Previous month:
June 7, 2020 - June 13, 2020
Next month:
June 21, 2020 - June 27, 2020



The latest Supreme Court rulings dishearten many conservative Americans. Those that usurp the sole power of Congress to make laws like when the Court redefined sex to include sexual orientation or gender identity. Those to halt the President’s actions to redress a known unconstitutional order involving immigration. And those to keep the citizenship question off the census form based on nothing more than the completeness of the agency paperwork justifying the action.

The Supreme Court ruling that the President of the United States cannot nullify and rescind the illegal and unconstitutional executive order of a previous President is, in itself, an unlawful act of the Supreme Court – no matter what their tortured reasoning.

The Supreme Court does not have a “veto” over the actions of an executive branch agency over a lawful and constitutional action. This is not judicial review, but blatant and unwarranted judicial supremacism. Congress and the President must push back against the Supreme Court – to preserve the separation of powers and to reaffirm our Constitution.

There are constitutional limitations on judicial power, and there is a reason why the framers did not grant enforcement powers to the judiciary: to serve as another check-and-balance against the usurpation of authority and tyrannical behavior.

For those who believe that the decisions of the Supreme Court are the permanent law of the land and must be applied nationwide, it is worthwhile to read the treatise, "Against Judicial Supremacy: The Founders and the Limits on the Courts." 

“Americans’ contemporary understanding of judicial power is inconsistent with the argument put forward by Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist. Although The Federalist affirms the power of judicial review—and hence the role of the judiciary as a check on the other branches—it does not present this as the first or most important function of the courts. Moreover, The Federalist does not support the vast implications of judicial review as including a power to decide the great moral issues of the times and to adjust the Constitution to trends in public opinion. Finally, The Federalist lends no aid to the belief that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning, unanswerable for its interpretations to any authority but itself.”

Some Americans—proponents of the “living Constitution”—even expect the courts to use the power of judicial review to keep the Constitution in tune with contemporary moral opinions. For them, the meaning of the Constitution is not static but changing—and indeed, changing for the better. In this view, society progresses toward ever higher standards of public enlightenment and justice, and it is the duty of the courts—and particularly of the Supreme Court—to make sure that the Constitution keeps pace with this social progress.

Finally, most Americans believe that the Supreme Court’s judgments on the momentous questions entrusted to it are final—that they cannot, except in the case of formal amendments to the Constitution, be revisited by any authority other than the Court itself. That is, most Americans today believe in judicial supremacy. They think that the Supreme Court is supreme not only over all other American courts, but also over the other branches of the federal government. On this view, the constitutional judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on the presidency and the Congress, which are required by respect for the Court and for the rule of law itself to submit to the Court’s interpretation of our fundamental law.

Although the courts have always held a key place in our constitutional system, this very lofty conception of their authority has largely arisen over the past several decades. The rise of this view can be traced in part to the influence of modern liberalism, which has used the courts as instruments of social and political change and has accordingly had to bolster the authority of the judiciary. Many of the Left’s recent causes—such as the liberalization of abortion law, race-conscious programs of affirmative action, and same-sex marriage, to take just three examples—are highly controversial and probably could not have succeeded on a national scale if their proponents had relied solely on appeals to the ballot box. At the very least, these policies could not have advanced as far and as quickly as they did if they had been left to the voters and their elected representatives.

Some might contend that this Founding vision has been superseded by contemporary expectations that the courts will exercise a more robust power over the other branches of the federal government. Nevertheless, The Federalist’s account of the place of the judiciary deserves reconsideration as being more compatible with the freedom and dignity of the American people—the true sovereign authority in our great republic. It is more consistent with the freedom of the American people because it leaves them more at liberty to govern themselves, to exercise their authority to decide the great questions that confront our country in each generation. This liberty of self-government must, of course, be limited, and The Federalist’s account of the judicial power provides such limits, insofar as it acknowledges the power of courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

To read the entire essay, in full and in context, “Against Judicial Supremacy: The Founders and the Limits on the Courts” can be found here.

