How The Left Promotes Racial Division and Hate

This is Brandon Elliot. He was recently arrested for a brutal, unprovoked assault on an elderly Asaian woman in New York City that left her hospitalized. Several bystanders in local businesses, including a security guard, witnessed the incident and were able to assist police in their search for Elliot but none intervened to stop the assault. Fortunately, security cameras also witnessed the incident.

Elliot, a black man who was convicted of stabbing his mother to death in 2009 and was released from prison in 2019, has been charged with felony assault, and felony hate crimes are currently pending.

The main stream media headlines speak of Elliott's arrest but most say nothing of his skin color or ethnicity until later in the reports. If this picture showed a white man as the perpetrator of this crime every news headline would begin with "'White man" or "'White Supremacist' assaults elderly Asian woman in what appears to be a hate crime!"

Sadly, this is the United States we live in today. The aftermath of the recent mass shooting in a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, was that the main stream media, Democrat politicians, and at least one family member of Vice President Harris blamed the shooting on a white man. Following the shooting, Meena Harris, a niece who has tried to be in the limelight since the election, took to Twitter to say "Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country," assuming the suspect was a white man. Except he wasn't, exactly.

The suspect, who was wounded in a gun fight with police and arrested, has light skin but is a Syrian born Muslim who has lived in this country since childhood. Reports say his social media page(s) show anti Trump, pro Muslim posts... not exactly your redneck, white supremacist suspect. But that makes no differece. Light skin shooter - automatically white and racist. Facts don't matter.

Early last week a white man took a handgun and killed eight people in three different massage parlors in Atlanta. Six of the victims were Asian women and two, a men and a woman, were white. Another man, Hispanic, was also shot and critically injured. The suspect, who has allegedly confessed to the shootings, said it wasn't racially motivated but instead because of a sexual addiction that triggered his hatred. Yet the media made it all about race and ethnicity.

The media used to wait for evidence and clear information before reporting details of any news incident. In their haste for headlines and sensationalism, many "news" agencies today will say anything, speculation or not, and sometimes walk back the stories when real facts are introduced. Sometimes. Social media outlets are worse.

Thoughts on The Derek Chauvin Trial

The trial in Minneapolis is going to be interesting, if nothing else. My hope is that the truth comes out and justice is appropriately served, not that a police officer is found guilty to appease the public nor that it's  miscarried to excuse poor judgement by a police officer.

First and foremost - I was not there nor involved in the situation. That said, these are my personal and professional observations based on what I've seen and read of the incident.

Facts that are undisputed:

1. Officer Chauvin had George Floyd on the ground, in restraints, with his knee on the back of Floyd's head and neck, for approximately nine minutes.

2. Durning most of that time Mr. Floyd says over and over "I can't breathe. I want my mama. You're going to kill me." At some point, about six minutes into the video, Mr Floyd stops moving and talking and becomes quiet. He is later pronounced dead.

3. Autopsy has shown significant ammounts of illegal drugs in Floyd's system. Are they a factor in his death? Unknown.

I spent 22 years working in federal corrections and have restrained literally thousands of inmates, most with their cooperation but many without. I have knelt on the upper backs of hostile and uncooperative inmates with my knee in the same position on the inmate as in the Floyd case. It was done to stop the inmate from resisting until he was properly subdued and restrained. Once restraints were properly applied, if the inmate continued to struggle, other officers held his limbs until the struggle ceased or he was transported to a cell. There was no reason to maintain pressure on the back of the neck once the inmate was in restraints and became compliant.

Prior to working for the Bureau of Prisons I was a paramedic for eight years in the Air Force, with extensive emergency medical training. One thing I can say from that experience - if you truly cannot breathe you cannot talk and say things repeatedly for six minutes. Was Floyd's breathing diminished by the knee on the neck? Probably. Was it blocked completely? No. There became a point during the incident when Floyd either became compliant or passed out. It's that moment that needs to be uncovered and examined.

Both my medical and law enforcement training tell me that the pressure on Floyd's neck should have been removed at that moment. Was it too late at that point? We don't really know. All we know is that Floyd eventually died.

Do I believe Officer Chauvin is guilty of second degree manslaughter at this point? Second degree means the perpetrator did it in the heat of the moment. No, I don't. Do I believe he committed third degree manslaughter through his actions? I don't know that either. There are many forensic details that will come into play (i.e., drugs in system, erratic behavior, resisting officers.) But I believe that would be a more appropriate charge given what I've seen.

I believe the prosecutor might actually agree with me at this point since he attempted to add third degree manslaughter to the case after the trial began. The judge appropriately said no.

