This, sadly, is not the first time I have talked about Leftists trying to take this country back in time with repackaging of segregation as being a good thing for minorities. A little more than a year ago (and this feels like it was a lot farther back in time than it was), I talked about white (mostly female) students in Columbia University wanting to segregate whites from blacks, supposedly for the benefit of black people.
And going even farther back, roughly a month and a half after Trump’s inauguration, my associate wrote an article about black University of Michigan students wanting to self-segregate, demanding “safe spaces” to “fight ‘against oppression.’”
Funny enough, the University of Michigan is once again the subject of racism and segregation, though this time it’s in the Dearborn campus of the school and it comes from faculty rather than students.
At this campus, Leftists thought it would be a fantastic idea to host a whites only café, which they dubbed “non-POC café” probably because they realized that actually calling it “whites only” would have sent a worse message than this already does.
The university’s Center for Social Justice & Inclusion (so you already know how hilariously pathetic this entire thing is) invited whites to a virtual café where they would discuss what it’s like to be white and how to be a useful white person for non-white people, because if there is something non-white people love is white liberals coming in and virtue signal to the point where the white liberals expect something like this to happen:
More specifically, the invite reads: “Feel free to drop in and discuss your experiences as non-persons of color and hopefully brainstorm solutions to common issues within the non-POC community. The café will be held bi-monthly, generally to occur on the 1st Tuesday of every month at 2:00pm and the 3rd Wednesday of every month at 7:00pm. Dates and times are subject to change depending on feedback and demand.”
Suffice it to say that they absolutely got railed online, as they deserve, because they are literally hosting a segregated, whites only café where minorities are not allowed. Now, the university did apologize for this, saying the event was “not reflective of the university’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.” The university has also made it so you can’t access either their “non-POC only” café or their “BIPOC only” café (Black and Indigenous Person of Color, and yes, this is still extremely stupid Leftist virtue signaling).
Speaking of which, I think they figured having a whites only café would have been a bit too outrageous if they didn’t also offered a coloreds café, because the mind of a liberal works in reverse.
Still, despite them walking this back, it is clear what the intent here is: return to segregation. The only difference between what it used to be and what the Left wants it to be now is that minorities aren’t the ones getting the crappy stuff.
Back when segregation was a thing, white people had nice water fountains, nice public restrooms, etc. and colored people had comparably worse water fountains and public restrooms. Now, the Left is trying to repackage segregation as a good thing for minorities because minorities wouldn’t be the ones getting the short end of the stick when it came to public utilities.
Is this the lesson the Left got from the Civil Rights movement? Do they think that if the water fountains and restrooms had been a bit more up to standard, that would have made black people fine with segregation?
The Left’s racism knows no bounds.
But even still, there is no doubt what the play here is: trying to divide Americans.
“Wow, Freddie, I couldn’t figure that one out on my own, durr.” I know, that was an obvious thing to say, but listen to me. Remember how I said that my associate wrote an article about black students in the University of Michigan wanting to self-segregate? This is the effect the Left wants to achieve nationally. They want black and white people to be so divided and separated (what do you think all of the attacks on white people are about?) that black people will see it as beneficial to segregate themselves from whites.
The aim of the Left is to have Americans so divided that they become easier to control. Division, deception and destruction are the Left’s most oft-used tools and pretty much the only ones they know how to use.
They can tear things down but not build things up. They can destroy buildings and statues, but not build them back up. They want power and will get it however they need. I wouldn’t be surprised if at one point or another, they began to argue for white slavery.
I know that that seems like a far-fetched idea, but considering we have Leftists openly heaping praise at a pedophilic movie, depraved things like the dissolution of the 13th amendment for the purposes of getting revenge on white people (who had nothing to do with the slavery of centuries past) are not things I would put past them to be willing to push for.
Already, we are seeing far-Left lunatic black people giving seminars and Ted Talks about how literally all white people are racist. It’s a nonsensical argument, but they are still trying to make it. Not to mention many are pushing for reparations, and the looting of stores has been excused by BLM leaders as a type of reparations (and BLM protestors have gone into residential neighborhoods demanding the white people give their homes to black people). The idea of white slavery, if it is ever pushed, would be pushed as part of “reparations”, which is really nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt at revenge rather than justice.
Not to mention that if black people really wanted reparations, they should go after the DNC, which has been the number one enemy of black people and continues to be so.
But returning to the University of Michigan, I can’t say I’m surprised that a university is so fraught with blatant racism like this. And I know that they “meant well”, at least that’s what they will argue, but no one can tell me that racial segregation is anything short of racism, regardless of the supposed reasoning behind it.
If white people want to segregate themselves from black people because they don’t like black people, that’s wrong and racist. If white people want to segregate themselves from black people because they don’t want to “burden” black people (or something dumb like that) with their presence, that’s wrong and racist. If black people want to segregate themselves from white people because they believe they are inferior, that’s wrong and racist. If black people want to segregate themselves from white people because they don’t like white people, that’s wrong and racist.
SEGREGATION IS RACIST! That I have to say this is ludicrous, but here we are, thanks to the hateful and racist Left.
“Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Jemele Hill is not exactly what people would call “smart.” This was very much clear when on Sunday, the former ESPN host suggested that the United States was just “as bad” as Nazi Germany, and that the Nazis “learned” from “watching America”.
Her initial tweet read as follows: “Been reading Isabel Wilkerson’s new book, ‘Caste,’ and if you were of the opinion that the United States wasn’t nearly as bad as Nazi Germany, how wrong you are. Can’t encourage you enough to read this masterpiece.”
Naturally, for comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany, she was destroyed online for her sheer ignorance. Former Acting Director of National Intelligence and Ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell replied: “Read a book. The Nazis murdered 6.5 million Jews.”
Daily Wire writer Matt Walsh replied: “Been reading Jemele Hill’s tweets, and if you were of the opinion that she’s smarter than a cactus, how wrong you are.”
Tim Young replied: “Just the basic fact that you have a huge platform/make a solid living s****ing on the President and haven’t been locked in a labor camp says this is the complete opposite of nazi Germany. Grow up.”
To that particular tweet, Hill replied with the following: “Nowhere in my tweet did I say the current state of America is like Nazi Germany. I was referring to our racial history. The parallels have been pointed out by plenty of historians, not just Isabel Wilkerson. You tell me to grow up. I say, you need to read more.”
To be fair, the initial tweet did not specify that she was referring to Civil War-era America and not contemporary America. The wording was just ambiguous enough for people to reasonably believe she was referring to the current state of the country and not its history.
At any rate, she also replied to Arc Digital Editor-in-Chief Berny Belvedere, who originally told her: “This is breathtakingly irresponsible. How is anyone supposed to trust your judgment after this horror show of an opinion?”
To go on a bit of a tangent before quoting Hill’s reply to Belvedere, THIS particular opinion was only the latest one in a series of them which ought to demonstrate to people that her judgment is not to be trusted. She has REPEATEDLY compared Trump to some of the worst dictators in history and suggested he was on track to doing the same things that they did. This particular opinion was not particularly exceptional in comparison to the other atrocious takes she has uttered.
In any case, Hill’s reply to Belvedere was as follows: “What would you call it when a country that murdered millions of Jews learned their systems of genocide by watching America, and studying our history of racialized slavery, and great knack for racial terrorism?”
This is where I have to give up a point, but not a point she would want me to take note of: The Nazis DID learn from Americans – just not the country as a whole nor the kinds of Americans she would want them to have learned from.
What I mean is that Nazi Germany didn’t learn its practices from watching America. They learned their practices from watching THE DEMOCRAT SOUTH.
Hill, in her original tweet, was promoting a book that compared Nazi Germany with America, at least in its history as a country. Allow me, then, to promote a book that dispels the Leftist notions that America as a whole is to blame for the atrocities of the Nazis: Dinesh D’Souza’s “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of The American Left.”
The subhead is, admittedly, a tad misleading. The modern American Left certainly has roots in the Nazis, but the Nazis also have roots in the old American Left – the one which fought for slavery, enacted Jim Crow laws and made it nearly impossible for former slaves to succeed and prosper, enacting laws and regulations that basically forced the freed slaves to return to the plantations while being paid peanuts and not living much differently free as they did when slaves.
Simply, to answer her question regarding what I would call it when a country that committed egregious crimes against humanity learned from watching politicians in America basically doing the same would be “learning from Democrats.”
Democrats were the ones who founded the domestic terrorist group known as the KKK. They were the ones who fought to keep their slaves. They were the ones who fought a war which led to the genocide of Native Americans.
Here’s an excerpt from D’Souza’s book, in a section aptly titled: “Learning from Hitler.”
