Prosecutors Want Delay in White Terrorist 'Easter Weekend Hate Attack' on Blacks in Tulsa: 3 Murdered, 2 Wounded

From [HERE] Prosecutors in Tulsa are asking a judge to postpone arraignments for two men facing murder and hate crime charges in connection with a deadly shooting spree in April.

The Tulsa World reports that prosecutors want to delay the Oct. 22 arraignments for Jake England and Alvin Watts, who  face murder and hate crimes charges stemming from the Easter weekend shootings that killed William Allen, Bobby Clark and Dannaer Fields as they were walking near their homes on Good Friday. Two others were wounded. The shootings happened in a predominantly Black section of the city and all of the victims were black. Watts is white and England is also white but he now identifies himself as Cherokee Indian despite his apparent complete lack of melanin.

Prosecutors filed their request Wednesday, saying that a one-month delay would give them additional time to determine whether to pursue the death penalty. Attorneys for England and Watts aren't opposing the delay.

Click to read more ...

Majority of Americans Approve of Drone Strikes - No White Populations Targeted in Attacks

From [HERE] A new poll has found that the majority of Americans approve of the US government’s drone campaign, which targets extremist leaders in the Middle East while also killing 49 civilians for each terrorist.

Pew Research found that in 17 out of 20 countries surveyed, more than half disapprove of the strikes, while 62 percent of Americans support the targeted-killing initiative.

In Greece, 90 percent of those surveyed condemn America’s drone strikes, followed closely by Egypt’s 89 percent. Drone strikes are also condemned in Jordan (85 percent), Turkey (81 percent), Spain (76 percent), Brazil (76 percent) and Japan (75 percent).

The White House has repeatedly claimed that a low number of civilian causalities result from the controversial drone strikes – but a new survey found that the opposite is the case. The drone strikes have been carried out against non-white people -bw. 

Click to read more ...

Billionaire Sir Richard Branson says "U.S. War on Drugs is a War on Black People" (topic not covered in last night's "debate")

From [HERE] American drugs policy is a “war on black people” and results in the jailing of too many African Americans, billionaire entrepreneur and drugs law campaigner Sir Richard Branson said Wednesday.

Branson, who is a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a body of leading figures and politicians campaigning for more effective drugs laws, said the U.S. approach to drugs was “racist.” Branson made the remarks during a Reuters interview while acting as guest editor for Metro newspaper.

“The fundamental difference in America, is that it is a war against black people in America. It's black people ... 85 percent of people who go to prison for drug use in America are black people. They don't take more drugs, but it's a racist law against black people in America,” he said.

Branson was speaking at the Broadway offices of Metro New York, where he was Global Guest Editor for all of Metro’s sister titles around the world. Branson and the Commission call for a fresh approach, urging governments to treat addiction as an illness, best tacked by treatment and education, rather than as a crime.

Click to read more ...

War on Drugs is a War on Black & Brown Men - 75 Years Of Racial Control: Happy Birthday Marijuana Prohibition

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”- Harry Anslinger, first Drug Czar. From [HERE] As we approach the 75th anniversary of marijuana prohibition in the United States on October 1, it is important to remember why marijuana was deemed illicit in the first place, and why we as Americans must open our eyes to the insidious strategy behind 75 years of failed policy and ruined lives. Marijuana laws were designed not to control marijuana, but to control the Mexican immigrants who had brought this native plant with them to the U.S. Fears over loss of jobs and of the Mexicans themselves led cities to look for ways to keep a close eye on the newcomers.  In 1914, El Paso Texas became the first jurisdiction in the U.S. to ban the sale and possession of marijuana. This ban gave police the right to search, detain and question Mexican immigrants without reason, except the suspicion that they were in possession of marijuana. Folklore started to erupt about the effect that marijuana had on those who used it. As Harry Anslinger stated, “Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men.”

