After Beheading 100 People This Year, Saudi Arabia Joins U.N. Human Rights Council With U.S. Support Reply

This is beyond pathetic.

By Justin Salhani

Think Progress

President Barack Obama, right, meets with King Salman of Saudi Arabia in the Oval Office of the White House, on Friday, Sept. 4, 2015, in Washington.

The State Department has welcomed news that Saudi Arabia will head a U.N. Human Rights Council panel. Criticism has regularly been levelled at Saudi Arabia by human rights groups due to perennial human rights violations.

Saudi Arabia beheaded over 100 people this year through June. That’s already more than they beheaded in the entirety of 2014. The regime there is also known for its use of floggings and implementation of the death penalty against people convicted as minors. A group of U.N. experts called on Saudi Arabia as recently as this week to spare the nephew of a prominent Shia cleric from beheading and crucifixion. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is regularly the target of international rights groups’ critiques due to their complete disregard for international human rights standards on free speech, freedom of religion, and a plethora of other violations.

“Saudi Arabia … systematically discriminates against Muslim religious minorities, notably Twelver Shia and Ismailis,” a Human Rights Watch (HRW) 2015 report on Saudi Arabia reads. This development has been widely denounced by figures who see the appointment as a way for Saudi Arabia to justify their current practices.

READ MORE

Why Judges and Prosecutors Don’t Care If They’re Right Reply

By Matt Kaiser

AbovetheLaw.Com

Judge Alex Kozinski has written the preface for the latest edition of the Georgetown Law Journal’s Annual Review of Criminal Procedure.

Put simply, it’s a barn burner.

He lays out 12 views that are widely held by judges and lawyers to justify what happens in our criminal justice system — that forensic evidence is reliable, that juries follow jury instructions, that human memory is reliable, that the prosecution is at a disadvantage because of the burden of proof, that long sentences deter crime — and explains why there is substantial reason to doubt each of them based on what we know about the how the legal system actually works, what we’ve learned from empirical studies of how human brains function, and scientific literature casting doubt on much of what happens in the courtroom.

For example, on the reliability of forensic evidence, Kozinski quotes a piece in the journal Science that concludes that:

Spectrographic voice identification error rates are as high as 63%, depending on the type of voice sample tested. Handwriting error rates average around 40% and sometimes approach 100%. False-positive error rates for bite marks run as high as 64%. Those for microscopic hair comparisons are about 12% (using results of mitochondrial DNA testing as the criterion).

Another powerful Kozinski point is about jury instructions. More…

A Practical Solution: Run Police Departments Like Fire Departments Reply

Now, this is a reform that the far right and the far left should unite on behalf of.

By Tom Mullen

Huffington Post

Do you lie awake at night in constant fear a fire will break out and nothing will be done to put it out?

For the 99% of the population not suffering from pyrophobia or a similar neurosis, the answer to that question is “no,” even though firefighters aren’t patrolling the streets in their big red trucks. They still manage to arrive at the scene of a fire within minutes of an emergency call.

Why can’t police departments be run the same way?

If they were, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, and Sandra Bland would be alive today. All three encountered police doing what would be considered outlandish for any other institution charged with public safety: roaming the streets, looking for trouble.

No one had called 911 asking for protection from Scott, Gray or Bland. No judges had issued warrants for their arrests. All three were, at least at the time of their arrests, just walking or driving down the street, minding their own business. They were detained in what are generally considered “routine” but are in reality wholly unnecessary encounters with police.

There has been a lot of digital ink and warm air expended on whether these victims of tragedy were treated differently because of their race. There are compelling arguments on both sides of that question, but no practical solutions offered by anyone. At the end of these discussions there is invariably some vague reference to “more training” or bland platitudes. Everyone knows nothing will change.

I’m going to suggest a solution that will sound radical, even in a country that styles itself “the land of free.” Let’s get cops off the streets, unless responding to a 911 call or serving a warrant issued by a judge. Everyone would be freer and safer, including the police officers themselves.

