Berkeley riots: how many arrests from local cops?

As a result of the riots on the UC Berkeley, California campus Wednesday night, were there hundreds of resulting arrests? Fifty arrests? Thirty arrests? Ten arrests? Five arrests? How about this: one arrest. Few news outlets are even asking if there were arrests. Most news organizations are mentioning — purposely I submit — nothing about arrests. How do I know there was only one arrest? Because I telephoned the Alameda County jail and other associated numbers on Thursday and finally found a rushed bureaucrat who gave me that statistic. This was later confirmed on Friday by the American Media Maggots, or AMM. One arrest.

What about this from CampusReform.org? Paid cops who couldn’t perform their jobs.

We paid over $6,000 for over 100 police officers to ensure our constitutional right to free speech—as well as Milo Yiannopoulos—were protected, but all this was for naught.

Again: my opinion, I do not know this for a fact, but I go by what I term the “logical extension” and past history — I’ll wager the UC Berkeley campus police got a phone call from a “university administrator” (Janet Napolitano?) to its chief and the message was relayed from there to the watch commander, the Lieutenant then to the various Sergeants in the organization: stand down. Yes, there were riot-clad police present. But they stood by. I suspect Berkeley PD also received a telephone call and likewise stood down but eventually someone had to do their job and provide a token arrest.

One arrest. After hundreds of protesters rioted, lighted fires, burned trees and property, smashed windows. Sounds like a good idea to just stand by and watch the fun, eh wot? That’s how your local bay area law enforcement values the property and civil rights of taxpayers.

[As an aside, remember that it is Janet Napolitano who stated in January that she would continue to defy immigration laws by making the UC system “sanctuary campuses.” Milo Yiannopoulos was planning to use his Wednesday UC Berkeley speech to call for the withdrawal of federal funds from sanctuary campuses, such as UC Berkeley.

Free speech on UC campuses any more? Surely you jest. No such thing. Not there, and not on major campuses nationally.

Would you be shocked to know it is a UC Berkeley “researcher” who states the police always provoke violence at protests anyway? It’s never the protesters fault, you see.

Further, SFPD, the San Francisco Police Department, now says it won’t be coordinating any more with the FBI. From Breitbart.com:

Rebel San Francisco P.D. Cuts Ties with FBI on Counterterrorism

by AWR Hawkins

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is ending its coorperation with FBI counterterrorism efforts as part of the city’s larger rejection of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.

On January 31, Breitbart News reported that San Francisco Police Chief William Scott, Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, and Mayor Ed Lee sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security informing them that city would not comply with the order.

The SFPD is now cutting ties with the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), because it would couple SFPD officers with federal agents in carrying out the requirements of the immigration order.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the JTTF was formed in 2007,  “when the police force entered into an agreement with the FBI that authorized intelligence-gathering by San Francisco officers of people engaged in First Amendment activities such as religious services, protests and political assemblies.”

Opponent of Trump’s order — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding operation –sent a letter to the San Francisco officials in January, asking them to adhere to “city and state rules” when working with the federal government.

So SFPD did. Not shocking, since I’ve already written about the SFPD being gutless cowards.

Political correctness has now officially infiltrated our police departments, most certainly on the Left Coast and in Fornicalia. As a retired law enforcement officer of 41 years I am disgusted and sickened. The non-actions of the two “involved” law enforcement agencies is reprehensible. They dishonor their badges and their oaths. I am now actually beginning to wonder: can you truly count on Fornicalia law enforcement having the backs of taxpayers?

Anarchy is not unheard-of at the UC Berkeley campus, of course. Let’s hearken back to 1969 under then-Governor Ronald Reagan. One rioter was killed and a police officer was stabbed in the chest with a knife.

As a result of the riots in Berkeley this past Wednesday night, damage is estimated at $100,000 or more, to also include a damaged Starbucks shop which, honestly, I find highly ironical since Starbucks is a backer of most any half-cocked Leftist scheme and swears it will hire 10,000 refugees for its stores — instead of, for example, homeless veterans who oddly enough happen to desperately need jobs themselves.

For further illustration, here is an NYU professor — as she readily admits — going frothingly berserk in front of NYPD officers at a Gavin McInnes event at NYU. McInnes is a Libertarian and co-founder of VICE, a lovely little Leftist news organization that recently emerged with its own news channel on cable. Apparently the Antifa** rioters and protesters utterly failed to realize the background of McInnes. And these are supposed to be the “best and brightest” young persons in the country? FAIL.

