VIDEO: Man already on the Ground trying not to Vomit is Kicked by Police Officer

The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

Fewer Low Wage Cooking Jobs for Blacks in Future: Robot chefs taking over

Can I Bring My Gat

Since I got rid of cable and Internet at my home in 2006, I have had even more time to read, even read what many would call non-essential, although I believe as long as one is reading, each time they read they will learn something and improve both their problem solving and critical thinking skills. I have become particularly fond of the defense department and federal Business Opportunities Websites whenever I am around an internet connection, as well as my usual slew of daily foreign newspapers.

Consequently, in light of several recent events, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the general US citizenry lacks common sense, has little if any knowledge of the constitution and will do anything to perceive that they can be safer than they already are, whether by man-made law or statue. With media and government focused on several mass shootings over the past few weeks starting with Aurora, Colorado, then detouring to Wisconsin, via Chicago and ending up in College Station, Texas, seems all folk are talking about is gun control. Personally outside of the previous reasons, I think that another distinction concerns the manner in which city folk and we country folk view hand guns and rifles. But more troubling, is that without out question, folks speak about gun control as if they are battling an invasive species of locus or the Ebola virus.

The gun control mantra always pops up and like terrorism it is just a scare tactic. It is as played out as the hook “who let the dogs out.” First, there more people are killed in auto accidents than by guns and frankly, automobiles are probably the biggest killer in our nation , but you won’t hear anyone claim that cars should be controlled in any form or fashion claiming they are a need, when there once was a time they did not exist. Might I add guns did exist then?

My fear is the position that many take regarding gun control: that only the government and police should have guns, in particular automatic weapons. With this I vehemently disagree. First, saying this is like saying only the government should have the internet and the rest of us citizens should be limited to paper and pencil. Not to mention I completely agree with Thomas Jefferson, who in a letter to his nephew, suggested in so many words that when only the police and government has guns, such is a police state. This is the common sense I am referring too. I can’t comprehend why folk would want only the police and government to have guns. On the local level from what we have seen in Jonesboro, Arkansas regarding 21-year-old Chavis Carter, of Southaven, Miss., who was handcuffed behind his back and died from a gunshot wound to the right temple July 28 despite being left handed, frisked twice by Jonesboro police officers and in the back of the police car at the time.

Then there was what happened last week in Chicago, when an off-duty Chicago police officer while heading home through the town of Maywood, bike hit 4-year old Taniyah Middleton. When the girl’s father Christopher, 26, confronted the officer over the incident, the officer shot and killed him. Or what also recently happened in Miami, when police officers broke a man's arm and falsely prosecuted him after he refused an undercover officer's offer of prostitution. Guillermo Cuadra said he had just $3 on him when an apparent prostitute asked him, "Do you want a fuck?" as he was stopped at a traffic light. The cops held him for 4 hours in a squad car, rather than taking him to a hospital, and when he complained of the excruciating pain.

I’m not even finished, for then there is what happened on Friday August 10, 2012 around 11:30 pm, when off-duty Rochester, NY Police officer Francisco Santiago, a 6 year veteran, was rear-ended, doesn’t call 911, pulls his personal firearm and shoots two unarmed African-American men several times, injuring both with multiple bullet wounds to their torsos and lower extremities.

So if you asked me, it would be a major threat if only the police had guns, given that they think they are the law or even above it when in fact they represent the law. If they did the latter, I still wouldn’t support the contention they should be the only ones with guns – automatic weapons. This is the police argument. Although I live in the country, I also know that according to the Bureau of Justice data, that African Americans, especially if they have annual household incomes of around $15,000, are more likely to be the victims and targets of violent crimes. Yet this is not the real fear I have, it is the aforementioned pertaining to the police and the federal government.

Reading the web sites I mentioned earlier, I saw a solicitation originally issued by the Department of Homeland Security in April for 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets which was just updated on Friday requesting an additional 750 million rounds of ammunition, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls. This I accepted at first, but was wondering about the additional request, but they are DHS.

