Chicago Police are Better at Surveilling Law Abiding People than Protecting Them: 109 shot, 19 Fatally Last Weekend as Cops Set Records for Unlawful Stops and Searches of Black People in Liberal City

/

From [HERE] One hundred and nine people were shot, 19 fatally, in gun violence across Chicago from midnight Wednesday to midnight Monday during the extended Fourth of July holiday weekend, police said.

CPD Supt. Larry Snelling and Mayor Brandon Johnson both called for accountability for those responsible for the shootings during a press conference on Monday.

"This is a choice. The choice to kill. The choice to kill women, the choice to kill children, the choice to kill the elderly. These are choices that the offenders made and they calculated," Johnson said. "We are holding every single individual accountable for the pain and from the torment that they have caused in this city."

Snelling said adjustments were made after the Fourth of July heading into the weekend, including canceling officers' days off, but ultimately, he said, they need communities to come forward. [MORE]

Ben Crump Calls for Justice after Hotel Guards Murdered D'vontaye Mitchell by Smothering Black Man to Death [unlike cops, security can be fired, have no immunity or Authority to Use Force Offensively]

/

From [HERE] After the killing of a Wisconsin man who was held down outside a hotel by multiple security officers during a mental health emergency, leading civil rights attorney Ben Crump joined the family of the slain man in calling on authorities to deliver justice.

D’vontaye Mitchell, 43, was killed on 30 June during an encounter with security personnel at the Hyatt Regency hotel in downtown Milwaukee, NBC News reported. No one has been charged in connection with the case, and police reportedly indicated that they were not even conducting a criminal investigation for the time being.

The hotel is one of the three main venues for the Republican national convention, which is taking place in Milwaukee from 15 to 18 July.

“I know the national media is going to be coming and covering a lot of stuff related to the convention,” Crump said during Monday’s press conference about Mitchell’s killing. “A major part of the narrative needs to be justice and … justice in Milwaukee for D’Vontaye Mitchell.”

Video of Mitchell’s final moments showed four hotel security guards holding him down. Mitchell was experiencing a mental health crisis, according to Crump, and one of the guards appears to be kneeling on his body.

In the video, Mitchell is heard grunting and screaming for help. He was later pronounced dead by first responders who were summoned to the hotel.

The Milwaukee county medical examiner’s office has since determined that Mitchell’s preliminary manner of death was a homicide, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The Milwaukee police department told the Journal Sentinel that they are not conducting a criminal investigation at this time.

In a statement, representatives of Hyatt said the hotel had suspended the employees involved in Mitchell’s killing while it conducted an internal investigation.

“We extend our heartfelt condolences to Dvontaye Mitchell’s family, all those who knew and loved him, and the Milwaukee community in light of this tragedy,” the statement said. “Hotels franchised under Hyatt’s brands are required to comply with Hyatt’s mandatory safety and security standards and ensure that the hotel is a safe and secure environment for guests, colleagues and the public.

“As the investigation continues, Hyatt is fully committed to supporting efforts to help ensure accountability for the circumstances that led to the death of Dvontaye Mitchell.”

Lawyers representing Mitchell’s family said his death was reminiscent of the killing of George Floyd, a Black man who was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer who kneeled on his neck for nine and a half minutes in 2020. Floyd’s murder – captured on video – ignited street protests worldwide.

On Monday, Crump and Mitchell’s family held a press conference outside the hotel, demanding that the killing not be “swept under the rug” with the convention set to bring thousands to Milwaukee, the Journal Sentinel reported.

Miami Garden Police Fail to Articulate Any Specific Facts to Justify Their Murder of Daniel Lewis- Black Man Shot w/o Warning in His Backyard by Undercover Cops from a Unmarked Black Car, 30 Days Ago

/

From [HERE] and [HERE] Daniel Lewis, a 27-year-old Black father of two with a clean criminal record and a concealed weapons permit, was shot and killed by police in South Florida in a case that is raising more questions than providing answers.

The son of a retired New York City police officer was killed on May 31 after being shot five times in the backyard of his home in Miami Gardens, a municipality in northern Miami-Dade County with a majority Black population.

Police have refused to provide details to explain the circumstances of the fatal shooting. Police have not stated he presented a threat to officers or that he shot at police - no shell casings matching his gun were found at the scene. 

That night, Miami Gardens police officers were working with agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives in a joint task force to combat gun violence, according to NBC Miami.

Law enforcement officials told CBS Miami they were “looking for somebody” but have yet to release the name of that person or the reason why they were looking for that alleged person.

Attorneys representing Lewis’ family say it all started when law enforcement agents in an unmarked black car with no emergency lights or sirens began following his cousins and sister, who were driving through the neighborhood in their car at night.

Believing gang members were following them, they panicked and drove into the backyard of their family’s home. His sister then ran out of the car and into the home through the back door.

Lewis, who was inside the home, stepped out the back door with his gun to see what was going on and was shot and killed within seconds.

“I watched my son take his last breath, and that’s the hardest thing a mother could ever do, from the first to the last,” said his mother, Angela Lewis, during a press conference in front of the Miami Gardens Police Department on July 2, according to NBC Miami.

Lewis also told the Miami Herald, “My son went outside to see what was going on, and they shot him five times. They didn’t say anything to me. They didn’t tell me why,” Angela Lewis said. “No one tried to administer CPR. No one tried to help him. They just stood over him.” 

Christopher Robinson, the special agent in charge of the ATF’s office in Miami, issued a statement to NBC Miami, declaring that some people shot at both his agents and members of the Miami Gardens Police Department, and fire was returned, resulting in the death of Lewis. “Unfortunately, some individuals discharged firearms at some Miami Gardens detectives as well as some of my agents, gunfire was returned, one individual struck, and he’s unfortunately deceased.”  If, so where are the gun shell casings?

“What was the rush? What was the urgency to fire upon Mr. Lewis this night?” asked attorney Chris Lomax during the press conference, during which attorneys said they plan to file a lawsuit, according to NBC Miami.

“There was none; this was a bad shoot; it shouldn’t have happened.”

Still No Answers

It’s been more than a month since the shooting, and neither Miami Gardens police nor the ATF have released much information about the shooting, including details about the person they were supposedly looking for or confirmation on whether Lewis even fired his gun.

