Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by “sophisticated” hacker groups. I’m very pleas…
So this “happened” a few days ago in Salt Lake City, Utah…
Four cops assaulted, battered, and then falsely arrested a Nurse who, in compliance with established Law and agreements between the Hospital and the police department, refused to draw blood evidence for them from an unconscious auto accident victim who was not under arrest, nor even a legitimate suspect in the accident.
I’ve said all the following repeatedly here, on twitter as @Fixer_Guy and on Quora; but I’ve said it all piecemeal. It’s time to get comprehensive with Facts. There are no sane excuses for these fascists when they murder My Fellow Citizens in inner city (POC) neighborhoods, and there are also no excuses which any sane person will accept now. The only thing any sane person could consider even marginally “redeeming” in what these evil cops did; is that they didn’t flat murder this woman or beat her to a pulp as they would have done if she’d been black. I personally consider that to be a further indictment of them under 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242 but I’ll leave that bit alone for now because I’m talking strictly Actions vs. Duty here and I’m trying to get my fellow whites to see the designed systematic problem with cops being given the power they have.
Every time I take police, as an institution, to task for this level of fascist crap, I get reams of “excuses” as follows:
- These #ThugzWitBadgz are an “aberration” in policing.
- Most cops are Good Cops.
- They’re just doing their job.
- She should have complied and sorted it out in court.
My response to these logical fallacies as “arguments” in defense of policing as it currently exists in the USA are as follows:
- There is no “aberration” here because we see this across our nation, across decades; and even in cases where there’s video evidence of the cop violating the laws they swore an Oath to uphold, there’s almost NEVER any serious repercussions on the criminal cops. This IS systematic and by design because in most cases the District Attorney will refuse to prosecute, but even when there’s blatant video evidence 96% of the time Thugs With Badges do not get convicted
- The simple FACT is that not ONE of the other 3 “Good Cops” present took a single step to shut this fascist pig down while witnessing his blatant violation of long established Law, Department Policy, and Department Agreements with the Hospital. Passive silence in such situations is explicit support for what he’s doing. There are, in real life, ZERO “Good Cops” in the room because actual Good Cops would have acted to uphold their Oaths to enforce the Law and Constitution by stopping him from violating that Law. They didn’t. In point of fact they helped him violate Law and Department Policy (noted by the administrator on the phone with the nurse in the video) by aiding in his false, felonious arrest of the nurse. In short, every cop present supported this fascist and abrogated their Oaths either by supporting his criminal actions with their criminal actions, or by supporting his actions with a criminal refusal to act in support of the Law they swore to uphold. You can make all the excuses you like here and they won’t wash with sane folks. When you stand silent in the face of Evil, you ARE Evil. No excuses. You 3 “Good Cops” are utter #Shitweasels who violated your Oaths to Uphold The Law and Our US Constitution because you either stood silent, or worse you helped, as another Cop went full CRIMINAL.
- Their Job, as defined by EVERY police department hiring ad I’ve ever seen, publicly stated Department mottos, and their Utah Oath Of Office as Police Officers, is to UPHOLD THE US CONSTITUTION, THE LAW, and by extension to PROTECT CITIZENS FROM THE LAWLESS. In the Police Department Oaths & Policy that I’ve seen, there’s zero “exceptions” for “It’s OK if a fellow officer is the criminal.” Part of that Police Oath Of Office usually includes an Oath to defend and uphold the US Constitution. In the particular issue for this situation the courts have ruled repeatedly that a WARRANT is REQUIRED in order for police to mandate any blood draw for testing. The “implied consent” lie most states use to evade this mandate is, quite simply, AGAINST THE LAW. So, no! None of these “Good Cops” were “doing their job” on any level. In point of Fact and Law they each are negligent and criminal in their refusal to do their actual duty and should be banned from police departments nationally after a few years in prison.
- The simple fact, which we saw in 1930 Germany, is that fascists, especially those protected by false (un-Constitutional) laws simply do not care about courts and will (have in real life) continue their criminal behavior until they are physically stopped by Citizens.
Sorry folks, there’s zero legitimate excuses here (or when #ThugzWitBadgz murder my unarmed Fellow Citizens because they’re black), and if you’re trying to claim there are any I’ll ask you to take your magical thinking elsewhere… BECAUSE YOU ARE NEXT!
Welcome to ChrystalNacht. It’s here & now. It time to stand T F UP people.
