Remember Kelly Thomas. Remember how a jury acquitted two Fullerton police officers charged in the savage beating and death of Kelly Thomas, a homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia. Remember how that jury reached a not guilty verdict notwithstanding and despite their viewing video, audio, and images of the sickening incident that shocked many courtroom and media observers and sparked protests in the streets of Fullerton. This is a man who died at the hands of his badged executioners, a man who didn’t deserve to die. A man who seemed to have slipped through the media’s attention span of a gnat.
LIONEL PODCAST: Ferguson Protestors: Clowns in a Pathetic Media Circus. The Real Victims of Police Abuse Are Being Overlooked. Michael Brown Is the Worst Choice for Victim. Let’s Talk About Kelly Thomas, a Schizophrenic Who Was Executed by the Cops.
Thug?! Where do I get that depiction? From the grand jury report. Michael Brown as the aggressor who advanced upon and challenged an armed police officer. This isn’t rocket science. You’ve simply picked the wrong case to make the case of police brutality and excess. For crying out loud, Sparky, there are so many cases of cops brutalizing citizens for merely dating to photograph them. Why aren’t those the standards and exemplars of crazy militarism? Michael Brown like Trayvon Martin involve two menacing hulks threatening armed victims. Tragic. And deadly stupid.
The devolution of a one proud system. Gadzooks! I might and must add, the Jurassic media were in full force and rare form. The Ted Baxter sockpuppet, echo chamber, bumper sticker, cookie cutter impuissant hoary media. But alas, Murrow. Alternative media win the day, yet again. I commend to you an excellent analysis from Andrew Branca. The facts of the case are critical and he brilliantly dissects and parses them in a surgical presentment that’s nonpareil.
- Read how Officer Wilson was menaced by Brown, attacked, and after Brown left, then returned.
- How Brown engaged the officer and how these fantastic claims of Brown executed or on his knees with palms up, read how that never happened. Repeat: Never happened!
And this brilliant schematic from Branca. A priceless tutorila on the law of self-defense.
- Innocence: Wilson must not have been the unlawful physical aggressor.
- Imminence: Wilson must have been facing a threat that is either about to occur right now, or is in actual progress.
- Proportionality: To be justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense Wilson must have been facing a threat of death or grave bodily harm.
- Reasonableness: Wilson’s perceptions, decisions, and actions must have been those of a reasonable and prudent police officer in the same circumstances, with the same capabilities, possessing the same specialized knowledge, and under the same stresses of an existential fight.
There has been more exactitude in the case of Bill Cosby than in the public pillorying of Officer Wilson. And all thanks to the usual bands of racial arsonists who are trucked in spouting insane claims, hoping to beef up their reel and getting a place on Mediaite as viral video of the hour. The media are like a voracious animal whose gaping maw needs constant replenishing. Like the runaway train whose boiler has to be replenished constantly. Emphasis on the term runaway.
The decision explicated perfectly. The rudiments, bases, the basest bases.
The worst grand jury announcement in the history of humankind. This monstrosity. How horrible was that? It was the video equivalent of water boarding. If you didn’t know within the first two minutes that there was no indictment, you weren’t paying attention. It was maundering and circular, confused and ill-measured. Horrid. And in many respects cruel because so many folks truly believed a true bill would mean justice some how.
My prediction as to exactly what the Ferguson Grand Jury did. It wasn’t obvious. It was the only outcome possible. And it had nothing to do with the bases advanced by media racial arsonist.
Behold JFK’s assassination. Take a good look. This is what it looks like when a President is removed via a coup d’état. Nasty, cold, lethally efficient. The consummate dispatch. An evanescence and ablated tenure. And that’s precisely what happened 51 years ago this week(end). This was a conspiracy, plain as day. Say it. Don’t run from it. It was a conspiracy. The Warren Commission was also a conspiracy and a pathetic joke . . . no, a bad joke . . . and it led and paved the way for government complicity and coverup couched in commissions to be facially farcical at best. Just look at the embarrassing 9/11 carnival. It was then a time when organized crime and American intel were ofttimes so interrelated, merged and entwined that you couldn’t tell who was the bad guy and the really bad guy. This was a President who threatened the CIA existentially that he wanted to “splinter the[m] . . . into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” Wowser. That sealed his fate. And the ultimate and sick irony of ironies? Having Allen Dulles on the Warren Commission. Incredible! the choir sings. They must have had quite the chortle then. Remember also Calogero Minacori aka Carlos Marcello who quipped you kill the dog by cutting off its head, not its tail. This is textbook, boilerplate conspiracy.
Watch this superb piece by eminent alternate media sage Paul Joseph Watson. This is simply and indubitably breathtaking and why our own Ted Baxter sock puppet mainstream media aren’t repeatedly reviewing this is beyond me. It’s just another point of extreme fascination that I have as to the most obvious case of inside job ever recorded in the annals of encyclopedic inside jobs. Thank Gawd for the ferocious alternative media.