“In this book I will show what the Left learned from the Nazis, and also what the Left taught the Nazis… Hitler… specifically said he intended to displace and exterminate the Russians, the Poles, and the Slavs in precisely the same way Americans in the Jacksonian era had displaced and exterminated the native Indians. The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were directly modeled on the segregation and anti-miscegenation laws that had been implemented decades earlier in the Democratic South. Forced sterilization and euthanasia aimed at eliminating racial ‘defectives’ and producing a ‘superior’ Nordic race were two additional schemes the Nazis got from American progressives…
… Franklin D. Roosevelt was an avid admirer of Mussolini who sought to import Italian fascist schemes to America. FDR also collaborated with the worst racist elements in America, working with them to block anti-lynching laws and exclude blacks from New Deal programs and name a former Klansman to the Supreme Court. Mussolini, for his part, praised FDR’s book ‘Looking Forward’ and basically declared FDR to be a fellow fascist. Hitler too saw FDR as a kindred spirit and the New Deal was widely praised as an American form of fascism in the Nazi Party’s official newspaper ‘Volkischer Beobachter’ and other Nazi publications.”
“JFK toured Nazi Germany in the 1930s and came back effusive with praise of Hitler and his theory of Nordic superiority. ‘I have come to the conclusion, ‘JFK wrote in his diary, ‘that fascism is right for Germany and Italy.’… [JFK] described [Hitler] as ‘the stuff of legends… Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures to have lived.’”
D’Souza notes that the American Left learned from Nazi Germany, following World War II, as much as Nazi Germany learned from the American Left which was directly responsible for the darkest parts of America’s history.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a massive advocate for eugenics (as evidenced by her founding of PLANNED PARENTHOOD) long before Hitler rose to power. She sought to eliminate black people, whom she considered “weeds” of society, and had black people fooled by a black eugenicist who would parrot Sanger’s eugenics propaganda as being beneficial to black people.
In a way, Hill is right in saying that Nazi Germany learned by watching America. However, they didn’t learn by watching Republicans or right-wingers. They didn’t learn by watching the people the Left now associates with them. They learned from THE LEFT and the things they had done. Like I pointed out, the Nuremberg Laws were modeled after the Left’s racist segregation laws.
The Nazis learned from the Left and the Left learns from Nazis. Take the following quote, as an example: “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation… and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
This sounds exactly like something someone would’ve said (or basically, someone did say) at last week’s Democratic National Convention. This quote, in fact, came from a 1927 speech made by Adolf Hitler.
D’Souza writes: “The Nazi Party at the outset offered a twenty-five point program that included the nationalization of large corporations and trusts, government control of banking and credit, the seizure of land without compensation for public use, the splitting of large landholdings into smaller units, confiscation of war profits, prosecution of bankers and other lenders on grounds of usury, abolition of incomes unearned by work, profit sharing for workers in all large companies, a broader pension system paying higher benefits, and universal free healthcare and education.”
With some slight alterations, this sounds exactly like the Leftist plan of today. Modern Leftists want, to some extent or another, each of these propositions, with some slight alterations to account for our modern era.
The American Left and the Nazis are inseparable, much as they might try to deny it. The American Left at least partly inspired Hitler and the Nazis in their quest to eradicate “inferior” races (I say partly because I believe Nietzsche’s theory of the “ubermench” or “superman” was also partly to blame). The American Left, past and present, has clear ties to Nazi Germany.
So, no, it’s not that Nazi Germany learned from watching America, because different states had different policies, as did different presidents in different times.
No, Nazi Germany specifically learned from watching American Leftists in how they enacted their racist and egregiously inhuman laws.
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
“Police have charged a 25-year-old man with first-degree murder after they say he shot and killed a 5-year-old boy last week in Wilson, North Carolina.
Austin Hinnant told CNN affiliate WRAL he was inside the home when his son, Cannon, was playing outside and was shot.
Hinnant says he ran outside and scooped up the injured child and held him in his arms.
‘I screamed “somebody help me, please help me save my son,”’ he said.
Hinnant told the affiliate he looked up and saw his neighbor, Darius Sessoms, in the yard next door with a gun in hand, pacing and frantic.
‘I was looking at him as I was picking up Cannon, and I was so full of rage, but I could not leave my son's side,’ he said. ‘I just wanted to be with my son.’
Hinnant's fiancé called 911, he said, and Sessoms drove away.
In a news release, the Wilson Police Department said officers were dispatched to the 5100 block of Archers Road on August 9 in reference to a shooting and found a 5-year-old suffering a gunshot wound, who later died at a nearby hospital.
Police identified Sessoms as a suspect and arrested him after he was found Monday in a Goldsboro residence about 30 minutes south of Wilson. It is unclear if Sessoms has an attorney.”
This is literally all CNN had to say about Cannon Hinnant. Roughly one week after the gruesome and heartless execution of the 5-year-old child, after multiple conservative outlets had already covered it and after multiple conservative accounts started the trend of “#SayHisName” in reference to the little boy, one mainstream news outlet (that’s not Fox News) has finally come around to begrudgingly talk about Cannon Hinnant.
Well, sort of.
Allow me to explain. What you just read above came from CNN INTERNATIONAL. Not even the main branch of CNN quite talked about it, just the international branch.
So that’s one ghastly and disgusting aspect of this scenario. The other is the fact that that entire excerpt amounts to only 222 words. That’s local news level coverage. That’s not even close to what I usually write or what other news outlets usually write about anything.
There is an article on CNBC about a mall owner acquiring denim retailer Lucky out of bankruptcy for $140.1 million. That article has a higher word count than CNN International’s article about Cannon Hinnant. Who the hell cares about a mall owner acquiring a denim company, other than the people involved in the deal and possibly the investors in those companies? Well, seemingly, more people on the fake news media care more about that random story than about the EXECUTION of a 5-year-old. This should be sickening, regardless of the races involved in the story.
Just for reference, CNN has 1,709 stories that mention George Floyd by name. For every word in that Cannon Hinnant article, there are EIGHT STORIES about George Floyd.
CNN also has 1,204 stories that mention Trayvon Martin. For every word in the Cannon article, there are five and a half stories that talk about Trayvon Martin.
CNN has 148 stories about attempted cop-killer Rayshard Brooks. For every word in the Cannon article, there are 0.66 articles about Brooks.
CNN has 73 stories about whiny, attention-seeking NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace, who faked a hate crime by pretending a garage door pull was a racist noose. CNN talked far more at length about this hoax than Cannon Hinnant.
So not only did it take CNN nearly a week to cover a horrific story that you and I both know perfectly well they would’ve covered as soon as they got a whiff of it had the races been reversed (a white man executing a 5-year-old black child), and not only did it take their INTERNATIONAL branch to begrudgingly talk about it, but they could not even spare 300 words, minimum, to talk about it.
Notice also that at no point in the story do they mention the races of the people involved. In the actual article, they have a picture of Sessoms, so those who read it will see that the suspect is black, but they don’t, at all, mention that Cannon is white.
This, again, you and I both know, would NEVER be the case if the races were reversed. This story, especially the races involved, would be ALL we would talk about for the next month, and likely even to election day.
If we had heard a story of a 25-year-old crazy bastard of a white man EXECUTING an innocent 5-year-old black boy in front of his two older sisters, supposedly for riding his bike over the white man’s lawn, people would have lost their MINDS. While there are still riots going on since George Floyd’s death, this story would have led to even more riots, and maybe even worse ones than what we saw.
The fake news media made the Trayvon Martin a national story. Like I said in the first article covering the Cannon Hinnant story, Trayvon’s name is ingrained in the minds of this nation. We remember his name roughly 8 years after his death. Despite the fact that Trayvon was the aggressor in that situation, his story gets remembered and told and retold whenever issues of race are brought up JUST because he was a black kid killed by someone who was only HALF white. The media does not extend the same courtesy to a 5-year-old white child who is gruesomely and unjustifiably executed by an evil s.o.b. of a neighbor who happens to be black.
It's not even like Cannon having been black would have made much of a difference to the fake news media.
Remember Secoriea Turner? The 8-year-old child who was killed by BLM terrorists who occupied the burned-down Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks was justifiably killed by police? CNN only has 10 stories about her.
The first one covering the story has to do with Atlanta’s mayor talking about the incident. Had she not brought it up, CNN wouldn’t have covered the story.
The next three stories they wrote about it had more to do with overall crime, more specifically, what they called “gun crime” and “gun violence”, blaming guns in America as opposed to DOMESTIC TERRORISTS CAUSING CRIME ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO SKYROCKET BECAUSE OF LIMP-STICK DEMOCRAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS NOT DOING A THING TO PROTECT THE CITIES AND STATES THEY RUN!
The last article that CNN ran that mentioned Turner’s name was in July 16th (as of this article going live). Meanwhile, they are still trudging out stories that mention George Floyd.
The reason for CNN not covering the death of an 8-year-old black girl is because of just who was responsible: the very people that CNN roots for and covers for. A black BLM terrorist killed that girl. CNN lies for, covers for and gaslights for BLM terrorists. CNN does not cover black-on-black crime.
This is why I say that, even if Cannon had been black, CNN wouldn’t have talked about it because his killer was black. How many other black men kill black kids that hardly, if at all, get covered by the mainstream media? That number is infinitesimally smaller than the stories they write about ONE instance of a black man dying seemingly at the hands of a white person or a white cop.