FAIR WARNING: This is a long read. It’s long because there’s lots to be unpacked here, including the rampant Cognitive Dissonance throughout our society, and History Matters in unpacking it.
A great many folks, on both sides, are going to get mad at me because I’m challenging that mass, societal Cognitive Dissonance. Fine. As you get mad, ask yourself just one really hard Q:
“#WhoProfits from you’re being so pissed with & scared of your “other” that you can’t even talk to them as a fellow human?” Icky question & even ickier implications.
Sorry, but not really sorry.
So I just listened to @saneprogressive in her latest post. While I know many people who are annoyed with Debbi; One of the hallmarks of being a Progressive is that we seek our solutions to the problems we see in society, outside of, and across, the assigned identity boxes which MSM & the 2 Partys’ rhetoric works so hard at keeping us, and all of our discussions, stuffed into.
It’s an hour long vid but all I’m asking is that you listen with an intent to understand (vs. forming a reply to or arguing with) what she’s saying for the first 10 min.
*cues Jeopardy Theme*
Now, as background, I’m on the Aspergers Spectrum which makes my takes seem a bit “odd” sometimes. The reason for this “different” take on events is that, because my brain is hardwired differently, I see (notice?) Patterns across Time & Events in a similar, intuitive, way to how “normies” see the obvious differences in primary colors. Part of the “why” for this is that I’ve got an insanely “sticky” memory for events, conversations, & details. I also don’t have many of the emotional filters which allow normies to not “notice” a great many things. It’s no better or worse, just different & useful in its own way.
With Charlottesville I see, on the surface, a dispute which appears to be between ppl who say “Cops killing brown people without cause or trial is ok” vs people who say that’s never ok. (BTW, for any who don’t know me: On this level I’m firmly, even militantly, in the “Quit F’ing Murdering My Fellow Citizens PERIOD” camp)
As I look a bit deeper though I see the “other” side as a group of folks who KNOW how badly they’ve treated POC, and feel they’re being replaced (which they are by simple population shifts) and above all they’re flat scared shitless because they’ve been told by both “sides” of MSM & BOTH sets of Party Brass “FEAR THESE PEOPLE!!” for well over 200 years.
Here’s where the real unpacking gets busy & interesting:
We know, and can empirically prove, with thousands of cited articles, that both MSM & the politicians of both Partys scream this message constantly in both direct & indirect ways. Doubt me? Look hard at the words they carefully chose to describe Dylan Roof (misundersood) vs. the words they used to describe Sandra Bland (prior history of “problems with the Law”).
Here’s where we begin the unpacking, and it’s really ugly.
We can also prove that this Newspeak is intentionally injected into our beliefs, on both sides, by MSM and politicians of BOTH Partys. Let’s look:
Remember Hillary Clinton screaming “Super Predators” in support of a bipartisan bill to “reform” Sentencing Laws so the crack cocaine (used almost exclusively in black, inner city neighborhoods) carried 10x the prison time of the powder cocaine used by whites?
Do you also remember the CIA dumping #IranContra coke in those inner city neighborhoods just a few years prior to their election to President? I do & they damned well knew it TOO, as Hillary screamed for a “fix” of the problem which the CIA CAUSED in its entirety. Do you know that this dumping of coke continued well into the 2000’s?
#WhoProfits from this fear mongering?
The knee-jerk reaction we’ve all been trained into, on both sides, is “racism causes it” but what if we step back from that outrage, however legitimate it is, for half a second to ask ourselves “Who Profits from this messaging?” This is where Kaitlin (@caitoz) was trying to go with her “infamous” article, and it’s where Debbi is going in the video above.
There’s some serious history behind this question which lives in the roots of the 150 year war on drugs, the union movement, the suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, and which history is very carefully ignored by MSM & both political partys.
Here’s one piece of that historical record:
Did you know these facts? Are you now looking hard at the messaging of both “sides” of MSM to ask em “Who Profits from this crap?
Have you pondered that this Pig Watch movement was insanely effective in ending cops beating down war protesters because it was intentionally built across lines of race and political beliefs?
Now here’s your kick in the ass:
Look at the TIMING of when Pig Watch was built, how completely effective it was in ending cops beating people, and look at it against the timing of MLK and Malcom X being murdered.
Did you know that this company exists?