Bottom line…

Thus it appears that not only can Congress nullify a particular decision’s application to the entire nation by enacting legislation, but the President of the United States can simply ignore the ruling’s applicability to the nation by refusing to support the decision and reframing the argument on constitutional grounds. Regarding the decision as only binding on the individual parties involved or not accepting the premise that the judicial branch can override the constitutional wishes of the legislative branch or demand that the executive branch enforces their dictates.

The election-time game of rallying the base to get another Supreme Court Justice is a fool’s errand, as we have seen with Chief Justice Roberts and others who may be more concerned with the public image of the Court in the media than they are the welfare of the American people.

President Trump needs to demand that individuals, municipalities, and states follow the law. Taking the case of the law’s benefits and constitutionality directly to the people. And if the courts intervene, ignore them using separation of powers. Instead of allowing a judicial veto on existing legislation, let them rule on separate cases. Ordering the Attorney General to follow the law and ignore the Supreme Court’s demand for veto powers over legal and constitutional matters.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



The only way one can legitimately describe Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard is corrupted...

Not only did Paul Howard stage a news conference, complete with enlarged pictures and appearances by attorneys for the victim’s family and the policeman turned “cooperator,” before the Georgia Bureau of Education completed the investigation, but Howard also twisted the law and contorted the basic facts, either by commission or omission.

“The Georgia Bureau of Investigation says it was unaware that Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard planned to file charges against the officers involved in the Rayshard Brooks case while the agency was still conducting its investigation.” <Source>

Howard’s BIG LIE…

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said Rayshard Brooks was "never informed" that he was under arrest for driving under the influence.

Howard noted that this is a requirement of the Atlanta Police Department when one is charged with a DUI.

Howard added that Brooks "never presented himself as a threat." At first he was sleeping, Howard said, and then "he was cooperative" after he was awakened.

"But Mr. Brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds," Howard said after his team studied the video evidence. <Source>

There is no doubt that Howard has a self-interest in acceding to the mob mentality.

One, he is running for reelection and needs a “big win” to overcome extremely disturbing negatives.

“Now facing a runoff against Fani Willis in the race for Fulton County district attorney, incumbent Paul Howard signaled Wednesday that he intends to cast his Democratic opponent as an ally of police unions and Republicans.” <Source>

Two, he has been accused and sued for sexual harassment and discrimination by more than one woman.

"A second female employee has filed a lawsuit accusing Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard of sexual harassment, claiming she was marginalized and threatened with termination after she did not succumb to his advances."

“The facts demonstrate that women under Paul Howard’s authority are suffering from a toxic environment of sexual harassment and misconduct in which women do not feel physically or emotionally safe,” Williams said Wednesday. “These women want Howard to resign, and he should do so; nearly 30 years in office is too long.”

“Paul Howard’s campaign spokesman, Jeff Dickerson, called Grimes’ lawsuit “an obvious political ploy filed on the eve of an election with the intent to influence the outcome.” <Source>

Three, he is under investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for financial crimes including theft of public money.

The GBI has opened an investigation of Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard and his use of a nonprofit to funnel at least $140,000 in city of Atlanta funds to supplement his salary, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Channel 2 Action News have learned. The criminal investigation comes at a time when Howard, Fulton’s DA since 1997, is being challenged in the Democratic primary for reelection and is facing allegations of sexual harassment, which he strongly denies. <Source>

There is no doubt that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth…

Howard, in the Brooks news conference claims that the Taser is not a lethal weapon, so the officer somehow did not face a lethal threat. 

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard Jr. said that his decision on whether to bring charges will depend on whether the officers believed that Brooks posed a threat — even as he was running away.

Investigators have been closely examining the tape, and say the critical moment is when the shots are fired.

"Should the officers have felt threatened by that Taser?" asked CBS News. "It's not a lethal weapon, it's a non-lethal weapon," Howard responded. <Source>

“The charges by Howard, who is under investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation himself and is embroiled in a contentious primary election, are a substantial shift from last week’s press conference during which Howard said that a taser is a deadly weapon under Georgia law.” <Source – includes video of the statement>

Howard claimed the cooperation of Officer Brosnan as a “State’s Witness”

“When Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard Jr. said Atlanta police officer Devin Brosnan would be a witness against Garrett Rolfe – the former officer charged with felony murder in the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks – he added he was ‘shocked.’”