“Miami Gardens Police Sgt. Emmanuel Jeanty told the Miami Herald the night of the shooting that the two agencies were conducting surveillance in the neighborhood because there had been several shootings involving high-powered weapons in the previous weeks.

But they did not say whether any of those shootings were connected to Lewis and his family.

“We have a police car with bullet holes in it,” Jeanty told the Herald, adding that several weapons were recovered outside the Lewis home.

Angela Lewis told the Herald that her 25-year-old nephew, who had hopped out of the car, was taken into custody after being ordered to lie on the ground, but he was released within hours.

Attorneys representing Lewis’ family still have not determined whether he even knew they were cops.

“Not once did anyone yell police, stop, police, freeze,” attorney Ariel Lett said during the press conference.

“Instead, what they did was they gunned down a law-abiding citizen in his backyard, on his back doorstep, without a warning.”

Under the known circumstances, Lett believes Lewis had every right to defend his home from people with guns who never identified themselves as cops, according to Local 10.

“The castle doctrine would seem to apply that you have a man who committed no crimes, who was known that the family committed no crimes and who his sister just ran into the house screaming for her life as the car she was in was being shot at by unknown assailant.”

Alabama Authorities Plan to Murder Keith Gavin Despite Finding that his Attorney was “Constitutionally Ineffective” in Violation of his Right to [mannequin like] Counsel

/

From [HERE] The State of Alabama plans to put Keith Gavin to death on July 18—the state’s third execution date so far this year—despite constitutional flaws that undermine the reliability of his sentence.

Mr. Gavin was convicted of capital murder in the shooting death of a delivery driver and sentenced to death in 1999 after his appointed lawyers presented virtually nothing in mitigation at the penalty phase. 

A federal court found in 2020 that Mr. Gavin’s lawyers were ineffective in violation of Mr. Gavin’s right to counsel and held that the constitution requires a new sentencing trial, but the decision was reversed on appeal.

Questions About the Reliability of Mr. Gavin’s Death Sentence Persist

The Constitution guarantees effective assistance of counsel, which means that defense lawyers representing a person facing the death penalty are expected to investigate and present evidence demonstrating why the jury should reject the death penalty and impose a life sentence.

There was compelling evidence about Mr. Gavin’s life that could have persuaded the jury to choose life imprisonment without parole in his case. 

Keith was born into a family struggling with histories of drug abuse, alcoholism, and incarceration and, as the federal court found, “grew up in a gang-infested housing project in Chicago, living in overcrowded houses that were in poor condition, where he was surrounded by drug activity, crime, violence, and riots.” 

Keith tried to shield his 11 brothers and sisters from their abusive father by taking the blame for them and was frequently beaten with extension cords, sticks, hoses, and his father’s fist. 

In Chicago, Keith was the frequent target of gang violence and was brutally beaten at 17 and hospitalized. When he retaliated he was sent to prison, where he was frequently stabbed by gang members and continued to be victimized. Despite the constant threat of violence, Mr. Gavin earned his GED and took college courses in prison, and with only one major disciplinary write-up in 17 years, he became what the State’s expert called a model prisoner, which was a critical fact related to the jury’s decision to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole or death.

But Mr. Gavin’s jury never heard this evidence because, as the federal district court found, his lawyers failed to do the investigation and preparation that the constitution requires.

As Mr. Gavin’s mother lamented, “her son had no money to retain a ‘real attorney.’” Instead, he was appointed counsel who, the federal court found, “did not conduct an adequate background investigation, did not pursue all reasonably available mitigating evidence, and did not make a reasonable effort to present the mitigating evidence they had.”

Mr. Gavin’s lawyers “were totally unprepared for the penalty phase,” the court held. They called only two witnesses at the penalty phase—a minister who did not know Mr. Gavin before his arrest and Mr. Gavin’s mother. Counsel spoke with the minister for only five minutes before putting him on the stand and got his name wrong in front of the jury, and admitted at the start of his mother’s testimony that they had not prepared her for her testimony.

The jury deliberated for just 75 minutes before returning a verdict recommending the death penalty. Despite the lack of mitigating evidence, only 10 jurors voted for death—the bare minimum required to return a verdict for death under Alabama law at the time. Just a single juror’s vote was the difference between life and death.

The trial court determined that Mr. Gavin’s counsel had failed to present evidence of even a single mitigating circumstance. The court followed the jury’s advisory verdict and imposed the death penalty.

The federal court found that trial counsel’s failures undermined the reliability of Mr. Gavin’s death sentence. Because defense counsel presented no mitigating evidence, the jury did not have the information they needed to make a sound and just decision about whether to impose the irrevocable sentence of death. 

But the federal appeals court reversed, ruling that the lower court was not authorized to order a new hearing merely because it found a constitutional violation. Instead, the Eleventh Circuit held, the federal court was required to defer to the state court’s decision, even if that decision was clearly wrong. [MORE]

Black Woman who Believed She Had “Rights” and Power to Command Her Public Servants is Forced Out of Her Car, Punched, Piled On and Hair Dragged by [her Public Masters] New Castle Cops (DE) on Video

/

NO RIGHT TO BE LEFT THE FUCK ALONE IN THE FREE RANGE PRISON. From [HERE] Authorities in a Delaware town released body camera footage that showed multiple cops punch a Black woman several times in the head during her arrest and use her locs to force her to the ground.

The arrest happened on June 29 in Bear, Delaware. 

Cell phone video that circulated on social media captured part of the arrest when the cops were seen aggressively restraining the woman and punching her after she was wrestled to the ground.

The video spurred controversy online, prompting New Castle County authorities to release footage from the body cameras of all the officers involved in the arrest in an effort to shed more light on the incident. [MORE]

The gullible Black woman in the video probably really believed she could have an arms length conversation with the white cop, who she apparently regarded as her public servant. Clearly, she spoke to him like she believed she had a meaningful opportunity to secure a different outcome other than going to jail. She also believed she had Constitutional rights and that such rights are enforceable by her on the street.