Now… before you go there, I know Snopes’ claims it’s all a big fake in respect to paid protestors at Trump rallies, yet I ALSO saw those ads for seat fillers at the DNC Convention, which Snopes “most carefully” does Not mention.
Hint: Racism, while real on its own by virtue of having been taught to ALL with 200 years of churches, “news”, and families, passing down created fear, is ALSO a tool used by oligarchy to keep us divided & hating each other so that we can’t EVER even discuss starting a Pig Watch again.
Lastly let me note that this whole fiasco “just happened” to break as the #DNCFraudLawsuit was finally starting to see some attention, other than dismissal, in mainstream media reports
Knowing all of the foregoing #DamnedFacts (please feel free to re read as needed), I’ll ask you one final time: “Who Profits From This set of facts?
So the Progressive community is still in an uproar about a @caitoz article suggesting “alignment” with Alt Right people.
I need to preface a bit here: This is, by the very structure of our society and it’s official media, an incredibly hard conversation to have. Please know that my intention here is not to attack anyone, but to unpack things as best I can. I see some legit issues Caitlin raised which do need to be addressed, AND I ALSO see why many folks are legitimately triggered by her choice of words & examples.
In one sense I’m defending some of the ideas in her article, in another sense I’m attacking it (not her, but rather the phrasing and examples which she chose so poorly). I’ll start with the criticism.
1) She chose her words and examples without standing in the shoes of the POC she was talking to (by way of not pondering how the choice of those particular words and their implied meanings would impact those folks). This is a particularly tough thing for ANY white to do because of our privilege, and because of 50 years of MSM Gas light Newspeak which is specifically designed to encourage that disconnect.
2) Cernovich is one of the worst possible choices as an example of who to “align with” (just as “alignment with” is the wrong phrase) for any number of reasons; which could easily be a whole other series of articles in itself. That said, there are lots of folks I’ve had IRL & Twitter conversations, with who listen to his ilk, yet will see truth if it’s carefully unpacked for them in terms of Us vs. Oligarchy.
3) To put it simply the owners of MSM do not ever want Citizens talking IRL Issues across MSM created & imposed “lines” of Party/Political Belief/Race/Wealth/Privilege; because if we do start seeing each other as humans, fighting the same issues under different names, instead of seeing only their imposed “the other,” their Hog Troughs all get kicked over. Here’s Your Owners
4) Caitlins’ hard fail in word choice here wasn’t intentional IMO. Rather it’s the MSM & cultural gas lighting performing as designed to blind Us, across their false boundaries of race & wealth & Party, to the fact that we’re fighting the same damned problems under different and intentionally divisive names; with different and intentionally divisive ASSIGNED-BY-MSM “causes” for those problems. My proof of claim is as simple as looking hard & very cynically at the differences in the words chosen by all of MSM in talking about Sandra Bland vs the words chosen by the ENTIRETY of the same MSM to talk about Dylan Roof. Please hold this core idea in mind as you read what follows, because I’m about to unpack some serious shit here. This discussion is one we’re not ever “supposed” to have according to our owners. Do you doubt me? That message is pervasive in MSM Newspeak, right down to the difference in verbiage used in advertising at POC vs the words & their nearly subliminal implied meanings of the verbiage used in ads aimed at whites. The fact is that racism is real AND it’s ALSO that it’s a tool used by oligarchs to keep us all so pissed at each other that we can’t band together & bury them with their bribed to treason Congresscritters in Tar & Feathers.
So… on to the unpacking
Her choice of the words “align with” also implies approval of. Hard miss here. This choice of words triggered several POC Progressives, and legitimately too IMO. I’ll note I got nailed with this level of missing implied meanings & the cultural differences in those words during a separate conversation with a black lady whom I deeply respect.
She commented on something and I said ICYMI (yea… OOPS!) with a link to an article supporting & expanding on her claim. She came back bent until I explained myself fully.
What happened here is Cultural Language Differences and differences in our implied meanings of the same words depending upon our IRL experiences caused a misunderstanding.
To me, with my cultural biases, “ICYMI” means “You might find this interesting if you’ve not seen it.” To her, with her culturally different implied meaning, it said “Nope, you missed this & here’s why you’re wrong.” What saved us is that we respect each other and didn’t immediately jump to flinging insults over what was a misunderstood usage. These are pervasive throughout our “common language” and those sorts of differences in implied meanings of our “common words.” I’ll note that neither of our usages of “ICYMI” is wrong. They’re simply different at such a basic, cultural, implied meanings, level that we, each, can’t even see the differences implied in the words we use unless we’re specifically looking for it. This same, cultural, confusion fed the disconnect and outrage which gave us a weeks long back and forth of Ad Hominem and division on the @caitoz article. That damaged our progressive community. A lot.
