Black People Treated Like Dogs To The Slaughter, To Be Corralled, Controlled And Killed.

This is the worst title I could have thought of, and I am not going to defend the truth of it in any way... The police have to do that with their actions. The police have to defend their own records and thereby show that this abhorrent title deserves no quarter... because according to their actions, they operate as if Black people are less than human. 

Black people are not just innocent Lambs to the slaughter, they are now treated like Dogs to the slaughter, without even the human love and compassion afforded to real dogs. Everyone knows if you kill a dog you get more severe sentences than if you killed a black person. This is borne out in the court verdicts.

The actions over the past decades have shown that when the rubber meets the road, when it really mattered, the Police all over the country as a cohesive group, have let down the citizens of this great country. The police who have been charged to protect and serve, have instead corralled,controlled and killed the very individuals they were sworn to protect, the very victims whose taxes pay their salaries, the very victims whose kids play with their kids in kindergarden and attend the same schools.

Every week we see multiple killings of unarmed people who if nothing else, deserved the benefit of the doubt. Police justice is swift and uncompromising, better suited for a military grade action in a foreign country. The Police of today is not the domestic themed protector of the innocent civilian but they are more like an invading force led by Attila The Hun. My heart is heavy thinking of just who they mean to conquer.

The controversial verdict in Cleveland is the latest nail in Lady Justice's coffin. The verdict in favor of Officer Brelo's innocence in the shooting deaths of two unarmed civilians, is in the least a heart breaking one. 

Police officials would be quick to weigh their long history of defense and control of violent entities, against the charges that they have indeed long since lost sight of just who the real criminals are, and of their duty to protect civilians or just to profile and kill them without mercy. Sometimes it seems the war has changed from between the forces of Justice against the criminals, to just a war between Black and Blue, with no concern for the merits of the evidence when it reaches to court.

I have heard it said in defense of the Police that the public just don't understand the difficulty of the job. It is said that these killing tactics do not outweigh the need to have a Police force and if anything the Police is owed a debt of gratitude by the public.

I have also heard that being a Police Officer is not done by holding a draft, it is a job which is freely applied for by each and every individual. If an officer feels that they can't do the job properly, then it is a simple thing to quit, leave, retire, before someone gets hurt. 

It is a job that requires a lot from an individual and most if not all who join the Police, does so with the intention of repaying the community that loved and nurtured them in their younger years. 

There is no shame in realizing that the job is not for you, it is not a job for any and everyone to do, so get out while you are still ahead, before innocent life is taken.... become a priest, an engineer or a teacher. You will not be loved any less.

Let the Police defend their honor against the title of this post, because I certainly can't.

Free download of “Shock and Awe on America” in different E-book formats at Smashwords.com

Dick Cheney's Pre-Iraq Video Interview Raises War Crimes Questions.

Well the title is correct and says it all. Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense during Operation Desert Storm, for President George H W Bush. After that Desert Storm operation, Mr. Cheney was interviewed and asked why did we not go the extra distance and capture Saddam Hussein. Mr. Cheney said quite confidently that if we were to capture Saddam, that would have created a power vacuum which would have been quite disasterous.

Mr. Cheney also pointed out that there were 146 American troops who died and to incur any more casualties while toppling Saddam's regime would not be feasible as Saddam was not worth additional American lives.

Fast forward to Operation Shock and Awe and it seems Mr. Cheney, now Vice President in 2003, thought that the price, which eventually proved to be losing over 4000 American soldiers and having tens of thousands wounded and having more than one hundred thousand suffer with PTSD was a good day at the park....that we 'won' the war somehow and it was well worth the price paid in blood and national treasure, to capture and topple Saddam. 

Knowing that his prediction of a fractured Iraq being shredded to pieces, by the 50 plus other radical entities like Al Qaeda that we knew of then, and also the neighboring countries as he mused in his interview, raises the question that he should be at least held responsible by the Haig, for all the events that happened since then as a direct result of Shock and Awe.

Knowing that this war would have brought the terrible results that Mr. Cheney predicted, he should not have allowed it... to do so is tantamount to mass murder. He shows that by going ahead with the war in such a non-chalant manner, while not considering the consequences and loss of human lives important enough, Mr. Cheney should be tried for war crimes.