“Atlanta officer won't be 'state's witness' against Garrett Rolfe; lawyers dispute DA's claim

Attorneys for officer Devin Brosnan refuted Fulton County District Attorney Paul L. Howard Jr.’s assertion that Brosnan would be a “state’s witness” in the case against Garrett Rolfe.

Howard said during his press conference that Brosnan had agreed to testify against Rolfe, charged with 11 counts including felony murder in the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks.

Attorney Amanda R. Clark Palmer told USA TODAY in an email Brosnan cooperated with the DA’s office when he was interviewed Tuesday, “just like he will cooperate with the GBI or any agency conducting an investigation into Mr. Brooks’s death.” <Source>

To bring felony murder charges, Howard had to invent a predicate felony by designating an errant shot that struck an innocent bystander’s vehicle as a deliberate act.

Personally came, Investigator Dona1d Hannah, II, who on oath says that to the best of his knowledge and belief, Garrett David Ro1fe (hereinafter called the accused) did during the period of the 12th day of June, 2020, in the county aforesaid, commit the offenses of, Aggravated Assault With A Dead1y Weapon O.C.G.A. 16-5-21(a) (2), in that said accused did, in the vicinity of the Wendy's Restaurant located at 125 University Avenue Southwest, in the City of Atlanta, State of Georgia; on the aforesaid date between the times of 10:30 p.m. (EDT) and 11:30 p.m. (EDT) the accused, being a City of Atlanta Police Officer, during the normal performance of his duties, intentionally and without justification, did unlawfully commit an assault upon the parson of Melvin Evans by shooting at, toward, and in the direction of Melvin Evans with a handgun, the same being a dead1y weapon. <From the arrest warrant> Additional charges were added for the other occupants in the vehicle.

Howard ignores the fact that Brooks was a violent criminal on probation and likely to be returned to jail as he characterizes Brooks as being non-aggressive. 

“Even though Mr. Brooks was slightly impaired, his demeanor during this incident was almost jovial,” Howard said. “For 41 minutes and 17 seconds he followed every instruction, he answered the questions. Mr. Brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds.” <Source>

That is until he was being handcuffed. He then fought both officers to the ground and took the charged Taser from Brosnan’s hand before starting to run away. The fatal moment came when Brooks turned and fired the Taser at Rolfe at point-blank range. Rolfe may likely have not even realized it was a Taser as it might have well been Officer Brosnan’s duty weapon.

I find it ironic that the Brooks’ family and attorneys are characterizing him as a family man who cares deeply for his child when two of the charges against Brooks were battery on a family member and cruelty to children.

Bottom line…

Shorn of the extraneous details following the incident, there is no doubt that Rayshard Brooks drove a vehicle while impaired, resisted arrest, assaulted two officers, stole a taser, used that taser on an officer, and has a long and extensive criminal history.

“Instead of merely trying to escape, Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe. Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of the civilians around him, Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him - Mr. Brooks’ back. Officer Rolfe immediately stopped firing when Mr. Brooks fell to the ground since there was no longer an imminent threat towards Officer Rolfe or others. Officer Rolfe gathered himself, and then immediately called for EMS. Officer Rolfe retrieved first-aid supplies and began rendering aid to Mr. Brooks. When Mr. Brooks’ pulse stopped, Officer Rolfe immediately began CPR until EMS relieved him.

“The loss of life in any instance is tragic. However, Officer Rolfe’s actions were justified under O.C.G.A. §17-4-20 and O.C.G.A. §16-3-21. A peace officer may use deadly force to 1. arrest a suspected felon when he reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others, 2. to protect himself and others from a life-threatening injury, and 3. to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. <Source>

If  Rolfe reasonably believed that Brooks used or was about to use deadly force, an officer is permitted to use deadly force to protect himself. As for “intent,” the determination of what was in the officer’s mind is not what a reasonable civilian sitting in an armchair would do, but what a reasonable police officer would do.”

