their good standing as citizens to Dr. King, Abraham Lincoln, the Constitution, and their parents who taught them first to be good citizens.
But I am also proud of some of my fellow Americans who happen to be Black and are also police officers. Three in particular that I worked with at Upland PD for many years are Steve Turner, Virgil Rush, and Pete Brown. I love them not because of the color of their skin, nor for the blue uniforms they wear, but because they remain faithful public servants, great cops, good men, and loyal friends. I trusted them with my life on the job, as they trusted theirs with me. And I would lead or follow them to the gates of Hell if they needed me. I never met their parents, but having known Steve, Virgil, and Pete, I have no doubt each came from an excellent upbringing.
I am less impressed, however, with what I have seen and read about American citizen Michael Brown, who was killed at the hands of a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014. His actions were abherrant, his conduct unacceptable, and his manner threatening. In the aftermath of the shooting, Brown’s parents leave an even less favorable impression. I cannot help but wonder, had Michael Brown received a better upbringing, would he be dead now, and would ex-Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson have suffered such ignominious treatment by the press and protestors?
So I take exception to the cop-haters, race-baiters, and anti-American instigators who insist that insurrection is the answer to this particular perceived injustice. The American press brought two instances into focus; where in two separate incidents White cops killed unarmed Black men in America. Our media made it appear as if all White cops spend their on-duty time making sport of killing unarmed Black men.
Out of hundreds of thousands of police calls everywhere across this land, every day, where no one is shot or killed by police, why have these two events been deemed worthy of extreme focus by the media? Now the cross-hairs of hatred for authority have resulted in the sacrificial assassination of two NYPD officers, by a lawless thug— an adherent to this cause and cry of injustice.
Now the lawless take justice into their own hands. This is what the right of freedom of the press, coupled with irresponsible journalism, has wrought. (By the way, no one has mentioned that neither of the slain officers were White; however, they were wearing blue.)
This tragic mess is a lesson in need of an audience. Words mean something. Pictures tell stories. And sometimes, these days more often than not, some of those story-tellers are habitual liars, unfit citizens, and bad actors. For the lack of good parenting, our media has become a tool of despots, cheats, and opportunists. Who will hold them responsible?
To all my brothers and sisters in blue or tan and green: Please watch each others’ backs. The press has unleashed the whirlwind upon you! May God watch over and keep you safe.
I pray all of you make it home to your families this Christmas, and many more to come.
MEXICAN DRUG WARS: WHERE IS PADRE PISTOLAS?
Nothing has been heard since February 2013 from Father Alfredo Gallegos Lara, a pistol-packing priest
In Mexico, where as Father Alejandro Solalinde put it, there is almost no difference between drug traffickers and politicians, 12 priests were killed from 2006-11.
Father Alfredo Gallegos Lara, or Padre Pistolas as he is affectionately called, has not only pissed off drug traffickers and politicians but he has also pissed off Archbishop Alberto Suarez Inda for carrying a Colt M1911 pistol underneath his vestments. Nothing has been heard from the prominent priest since February 2013.
BUT THEN THERE IS “PADRE PISTOLAS”
Probably the most unusual Catholic priest you could ever meet
Borderland Beat
December 27, 2014
Alfredo Gallegos Lara, 61, is a catholic priest on the small town of
Chucándiro, in Michoacán state. He's famed for his social work: he gathers funds to build roads, restores churches in disrepair and pressures politicians to bring healthcare services and educational facilities to his parishes.
When he pulls off his religious vestments behind the altar of the Catholic church in this town in central Mexico, he reveals his jeans, a fancy western style shirt, crocodile boots, and a shiny black pistol.
He also sings country music, and he never leaves home without his trusty Colt M1911. He is widely known by the nickname Padre Pistolas, or 'Father Guns.'. No ordinary gunslinger, he may be Mexico's most unusual parish priest.
Mr. Gallegos is loved by his parish goers, who consider him a straight-shooting tough guy with a good heart. They love to see him packing heat, they love to see him sing his music.
Padre Pistolas was relocated by the church to Michoacán in 2004. When he arrived in Michoacán, the first thing he did was pressure local politicians into establishing a secondary school in the village. He then set his mind to building healthcare facilities in town, and currently tries to gather money to restore an old 450-year old church.
'We love him, because he speaks the truth and cares about us', local churchgoer Carlos Vargas says, 'He's a good priest.'
"Four of my friends have been killed, and three of my trucks have been stolen," he said, explaining that his ministry to drug addicts and the sick takes him through the back roads of central Mexico, where it is wise, he said, to be armed. The youngest of 10 children in a wealthy family with a long history of military service and fine marksmanship, Gallegos boasts 'I can shoot five Pepsi cans from a wall in a few seconds, from 25 meters. I can't do it anymore, though. The bishop says it's bad for the image of the church. But what am I supposed to do? I can't help it people come to look me up, in stead of the bishop...'
Ever since he entered the seminary at age 14, his handling of guns has been drawing popular attention as well as criticism from his church superiors.
"I have been fighting with the bishop. He is so angry with me. He doesn't like my gun," Gallegos said.
He said Archbishop Alberto Suarez Inda is also uncomfortable with his high-profile fund-raising and construction projects. Gallegos has built 40 miles of roads, as well as basketball courts, schools, churches, and bridges in and around Jaral del Refugio in the neighboring state of Guanajuato, where he was the parish priest for 24 years. He said he raised millions of dollars for the projects. He makes frequent fund-raising trips to Illinois, North Carolina, and California, and migrants there have encouraged him to create a Padre Pistolas website, key chains, compact discs, and posters.
He doesn't shy away from severely criticizing the catholic church in Mexico, politicians in general and those Michoacán in particular. 'Mexican bishops are mediocre, all of them. The church has forgotten what it's there for: to care for the weak.
Padre Pistolas was relocated by the church to Michoacán in 2004. When he arrived in Michoacán, the first thing he did was pressure local politicians into establishing a secondary school in the village. He then set his mind to building healthcare facilities in town, and currently tries to gather money to restore an old 450-year old church.
'Mexican politics make me sick. It's all corrupt. Politicians are the problem in this country. They asked me a few times to run for mayor. Of course I didn't do it, I'm an honest man!'
Gallegos's guns and his super-sized persona have gotten him into hot water with the local bishop, who wants him to leave building roads and hospitals to the government and televised musical performances to entertainers. "He wants me to stick to baptizing children and saying Mass," Gallegos said.
Gallegos said he loves the Church but its leaders need to worry less about his guns and more about the church's bigger problems, such as pedophilia scandals in the United States.
Suarez, the bishop, declined to be interviewed. "Oh, God," moaned the person answering the phone in his office in Morelia, when asked for a comment about Padre Pistolas. "Don't pay too much attention to him."
'I don't give a damn what people say about me, I'm not afraid of anyone.'
__________
“DD”, the author of this story, says he has been unable to find anything about Padre Pistolas since February 2013.
In Mexico, where as Father Alejandro Solalinde put it, there is almost no difference between drug traffickers and politicians, 12 priests were killed from 2006-11.
Father Alfredo Gallegos Lara, or Padre Pistolas as he is affectionately called, has not only pissed off drug traffickers and politicians but he has also pissed off Archbishop Alberto Suarez Inda for carrying a Colt M1911 pistol underneath his vestments. Nothing has been heard from the prominent priest since February 2013.
BUT THEN THERE IS “PADRE PISTOLAS”
Probably the most unusual Catholic priest you could ever meet
Borderland Beat
December 27, 2014
Alfredo Gallegos Lara, 61, is a catholic priest on the small town of
Chucándiro, in Michoacán state. He's famed for his social work: he gathers funds to build roads, restores churches in disrepair and pressures politicians to bring healthcare services and educational facilities to his parishes.
When he pulls off his religious vestments behind the altar of the Catholic church in this town in central Mexico, he reveals his jeans, a fancy western style shirt, crocodile boots, and a shiny black pistol.
He also sings country music, and he never leaves home without his trusty Colt M1911. He is widely known by the nickname Padre Pistolas, or 'Father Guns.'. No ordinary gunslinger, he may be Mexico's most unusual parish priest.
Mr. Gallegos is loved by his parish goers, who consider him a straight-shooting tough guy with a good heart. They love to see him packing heat, they love to see him sing his music.
Padre Pistolas was relocated by the church to Michoacán in 2004. When he arrived in Michoacán, the first thing he did was pressure local politicians into establishing a secondary school in the village. He then set his mind to building healthcare facilities in town, and currently tries to gather money to restore an old 450-year old church.
'We love him, because he speaks the truth and cares about us', local churchgoer Carlos Vargas says, 'He's a good priest.'
"Four of my friends have been killed, and three of my trucks have been stolen," he said, explaining that his ministry to drug addicts and the sick takes him through the back roads of central Mexico, where it is wise, he said, to be armed. The youngest of 10 children in a wealthy family with a long history of military service and fine marksmanship, Gallegos boasts 'I can shoot five Pepsi cans from a wall in a few seconds, from 25 meters. I can't do it anymore, though. The bishop says it's bad for the image of the church. But what am I supposed to do? I can't help it people come to look me up, in stead of the bishop...'
Ever since he entered the seminary at age 14, his handling of guns has been drawing popular attention as well as criticism from his church superiors.
"I have been fighting with the bishop. He is so angry with me. He doesn't like my gun," Gallegos said.
He said Archbishop Alberto Suarez Inda is also uncomfortable with his high-profile fund-raising and construction projects. Gallegos has built 40 miles of roads, as well as basketball courts, schools, churches, and bridges in and around Jaral del Refugio in the neighboring state of Guanajuato, where he was the parish priest for 24 years. He said he raised millions of dollars for the projects. He makes frequent fund-raising trips to Illinois, North Carolina, and California, and migrants there have encouraged him to create a Padre Pistolas website, key chains, compact discs, and posters.
He doesn't shy away from severely criticizing the catholic church in Mexico, politicians in general and those Michoacán in particular. 'Mexican bishops are mediocre, all of them. The church has forgotten what it's there for: to care for the weak.
Padre Pistolas was relocated by the church to Michoacán in 2004. When he arrived in Michoacán, the first thing he did was pressure local politicians into establishing a secondary school in the village. He then set his mind to building healthcare facilities in town, and currently tries to gather money to restore an old 450-year old church.