Fast forward to 2012. Marijuana is still an illicit substance and the laws are still being used to justify the search, detainment and questioning of populations deemed “untrustworthy” and “suspicious” by modern society, namely the poor and young men of color. A prime example is New York’s Stop and Frisk program, which stopped nearly 700,000 people in 2011. Hailed as a strategy for removing guns and violent crime from the streets, this method of stopping and questioning “suspicious” individuals, highlights the racial inequities associated with drug laws. From 2002 to 2011, African American and Hispanic residents made up close to 90% of people stopped. This is not limited to New York. In California, African-Americans are 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana, 12 times more likely to go to prison with a felony marijuana charge, and 3 times more likely to go to prison with a marijuana possession charge.

Click to read more ...

U.S. Army Operated Covert Human Testing Project on Blacks: Spraying Radioactive Chemicals on Segregated Area of St. Louis

Government Deceived Public about Chemical Warfare Testing The greatest concentration of raioactive spraying in St Louis was at the Pruit-Igoe public housing complex, which was home to 10,000 low income residents. 70 per cent of those residents were children under the age of 12 From [HERE] and [HERE] Newly disclosed documents have revealed details on how the U.S. military carried out testing of chemicals on major U.S. cities during the 1950s and 1960s. Sociologist Lisa Martino-Taylor of St. Louis Community College says zinc cadmium sulfide was sprayed in several cities without residents’ knowledge. The military- sponsored studies targeted a segregated, high-density urban area, where low-income persons of color predominantly resided. Report is [HERE]

Lisa Martino-Taylor: "It was pretty shocking, the level of duplicity and secrecy. Clearly they went to great lengths to deceive people. There’s a lot of evidence that indicates that people in St. Louis in the city, particularly in minority communities, were subjected to military tests that was connected to a larger radiological weapons development and testing project."

While it was known that the government sprayed 'harmless' zinc cadmium silfide particles over the general population in St Louis, Taylor claims that a radioactive additive was also mixed with the compound. 

She has accrued detailed descriptions as well as photographs of the spraying which exposed the unwitting public, predominantly in low-income and minority communities, to radioactive particles. Importantly, the military decieved the public into beliveing that testing was done for defensive measures to protect civilians residing in the targeted city - designed to test massive smoke clouds in which to hide U.S. cities from Soviet air attacks. However, the report reveals that these tests were conducted to test the effectiveness of chemical warfare as a war tactic to harm the enemy.

Click to read more ...

'Don't Believe the Hype, It's a Sequel': Iran is not building nuclear weapons. Iran is not a threat to the US

Ahmadinejad at the UN on 9/25/12. Complete transcript and video of speech [HERE] From [HERE] Lesson #1: Iran is not building nuclear weapons

National Intelligence Estimate: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” (2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities; November 2007)

“Several senior Israeli officials who spoke in recent days to The Associated Press said Israel has come around to the U.S. view that no final decision to build a bomb has been made by Iran.” (Associated Press, “Israel shifts views on Iran”; March 18, 2012)

The 2011 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a synthesized compilation of data evaluated by America’s 17 intelligence agencies, declared that there were no serious revisions to the controversial (for war hawks) 2007 NIE—which stated Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. While the 2011 estimate did include updated progress on Iran’s civilian nuclear program, such as an increased number of operative centrifuges, it still could not muster any evidence to indicate the program was being weaponized.

These findings echo reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has also concluded that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. The IAEA accounts are typically pored over for the slightest hint of ambiguity or malevolence, which are then promulgated as the most important takeaways in Western news summaries.

Click to read more ...

Don't Believe the Hype: Complete Transcript & Video of Ahmadinejad at the UN

Ahmadinejad talks peace & justice as US boycotts address [HERE]  From [HERE] Complete transcript of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN on 9/25/12:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

All Praise Belongs to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and May Peace and Blessings

be upon the Greatest and Trustworthy Prophet and His Pure Progeny, His Chosen

Companions, and upon all Divine Messengers.

Click to read more ...

Ann Coulter Drops Science: Says Blacks Should Arm Themselves, Defend Against Racists

Why Don't We Educate Young Black Men?