But in addition to that, there has been a rash of strange solicitations I have noticed for federal government agencies. Solicitations for large amounts of ammunition and weapons just since July. For example, Solicitation Number DG-1330-12-RQ-1028 (a request by The DOC NOAA National Weather Service - Western Acquisition Division in Boulder) for the following: “16,000 rounds of ammunition for semiautomatic pistols to be factory-loaded .40 S&W caliber, 180-grain jacketed hollow point.” Specific deliveries and amounts include to be delivered include 8,000 rounds to: Ross Lane DOC, NOAA, NMFS, OLE, NED 130 Oak Street, Suite 5, Ellsworth, ME, 04605; 8,000 rounds to: Troy Audyatis, DOC, NOAA, NMFS, OLE, NED 53 North 6th Street, Room 214 New Bedford, MA, 02740., 16, Cases. The solicitation also includes and order for 24,000 rounds of ammunition for semiautomatic pistols to be factory-loaded .40 S&W caliber, 180-grain jacketed hollow point (JHP)to be delivered to Jeff Radonski, A/DSAC DOC, NOAA, NMFS, OLE, SED 263 13th Avenue South, Suite 109, St. Petersburg, FL, 33701., 24, Cases. The last request pertains to 6,000 rounds of frangible, 125-grain CFRHT .40 caliber. These are to be delivered to James Cassin DOC, NOAA, NMFS, OLE, NED 3350 Highway 138, Suite 218, Wall, NJ, 07719, 6, Cases."

Another strange request similar to the aforementioned was made last Aug 22, 2011 by The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Acquisition Management. This request was for a large allotment of “SIG Sauer Model P229 Semi-Automatic Pistol (P229); E29R-357-BSS-G; Caliber .357 SIG; DA/SA old style Alloy Frame; Stainless Slide; Black Nitron Finish; DA/SA Trigger; Supplied with three MecGar twelve (12)-round magazines and Trijicon three (3) Dot (White ? Glow Green) Night Sights; Milled locking inserts; and, Manufacturer carry case.”

This past June, Solicitation Number: HSSS01-12-Q-0118 reveals a request for .300 Winchester Magnum, as described in ANSI/SAAMI Z299.4, small arms ammunition. The purchased quantity will be 40,000 rounds, with two options for 20,000 rounds, which may be exercised by the Government, based upon the need to maintain an on-hand supply, at minimum essential quantities.

Now I am not finished. A few weeks ago, on Aug 01, 2012 Solicitation Number TSBQ201200002 was made on behalf of The United States Capitol Police, Training Services Bureau to 600 cases of “165 Grain Gold Dot Hollow Point, 40 S & amp;W, 1,000/Case in 2 equal shipments of 300,000 rds. each. The first delivery no later than September 30, 2012 and second delivery no later than December 30, 2012.” In addition they ordered 200 cases of LE132, 12 ga, 00 Buck, 2 ¾", 9 pellets (250/case) and several other munitions batches for delivery no later than December 30, 2012.

The above information is public domain and doesn’t include the recent request by the Social Security Administration for 174,000 rounds of ammunition. Don’t know why NOAA, Social Security Administration or EPA need all of these bullets, but they want to stop me from buying in bulk. Seems that all of these are indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity (IDIQ) firm fixed price (FFP) contracts (meaning the Feds can activate the order at any time during the 5 year contract period). Most of the ammunition (.40 cal and .357 magnum rounds) are primarily handgun ammunition. Handgun is used for close combat situations and urban warfare operations where engagement of 40 feet or less is expected.

I firmly believe that all should have top shelf technology including me and that means automatic assault rifles. My uncle used to tell me if I had to use a handgun I was too close. The Batman and Sikh shootings with all the alleged home-made bombs and white supremacist connection just shows me the mainsteam media is involved in all of this too and trying to use Orwellian newspeak and propaganda to boogyman folks to give up the second amendment. Not me, I’d rather if I had to defend my self out here in the country miles away from police and people, open a clip instead of a one-shot at a time pistol or rifle. Both Franklin and Gandi were correct. Franklin when he said: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” And Mahatma Gandhiwho wrote: Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

Me, I will always ask If I can bring my gat accepting completely that what ever answer one provides, I will have already made my mind up.

Video: Health Epidemics, Germ Warfare & Civil Liberties

An Answer to Moivory’s question on Paul Ryan

It is more than evident that the diseases of misinformation as well as blatant disinformation have taken complete control of Americans in pandemic proportions resulting in vertiginous outcomes. This morning while in the truck I was listening to talk radio as usual. Given it was too late for NPR; I turned to WAOK, a radio station in Atlanta that only promotes talk radio programming.  Unfortunately this episode was all talk, little fact and even less substance. Listening to the host, Mo Ivory, it was reminiscent of something I had read by Daniel Foster. For listening to the host ramble on about Paul Ryan, Romney and President Obama was fit of his description of being “a mélange of relentlessly provocative half-insights garbled by ponderous jargon…delivered by a narrator who seems to delight in [their] unreliability.” For as like Conservative Talk Radio, she too was all venerate in her support of Obama as they are of Conservative stalwarts – since there was nothing said to inform an already dumbed down audience.