These are my opinions based on the research I've done.

Whether he's convicted or not will be determined by many factors. Can the prosecutor prove second degree manslaughter? I have my doubts. Could he have proved third degree? Probably. But that charge isn't there. Will the jury convict just to maintain peace in the city? Possibly. Should the trial have been moved to a different venue? I believe so. Will there be rioting and destruction if Officer Chauvin is acquitted? Absolutely. Will there be rioting and destruction if he is convicted and not sentenced as severely as some want? Probably.

I'm not sure this case has a good outcome regardless of the verdict and sentencing. We shall see.

Yes, They Do Want To Take Your Guns

The name of the Boulder, Colorado, shooter, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, is interesting. He's 21years old and was taken into custody after he was shot during a shootout with police after "allegedly" killing 10, including a police officer, and wounding numerous others. Neither police nor the media are reporting any other details about him, nor a possible motive. Was this an Islamic extremist attack? (Apparently it is now being reported he may be a  Syrian terrorist.) It is believed he lived in this country most of his life but then, so did the Tzarnaev brothers.

The most interesting thing, but not surprising, is the immediate renewed calls for increased gun control before any of these facts have been released. How did the shooter acquire the gun? Did it belong to him, his father, a friend? Was it given to him? Was it stolen? We don't know any of that yet. But hey - increased gun control would have stopped the incident, right?

In today's society I really have no problem with background checks for criminal history or serious mental health history before someone is approved to purchase a firearm, although unless there are documented changes I see no point in doing them every single time a new one is purchased. If I bought a gun six months ago and there or no changes to my background check in a simple NICS search I shouldn't be required to do the entire thing again.

I have neither a criminal nor serious mental health history. (OK... there are those who might question that second one.....  LOL) And I have no problem with revealing that fact to authorities. I know, I know... "Second Amendement doesn't say".... but if a background check prevents a mass murderer from legally purchasing a gun and killing someone I can live with that.

Do those background checks work every time - catch everyone with criminal or mental heath histories? Nope. Are there ways around them? Yep. Unfortunately, most gun control measures are aimed at law-abiding citizens who easily pass background checks and mental health screenings rather than criminals and psychiatric patients. Let's face it, in this country anyone who wants a gun can get one. It just depends on how hard he or she wants to work at it.

I'm fed up with the left, from politicians to the media and on down, referring to semiautomatic rifles as "assault rifles." No, "AR" does not stand for Assault Rifle. It stands for Armalite Rifles, the company that made the first AR-15. To believe otherwise is simple gun ignorance. AR-15s are designed to look like a military rifle but with significant exceptions - its looks and gas powered operating system - it is nothing like a real military weapon. Military weapons can be set to fire more than one bullet with each trigger pull. You can fire single rounds, three round bursts, and fully automatic, which allows for hundreds of rounds to be fired in seconds with jyst twonor three trigger pulls. AR-15s cannot do that without modification. Modification can be done, both legally and illegally, but legal modifications can be done only after paying money to the government. Imagine that. 

Like the new Covid Relief Bill, new gun control measures are designed more to make money for the government than to save lives. Think about it. There are millions of legal gun owners in this country who every day don't shoot anyone. They own handguns, shotguns, traditional rifles, AR-15s, etc, most with "high capacity magazines," (meaning it holds over 10 rounds) and those people regularly do mot shoot nor kill anyone every single day.

A few years back the left-wing media came up with the term "assault rifle" to describe the AR-15 after one was used in a mass shooting. Liberals ran with the nomenclature and today most people on the left, including politicians, use it to describe the AR-15. It's scary looking because it resembles a military weapon. But it doesn't function like a military weapon. Yet no one seems interested in that simple and important truth.

A few years ago a left-wing columnist wrote an article about firing an AR-15, about how its recoil damaged his shoulder, the blast sounded like cannon fire and the overall experience left him with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. If was quite clear he made up the story, particularly after just days later another, a real journalist interviewed a child shooting champion who wins AR-15 competitions on a regular basis and has never experienced these problems. I think she was ten at the time.

In reality, any weapon used to commit murder is an "assault weapon." For Cain it was a rock. For those who killed Ceasar it was knives. For Timothy McVeigh it was a kerosene and fertilizer. And for the 9/11 terrorists it was airliners. Should we ban all of those, or perhaps only the ones that look scary?