Again, they have mentioned Floyd’s name in nearly 2,000 DIFFERENT ARTICLES. They have mentioned Trayvon’s name in 1,200 different articles. They mentioned Brooks in roughly 150 articles so far.
8-year-old Secoriea Turner, meanwhile, only gets 10 articles, at least 30% of which are meant to attack guns and blame guns, as opposed to radical Leftist terrorists. And 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant gets ONE article that one could read multiple times while riding in an elevator.
Meanwhile, other fake news outlets have not even talked about Hinnant at all, so I suppose I should give CNN SOME credit for finally kinda sorta talking about Cannon Hinnant in passing. That was their “there, we talked about the kid, now leave us alone” article. Their “there, we covered what you were pestering us about” article.
They don’t care about journalistic integrity or truth. Like I said, a white person being the victim of a black person runs contrary to the Leftist narrative of white people being oppressive and dominant over black people. At this point, I’m rather surprised they don’t cover these stories through the lens of black people “fighting back” against their “white oppressors” but I think we are still a bit away from that level of moral bankruptcy, even from the Leftist fake news.
To rephrase my ending note in the first article covering Cannon’s story: the fake news media’s treatment of this story tells us everything we need to know about them. Evil bastards, the lot of them.
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If that title seems familiar to you, I wouldn’t be surprised. I recently talked about Ryan Whitaker, a man who was executed by police in Phoenix back in late May. If you read that article, from the formatting of this article’s title, you can probably guess as to roughly what it is I am going to be talking about today.
On August 9th, Cannon Hinnant, a 5-year-old white kid, was shot and killed execution-style by his neighbor, Darius N. Sessoms, a 25-year-old black man, in a mobile home park in Wilson, North Carolina.
Local CBS News affiliate CBS17 reports: “Family members said Cannon was riding his bicycle when he was shot and killed along Archers Road on Sunday. Officers arrived to find Hinnant suffering from a gunshot wound. EMS workers and police began ‘performing lifesaving efforts’ at the scene, police said. Hinnant was taken to Wilson Medical Center but later died, police said.”
In a press release Monday morning, the police department said: “The Wilson Police Department sends its sincerest condolences and prayers to the family of Cannon during this tragic time.”
Thankfully, Sessoms was captured and charged with first-degree murder, receiving no bond, so he is off the streets for the time being.
Sessoms has a long criminal record of multiple felony drug charges, multiple felony probation violations, and multiple charges for possession of stolen firearms, as well as resisting a public official, according to CBS17.
The motive for this heinous crime was unclear, though there is a theory out there that Cannon rode his bike onto the suspect’s lawn. But of course, no motive will ever be a good enough excuse to executing a 5-year-old, shooting him in the head, and doing it all in front of his two older sisters.
But why exactly am I writing about this?
Well, for one, this is a horrible incident and it has spread online (in conservative media, at least). Given that I follow many conservatives on social media, this story reached my ears, so to speak, and believed I ought to talk about it, given how insidious this incident is.
A second reason for me to talk about this is similar to the one for having written about the Ryan Whitaker incident: the victim was white and the mainstream media is not covering it.
As horrible as it is, picture, for a moment, a white man arriving at the decision to brutally execute a 5-year-old black boy, supposedly for the “crime” of riding a bike on the white man’s lawn, and doing it in front of his two older sisters, traumatizing them for life. Do you think such a story would remain this quiet for this long?
Sure, this took place last weekend, but we all heard of George Floyd soon after the incident occurred. More importantly, and more relevant to this, we all heard of Trayvon Martin soon after that incident occurred, and that incident was not too dissimilar to this one.
What I mean by that is that a child of one race was killed by a grown man of another race. The differences in the two cases are obvious: Cannon was white while Trayvon was black. Cannon was an innocent 5-year-old while Trayvon was high on drugs and attacked George Zimmerman, leading Zimmerman to defend himself which resulted in the unfortunate death of Trayvon.
However, despite these things, and despite the fact that Trayvon was the aggressor in that situation, the Trayvon Martin story received national attention, to the point where the then-President of the United States felt compelled to claim that if he had had a son, he’d look like Trayvon (whatever that means).
The fake news media covered the Trayvon Martin incident like they covered the George Floyd incident, only they also made sure to selectively edit Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it sound like he was a racist and that he only killed Trayvon because he was racist.
They covered the justified death of a 17-year-old as this great tragedy (which it still was, as all deaths are tragic), while they refuse to cover the unjustifiable execution of a 5-year-old white kid at the hands of a black neighbor with a lengthy criminal history.
Look through the mainstream sources to find that none, except Fox News, have covered it. CNN hasn’t covered this story (they haven’t covered the Ryan Whitaker story either), ABC News hasn’t covered it (and like CNN, they haven’t covered the Whitaker story either), CBS hasn’t covered it, even as their local affiliate has, NBC hasn’t covered it, the NYT hasn’t covered it, the Washington Post hasn’t covered it.
The fake news largely hasn’t covered this story, when we all know how broad of a discussion it would be if the races were reversed.
Like I said, the Trayvon Martin story is relevant to this one to showcase how the fake news media covers these kinds of stories. While Trayvon was much older, was high and was the aggressor in the situation, he got all the media coverage he could want just because he was a black kid killed by a half-white man, while Cannon was much younger, was an innocent kid on a bike, didn’t hurt anyone and gets media silence because the story of a black man killing an innocent white child runs contrary to the Left’s agenda.
As I said in the Ryan Whitaker article, the death of a white person does not push the Left’s agenda. Cannon’s life did not matter to the Left. As a white person, the Left would view him as an oppressor, as an abuser and as a threat to non-whites. And don’t think that just because he was five that the Left wouldn’t view him this way. There are articles of white liberal women agonizing over their white sons because they think they will grow up to be sexual abusers simply because they are white boys.
The Left will demonize anyone and everyone they have to in order to advance their agenda, and anyone they can’t gets ignored. The only way the Left would cover Cannon’s death is if they can somehow claim that the little boy was the aggressor and that Sessoms “had no choice” but to go over to the kid and execute him in front of his big sisters.
But as it is extremely and ludicrously improbable that Cannon could at all be blamed here, his story will be completely swept under the rug as if it never even happened.
No political activists will pay for his 50th funeral proceeding. No woke athlete will demand you say his name. No woke activist will demand justice for Cannon Hinnant. No white organization will loot stores or create chaos supposedly in his name. There will be no large gatherings and marches in Cannon’s honor.
Trayvon Martin’s name, as I said in the Whitaker article, is ingrained in the minds of this nation. If you were to ask someone who doesn’t follow at least one conservative news source if they know who Cannon was, they’d say they do not. Cannon’s name will never make it into the mainstream. It will never be remembered.
A 17-year-old thug’s name is remembered. Rayshard Brooks, a threat to the police, will be remembered. George Floyd, who once held a pregnant woman at gunpoint and died overexerting his heart while under police custody, will be remembered. Michael Brown, who attempted to grab a police officer’s gun and attempted to beat said officer with the squad car door, will be remembered.
Thugs get remembered because they serve a political agenda for the side that controls the mainstream media. Law-abiding members of society like Ryan Whitaker, employees on a business trip like Daniel Shaver, and innocent children like Cannon Hinnant do not get remembered because their stories serve to undermine the political agenda of those who control the media.
The fake news media’s silence on this story tells us everything we need to know about who they are: rotten, despicable monsters.
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
While Democrat-controlled cities are still experiencing riots night after night, supposedly as a result of the police-involved death of George Floyd, there was one person who was executed by a police officer a few nights before George Floyd died and no one has called for any sort of retribution for it.
This man’s name was Ryan Whitaker. Whitaker, according to Arizona Central, had heard a knock at his apartment door one night earlier in the month of May. The knocker, however, was no longer there when Whitaker checked who was at the door.
Later that same week, he heard another knock at his door, ready to answer to any potential danger with his legally-owned 9mm handgun, and opened the door to see who it was, presumably after he checked the peephole to find no one there (as the officers were standing at either side of the door), and decided to open it, quickly reaching for his gun just in case.
One of the police officers shined a flashlight at Whitaker and as soon as he realized it was the police, he put his hands up and began to get on his knees, surrendering to the police.
However, despite this, one of the two officers at the scene, Officer Cooke, who was standing on the other side (and whom Whitaker likely did not realize was there, as he visibly only saw and interacted with the officer that shone a flashlight to his face), was a bit too trigger-happy and fired three rounds into Whitaker (despite the fact that Whitaker had already begun to surrender), causing him to collapse on the ground and eventually die.
Body cam footage (below) from Officer Ferragamo (the one with whom Whitaker interacted) shows these things as they happened.
What prompted this incident was a 911 call from a neighbor who twice called the cops to complain about Whitaker. The first time, he complained to the police about people screaming and it bothered his sleep. The second time, the neighbor alleged that the screaming had turned physical (which was not true).
The Arizona Central reports that the neighbor told the 911 dispatcher: “It could be physical. I could say yeah if that makes anybody hurry on up. Get anybody here faster.”