'Mexican politics make me sick. It's all corrupt. Politicians are the problem in this country. They asked me a few times to run for mayor. Of course I didn't do it, I'm an honest man!'
Gallegos's guns and his super-sized persona have gotten him into hot water with the local bishop, who wants him to leave building roads and hospitals to the government and televised musical performances to entertainers. "He wants me to stick to baptizing children and saying Mass," Gallegos said.
Gallegos said he loves the Church but its leaders need to worry less about his guns and more about the church's bigger problems, such as pedophilia scandals in the United States.
Suarez, the bishop, declined to be interviewed. "Oh, God," moaned the person answering the phone in his office in Morelia, when asked for a comment about Padre Pistolas. "Don't pay too much attention to him."
'I don't give a damn what people say about me, I'm not afraid of anyone.'
__________
“DD”, the author of this story, says he has been unable to find anything about Padre Pistolas since February 2013.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
COLLEGE OF THE MAINLAND GOT OFF CHEAP BY SETTLING WITH RED DAVID FOR ONLY $255,000
Fired August 1, 2013, Professor David Michael Smith sued College of the Mainland which settled with the professed Marxist after losing several motions for dismissal
During the 15 years that he taught Political Science at COM, Red David fed his students a daily diet of anti-American rhetoric. That's why in 2002 some Galveston County civic leaders and I tried to stop the college from granting him tenure. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful.
Smith and his wife Rona (also an avowed Marxist) are the founders of the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee. Its manifesto contains paragraph after paragraph spelling out the evils of capitalism and America’s government policies. A number of Red David’s students have become members and one line from that manifesto seems to explain why they joined up:
“As the nucleus of a pre-party formation, we know that the first step in recruiting and retaining new members must be radical political education.”
That line would also seem to back up what numerous students told me and others about Smith trying to brainwash students with his Marxist and anti-American crap.
A citizen by the name of Doc Courtney recently left this comment on The Police News in response to “When Will The Cops Stop Killing Us?,” an article written by Red David that was published by the Houston Communist Party on December 14:
“After a semester of Smith propaganda, my niece came to Christmas dinner regurgitating anti-capitalism BS. It was completely out of left field. Once she informed me where she had learned this rhetoric, it was all clear. Thanks to Smith's brainwashing, my beautiful future petroleum engineer niece is bonafide, dread sporting hippy. Glad you can't poison young minds with your B.S., good riddance!”
All that aside, I predicted all along that Red David would prevail in his lawsuit and that College of the Mainland would end up settling out of court. The college got off rather cheap when it settled for only $255,000.
FIRED MAINLAND PROFESSOR SETTLES LAWSUIT
Former teacher was let go after filing two other free speech suits
By Harvey Rice
Houston Chronicle
December 16, 2014
GALVESTON - The College of the Mainland has settled a lawsuit with a professor it fired after he filed two other lawsuits alleging violation of his free speech rights.
The settlement is the latest in a long string of federal lawsuits against the college board and administration over the last several years by faculty, staff and students.
The lawsuit settled last week by former professor David Michael Smith accused the board of directors of firing him on Aug. 1, 2013, on a unanimous vote in retaliation for his two previous free speech lawsuits.
College President Beth Lewis said Smith was fired for insubordination and for harassing his colleagues.
Neither Smith nor Lewis would discuss the terms of the confidential settlement. Smith declined to say whether he would be reinstated, but said he had no plans for full-time teaching.
Smith's lawsuit sought $750,000 in damages plus attorneys fees of at least $250,000.
Smith, who taught political science at the community college for 15 years, predicted more lawsuits unless the administration and board agreed to work cooperatively with employees and students.
"I'm certain there will be additional lawsuits," Smith said. "If you ask me, I'm afraid the current board is intent on turning a traditionally progressive institution of higher learning into a Walmart."
Lewis dismissed Smith's accusation that the administration was unwilling to tolerate dissent from employees and students. "There is no merit to this assertion," she said.
Board member Ralph Holm refused comment, but board member Rachel Delgado said that there would be fewer problems with Smith's departure. "I feel that we are developing a very positive relationship" with faculty and staff, she said.
She also declined to discuss the settlement's terms.
Smith, as head of the faculty union, was at the forefront of disputes over policy affecting college employees, often arguing points of policy before the board. His outspokenness and liberal viewpoints earned the ire of conservatives as expressed in letters to the editor of the Galveston Daily News.
His first lawsuit was filed after he and his wife were prevented from addressing the board during the public comments section of a June 22, 2009, meeting. The college settled the lawsuit after a federal judge accepted a recommendation that the college board be barred from excluding members of the public from speaking during the public comment portion of public meetings.
Smith sued the college again in June 2011 claiming that he was issued a disciplinary letter in retaliation for the first lawsuit. The college settled after the judge found that a jury was likely to side with Smith, according to Smith's lawsuit.
Two years later, the college's letter terminating Smith said that an investigation "has revealed a pattern of behavior in which you routinely challenge directives and requirements from your supervisors," the lawsuit states.
Smith's view is backed by Lee Medley, president of the AFL-CIO Galveston County Labor Council, who has at times tried to intercede on behalf of college faculty. Medley said Smith's firing is part of an attempt by the college to break the faculty union.
Stephanie Macaluso, who graduated last week with an associates degree from Mainland College, said that she encountered problems defending a different professor disciplined last year for mentioning faculty problems in the classroom. Macaluso said faculty have told her that they fear expressing viewpoints contrary to the administration's.
During the 15 years that he taught Political Science at COM, Red David fed his students a daily diet of anti-American rhetoric. That's why in 2002 some Galveston County civic leaders and I tried to stop the college from granting him tenure. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful.
Smith and his wife Rona (also an avowed Marxist) are the founders of the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee. Its manifesto contains paragraph after paragraph spelling out the evils of capitalism and America’s government policies. A number of Red David’s students have become members and one line from that manifesto seems to explain why they joined up:
“As the nucleus of a pre-party formation, we know that the first step in recruiting and retaining new members must be radical political education.”
That line would also seem to back up what numerous students told me and others about Smith trying to brainwash students with his Marxist and anti-American crap.
A citizen by the name of Doc Courtney recently left this comment on The Police News in response to “When Will The Cops Stop Killing Us?,” an article written by Red David that was published by the Houston Communist Party on December 14:
“After a semester of Smith propaganda, my niece came to Christmas dinner regurgitating anti-capitalism BS. It was completely out of left field. Once she informed me where she had learned this rhetoric, it was all clear. Thanks to Smith's brainwashing, my beautiful future petroleum engineer niece is bonafide, dread sporting hippy. Glad you can't poison young minds with your B.S., good riddance!”
All that aside, I predicted all along that Red David would prevail in his lawsuit and that College of the Mainland would end up settling out of court. The college got off rather cheap when it settled for only $255,000.
FIRED MAINLAND PROFESSOR SETTLES LAWSUIT
Former teacher was let go after filing two other free speech suits
By Harvey Rice
Houston Chronicle
December 16, 2014
GALVESTON - The College of the Mainland has settled a lawsuit with a professor it fired after he filed two other lawsuits alleging violation of his free speech rights.
The settlement is the latest in a long string of federal lawsuits against the college board and administration over the last several years by faculty, staff and students.
The lawsuit settled last week by former professor David Michael Smith accused the board of directors of firing him on Aug. 1, 2013, on a unanimous vote in retaliation for his two previous free speech lawsuits.
College President Beth Lewis said Smith was fired for insubordination and for harassing his colleagues.
Neither Smith nor Lewis would discuss the terms of the confidential settlement. Smith declined to say whether he would be reinstated, but said he had no plans for full-time teaching.
Smith's lawsuit sought $750,000 in damages plus attorneys fees of at least $250,000.
Smith, who taught political science at the community college for 15 years, predicted more lawsuits unless the administration and board agreed to work cooperatively with employees and students.
"I'm certain there will be additional lawsuits," Smith said. "If you ask me, I'm afraid the current board is intent on turning a traditionally progressive institution of higher learning into a Walmart."
Lewis dismissed Smith's accusation that the administration was unwilling to tolerate dissent from employees and students. "There is no merit to this assertion," she said.
Board member Ralph Holm refused comment, but board member Rachel Delgado said that there would be fewer problems with Smith's departure. "I feel that we are developing a very positive relationship" with faculty and staff, she said.
She also declined to discuss the settlement's terms.
Smith, as head of the faculty union, was at the forefront of disputes over policy affecting college employees, often arguing points of policy before the board. His outspokenness and liberal viewpoints earned the ire of conservatives as expressed in letters to the editor of the Galveston Daily News.
His first lawsuit was filed after he and his wife were prevented from addressing the board during the public comments section of a June 22, 2009, meeting. The college settled the lawsuit after a federal judge accepted a recommendation that the college board be barred from excluding members of the public from speaking during the public comment portion of public meetings.
Smith sued the college again in June 2011 claiming that he was issued a disciplinary letter in retaliation for the first lawsuit. The college settled after the judge found that a jury was likely to side with Smith, according to Smith's lawsuit.
Two years later, the college's letter terminating Smith said that an investigation "has revealed a pattern of behavior in which you routinely challenge directives and requirements from your supervisors," the lawsuit states.
Smith's view is backed by Lee Medley, president of the AFL-CIO Galveston County Labor Council, who has at times tried to intercede on behalf of college faculty. Medley said Smith's firing is part of an attempt by the college to break the faculty union.
Stephanie Macaluso, who graduated last week with an associates degree from Mainland College, said that she encountered problems defending a different professor disciplined last year for mentioning faculty problems in the classroom. Macaluso said faculty have told her that they fear expressing viewpoints contrary to the administration's.
WELCOME TO THE TOPSY-TURVY WORLD OF THE ACADEMIC HARD LEFT
Bigoted speech by fellow hard leftist is protected, but counter expression is labeled as "incitement" and "bullying"
Liberals have always put a premium on the right of free speech, especially for their fellow travelers, but the far-left will deny that right to those who oppose them.
Khadijah Lynch, a junior in the Brandeis African and Afro-American studies department, tweeted that she had “no sympathy” for assassinated NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. She also tweeted, “I hate this racist, fucking country" and “Fuck this fucking country." I have only one thing to say to Lynch: You despicable fucking sorry ass bitch, pack up and leave the good old USA for good!