The Biden administration wants all Americans to register their firearms with the government. They want to buy back (confiscate) "assault weapons." Those who refuse to sell their guns to the government and keep them will be forced to register them and pay "special taxes" for that right. The tax will be $200 per weapon, per year. In addition, Biden wants to make every gun owner pay a $100 tax on every high capacity magazine (holds over 30 rounds.) Most AR-15s come from the store or factory with at least two 30 round magazines. So if you want to buy a new AR-15 It would cost you a $300 additional tax to the government over and above the goverment sales tax.

Senator Diane Feinstein recently introduced a bill to ban assault weapons ((AR, AK, etc., and handguns) that use detachable ammunition introduction equipment [magazines] and particularly high capacity magazines. That would pretty much ban at least half of rifles and semiautomatic pistols in the country.

I don't know anyone who owns an AR-15 or other semiautomatic rifle (or pistol) who owns only one magazine. Shooting enthusiasts like to shoot but don't like reloading to interfere with that. They'd rather take a large number of loaded magazines to the range or hunting sight rather than sit around and reload magazines while they're having fun. 

The Biden administration wants to tax individuals $100 for each and every high capacity magazine they own including handguns, shotguns, andand  rifles. Fox many gun owners in this country that would entail exorbitant amounts of money. Or lies.

Every one of these measures is meant to harm and control legal gun owners, not criminal activities. Do you really believe new laws  are designed to, or will prevent criminals and crazy people from acquiring and using firearms? Why didn't it stop the Sandy Hook shooter, who had a psychiatric history but who killed his mother and stole her legally owned AR-15?

Gun control is about control of the masses and revenue for the government, period. If it's about saving lives why has the government not cracked down on illegal guns and illegal shootings in our major cities rather than targeting legal gun owners.? These and suicides are the prmary causes of gun deaths in this country. Why is the government not pushing mental health treatment in this country? As far as I'm concerned, anyone, terrorist or not, who can go somewhere and wantonly kill large numbers of innocent people who have done nothing to them is mentally ill. Let's try to solve the real issues rather than create more.

Fighting Pelosi's Power Grab

 

I find it interesting that Nancy Pelosi installed metal detectors inside the Capitol building and created House Rule 73, which forces all House members to pass through a metal detector prior to entering the chamber to "prevent guns from being brought into the chamber." Pelosi added that " the threat is from within." Does she really believe one of her Republican counterparts wants to bring a gun to work and shoot her? Really?

Nancy Pelosi installed a barrier fence with razor wire around the Capitol Building and brought 15,000 national guard troops to man it following what the left likes to calll "the insurrection" on January 6th and plans to leave them there for an undermined amount of time. "Insurrection" is a convenient and divisive word but it's ridiculous.

Insurrection, by definition, is "an organized, violent action, taken by a large group of people against the rulers of their country, usually in order to remove them from office."

If that was the intent of the rioters on January sixth they were vastly underprepared, unarmed, unplanned, and the "insurrection" had absolutely no chance of success. The Capitol has armed security who would have, in case of a serious armed insurrection, used firearms against the violence and hundreds would have died. That didn't happen.

President Trump offered the Capitol Police some national guard troops days before the incident but was told no because it would be a bad visual. The FBI knew about a possible march on the Capitol before it happened and informed the Capitol Police (and no doubt Speaker Pelosi) but the response by the Capitol Police on that day was a failure.

The incident that day was some pre-planned violence by some people and a lot of spontaneous violence by people who got caught up in the moment and became a part of the problem. They didn't march on the Capitol to overthrow the government. Those who still think that have great imaginations but they're not thinking clearly. Those people did it mostly because they felt they were being ignored. And they not only scared our elected officials but the media.

Some House members want to be able to carry firearms for personal protection on the House floor. Except it would require a change to federal law. It is currently a felony to be in possession of a firearm inside a federal building unless you are on duty law enforcement or military. House members are not legally allowed in the Capitol carrying a firearm.

For Pelosi to pretend that House Republicans want to kill her or others is simply theater with no basis in reality. Yet she makes people believe the threat is real. It has not happened and will not. She's lying to the people to increase her own power. And the media is helping her do it.

Republican Representatives Louie Goehmert (TX) and Andrew Clyde (GA) have both defied the order since it was made official. Goehmert has been fined $5000 by Pelosi for one instance and Clyde $15,000 for two instances. Clyde says he did it intentionally to have the basis for a lawsuit against Pelosi as he believes the new rule violates his Constitional rights.

It is also rumored that national guard troops will soon be sent home since no credible threat against the House and Senate have been identified. I think we all knew that to be the case but Pelosi wanted to milk the January 6th riot, which is all It was, for everything she could. We'll see what happens.