So the guy was alleging something against his neighbor (bearing false witness) that was not true just to get the cops to show up sooner so the guy can get his sleep. While noisy neighbors can be bothersome, this is definitely crossing a line and the consequences can be plainly seen (not that I place the brunt of the blame on the neighbor, as it was the trigger-happy cop who is largely to blame).
In the body-cam footage, even officer Ferragamo figured out the neighbor was b.s.-ing them, saying “Did you like all that helpful info we got from our complainant? ‘I’m just gonna say yes to all questions to get the officers here faster,’” Ferragamo mocked the neighbor.
Once the officers reached Whitaker’s apartment, they knocked on the door, with Ferragamo saying “Phoenix police,” and, like I said earlier, the pair of officers stood at either side of the door.
Now, I will put a bit of a pause on this to talk about this action for a moment. I have said before that I am not a cop, so I don’t know officer protocol for particular situations (especially since different districts have different policies for different situations). My personal theory here is that, in calls of potential domestic violence, even if the officers figure it’s a load of crap, they have to prioritize their own safety, as one of the possible offenders could be armed and present a threat to the officers as soon as they open the door.
The cops likely did not stand in front of the door, where they could easily be seen through the peephole, because they needed to maintain a safe distance and be at a safe angle to take care of the situation, regardless of whether or not it was actually a domestic violence call.
Like I said, this is my own personal theory, so I don’t know for sure if that was the reason, but I’m willing to give the officers the benefit of the doubt on this, since I really don’t know if that was proper procedure.
In any case, eventually, Whitaker opens the door, visibly only in his underwear, and officer Ferragamo asks him “how are you doing?” As he asked this, Whitaker reached behind his back for his gun, likely not knowing if that was actually an officer or someone who could present a danger to him (and remember, he had heard a knock at his door on a previous night, so he might have been more cautious than he otherwise might’ve been, but I don’t want to pass my own head-canon as judgment).
As Whitaker reached for his gun, things got a bit more hectic, but once Whitaker realized this really was the Phoenix police, he went to surrender. Despite no longer presenting a threat, Cooke fired three rounds into Whitaker, leading Whitaker to collapse on the ground, audibly struggling to breathe, and eventually die.
Now, I will address one thing here: this was a split-second decision, even if it was ultimately the wrong one. In the middle of chaos, the officer failed to realize Whitaker was not a threat. He overreacted and was too quick on the trigger (even Ferragamo, who would’ve been the primary target of Whitaker if Whitaker had intended to be a threat, kept his composure to not fire).
Despite this split-second decision, you can clearly tell Whitaker was getting on his knees and had his hands up. Only once he began this motion did Cooke fire, and there is simply no excuse for that, as Whitaker was very clearly not a threat and cops are trained in trigger-discipline to avoid circumstances exactly like this. Cops are supposed to be better than this, but this guy's overreaction at seeing Whitaker's gun (which was legal) led him to fire unnecessarily. I think he should be fired, at the very least, if not outright charged with homicide (not that I expect such charges to stick, as you will soon see that cops who execute civilians do not always get punished for it).
Phoenix has a higher rate of police shootings per 1 million residents than New York, L.A., and other similar-sized cities, so that goes to show how inept the police are in that city.
Getting back to the body-cam footage, eventually, Whitaker’s girlfriend comes out with her hands up and eventually explains to the police that she and Whitaker were playing a video game and they might have gotten a bit loud about it, though no domestic disturbance was present.
So, yes, the entire situation was avoidable in a number of ways.
However, allow me to get to the main objective of this article: this whole thing happened just days before the George Floyd incident. The Arizona Central only reported this on July 17th, nearly TWO MONTHS after it happened on May 21st. And you and I are only hearing about this in early-to-mid August, roughly two and a half months after this incident happened.
Where was the outrage? Never mind that, WHERE WAS THE COVERAGE?! Where were the protests held in his name? Where are the NBA players demanding justice for Ryan Whitaker? Where are the NBA jerseys that demand you say his name? Where was the national legislation that would reform police departments as a result of this incident?
Why are we only learning about this now and not when it happened, especially as it happened even before the George Floyd thing?
You and I both know the only reason we have never heard of Ryan Whitaker until today: he wasn’t black.
And since he wasn’t black, he was not politically expedient. His death does not bring any politician more donation money. His death does not drive voters to vote for a guy who promises to change the police department. His death does not push the media’s Leftist agenda. His death did not matter. His life did not matter. He was a straight, white man, whom we are told are exclusively the oppressors and abusers and killers, and not oppressed, abused or killed.
Back in early June, when the riots were at some of their worst, I wrote an article where I noted of a couple of instances in which a white man was shot or generally killed by cops and no one batted an eye.
I talked about a white man who was shot because he was car-hopping in a Chicago train station. I talked about Tony Timpa, who died in a similar fashion to George Floyd, being under the knee of a police officer (though I don’t think Timpa was under the influence of drugs or overexcited himself into a heart attack, so it was a bit different).
One I wish I had mentioned back then was the case of Daniel Shaver, a case which can most easily point to a bad cop deciding to straight up execute a man who posed no risk at all to him.
Back in 2016, Daniel Shaver was in Mesa, Arizona for a business trip and was staying at a hotel. Police got the call of “weapon(s) in a hotel room.” As such, a SWAT team was deployed to Shaver’s hotel and while there, they had Shaver, who was intoxicated, at gun point (unclear if they thought he was the one with the guns).
The SWAT officer issued confusing and taunting commands (such as calling Shaver “young man” instead of the standard and less insulting “sir”, or saying: “Shut up! I’m not here to be tactful or diplomatic with you. You listen. You obey.” Even though the situation could have escalated from these things if Shaver had been an actual threat).
Some confusing commands include ordering Shaver to cross his ankles (a common tactic to ensure officers enough reaction time if the suspect intends to pull out a weapon and fire) and then crawling towards the officers (this, however, is not common, according to a CNN law enforcement analyst, for what that’s worth).
Once he got close enough, the officers began shouting again and opened fire on Shaver.
The guy was drunk, unarmed and at no point did he pose a threat to the officers. He was given confusing commands and was repeatedly taunted and berated by an officer clearly drunk with power. He was, for all intents and purposes, executed in that hotel hallway. The officer leading the whole thing got off scot-free with all charges levied against him being dropped.
This happened in 2016, but I only heard about it a little after the George Floyd killing. This was the closest thing to a Nazi or Soviet-style execution that you can get, save for being put up against the wall.
It was brutal, horrific, savage and wrong. It was outright murder but no one cared at the time and no one cares now.
However, I can guarantee one thing: if Daniel Shaver, Ryan Whitaker or Tony Timpa had been black, their stories would’ve been ingrained in this country’s memory. Trayvon Martin’s name is still remembered from back in early 2012. Rodney King’s name, though he was not killed, is still remembered nearly 30 years after that incident. They demand we remember Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Freddy Gray, Michael Brown, but no one cared about Ryan Whitaker, Tony Timpa or Daniel Shaver.
No one’s throwing 70 funerals for Whitaker. No one is demanding justice for Daniel Shaver. No one is demanding police reform for Tony Timpa. These three never got the nationwide coverage that similar circumstances happening to people of color get.
When the cops kill a black person, intentionally or not, justifiably or not, they get demonized and everyone talks about how cops are evil. When the cops kill a white person, intentionally or not, justifiably or not, all they get is crickets.
In the midst of a pandemic, I’m not even sure Whitaker got a funeral following his death, even as Floyd got numerous ones.
The fake news media has an agenda. They are not journalists, but propagandists, and whatever doesn’t help their agenda simply does not get covered. Black people dying helps their agenda. White people dying runs contrary to their agenda.
The fake news is the enemy of the people and no greater bigot exists than a Leftist.
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
About a week ago, I wrote a similar article to this one talking about how black communities are the ones who suffer the most from defunding (or abolishing) the police. In that piece, I also mentioned a Rasmussen poll that showed black people (and Americans altogether) were afraid of a police shortage as a result of Leftist demonization of police.
This article looks at another statistic: what black people (and Americans in general) want police to do in their neighborhoods, specifically how often they believe police should be seen patrolling those neighborhoods.
Gallup has a new poll out showing that 81% of Black Americans want police to spend the same amount of or more time in their area.
“When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans – 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same.”
20% of Black Americans said they wanted police to spend more time in their area and 19% said they wanted police to spend less time, leading to that earlier 81% of Black Americans who said they wanted police presence to either remain or increase.
This stands in stark contrast to how the Left, particularly black Leftists, often portray black people. The Left portrays black people as a victimized and borderline hunted group of people, whose entire existence is at risk by the mere presence of police departments, and who essentially wake up every day terrified that a cop is going to burst into their homes and start firing at will at anyone and anything that they can.
The Left portrays black people as essentially being a hunted species, not unlike lions or elephants in Africa (which really shows just how utterly racist Leftists are). Furthermore, they portray black people as being of one hive mind that agrees with these sentiments and wants to do away with all law enforcement. They portray black people as standing in direct opposition to police and as desiring for alternatives to policing black neighborhoods.