From Breitbart.com, concerning the McInnes speech at NYU.

Four Arrested at Gavin McInnes Event as Antifa Protesters Become Violent

by Charlie Nash

Four people were arrested at a New York University event where libertarian commentator and VICE co-founder Gavin McInnes delivered a speech, after “anti-fascist” protesters started to become violent and throw punches.

Following a fight, which started after protesters started to assault McInnes as he entered the venue and ended in a stolen Make America Great Again hat being set on fire, protesters followed McInnes into the venue and attempted to disrupt his show with chants.

“The NYU Anti-Fascists organized the event on Facebook titled ‘Disrupt Gavin McInnes at NYU’,” reported Pix 11, however unlike the riot that anti-fascists started during Breitbart Senior Editor MILO’s show at UC Berkeley on Wednesday, New York police intervened and managed to prevent a large-scale incident from taking place.

Protesters made chants of “get out of here you Nazi scum,” at McInnes, and “hurled expletives at police,” and others who attempted to either enter the venue or keep students and attendees safe.

This tends to prove, as I pointed out above, that NYPD is primarily a professional law enforcement organization which knows how to conduct itself and keep people safe, setting up skirmish lines and making arrests, plural — as opposed to the UC Berkeley Police and the city of Berkeley Police Department, who have proven themselves to be nothing more than the timorous law un-enforcement arm of Leftist regimes and jurisdictions in Fornicalia. With purpose. Dancing at the ends of strings pulled by their Leftist Masters.

This will be the “new normal” around the nation. Free speech is moribund, and Leftists, anarchists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots all want it so.

Again I say, laughingly — because Leftists, Demorats, anarchists and the American Media Maggots are turning out to be such complicit, spittle-frothing boobs — please keep it all up.

Day by day you are doing three things: 1) Proving your further irrelevance; 2) Ensuring President Trump will be in place until 2024, and 3) Allowing the GOP to keep both the House and the Senate following mid-terms in two years.

You blubbering, simpering cretins.

All my love,

BZ

P.S.

**    “Antifa” is the name for “anti-fascists,” a loose collection of motley anarchist mongrels wearing black clothing and masks, too cowardly to allow themselves to be seen as, now, everyone has a camera and makes video at every event in the nation.

 

 

LEFTISTS determining to LIMIT free speech

Freedom of Speech StoppedAnd not a shock considering the history of Leftists insisting upon control — death-grip control — of speech across the globe.

Europe first.

From Bloomberg.com::

Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours

by Stephanie Bodoni

U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.

Beyond national laws that criminalize hate speech, there is a need to ensure such activity by Internet users is “expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame,” the companies and the European Commission said in a joint statement on Tuesday.

But what is “hate speech”?  And who makes that determination?

As an American, I understand that Europe has no real First Amendment as do we.  There is no history, in Europe, of valuing true free speech.  As is commonly said in America, however, the First Amendment exists not for everyday or pablum-oriented speech, but challenging speech.

The code of conduct arrives as Europe comes to terms with the bloody attacks in Paris and Brussels by Islamic State, which has used the Web and social media to spread its message of hate against its enemies. The companies said it remains a “challenge” to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and hate speech in the self-generated content on online platforms.

“We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow,” said Twitter’s head of public policy for Europe, Karen White, in the statement. “However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”

But it looks like, when you get down to it, the objection by these large techies isn’t necessarily terrorism as in the standard definition of the word — specifically as with regard to the Brussels attacks.  Perhaps that was the original intent a month or so ago.

Read this, from the AP.org on the same topic:

“The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech,” said Vera Jourova, the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality. She added that the code of conduct, which will be regularly reviewed in terms of its scope and its impact, will ensure that public incitement to violence to hatred has “no place online.”

The firms themselves say there’s no conflict between their mission statements to promote the freedom of expression and clamping down on hate speech.

But again, WHO determines the definition of “hate speech”?  We already know that Facebook has been caught short-shrifting and minimizing stories involving conservative issues of import.  We already know that the IRS targeted conservative groups.  We already know that every newsroom in the US is 85% + Leftist.  We already know that Google, Facebook and Twitter are run by Leftists, and that Google, Facebook and Twitter have suspended the accounts of conservative persons for no stated specific reason whatsoever whilst simultaneously allowing the same behavior to occur on behalf of Leftists for Leftist causes.  Facts in evidence.

Obama Billionaire Corporate DemoratsWe already know that Obama and DC don’t hate all capitalists.  They love Leftist tech capitalists.  Just look above.

