Police officers shot and killed a 6-year-old autistic boy during an incident in Louisiana, but the boy was white, wasn’t holding a gun and didn’t have a long criminal record, so don’t expect any protests or national media attention.
Video footage of last November’s fatal shooting of Jeremy Mardis by two deputy city marshals (pictured below) was shown in court on Wednesday.
Police claim they chased the boy’s father Christopher Few after he had an argument with his girlfriend and that Few used his vehicle as a weapon, prompting them to open fire.
“However, state District Court Judge William Bennett said the video doesn’t show Few using his car as a “deadly weapon” at the time of the shooting,” reports CBS News.
The clip posted above appears to back this up. The officer seems to be shooting at a stationary car while Few is clearly seen with his hands up.
Mardis, who had autism, died at the scene after suffering multiple gunshot wounds while his father survived. Police claimed they were chasing Few because of an outstanding warrant, although it was later confirmed that there were no outstanding warrants against him.
While ‘Black Lives Matter’ demonstrators will stage riots, attack reporters and burn down cities over the shooting deaths of black victims who invariably turn out to have either been carrying a gun or resisting arrest, saying “all lives matter” is racist, so there will be no protests over Mardis.
His death will not be spun into a grand narrative and used by the media to whip up hysteria because the boy’s skin isn’t the right color.
Mardis’ mistake was to not have accrued a long violent criminal record and posted pictures of himself on Facebook acting like a gang member. If the 6-year-old boy had done so, he may have got more sympathy from the media and BLM,
But just like the five white people killed by cops on the same day that Keith Scott was shot dead, police brutality is ignored unless it can be exploited for race-baiting, divisive, political purposes.
BuzzFeed seems really inquisitive when it comes to asking questions of white people.
So here are 15 questions white people have for BuzzFeed social justice warriors.Why is it racist to make generalizations about lifestyle, beliefs or behavior based on a person’s race….unlesss they’re white?If making generalizations about people’s beliefs based on their race is racist, why do you automatically assume that black people are all social justice warriors?Why is it racist to stereotype non-whites for positive traits – like Asians being intellectual or blacks being athletic – but it’s perfectly OK to stereotype whites for negative traits, like not being able to dance?
Why are white people racist for having zero black friends, but also racist for having one black friend, because we use that black friend to validate our opinions? But then we’re also racist if we have numerous black friends because we’re overcompensating?
Why is white people having dreadlocks cultural appropriation, but when Beyonce straightens her hair and dyes it blonde, that’s perfectly fine?
Why is it cultural appropriation to embrace black fashion, music and culture, but then having our own fashion, music and culture is backward, divisive or nerdy?
Why do you whine about the Oscars being racist in favor of white people, when the number of black Oscar winners is exactly in line with the overall black population?
Why is a racially motivated violent attack on a black person called a hate crime, but a racially motivated violent attack on a white person is called “the knockout game”?
If only black people can call each other the N-word, can only white people call each other “cracker”?
If white people don’t understand what it’s like to be poor, as Bernie Sanders claims, why are America’s poorest counties 95% white?
The Islamic Barbary slave trade, which oppressed whites, lasted far longer and was far more brutal than the African slave trade.
So if white people owe blacks reparations for slavery, can we claim reparations from Arabs?
If reverse racism doesn’t exist because white people are in power and therefore it’s impossible to be racist against them – at what point does this change?
If the entire dominant culture, entertainment, and media complex now discriminates against white people by encouraging racism against white people, does that represent a form of power?
Why should it be acceptable that the last acceptable form of racism is racism against white people?
Green Gestapo Says You’re Mentally Ill If You Question Climate Change
Any opposition to the party line constitutes “culpable insanity”
Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley | Infowars.com – September 29, 2016Comments
Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville annoyed the climate-extremist establishment a couple of years ago by describing them as “climate Nazis.”