Officer Rolfe did nothing wrong, and neither did Officer Brosnan. This is a political show trial to politically benefit Paul Howard and the Atlanta Mayor, who is being considered for a Vice Presidential slot by Joe Biden. That is, in addition to assuaging the anger of the mob and attempting to stop the rioting, arson, and looting. Let’s remember that peaceful protesters burnt a Wendy’s to the ground in protest of Brooks’ death.

Because of Howard’s actions, it is likely that the Grand Jury might not charge both officers or they will be acquitted at trial if indicted. With more rioting, arson, and looting. Bye-bye Atlanta.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


The United States Supreme Court killed our beloved constitution, which protected our inalienable rights. This death of our constitution was aided and abetted by a Congress that no longer legislates for fear of the political accountability that comes with a recorded vote.




Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination "because of... sex" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

This landmark case goes far beyond merely protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from workplace discrimination; it redefines what sex means in legislation to include sexual orientation and gender identity. In essence, nine unelected jurists took it upon themselves to legislate from the bench to re-write a portion of the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. To create an entirely new class of individuals who can bring time-consuming and costly legal actions against corporations, churches, and other individuals who hire and manage employees.

Indeed, if Congress wanted to modify or extend existing legislation, it would have been a rather simple matter to introduce a bill amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and following the ordinary course of legislative action. But they are cowards who refuse to stand up and represent their constituents. It is not that they do not care about the LGBTQ+ community, but are afraid of a recorded vote and the possibility of losing their position, perks, privileges, prestige, and profits.

What is surprising is that the majority decision was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, both widely assumed to be constitutional conservatives, and the four liberal justices to form a 6-3 majority. One dissent was written by constitutional conservatives Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing a separate dissent.

How can there be equal justice under the law for all Americans in the workplace if some individuals are given a protected status to claim special privileges in a wrongful termination lawsuit or if they were not hired in the first place?

This is not the end of the matter; there will be unintended consequences and numerous lawsuits brought to explicitly add sexual orientation and gender identity to a variety of pre-existing laws, especially those areas not covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Bottom line…

My objections to the decision have nothing to do with the LGBTQ+ community because I believe they were already covered under the equal protection clause. I object to the progressive socialist democrats who seek to create divisions in our nation with their class warfare and identity politics. I object to the third-party advocates who owe their political power and profits to their continued disruption of the constantly evolving improvement of our nation.

It has everything to do with the separation of powers between the legislative branch and the judicial branch and their proper constitutional roles.

It has everything to do with Freedom: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, and property rights because I believe you should be allowed to use your private property in any manner you so choose and to hire employees that benefit your business and fire those who detract from your business. If Nuns do not want to pay for abortions, so be it – let the individual seek employment elsewhere. If someone comes to work and presents an image contrary to the wishes of management, let them find employment elsewhere.

I believe that the sexes are, in many ways, different. We should not disadvantage female athletes by allowing biological males to compete unless it is a sex-neutral event such as archery, shooting, etc. We should not make individuals uncomfortable in private spaces such as showers and bathrooms. If you want, build unisex bathrooms with individual privacy accommodations.

But, most of all, I object to the cowardice of Congress who refuses to tackle the problematic issues of our times and outsources the finer points of creating legislation to the Executive or Judicial branch of government. All to avoid a vote that might be unpopular with a segment of the constituency that is likely to hold the legislator accountable in the next election. Which is how it is supposed to work.

We are so screwed by those who violate their oath on a daily basis.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell




Why is it that the revolution is never about the progressive elites who caused the majority of racial and cultural damage with their support of corrupt and self-serving public policies, but always the middle class? Why doesn’t anyone note that the Democrats, in many of the dysfunctional cities and states, are the system they say is broken? They dominate large local and state governments. They control enormous budgets. They and their unions run education. They dominate Hollywood and mainstream media. They are prominent in sports. And yet, the democrats rail against the system -- conveniently ignoring they are the system. Voting for a Democrat fixes nothing because they are already in control and want to make that control perpetual and absolute.

We are living in an Orwellian world where good is evil, right is left, up is down, and the perpetrator of violence is the victim.

