Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Crime

Facts Don’t Matter To Black Lives Matter

Facts never seem to matter when a black criminal gets shot. Take for example the unnamed neighbors who claimed that they also saw a book in Scott’s hand, thus corroborating the widow’s story and painting the cops as liars

Published

on

The quickest way to tell that the Black Lives Matter version of the Charlotte shooting is disintegrating is that the most basic facts of the case are now being declared irrelevant. Corine Mack, president of the Charlotte chapter of the NAACP, told CNN’s Carol Costello that “In my mind, and in most of the community’s mind, it doesn’t matter if he [Keith Scott] had a gun.”

It doesn’t matter if he had a gun? Actually, yes it does. The gun is the sticking point of the entire debate, the hinge upon which so many judgements turn. Take, for example, the cell phone video released by Scott’s widow, Rakeyia Scott, in which she pleads with the police not to shoot because, in her words, “He has no weapon.” Her statement is oddly incongruous with the police’s shouted commands to “Drop the gun!” If he did in fact have a gun, the officers’ actions appear justifiable. If he was only holding a book, as the Black Lives Matters movement contends, then the incident appears to be a coordinated attack on an innocuous citizen. So did he have a gun or didn’t he? It makes a difference.

The fact that the police were ordering Scott to drop his weapon demonstrates at least that they thought he had a gun. Purveyors of the book theory are implying that a book looks like a gun to racist southern cops when a black man is holding it. But this wasn’t a case of misperception—the police did recover a pistol at the scene, a possibility that Corine Mack almost certainly dreaded, hence her clever hedging. The pistol was covered with Scott’s fingerprints and blood, and it was apparently stolen property. Scott’s supporters are now resorting to outlandish conspiracy theories to explain away the gun. Not only did the cops shout “drop the gun” for the benefit of the camera, but apparently they also planted the gun afterward, laced with fingerprints and DNA, all so they could shoot an unthreatening, unarmed black man while he read a book and waited for his son to get off the school bus.

Rakeyia Scott’s shrieking pleas to the cops seem criminal in light of the fact that her husband was in fact armed with a pistol. The police were caught up in a tense situation with an armed suspect and she was interfering with their duties. Worse yet, she was attempting to persuade them that her husband posed no danger when she knew well that he was an armed felon with a history of violence, having been convicted in 2005 of firing ten shots at an acquaintance and then evading arrest. She was even the target of Keith Scott’s violence in the recent past. In October of last year she received a restraining order against him after he kicked her, threatened her with a gun, and punched her 8-year old son three times in the face. It seems that his only punishment was to turn in his gun which, as a convicted felon, he was not legally permitted to own. He did not go back to jail, a testament to how lenient the legal system is with criminals in this country. After the restraining order had been in place just eleven days, Mrs. Scott relented and asked the court to remove it. She is the classic case of a woman who returns to, and even defends, her abuser.

Is it possible that Mrs. Scott didn’t know that her husband was carrying a gun on the day he was killed? That seems unlikely in that he was wearing a holster around his ankle in plain view. It’s very likely that she knew he was armed and she certainly knew that he was dangerous and yet she encouraged the police to let down their guard. I’m no lawyer but there has to be something illegal about that. Rakeyia Scott was not naïve about her bad boy husband. She lied to the cops, a lie that might have cost them their lives if they had been dumb enough to believe it.

Rakeyia Scott doesn’t see anything wrong with her lie because the facts of her husband’s violent history and criminal gun ownership are irrelevant to her. Nor do they matter to the NAACP and, if their chapter president’s statement is accurate, they don’t matter to Charlotte’s black community. Facts never seem to matter when a black criminal gets shot. Take for example the unnamed neighbors who claimed that they also saw a book in Scott’s hand, thus corroborating the widow’s story and painting the cops as liars. It’s Ferguson 2014 all over again, with the black community saying whatever they have to say to indict the cops. I wouldn’t be surprise if some of the “witnesses” weren’t even there.

Black Lives Matter really ought to start calling themselves Facts Don’t Matter because that’s what they believe. What’s important to them is the narrative—the story that gets told through the media. Luckily for them, the media is predisposed to tell their story for them, regardless of its veracity. The narrative is so well-rehearsed that reporters no longer wait for the facts to come in before dashing off ill-informed pieces filled with factual errors. The vaunted New York Times, for example, tweeted that Charlotte police had killed an “unarmed black man.” Just a mistake? If so, why do these mistakes always seem to portray the cops in the worst light? The Times later “corrected” itself, tweeting that it was still undetermined whether Keith Scott was armed. No, it isn’t undetermined, it’s merely disputed by a few halfwits who cannot and never will accept that a gun was recovered at the scene. The Associated Press ran a story that claimed Scott had been killed by a white police officer. False. Keith Scott was killed by Officer Brentley Vinson, who is black, and by all accounts a great cop.

