Saturday, September 24, 2016

Ex-Convicts Shot In Tulsa and N.Carolina had long History of Violent Crimes



Terence Crutcher was shot and killed on Sept. 16 in an officer-involved shooting in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Since then, the media have tried to push a false narrative that Crutcher had his hands up when he was shot — but video evidence, as it often does in these cases, disproved the media’s theory.

There’s also more information that the mainstream media conveniently left out.

Crutcher had a hefty criminal record before he was shot. In fact, he had just been released in May after nine years in prison for drug trafficking, He also had a history of resisting arrest. Behold the rap sheet:

1996 Shooting with intent to kill — Dismissed
2001 Petit larceny — Conviction
2004 Driving while suspended — Conviction
2005 Driving while suspended, resisting officer — Conviction
2006 Driving while suspended — Conviction
Driving with open container — Dismissed
2006 Trafficking in illegal drugs — Conviction. (He was also charged in that incident with assault on a police officer and resisting, but that was dismissed.)
2011 Public intoxication (while in prison for drug trafficking) — Conviction
2012 Public intoxication — Conviction
Obstructing an officer — Conviction
2013 DUI — Conviction
Resisting officer — Conviction
Open Container — Conviction
Failure to wear seatbelt — Conviction
Speeding — Conviction

But even all of that was not all.


Take a look at the numerous open warrants for Crutcher. There were 30 warrants active at the time of his death.

They included things like DUI, resisting, drug trafficking and public intoxication.


The media are actively pushing the narrative that Crutcher had his hands up and that the police shot him anyway.

We’ve heard this lie peddled by the media before, in the Michael Brown case, and clearly the obtuse media didn’t learn a thing.
Now, you watch that video and listen to the commentary. Did it look to you like Crutcher was following commands? You can hear an officer say that Crutcher was “still walking” and that he wasn’t “following commands.” Another officer said that he “could be on something.”

As you can see, Crutcher was not shot with his hands up. He was clearly flouting officer orders, and at the time of his shooting he lowered his right hand toward his waistband.

Oh, and by the way, the media have run with the story that Crutcher was unarmed, but didn’t seem too interested in the PCP that was found in his car and that the Tulsa Police Department officer who shot Crutcher, Betty Shelby, was trained to spot PCP abuse, according to Bearing Arms.

In any of these cases, the legal system should be given time to do its job, but the media have decided to run false narratives that fit their agenda without all the facts and, in some cases, despite the facts.

As you can see above, there’s clearly more to the story.

Keith Scott is was also an Ex-Con with a violent criminal past.

Report: Charlotte’s Keith Scott Had History of Violence Including Arrest for Shooting At Police…

According to a story in The Christian Times, who they claim verified with The Charlotte Observer, Keith Lamont Scott had a two decades long history of gun violence, including an arrest/conviction for shooting at police officers in Texas.   The New York Times has previously reported on his troubled past but not the 2005 shooting at police incident:
(Via NYT) […] According to court records, Mr. Scott was born in South Carolina, was about six feet tall and weighed 230 to 250 pounds. While living in South Carolina in the 1990s, he was charged with a number of offenses including check fraud, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. Later, he moved to Texas where he shot and wounded a man in San Antonio in 2002, for which he was convicted and sentenced, in 2005, to seven years in prison. He was released in 2011. (link)
The Charlotte Observer also reported on Scott’s extensive criminal career –SEE HERE– and we did independently identify a criminal record in Texas – SEE HERE – which aligns with all of these reports.
nc-riot-19-keith-scott(Via Christian Times) Keith Scott had a long police record that included gun violations. Christian Times Newspaper has learned,and it has been confirmed by the Charlotte Observer, that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County, and other charges were dismissed: including felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, assault on a female, and communicating threats.  Scott was also charged with assault with intent to kill in 1995.  
The most shocking find in Scott’s record, however, is what occurred in Bexar County, Texas in 2005.  In March of that year, Scott was sentenced to 15 months in state prison for evading arrest, and in July, he was consecutively sentenced to seven years on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Sources are now coming forward and alleging that those two separate convictions are in fact related, and they both have to do with a confrontation between Scott and Bexar County Police in early 2005.
One source, who asked CTN to refrain from using her name to protect her identity, told reporters that Scott fired a handgun at San Antonio police officers when they attempted to detain him in February 2005 after noticing that he was driving erratically.  (Scott had a history of drunk driving, according to court records).
Allegedly, as the officers approached Scott’s black Ford sedan, he fired two rounds from the driver’s seat and then sped away.  Neither of the officers was hit, and they proceeded to give chase and detain Scott several blocks away.
While Scott did leave the gun in his passenger’s seat when he attempted to run on-foot, he did, according to our source, assault one officer by punching him in the face.
Scott was released from Texas state prison in 2011. In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011.  (more)
An initial sentence of 15 months (March 2005) that gained an additional sentence of 7 more years (July 2005), that took until 2011 to complete, definitely aligns with a much more serious set of charges.
A long history of gun violence – HERE and HERE – including shooting at police?
If accurate, those reports when combined with the eye witness who took pictures of the handgun dropped by Keith Scott when shot by police officers (see above and below), the account of the Charlotte police department appears to be validated..