This is by no means an anti-cop argument. The problem isn’t how they do their jobs; it’s the job we ask them to do. A free society shouldn’t be asking armed agents of the state to patrol the streets, keeping its citizens under 24/7 surveillance.

I haven’t seen any surveys, but I have a feeling that if you asked cops at random why they joined the force, very few would say it was to protect the public from broken tail lights or untaxed cigarettes. The men and women we want on this job join to protect the public from real crimes, like murder, assault, rape and robbery.

READ MORE

White House Unsurprisingly Will Not Pardon Edward Snowden Reply

No surprise here.

By Scott Shackford

Reason

At the White House’s “We the People” online petition system, 167,954 people demanded that the administration give domestic surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden a “full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs.”

Hope he's not too homesick.

The petition was filed in June 2013 and the White House has finally gotten around to responding, more than two years later. The short answer: LOL, NOPE! Here’s the long answer:

READ MORE

Would Somebody Please Bring Freedom & Democracy To America Reply

The resistance to the Pigs is the primary domestic issue we face in the United States.

By John Whitehead

PaulCraigRoberts.Org

Clearly, the language of freedom is no longer the common tongue spoken by the citizenry and their government. With the government having shifted into a language of force, “we the people” have been reduced to suspects in a surveillance state, criminals in a police state, and enemy combatants in a military empire. — John W. Whitehead

Drivers, Beware: The Costly, Deadly Dangers of Traffic Stops in the American Police State

By John W. Whitehead
July 28, 2015

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

The odds weren’t in Walter L. Scott’s favor. Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

If there is any lesson to be learned from these “routine” traffic stops, it is that drivers should beware.

READ MORE

Who Goes to Prison Due to Gun Control? Reply

An immensely important article from Anthony Gregory.

By Anthony Gregory

Independent Institute

Somehow, left-liberals have associated the cause of gun rights with white racism, when if anything it is gun control that has a racist legacy. In the United States, early gun laws targeted recently freed blacks, and open carry first became banned in California under Governor Ronald Reagan to disarm groups like the Black Panthers. Today, blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately subjected to humiliating stop-and-frisk searches in the name of gun control.

Perhaps the most telling data concerns the racial makeup of who goes to prison for gun violations. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, for Fiscal Year 2011, 49.6% of those sentenced to federal incarceration with a primary offense of firearms violations were black, 20.6% were Hispanic, and only 27.5% were white.

This is how gun laws actually work—those caught violating them go to prison. For the mere act of owning an illegal weapon—not necessarily for using it, not for threatening anyone with it, not for being irresponsible with it—people who have harmed no one are locked up in prison for years at a time. As with the rest of the criminal justice system, particularly the war on drugs, these laws disproportionately harm the poor and minorities. That is the inescapable reality of gun control.

It makes sense that blacks and others living in the inner city would rely more on private, illegal guns for self-defense. The police are unreliable at best in many of these communities. It also makes sense that minorities would be disproportionately hurt by these laws, because so many of the dynamics in play are the same as with the drug war—people are being punished for what they own, rather than what they have done to others; it is easier for police to go after those in poor neighborhoods than to search middle-class folks in nice neighborhoods; jurors approved by prosecutors tend to believe police testimony over the word of minority defendants; prosecutors tend to use discretion in possession crime cases that fall more painfully on the disenfranchised; public defenders offer inadequate services for those loads of court-appointed clients, and so forth.

READ MORE

Activist who burned Confederate flag charged with arson Reply

So if a white guy gets charged with arson for burning a Rainbow flag, and a black woman gets charged with arson for burning a Confederate, I guess that’s supposed to show how far we’ve come towards achieving equal (no) rights and equal (non) protection under the law.

KOAA

Manitou Springs – Patricia Cameron, 32, a member of a group of activists who burned a Confederate flag in Manitou Springs over the 4th of July weekend, has been charged with arson.  Video was posted online of the group gathering around a grill inside a pavilion, dousing the flag with lighter fluid and setting it on fire.  Manitou Springs  Police say Cameron was charged because the flag-burning posed a danger to people in the area and to city property.