It changed my life and my perspective. This horrific moment changed and cemented my worldview and spectrum life and makes me who I am today: suspect, untrusting, unflinchingly skeptical and not a conspiracy theorist but a conspiracy analyst. Thank you, GV. In my lifetime I’ve known assassination rhythms during a five-year span from 1963-1968. JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers and the three American civil rights workers: James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael “Mickey” Schwerner. And throw in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin fiction and Watergate for good measure. I was born in conspiracy; it’s all I’ve ever known.
LIONEL PODCAST: An Interview With Professor James Tracy, Rogue Academic Who Dares to Question the Official Story of Sandy Hook
Behold the man who dared to question. An academic, no less. Professor James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University and Memory Hole Blog joined me for a conversation on the dread conspiracy theory, the label that immediately shuts up and down and interrupts and derails thought without surcease and fail. Behold the man who dared — DARED! — to question the official account of Sandy Hook, a man who simply and merely asked questions — QUESTIONS! — and then incurred and uncorked the usual and predictable ire and wrath of a feckless and impuissant mainstream media who don’t take kindly to those who question — QUESTION! — whether they’re doing their job. There was a time when academic freedom provided the fearless and intrepid backdrop and stage for intellectual inquiry. The proscenium for ideation and issue inspection. Jim Tracy dared to question the official account of Sandy Hook and continues to. And I love and respect immediately anyone who strips aware the veneer of the oafish-al sleight of hand rendition.
The subject of this recordation. In this interview the good professor and I discuss the retooling and stripped down dissection of the term conspiracy theory to connote that of lunacy and the baseless, the future of the classroom and campus as crucibles of truth, attempts to stifle and silence daring academics and what “woke him up,” a concept many in my biz are familiar with, i.e. the event or events that made him aware of organized and concerted media deception. Dig.
LIONEL PODCAST: Why Al Sharpton’s Not in Prison, CNN Resident Cretin Don Lemon’s Let Anywhere Near a Mic and Manson Can Marry in Prison But Gay Marriage Is Illegal in 17 States
Al Sharpton on television. Sure, but as a host?! First, he can’t read a prompter. Seriously, he can’t read a prompter. Why is that important, you ask? You’re kidding, right? Television is all prompter-fed and scripted. Mechanized transmission. But you knew that. No, the righteous Reverend is on for reasons most mortals can only speculate on. My guess: pictures of network heads with barn owls, miscellaneous blackmail, who knows. But it sure as hell ain’t talent. He redefines the depths of bad, real bad. Amateurish at a new level. Horrid. Dreck. I’ve seen hostage videos with more persuasive soul than Al at his relative best. Wow.
So, why’s he not in jail? Great question. The New York Times piece on his Eminence, the tax prevaricator and BFF of POTUS’s and AG’s, the Geppetto to de Blasio’s Pinocchio, NYPD Commish Bill Bratton’s boss, provides a bill of particulars that would land you or me in the hoosegow without a doubt, yet he remains unscathed. “The recent Treasury report that called that sort of practice abusive also said only 1,200 organizations in the nation owed more than $100,000 in unpaid payroll taxes, which would put Mr. Sharpton’s group among the most delinquent nonprofit organizations in the nation.”
MSNBC has all but invited this embarrassment. As the Erik Wemple Blog has reported, Sharpton negotiated his contract with MSNBC under the stipulation that his work as an activist would continue. In remarks in D.C. last year, Sharpton recalled what he told MSNBC President Phil Griffin about his status: “I said, well, I’m still going to run NAN, I’m still going to be an activist.” Griffin responded positively. “He said, ‘Put it in the contract. We’d never interfere with what you’re doing, your civil rights work,’” Sharpton quoted Griffin as saying.
On one level, Sharpton’s various hats carry implications for the ethics of his work at MSNBC. Being an anchor on a news network while also serving as a big shot at the White House and the head of a civil rights group creates a jumble of undiagrammable — and almost unknowable — conflicts of interest.
Yet the other level of concern is precisely what the Times has exposed: Sharpton Inc. is a sprawling concern, clearly more than one overbooked man can handle. By employing Sharpton as a prominent figure in its news rotation, MSNBC must own the failings of his empire. A spokeswoman for MSNBC says the network has no comment on the situation.
And then there’s Lemon. A lemon historically was “a person who is a loser, a simpleton,” which is perhaps from the notion of someone a sharper can “suck the juice out of.” Don Lemon is a cretin. A Boeotian. A dullard of Olympic proportion. This is the same feller who posited a black hole as a source of missing MH370. Well, Ol’ Don may have out “Don” himself in this latest snafu.