As is always the case, no matter the topic of discussion, the Left is exceedingly wrong and lying through their teeth. The truth of the matter is, while black people tend to be arrested more than other groups of people (as they tend to commit more crimes), most black people would prefer the police to be around as opposed to any possible alternative.
The Left will often talk about how it’s racist that police patrol black neighborhoods more than other neighborhoods, but will often ignore the fact that gangs tend to organize in these neighborhoods, which often end up terrorizing and threatening people in those neighborhoods.
Such gang activity is illegal and as it’s so dangerous for their neighborhoods, they must be more policed than other races’ neighborhoods (though Hispanic neighborhoods often have to be policed almost as much, because of gangs like the Latin Kings and MS-13).
At any rate, returning to the poll, the survey also asked other races if they wanted police to spend the same amount of time, more time, or less time patrolling their neighborhoods.
71% of White Americans said “same amount of time”, 17% said more and 12% said less. 59% of Hispanics said they wanted police patrolling the same amount of time, 24% said more and 17% said less.
Asian Americans are the ones who wanted less police presence by a good bit, at 28%, but 63% still wanted the same amount and only 9% wanted more police presence in their neighborhoods.
As far as exposure to police, 32% of Black Americans report seeing police in their neighborhood “very often/often”, 41% “sometimes” and 27% “rarely” or “never.”
For whites, 22% see them frequently, 42% sometimes and 36% rarely or never. 28% of Hispanics see them often, 37% sometimes and 34% rarely or never and 21% of Asians see them often, 47% sometimes and 32% rarely or never.
There are quite a few other statistics that Gallup shares, but for the sake of this article, I will only talk about how confident black people are that police will treat them well upon being interacted with by them and how such treatment affects black people’s preferences for police presence.
According to Gallup, only 18% of Black Americans feel “very confident” that the police would treat them with courtesy and respect if they had an interaction with them, as opposed to 56% of whites who feel very confident, 40% of Hispanics and 24% of Asians.
However, a majority (61%) of black people are either somewhat or very confident that they would be treated with respect and courtesy by police (43% “somewhat confident” + the 18% who are “very confident”). While that is lower than other races (91% of whites, 77% of Hispanics and 78% of Asians are confident), that is still a fairly solid majority over the ones who are either “not too confident” (27%) or “not at all confident” (12%) that they would have a good interaction with police.
Despite the fact that the Left is so wrong about their portrayal of black people, their words and beliefs do still have an influence on some people. I imagine at least some of the reason for black people to feel less confident about an interaction with police is because of some Leftist narratives.
Gallup themselves theorize that this gap between races in confidence in police interactions could “either stem from Black Americans’ own negative experiences with the police or from their familiarity with people who have had negative encounters with law enforcement.”
And these are pretty valid and logical reasons as well. With more frequent policing in these neighborhoods comes a higher chance for interaction with law enforcement. More interaction means a higher chance of poor or negative interactions, especially if they are looking for one’s own friend or relative because of something they did.
The second explanation by Gallup makes a good deal of sense to me as well. Someone else’s interaction means they could tell the story to their friends and they might just lie and say that the cops were hassling him “for no reason” even if there actually was a reason and that leaves an impression for his friends who did not interact with the police to believe that cops are messing with folks who are doing nothing wrong.
So I think there are a number of valid and logical explanations as to why the gap is as big as it is in confidence levels for interactions with police.
These interactions, in turn, can lead to some black people to sway one way or the other about police presence as a whole.
According to Gallup, 45% of “Black Americans who report not being treated with courtesy or respect by the police within the past 12 months want less of a police presence in their neighborhood. Meanwhile, 55% want the same or more police presence.”
“By contrast, just 13% of those who did feel they were treated respectfully want the police to spend less time in their neighborhood; 87% want them there as much or more often.”
What seems to be the biggest indicator as to how much police presence a group of people wants in their neighborhood is not the actual frequency, but rather, the sorts of interactions that they have with the police.
While these hardly get featured anywhere in the news, even in my own articles defending police, there are plenty of videos out there of police having wholesome and heart-warming interactions with kids in various neighborhoods. From playing basketball with them to playing some instrument, there are plenty of times when a cop is featured in a video, not as seemingly doing something wrong or excessive (or just their jobs) but rather doing community outreach and having positive interactions with the people of the communities in which they serve.
For example, there is this YouTube video showing a local news segment in Greenville, North Carolina of police responding to a noise complaint (kids playing basketball) and deciding to start playing some basketball with those kids.
There is also this other YouTube video of a Compton deputy having a bit of a jamming session, rocking out with local teenagers.
These stories never get told by the mainstream media and only sometimes get shared on social media, but they show a side to police officers that the Left wishes to totally ignore: a more human, relatable side.
The Left wishes to demonize police officers entirely because it is in their best political interests, but black people (and most other people in general) do not want this. They want either the police presence to stay the same or increase, not decrease.
Like I said in the previous article talking about this subject, people want to feel safe. For most people, either owning a gun or having a police presence (or both) is how they feel safe. Taking away people’s means by which they can ensure their own safety is not the humane thing to do, let alone the politically savvy thing to do.
Not that I expect the Left to be very humane considering they publicly advocate for and support the genocide of children in the womb.
But at any rate, it’s good to see, time and time again, that the reality the Left claims exists does not actually exist. Black people want police in their neighborhoods – they want them to be a force for good. They don’t want fewer cops and definitely don’t want defunct and abolished police departments.
“In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The last two months have been extremely hectic due to the police-involved death of George Floyd, which sparked a nationwide conversation (as well as numerous violent riots perpetrated by Leftists in Democrat-controlled cities and states) about racism and police brutality (even though racism had nothing to do with the case, even when we first saw the original videos).
The Black Lives Matter movement has been at the forefront of people’s conversation as a direct result of this case, but throughout all this time, one aspect of it was still missing: the body-cam footage from the police officers at the scene.
We had seen a video from Facebook, video feeds from security footage around the scene, but for the longest time, the body-cam footage of the incident was kept from public eye. Now, the footage was seen by a select few in a Minneapolis courtroom in mid-July – around the time the officers had been charged – but the viewing was restricted to people in the courthouse, under judge’s order.
What’s more, the body-cam footage technically has not been released by the MPD – it was actually leaked to the UK Daily Mail, who then reported on it and showed the videos.
So we technically still were not meant to see the footage and we wouldn’t have if it hadn’t been leaked. Makes you wonder what sort of agenda the people in charge of the footage have if they didn’t want the footage to be released, especially as it changes A LOT about the narrative surrounding this entire event.
At any rate, the footage (below) initially shows two officers – Thomas Lane and Alex Kueng (both rookie MPD officers) – entering the Cup Foods where the call of a suspect using a counterfeit bill to purchase some cigarettes had been made. The store clerk goes up to the officers, waving the counterfeit bill and showing them to Floyd’s SUV, which was parked on the other side of the street from the store, telling them: “Before they drive off, he’s parked right here. It’s a fake bill from the gentleman,” according to the Daily Mail.
Obviously, as there are two different officers, there are different perspectives. One of them shows one of the officers (Lane) approaching the vehicle driver-side and the other officer (Kueng) approaches passenger-side, as the vehicle contained Floyd, his ex, Shawanda Hill, and a friend, Maurice Hall, with Floyd at the driver’s seat, Hill at the back and Hall at the front.
The officers instruct the passengers to get out of the vehicle and Lane instructs Floyd to put his hands where they are visible and eventually to get out of the vehicle.
Where the situation surrounding the entire event changes is at this point, where Floyd is instructed to show his hands. He largely doesn’t for some time, leading the officer to repeatedly order him to show his hands, all while at gun-point (which makes sense since Floyd could have something in his hands which could have harmed the officers, though we come to find out that he didn’t).
One aspect of the situation that many have argued is that Floyd wasn’t visibly resisting arrest from the videos that were shown. Again, the Facebook video and footage shown by CBS News (which really should be taken with a massive grain of salt, and this case proves it) demonstrate a George Floyd who did not resist and who was on the ground only because he fell from the sidewalk.
The CBS News video cut from where Floyd fell to the footage of the Facebook video, where Floyd was noticeably on the other side of the car and from where he had originally fallen. Something had to have happened in between those two moments, but we were not shown it – and it was MASSIVELY CRITICAL that we would be shown it for necessary context, but we weren’t (likely for political reasons).
The body-cam footage shows that Floyd was largely resisting officers’ orders from the beginning, maybe not necessarily to be rebellious or abrasive towards the officers, as he looked more distressed and agitated than aggressive, but he resisted the entire time nonetheless. He was repeatedly told to put his hands either on the steering wheel or on his head and he repeatedly did not listen for some time.
Even as he’s being put in cuffs, he’s resisting a bit. Eventually, the officers had him sit against the wall of the building his vehicle was parked next to, where the officers tried to get some personal information from him (name, DOB, etc.) and explained why they were there in the first place (the call).
Eventually, they drag him to the squad car that was originally shown when we first saw this situation (the car that was Chauvin’s), where he continues to resist. Once they are at the car and the rear door is opened for him, he continues to resist, telling the officers he’s “claustrophobic” and has “anxiety.”