Police say they’ve identified another member of the group, but haven’t been able to locate him.  A third member of the group remains unidentified.

The ‘Liberal’ Police State: It’s Here, It’s Now Reply

By Justin Raimondo

Antiwar.Com

Wesley Clark, the retired general who almost started World War III with Russia, has a bright idea: why not set up internment camps for “radicalized” Americans in order to stanch the threat of domestic terrorism?

Yes, he actually said this, and, what’s more, MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts didn’t even raise a well-manicured eyebrow. The interview took place in the context of MSNBC’s reporting on the Chattanooga shooting, and Roberts asked him what could be done to prevent such incidents. Here is Clark’s answer:

“We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don’t get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn’t feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.

“But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.

“So, if these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.”

Gen. Clark isn’t a fascist, or a Fox News fire-breather: he’s a conventional liberal. He was a critic of the Iraq war, a favorite of the Daily Kos/Netroots Nation-types, and he once ran for President. Thankfully his campaign never did get off the ground.

READ MORE

40th Anniversary of Pine Ridge Shootout 1

By Ed Krayewski

Reason

Today is the 40th anniversary of the June 26, 1975, shootout at Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota between two FBI agents who drove in with unmarked cars and several members of the American Indian Movement (AIM), a Native American rights group operating out of the reservation at the time. Both FBI agents were wounded by gunfire before appearing to be shot execution-style, and a member of AIM, Joseph Stuntz, was also fatally shot. The FBI never investigated his killing but reports he was “apparently shot by a law enforcement officer at the scene” during the shootout.

Despite having a population of just 12,000, there were more murders in Pine Ridge in the two years before the shootout than in the rest of the state of South Dakota combined. Three years ago, the FBI resolved to reinvestigate 45 homicides contemporary tribal leaders say remain unresolved. In the 1970s, many of the unsolved murders were attributed to the “Guardians of the Oglala Nation” (GOON) squad, a vigilante-like group organized by the tribal chair, Dick Wilson. AIM and others blamed Wilson, a “progressive” (as opposed to the “traditionalists” of the AIM), for the campaign against “traditional people,” and accused him of widespread corruption, not uncommon in tribal governments at the time.

READ MORE

California State Assembly passes resolution equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism Reply

The Zionist wing of totalitarian humanism strikes!

By Annie Robbins and Matthew Taylor

Mondoweiss

School’s out, but that didn’t stop California’s state assembly from passing Resolution HR35 buttressing a controversial report commissioned by the University of California that accuses students and faculty of contributing to an environment fostering anti-Semitism on campus.

The report’s recommendations, which seek to limit criticism of Israeli state policies as a form of “hate speech”, have been criticized as an assault on academic freedom and an attempt to limit student and faculty’s first amendment rights to free speech.

There was no debate by lawmakers prior to approval, nor was Israel even mentioned during the introduction of the resolution.

AP:

An Assembly resolution urging California colleges and universities to squelch nascent anti-Semitism also encouraged educators to crack down on demonstrations against Israel, angering advocates for Muslim students.

With no debate, lawmakers on Tuesday approved a resolution that encourages university leaders to combat a wide array of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel actions.

…….

The Assembly’s actions also drew criticism from free speech advocates. Carlos Villarreal, director of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, called the resolution irresponsible and dangerous because it combines legitimate condemnations of acts of intimidation and hate with specific objections to tactics used to support the Palestinian people.

– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/california-state-assembly-passes-resolution-equating-criticism-of-israel-with-hate-speech#sthash.My10E1jZ.dpuf

The Deep State 1

My recent interview with Richard Spencer at Radix Journal concerning the surveillance state.

Listen here.