At this juncture let me say that the outrage by POC at the idea of “alignment” with fascists is, in my opinion, entirely legit AND we still need to talk TO each other rather than AT each other in order to be able to find our common intersections to stand at together.
Here’s Teodrose on that subject
I need to mention some History in the ’60s civil rights movement by noting that there was a group called Pig Watch which DID unite with poor whites to train and arm folks with the purpose of providing a hard limit on #ThugzWitBadgz beating people. I met some few of those (intentionally un-named here) whites decades later in a Recovery Program. Their stories, while fascinating, aren’t mine to share, except to note that they said they’d started out as “mild” racists (yea… ??) and through the Intersections of fighting the War and abuse of Citizens, came to deeply respect the blacks they’d met at those intersections. One guy in particular made the point of looking back at his beliefs prior to that association with Pig Watch & The Panthers with a feeling of shame for blindly disrespecting folks he came to love later.
Here’s some History on that movement which worked SO in stopping cops from beating war protesters that the oligarchy had its leaders murdered, and their #2s imprisoned for decades.
This bit of perspective is what I hope to bring into this conversation.
To paraphrase Caitlin in her 1st article on this subject of talking to folks across the political spectrum:
Take care of You 1st, and if you’re able to talk issues to folks who seem to be “the other” at first glance, you might be surprised to find some common ground, and perhaps even a mutual respect.
If we’re able to keep those discussions to issues and listen to what others think the causes of those issues are, while expressing our beliefs about the causes of those issues… we might just be surprised at the results.
Whatever your choice here, I love you all, and am DEEPLY grateful for all of you. Thanks for teaching & thanks for listening!
I’m STILL getting folks claiming that there’s dome sort of Constitutional imperative allowing Religion in Our Government.
Okay, so we’ll break it down one more time:
From Wiki (yes, it’s that easy to find):
Here’s what the Constitution SAYS in the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Congress shall make no law respecting…
Okay… so respecting about, or pertaining, to WHAT?
Part 1, before the comma:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
So we know that respecting means “about or pertaining to”…
SO… Congress is as of this point under aBlanket Prohibition which specifically prohibits them from using Law to speak about an establishment of religion… can’t say ANYTHING in Law, either for it or against it.
What’s an establishment?
So… here’s that bit:
1. the act or an instance of .
2. the state or fact of being .
3. something ; a constituted order or system.
4. ( often initial capital letter ) the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually preceded by the ): The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.
5. ( often initial capital letter ) the dominant group in a field of endeavor, , etc. (usually preceded by the ): the literary Establishment.
From Grouberts’ wifes’ hard copy of Blacks Dictionary of law regarding The Establishment Clause;
“Such language prohibits a state or the federal government from setting up a church, or passing laws which aid one, or all, religions, or giving preference to one religion, or forcing belief or disbelief in any religion.”
So to translate this into modern English:
“Congress may not EVER use Law to speak about Religion, they also may not EVER limit the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the Press, or restrict the Right of the People to peaceably assemble to demand a redress of grievances from the government.”
Seems pretty crystal clear to me. In short – Government may NOT ever use Law to support religion, but they ALSO can not ever use Law to stop you from supporting religion in your private* life.
*Private life = as a private Citizen, as opposed to as a member of our government.
To put a finer point on it:
You’re more than welcome to pray or read your holy book pretty much anytime, and anywhere you please, but you are not permitted to use any government position (say as a court clerk or publicly funded school teacher, or a fire chief) to force others to comply with your beliefs.
So… if you want to read your bible on your lunch… fine. If you want to refuse to issue marriage licenses for gays in a State where gay marriage is legal… not fine. This last is called “Using a government position in an attempt to enforce your religious beliefs upon others.”
As to claims that “This doesn’t apply to the States.”
Sorry, wrong. If for no other reason than the Fact that marriage is, under the Law, a privilege* which offers immunities.**
Here’s the full Answer to that blatantly false claim…
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Since the several States explicitly agreed to be legally bound by this language through the process of Ratification…. Yes, sorry, it does apply. Further, because of the explicit agreement from the several States, it applies directly and specifically to the States.