.












Sunday, September 18, 2016

Why Does The Left Hate Israel?




Respectable opinion knows which side wears the black hats in this conflict.
What is it about Israel that arouses so much anger? Is it because it’s a theocratic state, committed to destroying its neighbour, which uses civilians as human shields, tortures and kills its political opponents, persecutes homosexuals, and holds freedom of speech and the rule of law in contempt?

No, hang on, that’s Hamas. No matter how appallingly they treat their own people and how many innocents they blow up, shoot or kidnap, nothing can damage their image in the left's eye.
 Israel can’t even protect its own people without drawing criticism. Israel is like the older brother who is expected to know better. His younger siblings can run riot, because they’re held to different standards, but big bro should sit there quietly, no matter how many times he takes a kicking.

Not that the media does much reporting on the kicking Israel receives. It would much rather lament the significantly higher Palestinian losses, as if they automatically put Israel in the wrong and let Hamas off the hook for striking the first blow. Israel, it seems, should show restraint that no one would realistically expect of Hamas if it possessed the same military might. The relativists who see no moral difference between a liberal democracy and a terrorist regime have no problem expecting the two sides to behave differently.

One thing’s for sure, if it was just another flyblown Islamic hellhole, Israel would get a much easier ride on the world stage. More blood is typically shed each year in Somalia, Pakistan and Nigeria than in Gaza, but outrage at those horrors pales beside the indignation Israel’s actions provoke. Heads are buried, standards doubled and blind eyes turned to provide an excuse for bashing the country everybody loves to hate.

So is this just about anti-Semitism? It is certainly rife in the Arab world, and long-standing critics of Israel probably pick up a little Jew-hatred along the way. But I don’t think it’s at the heart of Western, liberal antipathy. If anti-Semitism were to blame, it would be directed at Israel wherever it was in the world. Yet it’s hard to imagine it having as much trouble with its neighbours, or attracting as much hatred, if it were a European state. The chances are it would be another Switzerland, and would arouse the same amount of ill-feeling.

The fact is that when it comes to Israel, nobody seems to be interested in the truth. No one cares that it gave up the lands it seized during the Yom Kippur War, in the hope of securing peace. Nor that it gifted the Palestinians 3,000 greenhouses, opened border crossings and encouraged trade. Nor that the Gazans responded by destroying the greenhouses and electing a government committed to eradicating the Jews, which has fired thousands of rockets into Israel, and digs tunnels under Israeli territory from which to launch surprise attacks.

No one cares that Israel gives Gazans advance warning of raids, while Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians. Nor that Hamas places its weapons in schools, mosques, hospitals and private homes, to maximise the chance of civilian casualties. Nor that Israel arrested those guilty of murdering a Palestinian youth, and offered reparations to the victim’s family, while Hamas did nothing to capture or punish the killers of three Israeli teenagers. Nor that no Israeli soldiers are actually based in Gaza, despite talk of an ‘occupying force’ by Hamas apologists

No one takes these facts into account because they are unhelpful to the narrative propagated by the pro-Palestinian Left – namely, that this is a battle between a strong, macho oppressor and a weak, downtrodden underdog, which leftists can feel virtuous about supporting.

Israel is a distillation of everything leftists hate about Western nations: capitalist, conservative and fiercely patriotic. It is a projection of their own prejudices about the supposed injustices of societies that cherish the ‘wrong’ values and the ‘wrong’ people. They don’t share the Palestinians’ spiritual beliefs, but they share a common enemy. Indeed, if Israel was removed from the equation, its critics would have little good to say about Gaza or Hamas. Theirs is a marriage of convenience.

The Left’s use of the Israeli-Arab situation as a platform for moral preening, and as a metaphor for its own hang-ups, blinds it to the evils of Hamas and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seems oblivious to the ideological conflict between Islamic fundamentalists and Western progressives, because it persists in regarding the former as pet victims of the latter. It may discover the hard way that it is giving comfort to an enemy that makes no distinction between liberal hand-wringers and any other infidels.                  

By Russell Taylor

The Left Hate Israel Because It Is Everything They Despise: Capitalist, Conservative and Patriotic



Saturday, September 03, 2016

Kaepernick is an Idiot


As a first amendment absolutist I support Colin Kaepernick's right to make whatever statement he wants about his political beliefs. But since I'm a full bore proponent of the marketplace of ideas, I also feel very comfortable saying this --
Kaepernick is a f#cking idiot.

Let me explain.

Here is what Colin Kaepernick said about his decision not to stand for the national anthem during last night's preseason game.

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

First, who is getting away with murder? That's a strong accusation. Who in particular has committed murder in this country and not been charged with it? If you're going to make this statement then you need to give us particulars that motivate your decision and your beliefs. I don't want bland generalities, I want specifics here. If you feel strongly enough to refuse to "stand up to show pride in a flag," then you need to have some basis for your decision. So far Kaepernick has shown none. Indeed, his Twitter feed is a hodgepodge of unintelligible retweets of random, often incorrect, Internet articles that have no coherent connection. In typical social justice warrior, PC bromani fashion, Kaepernick has chosen to make his voice heard in a way that pretty much only draws attention to him and does nothing to make any situation better. That's fine, but what exactly is Kaepernick proving by making this point?