Yet said legal truths had no actual existence in reality. If another person such as a police officer, is uncontrollable by you, unaccountable to you, can’t be hired or fired by you, has irresponsible power over you and provides a compulsory “service,” then he is actually your Master. ‘We are not the government. And the government does not serve us.’ The rebel Larken Rose explained, “To imagine that a ruler could ever be the servant of those over whom he rules is patently absurd.” Lysander Spooner explained,

“It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner.”

In reality, the Black woman’s only options were to comply with authority or go to jail or die.

Additionally, in regard to her so-called 4th Amendment rights - where were they? Apparently, they only exist when a higher authority such as a police chief, judge or prosecutor says so. Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no Black shopper, pedestrian, motorist, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that so-called constitutional rights afford any real protection from cops. The back and forth between the cop and the Black woman is merely a pretense of civility by a barbarian. The cop preferred consensual compliance to forced compliance. Such a preference is to maintain the illusion of freedom where there is none. If the Black woman goes along with it (obeys), it may be better for her mind but she never had a choice in the matter. She probably disagrees, but that’s mind control (the purpose of government). Government does not rest on our voluntary consent, it is a system anchored in violence. As explained by FUNKTIONARY, “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. Citizens can either obey authority or go to jail. ‘The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain your freedom by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.’ [MORE] Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary but mandatory and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government – rather, we are born into this involuntary arrangement. [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY explains,

“rights” – useful fictions declared in order to make agents of another type of fiction (“government”) have to play along in their deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game. 2) mere fictions, the contemplation of which leads only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality. Discussion and debates about “rights” merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense. “Rights” are separated into two categories—those flowing from “negative liberties” and those flowing from “positive liberties.” In law, rights are remedies and if a person is without a remedy (as is with citizens of the United States) he is without a right, and only a ‘thing’ is without rights. (See: Negative Liberties, Positive Liberties, Bill of Rights, Liberty, Freedom, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Ma’at & Justice)

rights – fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man’s system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man’s nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the “State”). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. [MORE]

Instead of Blaming Milwaukee Cops for Failing to Protect Residents, Strawboss Mayor says Rising Crime Will be Reduced if More Law Abiding People are Prohibited from Getting Guns to Protect Themselves

/

From [HERE] Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson is at it again, calling for more restrictions on Wisconsin gun owners because violent crime was out of control last week, so instead of demanding enforcement of existing laws to take the perpetrators off the streets, he is blaming guns.

It is hardly the first time the Democrat mayor has called on state lawmakers to toughen gun laws. Last year about this time, he was making the same plea, as reported at the time by TheGunMag.com.

However, this year, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s homicide database, homicides have declined dramatically from the same time in 2023. So far this year, the database is reporting, the city has suffered 65 slayings, which is “45 fewer than last year at this date.” Also, non-fatal shootings are down from the same period last year, according to Milwaukee Police data.

The question arises: Is Johnson doing this in the interest of public safety or to make a political statement as the Republican National Convention looms in his city in two weeks? As reported by WPR, last week there were at least 15 people shot in the city over the course of two days (Wednesday and Thursday). According to this report, “Johnson said the violence from a ‘small segment’ of the city’s population has a lasting impact on the entire community.”

If that is the case, why should the violence in Milwaukee be used as an excuse to ratchet down on the rights of law-abiding Badger State residents living across the rest of the state?

“Innocence epidemic” Continues: Larry Roberts becomes the 200th Person Exonerated from Death Row [who are the real criminals when an innocent person is sentenced to death?]

/

From [HERE] Larry Roberts, the 200th exoneree, was wrong­ful­ly con­vict­ed in 1983 for the mur­der of a fel­low pris­on­er and prison guard at the California Medical Center in Vacaville, California. The only wit­ness­es to these stab­bings were fel­low pris­on­ers who tes­ti­fied against Mr. Roberts; he was sen­tenced to death for both killings. Years lat­er, the California Supreme Court over­turned Mr. Roberts’ con­vic­tion for the death of the prison guard but left his death sen­tence in place. After 41 years, the California Attorney General’s Office has now agreed with a U.S. dis­trict court judge who grant­ed Mr. Roberts a new tri­al and has said it will not retry him. Mr. Roberts’ exon­er­a­tion is a pow­er­ful reminder of the fal­li­bil­i­ty of the death penal­ty, and one more rea­son 50% of the American pub­lic no longer believes their gov­ern­ment can fair­ly use the death penalty.

In 2021, the Death Penalty Information Center dubbed this national reality an “innocence epidemic” when the number of death row exonerations had reached 185 people. Two recent exonerations have brought the number to 200: the June 19, 2024 exoneration of Kerry Cook in Texas and the July 1, 2024 exoneration of Larry Roberts in California. [MORE]

Texas Ct Exonerates Kerry Max Cook after 20 yr Death Sentence in Prison. Prosecutors who Hid and Fabricated Evidence and Testimony, "Have Absolute Immunity" [where is the outrage from PropaGandhi?]

/

IN the US, prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity against lawsuits for abuses they commit in the course of carrying out their prosecutorial or judicial functions.

According to FUNKTIONARY:

PropaGandhi – passive social non-resistance propaganda. 2) obedience-based servitude to the enforcers of granfalloons uncommonly known as Corporate States and any other group-entities. Mahatma Gandhi mostly walked barefoot which produced calluses on his feet. He also had a very weird diet sprinkled with bouts of fasting which made him rather frail and suffer intermittently from halitosis—this made him… “A super callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.” (See: Poser, Class, Mass, Racism White Supremacy, Gun Control & Caste)

From [HERE] Texas’s highest criminal court last week formally exonerated Kerry Max Cook, now 68, finding him actually innocent of the 1977 murder for which he wrongly spent 20 years on death row. He is the 198th person exonerated after being sentenced to death, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

“This case is riddled with allegations of State misconduct that warrant setting aside Applicant’s conviction,” Judge Bert Richardson wrote in the majority opinion. “And when it comes to solid support for actual innocence, this case contains it all—uncontroverted Brady violations, proof of false testimony, admissions of perjury and new scientific evidence.”

Calling this “one of the most notable murder cases of the last half-century,” the court in a 106-page opiniontraced a “winding odyssey” from 1977, when Smith County prosecutors charged Mr. Cook in the rape, murder, and mutilation of a 21-year-old woman.