Free download of “Shock and Awe on America” in different E-book formats at Smashwords.com

America As A 'Christian Nation' Invented By Businessmen In The 1930's

From Salon.com ... 'Excerpted from “One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America” by Kevin Kruse. Published by Basic Books. Copyright 2015 by Kevin Kruse. Excerpted with permission of the publisher. All rights reserved.'

'The rites of our public religion originated not in a spiritual crisis, but rather in the polit­ical and economic turmoil of the Great Depression. The story of busi­ness leaders enlisting clergymen in their war against the New Deal is one that has been largely obscured  by the very ideology that resulted from it.'

'Previous accounts of the tangled relationship between Christianity and capitalism have noted  the “uneasy alliance” between businessmen and the religious right which helped elect Ronald Reagan and end the New Deal order, but the careers of the Christian libertarians in the 1930s and 1940s show that their alliance was present at the creation of the New Deal. Their ideology of “freedom under God” did not topple the regulatory state as they hoped, but thanks to the evangelism of conservative clergymen such as James Fifield, Abraham Vereide, and Billy Graham, it ultimately accomplished more than its corporate creators ever dreamed possible. It convinced a wide range of Americans that their country had been, and should always be, a Christian nation.'

'In the early 1950s, the long crusade of the Christian libertarians apparently reached its triumphant climax with the election of Dwight Eisenhower. But the new president proved to be transformative in a sense his corporate backers had not anticipated. Although he was certainly sympathetic to the secular ends they sought, Eisenhower proved to be much more interested in the spiritual language they had invented as a means of achieving those ends. Uncoupling their religious rhetoric from its roots in the fight against the New Deal, he considerably broadened its appeal, expanding its reach well beyond the initial circle of conservative Protestants to welcome Americans across the political and religious spectrum. In doing so, Eisenhower ushered in an unprecedented religious revival, one that temporarily filled the nation’s churches and synagogues but permanently altered its political culture. From then on, the federal government, which the Christian libertarians had long denounced as godless, was increasingly seen as quite godly instead. Congress cemented these changes, adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and adopting “In God We Trust” as the nation’s first official motto. Hollywood and Madison Avenue, meanwhile, helped promote this understanding of America as a religious nation and Americans as an inherently religious people.'

'The new rituals of public religion crafted in the Eisenhower era were seen at the time as symbolic flourishes with little substance to them. But the rites and rhetoric that Eugene Rostow dismissed as mere “ceremonial deism” in 1962 were soon revealed to have incredible political power. National controversies over school prayer—which unfolded first in the Supreme Court and then in Congress—demonstrated that the symbols and slogans  of the  Eisenhower era, instituted less than a decade  earlier, had quickly been embraced by many  Americans as ironclad  evidence of the nation’s  religious roots.  As conservatives fought to restore  school prayer and to roll back other social changes  in the turbulent 1960s,  they  rallied around   phrases  like  ”one  nation under   God.” As a result,  the religious rhetoric that  had  recently  been  used  to unite  Americans began  to drive them further apart. At the decade’s end, Richard Nixon helped complete this polarization of the nation’s public religion, using it to advance divisive policies both  at home  and abroad.'

'This history reminds us that our public religion  is, in large measure, an invention of the modern era. The ceremonies and symbols that breathe life into the belief that we are “one nation under God” were not, as many Americans believe, created alongside  the nation itself. Their parentage stems not from  the founding fathers but from an era much closer  to our own, the era of our own fathers and mothers, our grandfathers and grand­mothers.This fact need not diminish their  importance; fresh traditions can be more powerful than older ones adhered  to out of habit. Neverthe­less, we do violence  to our  past if we treat  certain  phrases —  ”one nation under God,”"In God We Trust” —  as sacred texts handed down to us from  the nation’s founding. Instead, we are better served if we understand these  utterances for what they are: political slogans that speak not to the origins of our nation but to a specific point in its not-so-distant past. If they are to mean anything to us now, we should understand what they meant  then.'

This is really an interesting read, and the author has done some excellent investigative journalisn to bring this information to us. It comes at an important time in this nation's enduring efforts to forge ahead amidst a collage of global threats and alliances, both monetary and religious.