BRANDEIS STUDENT REFUSES TO SHOW SYMPATHY FOR ASSASSINATED POLICEMEN AND HER CRITIC IS ATTACKED
By Alan Dershowitz
Newsmax
December 27, 2014
As I watched, with tears in my eyes, the funeral of police officer Rafael Ramos who was ambushed along with fellow officer, Wenjian Liu, in revenge for the deaths of two black young men who were killed by policemen, I could not help thinking of the following horrible words tweeted by a bigoted young woman named Khadijah Lynch, on the day the police officers were murdered in cold blood:
"I have no sympathy for the NYPD officers who were murdered today. IMAO, all I just really don’t have sympathy for the cops who were shot. I hate this racist, fucking country."
Khadijah Lynch is a Brandeis University junior who at the time she wrote the tweet was the undergraduate representative in the Brandeis African and Afro-American studies department.
Nor was this her first bigoted tweet. She has apparently described her college as "a social themed institution grounded in Zionism. Word. That a fucking fanny dooly."
And she cannot understand why "black people have not burned this country down…." She describes herself as "in riot mode. Fuck this fucking country."
Ms. Lynch is certainly entitled to express such despicable views, just as Nazis, Klansmen and other bigots are entitled to express theirs. But when another Brandeis student, named Daniel Mael, decided to post her public tweets on a website, Lynch threatened to sue him for "slander."
Republishing someone's own published words could not possibly constitute slander, libel or any other form of defamation, because you can't be slandered, by your own words. You can, of course, be embarrassed, condemned, ostracized or "unfriended" by your own words, as Donald Sterling, the former owner of the L.A. Clippers, was. But Sterling's bigoted words were never intended to be public, whereas Lynch's tweets were publically circulated.
People, even students, are responsible for the words they write, speak or tweet in public. They should not be able to hide behind absurd claims of slander. Mael had the right – and was right - to expose Lynch’s words for public assessment and criticism. Now hard left students at Brandeis are calling for Mael’s head – or at least his expulsion – for exercising his freedom of expression. He has been accused of "stalking," and "cyberbullying" and "inciting racial hatred and oppression" for merely republishing what Lynch published.
The most remarkable statement came from the Brandeis Asian American Society. One of the assassinated officers was Asian American. Yet the Asian American Society "stands by" Lynch who in their view has been "wrongfully targeted and harassed" for essentially expressing lack of sympathy for the two assassinated police officers. They asserted Lynch’s right to speak freely – a right no one has disputed – but not Mael's right to publish her tweets, which is also a form of free expression.
So welcome to the topsy-turvy world of the academic hard left, where bigoted speech by fellow hard leftist is protected, but counter expression is labeled as "embarrassment" and "incitement" and "bullying."
I hope Brandeis will do the right thing this time, as it certainly did not do when it caved to hard left pressures to withdraw an honorary degree from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Free speech for me but not for thee can not become the operative motto of a great university.
Liberals have always put a premium on the right of free speech, especially for their fellow travelers, but the far-left will deny that right to those who oppose them.
Khadijah Lynch, a junior in the Brandeis African and Afro-American studies department, tweeted that she had “no sympathy” for assassinated NYPD officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. She also tweeted, “I hate this racist, fucking country" and “Fuck this fucking country." I have only one thing to say to Lynch: You despicable fucking sorry ass bitch, pack up and leave the good old USA for good!
BRANDEIS STUDENT REFUSES TO SHOW SYMPATHY FOR ASSASSINATED POLICEMEN AND HER CRITIC IS ATTACKED
By Alan Dershowitz
Newsmax
December 27, 2014
As I watched, with tears in my eyes, the funeral of police officer Rafael Ramos who was ambushed along with fellow officer, Wenjian Liu, in revenge for the deaths of two black young men who were killed by policemen, I could not help thinking of the following horrible words tweeted by a bigoted young woman named Khadijah Lynch, on the day the police officers were murdered in cold blood:
"I have no sympathy for the NYPD officers who were murdered today. IMAO, all I just really don’t have sympathy for the cops who were shot. I hate this racist, fucking country."
Khadijah Lynch is a Brandeis University junior who at the time she wrote the tweet was the undergraduate representative in the Brandeis African and Afro-American studies department.
Nor was this her first bigoted tweet. She has apparently described her college as "a social themed institution grounded in Zionism. Word. That a fucking fanny dooly."
And she cannot understand why "black people have not burned this country down…." She describes herself as "in riot mode. Fuck this fucking country."
Ms. Lynch is certainly entitled to express such despicable views, just as Nazis, Klansmen and other bigots are entitled to express theirs. But when another Brandeis student, named Daniel Mael, decided to post her public tweets on a website, Lynch threatened to sue him for "slander."
Republishing someone's own published words could not possibly constitute slander, libel or any other form of defamation, because you can't be slandered, by your own words. You can, of course, be embarrassed, condemned, ostracized or "unfriended" by your own words, as Donald Sterling, the former owner of the L.A. Clippers, was. But Sterling's bigoted words were never intended to be public, whereas Lynch's tweets were publically circulated.
People, even students, are responsible for the words they write, speak or tweet in public. They should not be able to hide behind absurd claims of slander. Mael had the right – and was right - to expose Lynch’s words for public assessment and criticism. Now hard left students at Brandeis are calling for Mael’s head – or at least his expulsion – for exercising his freedom of expression. He has been accused of "stalking," and "cyberbullying" and "inciting racial hatred and oppression" for merely republishing what Lynch published.
The most remarkable statement came from the Brandeis Asian American Society. One of the assassinated officers was Asian American. Yet the Asian American Society "stands by" Lynch who in their view has been "wrongfully targeted and harassed" for essentially expressing lack of sympathy for the two assassinated police officers. They asserted Lynch’s right to speak freely – a right no one has disputed – but not Mael's right to publish her tweets, which is also a form of free expression.
So welcome to the topsy-turvy world of the academic hard left, where bigoted speech by fellow hard leftist is protected, but counter expression is labeled as "embarrassment" and "incitement" and "bullying."
I hope Brandeis will do the right thing this time, as it certainly did not do when it caved to hard left pressures to withdraw an honorary degree from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Free speech for me but not for thee can not become the operative motto of a great university.
UP THE CREEK WITHOUT A PADDLE
Mail thief Jeremy Webb tried to flee across Washington’s Lake Sammamish in a stolen kayak, but he forgot to take a paddle
Jeremy Webb and his girlfriend Desiree Segar went into the mail theft business Christmas Eve, but the business did not get off to a good start.
When neighbors in Sammamish, Washington spotted the couple stealing from their mailboxes, they gave pursuit and boxed in the couple’s mail collection car. Webb fled on foot, leaving his business partner behind. He found a kayak in a yard and dragged it into Lake Sammamish. He started to flee across the lake and paddled furiously to get away. There was just one slight problem. He had to paddle with his hands because in his haste to get away he forgot to take the kayak’s paddle.
Nolan Conway, a Sammamish resident, grabbed his kayak and paddle and took off after the fleeing thief. Webb’s hands were no match for Conway’s paddle. Webb surrendered to Conway when the good citizen caught up to him.
Desiree tried to flee on foot but she did not get very far before she was arrested. Their car was full of stolen letters and parcels. The car too was stolen.
Jimmy is said to be in his 30s, Desiree in her 20s. The mail theft entrepreneurs were charged with suspicion of vehicle and mail theft.
Jeremy Webb and his girlfriend Desiree Segar went into the mail theft business Christmas Eve, but the business did not get off to a good start.
When neighbors in Sammamish, Washington spotted the couple stealing from their mailboxes, they gave pursuit and boxed in the couple’s mail collection car. Webb fled on foot, leaving his business partner behind. He found a kayak in a yard and dragged it into Lake Sammamish. He started to flee across the lake and paddled furiously to get away. There was just one slight problem. He had to paddle with his hands because in his haste to get away he forgot to take the kayak’s paddle.
Nolan Conway, a Sammamish resident, grabbed his kayak and paddle and took off after the fleeing thief. Webb’s hands were no match for Conway’s paddle. Webb surrendered to Conway when the good citizen caught up to him.
Desiree tried to flee on foot but she did not get very far before she was arrested. Their car was full of stolen letters and parcels. The car too was stolen.
Jimmy is said to be in his 30s, Desiree in her 20s. The mail theft entrepreneurs were charged with suspicion of vehicle and mail theft.
JACK DANIELS, WHO WAS MARRIED BY JUDGE JOHNNY WALKER, NAMES NEWBORN SON JIM BEAM
Louisiana couple Jack Daniels Leathers and Lydia Leathers kept Jack’s family tradition alive by naming their newborn son Jim Beam
A story like this could happen only in America, or rather only in Louisiana. And there are plenty of other boozes they can choose from as names for any future children.
JACK DANIELS AND WIFE SHARE A JIM BEAM
By Aaren Gordon
Houma Today
December 22, 2014
If Jack Daniels and his wife had a child, what would they name it?
One local couple came up with an answer.
Jim Beam Leathers was born Nov. 14 to Jack Daniels Leathers and Lydia Leathers of Gray at Terrebonne General Medical Center.
Jack, 31, and Lydia, 23, said they wanted to continue the whiskey-name tradition Jack's parents started.
“My parents decided they wanted to name their son something to make their parents mad,” Jack said. “And, at the time, my dad was drinking Jack, which he enjoyed. My mom said, 'Why not?' ”
When Jack and Lydia went on their first date, they knew if they ever had children together, they wanted their names to be unique, like Jack's.
“On our first date, we were talking about baby names. We thought Jim Beam would be a good idea,” he said.
The couple wanted to carry on the theme. When they got married, Judge Johnny Walker of Houma officiated the ceremony.
“When Judge Johnny Walker realized that he was marrying Lydia to Jack Daniels, he turned red. We wanted to get in touch with Judge Walker to notify him that Jack Daniels had a son named Jim Beam,” he said.
“I've always tried to do stuff out of the ordinary, to do things differently than other people,” Lydia said. “It's hard to find a name that you like that nobody you know has. It was all Jack's idea. I just went along with it.”
If they have more children, Jack said the tradition won't stop with Jim.