Now?  It would seem to me that the definition of “hate speech” is expanding.

What is “hate speech”?  Is it, “Allahu akhbar, slay all the infidels and behead the nonbelievers, run their parts through a wood chipper and set that liquid on fire”?

Is it “kill all the Jews, may their corrupt Zionist bodies be blown to bits and their children slaughtered in their beds with the sharpest of machetes”?

Or is it when BZ writes that “black lives don’t matter”?

Is it when BZ takes umbrage with the word marriage meaning one man and one man, one woman and one woman — even though BZ couldn’t care less that two gays or lesbians enjoy a “civil union” and should be afforded precisely the same benefits as one man and one woman?  That he just despises the meanings of words being hijacked?

Is it when BZ writes the word “trannies”?

Is it when BZ says that Leftists are every bit as hypocritical as everyone else and frequently more so, or that most Leftists have no concept of reality, or that Obama is one of the most dangerous persons to the United States ever installed in the White House?  Or that the electorate is increasingly brain dead for Free Cheese?

Is it when BZ writes emphatically that illegal Mexicans should not be allowed into the United States?

Is it when BZ writes that “Islam is as Islam does”?

I’m certain by now you see where I’m going with this.

LEFTIST WORD POLICEThe Dream Police are here.  So sayeth Cheap Trick.  The Word Police are setting up shop and already have a logo.  The Thought Police are deciding what color uniform to purchase.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Thought Police.  You realize, of course, that technology is already being developed in order to truly read your thoughts?  For shame, if you think I’m writing out my ass.  Click the links here and here.

So I ask again:

Just what is “hate speech”?

Who gets to decide?

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” 

Eric Arthur Blair is shaking his head and saying “I told you so.”

BZ

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

UK: waltzing into 1984

1984 - Big BrotherIt’s good to know that history repeats itself.

The UK is now the prime example.

From the UKDailyMail.com:

Put CCTV in EVERY home: Householders should help us trap burglars, says Scotland Yard chief

by Chris Greenwood

 

  • Families should install their own cameras to help catch burglars, he said
  • The Met chief said Britain needed more cameras to help fight crime

 

But privacy campaigners condemned the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s suggestion.

‘The proposals on increasing the amount of privately owned CCTV cameras are quite frankly Orwellian and risk turning members of the public into an extension of the police,’ said Renate Samson of Big Brother Watch.

‘Private CCTV is completely unregulated. Recommending greater use of CCTV to gather more images of people’s faces – often innocent people’s faces – undermines the security of each and every one of us.’

She pointed out that a House of Commons committee had on Saturday released a report on the problems with facial recognition.

“Orwellian?”

Now there’s a foreign pot calling the kettle “1984.”

BZ

 

“Hate Speech” is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is now your Federal Government

Free Speech - NoneProve you’re not insane.

Go ahead, prove it.  Organically and via whatever means testing is available, prove it.

Oh, and by the way, also prove you’re not a racist.

Prove anything involving a “not.”

The most difficult thing imaginable is to disprove a negative.

Yet, here we go again on the heels of “rampant racism” in America via Ferguson — the new “Hate Speech” buzzphrase meme.

From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:

Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate Speech’ on Twitter

$1 Million study focuses on internet memes, ‘misinformation’ in political campaigns

by Elizabeth Harrington

The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.

The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.

The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”

There you go.  Just what you need.  The federal government monitoring your writings and deciding, in the proverbial vacuum, just what is proper and just what isn’t.  In direct contravention of the First Amendment.  Please allow me to remind:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Frankly, this “hate speech” tracking sounds like Stalin to me, and Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.  Like some Third World tin-pot dictator.  Except that this is a LAW proposed in the United States of America.

Via now, Mr Barack Hussein Obama.  Another tin pot dictator who is clueless, rife with NPD, and unable to manage the most basic of businesses for a profit.  He would first classify profit as “evil.”  Then he would drive any and said business into the ground. I suspect he couldn’t run a lemonade stand for a profit, much less our country.

Remember when Mr Obama attempted to call out those sites that were deemed to be “fishy”?  From FoxNews.com:

Obamacare_Flag_Poster_telephoneWhite House Draws Fire for Requesting ‘Fishy’ Information From Supporters on Health Reform

by Molly Henneberg

The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send “fishy” information received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, flag@whitehouse.gov.

Conservatives have pounced on the request, accusing the White House of acting Orwellian.

“If you get an e-mail from your neighbor and it doesn’t sound right, send it to the White House?”said Sen. John Barasso, R-Wyo. ” People, I think all across America are going to say is this 1984? What is happening here? Is big brother watching?”