This week's report on graduation rates, the latest in the series on public education and black male students, documents the enormous differences in educational outcomes that result from segregation and inequitable funding. Although graduation rates for young black men has increased by ten percentage points between the classes of 2002 and 2010, the achievement gap between black and white males has only narrowed by three percentage points. At this rate it will take something like 50 more years to close the gap between male Black and White, non-Latino high school graduation rates. And with only three states - Maine, Arizona, and Vermont - with graduation rates that are higher for young black men than for young white men (and four more, Utah, Idaho, Oregon, and Alaska, with higher graduation rates for black men than the levels for young white men eight years earlier), too many young black men aren't being educated.

Click to read more ...

Genocide Watch: Brazen Police Officers and the Forfeiture of Freedom

In my experience, brazen police officers so frequently abuse their power that no one—no motorist, no juvenile, no adult, no professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that constitutional rights afford any real protection from the state. How is it that a nation that prides itself on freedom would allow thugs with badges to behave like the KGB? We are no longer the beneficiaries of the proud, brave and intellectually gifted Founding Fathers. We are no longer free men and women. Today, we are as free as penned sheep; free to crowd one another, to eat the garbage emptied into the trough, and to mindlessly bleat until the hour of reckoning.

Many would make the argument that the government has taken our rights from us. Others hold that only after a death struggle would we allow the government to tear our rights away from us as we clenched them to our bosom. For the government, a struggle that might have proved difficult or might have been lost was, indeed, unnecessary. The authorities needed to do no more than whisper, “Boo!” and we surrendered our rights. Like a schoolboy presenting his teacher with a shiny apple, we have scrubbed our faces clean, arranged our smiles, and, reaching way up, bestowed our precious rights on the government. We are no longer fearless patriots, but well-behaved simpletons eager to please the master who has assured us that these rights make it more difficult to protect us. They appeal to us, “How can we possibly keep you safe and free if our efforts are forever being thwarted by antiquated, counterproductive rules? You do want to remain free, don’t you?” “Oh, yes,” we reply, “we love freedom; do whatever is needed to keep us free.” We are bleating sheep.

But your client, fresh from his arrest, bewildered and terrified asks, “Where have my rights gone?” It is only then, when he is in the custody or crosshairs of law enforcement, that he appreciates the magnitude and awesome power of government. 

Click to read more ...

Whiter than Arizona? "Papers Please" law is now in Effect: All Non-white Persons Can be Stopped by Police

From [HERE] Arizona police can begin enforcing a controversial "show-your-papers" provision of a state law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, after a federal judge lifted an injunction against the law on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, who is white, in a written order, lifted an injunction blocking the measure, which requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are in the country illegally.

Section 2(B) gives police too much discretion when stopping or detaining persons while “checking” their citizenship status. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and AACJ argued in their brief that Sec. 2(B) cannot be implemented without racially profiling Latinos in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. (That is, police stops and detentions of persons based on physical characteristics or persons who look Latino (brown skinned persons or darker skinned persons who could appear to be African, Cuban, Dominican, Hatian or West Indian immigrants) to the police are reasonable in Arizona -  any stop and detention of a non-white person). Even lawful detentions and arrests become unconstitutional when the detention becomes prolonged or unreasonable. If officers rely on profiling characteristics such as a person’s ethnicity in determining whether a person should be detained for an immigration check, Sec. 2(B) becomes an unconstitutional “stop-and-identify” law repugnant to all citizens. [HERE] and NACDL amicus curiae brief. 

Click to read more ...

Since 9/11 - The New World Odor

• The U.S. has engaged in 2 wars. By the end of Obama’s first term, we’ll probably top 6,000 dead U.S. troops in those two wars, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. The cost for both wars is also now well over $1 trillion.
• The U.S. has detained people without trial and tortured them at “black sites” overseas, rendered them to other countries to be tortured, 
• claimed a right to detain American citizens without trial, 
• barred those who turned out to be innocent from legal redress in the American courts for their detention and torture, 
• refused compensation to hundreds of innocent people detained at Gitmo, prohibited detainees from talking about their detention and torture, 
• turned the Fourth Amendment’s “search and seizure” provisions into toilet paper with USA PATRIOT and illegal wiretaps, 
• The current president has also claimed the power to execute U.S. citizens, off the battlefield, without a trial, and to prevent anyone from knowing about it after the fact.