“If we have another child, our second born will be Evan Williams, after the bourbon. If it's a girl, she will be Sherry, like the cooking sherry,” he said.
Growing up with a name like his was an interesting experience for Jack, especially after he enlisted in the Army, he said.
“Nobody believed my name until I showed them my ID,” he said. “When I went into the Army, sergeants would yell, 'How much more American can you get than Jack Daniels?' I went through most of my Army career not hearing my last name because people would call me Jack Daniels.”
Though the couple named their son after a brand of bourbon in good fun, Lydia said they sometimes hear negative comments from people about their choice.
“We get a lot of flack from other people about it,” she said. “At the end of the day, it's our son, and it's what we wanted to do.”
A story like this could happen only in America, or rather only in Louisiana. And there are plenty of other boozes they can choose from as names for any future children.
JACK DANIELS AND WIFE SHARE A JIM BEAM
By Aaren Gordon
Houma Today
December 22, 2014
If Jack Daniels and his wife had a child, what would they name it?
One local couple came up with an answer.
Jim Beam Leathers was born Nov. 14 to Jack Daniels Leathers and Lydia Leathers of Gray at Terrebonne General Medical Center.
Jack, 31, and Lydia, 23, said they wanted to continue the whiskey-name tradition Jack's parents started.
“My parents decided they wanted to name their son something to make their parents mad,” Jack said. “And, at the time, my dad was drinking Jack, which he enjoyed. My mom said, 'Why not?' ”
When Jack and Lydia went on their first date, they knew if they ever had children together, they wanted their names to be unique, like Jack's.
“On our first date, we were talking about baby names. We thought Jim Beam would be a good idea,” he said.
The couple wanted to carry on the theme. When they got married, Judge Johnny Walker of Houma officiated the ceremony.
“When Judge Johnny Walker realized that he was marrying Lydia to Jack Daniels, he turned red. We wanted to get in touch with Judge Walker to notify him that Jack Daniels had a son named Jim Beam,” he said.
“I've always tried to do stuff out of the ordinary, to do things differently than other people,” Lydia said. “It's hard to find a name that you like that nobody you know has. It was all Jack's idea. I just went along with it.”
If they have more children, Jack said the tradition won't stop with Jim.
“If we have another child, our second born will be Evan Williams, after the bourbon. If it's a girl, she will be Sherry, like the cooking sherry,” he said.
Growing up with a name like his was an interesting experience for Jack, especially after he enlisted in the Army, he said.
“Nobody believed my name until I showed them my ID,” he said. “When I went into the Army, sergeants would yell, 'How much more American can you get than Jack Daniels?' I went through most of my Army career not hearing my last name because people would call me Jack Daniels.”
Though the couple named their son after a brand of bourbon in good fun, Lydia said they sometimes hear negative comments from people about their choice.
“We get a lot of flack from other people about it,” she said. “At the end of the day, it's our son, and it's what we wanted to do.”
Saturday, December 27, 2014
INTERSECTION OF HARAKIRI AVE. AND KAMIKAZE BLVD.
Actually, this is a time lapse video of Meskel Square in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ERIC GARNER’S DAUGHTER WANTS COP AND FAMILY KILLED
Erica Garner posted the personal address of Officer Justin D’Amico, one of the cops involved in her father’s takedown, as well as the addresses of what she believed to be his family members
Erica Garner, one of Eric Garner’s daughters, is a vengeful bitch. On Christmas day, she posted the personal address of NYPD officer Justin D’Amico, one of the cops involved in the takedown of her father. She also posted the addresses of people thought to be D’Amico’s family members.
According to the New York Post, she “tweeted that cop Justin D’Amico was ‘another officer that helped killed [sic] my dad,’ and directed her 5,000-plus Twitter followers to a Web page that lists ¬addresses for D’Amico and five possible relatives.”
An NYPD officer called Erica’s tweet disgusting and said it posed a grave danger to D’Amico. “She clearly wants someone to go to the officer’s house and assassinate him in cold blood just like Ramos and Liu.”
This invitation to assassinate D’Amico and his family was not issued in the hours after her father’s death when in the emotions of the moment she might have sought revenge. Instead, it was issued some five months later and three weeks after the grand jury decision not to indict anyone involved in her father’s arrest. This was a cold and calculated scheme to get someone to murder D’Amico and his family.
The bitch’s tweet followed Wednesday’s NYPD arrest of Elvin Payamps, 38, after he was overheard in a bank talking on his cell phone and saying:
“They should have killed two white cops, instead of a Hispanic and an Asian, if the guy really wanted to send a message. I’m going to kill another cop. Another cop should be killed before Christmas. It should be a white cop.”
Cops arrested Payamps as he was driving away from a mall. He had a bag of marijuana in his car’s front seat. When the cops searched his Queens home, they found a holstered 9 mm Jimenez Arms pistol loaded with eight rounds, a Mossberg Maverick 12-gauge shotgun with its serial number filed off, brass knuckles, and a pair of bulletproof vests.
In addition to Payamps, at least five other blacks have been arrested this week for threatening to kill NY cops.
The concerned citizen who overheard Payamps is a hero to NY cops. Had he not turned the asshole in, Payamps might very well have used Erica Garner’s disgusting tweet to find and kill Officer D’Amico.
Erica Garner, one of Eric Garner’s daughters, is a vengeful bitch. On Christmas day, she posted the personal address of NYPD officer Justin D’Amico, one of the cops involved in the takedown of her father. She also posted the addresses of people thought to be D’Amico’s family members.
According to the New York Post, she “tweeted that cop Justin D’Amico was ‘another officer that helped killed [sic] my dad,’ and directed her 5,000-plus Twitter followers to a Web page that lists ¬addresses for D’Amico and five possible relatives.”
An NYPD officer called Erica’s tweet disgusting and said it posed a grave danger to D’Amico. “She clearly wants someone to go to the officer’s house and assassinate him in cold blood just like Ramos and Liu.”
This invitation to assassinate D’Amico and his family was not issued in the hours after her father’s death when in the emotions of the moment she might have sought revenge. Instead, it was issued some five months later and three weeks after the grand jury decision not to indict anyone involved in her father’s arrest. This was a cold and calculated scheme to get someone to murder D’Amico and his family.
The bitch’s tweet followed Wednesday’s NYPD arrest of Elvin Payamps, 38, after he was overheard in a bank talking on his cell phone and saying:
“They should have killed two white cops, instead of a Hispanic and an Asian, if the guy really wanted to send a message. I’m going to kill another cop. Another cop should be killed before Christmas. It should be a white cop.”
Cops arrested Payamps as he was driving away from a mall. He had a bag of marijuana in his car’s front seat. When the cops searched his Queens home, they found a holstered 9 mm Jimenez Arms pistol loaded with eight rounds, a Mossberg Maverick 12-gauge shotgun with its serial number filed off, brass knuckles, and a pair of bulletproof vests.
In addition to Payamps, at least five other blacks have been arrested this week for threatening to kill NY cops.
The concerned citizen who overheard Payamps is a hero to NY cops. Had he not turned the asshole in, Payamps might very well have used Erica Garner’s disgusting tweet to find and kill Officer D’Amico.
STOP ASSIGNING WHITE COPS TO PROTECT BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS
Killing two birds with one stone: A reduction in the killing of cops and a substantial reduction in the killing of black men by white cops
Every day, cops in cities like New York are risking their lives to preserve the peace in and protect the residents of crime-infested black neighborhoods. And what thanks do they get? They are all vilified in the rare instances whenever white cops kill black men. And worse yet, they are ambushed and shot just for being cops, not only in NYC, but in other cities as well.
The ‘Black Lives Matter’ anti-police protests have been encouraged by – from the top down – President Obama, Attorney General Holder, NY Mayor de Blasio and that ‘Disgusting Pig’ Al Sharpton, as actor James Woods calls him. And those protests with all their inflammatory sloganeering are believed to be directly responsible for the ambush slaying of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
The motto for Sharpton’s National Action Network is “No Justice, No Peace.’ Sure sounds like a call for violence to me. The protests now taking place have been violent in Ferguson and Berkeley, Missouri, in New York and Oakland, California , and in some other cities as well. And even when those protests are ‘peaceful’ they are nevertheless lawless, in that the protesters block highways and intersection, prevent people from shopping in malls and otherwise interfere with the right of people to come and go as they please.
I have for some time now advocated that no white cops be assigned to patrol black neighborhoods. Only black officers should be assigned to work in black neighborhoods. If there aren’t enough black cops top preserve the peace in those neighborhoods, that’s just tough shit.
By no longer assigning white cops to patrol and protect black neighborhoods we would be killing two birds with one stone. The killing of white cops by black men would be reduced and the killing of black men by white cops would be substantially reduced. The only black men that would be killed by white cops would be those who ventured outside of their neighborhood to do their misdeeds.
Instead of No Justice, No Peace, how about No Cops, No Peace? Instead of Black Lives Matter, how about Cop Lives Matter? It seems to me that No Cops, No Peace and Cop Lives Matter are much more appropriate slogans.
Every day, cops in cities like New York are risking their lives to preserve the peace in and protect the residents of crime-infested black neighborhoods. And what thanks do they get? They are all vilified in the rare instances whenever white cops kill black men. And worse yet, they are ambushed and shot just for being cops, not only in NYC, but in other cities as well.
The ‘Black Lives Matter’ anti-police protests have been encouraged by – from the top down – President Obama, Attorney General Holder, NY Mayor de Blasio and that ‘Disgusting Pig’ Al Sharpton, as actor James Woods calls him. And those protests with all their inflammatory sloganeering are believed to be directly responsible for the ambush slaying of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
The motto for Sharpton’s National Action Network is “No Justice, No Peace.’ Sure sounds like a call for violence to me. The protests now taking place have been violent in Ferguson and Berkeley, Missouri, in New York and Oakland, California , and in some other cities as well. And even when those protests are ‘peaceful’ they are nevertheless lawless, in that the protesters block highways and intersection, prevent people from shopping in malls and otherwise interfere with the right of people to come and go as they please.
I have for some time now advocated that no white cops be assigned to patrol black neighborhoods. Only black officers should be assigned to work in black neighborhoods. If there aren’t enough black cops top preserve the peace in those neighborhoods, that’s just tough shit.
By no longer assigning white cops to patrol and protect black neighborhoods we would be killing two birds with one stone. The killing of white cops by black men would be reduced and the killing of black men by white cops would be substantially reduced. The only black men that would be killed by white cops would be those who ventured outside of their neighborhood to do their misdeeds.
Instead of No Justice, No Peace, how about No Cops, No Peace? Instead of Black Lives Matter, how about Cop Lives Matter? It seems to me that No Cops, No Peace and Cop Lives Matter are much more appropriate slogans.
PALESTINIANS FIREBOMB 11-YEAR-OLD JEWISH GIRL
Ayala Shapira was critically burned when ‘peaceful protesters’ lobbed a firebomb at the car her father was driving
I am sure that many Palestinians are applauding the brutal firebomb attack that critically burned 11-year-old Ayala Shapira.
JEWISH GIRL CRITICAL AFTER PALESTINIAN FIREBOMB ATTACK
Israel Today
December 26, 2014
Western media and even some politicians have in the past described stone-throwing and the hurling Molotov cocktails (firebombs) by Palestinians as “peaceful protest.” But a number of incidents over the past several years have demonstrated that stones and firebombs can kill just as easily as bullets, especially when targeting Jewish vehicles traveling on local highways.
That’s what happened on Thursday evening, when Palestinian assailants lobbed a firebomb at the car of Avner Shapira, who was driving home to the Jerusalem-area community of Ma’aleh Shomron with his 11-year-old daughter, Ayala.
Both father and daughter were injured in the attack. Ayala suffered third degree burns over most of her body and had to be placed in a medically-induced coma as doctors worked frantically to save her life.
By Friday afternoon, Ayala had reportedly improved slightly after doctors managed to open a small airway through her severely burned throat.
Earlier on Friday morning, a knife-wielding Palestinian Muslim stabbed two Israeli police officers following Islamic prayer services atop the Temple Mount. The assailant managed to flee the scene after stabbing one officer in the neck and the other in the hand. Both victims were listed in light condition.
These two incidents are in addition to the numerous rock, firebomb and other physical assaults against Jews in and around Jerusalem that did not result in injury, and where therefore not widely reported.
Local residents continue to speak of a “Silent Intifada,” a wave of low-profile terrorist violence that has the city’s Jewish inhabitants increasingly on edge.
I am sure that many Palestinians are applauding the brutal firebomb attack that critically burned 11-year-old Ayala Shapira.
JEWISH GIRL CRITICAL AFTER PALESTINIAN FIREBOMB ATTACK
Israel Today
December 26, 2014
Western media and even some politicians have in the past described stone-throwing and the hurling Molotov cocktails (firebombs) by Palestinians as “peaceful protest.” But a number of incidents over the past several years have demonstrated that stones and firebombs can kill just as easily as bullets, especially when targeting Jewish vehicles traveling on local highways.
That’s what happened on Thursday evening, when Palestinian assailants lobbed a firebomb at the car of Avner Shapira, who was driving home to the Jerusalem-area community of Ma’aleh Shomron with his 11-year-old daughter, Ayala.
Both father and daughter were injured in the attack. Ayala suffered third degree burns over most of her body and had to be placed in a medically-induced coma as doctors worked frantically to save her life.
By Friday afternoon, Ayala had reportedly improved slightly after doctors managed to open a small airway through her severely burned throat.
Earlier on Friday morning, a knife-wielding Palestinian Muslim stabbed two Israeli police officers following Islamic prayer services atop the Temple Mount. The assailant managed to flee the scene after stabbing one officer in the neck and the other in the hand. Both victims were listed in light condition.
These two incidents are in addition to the numerous rock, firebomb and other physical assaults against Jews in and around Jerusalem that did not result in injury, and where therefore not widely reported.
Local residents continue to speak of a “Silent Intifada,” a wave of low-profile terrorist violence that has the city’s Jewish inhabitants increasingly on edge.
VAG STASH NOT RECOMMENDED FOR GOOD HEALTH
Florida woman croaks after stashing crack pipe and crack rocks inside her vagina
On December 16, cops in Babson Park, Florida arrested April Rollison, 31, along with three others on drug charges. A Polk County Jail body scan showed two foreign objects inside her vagina. She was taken to Bartow Regional Medical Center for removal of the objects that turned out to be a glass crack pipe and a vial containing crack rocks. It is believed that while April was in the hospital, she ingested some of the crack cocaine.
After she had been returned to the jail and while she was being booked, April became extremely ill. She was rushed back to the hospital where she remained in critical condition until Monday, when she croaked. Alas, the poor departed April had tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, cocaine and marijuana.
While back in the hospital, April had been charged with possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia and smuggling contraband into a detention facility.
Family members, who had no contact with April for two years, said she had been using drugs since she was 12-years old.
Let this be a lesson to all. Vag stashes are not recommended for good health. And neither are keister stashes.
On December 16, cops in Babson Park, Florida arrested April Rollison, 31, along with three others on drug charges. A Polk County Jail body scan showed two foreign objects inside her vagina. She was taken to Bartow Regional Medical Center for removal of the objects that turned out to be a glass crack pipe and a vial containing crack rocks. It is believed that while April was in the hospital, she ingested some of the crack cocaine.
After she had been returned to the jail and while she was being booked, April became extremely ill. She was rushed back to the hospital where she remained in critical condition until Monday, when she croaked. Alas, the poor departed April had tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, cocaine and marijuana.
While back in the hospital, April had been charged with possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia and smuggling contraband into a detention facility.
Family members, who had no contact with April for two years, said she had been using drugs since she was 12-years old.
Let this be a lesson to all. Vag stashes are not recommended for good health. And neither are keister stashes.
Friday, December 26, 2014
JEB FOR PRES
Of all the prospective Republican presidential candidates, former Florida governor Jeb Bush is by far the most electable. Unfortunately, he may never win his party’s nomination. The Tea Party types and other far-right Republicans despise his moderate conservatism. His stances on immigration and education are antithetical to the party’s base. The Republican base insists on a far-right conservative as the party’s candidate, a candidate who will fare poorly against the Democratic party’s frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.
6 REASONS JEB BUSH WILL MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT
By Sean Piccoli
Newsmax
December 23, 2014
When former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush took to Facebook last week to say he will "actively explore" a White House run in 2016, pundits immediately declared him a contender, pointing to his solid résumé, good temperament, and an unmatched ability to mount a national fundraising and campaign apparatus.
So we know he has the makings of a candidate.
But what kind of 45th president would the son of 41 and the brother of 43 actually be? Here are six points in favor of putting another southern governor named Bush in the Oval Office.
1. He was a popular governor: After letting a former half-term U.S. senator run the country for eight years, Americans may again be ready for someone who actually governed. Bush qualifies. As governor from 1999 to 2007 of one of America’s largest and diverse states, Florida, he presided over the nation's fourth largest economy.
2. He's electable: Bush won, and was returned to office, in a politically dynamic state that has trended Republican in recent cycles but remains competitive for Democrats. Crossover appeal helps in Florida, a key swing state in Presidential elections, so Bush’s draw in the Sunshine State could be critical for GOP hopes to win in 2016. Obama won Florida in 2012, but Jeb most assuredly keeps Florida red. Bush already leads other likely 2016 GOP contenders in polls of Florida voters.
3. He's a conservative: However divided the GOP base looks during presidential primaries, Republican voters tend to ultimately close ranks around a candidate with a conservative record who can also appeal to independents and even some Democrats. Though Bush championed a pro-growth agenda of limited government and reducing taxes, he also led several environmental and education initiatives. He is pro-Second Amendment and pro-life.
4. He appeals to Latinos: Bush speaks fluent Spanish and will have the ear of a country with a growing Hispanic electorate. Connections to Hispanic culture run through Bush's personal and professional lives. Bush's wife, Columba, was born in Mexico and is of Mexican descent. The couple lives in Miami — so he's not a Beltway insider — and anyone who has served as Florida governor has addressed the concerns of Hispanics while also recognizing that he speaks for all residents.
5. He's done well out of office: Since returning to private life in 2007, Bush has maintained what the Tampa Bay Times once called a "high-impact low profile" through legal work, banking, fundraising for other GOP candidates, and public advocacy on key issues including education and immigration reform. He doesn't need the presidency, and by not projecting an air of clawing ambition or entitlement to the office, Bush looks more fit than some to occupy it.
6. He's a Bush, but not his brother: What some consider a tarnished political brand after the presidency of George W. Bush is arguably an asset in an era where name recognition matters. Though George W.’s star is rising again as Obama’s foreign policy leads America into new quagmires, Jeb Bush is unique, is focused on policy, and is a consensus builder.
6 REASONS JEB BUSH WILL MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT
By Sean Piccoli
Newsmax
December 23, 2014
When former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush took to Facebook last week to say he will "actively explore" a White House run in 2016, pundits immediately declared him a contender, pointing to his solid résumé, good temperament, and an unmatched ability to mount a national fundraising and campaign apparatus.
So we know he has the makings of a candidate.
But what kind of 45th president would the son of 41 and the brother of 43 actually be? Here are six points in favor of putting another southern governor named Bush in the Oval Office.
1. He was a popular governor: After letting a former half-term U.S. senator run the country for eight years, Americans may again be ready for someone who actually governed. Bush qualifies. As governor from 1999 to 2007 of one of America’s largest and diverse states, Florida, he presided over the nation's fourth largest economy.
2. He's electable: Bush won, and was returned to office, in a politically dynamic state that has trended Republican in recent cycles but remains competitive for Democrats. Crossover appeal helps in Florida, a key swing state in Presidential elections, so Bush’s draw in the Sunshine State could be critical for GOP hopes to win in 2016. Obama won Florida in 2012, but Jeb most assuredly keeps Florida red. Bush already leads other likely 2016 GOP contenders in polls of Florida voters.
3. He's a conservative: However divided the GOP base looks during presidential primaries, Republican voters tend to ultimately close ranks around a candidate with a conservative record who can also appeal to independents and even some Democrats. Though Bush championed a pro-growth agenda of limited government and reducing taxes, he also led several environmental and education initiatives. He is pro-Second Amendment and pro-life.
4. He appeals to Latinos: Bush speaks fluent Spanish and will have the ear of a country with a growing Hispanic electorate. Connections to Hispanic culture run through Bush's personal and professional lives. Bush's wife, Columba, was born in Mexico and is of Mexican descent. The couple lives in Miami — so he's not a Beltway insider — and anyone who has served as Florida governor has addressed the concerns of Hispanics while also recognizing that he speaks for all residents.
5. He's done well out of office: Since returning to private life in 2007, Bush has maintained what the Tampa Bay Times once called a "high-impact low profile" through legal work, banking, fundraising for other GOP candidates, and public advocacy on key issues including education and immigration reform. He doesn't need the presidency, and by not projecting an air of clawing ambition or entitlement to the office, Bush looks more fit than some to occupy it.
6. He's a Bush, but not his brother: What some consider a tarnished political brand after the presidency of George W. Bush is arguably an asset in an era where name recognition matters. Though George W.’s star is rising again as Obama’s foreign policy leads America into new quagmires, Jeb Bush is unique, is focused on policy, and is a consensus builder.
YOUNG BLACK MEN CONTINUE TO BE SHOT NEAR FERGUSON BY WHITE COPS
Antonio Martin, 18, is the third Ferguson-area young black man to be shot and killed by white cops since the shooting death of Michael Brown
Berkeley is a small town in the greater St. Louis area. It is only three miles from Ferguson. Like Ferguson, Berkeley’s population is mostly black. On Tuesday a white Berkeley cop shot and killed a young black man. Berkeley Mayor Theodore Hoskins said that while Ferguson was a predominantly black town with a white mayor and white police chief, “Berkeley has a black mayor, a black city manager and a black police chief. We’re different than Ferguson.”
Different than Ferguson? Well, not exactly. Just as in Ferguson, rioting broke out in Berkeley after the shooting of 18-year-old Antonio Martin. An unruly crowd of 300 blacks threw rocks, bricks, bottles and lit fireworks at police officers and tried to break into stores for some pre-Christmas looting. Four rioters were arrested for assaulting police officers.
Around 11:15 p.m. Tuesday, an unidentified 34-year-old, six-year veteran cop arrived at a Berkeley gas station in response to the report of a theft. What happened next was caught by the Mobil station’s surveillance camera. When he got out of his cop car he confronted two men, one being Martin. After speaking with them for about 90 seconds, Martin walked away, then turned around and pointed a gun at the cop. Fearing for his life, the officer stumbled back and fired three rounds, one of which struck Martin, killing the black youth.
A Hi-Point 9 mm pistol was found beside Martin’s body. It’s serial number had been filed off and it had five rounds in its magazine and one round in the chamber.
The officer’s attorney believes the theft report was an attempt to lure a cop into a deadly ambush.
Martin’s mother claims that Antonio had just left their house to meet his girlfriend. She told reporters that the cop did not need to shoot her son because he did not have a gun. She painted Antonio as a fine son who was trying to get into the Job Corps after just graduating from high school. "He's like any other kid who had dreams or hopes," she said. "We loved being around him. He'd push a smile out of you."
Momma’s darling angel has an arrest record that includes three assault charges, plus charges of armed robbery, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon. If Antonio is "like any other kid who had dreams or hopes," God help us all!
The media is questioning why the cop was not wearing the body camera that had been issued to him, thus raising the suspicion that he wanted to hide something. Taurean Russell, co-founder of Hands Up United, doesn’t think there was any need to question Martin in the first place. And a number of protesters condemned the officer for not using pepper spray or a stun gun.
Martin’s death was the third fatal shooting of young black men by white cops in the St. Louis area since the fatal shooting of Michael Brown on August 9. On August 18, Kajieme Powell, 25, was shot and killed by St. Louis cops when he charged at them with a knife. On October 9, a St. Louis cop shot and killed Vonderrit Myers, 18, when the black youth fired a gun at him.
David Michael Smith aka Red David, a professed Marxist who was fired by College of the Mainland last year, asks: When will the cops stop killing us? The answer to that inflammatory question is easy: When people stop trying to kill cops, or by their actions, stop putting cops in fear of their lives.
The anti-police protest movement’s rallying cry is ‘Black Lives Matter.’ I say cop lives matter too!
Berkeley is a small town in the greater St. Louis area. It is only three miles from Ferguson. Like Ferguson, Berkeley’s population is mostly black. On Tuesday a white Berkeley cop shot and killed a young black man. Berkeley Mayor Theodore Hoskins said that while Ferguson was a predominantly black town with a white mayor and white police chief, “Berkeley has a black mayor, a black city manager and a black police chief. We’re different than Ferguson.”
Different than Ferguson? Well, not exactly. Just as in Ferguson, rioting broke out in Berkeley after the shooting of 18-year-old Antonio Martin. An unruly crowd of 300 blacks threw rocks, bricks, bottles and lit fireworks at police officers and tried to break into stores for some pre-Christmas looting. Four rioters were arrested for assaulting police officers.
Around 11:15 p.m. Tuesday, an unidentified 34-year-old, six-year veteran cop arrived at a Berkeley gas station in response to the report of a theft. What happened next was caught by the Mobil station’s surveillance camera. When he got out of his cop car he confronted two men, one being Martin. After speaking with them for about 90 seconds, Martin walked away, then turned around and pointed a gun at the cop. Fearing for his life, the officer stumbled back and fired three rounds, one of which struck Martin, killing the black youth.
A Hi-Point 9 mm pistol was found beside Martin’s body. It’s serial number had been filed off and it had five rounds in its magazine and one round in the chamber.
The officer’s attorney believes the theft report was an attempt to lure a cop into a deadly ambush.
Martin’s mother claims that Antonio had just left their house to meet his girlfriend. She told reporters that the cop did not need to shoot her son because he did not have a gun. She painted Antonio as a fine son who was trying to get into the Job Corps after just graduating from high school. "He's like any other kid who had dreams or hopes," she said. "We loved being around him. He'd push a smile out of you."
Momma’s darling angel has an arrest record that includes three assault charges, plus charges of armed robbery, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon. If Antonio is "like any other kid who had dreams or hopes," God help us all!
The media is questioning why the cop was not wearing the body camera that had been issued to him, thus raising the suspicion that he wanted to hide something. Taurean Russell, co-founder of Hands Up United, doesn’t think there was any need to question Martin in the first place. And a number of protesters condemned the officer for not using pepper spray or a stun gun.
Martin’s death was the third fatal shooting of young black men by white cops in the St. Louis area since the fatal shooting of Michael Brown on August 9. On August 18, Kajieme Powell, 25, was shot and killed by St. Louis cops when he charged at them with a knife. On October 9, a St. Louis cop shot and killed Vonderrit Myers, 18, when the black youth fired a gun at him.
David Michael Smith aka Red David, a professed Marxist who was fired by College of the Mainland last year, asks: When will the cops stop killing us? The answer to that inflammatory question is easy: When people stop trying to kill cops, or by their actions, stop putting cops in fear of their lives.
The anti-police protest movement’s rallying cry is ‘Black Lives Matter.’ I say cop lives matter too!
GRANDFATHER’S LESSON: JUST GETTING THROUGH THE DAY CAN BE A GREAT GIFT
A giving lesson from Charlie Mahoney
By Scott Burns
AssetBuilder
December 16, 2014
Charlie Mahoney was not a handsome man. At 60, he was short, bald, stooped and grizzled. The stoop came from back injuries as a jockey. A U-shaped scar on his scalp was further evidence of that career. His appearance wasn’t improved by another career as a flyweight boxer. His ears wiggled from smashed cartilage. The crushed bridge of his nose made his nostrils unnaturally wide.
He was my grandfather, maternal side.
I didn’t see much of him when I was a kid. He only showed up when he was sober. That had gone on for years. Long enough that nuns raised my mother. When I did see him, he was scary. He began most conversations with, “Put your dukes up!”
He was not your sweet, role model granddad kind of guy.
But I did learn from him. One day, when he was around and it was my birthday, he took me to Quakenbush’s, the big department store in downtown Paterson, New Jersey. It had elevators that swooshed from floor to floor, deftly guided by an elevator attendant. It also had huge doors with big shiny brass levers. The whole place smelled new. Charlie bought me a package of Fruit of the Loom briefs because I needed new underwear. I think I was 11.
We didn’t leave by the revolving doors at the front of the store. Instead, we started to leave by a side door. But a grimy, tattered man stopped us. With his arm holding the door open, he stood in our way.
“Can you spare a dime for a cup of coffee,” he asked. (Yes, this was a long time ago. As a kid, my measuring standard was Cokes. They were still a nickel each.)
Charlie fished in his vest pocket and gave the man two quarters.
“Thank you!” The man beamed, then shuffled off. It was more than he had hoped.
“Why did you do that?” I asked.
“Because he didn’t want a cup of coffee.”
“Then what did he want?”
“He wanted a drink.”
“So why did you do it?” I asked again.
“Because it will get him through the day,” Charlie said.
After that, he explained that there were different kinds of drunks in the world. Some were like him. He drank whiskey, most of the time. Sometimes boilermakers, a shot of whiskey dropped in a beer. He’d still get day work, he said, thanks to the Erie Lackawanna railroad or some other place that needed men who could shovel.
But there were other drunks. They were down on their luck. They were pretty far-gone. They couldn’t work anymore. Fifty cents, he said, was enough to buy a small bottle of sneaky Pete. That’s what he called sweet port wine. It’s cheap. It comes in a variety of sizes convenient for the pocket. It has sugar for nourishment. And it has enough alcohol to get by.
You could hope that the guy would go to White Castle and get some burgers, he said, but you could be confident that he would buy sneaky Pete. It would do the trick. It would get the guy through the day.
I understood the lesson he was teaching. Today, some might consider me a “soft touch.” If someone asks for money, I tend to give it. I know the money won’t promote world peace or eradicate poverty. It won’t help more people read and go to college. And it won’t improve inner city education, cure cancer, or bring the lost closer to God.
But it will get them through the day. That has to count for something.
When I talk about this some people look at me funny.
“It’s wasted,” they say.
“It won’t do any good,” they say.
“You’re not solving the problem,” they say.
I want to do a lot of different things when I hear that. Like telling them exactly where they can put their righteousness. Or maybe just punch them in the face, just like Charlie would have done.
Why don’t they know getting things fixed is all about tomorrow?
Until then, lots of people just need to get through today.
By Scott Burns
AssetBuilder
December 16, 2014
Charlie Mahoney was not a handsome man. At 60, he was short, bald, stooped and grizzled. The stoop came from back injuries as a jockey. A U-shaped scar on his scalp was further evidence of that career. His appearance wasn’t improved by another career as a flyweight boxer. His ears wiggled from smashed cartilage. The crushed bridge of his nose made his nostrils unnaturally wide.
He was my grandfather, maternal side.
I didn’t see much of him when I was a kid. He only showed up when he was sober. That had gone on for years. Long enough that nuns raised my mother. When I did see him, he was scary. He began most conversations with, “Put your dukes up!”
He was not your sweet, role model granddad kind of guy.
But I did learn from him. One day, when he was around and it was my birthday, he took me to Quakenbush’s, the big department store in downtown Paterson, New Jersey. It had elevators that swooshed from floor to floor, deftly guided by an elevator attendant. It also had huge doors with big shiny brass levers. The whole place smelled new. Charlie bought me a package of Fruit of the Loom briefs because I needed new underwear. I think I was 11.
We didn’t leave by the revolving doors at the front of the store. Instead, we started to leave by a side door. But a grimy, tattered man stopped us. With his arm holding the door open, he stood in our way.
“Can you spare a dime for a cup of coffee,” he asked. (Yes, this was a long time ago. As a kid, my measuring standard was Cokes. They were still a nickel each.)
Charlie fished in his vest pocket and gave the man two quarters.
“Thank you!” The man beamed, then shuffled off. It was more than he had hoped.
“Why did you do that?” I asked.
“Because he didn’t want a cup of coffee.”
“Then what did he want?”
“He wanted a drink.”
“So why did you do it?” I asked again.
“Because it will get him through the day,” Charlie said.
After that, he explained that there were different kinds of drunks in the world. Some were like him. He drank whiskey, most of the time. Sometimes boilermakers, a shot of whiskey dropped in a beer. He’d still get day work, he said, thanks to the Erie Lackawanna railroad or some other place that needed men who could shovel.
But there were other drunks. They were down on their luck. They were pretty far-gone. They couldn’t work anymore. Fifty cents, he said, was enough to buy a small bottle of sneaky Pete. That’s what he called sweet port wine. It’s cheap. It comes in a variety of sizes convenient for the pocket. It has sugar for nourishment. And it has enough alcohol to get by.
You could hope that the guy would go to White Castle and get some burgers, he said, but you could be confident that he would buy sneaky Pete. It would do the trick. It would get the guy through the day.
I understood the lesson he was teaching. Today, some might consider me a “soft touch.” If someone asks for money, I tend to give it. I know the money won’t promote world peace or eradicate poverty. It won’t help more people read and go to college. And it won’t improve inner city education, cure cancer, or bring the lost closer to God.
But it will get them through the day. That has to count for something.
When I talk about this some people look at me funny.
“It’s wasted,” they say.
“It won’t do any good,” they say.
“You’re not solving the problem,” they say.
I want to do a lot of different things when I hear that. Like telling them exactly where they can put their righteousness. Or maybe just punch them in the face, just like Charlie would have done.
Why don’t they know getting things fixed is all about tomorrow?
Until then, lots of people just need to get through today.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
THE ‘BLACK LIVES MATTER’ ANTI-POLICE PROTESTS ARE FUELED BY A PACK OF LIES
Two NY cops have been assassinated because of left-wing lies that the police pose a mortal threat to black Americans—indeed that the police are the greatest threat facing black Americans today
Anti-police rhetoric by politicians, including President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and NY Mayor de Blasio, and inflammatory rhetoric by rabble rouser Al Sharpton, attorney Benjamin Crump and others, fuel the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests and have led to the assassination of two NY cops. And most of that rhetoric is based on a pack of left-wing lies.
THE BIG LIE OF THE ANTI-COP LEFT TURNS LETHAL
The real story behind the murder of two NYPD officers
By Heather Mac Donald
City Journal
December 22, 2014
Since last summer, a lie has overtaken significant parts of the country, resulting in growing mass hysteria. That lie holds that the police pose a mortal threat to black Americans—indeed that the police are the greatest threat facing black Americans today. Several subsidiary untruths buttress that central myth: that the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks; that the black underclass doesn’t exist; and that crime rates are comparable between blacks and whites—leaving disproportionate police action in minority neighborhoods unexplained without reference to racism. The poisonous effect of those lies has now manifested itself in the cold-blooded assassination of two NYPD officers.
The highest reaches of American society promulgated these untruths and participated in the mass hysteria. Following a grand jury’s decision not to indict a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer for fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown in August (Brown had attacked the officer and tried to grab his gun), President Barack Obama announced that blacks were right to believe that the criminal-justice system was often stacked against them. Obama has travelled around the country since then buttressing that message. Eric Holder escalated a long running theme of his tenure as U.S. Attorney General—that the police routinely engaged in racial profiling and needed federal intervention to police properly.
University presidents rushed to show their fealty to the lie. Harvard’s Drew Gilpin Faust announced that “injustice [toward black lives] still thrives so many years after we hoped we could at last overcome the troubled legacy of race in America. . . . Harvard and . . . the nation have embraced [an] imperative to refuse silence, to reject injustice.” Smith College’s president abjectly flagellated herself for saying that “all lives matter,” instead of the current mantra, “black lives matter.” Her ignorant mistake, she confessed, draws attention away from “institutional violence against Black people.”
The New York Times ratcheted up its already stratospheric level of anti-cop polemics. In an editorial justifying the Ferguson riots, the Times claimed that “the killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African-American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast.” Some facts: Police killings of blacks are an extremely rare feature of black life and are a minute fraction of black homicide deaths. The police could end all killings of civilians tomorrow and it would have no effect on the black homicide risk, which comes overwhelmingly from other blacks. In 2013, there were 6,261 black homicide victims in the U.S.—almost all killed by black civilians—resulting in a death risk in inner cities that is ten times higher for blacks than for whites. None of those killings triggered mass protests; they are deemed normal and beneath notice. The police, by contrast, according to published reports, kill roughly 200 blacks a year, most of them armed and dangerous, out of about 40 million police-civilian contacts a year. Blacks are in fact killed by police at a lower rate than their threat to officers would predict. In 2013, blacks made up 42 percent of all cop killers whose race was known, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the nation’s population. The percentage of black suspects killed by the police nationally is 29 percent lower than the percentage of blacks mortally threatening them.
There is huge unacknowledged support for the police in the inner city: “They’re due respect because they put their lives every day on the line to protect and serve. I hope they don’t back off from policing,” a woman told me on Thursday night, two nights before the assassination, on the street in Staten Island where Eric Garner was killed.
But among all the posturers, none was so preening as New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio. In advance of a trip to Washington for a White House summit on policing, he told the press that a “scourge” of killings by police is “based not just on decades, but centuries of racism.” De Blasio embroidered on that theme several days later, after a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict an officer for homicide in Garner’s death. (The 350-pound asthmatic Garner had resisted arrest for the crime of selling loose cigarettes; officers brought him to the ground, provoking a fatal heart attack.) “People are saying: ‘Black lives matter,’” de Blasio announced after the grand jury concluded. “It should be self-evident, but our history requires us to say ‘black lives matter.’ It was not years of racism that brought us to this day, or decades of racism, but centuries of racism.” De Blasio added that he worries “every night” about the “dangers [his biracial son Dante] may face” from “officers who are paid to protect him.”
The mayor’s irresponsible rhetoric was a violation of his role as the city’s leader and as its main exponent of the law. If he really believes that his son faces a significant risk from the police, he is ignorant of the realities of crime and policing in the city he was elected to lead. There is no New York City institution more dedicated to the proposition that “black lives matter” than the New York Police Department; thousands of black men are alive today who would have been killed years ago had data-driven policing not brought down the homicide levels of the early 1990s. The Garner death was a tragic aberration in a record of unparalleled restraint. The NYPD fatally shot eight individuals last year, six of them black, all posing a risk to the police, compared with scores of blacks killed by black civilians. But facts do not matter when crusading to bring justice to a city beset by “centuries of racism.”
New York police officers were rightly outraged at de Blasio’s calumny. The head of the officers union, Patrick Lynch, circulated a form allowing officers to request that the mayor not attend their funeral if they were killed in the line of duty—an understandable reaction to de Blasio’s insult. De Blasio responded primly on The View: “It’s divisive. It’s inappropriate,” he said. The city’s elites, from Cardinal Timothy Dolan on down, reprimanded the union. The New York Police Commissioner called the union letter “a step too far.”
Meanwhile, protests and riots against the police were gathering force across the country, all of them steeped in anti-cop vitriol and the ubiquitous lie that “black lives” don’t “matter.” “What do we want? Dead cops,” chanted participants in a New York anti-cop protest. Two public defenders from the Bronx participated in a rap video extolling cop killings. Few people in positions of authority objected to this dangerous hatred. The desire to show allegiance with allegedly oppressed blacks was too great. The thrill of righteousness was palpable among the media as it lovingly chronicled every protest and on the part of politicians and thought leaders who expressed solidarity with the cause. At another march across New York’s Brooklyn Bridge, a group of people tried to throw trash cans onto the heads of officers on the level below them; police attempts to arrest the assailants were fought off by other marchers.
The elite’s desperation to participate in what they hopefully viewed as their own modern-day civil rights crusade was patent in the sanctification of Michael Brown, the would-be cop killer. He was turned into a civil rights martyr. His violence toward Wilson, and the convenience store owner he had strong-armed, was wiped from the record. Protesters across the country chanted “hands up, don’t shoot” at anti-cop rallies, allegedly Brown’s final words before Wilson shot him. Never mind that the source of that alleged final utterance, Brown’s companion Dorian Johnson, was a proven liar. There is no reason to believe his claim regarding Brown’s final words.
Protesters’ willingness to overlook anti-cop homicidal intent surfaced again in St. Louis in November. A teen criminal who had shot at the police was killed by an officer in self-defense; he, too, joined the roster of heroic black victims of police racism. This sanctification of would-be black cop-killers would prove prophetic. The elites were playing with fire. It’s profoundly irresponsible to stoke hatred of the police, especially when the fuel used for doing so is a set of lies. Hatred of the police among blacks stems in part from police brutality during this country’s shameful era of Jim Crow-laws and widespread discrimination. But it is naïve not to recognize that criminal members of the black underclass despise the police because law enforcement interferes with their way of life. The elites are oblivious both to the extent of lawlessness in the black inner city and to its effect on attitudes toward the cops. Any expression of contempt for the police, in their view, must be a sincere expression of a wrong.
Cop-killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who assassinated NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos on Saturday, exemplified everything the elites have refused to recognize: he was a gun-toting criminal who was an eager consumer of the current frenzy of cop hatred. (Not that he paid close enough attention to the actual details of alleged cop malfeasance to spell Eric Garner’s name correctly.) His homicidal postings on Instagram—“I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today. They Take 1 of Ours . . . . .Let’s Take 2 of Theirs”—were indistinguishable from the hatred bouncing around the Internet and the protests and that few bothered to condemn. That vitriol continues after the assassination. Social media is filled with gloating at the officers’ deaths and praise for Brinsley: “That nigga that shot the cops is a legend,” reads a typical message. A student leader and a representative of the African and Afro-American studies department at Brandeis University tweeted that she has “no sympathy for the NYPD officers who were murdered today.”
The only good that can come out of this wrenching attack on civilization would be the delegitimation of the lie-based protest movement. Whether that will happen is uncertain. The New York Times has denounced as “inflammatory” the statement from the head of the officer’s union that there is “blood on the hands that starts on the steps of City Hall”—this from a paper that promotes the idea that police officers routinely kill blacks. The elites’ investment in black victimology is probably too great to hope for an injection of truth into the dangerously counterfactual discourse about race, crime, and policing.
Anti-police rhetoric by politicians, including President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and NY Mayor de Blasio, and inflammatory rhetoric by rabble rouser Al Sharpton, attorney Benjamin Crump and others, fuel the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests and have led to the assassination of two NY cops. And most of that rhetoric is based on a pack of left-wing lies.
THE BIG LIE OF THE ANTI-COP LEFT TURNS LETHAL
The real story behind the murder of two NYPD officers
By Heather Mac Donald
City Journal
December 22, 2014
Since last summer, a lie has overtaken significant parts of the country, resulting in growing mass hysteria. That lie holds that the police pose a mortal threat to black Americans—indeed that the police are the greatest threat facing black Americans today. Several subsidiary untruths buttress that central myth: that the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks; that the black underclass doesn’t exist; and that crime rates are comparable between blacks and whites—leaving disproportionate police action in minority neighborhoods unexplained without reference to racism. The poisonous effect of those lies has now manifested itself in the cold-blooded assassination of two NYPD officers.
The highest reaches of American society promulgated these untruths and participated in the mass hysteria. Following a grand jury’s decision not to indict a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer for fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown in August (Brown had attacked the officer and tried to grab his gun), President Barack Obama announced that blacks were right to believe that the criminal-justice system was often stacked against them. Obama has travelled around the country since then buttressing that message. Eric Holder escalated a long running theme of his tenure as U.S. Attorney General—that the police routinely engaged in racial profiling and needed federal intervention to police properly.
University presidents rushed to show their fealty to the lie. Harvard’s Drew Gilpin Faust announced that “injustice [toward black lives] still thrives so many years after we hoped we could at last overcome the troubled legacy of race in America. . . . Harvard and . . . the nation have embraced [an] imperative to refuse silence, to reject injustice.” Smith College’s president abjectly flagellated herself for saying that “all lives matter,” instead of the current mantra, “black lives matter.” Her ignorant mistake, she confessed, draws attention away from “institutional violence against Black people.”
The New York Times ratcheted up its already stratospheric level of anti-cop polemics. In an editorial justifying the Ferguson riots, the Times claimed that “the killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African-American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast.” Some facts: Police killings of blacks are an extremely rare feature of black life and are a minute fraction of black homicide deaths. The police could end all killings of civilians tomorrow and it would have no effect on the black homicide risk, which comes overwhelmingly from other blacks. In 2013, there were 6,261 black homicide victims in the U.S.—almost all killed by black civilians—resulting in a death risk in inner cities that is ten times higher for blacks than for whites. None of those killings triggered mass protests; they are deemed normal and beneath notice. The police, by contrast, according to published reports, kill roughly 200 blacks a year, most of them armed and dangerous, out of about 40 million police-civilian contacts a year. Blacks are in fact killed by police at a lower rate than their threat to officers would predict. In 2013, blacks made up 42 percent of all cop killers whose race was known, even though blacks are only 13 percent of the nation’s population. The percentage of black suspects killed by the police nationally is 29 percent lower than the percentage of blacks mortally threatening them.
There is huge unacknowledged support for the police in the inner city: “They’re due respect because they put their lives every day on the line to protect and serve. I hope they don’t back off from policing,” a woman told me on Thursday night, two nights before the assassination, on the street in Staten Island where Eric Garner was killed.
But among all the posturers, none was so preening as New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio. In advance of a trip to Washington for a White House summit on policing, he told the press that a “scourge” of killings by police is “based not just on decades, but centuries of racism.” De Blasio embroidered on that theme several days later, after a Staten Island grand jury declined to indict an officer for homicide in Garner’s death. (The 350-pound asthmatic Garner had resisted arrest for the crime of selling loose cigarettes; officers brought him to the ground, provoking a fatal heart attack.) “People are saying: ‘Black lives matter,’” de Blasio announced after the grand jury concluded. “It should be self-evident, but our history requires us to say ‘black lives matter.’ It was not years of racism that brought us to this day, or decades of racism, but centuries of racism.” De Blasio added that he worries “every night” about the “dangers [his biracial son Dante] may face” from “officers who are paid to protect him.”
The mayor’s irresponsible rhetoric was a violation of his role as the city’s leader and as its main exponent of the law. If he really believes that his son faces a significant risk from the police, he is ignorant of the realities of crime and policing in the city he was elected to lead. There is no New York City institution more dedicated to the proposition that “black lives matter” than the New York Police Department; thousands of black men are alive today who would have been killed years ago had data-driven policing not brought down the homicide levels of the early 1990s. The Garner death was a tragic aberration in a record of unparalleled restraint. The NYPD fatally shot eight individuals last year, six of them black, all posing a risk to the police, compared with scores of blacks killed by black civilians. But facts do not matter when crusading to bring justice to a city beset by “centuries of racism.”
New York police officers were rightly outraged at de Blasio’s calumny. The head of the officers union, Patrick Lynch, circulated a form allowing officers to request that the mayor not attend their funeral if they were killed in the line of duty—an understandable reaction to de Blasio’s insult. De Blasio responded primly on The View: “It’s divisive. It’s inappropriate,” he said. The city’s elites, from Cardinal Timothy Dolan on down, reprimanded the union. The New York Police Commissioner called the union letter “a step too far.”
Meanwhile, protests and riots against the police were gathering force across the country, all of them steeped in anti-cop vitriol and the ubiquitous lie that “black lives” don’t “matter.” “What do we want? Dead cops,” chanted participants in a New York anti-cop protest. Two public defenders from the Bronx participated in a rap video extolling cop killings. Few people in positions of authority objected to this dangerous hatred. The desire to show allegiance with allegedly oppressed blacks was too great. The thrill of righteousness was palpable among the media as it lovingly chronicled every protest and on the part of politicians and thought leaders who expressed solidarity with the cause. At another march across New York’s Brooklyn Bridge, a group of people tried to throw trash cans onto the heads of officers on the level below them; police attempts to arrest the assailants were fought off by other marchers.
The elite’s desperation to participate in what they hopefully viewed as their own modern-day civil rights crusade was patent in the sanctification of Michael Brown, the would-be cop killer. He was turned into a civil rights martyr. His violence toward Wilson, and the convenience store owner he had strong-armed, was wiped from the record. Protesters across the country chanted “hands up, don’t shoot” at anti-cop rallies, allegedly Brown’s final words before Wilson shot him. Never mind that the source of that alleged final utterance, Brown’s companion Dorian Johnson, was a proven liar. There is no reason to believe his claim regarding Brown’s final words.
Protesters’ willingness to overlook anti-cop homicidal intent surfaced again in St. Louis in November. A teen criminal who had shot at the police was killed by an officer in self-defense; he, too, joined the roster of heroic black victims of police racism. This sanctification of would-be black cop-killers would prove prophetic. The elites were playing with fire. It’s profoundly irresponsible to stoke hatred of the police, especially when the fuel used for doing so is a set of lies. Hatred of the police among blacks stems in part from police brutality during this country’s shameful era of Jim Crow-laws and widespread discrimination. But it is naïve not to recognize that criminal members of the black underclass despise the police because law enforcement interferes with their way of life. The elites are oblivious both to the extent of lawlessness in the black inner city and to its effect on attitudes toward the cops. Any expression of contempt for the police, in their view, must be a sincere expression of a wrong.
Cop-killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who assassinated NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos on Saturday, exemplified everything the elites have refused to recognize: he was a gun-toting criminal who was an eager consumer of the current frenzy of cop hatred. (Not that he paid close enough attention to the actual details of alleged cop malfeasance to spell Eric Garner’s name correctly.) His homicidal postings on Instagram—“I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today. They Take 1 of Ours . . . . .Let’s Take 2 of Theirs”—were indistinguishable from the hatred bouncing around the Internet and the protests and that few bothered to condemn. That vitriol continues after the assassination. Social media is filled with gloating at the officers’ deaths and praise for Brinsley: “That nigga that shot the cops is a legend,” reads a typical message. A student leader and a representative of the African and Afro-American studies department at Brandeis University tweeted that she has “no sympathy for the NYPD officers who were murdered today.”
The only good that can come out of this wrenching attack on civilization would be the delegitimation of the lie-based protest movement. Whether that will happen is uncertain. The New York Times has denounced as “inflammatory” the statement from the head of the officer’s union that there is “blood on the hands that starts on the steps of City Hall”—this from a paper that promotes the idea that police officers routinely kill blacks. The elites’ investment in black victimology is probably too great to hope for an injection of truth into the dangerously counterfactual discourse about race, crime, and policing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)