This shooting should really be a 30-second story on the 11 o’clock local news, and it should go something like this—a violent convicted felon nearly killed a few police officers with a pistol he illegally owned but the officers defended themselves and, unfortunately, the felon died. That’s the no-nonsense version of what happened and it’s exactly how it would have been reported if Keith Scott had been white. The fact that the dead guy was black really shouldn’t be mentioned at all because it implies that he was only killed for being black. There’s zero evidence of that. If they must mention his race they should also mention, over and over again, that the cop who shot him is also black.

But of course histrionics ruled the day and this minor local story became national news. The media merely updated their template with a few details pertaining to this particular case and went to press with the same old story—racist cops murder innocent black man in cold blood for no other reason than his race. To my knowledge, there has never been a police shooting that actually went down this way—at least not in my lifetime. That’s not to say that in every case the police were blameless, though in some they were. In other cases, the cops were too quick to use force, and in others they showed indiscipline, but in no instance that I can think of did police officers gun down a completely innocent black person for no other reason than racial animosity.

But if the facts of the case won’t fit the narrative, it’s the facts not the narrative that Black Lives Matter alter. From “hands up, don’t shoot” to Sandra Bland’s supposed murder, the movement thrives on enormous lies. They seem almost incapable of telling the truth, hamstrung by some kind of mental or emotional roadblock that simply won’t allow an honest accounting of what happened. Charlotte is being terrorized over a lie, just like Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Ferguson before it. No, we don’t need to “understand” the rioters’ grievances because their grievances are bunk. We need to stand up for the truth and good cops.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Crime

BREAKING News Out Of Virginia… Jury Gives Illegal Alien Special Treatment – THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Published

on

Say what?

A jury in the newly minted blue state of Virginia saw itself forced to convict a maid for felony grand larceny after she stole $5,000 worth of rings from the home she cleaned. But since they felt bad for the pregnant 19-year-old they all did something truly unthinkable and downright foolish. The Jury foreman, Jeffery Memmott, in a statement, said all the jurors pooled together the $80 so that Sandra Mendez Ortega could pay the $60 fine and go free. Ortega is pregnant with her second child.

But on top of this whole act being outrageous, it gets even worse when you look the other side of the coin.

Of course, Lisa Copeland, who is the accuser is outraged. In a statement, she said she prayed that none of the jurors are ever in my shoes She also added that Ortega never accepted responsibility for the theft nor did she ever apologize, if she had accepted responsibility she would have no issue with this, but since she never did it’s not a good thing and since the maid makes $60 a day she is now $20 richer since the jury gave her $80 to pay her $60 fine.

Now lets sum this whole mess up shall we?

An illegal breaks the law by sneaking into our country to procreate and work for peanuts while sponging off the already overburdened taxpayers and Lisa Copeman is surprised that she stole from her? Copeman was too cheap to get a real cleaning company who is bonded and insured so she decided to employ someone whom she didn’t know to clean her house. And at the same time, the jury fell for the sob story this illegal criminal told them.

Maybe next time Ortega is in court she’ll be pregnant with her 6th anchor baby! When people in Latin America refer to us Americans as “Gringos Estupidos,” they might have a point.

Investor’s Business Daily Reports:

Sorry, But Illegal Aliens Cost The U.S. Plenty

Immigration: A center-left think tank has hailed new findings showing that illegal immigrants contribute $11.6 billion in state and local taxes nationwide. But that report really shows how little they pay compared to the rest of us.

If there’s any doubt America is importing poverty, take a look at a new study this week from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which touts the $11.6 billion illegals pay in taxes to state and local coffers. This isn’t federal or payroll taxes, just cash paid through sales taxes, property taxes and city and state fees.

“Data show undocumented immigrants greatly contribute to our nation’s economy, not just in labor but also with tax dollars,” ITEP state tax policy director Meg Wiehe said in a statement. “With immigration policy playing a key role in state and national debates, accurate information about the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants is needed now more than ever.”