This type of collusion between business powers and religious entities has been seen as far back as ancient times. This is how the ruling classes from even before the time of the Romans, controlled the flocks... kept the people in line. The Kings and Noblemen would enlist the help of the churches, temples, synagogues in order to subdue the people.... for a hefty price of course. The hirearchy of the churches lived in lavish comforts fit for royalty, and they were revered as such... even today.

It is my suspicion that as the middle ages winded down, the population was getting so disillusioned and rowdy that King James in the early 1600's was advised by his mother to rewrite and produce a new version of the Bible, which was then offered to the people by the church, as 'Inspired by God,' in order to subdue them and again bring them back under the control of the Kingdom. This is the King James version of the Bible that we know today.

Free download of “Shock and Awe on America” in different E-book formats at Smashwords.com

Chris Christie's Bridgegate Coverup Tactics Revealed By Barney Frank

While on a WNYC radio interview  on Thursday April 30th, Ex Congressman Barney Frank brought up an interesting detail that just blows Chris Christie's honesty about Bridgegate out of the water... Barney said in a nutshell... 'Christie makes his name as a tough prosecutor, he cracks crime, he gets to the bottom of it... Christie said that he called in his people who were accused of shutting down the bridge and he (non-chalantly) asked them if they had done it. They said no and he said (ok) that's it...'

Barney continues...' When Christie was a prosecutor and he questioned someone accused of a crime, did he ask 'are you guilty' and if they said no, was that the end of it?' You can listen to Congressman Barney Frank's interview below.



This exposes Christie's dishonestly intended play, to not ask the tough questions so as to not get the correct answers. He was purposely not a driving force behind the questioning, as his actions and results show... and his overflowing bounty of non-existent answers reveal.  He knowingly did not ask the right questions, knowingly did not get the correct answers and then knowingly did not come clean to the public in his almost two hour press conference. That word 'knowingly' will haunt him.

This gave Christie the temporary cover of having plausible deniability. A person in high office as Christie holds, is always tasked with having the honesty, integrity and goodwill needed, to conduct the peoples' business. This premis held true when he was the US Attorney representing the people and this holds true as a person now twice elected to the Governorship on his past presumed good record of honesty, integrity and goodwill on behalf of the people.

That tactic is often used by officials who do not want to appear as if their hands are dirty, be that as it may, it is not illegal but where Christie messed up was when he went to the public and pretended to have exercised due diligence in rooting out the truth from his pack of accused 'fighters in the trenches.'  
There was no 'honesty, integrity and goodwill' there. His team now appears to have been a pack of wolves.

These people were his team, they had his back on behalf of his responsibility to the people of New Jersey... the said people that he represented. In short, he misled the people into thinking that he had their backs... when in actuality he just had the backs of his pack of wolves in sheep's clothing.

What makes things even worse for Chris Christie is that not only did he knowingly mislead the people, but as a result he also knowingly misled the investigations being conducted. That is an even bigger issue, one of ethics, which may come back to bite him.

On May 1st 2015, David Wildstein pled guilty to two charges leveled against him and implicated two others of the pack, in the act. The other two being Bill Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly. This from Yahoo.com... 'David Wildstein, a former senior Christie appointee to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy at a U.S. district court in Newark.

Prosecutors also unsealed a nine-count indictment against Bill Baroni, former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Bridget Kelly, a former deputy chief of staff to Christie. Among the charges are conspiracy and wire fraud.'

Here is a breakdown on what transpired in federal court on May 1st 2015, as David Wildstein pled guily to charges on WNYC radio. 

Wildstein has said previously, that he had himself told Chris Christie about the lane closings at the 9/11 memorial ceremony back in 2013 while 'Bridgegate' was happening.This story is reported on here at the NJ.com website.

Now that David Weinstein has pleaded guilty to the charges, this shines the spotlight on Chris Christie to tell the truth about his earlier statements that he knew nothing at the time.... and question why he knew nothing as he did possess the prosecutorial skill and ability to get some answers from his staff when the initial charges were leveled at his office. 

Needless to say this 'Bridgegate' issue is a missile that has now blown Chris Christie's aspirations to become America's next POTUS out of the water.... that part of his legacy is now water under the bridge.

Free download of “Shock and Awe on America” in different E-book formats at Smashwords.com