Consider the proposition that no one, including politicians, the Hollywood crowd, sports figures, and team owners who produce little of what is needed for our nation's survival, requires more than $5 million in assets and $1 million in income. Are they ready to donate the overages to the poor blacks in the inner cities? Or are they all talk. Ironically, they love to hate capitalism and promote socialism. Most of these poseurs are protecting their own reputation, their own employment contracts, their own endorsements, their own position, perks, and privileges. 

Where was former President Obama and Vice President Biden on the subject of racism? What did they do for blacks or others over eight years?

Why are the Democrats willing to cancel or re-write history, pull down statues, and rename military bases? At the same time, CHINA, RUSSIA, IRAN, NORTH KOREA, and others are a clear and present danger to America. Where is the House of Representatives while everyone else is working and in session? 


Why all of the concern over the real and imagined Russian and Chinese interference in our elections when Google, Facebook, Twitter, Snap Chat, and others massively corrupt searches and social media platforms to favor un-American communist and socialist propaganda over pro-America constitutional conservatism?

Google is threatening to ban the right-wing political news website The Federalist from generating advertising revenue on the company’s platform, a Google spokesman told Adweek.

Google says it will implement the ban because of posts in The Federalist’s comments section that allegedly violated Google’s policies regarding “Dangerous or Derogatory Content.” The Federalist will be able to continue generating ad revenue on Google if it takes action to conform with those policies.

The decision by Google comes after NBC News referred the company to complaints against The Federalist and the website ZeroHedge compiled by the U.K.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate.

Earlier on Tuesday, NBC News reported that Google had already demonetized The Federalist.

“We have strict publisher policies that govern the content ads can run on and explicitly prohibit derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence or discrimination based on race from monetizing,” a Google spokesperson told NBC. That spokesperson also initially said, “When a page or site violates our policies, we take action. In this case, we’ve removed both sites’ ability to monetize with Google.”

National Review has reached out to The Federalist and ZeroHedge for comment. According to Google, ZeroHedge has already been demonetized.

The CCDH describes itself as “a not-for-profit NGO headquartered in London, England that seeks to disrupt the architecture of online hate and misinformation” that aims to counter “fringe movements that instrumentalise hate and misinformation.” A reporter from NBC’s “Verification Center” congratulated the CCDH and its subsidiary project “Stop Funding Fake News” on the action. <Source>

NBC, home of demonstrably false one-sided progressive socialist democrat propaganda, dares to disrupt another media outlet? As for the CCDH, it is a far-left radical pro-Marxist hate group pledged to destroy conservatism. Not exactly objective.


About the upcoming book that is being hyped in the progressive mainstream media…

What we think we know about Trump…

(1)  Trump is the epitome of his “not quite as good as Manhattan, not as tough as the Bronx” Queens' upbringing which leads to his braggadocio style.

(2)  Trump grew up in an atmosphere of purposeful legal and accounting complexity in the company of dodgy people, attorneys, fixers, and politicians who could be bought.

(3)  Trump apparently has no shame and mostly says what he is thinking.

(4)  Trump trusts few people and daughter Ivanka is at the top of his trust list even though he jokes she is a liberal.

(5)  There is little formal structure surrounding Trump as Trump thrives on chaos and spirited debates, pitting one person against another and then walking away with the winner.

(6)  Trump’s opinions and decisions are often rooted in his past experience and can be influenced by the last forceful person he encounters.

(6)  Trump demands loyalty, but returns little loyalty as he is totally transactional and an individual’s value is what he can produce at that moment. Likewise, that individual can be thrown under the bus if it suits Trump’s agenda. However, Trump does not appear to hold grudges and is willing to work with those he has disparaged if they have something Trump wants or needs.

(7)  Trump pays slavish attention to his image in the media. Since he is capable of changing his mind in a split second, aides often find their media pronouncements are factually deficient or that Trump has changed a  policy without full consideration of the second-order effects.

(8)  Trump has a temper and is impulsive.

(9)  Trump, like all politicians, does view many things in terms of his political self-interests and 2020 reelection.

So what can John Bolton tell us about Trumpworld that is so shocking other than some out-of-school tales about confidential deliberations? The fact that he disagrees with Trump on national security and foreign affairs is no secret. The fact that Bolton is angry that his hawkish advice was not followed paints him as peevish.