The State won a conviction and death sentence in 1978 by illegally withholding favorable evidence from the defense and presenting what was later proven to be false evidence, including totally fabricated testimony from a jailhouse snitch who said Mr. Cook confessed to the murder. Prosecutors not only concealed they had given their star witness a plea deal (for two years instead of life), but orchestrated his entire testimony, showing him pictures of the crime scene and giving him details about the investigation. “I lied on [Cook] to save myself,” he later admitted in court.

Prosecutors also deceived the jury about their only physical evidence against Mr. Cook, the court found. The State presented testimony that fingerprint evidence placed Mr. Cook in the victim’s apartment at the time of the crime. But the fingerprint expert later admitted there was no way to scientifically estimate when the fingerprints had been left and he deliberately created a false impression for the jury after the district attorney pressured him.

Since this first “bookend of deception,” the court wrote, “the case has been plagued with mistrials, withheld evidence, and misconduct.” The conviction was overturned in 1991, and at the second trial in 1992, the State presented testimony that body parts removed from the victim were placed in her missing stocking and taken as a souvenir by Mr. Cook. Then jurors found the “missing” stocking in the leg of the victim’s jeans when they examined the physical evidence during deliberations. A mistrial was declared after the jury could not reach a verdict.

The State nonetheless tried Mr. Cook a third time, and won another conviction and death sentence in 1994 that was thrown out on appeal because it was so tainted by misconduct.

In 1999, after they submitted the victim’s underwear for DNA testing but before they got the results excluding Mr. Cook, prosecutors persuaded Mr. Cook to accept a “no contest” plea that would leave his conviction intact but allow his release after two decades on death row that the court explained were nothing short of torturous.

Cook spent close to a decade and half on death row from the very beginning based on a web of fabricated testimony and misrepresentations. Even if Cook had been made aware of the deception, Cook was left with little-to-no legal recourse because it was outside the record on appeal. During that time, the record documents that Cook was subjected to extreme physical abuse and psychological trauma by other inmates. This included several emasculating tattoos forcibly carved into Cook’s back and side—which led him to attempt suicide in 1990. In a handwritten suicide note, he continued to proclaim his innocence in what he intended to be his last words…And nothing in the record shows that the State—completely aware of the deception because they initiated it—took any steps to halt Cook’s then-pending execution. [MORE]

'The most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are “Arms” protected by 2nd Amendment.' Court Decision Upholding Law Making it a Felony to Possess AR-15 Violates the Constitution' - Judge Clarence Thomas

/

unalienable rights –You can't surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can't under any circumstances be surrendered or taken- FUNKTIONARY

CLARENCE THOMAS AS UNCLE TOM? FUNKTIONARY REMINDS US,  Uncle Tom was killed for withholding information and emancipating others. Sambo is the hanky-head $nigger on which we should look to pull the trigger and drop.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas showed his hand on Tuesday on the issue of whether AR-15-style rifles are legal. His Second Amendment analysis: They are.

In a brief dissent related to an Illinois ban on the “assault weapon,” Thomas said that the overwhelming popularity of the firearm, coupled with its non-military operation, makes it a clear fit under the Second Amendment. [MORE] Thomas wrote:

Statement of JUSTICE THOMAS.

The State of Illinois enacted a law that makes it a felony to possess what Illinois branded “assault weapons,” a term defined to include AR–15s. See Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §5/24–1.9(a)(1)(J)(ii)(II) (West 2023). “The AR–15 is the most popular semi-automatic rifle” in America and is there- fore undeniably “in common use today.” Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1287 (CADC 2011) (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting); see also Garland v. Cargill, 602 U. S. 406, 430–431 (2024) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (describing “semiautomatic rifles” such as the AR–15 as “commonly available”). Petitioners sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law, arguing that the law violates their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear Arms.” The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir- cuit rejected petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunc- tion, concluding “that the AR–15 . . . is not protected by the Second Amendment.” Bevis v. Naperville, 85 F. 4th 1175, 1197 (2023). According to the Seventh Circuit, the rifle se- lected by millions of Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes does not even fall within the scope of the Arms referred to by the Second Amendment. Ibid. This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory pos- ture. But, I hope we will consider the important issues pre- sented by these petitions after the cases reach final judg- ment.

We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment. To be sure, we explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), that the Second Amendment’s protection “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Id., at 582. And, we noted that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typ- ically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful pur- poses,” id., at 625, recognizing “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weap- ons,” id., at 627 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411, 417–419 (2016) (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment). But, this minimal guidance is far from a comprehensive framework for evalu- ating restrictions on types of weapons, and it leaves open essential questions such as what makes a weapon “beara- ble,” “dangerous,” or “unusual.”

The Seventh Circuit’s decision illustrates why this Court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers. By contorting what little guidance our precedents provide, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect “militaristic” weapons. See 85 F. 4th, at 1199. It then tautologically defined “mili- taristic” weapons as those “that may be reserved for mili- tary use.” Id., at 1194. The Seventh Circuit’s contrived “non-militaristic” limitation on the Arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and history. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. 1039, 1041 (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certio- rari). And, even on its own terms, the Seventh Circuit’s ap- plication of its definition is nonsensical. See 85 F. 4th, at 1222 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“The AR–15 is a civilian, not military, weapon. No army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semiautomatic”). In my view, Illinois’ ban is “highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common sem- iautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.” Friedman, 577 U. S., at 1042 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

These petitions arise from a preliminary injunction, and the Seventh Circuit stressed that its merits analysis was merely “a preliminary look at the subject.” 85 F. 4th, at 1197. But, if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit “the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Friedman, 577 U. S., at 1043 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).