First there was the rant that suggested since Romney introduced Ryan as the next President, that it showed he was not prepared and unfit to be President. Although several callers correctly informed her that Obama did the same thing, she asked that they show her proof commenting that they are all hypotheticals and can’t back up what they with facts. Next she attacked a caller who correctly discussed capitalism without a political slant and she cut him off saying that he was trying to make it a republican and democratic issue (she has poor listening skills). After a few statements addressed to vilify Mr. Ryan, asserting that he had ran a state or a budget, another caller confronted her on this and indicated that neither had Obama, since he had not been a governor of a state or balanced a budget (both jobs off the governor). He was attacked as well and here logic then morphed into being in state politics.

None the less her question, which she never supported or answered was would Ryan be a benefit or liability for the November 2012 election. So to assist her I will provide a substantive argument to answer her query and suggest why Ryan will be a liability. I hope if she reads this it will assist her in the future.

If President Obama had any brains, Romney’s selection of Ryan as his running mate would be like a baseball set on a tee. First, his record or lack of record over a thirteen year career in government would be the ball. During the bush years, Ryan voted for and helped to pass Medicare part D (prescription drug benefit) which just happened to be the largest entitlement since the days of FDR and added trillions to the massively underfunded Medicaid/Medicare system.  He was also one of the twenty Republicans who voted for TARP and even pleaded for others in the GOP to follow suit.  Not only did he support the bailout of Wall Street but of the autoindustry as well.

During the Obama administration, many of the issues that most knowledgeable Americans which are so vehemently against and see as a threat to individual as I do – NDAA, ThePatriot Act and Funding for the Libyan war – he voted for and helped get passed. Which reminds me that also under the Bush administration, he voted for the war in Iraq without it being paid for as a supposed conservative fiscal hawk. These are actions that some in the Tea party will not forget or forgive and will likely isolate a majority of independent voters.

Now some may say I am wrong, that his affiliation with the former senator Jack Kemp will do him some good.  I think it will work against him.  See, I remember Jack Kemp, even remember seeing him on Monday Night football playing quarterback for the Buffalo Bills and the LA Rams before that.  He is the complete antithesis of Kemp.  To start with, It was Kemp who noted and informed conservative neocons that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and would only serve to weaken America economically and bea major waste of our resources.  Unlike Ryan, Kemp has been described by some as an “optimistic realist” who authored and passed legislation for years in the congress. Ryan over his tenure in Washington as authored or passed any major legislation on his own. Not to mention I can’t ever recall Jack Kemp ever voting for a tax increase then turn around and say he was against tax hikes – as Ryan’s record reveals.  Plus Jack Kemp looked out for the poor first and was inclusive of both the poor and minorities when authoring his legislation.

Even staying on his budget may be enough for Obama to pounce.  I won’t discuss the stuff most talk about (Medicare/Medicaid, cuts in education, head start and college aid), but will point out that it does include increasing Pentagon spending by $20 billion and overall it is just a plan for facilitating a plutocratic transfer of wealth.  On second thought maybe Obama should shy away from such since his economic proposals do the same? But if he does, he should attack his logic, for Ryan blames majorentitlement programs for our impending fiscal cliff and doesn’t even include the cost of unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (if I take him from what he said in his speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society).

If Obama wanted to play dirty, he could use the Reverend Wright card and hit below the belt for Ryan’s firm belief in the philosophical views of Ayn Rand. In her 1943 novel “The Fountain head” (if you all recall or ever read it), the in the end of the book the main character blows up a home for mentally retarded orphans.  If this is too low for Obama, then attack him on his profiting on insider information to avoid the 2008 crash.  According to an article published in the Richmonder Newspaper, Ryan was part of a closed door meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and other congressional leaders on September 18, 2008 that informed the congress of the impending economic collapse and to get them to pass the TARP legislation.  The article continues: “on that very same day Paul Ryan sold shares of stock he owned in several troubled banks, and reinvested the proceeds in Goldman Sachs, a bank that the meeting had disclosed was not in trouble.” They even provide a link of PDF files of his transactions.

Now I could continue but in summary, the point is that Obama should have no problem dealing with a Romney-Ryan ticket if he has half a brain. Thus he being selected as Romney’s running mate is more of a liability in the bigger picture than an asset.