The only value Bolton’s book may have is that it provides talking points and faux impeachment ideas for the opposition. Don’t bother buying the book; it will probably hit the $1.99 remainder table in a few months. As for all those notes that Bolton took during meetings, aren’t they government property?

Bottom line…

We live in one crazy screwed-up world that will not get better under authoritarian progressivism.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Several readers asked me to comment on the officer-involved shooting in Atlanta, Georgia...

In this age of surveillance cameras and smartphones with decent still and video capabilities, it is hard for individuals, politicians, and the police to escape notice. It is always striking to see so many foolish individuals in dangerous situations trying to capture video or taking selfies. Unfortunately, this leads to the luxury of second-guessing the actions of officers and others who are acting on split-second decisions made in real-time.

About this particular shooting...

The basic facts are clear: A Wendy's employee called 911 to report a man, later identified as Rayshard Brooks, sleeping in a vehicle in the drive-thru and disrupting business. Devin Brosnan, the responding officer, woke the driver who appeared impaired and had him park the car in the parking area. The officer then called for assistance.

Another officer, Garrett Rolfe, arrived, conducted a field sobriety test, determined the suspect met the legal requirements for driving while impaired and arrested the suspect. In the process of handcuffing the suspect, a fight ensued. The suspect overcame two officers and fled with Brosnan’s Taser. In the process of fleeing, the suspect turned back toward the pursuing officer, aimed the Taser at the officer's head and fired at point blank range. Thee shots were fired, two striking the suspect in the back which resulted in the suspect's death from blood loss and organ failure after surgery.

For those politicians and media pundits who claim Brooks is "running away," you are not running away if you turn to engage the police with a weapon in your hand. And, it appears that the weapon -- which could have incapacitated the police officer -- was fired point blank at the officer's face. The officers unsuccessfully attempted previously to Tase Brooks.

After viewing hours of video and body-cam footage from Wendy’s drive-thru in Atlanta, Georgia, I realize that the problem is not the police officer that shot Brooks, but the politicized system that appears to demand a conviction to assuage the mob and to benefit the self-interests of the politicians who are pandering to their constituents.

Let’s review…

One, it is true that Brooks appeared to be drunk and somewhat disoriented when interviewed by two Atlanta police officers. There is no question that Brooks did operate a vehicle while impaired as a police officer witnessed him operating the vehicle.

Two, it is also true that Brooks was initially cooperative and tried to follow the officer's instructions as he was being interviewed -- attempting to talk his way out of trouble, but only demonstrating the level of his impairment. It should be noted that allowing such an impaired individual to continue driving would put innocent citizens at risk of death or injury, not to mention probable property damage.

Three, it is true that a struggle starts when one officer attempts to handcuff Brooks.

Four, it is true that Brooks resisted arrest, grappled with the two officers, secured one of the officer's Taser and attempted to run away from officers. It should be noted that, even though the Taser is not normally considered a lethal weapon, it can incapacitate a police officer and an incapacitated officer might have his duty revolver taken -- and the threat to the officers and innocent bystanders immeasurably escalated.

Five, After the pursuing officer attempted to Tase the suspect, it appears that Brooks twisted back to the officers with a Taser in his hand and allegedly fired at the officer’s face at point blank range.

Six, the officer fired his service weapon and it appears that Brooks may have been facing away from the officer or in the process of turning when struck by bullets. Only an autopsy can assist in determining the relative positions of the participants, although it is known he was shot twice in the back and suffered organ damage.

Given the level of Brook’s impairment and the lack of situational control of the suspect by the police, I believe that the use of deadly force was a split-second decision, and the officer should be given the benefit of any doubt.

About those police unions...

For all those who believe that the police union protects corrupt officers, you will notice that the officers requested a representative to help guide them through the stressful situation of an officer-involved shooting. Considering the tremendous political pressures in play, this is a critical necessity to preserve the officer’s rights in the face of an angry mob, and spineless politicians who want to virtue signal their constituency in the media.

Swift action by the authorities…

"Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Vic Reynolds said his agents worked through the night interviewing witnesses and reviewing video.

He said their findings show that Brooks tried to fight off two officers when they tried to arrest him and at one point managed to take a Taser away from one of them.