Gary D. Barnett: There Is No Such Thing As Legitimate or Moral Government, Rule, Or Authority, And There Has Never Been

/

From [HERE] “The way people speak of those in power, calling their commands “laws,” referring to disobedience to them as a “crime,” and so on, implies the right of “government” to rule, and a corresponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to “rule,” (“authority”) there is no need to call the entity “government,” and all the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organized crime syndicate, their “laws” no more valid than the threats of muggers and carjackers.”
Larken Rose, “The Most Dangerous Superstition”

All rule and any assumed ‘authority’ of one man or any group of men over another is completely evil, immoral and illegitimate. It matters not whether there is some pretense of “representation” by any group claiming to be the arbiters of the people, for each and every individual is sovereign for and unto himself alone. No one has any right to act or demand compliance on behalf of another, and no one has any right to delegate any power to afford one the right to rule another, period. Unless a voluntarily signed, personal, and individual contract is accepted by distinct and willing participants, where that contract can be found null and void immediately upon any failure to act in the manner prescribed, there is no right of one to act on the behalf of another concerning rule. This does not mean that any worthless piece of political garbage, such as any “constitution,” or any arbitrary “laws” or mandates, can ever be held as “legal;” a term immorally used by the State for the sole purpose of tyranny, in order that rule and control over other individuals can falsely be seen as justifiable. The essence of natural law, real justice, and freedom are never compatible with rule and authority.

Therefore, all government is not only criminal, it is pure evil. The entire basis of government is to lord over others by the use of violent force. Any assumption of a right to do so is ludicrous on its face, but sold to the seemingly ignorant and pathetic masses as supported by the State’s version of the insane and bastardized ‘definition’ of “law.” This bogus modern definition, one hammered into the populace from birth, as supplied by Websters, is this ridiculous rendition:

“Law is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power of the State, commanding what its subjects are to do, and prohibiting what they are to forebear.”

This so-called definition is the exact opposite of natural law, and is totally devoid of any aspect or mention of justice. In addition, no state is ‘supreme,’ nor does it possess any justifiable ‘supreme’ power to “command its subjects” (slaves) as to what they may do or not do outside of natural law. The very idea that some group of common criminal humans called government, are ‘supreme’ rulers with power over all others, is the antithesis of freedom of the individual, and therefore it should never be allowed to exist in any form. [MORE]

Elites Attack Court Over Mundane Decision: Trump Can’t Be Prosecuted for His Interactions w/the AG b/c President has Sole Authority to Direct AG. His Immunity Can be Rebutted for All Other Allegations

/

AUTHORITIES AREN’T ABOVE THE LAW? THAT IS 100% BULLSHIT. [the belief in] “Authority” is granting certain people (authorities) permission to do things that other people (citizens) can’t do. The things that people can’t do are things that are unlawful and or immoral. When authority does them [in their official capacity] they are not CONSIDERED immoral and or unlawful TO STATISTS – rather the same activity when done by those who possess authority is considered good and or lawful. Within said system it would be illogical to punish an authority for doing something they have been specifically authorized to do. It is theater to pretend otherwise. Such is the nature of authority in the system of power supremacy, a system based entirely on physical coercion. In said system law prevails over humanity and humans are worth less than law. “ Wherever you find form over reality and law over humanity you will find injustice“ - Dr. Blynd

The Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated decision in the presidential immunity case, Trump v. United States, arising out of the Jan. 6 criminal prosecution brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Trump.

The 119-page decision affords the executive absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” in two layers—Constitutional acts and acts derived from an act of Congress or other source. 1)Where the president’s authority for official acts comes directly from the Constitution he has absolute immunity that cannot be reviewed by a court or Congress due to the separation of powers. 2) Where the presidents authority for official acts comes from Congress the president has presumptive absolute immunity which can be rebutted if the prosecution can show that applying a criminal prohibition on that act wouldn’t encroach on the functions of the executive branch. It was already undisputed that unofficial acts done by the executive are not protected [MORE] and where a president acts beyond the scope of his authority then he is not immune from prosecution.

Please try to read the Court’s opinion yourself.

Contrary to complaints by the dependent media and dumbocrats, the ruling simply said that Trump has absolute immunity from any allegations concerning his interactions with the Attorney General and the Justice Department. All the remaining counts are still viable and were remanded to the trial court.

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

The Court explained that Article II of the Constitution provides that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President’s duties are of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” The President’s authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” When the president has been granted the exclusive Constitutional power to act in a particular area it means that Congress cannot act on the subject and the courts have “no power to control [the President’s] discretion.” That is, where the Constitution has explicitly stated that the president has power to act, the other branches of government, which are separate but equal to the executive, may not interfere or review the act. It stated,

Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. 

PRESUMPTIVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

However, where the president’s authority comes from an express or implied authorization from Congress or where he shares power with Congress, the president only has presumptive absolute immunity. The Court explained that “Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.” The Court reasoned that Framers did not provide the president with such vast powers if he could not use them effectively or use them while having to be concerned about being charged with crimes in the future. The President “occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme, as person who alone composes a branch of government.” Unlike other branches of government, the President has the power to act swiftly and decisively. The Court stated, “The Framers “sought to encourage energetic, vigorous, decisive, and speedy execution of the laws by placing in the hands of a single, constitutionally indispensable, individual the ultimate authority that, in respect to the other branches, the Constitution divides among many.” It further explained,

The Framers accordingly vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” He must make “the most sensitive and far-reaching decisions entrusted to any official under our constitutional system.” There accordingly “exists the greatest public interest” in providing the President with “‘the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with’ the duties of his office.” Appreciating the “unique risks to the effective functioning of government” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him“unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” we have recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”  

LEGALLY BLIND BY DOGMA. IF THIS CASE IS A HOOK-UP FOR SOMEONE, DON’T START WITH TRUMP. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BIDEN DIDN’T KNOW THAT EXPERIMENTAL COVID INJECTIONS COULD KILL AND HARM PEOPLE THEN YOU ARE A PLAYTHING IN THE HANDS OF OTHERS. HIS LIES TO THE PUBLIC AND MANDATES THAT FORCED PEOPLE TO INJECT THEMSELVES WITH POISON ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS AND INJURIES OF COUNTLESS AMERICANS. ADDITIONALLY, OBAMA COULD STILL BE CHARGED FOR HIS AUTHORIZED EXTRA-JUDICIAL and undisputed MURDER OF Anwar al-Awlaki - an american INTENTIONALLY killed by drone STRIKE in Yemen

According to the Court, while making decisions on behalf of the country the executive should not be bogged down with personal legal questions concerning his future potential criminal liability. Such a stance would inhibit action and possibly compromise decision making that should be solely focused on the interests of the country. Also, a president is not an ordinary criminal defendant - he is a separate branch of government by himself. According to the Court, any criminal charges, prosecution or court proceeding cannot prevent or interfere with the executive’s Constitutionally assigned functions - as courts (and Congress) should not be in the position to review decisions that are exclusively reserved for the president.