I don’t know about the anxiety part, but I highly doubt he’s claustrophobic for the simple reason that he was in his own car earlier, so what difference would it make to be in the back of a police car and inside your own car when you’re claustrophobic? Aren’t they both enclosed spaces?
The entire time, by the way, he was not only resisting, but was acting not only distressed but also very aloof and out of his mind. His friends tell the officers, as the officers asked them about his erratic behavior, that he has mental issues and that he seemingly has had some trauma with police before (seeing as he had committed plenty of crimes in the past, I wouldn’t be surprised).
The officers seemingly found a weed pipe and something related to PCP in his vehicle, and the toxicology report in his autopsy said that he had fentanyl in his system and recently used methamphetamine prior to his death. The report said: “Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).”
In other words, Floyd died of a heart attack, not from neck compressions or anything. Now, the heart attack may have been triggered by the entire situation (being arrested while high, I would imagine, is a highly stressful situation to be in, particularly if you have had bad experiences with police before), but one could hardly consider this to be homicide by the police officers, particularly Chauvin.
Now, I never said that this was homicide anyway, as I had said in the first article talking about this that at the least (from what we knew at the time), this looked like manslaughter, but considering the toxicology report and the body-cam footage, I’m not sure if there is even a case for that (it doesn’t help either that Chauvin is being charged with murder. He will likely walk, which will definitely lead the Left to cause more riots, despite the facts given that Chauvin seems to be innocent here).
The entire narrative surrounding this incident is that cops killed Floyd by kneeling on his neck and keeping him from being able to breathe. While the incident as a whole may have led to his death, the cops may not realistically be blamed here, since a number of other factors contributed far more to Floyd’s death (his past, his drug abuse, etc.).
What makes it even more difficult for officers to really be blamed is that the phrase associated with George Floyd: “I can’t breathe” was stated by Floyd while the officers were trying to put him IN THE SQUAD CAR. The officers weren’t compressing his neck while putting him in the car, and still, Floyd claims to have been unable to breathe in that moment.
Now, whether he could or could not is another matter, what my point here is is that the neck compression is not what led to Floyd’s inability to breathe if he reported a lack of breath from being put in the squad car.
The video, following the officers trying to put him in the car and struggling, eventually have Floyd on the ground.
Like I said before, I’m not a cop, so I do not know standard procedure for something like this. I don’t know if they put him on the ground to further restrain him or to calm him down (though I don’t see the logic of doing that for that purpose), but that is what they eventually decided to do.
Following this, the events shown from the original Facebook video occur, basically putting an end to anything else the footage would show us about the situation.
Now, allow me to clarify some things about this entire incident. From what we can see, particularly knowing that Floyd was a bit off his rocker, the actions of the officers made sense, for the most part. I still don’t know why they had him on the ground, and the reason was not made entirely clear in the video, but other than that, what the officers did still made sense. Floyd was resisting the entire time. There is no denying this.
The events that led to Floyd’s death were not directly caused by the officers. Floyd was visibly distressed, more so than people usually would be in these situations (even given his history with police) and the officers had found paraphernalia in his vehicle. The toxicology report also showed he had drugs in his system (fentanyl) and he recently had used methamphetamine. The situation added to stress, granted, but those drugs are not exactly relievers of stress or help with the regulation of the heartbeat.
George Floyd’s death is still tragic, but it now seems to be more his actions that led to it as opposed to the actions of the officers. Floyd’s death never had anything to do with racism, and now, with police brutality (even while I still can’t quite explain why they had him on the ground, but the reasons are probably just). Officer Chauvin, while seemingly innocent on this count, should still not be reinstated because he still had 17 other reports of excessive force that went undisciplined and unpunished. The other officers should probably have their jobs back, however.
George Floyd’s death never justified the riots and looting and arson committed by domestic terrorists. Even if the officers did straight up murder Floyd (and the evidence shows they definitely didn’t), that still wouldn’t justify the Left’s behavior in all this (not that they care, since they were using this as an excuse to do it).
While I still wish Floyd hadn’t died in that instance, one cannot honestly blame the officers for his death. He overexcited himself from the drugs he took and the past experiences he had with police and suffered a heart attack. Tragic, but not something that should lead to reforming of the police, let alone total defunding of them.
Maybe we should now have a national conversation about the egregious behavior of the Left throughout all of this, since the death of George Floyd has been pretty much cleared up and one can safely say it was not murder or manslaughter.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
BLM is a domestic terror organization. Not only are they Marxists, but they are willing to inflict violence for political purposes (textbook definition of terrorism) and in a recent story, have seemingly developed into a Mafia-like organization, or at least, one of its chapters has.
In Louisville, Kentucky, the local chapter of BLM has issued a list of demands for local businesses to adhere to.
The demands include:
Additional demands include businesses having the “option” to give 1.5% of their revenue to a local “black nonprofit or organization” in lieu of purchasing 23% of inventory from black retailers, as well as mandated “diversity and inclusion training” for all employees, and displaying left-wing messages and posters such as ones that read: “YOU CAN’T STOP THE REVOLUTION” and things related to “reparations.”
What’s more, these businesses would be “inspected” and given ratings of A, C and F, similar to a health and wellness code.
The letter attached to the list of demands is, unsurprisingly, chock-full of Marxist garbage and terminology, such as “gentrification,” which the letter asserts is a “process [that] has been happening to black, indigenous, and persons of color at the hands of white, heterosexual patriarchy since the inception of this nation we call home. Black folx [sic] can’t ‘have their own space’ when wealthy white folks see an opportunity to make more money.”
Should a business fail to comply with this ridiculous and clear extortion tactic, the following consequences would befall them:
And, of course, while they would not actually put it in writing, the businesses stand to be targeted for vandalism at the hands of these thugs.
These criminals are publicly extorting these businesses, but do you want to know the most ironic part? They’re not targeting white-owned businesses, or at least, they’re not only white-owned businesses.
One of the businesses in the NuLu neighborhood where this list of demands was issued is a CUBAN CUISINE restaurant, owned by a Cuban migrant.
Fernando Martinez is the owner of this Cuban restaurant, called La Bodeguita de Mima, and he received the same extortion letter from BLM as the other businesses.
Martinez publicly denounced the extortion from the radical terrorist group and rightly called them “mafia tactics” meant to intimidate business owners to do their will. What’s more, Latino immigrants showed up to protest at the restaurant in support of Martinez and his business. At one point, Martinez gave a short speech, saying:
“La Bodeguita is open to everybody. If you’re gay, this is your home. If you’re black, this is your home. If you’re white, this is your home. If you’re human, this is your home.”
He also condemned the criticism his business faced: “How can I be called a bigot and a racist when my family is black? When my son is gay? I’m the proud father of a gay son, and I’m gonna fight for him against anybody.”
During the speech, Martinez also told the story of how he got to the States, being an 18-year-old on a raft from Cuba, fleeing communism in search of freedom and a life and hope. “It’s sad that we have to justify who we are as people. We need to come together as a community. We’re not the enemy of the black community. We’re all people and we come in all colors.”
Martinez rightly calls out the mafia tactics being used to intimidate and extort money out of businesses by BLM, so unsurprisingly, people associated with the terrorist organization sought to discredit the guy as a whole and accuse him of racism and being a threat to black lives.
Sadiqa Reynolds, president and CEO of the Louisville Urban League (so technically not BLM, but they are pretty much associated politically and both are funded by the Left), lambasted Martinez:
“Rather than respond to demands tendered, even in the negative, and affirm that he is aware of the pain our people are in, instead he chooses to highlight what he believes is his superiority. I’m not sure why any human, other than a racist, would choose this time to tell us how little our lives matter.”
Did it sound, from what I shared of his short speech, like Martinez was “telling” black people “how little" their “lives matter”? Does it sound like he was attacking black people? Does it sound like he was belittling them or insinuating they are unimportant? Does it sound like he believed he was “superior” or that he was displaying “superiority”?
NOT AT ALL and this she-demon knows it, but she has a one-track mind that everyone that doesn’t look like her is a racist (and she doesn’t realize the irony of such a line of thought), so she claims Martinez is a racist because he CALLED THEM OUT on their mafioso tactics.
See, Sadiqa was expecting Martinez to either bend the knee to them or, if he refused, to at least take the beta male route and mention how black people are “in danger” or “recognize” the “pain” that black people are in. The white liberal always acts like this, either bending the knee or, if they disagree (a rarity) with something, they make sure they do not offend their black liberal masters by “recognizing” black people’s “suffering” in this country.
I don’t know Martinez’ politics, but considering he had to flee Cuba as an 18-year-old, I don’t imagine he is all too keen on voting for socialists.
This idea of mine is further demonstrated by Luis David Fuentes, writing for El Kentubano, a Latin publication in Kentucky, who writes: “[A]s a minority group and as immigrants,” people coming from Cuba have “fallen in love with this city and nation… to pursue the American dream.”
“Although our community has achieved great success in this city, we continue to miss our homeland, our neighborhoods we grew up in and our families we left behind. We did not want to leave all of those, but we had to. We had to escape the socialist government that took away our grandparents’ private businesses in 1959 and continue to restrict our civil and political rights today.”