NOTES:
Rand Paul’s Stand
Section 215 of Patriot Act expires
The unprounceable name formerly known as Blackwater
Keith Preston on Rand Paul
Rand Paul signs Tom Cotton’s stupid Iran letter
Paul visits Israel
Paul meets with Rupert Murdoch and Al Sharpton
Jack Hunter, “Just Playing the Game
Spencer and Gottfried, The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement
Obama and Goldman Sach
Casualties in Iraq
Fight terror, go shopping!
Fourth-Generation Warfare
John Robb
William S. Lind
Martin Van Creveld
The Peace of Westphalia
Moderate Rebels
Carl Schmitt and the Exception
Church Committee
General Casey: “And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

A Conversation with President Obama and The Wire Creator David Simon Reply

“The way we treat non-violent drug crimes is problematic, and from a fiscal perspective, it’s breaking the bank.”

“It’s draconian, and it doesn’t work,” Simon told the president.

That was “The Wire” creator David Simon in a video posted to the White House YouTube channel about the war on drugs. Simon and President Barack Obama engaged in a candid, personal conversation.

Simon spent years as a Baltimore police reporter before he began writing for TV. His experience makes him uniquely qualified to have this kind of discussion.

There was something special about this meeting. After all, it’s not everyday that a sitting president invites someone to the White House to criticize a 44-year-old national policy.

READ MORE

It Begins! Montana Man Being Prosecuted for ‘Hate Speech’ and Holocaust Denial 1

By Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Reason

Via Volokh Conspiracy, a disturbing criminal case out of Montana, where Flathead County resident David Lenio, 28, is being prosecuted for making disparaging remarks about Jews on Twitter and denying that the Holocaust happened.

Say what? While this sort of prosecution is common in parts of Europe, Americans enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, which contains no exception for what’s colloquially known as “hate speech.” The only permitted exceptions to free speech protections—as the Supreme Court recently re-articulated—are for obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and “speech integral to criminal conduct.”

As Eugene Volokh explains, defamation law is generally “limited to false factual assertions. It requires a showing that the speaker knows the statement is false, and isn’t just mistaken (reasonably or not). And it requires a statement about a particular person.”

But under Montana’s ridiculously broad defamation statute, “defamatory matter is anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society or injury to the person’s or its business or occupation.” And anyone who “communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation.”

READ MORE

The Redemption of Rand Paul: He stands almost alone against the Surveillance State Reply

By Justin Raimondo

Antiwar.Com

If one of the very worst provisions of the Patriot Act – which the government has erroneously and illegally interpreted to gather the phone records of each and every American – expires, we’ll have Senator Rand Paul to thank.

And the truth is, we can’t thank him enough.

Yes, I’ve been critical of the Senator in this space and elsewhere, and yet with this brave stance – and up against a veritable storm of disdain and contempt from the Washington cognoscenti – he has in large part redeemed himself.

With everyone from the President to John McCain and Lindsey Graham attacking Sen. Paul for supposedly “endangering” the national security, the Senator has not only stood his ground but he’s also articulated the libertarian position on the utter impermissibility of what our government is doing and its dire implications for the future of our republic:

“Forcing us to choose between our rights and our safety is a false choice and we are better than that as a nation and as a people,” Paul tweeted. “It’s why I have been seeking for months to have a full, open and honest debate on this issue – a debate that never came.

“Let me be clear: I acknowledge the need for a robust intelligence agency and for a vigilant national security. I believe we must fight terrorism, and I believe we must stand strong against our enemies. But we do not need to give up who we are to defeat them. In fact, we must not. There has to be another way. We must find it together. So tomorrow, I will force the expiration of the NSA illegal spy program.”

READ MORE

Another Surveillance Law: One More Step towards the Big Brother State Reply

By Dr. Sean Gabb

The Barrister, May 2012

At the beginning of April 2012, the BBC and a couple of newspapers reported that the British Government was considering a new surveillance law. This would allow it to monitor the telephone calls, text messages, e-mails and website visits of everyone in the United Kingdom. There was a flurry of debate about civil rights and the need to protect us all against terrorists. There was a side argument between those who said the law was required by the European Union, and those who said it would be in breach of European Union law. Since then, the various debates have gone quiet. Possibly, the Ministers have decided to drop the matter. More likely, the initial leak was to soften us up for something less ambitious to be announced in the Queen’s Speech. The Ministers will say they have “listened” to our concerns – and will use the lesser measure they had in mind all the time as a precedent for moving to the full measure in later stages. This being so, whether greater or lesser, another step will have been taken to a Big Brother police state.
More…