Speaking with putative rape victim Joan Tarshis, a woman who recently accused Bill Cosby of sexually assaulting her 45 years ago, the doltish Don cleverly asked her why she didn’t use her teeth as “a weapon” while being forced to perform oral sex on the comedian. You can’t make this up.
Lemon: Can I ask you this, because — and please, I don’t mean to be crude, ok?
Lemon: Because I know some of you — and you said this last night, that he — you lied to him and said “I have an infection, and if you rape me, or if you do — if you have intercourse with me, then you will probably get it and give it to your wife.”
Lemon: And you said he made you perform oral sex.
Lemon: You know, there are ways not to perform oral sex if you didn’t want to do it.
Tarshis: Oh. Um, I was kind of stoned at the time, and quite honestly, that didn’t even enter my mind. Now I wish it would have.
Lemon: Right. Meaning the using of the teeth, right?
Tarshis: Yes, that’s what I’m thinking you’re —
Lemon: As a weapon.
Tarshis: Yeah, I didn’t even think of it.
Lemon: Yes. I had to ask. I mean, it is, yeah.
Tarshis: Yes. No, it didn’t cross my mind.
And finally, Charles Manson’s tying the knot. In a country where 17 states have prohibited same-sex intragender marriage, an 80-year-old notorious convicted killer can marry a 25 year-old named “Star.” Think about it. The Menendez Brothers and Charlie can traipse down the proverbial aisle in matrimonium ducere, but a respectable gay couple can’t. Are you mind-boggled? You should be. This is our society. Our demented society.
This kid. Is taking no chances. And you have to respect that. After all leporiphobes and kouneliophobes, and their often paralyzing fear of the ostensibly evil mutant bunnies, can miss the comedic and artistic intention. Hare today, gone tomorrow, right? Look at the expression, the affect of his kid. It’s perfect. Trepidation meets embarrassment meets horror. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen. I am the walrus. As Elena Anaya quipped, “I can hypnotize rabbits.” Am I making any sense? Too bad.
Full disclosure. No, I didn’t spend any appreciable time talking about this kid. Instead I discuss the accusations anent and regarding Bill Cosby as to rape allegations. What took so long for anyone to take notice of them? When does a story take legs and become significant and verifiable enough for media exposure? A discussion herein as to the architecture of scandal.
Truth is a luxury. This was Tom Wilkinson’s line in 2011’s “The Debt,” a suspense thriller of espionage, morality, courage and patriotism. It’s a remake of the award-winning 2007 film “Ha-Hov” by Assaf Bernstein & Ido Rosenblum. And a fascinating discussion of what happens when the official story that inspires a nation is wrong or, worse, a blatant lie. It inspires me to think about co-opting truth as a symbol and label and meme. Truth. Verity. The absolutely real. Authentic. Accurate.
Truthers. I’m not one per se, though I share many of their points of view, but hats off to those who grabbed the meme as their own. In today’s double-parked attention span, whoever seizes the best label and imagery, wins. Look at the conservatives who nabbed family, flag, Gawd, patriotism, Reagan and the Eagle. (While the progressives took what again as their symbols?)
Verity, anyone? And it all begs the question: What is the truth? The unvarnished and absolute and pure and clean and not subject to obfuscation or the like? Tell me true and pure history without perspective. Tell me the history of the Vietnam War — from the point of view of the Vietnamese. History, like incest, is relative.
This is what I discuss herein.
LIONEL PODCAST: Progressives Will Always Lose Until They Learn How to Repeat Vague and Meaningless Slogans Like the Republicans
What the hell is a progressive anyway? For the life of me I have no idea and neither do you. It’s a vague, ossified, spineless, impuissant and squishy label that was seized after any vitality in “liberal” was dessicated and sucked bone dry. If these mealy-mouthed losers ever want to get ahead they must learn from their right wing brethren and seize coherent and palpable imagery and semiotics and forge ahead. And who cares if no one but no one has an earthly clue as to what they seek to connote, convey or connect. This is politics, Sparky. And politics by nature means lying. And it’s better to lie with a misleading symbol and image than without one.
“Look down at me and you see a fool,
Look up at me and you see a god,
Look straight at me and you see yourself.” – Charles Manson
That about sums that up.
Get ready for the undoing. Without the ability to reason and critically think and apply issue analysis, without rudimentary critical thinking abilities, and without a deep-seated and earned skepticism, we are doomed as a society and species. There are avalanches of data before your very eyes thanks to the Internet that are providing clues and data of impending cataclysms, but it seems that all we’re interested in for the most part is the latest photoshopped picture of Kim Kardashian’s steatopygian arse or the latest viral video of a duck playing the piano. The mainstream news media monkeys are helping not in the least for they’ve been selected for “talents” that have nothing to do with brilliance, deep-thinking or analytical skill sets. No, without abecedarian issue deconstruction and a minimal conversance of science, you will be lost in the proverbial shuffle. Herein I respectfully attempt to explain why that is and what can be done to change that.