The Court explained, “At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for such an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” That is, with regard to official acts that are not Constitutionally mandated, the president has presumptive absolute immunity unless the Government can show that prosecuting him would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. If the prosecution would not pose such a danger then the presumption of absolute immunity would be rebutted and the president could be charged with a crime.

APPLICATION TO TRUMP’S CASE

The Court could not apply its new test to most of the allegations in Trump’s case because the courts below failed to analyze any of the facts with regard to whether they involved official or unofficial acts. Contrary to media spin, the Court only ruled on one set of allegations that involved Trump’s conversations and ineractions with his Attorney General and Justice Department. The Supreme Court is an appellate court of the last resort that usually sits in review of factual and legal determinations made by lower courts. Additionally, as a federal court it usually only indulges the facts presented in the instant case - not hypothetical factual situations. Specifically, the courts below failed to first analyze any of the alleged facts with regard to whether they involved official or unofficial acts and second it failed to analyze whether absolute immunity applied to the factual situations presented. The Court explained that the bulk of the allegations must be reviewed by the trial court first - thus it remanded most of the case back to the trial court. The rest of the case, which is the bulk of the case, concerned Trump’s interactions with the vice president, state authorities and private parties and his public statements.

The only allegations the Court said it could review and decide on were those that clearly implicated the executive’s power derived directly from the Constitution. As such, all the allegations concerning Trump’s interactions and communications with the Attorney General and Justice Department were reviewed because said facts directly implicated Constitutional executive power over the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

Concerning said charges, the Court stated, “The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. “[I]nvestigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function.” And the Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. It stated, “The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Therefore, any allegations concerning Trump’s interactions and discussions with his Attorney General in his official capacity are off limits because the president has absolute immunity. Also, the Attorney General is exclusively controlled by the president and he can hire or fire him for any reason, at any time he desires and said decision is not reviewable by the court or Congress. Thus, the allegation that Trump threatened to fire the Attorney General if he didn’t investigate election fraud is also a non-starter because his Constitutional authority as a separate branch of government may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. The court explained,

It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.

The rest of the allegations were remanded to the trial court.

Due to the fact that the Presidents interactions and communications with the vice president are partially derived from the Constitution and partially derived from an act of Congress (with regard to the vice presidents role in the election certification proceeding), absolute immunity might apply to some of the allegations but presumptive absolute immunity would apply to most of the allegations involving the vice president. As such, the Court said the president’s immunity could be rebutted where the prosecution can show that prosecuting him would not pose a danger or intrude on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

Along with allegations involving the vice president, the bulk of the remaining allegations (involving Trump’s interactions with state officials and private parties and involving public statements made by Trump) were remanded to the trial court to determine 1) whether such acts were official or non-official and 2) if they were official, whether absolute immunity could be rebutted or sustained. Where absolute immunity for an allegation can be rebutted the government could then proceed with its prosecution.

Consent Decrees Have No Effect on “Authority,” the Uncontrollable Power to Use Force Offensively on Citizens. So Aurora Cops Continue Murdering People like Kily Lewis (Shot Holding Phone w/Hands Up)

/

From [HERE] About 70 demonstrators rallied at the Aurora City Council meeting last week to protest the police shooting of another unarmed Black man, 37-year-old Kilyn Lewis— who police shot and killed last month in Aurora. Lewis’s death comes two years after Colorado Attorney Phil Weiser imposed a consent decree on the city of Aurora mandating the city fix “patterns of racially biased policing and excessive use of force in the Aurora Police Department.”

The Consent Decree came in the aftermath of the 2019 murder of Elijah McClain, and a report showing Black people were more than 250 percent more likely to be arrested in the city of Aurora than white people.

Despite the decree, in 2022, only about five months later, Aurora’s City Council fired Vanessa Wilson, the interim Chief of Police who had begun to reform the APD by creating DEI trainings and removing many of the so-called “bad apples” involved in Elijah McClain’s death. In Wilson’s place, the Council appointed a new interim chief who rehired the officers and ended many of Wilson’s programs for reform.

Meanwhile, police violence in Aurora has continued. So far this year, out of the 348 reported uses of force by Aurora PD, about 40 percent of those were against Black residents – that’s despite Black residents only making up about 16 percent of the population.

Lewis was the second unarmed Black man Aurora Police officers killed since June of last year. The incident happened at around midday, on a Tuesday in May. Footage shows Aurora PD confronting Lewis and Officer Michael Dieck shooting and killing Lewis within eight seconds of arrival.

Lewis, who had a 16-year-old son, can be heard shouting that he is unarmed. As he begins to fall to his knees with his hands in the air, Dieck fires. Dieck, who is on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation, reported that he thought the cellphone in Lewis’ right hand was a weapon. KGNU’s Alexis Kenyon reports. [MORE]

Nothing can ever change with regard to police brutality so long as police have the power to use force offensively on “citizens.” In fact, despite the falling violent crime rates since 1993, police killings have increased. According to Mapping Police Violence, “Police killed more people in 2023 than any year in more than a decade. Police have continued to kill at a similar rate in 2024.“ Police killed at least 1,247 people in 2023. Black people were 27% of those killed by police in 2023 despite being only 13% of the population. Thus far, there have been only 9 days in 2024 where police did not kill someone. Black people are most likely to be killed by police and are three times more likely than whites to be killed by police. 33% of Black people killed by police were running away, driving away or otherwise trying to flee. Regardless of race, there is no accountability: 98.1% of killings by police from 2013-2023 did not result with officers even being charged with a crime. [MORE]

Petitioning puppeticians for reforms, or begging them to enforce the status quo by punishing police for conduct that is already illegal or begging them to defund or lower police department budgets can have no effect on the extraordinary police power to use force offensively on citizens. Said non-reformable and uncontrollable power to initiate the use of unprovoked violence on people is called “authority.”

As you will see, if you indulge BW here, due to the fact that "authority" is immoral and unjust and there is no legitimate or rational way to account for belief in its existence, the legal system is entirely based on physical coercion or violence. In other words, we are not free.