“Social pollution.”  Really?  As if the meme of unhindered and unrestrained government handouts aren’t social pollution for the stupid amongst us?  As if there are no limits to the depth and breadth of government largesse?  Sustainability?  Societal lampreys?

Possible air strike in Syria?

Sorry.  Shouldn’t have mentioned that.

BZ 

Surrender Your Dignity, Forward

Policing America: should the green shirts be exchanged for Brown Shirts?

Fascism-When-We-Do-ItI submit that is a question you need to ask.

First, watch this video, an excerpt from the John Stossel show “Policing America: Security vs Liberty” recently broadcasted on Fox News, July 26th, involving USBP checkpoints up to 100 miles inland from an American border:

I find this shameful and repulsive, personally and professionally.  As anyone in law enforcement (as I am) knows, there is the spirit or the law and the letter of the law.

A pastor had both of his vehicle windows broken and was Tazed from both sides when he refused to let USBP search his vehicle.  He is Caucasoid and spoke clear English.

The issue?  The federal law indicating “a reasonable distance from the border.”  Is 60 miles reasonable?  100 miles?  Yes, 100 miles.  As Stossel points out, that’s where most Americans live, when you consider our borders north and south, and our coastlines east and west.

Some persons are installing cameras in their cars to document these abrogations, God bless them.  This is pushback and they are patriotic for doing so.  Again, see the video above.

The SCOTUS said that travelers can be briefly detained for the purpose of conducting a limited inquiry into residence status, as per United States vs Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543 (1976).  Neither the vehicle nor its occupants can be searched, yet the video clearly shows that Americans are being told to submit to detentions, searches, and arrests resulting from non-cooperation when more than an ID check is demanded.

How does one conduct a brief check into residency status?  Speak to the individual stopped, see if they speak English, check for a driver’s license and/or other forms of identification.  Any prudent and reasonable LEO can tell you this readily.

What we see displayed above is what is known in law enforcement as “contempt of cop.”  As in: you have pissed me off because you have dared to challenge my authority, and I am now making it personal.

John Stossel says “big government creates problems,” and that is certainly the case here, involving the Fourth Amendment.  “It’s like living in occupied territory,” some lawful residents of the United States of America are saying.

More Americans, as Stossel says, are pushing back.  As I submit they should, particularly if they possess video evidence of their incidents.  Further, as an affected citizen in an incident similar to those above, I would be suing the federal agencies involved and then the individuals themselves because, as the agents themselves made it personal, perhaps they should take a helping of “personal” in return.

Let there be no mistake: I have been in law enforcement for 41 years.  I have worked in a LE capacity for the federal government and for local agencies, where I have worked now for 35 years.  I was a Field Training Officer (FTO) in Patrol and have been in training the bulk of my LE career.  I taught my trainees to respect the foundational documents and in fact they had not only to conform to my agency training regimen, but my personal training regimen as well, which included knowledge about the Bill of Rights and its applicable amendments.

I emphasized that arrests and detentions should be built but upon solid probable cause and reasonable suspicion, and that we do not bluff.  If the law is not on our side, then we don’t make a potential bad situation worse.  We know, I would literally say (and wrote in my own adjunct training manual that I would hand out to my charges), when to back down.

Let me submit this for your consideration: if the USBP were literally “striking it rich” from vehicle blockades many miles within the United States proper, they and the Obama Administration would be crowing about it from the tallest of spires, the mightiest hilltops, far and wide, proving the efficacy of these policies.  Not only that, the American Media Maggots, sycophants that they are, would plaster these statistics over TV screens and newspapers for days and days.

Except they aren’t.  Which tells me one very salient thing: the stats are not bearing out the efficacy of this policy.  Trust me, if these interior check points were literal gold mines of success and productivity you would know.

And as far as Representative Peter King (R) is concerned, he is wrong.  Open your eyes.  All you have to do, sir, is watch this video.

Big Brother is indeed watching.  But in this case, watching the wrong Americans — whilst purposely allowing illegal invaders easy passage through our southern border.

Big-Brother-BWThis makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

This is not the America I remember from even, say, 30 years ago.

I still adhere to the age-old axiom and standard I was held to when I worked Detectives, in Theft, Child Abuse, Warrants, Robbery and Homicide: see below.

Come Back With a WarrantThat is how it is done in a free United States of America where the police respect the foundational documents, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Should the USBP exchange their green shirts for Brown Shirts?

BZ