A security camera recorded Brooks 'running or fleeing from Atlanta police officers,' Reynolds said. 'It appears that he has in his hand a Taser.'

"During a short foot chase Brooks 'turns around and it appears at that time he points a Taser at an Atlanta officer,' Reynolds said. That's when the officer drew his gun and shot Brooks, he said, estimating the officer fired three times.

'In a circumstance like this where an officer is involved in the use of deadly force, the public has a right to know what happened,' Reynolds said of the decision to quickly release the restaurant surveillance footage."

Here is the full body-cam footage explaining almost everything.

This preliminary investigation is only the first part of the fact-finding efforts of the investigators, the formal autopsy must be completed, and the entire case reviewed by the District Attorney, who can decline further prosecution or bring charges to proceed through a court of competent jurisdiction.

As with all American citizens, the officers should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Let us not forget that the District Attorney is a political appointee, possibly with ambitions of higher office, and may bring charges for political expediency.

Rush to judgment...

The officers, already convicted by the self-serving politicians, the media, and the mob, appeared to have been denied due process when the Atlanta police department announced that officer Garrett Rolfe who shot Rayshard Brooks was fired. The second officer, Devin Brosnan, who was involved in the shooting, was placed on administrative leave.

Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields was forced to resign, and Atlanta’s Mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms, went “full political” when she announced that the shooting was not a “justified use of deadly force.” Bottoms may be on Joe Biden's list as a potential candidate for the Vice Presidency.

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said on Sunday that a decision about filing charges against officer Garrett Rolfe would be made by his office "around Wednesday" of this week.

"He [Brooks] did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone, and so the fact that it would escalate to his death just seems unreasonable," he told CNN, adding, "It just seems like this is not the kind of conversation and incident that should have led to someone's death."

[OCS: Is this man blind and stupid? The suspect fought two police officers, broke away with a weapon, and turned toward an officer, weapon in hand, and discharged it at point blank range toward the officer’s face.]

Howard explained that there are several charges being considered, including murder, felony murder, and involuntary manslaughter.

"There are really three charges that are relevant: one would be the murder charge in the state of Georgia. That charge is a charge that is directly related to an intent to kill,” he said.

[OCS: To believe the officer woke up that morning with the intent to murder Brooks or even a generic black person is ludicrous. If anything, the intent after the struggle was to preserve his life while apprehending Brooks and placing him in custody.]

“The second charge is felony murder, and that is a charge that involves a death that comes as a result of the commission of an underlying felony. In this case, that underlying felony would be aggravated assault."

[OCS: Does this district attorney have his head up his ass. The suspect attacked a police officer -- the officer did not attack the suspect.]

"The only other charge that might make any sense at all would be some voluntary manslaughter charge. But I believe in this instance, what we have to choose between, if there’s a choice to be made, is between murder and felony murder," he added.

[OCS: This is absolutely insane. The suspect presented a clear and present danger to the officers. ]

Rolfe fatally shot 27-year-old Brooks, who was suspected driving under the influence, on Friday at a Wendy's in the Georgia capital. Footage from the incident showed Brooks taking an officer's Taser during the arrest and pointing it at him as he ran away. Rolfe then fired three shots at Brooks, who was later pronounced dead.

"There’s one good thing about video,” Howard noted. "Because in the video, we actually get a chance to hear the officer’s first statement after the shooting took place. And what the officer said is not that his life was saved. What his statement was, is, 'I got him.'"

[OCS: This is a statement, probably out of context, and considering the circumstances is meaningless.]

"Specifically, officer Rolfe, whether or not he felt that Mr. Brooks, at the time, presented imminent harm of death or some serious physical injury. Or the alternative is whether or not he fired the shot simply to capture him or some other reason," he said. "If that shot was fired for some reason other than to save that officer's life or to prevent injury to him or others, then that shooting is not justified under the law."

Both officers should have been placed on administrative leave, and any firing delayed until after a thorough investigation and a hearing in which the officers can defend their actions, job, and future career.

Community comments by those with a clear agenda…

"Gerald Griggs, an attorney and a vice president of Atlanta's NAACP chapter, estimated there were 150 people protesting at the scene as he walked with them Saturday afternoon. 'The people are upset,' Griggs said. 'They want to know why their dear brother Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed when he was merely asleep on the passenger side and not doing anything.'"