For those unclear on the concept:
Approval or confirmation of a previous contract or other act that would not otherwise be binding in the absence of such approval. If an employer ratifies the unauthorized acts of an employee, those actions become binding on the employer. A person who is under the legal age to enter into a contract may ratify (and thereby adopt) the contract when he or she reaches majority, or may refuse to honor the contract without obligation.
We Ratified this Amendment (Aka: change or revision to the Constitution) in 1868 and though large parts of the provisions have been un-enforced, the actual words still mean the exact same thing: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge (means injure, limit, or damage) the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States,…”
Note carefully that there are precisely zero exceptions contained in this language. That’s intentional!
The other reason we think this limitation is in the First Amendment to Our Constitution is because (as noted here and thanks for the heads up to Roger Simpson) one of the folks who wrote our Constitution said as much repeatedly.
From the above comment:
Simply put, President Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving. In his letter, he wrote that:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
As to what he meant by that, it is easy to see. Jefferson was the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (of which he was more proud than writing the Declaration of Independence), which states:
“… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities”
I’ve had some additional thoughts come up here…
First is that I glossed over the free exercise bit, so here it is. I’d note that this part seems just as absolute as the rest does.
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This, quite blatantly prohibits federal government; and since the 14th Amendment, ALL State government, from doing 2 things:
1) Saying that you can’t practice your religion as a private Citizen.
2) Imposing ANY form of religion which you didn’t choose upon you.
So this sword of the First Amendment cuts both ways, as we’ve seen in the cases of American Indian religions which have successfully challenged drug laws with this.
*Reply to an appologist claiming that the Constitution allows religion in Law by using quotes from the original body of the Constitution*
Yes, that’s the original language which was changed by Amendment which was Ratified (Aka: Agreed to be bound by) by the States.
Everything religious apologists claim about the original words of Our Constitution WAS true. It was also CHANGED in 1868, BECAUSE they were seeing a de facto trend in government (State and Federal) towards religious activism using laws and regulations. This change was the First Amendment which says, quite clearly:
“Congress shall make no law respecting (about) an establishment (organization in general) of religion…”
The direct, semantic, translation of that to modern language is, as I said, “Congress shall not use Law to speak about Religion. Neither for it, nor against it.”
Since this language was explicitly agreed to (Ratified) by the several States and the language of the 14th Amendment was also Ratified, that change in the First Amendment also applies to States.
Basically what the 14th says is that ALL Citizens of any State are also Citizens of the USA. Then it goes on to say that States may offer Citizens of the United States MORE Rights and Protections than the US Constitution does; but may not ever offer fewer rights and protections that the United States Constitution does.
Because the Several States explicitly, and legally, agreed to this language in the 14th Amendment through Ratification of it, those other changes to Our Constitution apply directly to the States.
Now: Here’s the grand convenient “error” so many religious apologists make in this area of discussion…
The United States Constitution and its Amendments (means changes to) are not, in any way, shape, or form, “different things.”
These Amendments are all part and parcel of the same supreme law. We merely retain the original (superseded/changed by Amendment) language, by tradition and intent, so that everyone (Citizens and Legislators) can track these changes and monitor them.
I’d also note that the intent of the First Amendment is made even clearer because one of the unchanged parts of the original Constitution (Article 6 last paragraph) also says, quite clearly, that:
“… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
This paragraph is especially interesting in that, while it deals specifically with the issue of Religion in Government that the First Amendment addresses, it was intentionally left unchanged by the 1st Amendment.
IF what religious apologists claim were true, (that religion belongs in our government) then any sane, reasonable, persons would have addressed and changed this Article 6 prohibition on religious tests using the First Amendment.
They, most emphatically, did not do that in the First Amendment which was Ratified (explicitly agreed to by the several States) just 4 years after the signing of the original Constitution.
With these Facts included in the picture, it is an utterly disengenuious obfuscation to claim that there was ANY intention to permit religion any entre’ into our government because this “oops we missed that bit” of the Bill of Rights just 4 years later would have been the perfect opportunity to make that clear.
Instead they chose to bolt and bar the door, after slamming it on religion in government, by saying “Congress shall pass no Law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Sorry folks, there’s just zero wiggle room in these Facts, no matter how badly apologists want to “create” some.