Political “authority” can be summed up as the implied right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral and legal obligation to obey.’ [MORE] Authority is the basis and operating system for all governments throughout the world, regardless of type, function or characterization. As so-called representatives of authority, police officers (among other authorities) are empowered to use force offensively against citizens who are legally and morally obliged to obey authority. [MORE]

White Liberal Media Deceives: The Supreme Ct Didn’t “Allow” Cities to Ban Homeless Encampments. It Just said Laws that Do So Don’t Violate the 8th Amendment - but Can Still be Challenged Other Ways

/

Photo Above "Georgetown Blues" taken by Vincent R Brown. 

although African Americans make up just 12.5% of the general population, Some 40.4% of the national homeless population is black, according to the University of Maryland School of Public Health, [MORE] FUNKTIONARY EXPLAINS

HOMELESS – THE INFORMATIONALLY DISENFRANCHISED AND IN MANY CASES ALSO THE PSYCHOLOGICALLY DISENGAGED. THE STREETS MAY BELONG TO THE PEOPLE, BUT THEY MAKE LESS THAN IDEAL PLACES TO LIVE. IN THE COLD, THE HOMELESS LOOK FOR THE “GRATE” OUTDOORS.

In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of the homeless population living in Grants Pass, alleging that the city’s ordinances against public camping violated the Eighth Amendment.

They claimed that the law punished the mere status of being homeless and compared it to a punishment that made it a crime to be a drug addict, or punishment for simply being a drug addict.

An injunction was originally entered, prohibiting the city from enforcing its laws against homeless individuals. The US Supreme Court overruled this injunction holding that enforcement of the city’s laws did not constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment prohibited by the Eight Amendment.

The Court explained that the 8th Amendment’s “The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what “method or kind of punishment” a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense.” One rare exception to the court’s focus on the punishment after a defendant has been found guilty is that a State may not enact laws that criminalize the mere status of being a drug addict (Robinson case). The Court stated,

“Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.” Grants Pass Municipal Code §§5.61.030, 5.61.010; App. to Pet. for Cert. 221a–222a. Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building. In that respect, the city’s laws parallel those found in countless jurisdictions across the country. And because laws like these do not criminalize mere status, Robinson is not implicated.”

In other words, the law at issue did not just punish the mere status of being homeless. Rather, it punished particular activity, such as sleeping or occupying prohibited places. It explained, although homelessness, like being a drug addict, might be an involuntary act, the 8th Amendment does not cover conduct that flows from any “condition [the defendant] is powerless to change.”

Contrary to the Dependent media coverage of this case, the court did not allow cities to enforce homeless encampment bans. States have broad authority to criminalize conduct. This decision did not allow cities to do anything - it simply says that laws prohibiting homeless encampments don’t violate the 8th Amendment. Persons charged with a crime can still raise other defenses such as a necessity defense or plaintiffs can raise other legal challenges to such laws.

ABOVE BALTIMORE MD Is it MAGA Republicans or Mostly White Liberal Landlords Evicting Mostly Black Tenants Into the Streets? Evictions Soar in CA, Elsewhere. Media Pretends Unknown Forces Cause Black/Latino Homelessness

LIBERALS LOVE TO DECEIVE BLACK PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THEY LIVE IN RACIST FREE ENVIRONMENTS IN THEIR LIBERAL CITIES (SUCH AS SEATTLE, PORTLAND, SF, DC, NYC, CHICAGO, ATLANTA, ST. LOUIS, LA, ETC.). THEY ALSO PURPOSEFULLY CONFUSE RACISM WITH BIGOTRY AND OTHER FORMS OF BAD SPEECH/DISRESPECT. WHITE LIBERAL CITIES ARE PLACES OVERWHELMINGLY “RUN AND CONTROLLED BY ELITE WHITE LIBERALS” -WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF ELECTED BLACK PUPPETICIANS OR APPOINTED BLACK ROLEBOTS IN A GIVEN JURISDICTION. RATHER, IN ALL LIBERAL JURISDICTIONS WHERE BLACKS RESIDE, ELITE WHITES CONTROL AND OWN ALL MAJOR RESOURCES (SUCH AS BANKS, LOCAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA, MAJOR REAL ESTATE, UTILITIES, LARGE CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESSES, MAJOR INDUSTRY, MAJOR NON-PROFITS, UNIONS, HOSPITALS, ETC) AND ANYTHING ELSE OF SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL VALUE. IN SUCH PLACES WEALTHY RACIST SUSPECTS FUNCTION AS THE MAJOR DECISION MAKERS IN REGARDS TO WHAT HAPPENS OR DOES NOT HAPPEN TO NON-WHITE PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY BLACKS AND LATINOS. [MORE]

[BET] Bad EnterStainment TV Calls it "Excellence:" Coin-Operated Black Whores Simulate Licking Balls and SNiggering NGHRS Bounce and Grin to Get More Coin from Their Elite White Masters @ BET Awards

/

IS IT “EXCELLENCE “OR NIGGERISM ON DISPLAY AS Ice Spice let everyone know its time to lick some balls! A MAJOR Part of white supremacy is the annihilation of Black self respect.

Niggers, Bitches & Hoes showcased by elite racists through their Black dummy puppets at the 2024 BET Awards which was sponsored by Microsoft, McDonald's, Walmart, Coke and as many other white owned corporate sponsors as a race car in an auto race. Like the cars on the track, Black folks are going in circles.

BET is allegedly a "Black" network - but by “Black” they just mean styles, fashion, accents, slang, and different combinations thereof replicated in corporate created rolebotic entertainers in The Spectacle. ["A role-bot merely plays the role of the mask -the personae- society issued and approved." Dr. Blynd] To the niggers put in charge of this shitty network “Black” also means servant like and inferior to white and inferior to others. It means ‘we accept our subordinate positions in life as part of the natural order of things in the imaginary human hierarchy.’