Fuentes, like many who escape Cuba and leave other socialist Latin American countries (and who recognize that those countries are socialist), is not a fan of communism at all. I imagine Martinez isn’t either and what we are seeing right now is a communist organization extorting businesses for political reasons.
We are seeing (a minority of) Americans clamoring for the same sort of broken and deadly political ideology that has destroyed countless countries and that these very people have fought hard to escape from.
For this reason, Fuentes went on to add how many people risked their lives in pursuit of “freedom, respect and prosperity,” which could hardly be found, if at all, in communist countries, and he noted that these values are under attack “because of the diffusion and expansion of Marxist ideas.”
And he is certainly correct. BLM, and other Leftist organizations, are nothing but communist organizations clamoring for things they either know nothing about or things that they believe they will exclusively benefit from, but in all likelihood will not.
I have already said in many other articles that those who support socialism/communism are one of two kinds of people: either A) people who don’t know what it actually is and what it actually does to people and entire nations or B) people who know what it is and does but are more than happy to apply it because they believe they will benefit from it via political power or influence, etc. Those at the top of BLM or ANTIFA organizations are usually the latter, though they typically are the useful idiots that serve the people who actually get all the power (usually politicians) and get eliminated (often literally) once their use has run out.
The people running these mafia tactics are the useful idiots who believe they will benefit from businesses’ compliance but fail to understand that when a business is unable to operate, or is restricted in its ability to operate, it will either move or close down.
If these businesses are extorted like this and cannot pay their costs, they will close down or move, affecting their communities. Businesses that are treated and threatened like this usually don’t tend to do well and when that happens, it’s the people in the community that suffer for it (though not the people in the organizations because they tend to be paid to do crap like this anyway and they generally do not really care about their communities).
But regardless of what happens from here on, whether the businesses are forced to comply or are willing to push back on the oppressive rule of the minority, there’s no denying how utterly despicable, and yet, not exactly unsurprising, it is for BLM to issue these criminal demands.
They are an organized crime syndicate at this point, or at least, this chapter is. I hope the local police will ensure that the businesses do not suffer from this clear extortion perpetrated by a criminal mob that hates them.
“Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
We revisit this topic once again because, while the media is no longer reporting on the violent ANTIFA riots (because they realized they are helping Trump win by showing how dangerous these Leftists are), these riots are still happening and violent crime is still on the rise in Democrat-run cities like New York, Portland and Chicago.
One myth the Left often perpetuates is that law enforcement is the embodiment of white supremacy and stands in direct opposition to people of color. This is just not true at all, for a variety of reasons apart from the fact the Left is full of lying lunatics.
The simple matter is that no one suffers more from a lack of police funding, let alone a full-blown abolishment of the police force, than black people and black communities.
Horace Cooper has a great article at The Daily Signal talking about this very topic. In it, he points out a variety of things that the Left makes up, such as the idea that cops stand in opposition to black people, or present a direct threat to black people, and points out that, opposite to what the Left might claim, black people themselves do not support the defunding or abolishment of the police.
Rasmussen released a poll last month, as the riots and chaos were at the forefront of everyone’s minds and source of news, that pointed out just how unpopular the idea to “defund the police” actually was to America itself and to black people specifically.
According to the poll, 64% of surveyors (survey size of 1,000 American Adults) were reportedly “concerned that the growing criticism of America’s police will lead to a shortage of police officers and reduce public safety in the community where they live. That includes 39% who are Very Concerned.”
I doubt that number is much smaller since then, because despite the fact that the fake news media isn’t reporting it anymore, riots are still happening across the country. I already mentioned Portland, but there have been riots in California and Colorado as well. Even in Texas, there have been “peaceful demonstrations” which have resulted in the death of an ANTIFA rioter who attempted to kill someone in a car, but the driver had a gun themselves and fired back. The driver, thankfully, was completely unharmed.
In any case, as I said, riots are still happening and people want to be safe. I’ve already talked about this very notion in an article from a little over a week ago, talking about the increase in gun sales in recent time, particularly from first-time gun buyers.
Now, returning to that Rasmussen poll, I would specifically like to point out the numbers by demographics. Specifically, what black people said about this. According to the poll, 67% of blacks, three percentage points higher than Americans overall, said they were concerned about a shortage of police and a reduction in safety.
63% of whites and 65% of other minority Americans said the same. This demonstrates that the people most worried about a lack of police presence are BLACK PEOPLE, the same race of people the Left claims is systemically targeted and even hunted down by the police. What does that tell you about the Left’s rhetoric, then?
And Cooper made sure to bring this point home: “The fact is that black communities suffer far more form under-policing violent crime than from over-policing.”
“In a city like Chicago, the astronomical homicide rate has nothing to do with peace-officer shootings and is instead due to intentional underfunding of law enforcement. This strangulation of the Chicago Police Department results in elevated emergency response times and a mounting list of unsolved homicides. This is a concern across the nation.”
Certainly, it is. When the police are not allowed to do their job, crime skyrockets. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the logical consequence of diminishing the ability of police officers to do their job. Now, of course, not every place is the same. It makes no sense to try and over-police places which are typically more peaceful. It’s about a place’s culture, and unfortunately, danger and violence are a part of the Chicago culture now. That’s not to say that a majority of Chicagoans want this to be the case, but gang activity is so common there and has such a presence, it practically defines the culture of Chicago.
Weekends with shooting victims in the single-digits are considered good weekends in Chicago. And in recent time, things have only escalated further, especially with their tyrannical mayor’s insistence of further choking law enforcement and keeping federal agents from being able to fix the problem.
Cooper also points out this other fact: despite the fact that black people make up 6.2% of the American population, they also make up more than 11% of law enforcement officers. A common reason for many black people to join the ranks of the police is so that they can keep their communities and neighborhoods safe (though this is the case for many cops of other races). They see how poorly run and dangerous these communities are and wish to take out and imprison the bad elements in those communities in the hopes that the communities will become just a little bit better.
People, particularly black people, support law enforcement because a lack of their presence means greater suffering for black people and communities.
Black people tend to be arrested more than other groups of people and sent to prison more than other groups of people, not because the system is out to get them, but because they tend to commit more crimes than other groups of people. This is an uncomfortable fact and those who share it tend to be labeled as racists, even though it’s an irrefutable fact backed up by empirical evidence.
At any rate, like I just said, black people are particularly hurt by a lack of law enforcement. Part of the reason why so many people have gone to buy guns in recent time, especially first-time gun buyers, is that if the Left succeeds in demonizing the police enough that they get severely underfunded, or outright defunded to the point of being effectively inoperable, or morale is so low that there is a shortage of police because they no longer wish to risk their lives to serve people who call them demons for doing the right thing, people’s last line of defense is self-defense via gun ownership.
All people want to be safe. We seek or build shelter to protect ourselves from the natural elements as well as other people who might wish to inflict harm on us and have done this for millennia. We acquire things with which we can defend ourselves, whether they be large sticks, spears, swords or guns. We seek food to eat for our survival and we perform tasks as jobs to be financially secure (to some extent).
Humans feel the natural need for safety because safety is a matter of survival. Whether one is a Christian who values the life of people whom God has created or a Darwinist atheist who fully subscribes to the idea of natural selection and survival of the fittest, people understand that safety is NECESSARY for human survival and life.
Unless we deem it necessary, we don’t tend to take risks. A mother will risk her life for her child, but if her child is not in mortal danger at all, the mother won’t do anything that would risk her life. So in order to survive – to protect those we love – we find means of safety. When a shooting happens, some will go out in search of police or will immediately call 911. Others will pull out their guns to protect themselves and their loved ones or will go to hunt down the shooter.
People want to feel safe, and the communities that most benefit from police presence are the ones who are most at risk when that presence disappears.
The Left taking away people’s means of safety is not going to end well for them. As I noted in the aforementioned article, you cannot simultaneously have a defunct police department and extreme gun regulations that borderline strip the law-abiding of their guns. One of the reasons is you need a police department to regulate those gun control laws. Another is that crime lords pop up, mafia style, offering “safety” to people in exchange for things like cash or services or “favors”. Outright warlords, like the one in CHAZ/CHOP can also pop up, who rule with an iron fist.
But perhaps the biggest reason you can’t have a defunct PD and extreme gun control is because you cannot back people into a corner and expect them to just give up. When backed into a corner, people will go straight at you, seeing no other means of escape. In this instance, people would illegally arm themselves for the purposes of protecting themselves and their families, or even act as a private police force, bringing vigilante justice to their communities.
None of these options are exactly ideal, and yet, the Left is pushing for the contradictory policies of defunding police departments and implementing extreme gun control laws.
The Left is a menace to everyone, but especially to black people.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
We have talked plenty about the demonization of police officers as a whole, but have hardly gone deep into those demonizations. White cops get automatically called racists just because of their skin color (and the people calling them such things do not realize the irony in their actions), and non-white cops, be they black or Latino, etc., essentially get called traitors to their race for being police officers.