Rand Paul and the Tripartisan Case for Optimism Reply

By Lucy Steigerwald

Antiwar.Com

On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) “filibustered” for more than ten hours against the PATRIOT Act, the USA Freedom Act, and myriad government violations of the Fourth Amendment. He also daringly added some blistering critiques of the US prison state and its racial disparities. He mentioned civil asset forfeiture and parallel construction. He read from articles by Judge Andrew Napolitano, journalist Radley Balko, and writers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He talked about Richard Jewell, Japanese internment, and other historical proof that innocent until proven guilty takes a lot of vacation days in America. In short, Rand said a lot of things that were true and necessary to say.

In his efforts to let section 215 of PATRIOT expire (as it is set to do on June 1), Paul was backed by a bipartisan team of Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), with a few other senatorial guest stars popping in as well – mostly Democrats, it turns out! (Sens. Cruz and Rubio took their time to show up, but appeared for a victory lap.)

You might note that the word filibuster is in quotes above. There was some debate over whether Paul’s chattiness actually construed an official filibuster, since the senator interrupted a trade debate, not the actual debate over the sunshining aspects of USA PATRIOT. And the fact that Paul stopped talking minutes before midnight seemed to puzzle even the knowledgeable folks of twitter, so it is not just me not getting the master plan at work here.

READ MORE

Black Officials Fleece Ferguson’s Neighboring Town 1

Everything will be better when we’ve achieved racial equality among the leadership of the police state, right?

By Justin Glawe

The Daily Beast

Hope for change in Mike Brown’s hometown lies with voters, but just changing the color of government isn’t enough: Just look down the road.
Ferguson, Missouri, voters head to the polls Tuesday with a chance to overthrow the white City Council and all those who answer to it who have been blamed for keeping the town’s black residents broke and scared of police.

But it’s far from certain that a Ferguson City Council with more black members will change how the city is run. Black leaders may not necessarily mean better lives for black residents, a fact of life that anyone from Detroit or Newark could tell you about.

You don’t have to peer all the way to Motown to see this. In fact, all you have to do is look five miles down the road from Ferguson to Pine Lawn, Missouri.

READ MORE

How the Police Became Aristocrats Reply

By Paul Craig Roberts and John Whitehead

During the time that Western legal norms were evolving in the direction of equality under law, which means the application of the same laws to all social classes, aristocrats answered to different laws than did commoners. Some offenses were not punished at all and others had lighter penalties. Holding everyone, including the government, to account to the same law was an achievement.

In The New Color Line and in The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Lawrence Stratton and I have written about how this achievement is being lost. For example, quotas and special privileges for “preferred minorities” on the one hand and harsher prison sentences for “preferred minorities” on the other hand.

In the article below, John W. Whitehead explains how the police have elevated themselves above the law and are as unaccountable to the laws that apply to the rest of us as aristocrats once were.

In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much

By John W. Whitehead

Police officers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be held financially accountable for their actions.—Law professor Joanna C. Schwartz (paraphrased)
“In a democratic society,” observed Oakland police chief Sean Whent, “people have a say in how they are policed.”

Unfortunately, if you can be kicked, punched, tasered, shot, intimidated, harassed, stripped, searched, brutalized, terrorized, wrongfully arrested, and even killed by a police officer, and that officer is never held accountable for violating your rights and his oath of office to serve and protect, never forced to make amends, never told that what he did was wrong, and never made to change his modus operandi, then you don’t live in a constitutional republic.

You live in a police state.

READ MORE

Criminal justice is so broken, Democrats and Republicans are working together to fix it Reply

The one thing the Red Tribe and the Blue Tribe agree on is that the police state is out of control. What does that say about the System’s level of perniciousness?