BET is wholly dependent on elite White financing and underwritten by elite White advertising revenues. Dr. Amos Wilson explained, “Apparently frightened of provoking the disapproval of their national and multinational advertisers and of raising the ire of the White ruling establishment on whose favor they depend for survival, these media assiduously concern themselves with reporting the activities of Black celebrities, of the Black bourgeoisie, and with selling the products of White-owned manufacturers to Black customers.” The safest programming is that which depicts Black people as unserious, childish, emotional servant like chimps who SNigger, grimace, fight, cry, gyrate, lick balls and bounce up and down on demand. Such enterstainment is reassuring to elite racists because it helps white dominance over nearly every aspect of Black people’s lives seem natural and legitimate. White supremacy then is no conspiracy, it is a natural outcome of reality and a “consensus reality” that racists and their niggers can agree to. The coin-operated niggers at BET are good with that.

Wilson explains, “the Black media literally "deliver" the Black market to White merchants, their raison d'etre.” On the whole, the Black media such as BET are “essentially a parochial establishment lacking vision and courage, craving White media acceptance and recognition. Specializing in racial ego massage, commiseration, complaints and victimization, they are of relatively low-educational value and provide little worthwhile leadership for the Afrikan American community. They are dark imitations of their white counterparts which set their reactionary agendas, news stories, editorials and features." [MORE] fuck BET.

According to FUNKTIONARY

Black America – an internal colony held and subsumed within the State apparatus of the United States—e.g., indigenous Native Blacks originating on Turtle Island, Chicanos, Native Americans—an exploited nation within a nation.

Black American – redundant. Black Americans (or Blacks in America) have been taught to view Africa the way White supremicist America has taught us to see. We have been ‘train-washed’ to see what we know rather than know what we see. (See: Ego-Based Truth, Cognitive Illusion, Motivated Illusion, Reality Boxes. Seeing)

enterstainment – dubious, dreadful, inappropriate or grossly offensive entertainment which leaves one feeling stained.

Quite Obviously, 'Biden Had Way Too Much to Think’ but He's Not Mentally Impaired, according to the Chorus Spun by Cult of Dumbocrats, Led by $pinfidel James Clyburn, Designated Corpse Defender

/

According to FUNKTIONARY:

$pinfidels – those well-paid profligates in the print and visual Hypnomedia who twist issues, facts, events, statements, contexts, and predicaments of outspoken people from all walks of life into ready-made labels that demonize and/or marginalize anyone who questions the actions, policies, jurisdiction, positions, legitimacy, accuracy, enforcement, or authority of the Twin-Towering $tatus Quo—Corporate State and Corporate Religion. $pinfidels are those who believe in the doctrine of Original Spin. “Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul.” ~Mark Twain (Samuel Clements). (See: Richcraft, Hypnomedia, Whore Nation, MEDIA, NEWS, Coin-Operated & Corporate Religion)

Censored Autopsy Study Finds that 74% of 325 Deaths Analyzed were Linked to COVID Shots. Says Autopsies Must Be Done on Anyone who Got the Shot. All "Vaccinated" Persons Should be Monitored for 1 Yr

/

From [HERE] A systematic review of autopsy-related literature following COVID-19 vaccination found that 73.9% of the 325 deaths were linked to the shots, suggesting “a high likelihood of a causal link” between the shots and death.

The review, published on June 21 in the peer-reviewed journal Forensic Science International, was first posted on July 5, 2023, on The Lancet preprint server, SSRN, an open access research platform.

However, Preprints with The Lancet removed the study from the server within 24 hours, “because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology,” according to a statement on the SSRN page, The Daily Sceptic reported.

The paper had been viewed over 100,000 times.

Authors submitting papers to Lancet journals for review post their work to the SSRN to make it publicly available while it undergoes peer review.

University of Michigan researcher Nicolas Hulscher authored the study, along with Dr. William Makis, Peter A. McCullough, M.D., MPH, and several of their colleagues at The Wellness Company.

The authors said autopsies should be performed on all deceased people who have received one or more COVID-19 vaccines and that vaccinated people should be clinically monitored for at least one year following vaccination. They called for further research into the issue.

McCullough told The Defender:

“Our study faced unprecedented censorship from the Lancet SSRN preprint server and was taken down after massive downloads by concerned physicians and scientists across the globe.

“Lancet did not want the world to know that among deaths that were autopsied after COVID-19 vaccination, independent adjudication found that the vaccine was the cause of death in 73.9% of cases.

“The most common fatal vaccine syndromes were myocarditis and blood clots. Investigative journalists should probe Lancet to uncover who was behind unethical suppression of critical clinical information to the public.”

Findings have wide-ranging implications

The authors searched the published literature archived in PubMed and ScienceDirect for all autopsy and necropsy — another word for autopsy — reports related to COVID-19 vaccination, where the death occurred after vaccination.

They screened out 562 duplicate studies among the 678 studies initially identified in their search. Other papers were removed because, for example, they lacked information about vaccination status.

Ultimately 44 papers containing 325 autopsies and one necropsy case were evaluated. Three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not the COVID-19 shot was the direct cause or contributed significantly to the death reported.

They found 240 of the deaths (73.9%) were found to be “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination” and the mean age for death was 70.4 years old.

Primary causes of death included sudden cardiac death, which happened in 35% of cases, pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction, which occurred in 12.5% and 12% of the cases respectively.

Other causes included vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, myocarditis, multisystem inflammatory syndrome and cerebral hemorrhage.

Most deaths occurred within a week of the last shot.

The authors concluded that because the deaths were highly consistent with the known mechanisms for COVID-19 vaccine injury, it was highly likely the deaths were causally linked to the vaccine.

They said the findings “amplify” existing concerns about the vaccines, including those related to vaccine-induced myocarditis and myocardial infarction and the effects of the spike protein more broadly.

They also said the studies have implications for unanticipated deaths among vaccinated people with no previous illness. “We can infer that in such cases, death may have been caused by COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote.

The authors acknowledged some potential biases in the article.

First, they said, their conclusions from the autopsy findings are based on an evolving understanding of the vaccines, which are currently different from when the studies evaluated were published.

They also noted that systematic reviews have bias potential in general because of biases that may exist at the level of the individual papers and their acceptance into the peer-reviewed literature.

They said publication bias could have affected their results because the global push for mass vaccination has made investigators hesitant to report adverse events.

They also said their research did not account for confounding variables like concomitant illnesses, drug interactions and other factors that may have had a causal role in the reported deaths.