The Leftist mentality is a sick and depraved one, full of nonsense and error that does not reflect reality in the least. To the Left, the police are a symbol of oppression and tyranny, built specifically for those purposes, when in reality, they are there to protect and serve (as if that slogan on the side of police cars wasn’t enough to tip people off).
Granted, not all of them manage to accomplish that, considering officers like Chauvin, the one who killed George Floyd, had 17 complaints levied against him for use of excessive force. Sometimes, a police officer does more to hurt than help, but the purpose of the police, and actions of the overwhelming majority of the police, is/are to the benefit, not the detriment, of people.
But the Left sees them as nothing but monsters, which is why they call the white cops “racists” automatically, not knowing who they are, what they believe, what they’ve done, where they come from, etc., and call the non-white cops “race traitors”, also not knowing their stories.
Well, one black cop held an interview with KGW8 recently to talk about the protests happening in Portland day after day and night after night (not that the media is covering these protests because that does a disservice to the Left and I think the media has figured this out, finally). Officer Jakhary Jackson was interviewed in a press conference about being on the frontlines at the Portland protests.
The interview (video below) was rather long at roughly half an hour, so I won’t cover everything that was said, just the most important parts, at least in my opinion.
One of the things Officer Jackson said was: “I got to see folks who really do want to see change like the rest of us that have been impacted by racism. And then I got to see those people get faded out by people that have no idea what racism is all about. Never experienced racism. They don’t even know that the tactics that they are using are the same tactics that were used against my people.”
He added: “Coming from someone who graduated from PSU with a history degree, it’s actually frightening… They say if you don’t know your history, you’re doomed to repeat it. And watching people do that to other people just because of what they’ve decided to do with their life.”
Speaking more about the earlier thing he said, about people that were actually impacted by racism get faded out by those who have no idea what racism is all about, Officer Jackson provided a very good and crucial example of the sort of idiotic “white knighting” white liberals do for black people when no one asked them to do anything of the sort.
The example is that, often times, he, as a black officer, is approached by black people and asked his opinion of the George Floyd killing or some other issue relating to race and the police. But every time he attempts to engage in conversation with people of color, and seemingly, this ONLY happens when minorities talk to him, a white liberal protester will come in and shout, saying “F the police. Don’t talk to him,” or something akin to that.
Seemingly, this is such a frequent occurrence that Officer Jackson can tell when it’s coming. Recently, Officer Jackson explains, a young black girl came up to him to ask him why he wouldn’t talk to the protesters, and as he began to explain that every time he tried doing so, he would get cut off by some white protester, as if on cue, a white protester came in and interrupted him. Jackson said: “right when I said that, this white girl pops right in front of her,” cutting him off from conversating with her. The black girl was amazed that it happened, saying: “He just said that was going to happen.” Jackson then said: “I told you,” to the girl.
Jackson then tried talking to the white girl who had interrupted his conversation with the black girl, saying: “I’ve been called the N-word. She’s been called the N-word. Why are you talking to me this way? Why do you feel that she can’t speak for herself to me? Why is it that you feel you need to speak for her when we’re having a conversation?” The white girl seemingly just replied: “Someone told me to do it.”
Peculiar. Considering I believe Democrat orgs are in charge of organizing these protests (I mean apart from BLM and Antifa), and have seen videos of Leftists recruiting people (bribing them) to participate in these protests or just do something to someone, I wouldn’t be surprised if that “someone” who instructed her to interrupt the conversation was a member of a Leftist organization.
The reason I theorize this is because we all know Leftists hate the truth, hate facts and hate knowledge. If the black girl had a real heart-to-heart conversation with the black officer, she might reevaluate certain things and actually grow in her understanding of the world. The Left can’t afford this, what they view as an atrocity – a black person leaving the Democrat slave plantation of thought – so they have random white people interrupt the conversation (or will do it themselves) to keep the free exchanging of thoughts from happening.
If the officers are allowed to explain things from their side, understanding might occur from some protesters, and the Left can’t afford that to happen if they want their pathetic little “revolution” to succeed, so they keep it from happening in a multitude of ways.
In any case, moving on from my little theory (of which I have little evidence to outright prove), Officer Jackson went on to describe other kinds of experiences he has had in dealing with protestors, many of which are not quite as mild as conversations being interrupted.
“I had taken an explosive, I had been hit with a full beer can, a rock in my chest, frozen water bottle had hit me.” Clearly, he has seen and experienced a lot of hatred just because of his desire to protect and serve his community – a community which would be in total shambles without a police presence.
Thankfully, not everything he shared was quite so grim, as he also noted that, after a protest, he met two young black men who were cleaning up the street (the Left always leaves litter and garbage on the streets in their protests, almost as if the idea that they care for the environment is total crap). “I was so moved by that and so impressed,” Officer Jackson said, that he went over to them to shake their hands.
Then, Officer Jackson said something pretty noteworthy. When asked by an interviewer about “some of the hateful and racist things” he and other minority officers have had to endure during the protests, Jackson said: “It says something when you’re at a Black Lives Matter protest; you have more minorities on the police side than you have in a violent crowd. And you have white people screaming at black officers ‘you have the biggest nose I’ve ever seen.’ You hear these things and you go ‘Are these people, are they going to say something to this person?’ No.”
“And that’s just one example. Having people tell you what to do with your life, that you need to quit your job, that you’re hurting your community but they’re not even a part of the community. Once again, you as a privileged white person telling someone of color what to do with their life.” The interviewer suggested that such a thing was “hypocrisy” from the protesters and Jackson “absolutely” agreed.
I, for one, am not at all surprised to see Leftists being racist. Anti-white racism (which we’ll get to in a minute) is not only allowed, but celebrated and encouraged, if the incident with Nick Cannon is any indication, but even anti-black racism, if thrown at acceptable targets, is also not only allowed, but celebrated and encouraged.
Black police officers get called traitors to their race, just like black conservatives do. Hell, Joe freakin’ Biden said that if you are black and you are on the fence about whether you support him or Trump, “you ain’t black.” The jackass had the audacity to tell this to a BLACK radio show host, Charlamagne Tha God, who just ignored that statement basically or took no offense to it at all, probably because he’s a Leftist and he intends to vote for Biden anyway.
The Left will claim they aren’t racists while DM’ing black conservatives on Twitter and calling them the N-word. The Left will claim they support women and hate sexists while passing around rumors about Hope Hicks, a female Trump campaign staffer, sleeping around with multiple male Trump campaign staffers, making jokes about her being “passed around” like a hake sack in a college dorm room.
The same Left that kept black people slaves and FOUGHT to keep them as such today attack black people who leave the Democrat plantation of thought or who just want to serve their communities by being police officers.
The ONLY difference between today’s Left and the Left of the 19th and 20th centuries is that today’s Leftists are also anti-white. They are still every bit anti-black that they always have been, but they pretend to be pro-black and pro-minority. In reality, they see minorities as property that exists solely to get them elected.
Speaking of anti-white rhetoric, the Left definitely employs it against police officers. Unsurprisingly, Officer Jackson has also defended white police officers, knowing the sorts of things that they have to go through on the regular (things that snowflake Leftists would never dare to do once, let alone as a job).
Officer Jackson explains that, whenever someone uses the N-word against him, he has seen white officers jump in to defend him against such a person. Jackson also notes that he has witnessed these white officers try to save black residents in the city from dangerous situations:
“When you’re standing on the line and they’re getting called those names and they’re being accused of being racist when you’ve seen those officers helping people of color, getting blood on them trying to rescue someone who has been shot – gang violence, domestic violence – and you see them and they’re truly trying to help save someone’s life and they turn around and are called a racist by people that have never seen anything like that, that have never had to put themselves out there. It’s disgusting.”
The Left foolishly believes that entire police departments can be eliminated and we would only see improvement in this country in terms of racial equality and crime. They believe all you need to take care of and diffuse a potentially dangerous situation is an unarmed government worker trying to talk people out of being evil like they’re a cartoon character.
Reality, as always, is far different from what the Left perceives it to be. Cops aren’t intended for “tyranny” or “oppression.” They don’t exist to “keep black folk down.” They exist to protect and serve their communities, and statistically, many black communities need plenty of policing due to the violence present there (largely due to the Left’s economic policies that hurt people from the bottom-up).
I remember in my first year of high school in South Florida seeing police officers a lot of the time, not because the kids were overwhelmingly black (the school was located in the outskirts of Little Haiti), but because there were fights that happened just about every single day. And not small or silly fights that at most got people sent to the principal’s office either. I mean fights that were big and bad enough that cops needed to come in to separate and, in some cases, detain the kids and put them in handcuffs and in the back of the squad cars.
Again, the reason wasn’t because the kids were black or because the cops are racist, but because there were situations where the cops NEEDED to be there.
Just as cops are NEEDED in many places today, especially in the places run by Democrats (if the WaPo chart showing crime in a number of cities is any indication).
I pray for Officer Jackson’s safety (and the safety of the other officers as well) as the city of Portland is run by a dangerous and unstable clown.
“You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...