We couldn’t agree more. So let’s take a look at some actual accurate information:

With an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., that $11.6 billion comes to about $1,050 per person, which The Latin Post hails as “lots of taxes.” In fact, it’s less than the average paid by citizens in even the lowest-tax states, such as Tennessee, where the average per capita state and local tax burden is $2,805, not to mention high tax areas, like Washington, D.C., where the figure is $7,540, according to data from the Tax Foundation. Media reports point out that illegals pay about 8% of their incomes in state and local taxes, compared with 5.4% for “the 1%,” but ignore that average taxpayers, based on the Tax Foundation data, pay an average of 9.48%.

Well, sure, you might say, but once illegals get amnesty, they will contribute similar amounts as the rest of us, right? Actually, no.

Illegals have far less education than average Americans and correspondingly lower base incomes. Based on another study reported this week from two other center-left think tanks, if the U.S. handed out work permits, through a program such as Deferred Action For Parents Of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), it would add only 10% to illegals’ incomes — meaning, an additional $3,000 per capita, which would then see a small slice taken as state and local taxes, for a grand total of just $805 million to the government. It still wouldn’t approach the average Tennessee local tax rates, cited above.

Illegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.

With benefits like that — and a president determined to shower even more on them — it’s little wonder the world’s impoverished feel the red carpet is out for them to come here illegally.

Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, said Heritage understates actual welfare use by illegals by its use of the federal government’s Current Population Survey. “In a more recent study where I looked at welfare use only (not taxes or other expense) using the much more accurate Survey of Income and Program Participation, I found that 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used at least one major welfare program,” Camarota told IBD via email.

“Bottom line, illegal immigrants have a 10th grade education on average,” he said. “In the modern American economy people with that level of education tend to make modest wages and as result pay relatively little in taxes, at the same time they tend to use a lot in public services, regardless of legal status. In the case of illegals, they often receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. If you had to put it in a bumper sticker it would be: ‘there is a high cost to cheap labor.’ “

Please share if you agree we need to build the wall…

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Crime

BOMBSHELL! Hillary Tarmac SECRET Revealed! This is HUGE!!! LOCK THEM UP NOW!!!

They Tried To Hide It But It’s Out Now!

Published

on

New information is continuing to come out regarding the now infamous Tarmac Meeting between the serial rapist and former President Bill Clinton and the Barack Hussein Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

But what is indeed the most alarming part of this whole ordeal is the FBI’s reaction to the leaking of this clandestine meeting to the public. Agency leadership wasn’t even a tab bit concerned about how they should respond the meeting between Lynch and Clinton or how it would look considering Crooked Hillary was at that time under a full investigation by the FBI?

You would think the FBI would be concerned about the optics of this matter, but It will come as a surprise to some, not many at this point after everything we’ve learned in the past few months, that the FBI was actually more concerned about where the leak came from than about what actually went down on that tarmac. All they were concerned about is finding who within the FBI leaked the information about the meeting to the press and making that person pay.

As Katie Pavlich reported at Townhall, the FBI released a series of emails yesterday afternoon where we learn more details about the Department of Justice’s response to the information leak of the now infamous secret meeting between Lynch and Clinton.

The dates on the emails range from July 1-3, 2016. On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not face criminal charges for mishandling classified information. Interesting dates, don’t you think?

Since the Clintons have always treated the American people like idiots Bill said at the time that he, and Lynch, only spoke only about their grandchildren, but since we know perfectly well the former Attorney General isn’t Bill Clinton’s type, the only possible answer to this tarmac meeting is Bill was trying to get Hillary off the hook.

Via Newsweek:

AFTER CLINTON-LYNCH TARMAC MEETING, FBI SCRAMBLED TO FIND AND PUNISH SOURCE, NEWLY RELEASED EMAILS SHOW

After news broke about an airport meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in the midst of last year’s presidential campaign, the FBI scrambled to identify the source who leaked details about the encounter and discipline him or her, according to emails released on the FBI website on Friday.

The meeting between Lynch and Clinton took place in June 2016, while the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Bill Clinton boarded Lynch’s plane while it was on the tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport. The following month, then-FBI Director James Comey announced the bureau would not recommend that the Department of Justice pursue charges in the email probe. Comey has testified before Congress that Lynch asked him to refer to the probe as a “matter,” a request that made him feel “queasy.”

Related: What will Loretta Lynch tell Russia investigators?

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

The internal emails show that on June 29, 2016, a senior spokeswoman for the Justice Department emailed her counterparts at the FBI to flag articles that were starting to appear about the meeting. In the email, the spokeswoman, Melanie Newman, described the encounter as “a casual, unscheduled meeting.” She provided talking points, which are redacted in the released version.