Black Progressive is An Oxymoron

Seems it has become fashionable over the past four years for African Americans to consider themselves to be politically progressives as opposed to liberals. The way I have managed to understand progressivism, in simple terms is that it is a political ideology that states it desires better conditions in society that is rooted in early 20th century liberal philosophy. It is supposed to be a response to the impact of industrialization as well is a political philosophy in between the response taken by traditional conservatives and socialist to deal with social and economic issues. Naturally, it started in urban areas and was first championed by folk advocating egalitarian and liberal methods to reform socioeconomic policy.

Scholars have had a very difficult time defining Progressivism. Some have even grouped both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as Progressives even absent of any common ideological ground between the two. They even add Lyndon Johnson and now, Barack Obama in scope and aim.

For some oddly coherently dissonant reason (historical and philosophical), I find it implausible and oxymoronic for any African American to call themselves progressives.

I would advance that most describe themselves as such either because of the aforementioned adumbrated definition, or because they support President Obama and white democrats call him progressive. In the past I have often had to disabuse politically, what I comprehended about the progressive political orientation. Specifically that it is rooted in the concept of liberal internationalism as implemented first via the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States. Albeit not called such during the time of the imperialistic colonization of Africa, Wilson approach to the world (on behalf of the well-being of America) was immured to practices similar to what led to the enslavement of Africans and the subjugation of other world ethnic nationalities. This is the main reason I find African American progressive as a term, to be dysfunctional and improbable.

It assumes the false and contumelious Kantian Moral Imperative of exceptionalism that resulted in apartheid in South Africa and Nazism as well as the White Man’s Burden in Europe. The Progressive narrative in antithetical to the political philosophies of African Americans from a chronicled perspective and stresses a “muscular nationalism” designed to serve Americas well being only from a plutocrats perspective singularly internationally – meaning foreign policy is for the simple goal of protecting US national security (the wealthy). Ergo, the best national security involves advancing democracy abroad even by military force, regardless if nations desire such or not.

Back home, we have seen the pseud Darwinism of progressive politics from the attributing of race based cultural traits being antecedents for criminal behavior (Cesare Lombroso) and prior to that in the opinion of Chief Justice Roger B. Tanny who wrote in the Dred Scott ruling: that free blacks would always be “identified in the public [white folks] mind with the race which they belonged, and regarded as part of the slave population rather than free.”

True, Progressives began in response to political powers unwilling or unable to address the economic and social changes consequential of the industrial revolution in America; but somewhere it turned into a monster that overlooked liberty, self-determination, sovereignty and individual rights- all in complete contradiction of the struggles of African Americans from slavery to the civil rights movement. And just as then, Progressives today want the same things from safety to making sure that our political system is free from corruption. The problem is that they want all of this implemented by advancing American interests by a Hobbesian (warlordism) the internationalism that at the same time make positive-sum interactions almost impossible.

First progressives place America first and intentionally ignore that we live in a global world and not an isolated one. Thus they miss the bigger picture that most African Americans have traditionally observed, that declining living standards, weapons proliferation, deforestation and social injustice everywhere, especially when perpetrated by America, is a hazard and a danger to us all. This means that progressives applaud approaches put forth by men like Obama, Roosevelt, Truman and Wilson because simply put, their policy advocate that the United States knows what's right and what other should do -- all the US has to do insist that others snap into line. Thus both the left and right looks at other nations as objects of American foreign policy, rather than as being free agents themselves.

Now it seems in the age of Obama, even liberals support war under the cover of other attributes. The war in Libya was the progressive way to protect innocent civilians. President Obama is in many way similar to both Wilson and Roosevelt. This is why I assert that black and Progressive are incompatible just as freedom and ignorance, for progressives thrive and promulgate economic inequality for if it didn’t exist they would not be able to survive. This is the reason why the 99 percent exist, and why we find ourselves in wars in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and asking for one in Syria. The progressives do not send their kids off to war for a better life or struggle economically, they have it all, unlike most African Americans, even the ones who call themselves progressive.

Seattle Cop Takes Off Badge And Challenges Man At Crime Scene To Fight

US should think twice about Attacking Iran

Obama should think twice about Iran More and more each day appears that the US is inching its way closer to an armed conflict with Iran -- something I think will hurt the US more than Israel in the long term. All because the big bully on the block, Israel is purported to be “facing grave danger.” This is mainly being promoted by Zionist from everywhere this side of the Pecos River. My question is why do we have to defend Israel, a nation with the largest army and only nuclear arsenal in the region?
We all are well aware of the fact that Israel is no friend of Iran, or of any other Islamic and predominantly Arab state in the region. Thus, Israel is the one making trouble yet they want the present administration to decide to launch a pre-emptive war in what are probably the world’s most volatile environs.