• The Congress approved, the president signed, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a broadly written law making it a crime to advocate for any organization the government deems sympathetic to terrorism. This includes challenging the “terrorist” designation in the first place.
• American Muslims, a heartening story of success and assimilation, are now harassed and denigrated for merely trying to build houses of worship.
• Without a warrant, the government can search and seize indefinitely the laptops and other personal electronic devices of anyone entering the country.
• further militarized local police forces, and set up what amounts to a system of internal passport checkpoints in the airports.  [HERE] and [HERE]

Click to read more ...

Native American Genocide and Personal Responsibility at Whiteclay

From [InfoShop] The last few months have seen much attention given to Whiteclay, Nebraska: a lawsuit against the liquor store owners, beer distributors, and brewers was filed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe; the first blockade of the town in June spread across the internet, , the Denver Post and New York Times published articles, and the August 26th blockade by Deep Green Resistance made the nightly news and was published as far away as San Francisco.

While this (appropriately negative) publicity has certainly helped put Whiteclay on the map for many to whom it would otherwise be just a ‘no-name’ highway pit stop in Nebraska, others have reacted differently, many calling on the Lakota take ‘personal responsibility’ for not drinking.

But whose responsibility is it to fix the continuing problem of Whiteclay? And in the context of 500 years of genocide, what does ‘personal responsibility’ mean?

As we’ve said elsewhere before, Whiteclay is a creation of Invader Culture, just like the genocide of the Lakota was and is enacted by Invader Culture, and hence the burden of ‘personal responsibility’ for Whiteclay falls on members of Invader Culture.

The Lakota did not systematically steal land and break treaties (often using alcohol to “lubricate” the deals). That was done by Invader Culture.

The Lakota did not use alcohol, along with smallpox-infested blankets and Cavalrymen, as a tool of genocide. That was done by Invader Culture.

The Lakota did not build Whiteclay, nor fill it with alcohol. That was done by Invader Culture. [MORE]

Click to read more ...

Arizona Law Allowing Police to Stop Any Non-White Person to Ask about Status Going into Effect

NACDL amicus curiae brief From [HERE] A federal judge in Arizona has rejected a last-ditch effort by civil liberties and immigrants' rights groups to block enforcement of a hotly-contested provision of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law, S.B. 1070.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton (in photo) said in an order Wednesday that she would not stand in the way of a provision in the law requiring police to determination the immigration status of people they encounter and suspect of being in the country illegally. The immigrants' rights groups argued that Bolton could block the law because it coud infringe on individuals' constitutional rights, but Bolton noted that in June the Supreme Court indicated that provision could take effect and that any legal challenges are pre-mature.

From [HERE] Section 2(B) gives police too much discretion when stopping or detaining persons while “checking” their citizenship status. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and AACJ argued in their brief that Sec. 2(B) cannot be implemented without racially profiling Latinos in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. (That is, police stops and detentions of persons based on physical characteristics orpersons who look Latino to the police are reasonable in Arizona -  any stop and detention of a non-white person). Even lawful detentions and arrests become unconstitutional when the detention becomes prolonged or unreasonable. If officers rely on profiling characteristics such as a person’s ethnicity in determining whether a person should be detained for an immigration check, Sec. 2(B) becomes an unconstitutional “stop-and-identify” law repugnant to all citizens.

Click to read more ...

White Supremacist Nation Israel Plans to Round up & Detain All Sudanese Migrants who do not Self-Deport

From [HERE] Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai warned today that illegal immigrants from Sudan who do not leave the country by October 15 will be detained.

"Infiltrators from Sudan have until October 15 to leave Israel, after which date they will be placed in detention," Yishai said in a statement, adding that he had Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval to implement such a policy. Yishai indicated that the detention would be followed by expulsion, without going into detail on the procedure that may be followed.

He said he had "chosen to act rather than talk, in order to preserve the Jewish and Zionist character of the state for our children." Following a wave of arrests of illegal immigrants, Israel began expelling South Sudanese in June.

Click to read more ...