Recently several of these creatures wrote a supposedly “learned” paper in an obscure journal, saying that anyone who, like Roy and me, raises legitimate questions about the magnitude of Man’s influence on climate or the disproportionate cost of making largely non-existent global warming go away, must be suffering from a psychiatric disorder. These climate Nazis said that those who dare to question the Party Line on the weather should be regarded as suffering from “identity-protective cognition” and “conspiracist ideation.” I was among those they named. In Communist Russia, before its defeat at the hands of the triumvirate of liberty – Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II – opponents of the regime whom the dictators had not executed were instead flung into psychiatric institutions, on the ludicrous ground that any opposition to the Party Line constituted culpable insanity. The intellectual pygmies who are the inheritors of the dictators, conveniently forgetting the 250 million people whom communist and fascist socialism sent to their deaths in the 20th century, are now whining that we who have exposed their climate scam should be locked away in state psychiatric prisons, there to be “re-educated” to cure us of the wicked notion that science, not politics, is the way to determine the magnitude (if any) and cost (if any) of the climate problem (if any). Well, I’ve had enough. I’ve written to the editor of the obscure journal, to the president of the editor’s university and to the presidents of the universities that provide nests for two of the paper’s authors, to warn them that in Europe, to ensure that the arrogant and un-self-critical totalitarianism that killed so many in the last century will kill none in this, we now have hate-speech laws that make the publication of the offending paper falsely accusing us of lunacy an imprisonable criminal offense. One of the co-authors, one Cook, recently appointed to a third-rank university in the United States, falsely stated in an earlier paper that 97% of climate scientists had said recent global warming was mostly man-made, when his own records – now in the hands of the fraud police – show he knew the true figure was not 97% but 0.5%. Lest you should think that my comparing these wretches with the totalitarians of old is unjust, I have obtained a picture of Cook dressed up in his favorite uniform, a parody of a Nazi SS uniform. The photograph bears the self-describing caption Reichsführer-SS J. Cook: I have sent copies of this photograph to the president of Cook’s new “university,” together with a request that I should be permitted to set straight the crooked record of poisonous and criminal hate-speech that Cook and his ghastly co-authors have published to my detriment. Watch this space! Footnote: My recent speech to the London climate conference exposing a huge error at the heart of the climate models – an error without which no one will ever worry about our effect on the climate – is causing major concern among the ranks of the ungodly. It’s unusual for a mathematical presentation to gather 10,000 hits in a week, but it’s happened. If you haven’t seen it yet:
Don’t miss the speech that makes the climate Nazis squirm. If you like Classical music, you’ll enjoy a recording of the piece I played onstage in the conference hall during the closing-night party. It’s Schubert’s Sechs Ecossaisen der Ehemaligen, six little Scottish dances played as an oran talaidh or lullaby in the dreamy Highland style. If baby won’t sleep, play this resonant recording and all will be well. Enjoy! Just click to listen: Lord Monckton Plays Schubert Lord Christopher Monckton is a well-known journalist, public speaker, UKIP activist and “global warming” skeptic who also invented the mathematical puzzle Eternity. You can find him at the Lord Monckton Foundation.
In an appearance on the O’Reilly Factor Wednesday, GOP nominee Donald Trump reevaluated Monday night’s presidential debate, noting that on reflection he believes moderator Lester Holt was incredibly biased toward Hillary Clinton, and only asked tough questions of him, and not the Democratic nominee.