If history is any guide, we should be very careful about deciding to attack Iran. Prior to WW 2 it was the Germans who convinced the "enlightened civilization" that it only wants to execute its rights. But one war led to another and country upon country was invaded including France, Belgium, Netherlands and other countries. Now it is Israel, and they will only be happy until all of the other Arab nations are not just a threat, but nonexistent for like Germany, their goal is not defensive but an aggressive offence to conquer the entirety of Middle East Asia.

True, it is hard to assess whether to “confront” or to “contain” Iran without examining more than 300 years of contemporary Iranian history, in concert with the history of conflict in the Middle East throughout modern times. Then we must decide and determine if possible what are we trying to prevent or contain them from doing? Otherwise we will formulate policy, which has become customary, based on anger, fear and hatred singularly. Even worse, one based on Israel must not be allowed to drive the world into chaos, just because it wants to. We need to protect AMERICA's interests, first, last, and always, and America's interests do not include shedding more blood for Israel or carrying their water for them. We lost too many American lives already to satisfy Israel's demands over Iraq. But, apparently, we have learned nothing from Iraq, and Israel doesn't care as long as they get their own way.

The only difference now is that the false flag of preventing a nation from self-determination in the form of developing nuclear capability is the issue. Albeit both the US and Israel have such capabilities and past history reveals that the US vowed that Pakistan or North Korea would never be allowed to possess Nuke. Why should it be different with Iran?

Factually, given our present quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan and our bombing of our present alley Pakistan daily, a confrontation with Iran would also last for years and possibly crush America's economy – especially for the average American. Thus any form of military intervention at all in Iran means that the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 plus for a gallon if a war breaks out in the Strait of Hormuz. We are already in a recession at best and depression at worse and hyperinflation is everywhere we look.

Next, we must try and anticipate what will happen as a function if either side wins. After WW II, half of Europe ended up being given to the Soviets. Then due to our wasteful war effort in Iraq, in essence we have succeeded nearly half of this state to Iran. For both of these operation we as a nation have nothing really to show for it, except ending up in bed with the most treacherous leaders in modern times the likes of Mubarak, Pavlavi, House of Saud, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Assad and yes, the Likud.

The current administration still has Kool-Aid pumping through its veins. Sure, they went into Libya and are now selling wolf tickets about Syria; but the US needs to think about these actions and the global political consequences. We need to stop demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down and cease the threats because it shows hypocrisy when we decide and shout to the world who we think should step down from the position of a head of a state, in particular when we aren’t prepared to remove that person. And talking about democracy when to suggest the aforementioned is in contradiction of our own values.

Also, who cares if Israel is our strongest ally in the region, forget a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: the US government should only have that strong of commitment to the US. If they don’t how we do our thing then stop giving them loot. We should stick to our guns that Netanyahu and Israel should use the 1967 borders should be a basis for negotiating of a Palestinian state. And for those who believe that Israel is our friend, they are not and only care about Israel first – even before the US unlike the US. In the past, they have attacked one of our naval ships, killed our sailors, spied on us, and treat us like a vassal state.

I say let’s us pack up the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and send them to Israel and let them fight their on war. If they do, and if Israel attacks, the United States may get drawn into a war that could set the Middle East further aflame and no telling how bad global markets will get.
Iran is a country of 80 million people, compared with about 30 million in Afghanistan or Iraq. Its territory of 1.65 million square kilometers, including deserts and rugged mountains, gives it impressive strategic depth compared to Israel, which exists on 20,000 square kilometers. Even to attack Iran by air, .Israel would have to strike Iran's four major nuclear sites. The most direct path to do so is across Jordan and Iraq. Will Jordan allow Israel to fly over? Then, Israeli pilots have to fly more than 1,600 kilometers refueling in the air, fighting off Iran's air defense, while attacking multiple underground sites at the same time.

Moreover, Iran is a major oil producer located right by the most critical petroleum and gas supply lines in the world, from the Strait of Hormuz in the south to the Caspian Sea in the north. I’m lost that military intervention is even being considered, because if it happens, it will introduce a whole new destabilizing reality into the Middle East.

And although the US will try not to have a land war, we can’t tell what will happen, or know the outcome. Will it be a war of attrition or an all-out invasion? We do know it will be long, money wasting, US war in the Middle East? We cannot forget that in Europe in 1914, a small and unexpected event began the First World War. Obama really needs to think carefully about this. The sad reality is if America and our national security and safety were placed first – we would not attack Iran. However, he has learned from Bush, who has had US in Iraq for more than 10 years and resulted in a sustained US military presence for 11 years an in Afghanistan as we speak.