This does not appear to be the case, as shown in the video, and only serves to inflame the mob further as well as to convey unhelpful disinformation. Fake news!

What the media is hiding: Brooks was a violent criminal. 

And the stories told by the Brook’s family lawyers are just as misleading. The truth appears to be more disturbing. Brooks was a repeat violent offender -- possibly on parole which could be the reason he ran.  Of course, the lawyers with Stewart Trial Attorneys set up a GoFundMe account for Brooks’ wife and children. The same wife and children he probably beat when he was charged with cruelty to children and battery on a family member. Look at his record for yourself.

Bottom line...

This has been a life-altering event, obviously for Brooks, his family, his friends, and certainly the officers who will be scarred for life -- that is if they have a future life.

While there are bad officers, overly-aggressive officers, and do-nothing officers, you cannot generalize about the thousands of decent officers whose sworn duty is to keep the peace and ensure the safety and security of those they have sworn to protect and serve.

The lesson that must be learned by those in the Black community is simple: DO NOT RESIST ARREST! DO NOT FIGHT THE POLICE! DO NOT TOUCH AN OFFICER’S WEAPON! The lesson to be learned by the rest of us is that our self-serving politicians cannot be trusted to uphold the law, provide for our safety and security. and protect our property.

This is not an example of racism; it is an example of stupidity. To the extent that the community supports even a genial thug over the police is the degree to which they are welcoming chaos, lawlessness, and anarchy. Instead of chanting “Hands Up – Don’t Shoot,” perhaps they should practice it.

Today, I stand with the police officer. This is not the Floyd case where the negligence of the police officer’s case is almost indisputable.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


After a weekend of craziness …


Turn off the media!

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Once again, we find the progressive socialist democrats using the useful idiots in the GOP, like John McCain protégé Lindsey Graham, to promote un-American activities in the name of the GOP… 

If the video is unavailable, here is the original source.


“Paid for by Republican Voters Against Trump, a project of Defending Democracy Together. Defending Democracy Together is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization created by lifelong conservatives and Republicans — many of whom have served in Republican administrations and write for conservative publications.”

“We are dedicated to defending America’s democratic norms, values, and institutions and fighting for consistent conservative principles like rule of law, free trade, and expanding legal immigration.”

Amazingly, these miscreants come to the aid of the Democrat Party, the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, anti-civil-rights legislation, and the KKK. They are openly supporting Joe Biden, who is clearly unfit to assume the presidency and appears to be suffering from dementia. Biden is barely functional, operating in a controlled environment and speaking from notes.

Behind the scenes, you will find the Never-Trumpers and political opportunists like Bill Kristol, Mona Charen, Linda Chavez, Sarah Longwell, Charles “Charlie” Sykes, and Andy Zwick.

“Defending Democracy Together supports the Republican Voters Against Trump initiative. In May 2020, the initiative launched a $10 million advertisement campaign, which seeks to encourage Republicans voters to support Democratic candidate Joe Biden over President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.”

There is no doubt that the far-left funds the organization of pseudo-conservatives, especially grants from Democracy Fund Voice, a 501(c)(4) group created and funded by the radical left-wing mega-donor and founder of eBay, Pierre Omidyar. Other donations come from the militant left-wing support group at the Hopewell Fund.

It is clear, at least to me, these people are the type of well-spoken, credentialed, useful idiots exploited by the progressive socialist democrats in their attempt to gain lasting political power.

Kristol self-identifies as a neo-con and is so aggrieved by the Bush attempt to solve foreign problems without military force, that Kristol has become a democrat.]


Bottom line…

One need only compare the accomplishments of President Donald Trump to those of the progressive socialist democrats under the scandal-ridden Obama administration. The fact that President Trump uses outrageous tweets and messaging to overcome the democrat’s domination of the mainstream media is a positive. Especially considering the continuous attacks on Trump that started the day of his announced candidacy and continue to this very day.

The GOP lacks the cojones to stand up and promote freedom, liberty, and the American way.

We are so screwed.

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell