Black men who try to avoid an encounter with Boston police by fleeing may have a legitimate reason to do so — and should not be deemed suspicious — according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Citing Boston police data and a 2014 report by the ACLU of Massachusetts that found blacks were disproportionately stopped by the city’s police, the state’s highest court on Tuesday threw out the gun conviction of Jimmy Warren.
Okay. I get if you come from a fractured subculture wherein male leadership is largely lacking, and you are poor and a minority, and have been taught to fear ‘the man’, you might want to run if confronted.
Even if you hadn’t done anything.
BUT, the idea that fleeing the police (IF you are a Black man) your flight cannot be viewed as suspicious(!?)
Not to mention the whole racist component – What about a Black woman? Or a Latino? Or a White? Or someone of mixed race?
I see a whole can of worms being opened here for additional court cases…
Once again, activist judges take the reins, in lieu of those who swore to protect and defend The Constitution.
What? They DID swear?
I’m not surprised. So have Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, FBI heads and Supreme Court Justices over the past
60 70 100 years.
And no one (of any power) has called them on it!
Much has been written in these pages and on the Internet regarding George Soros, who unabashedly seems most interested in destroying Western Civilization.
The fact that so many of his fellow travelers and sycophants happily climb on board the train of destruction unnerves me. especially as so many of them were educated in The United States!
From Brock Townsend
George Soros should scare the hell out of anybody with a lick of sense.
Born a Hungarian Jew, his first job was working for the Nazis in World War II, helping to confiscate the property of Jews who were being rounded up, a job he not only never expressed any regret for, but that he described as one of the finest times of his life.
He has described himself, and the power he has as a billionaire, as being like a mad god.
“Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad,” Soros said in an interview on British television.
And he certainly has considerable power to back up his fantasies, including the power to make the video clip of his famous 60 Minutes interview, or leaked documents from his Open Society Foundations, virtually disappear from the Internet.
Among the documents that were downloaded by various news outlets before they vanished, there are numerous eye-openers that clarify exactly how deep Soros’ various schemes go, and paint a picture of a man who can manipulate markets, order around governments and arrange coups wherever he likes.
Soros comes about as close to a comic book supervillain as you can get in real life. Honestly, he could give Lex Luthor or Doctor Doom a run for their money.
Among the revelations found so far in the Soros documents:
More @ Constitution
The fact that so many ‘young people’ (and their elders) have their minds manipulated by this clown, whilst their thoughts are buried in comic books and comicons, and superhero movies – and they are well into their 20’s! greatly concerns me.
Of course, that was probably part of the plan all along…
I became a libertarian (small L) back in 1976. While I registered and voted many times for the party’s candidates, I never actually joined the national party.
Initially, it was because of lack of funds.
Now, it’s for other reasons.
(from Wirecutter, a fellow-traveler)
On Friday, Brian Doherty of the Libertarian flagship publication Reason scolded me, and by extension anyone else who has been turned off by some of the Johnson-Weld ticket’s public statements, that we were placing more importance on “the attitude stuff related to culture war issues about discrimination and guns” than on the really crucial issues of “spending or budgets or the growth of government.”
Then on Monday, Gary Johnson came out in favor of—drumroll, please—a carbon tax to fight global warming.
The Libertarian party lost my vote the moment Johnson picked Bill Weld as his running mate. Weld has a proven record of suppressing the People’s Rights when he was governor of Massachusetts. Disarming Americans or placing any type of restrictions on any of our God given Rights is not what I thought the Libertarians were about.
Between Bill Weld, who has waffled almost more than Donald Trump, and a belief in the global warming scam (coupled with a TAX!), I believe the national libertarian party to be a shadow of it’s former self.
The Libertarians of the 1970’s wouldn’t even consider voting for such tripe!
Now comes the big question – do I vote Libertarian Statist, or for one of the other two major party Fascists?
Perhaps it’s time to consider that Cub’s manager again? Couldn’t do much worse…
PS – Is it the nature of political parties (as it seems to be with governments) to begin all pie-eyed and wondrous in their principles, only to become perverted by corruption and reality? I had such hope for the Libertarians…
I’m having a bit of an identity crisis.
I was born white, which makes me a racist.
I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which makes me a fascist.
I am heterosexual, which makes me a homophobe.
I am non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business.
I am older than 55 and semi retired which makes me a useless old man.
I think and I reason; therefore I doubt much that the main stream media tells me, which makes me a reactionary.
I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture, which makes me a xenophobe.
I value my safety and that of my family; therefore I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right wing extremist.
I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual’s merits, which makes me anti-social.
I, and my friends, acquired a good education without student loans and no debt at graduation, which makes me some kind of odd underachiever.
I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland by all citizens, which makes me a militarist.
Please help me come to terms with this, because I’m not sure who I am anymore!
And now I don’t know which bathroom to use anymore….
H/T Doverthere, Theo Spark
(from Wirecutter, in part)
I have been a long time viewer of your site and I would like to get the word out on President Obama’s July 22nd 2016 Executive Order Applicability of the ITAR Registration Requirement to Firearms Manufacturers and Gunsmiths.
This order will do nothing for the safety of our country and all it is going to do is force a small Gunsmithing Business’s like myself to either close their doors or raise prices 50% to cover the cost which will drive our customers away and I will end up having to close my doors. I have spent the last 5 years putting all my spare money and time building my business now I might be forced to close it. This executive order must be stopped it is infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. Below are the links to the Executive Order and the break down of them. I hope you are willing to post this on your site you have a lot of traffic and this word needs to get out so this can be stopped. Thank you for your time.
This information was sent to me via email – the address indicates a gun shop owner, but because the email was unsigned I’m not going to name the sender.
Me and Dennis were discussing this when I visited with him last week. Once again, it’s an underhanded move to restrict our Rights guaranteed us under the US Constitution and as such is a direct violation by entering into a treaty that violates or compromises our Rights.
This will, among other things, eliminate home builds and any modifications that require any machining by a shop unless they can pay the exorbitant fees to register. Also, check out the part about automated reloading – while one section says reloading anything under a 50 caliber is permissible, another says that automated reloading will be affected.
This is going to drive a huge number of gunshops and self employed gunsmiths out of business due to the fees and regulations required by this Executive Order.
Funny. I remember reading somewhere long ago that Executive Orders were only to regulate folks in the executive purview, as in federal employees(?) (e.g. Truman ordering the military to desegregate with all
deliberate speed) The fact this clown The President continues act all monarchical by waving his sceptre (or his pen) speaks volumes.
(from The Firearm Blog, in part)
The last few months in the US have been pretty tumultuous if you have been watching the news. Without getting too political, we have seen terror attacks, hate crimes, and a multitude of other criminal activity. It is truly unsettling and has a lot of people on edge. Some people want to scream gun control or make other arguments, but I digress. What is interesting is what firearms some Americans think should be legal or illegal. Vox, an internet news site, tried to delve into that exact topic.
Vox teamed up with Morning Consult and tried to ask the question of firearm legality. They asked 2,000 people whether certain firearms should be legal or illegal merely based on appearance and their name. The infographic below is very telling. The less it looks like a hunting firearm and the more scary it appears lead whoever they surveyed to believe it should be illegal!
Results from 2,000 people surveyed on whether certain firearms should be LEGAL or ILLEGAL [Credit: Vox/Morning Consult]
You get some interesting, and maybe not surprising results, when you start to identify respondents by their political affiliation. Vox and Morning Consult took it a few steps further by dividing results from their survey by gender. Their full story and results can be found HERE.
Yeah, regardless of what the polls think (democracy), I will keep my guns and, if at all possible add more.
BECAUSE MY INDIVIDUAL NATURAL RIGHTS ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE OR PLEBISCITE!
Rachel Maddow: TV Host Says She’s Reading About Adolf Hitler to Understand Donald Trump’s Candidacy
“What is amazing is the Republican Party that picked him,” she told Rolling Stone about Trump. “Over the past year I’ve been reading a lot about what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor.” (FB)
Gee, think that’s an impartial, or loaded comment?
If she were truly an impartial student of history, one might think she’d study Huey Long to understand Trump’s candidacy.
Just as she should study Mao Tse Tung or Stalin to understand Bernie Sanders’ or Hillary Clinton.
Or Barack Obama.
(See what I did there?)
Please understand, I’m not openly supporting Mr. Trump.
And Ms. Maddow may read anyone she wishes.
It’s interesting The Left always defaults to calling
The Right Republicans Anyone With Whom They Disagree, Hitler. When Stalin, Mao and their fellow travelers did much worse in terms of raw numbers. And cultural destruction.
Of course, we don’t criticize those with whom we agree, now do we?
© Office of the Inspector General
Senator Wyden Puts A Hold On Intelligence Authorization Bill To Block FBI Warrantless Surveillance
from the there-goes-that-wyden-guy-again dept
As we’ve discussed, some surveillance/law enforcement hawks have tried to rush through a law to expand the power of national security letters (NSLs) to paper over the long standing abuse of NSLs, by saying that they can use those documents (which have basically no oversight and don’t require a warrant) to collect a ton of private info, including email info and web browsing histories. The rushed vote on this — stupidly citing the Orlando attacks, despite the fact it would have done nothing to stop that — failed but just barely. Basically, if Senator Dianne Feinstein were able to attend the vote, it likely would have passed. The support for it was one vote shy, and then Sen. Mitch McConnell changed his vote for procedural reasons to be able to bring it back for a quick follow up vote.
Now, as Congress rushes towards that vote, Senator Ron Wyden stepped up today to use his power as a Senator to put a hold on the entire Intelligence Authorization bill. He gave a short floor speech explaining his reasons.
I certainly appreciate the FBI’s interest in obtaining records about potential suspects quickly. But Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges are very capable of reviewing and approving requests for court orders in a timely fashion. And section 102 of the recently-passed USA FREEDOM Act gives the FBI new authority to obtain records immediately in emergency situations, and then seek court review after the fact. I strongly supported the passage of that provision, which I first proposed in 2013. By contrast, I do not believe it is appropriate to give the government broad new surveillance authorities just because FBI officials do not like doing paperwork. If the FBI’s own process for requesting court orders is too slow, then the appropriate solution is bureaucratic reforms, not a major expansion of government surveillance authorities.
The fact of the matter is that ‘electronic communication transaction records’ can reveal a great deal of personal information about individual Americans. If government officials know that an individual routinely emails a mental health professional, or sends texts to a substance abuse support group, or visits a particular dating website, or the website of a particular political group, then the government knows a lot about that individual. Our Founding Fathers rightly argued that such intrusive searches should be approved by independent judges.
It is worth noting that President George W. Bush’s administration reached the same conclusion. In November 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel advised the FBI that National Security Letters could only be used to obtain certain types of records, and this list did not include electronic communication transaction records. The FBI has unfortunately not adhered to this guidance, and has at times continued to issue National Security Letters for electronic communications records. A number of companies that have received these overly broad National Security Letters have rightly challenged them as improper. Broadening the National Security Letter law to include electronic communication transaction records would be a significant expansion of the FBI’s statutory authority.
And unfortunately, the FBI’s track record with its existing National Security Letter authorities includes a substantial amount of abuse and misuse. These problems have been extensively documented in reports by the Justice Department Inspector General from 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2014. As one of these reports noted, “the FBI [has] used NSLs in violation of applicable statutes, Attorney General guidelines, and internal FBI policies.” No one in the Senate should be surprised by this pattern of abuse and misuse, because this is unfortunately what happens when federal agencies are given broad surveillance powers with no judicial oversight. In my judgment, it would be reckless to expand this particular surveillance authority when the FBI has so frequently failed to use its existing authorities responsibly.
Of course, to some extent, this is little more than show. It’s pretty clear that McConnell has the votes to get this passed, which is why Wyden has now taken the dramatic step of putting a hold on the bill. But the 60 votes here are usually what is necessary to break a hold (which remains a widely used, but informal, Senate rule). So in the end this won’t mean much, but we’ve been here before again and again and again. And by now it should be clear: When Ron Wyden says that the government is abusing laws to spy on Americans, he’s not lying. We shouldn’t then paper over that abuse and give the FBI or the NSA or anyone else greater powers to spy on Americans. Because they use that power and they don’t tend to use it wisely and judiciously.
Can anyone explain, seriously, why the emergency powers that allow the FBI to do the search in an emergency and then get the warrant after are somehow too problematic? Or why the FBI can’t go and get a warrant at all? It’s a petty quick process for them these days. This whole effort seems designed solely to wipe out what little oversight there is of the FBI and its use of national security letters. (Techdirt.com)
AND, how much coverage of this was out there in the “press” (again, in air quotes)?
More importantly, why doesn’t the American Public care?
I’m speaking of this Republic.
With Rome, it was either when the Ottoman Turks took Byzantium (Constantinople) 1453 AD or when a barbarian deposed the last western Roman emperor 476 AD (ancient history About.com)
My Western Civilization professor said it began with (and I’m quoting here) “Moral decadence and pleasures of the flesh!” (to the cheers of the 400 or so horny underclassmen)
What is/was the beginning of the end of this Constitutional Republic we know as The United States?
The Whiskey Rebellion? (1791)
The Civil War? (1861)
Federal income tax (1913)
Direct election of Senators? (1913)
Establishment of the Federal Reserve? (1913)
The National Firearms Act (1934)
Or is it an amalgamation of these and many other things, eating away at our Constitutional substance, punctuated by further federal government oversteps such as Ruby Ridge and Waco? No-knock warrants, followed by airport searches and sobriety checkpoints. Massive surveillance of our electronic communications. Prohibitions of Speech seen as ‘politically-incorrect’. The killing of Blacks by police – whether or not legitimate actions – spun by self-serving propagandists into an ersatz race war?
Now followed by widespread racial civil unrest, punctuated by acts of terrorism against civil authority.
I’m certain all ‘civilizations’, be they primitive neolithic cultures like the American Indian when the White man first laid eyes on him, or the Romans, or the Christian Turks all thought they would endure forever.
And so have most of we Americans.
I guess the true question isn’t what was the tipping point.
It’s what do we do NOW?
from a miniseries The Dark Ages
Two Hundred Forty years ago…
A group of colonial representatives of the British crown voted to sever ties with the most powerful monarchy on Earth. With the largest military.
And ultimately won our Independence.
Established a government, dissolved it, established a second government. And immediately began ursurping the rights of the Citizenry we had fought a revolution to protect!
Governments, by their very nature, want control and power.
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Well, THAT ship has sailed!
Too bad the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee some kind of reset button, which would keep the Bill of Rights as Paramount.
And allow us to begin again.
I’m rereading The Declaration of Independence at High Noon again, today.
Before my so doing is prohibited by law!