That same day, multiple FBI officials sent links about the story to Comey, who responded to one email, “Got it, thanks sir.” Also on those email chains were FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whom President Donald Trump and others have accused of a pro-Clinton bias because his wife received money for a political campaign from entities associated with Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally; and Peter Strzok, who was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team because of text messages critical of Trump. Strzok oversaw the Clinton email investigation.

But after Observer published an article containing additional details about the encounter, citing an anonymous “security source” who had been present, the FBI and Justice Department moved from damage control to discussions about identifying the source and punishing that person, the emails show. At the time, the publisher of Observer was Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of his senior advisers.

On December 15, the FBI released documents related to the so-called tarmac meeting in Phoenix between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, pictured here on June 20, and former President Bill Clinton.
SPENCER PLATT/GETTY

On July 2, a person whose name is redacted in the FBI release wrote to a bureau employee about the Observer article. The employee, whose name is also redacted, responded, “I agree with your assessment about the source, which in reading the article, I believe was one of the local PD officer [sic] assisting with one of the two motorcade [sic] there on the Tarmac. Either way, they should have never offered any type of opinion or details of what did or didn’t happen, as this is the most principle and basic tenant of executive protection.”

The FBI employee added, “Unfortunately, this article is a breach in security protocol and I am addressing it with the Phoenix division to make certain that they pursuit [sic] this and identify the source of the breach.”

The next day, an undisclosed FBI employee, presumably the same person from the earlier email, wrote to several colleagues, “I believe that the source quoted in this article is one of the local Phoenix LEO’s. Needless to say that I have contacted the Phoenix office and will contact the local’s [sic] who assisted in an attempt to stem further damage.”

An FBI employee responded, “This article is infuriating.” Another FBI person wrote in response, “You think there will be a need for non-disclosure agreements in the future?” A colleague wrote back, “That might not be a bad idea, given the circumstances.” All of their names are redacted.

Another FBI employee whose name is redacted responded to the email about the article, “We need to find that guy and bring him or her before a supervisor.” A colleague responded, “I’m trying to find out thru [sic] the PX STL. Hopefully, we will find out and at the very minimum, make sure he never works on any detail.”

Republican lawmakers and at least two of Trump’s lawyers have called for a special counsel to investigate the handling of the Clinton emails probe. Several congressional committees are also looking into that subject, as is the Justice Department inspector general.

Both Lynch and Clinton still maintain the chance meeting, which Clinton waited for 30 minutes on that tarmac to have, was only by chance.

Please share if you want to get to the bottom of this mess….

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Crime

SHOCKING News From California… Major Company Makes Assassination Threat At Trump!!!

Published

on

Liberal companies have been mobilizing against Donald Trump almost immediately after he was inaugurated. After Trump issued his executive order banning travel from seven Muslim countries, those liberal companies really went into overdrive, publicly opposing both the order, and Trump himself. But this liberal CEO? He just took it way too far.

Most liberal CEOs keep to opposing Trump in the usual way. Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, announced that he would hire 10,000 refugees in response to Trump’s executive order. It’s irritating to many Americans, but it’s not criminal. What Ted Kornblum just did, though, is.

Kornblum is the CEO of Magnatone Guitars and Amplifiers. And apparently, he isn’t very bright. Like a typical liberal, he opposes Donald Trump. But most liberals are at least smart enough to know that posting assassination fantasies online isn’t the best idea; at the very least, it will get the attention of the Secret Service rather quickly.

Yet Kornblum still went ahead and posted an assassination threat, on both Facebook and Twitter. He evidently really, really wanted to make sure everyone knew about it.

It didn’t take long for Twitter users to start bringing the threats to the attention of the Secret Service, and to call out the media for ignoring it:

Can you imagine the reaction if the CEO of a right-wing company had said the same thing about Obama while he was in office? The media would have had a field day! But because it’s Trump, the media is silent.

Still, even without any media attention, Kornblum realized that he had stepped in it, big time, and put out an apology on Facebook:

magnatone
Still, the damage may have already been done. The Magnatone Facebook page appears to have been yanked. Nothing about the assassination threat, including the apology, appears on the Magnatone website. Kornblum appears to have gone underground, possibly in fear of being arrested by the Secret Service.

It’s one thing to peacefully protest — but liberals don’t seem to understand that when you start advocating for violence, or rioting, or physically attacking people, you can no longer call what you’re doing a “protest”. And it certainly can’t be called peaceful, either. Calling for the president to be assassinated isn’t just an invalid form of protesting, it’s illegal and stupid.

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Trending