Moreover, why, in his sixth season in the NFL, did he suddenly decide that the country is oppressing black people and people of color. Presumably the country's black president didn't make a decision this year to suddenly lead a country into systemic oppression of black people. So what has suddenly changed that made him willing to stand for five years for the national anthem and unwilling to stand this year? He needs to offer a reasonable explanation for what has changed that led to his decision to stop supporting the country's anthem.

Again, I support Kaepernick's right to voice his political opinion -- a robust and uninhibited first amendment is what makes this country great -- but if you're going to demand that your voice be heard, you better be able to explain why you want your voice to be heard when we give you the attention you're demanding. Kaepernick's explanation is a bland and cliche-riddled statement lacking in specificity or direct connection to any tangible goal. This isn't Ali standing up to the Vietnam War or athletes demanding equal treatment under the law during the civil rights movement, it's an absurd attention-seeking statement with no substance behind it.

Once you make the decision to enter the marketplace of ideas, in my opinion, you're obligated to put forward a coherent reason for your decision-making if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, I can feel free, thanks to this same first amendment that you're using to gain attention, to pronounce you a daft prima donna whose football talents have so deteriorated you aren't even capable of beating out Blaine freaking Gabbert to be quarterback. As if that weren't enough I can also say that based on your Twitter feed you look like a lost and psychologically unstable individual.  

Second, what does the United States do to oppress black people? I'm not being obtuse with this question, what tangible decisions does the United States government -- currently helmed by a black man as president and a black woman as head of the justice department -- make that oppress black people and other people of color? I want actual governmental actions that legally treat black people differently in a negative fashion and that Kaepernick feels need to be changed. Again, once you demand that your voice be heard in this fashion, you need to explain what you want changed. I don't want bullshit generalities, I want specific issues that have so troubled you that you feel the need to stop standing for the national anthem for the first time in your six year NFL career.

Because when I review federal law, what I see is the exact opposite of black oppression. Everyone is treated as equally as they possibly can be by the federal government. There is no systemic racism in our federal government. In fact, affirmative action is actually a governmental attempt to treat black people unequally -- that is more favorably than other people -- solely because of their race. If anything, the United States government's laws discriminate in favor of black people based on their skin color. I'm open to hearing what systemic oppression Kaepernick believes the United States government is undertaking and what he believes need to be redressed. But he has provided none of these specifics so far. If you want me to treat your opinions with respect, you need to provide opinions worthy of respect. Not just insipid generalities.  

Third, once you make a political statement like this your own life becomes worthy of discussion and analysis. Kaepernick was raised by two white parents after his own birth parents weren't willing or able to raise him themselves. If the country is fundamentally racist, doesn't the fact that two white people chose to raise an abandoned black child offer persuasive evidence that his analysis of the country's racial composition is overly broad and not supported by his own life experience? Moreover, Colin Kaepernick received a free college education based on his football talents and he's currently being paid over $19 million this year. Last year he made over $20 million. If that's governmental oppression, sign me up.

Fourth, Kaepernick has put his team, his coaches, and his organization directly in the firing line based upon his political statement. Every single teammate and coach will be asked about his refusal to stand for the national anthem. Already the 49ers organization has had to issue an official statement that disagrees with Kaepernick's stance:

"The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose and participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem."

As if that weren't enough, Kaepernick, despite being paid over $19 million, is currently being beaten out by Blaine Gabbert to be the starting quarterback for the 49ers this year. It would be one thing if Kaepernick had made this statement as one of the top quarterbacks in the league -- which at one point he was -- instead this just looks like the desperate and unsubstantiated rantings of someone who is aware he will soon fall back into football oblivion. What's more, this also gives him a convenient excuse if he's benched or released by the 49ers, they did this based on my political opinions, not based on my talent. Maybe that will make him feel better when he's unemployed, but it shouldn't.

Fifth, whether or not you believe that the national anthem should play before sporting events -- I've personally always found it strange that pro sporting events, which are just entertainment, play the national anthem before games. After all, we don't play the national anthem before movies. -- your decision not to stand has been defended by countless soldiers of all races who have lost their lives defending your rights to make millions of dollars playing a game for a living. Many of those same soldiers, of all races, religions and creeds, are fans of your team or your league. When you choose to make a political statement that directly attacks what they defend, you better be really damn sure that you're offering a coherent political statement that advances a cause worthy of the lives that have been lost to give you the right to disrespect the country.

And the sad truth is this -- Colin Kaepernick's decision not to stand for the national anthem, at least thus far, isn't supported by any actionable or coherent political belief or tangible call to action. Worse than that, it's not just an insult to many people in this country, it's an insult to anyone with a working brain.

Put simply, Colin Kaepernick is a fucking idiot.

By Clay Travis

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

"If you are an Israel Hater you are an Antisemite" MLK JR.

Alan Dershowitz OWNS the Anti-Jews in this debate covering  BDS



Irv Rubin and Earl Krugel

Never Again!


website page counter