The U.S. accounts for just 5 percent of the world’s population, but it houses more than 20 percent of its prisoners. Now groups on opposite sides of the political spectrum are working together to overhaul the country’s criminal justice system. Judy Woodruff learns more about the Coalition for Public Safety from Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress and Mark Holden of Koch Industries.

Few Conservatives Take Police Abuses Seriously Reply

By Conor Friedorsdorf

The Atlantic

There is overwhelming evidence of widespread civil-rights violations and unlawful brutality. Yet the movement’s reflex is still to ignore or deny the problem.

Nearly a quarter century ago, the libertarian magazine Reason published an essay on civil unrest suffused with an insight that movement conservatism still hasn’t grasped. Then-editor Virginia Postrel was writing in the wake of the Los Angeles riots of 1992. “What caused the riots?” she asked. “How do we prevent them from recurring?” She agreed with law-and-order voices of that era that a dearth of conscience and empathy were factors. “Only people without empathy could drag people out of their cars and beat them within an inch of their lives,” she wrote. “Only people without empathy could burn and loot the lives and dreams of their neighbors.” But she went on to observe that a small criminal element preys on South Los Angeles every day whereas riots occur once in a generation. Rottenness may have been necessary to explain the beating of Reginald Denny or the terror inflicted on small business owners, but it wasn’t sufficient to explain such mayhem.

READ MORE

Sharpton’s Progressivism is Authoritarian Nationalism Reply

Al Sharpton’s calls for a federalizing local police represents the latest trend in totalitarian humanism.

By David S. D’Amato

Center for a Stateless Society

In his call for the nationalization of police forces, Al Sharpton perfectly encapsulates the mainstream left — frequently dead on target in the diagnosis, yet prescribing a remedy that would only exacerbate the infection. The problems Sharpton identifies, persistent police abuse, unaccountability, and distance between the police and the policed, are the results of a forced monopoly system, one in which arbitrary power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of law enforcement and court officials.

Nationalization would compound these problems by even further centralizing power, increasing the distance (both literally and figuratively) between policing decision-makers and policed communities, and eliminating the checks and balances generated by allowing people to “vote with their feet.” Instead of municipal monopolies providing defense services, which have proven themselves dangerous enough, Sharpton would subject Americans to a single federal police force, echoing Barack Obama’s ominous call for a “civilian national security” force back in 2008.

Sharpton’s proposed remedy shows the mainstream left’s true colors, rooted in the nationalistic, essentially fascist politics of the Progressive Era.

READ MORE

Baltimore ‘Bloods’ and ‘Crips’ Call Truce and Unite To Fight Police Brutality 2

CountercurrentNews.Com

In a move reminiscent of the Los Angeles gang truce during the Rodney King protests, Baltimore area Bloods and Crips have agreed to put aside their rivalry and focus on fighting rogue police officers.

Last Saturday, both Bloods and Crips marched side by side in the Baltimore rallies against police brutality. Putting aside differences, both groups united in one voice to demand “Justice for Freddie Grey.”

Reports among members indicate that members of the Nation of Islam organization brokered the truce, much the same as happened in Los Angeles two decades ago.

“I can say with honesty those brothers demonstrated they can be united for a common good,” Carlos Muhammad, a minister at Nation of Islam’s Mosque No. 6 said.

“At the rally, they made the call that they must be united on that day. It should be commended,” he continued.

“We can unite and stop killing one another, and the Bloods and the Crips can help rebuild their community,” Muhammad said in an interview with the The Daily Beast.

A community organizer, DeRay McKesson, confirmed the ceasefire between the groups.

“The fight against police brutality has united people in many ways that we have not seen regularly, and that’s really powerful,” McKesson said.

“The reality is, police have been terrorizing black people as far back as we can remember. It will take all of us coming together to change a corrupt system,” he added.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake acknowledged the peace-brokering efforts of the Nation of Islam, singling them out specifically for helping to stop the violence in the community.

“I want to also thank the Nation of Islam, who have been very present in our efforts to keep calm and peace in our city,” she stated.

The mayor had nothing to say, however, about their criticisms of police violence.