“I wasn’t thinking about it. But when I reviewed it and when I saw all of the commentary, because a lot of people thought he was terrible, and I looked at all of the commentary, I realized he was much, much tougher on me than he was on Hillary. It was like a day and night.” Trump said. “I thought he was OK. I mean, look, I said good things right after the show. But after reviewing it and after seeing the way he badgered and even the questions I got… You know, he hits me with the birther question, of course.” Trump continued. The GOP nominee also noted that Holt attempted to wrongly correct him on the issue of ‘stop and frisk’, by claiming it is an unconstitutional practice. “And he likes to correct things where I happen to be right.” Trump said, adding “we talked about “stop and frisk,” and he was 100 percent wrong. But in the meantime I had to go and prove the point. And it turned out that I was right.” Trump also noted that Holt failed to correct Clinton on a false comment she made about the gold standard. “Hillary Clinton on the gold standard. He didn’t go after her even though she was wrong.” he exclaimed. O’Reilly noted that Holt interrupted Trump over forty times, while only interjecting when Hillary was speaking fewer than 10 times. The two then joked that Holt interrupted Trump more than O’Reilly does. “He was worse than you, I agree, really.” Trump quipped. Immediately following the interview, Trump gave a speech to supporters in Wisconsin, during which he raised the issue of Google covering up negative Hillary Clinton news and information. “Google search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton,” Trump said, referring to the fact that when typing in ‘Hillary Clinton’ to a Google search box, the auto-complete function does not default to any of the major issues she has been associated with such as ’emails’ ‘scandals’ ‘liar’. When also typing in ‘crooked’ Google auto-complete does not suggest ‘Hillary’ where as other search engines do.
https://youtu.be/K07S3kCHsdQ While Google has claimed that it’s auto-complete function works according to ‘what people are searching for’, it also issued a statement earlier this year suggesting that isn’t the case when it comes to searching someone’s name. “Our auto-complete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name,” a Google spokeswoman said. “Google auto-complete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how auto-complete works.” While this would explain why words such as ‘evil’ or ‘witch’ may not appear, When typiing in ‘Hillary’, it doesn’t adequately explain why ‘health’ or ‘body count’ do not appear – words and phrases that do not have negative connotations out of context. It is this specifically that Trump is referring to.
During Wednesday’s speech, Trump also attacked Hillary as “a vessel for the special interests, trying to strip this country of its wealth, its jobs, and its status as a sovereign nation.” “The only people Hillary Clinton fights for are the special interests who write big, fat checks to her” Trump told the crowd. The full speech is below:
The U.S. is helping ISIS and moving closer to war with Russia. Why is the Obama administration ordering the bombing of Syrian troops who are fighting the Islamic State? Get the latest on the explosive situation by watching and sharing this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJZRvp6w4wc SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Alleged Bill Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick reacted to Chelsea Clinton’s complaint about people attacking her family by reminding Chelsea that her father is a “sexual predator”.
After Donald Trump took the high road by refusing to bring up the plethora of sexual abuse accusations against Bill Clinton during Monday night’s debate with Hillary, Chelsea Clinton used an interview with Cosmopolitan as an opportunity to play the victim.
“Candidly, I don’t remember a time in my life when my parents and my family weren’t being attacked, and so it just sort of seems to be in that tradition, unfortunately. And what I find most troubling by far are … Trump’s continued, relentless attacks on whole swaths of our country and even our global community: women, Muslims, Americans with disabilities, a Gold Star family. I mean, that, to me, is far more troubling than whatever his most recent screed against my mom or my family [is],” she said.
Broaddrick responded to Chelsea’s lament that she couldn’t remember a time when her parents weren’t under attack with a terse rebuttal.
“There’s a very good reason for this – your parents are not good people,” tweeted Broaddrick.
“Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator. Your mother has always lied and covered up for him,” she added.
“I say again “I was 35 when Bill Clinton Raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. It never goes away”.
“The truth is what has brought the attacks on your family and you are smart enough to know that by now,” she concluded.
Broaddrick (pictured above) alleged that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her during an April 1978 incident that took place in a room at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas.
During the assault, Broaddrick claims Clinton bit down on her lip, causing her to bleed.
She also alleges that Hillary Clinton later approached her at a Clinton fundraiser and subtly threatened her to keep quiet about the attack.
Bill Clinton denies the allegations and refuses to comment on them. In his book, No One Left to Lie To, acclaimed author Christopher Hitchens documents how Broaddrick’s claim is credible and has many similarities with Paula Jones’ later allegation of sexual assault against Bill Clinton.
Clinton eventually agreed to pay Jones an out of court settlement of $850,000.