Miguel has mentioned this before.  The Left was gung-ho about making sure every cop had a bodycam on them at all times.  They were dead sure that every cop was a racist and that the bodycam footage would prove beyond any doubt that just about every police shooting was a bigoted murder.

Except that didn’t happen.  It turns out that most shootings captured on bodycam and dashcam were justified.

So now what are anti-cop activists supposed to do?

Remember that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”  Vice President Joe Biden said something similar, “we choose truth over facts.”

When the facts are not on your side, it’s perfectly acceptable for the Left to keep saying that there are five lights or that we had always been at war with Eastasia.

From the Washington Examiner:

When video doesn’t fit their narrative, anti-cop protesters refuse to believe their own eyes

A tragic officer-involved shooting of a black man has sparked nearly two weeks of activist marches and cries for justice in St. Paul, Minnesota. Angry protesters demanding police transparency have flooded the city’s streets and added 31-year-old Ronald K. Davis to their list of “martyred” African American males “unlawfully” shot and killed by police.

The Star Tribune reported on the protests.

The evidence of this crime, it was presumed, was on the white police officer’s body camera video footage. Officer Steven Mattson’s patrol car had been rammed by Davis at intersection of North Griggs Street and Thomas Avenue. As Mattson exited his vehicle, Davis ignored Mattson’s demands to halt.

Davis rushed at Mattson with a knife, and Mattson subsequently shot Davis, killing him.

Boy howdy did he ever.  Twin Cities Pioneer Press released the bodycam footage.

According to a release from the Anti-Police Brutality Coalition, as reported by KMSP FOX 9:

Activists are calling for an independent review of all video footage available in this case, including the full body camera video, any dash cam video, street cameras, and any other surveillance footage.

“It is unclear from the limited body camera footage what types of de-escalation tactics were used by Officer Mattson, why he fell to the ground, why his flashlight fell, and whether he attempted to use nonlethal force before using deadly force against Ronald Davis,” the coalition wrote in the release. “The public also has a right to demand an independent investigation in police shooting cases in Minnesota, given the relative frequency within which they have been occurring the disproportionate rate of Black men and other men of color being killed by police. Beyond that, there have been allegations of corruption within the St. Paul Police Department and the BCA for many years and those concerns have not been taken seriously by Governor Walz or other elected officials.”

Fine, they can call for whatever they want, but that video is pretty cut and dry as to what happened.

There you have it: A fair and impartial accounting of videotaped officer actions in this incident and a complete gathering of all the facts in the case never were part of the desired end state. In the activism business, you have to stoke fiery emotion, and it does not necessarily require a tethering to facts. The “grievance industry” is predicated on stirring up raw, naked sensations and opportunistically isolating the few bad actors in order to smear an entire profession.

Miguel has also pointed out the radical Left has hitched its wagon to the anti-cop movement.

I’m not sure why, unless they believe that the demographic of people who hate police is larger than the demographic of people who like living in safe and civil societies.

In St. Paul, it seems that “the truth” of the anti-cop activists is more important than the facts presented in a bodycam video.

As Miguel says, cui bono?  I wonder why people would work so hard to undermine police and cast doubt on bodycam video.

All I can come up with is that the radical Left wants to Portlandize the United States.  The police in Portland have been emasculated and declawed by the city government.  Antifa as near free reign to do what they want.

If the rest of America, or at least its big cities, are turned into Portland re their police forces, then come 2020 Antifa and similar protest groups will have the ability to turn up the violence knob with little fear of police crackdown.

I am officially living rent free in somebody else’s brainpan. It seems that if I say I support Open Carry but do not partake in the practice, I am a liar.

Bubba, I support Gays, but I do not partake in having my ass penetrated by another male as a manner of enjoyment.  Hell, I have been avoiding colonoscopies like the plague.

It seems that makes me a lying homophobe.

PS: It is not about you.
PS2: I m Pro Israel and Pro Jewish, yet I never been to Israel.
I must be a Palestinian terrorist in disguise and have j. Kb. fooled.

A buddy sent me this story.

A few years ago I would have said that Left trying to legalize and normalize pedophilia was a crack-pot, tinfoil hat, crazy idea.  Now I cant deny it

I have written about this in the past being facilitated by the radicals in the LGBT community glorifying pubescent drag queens.

That is not the only nexus for the normalization of pedophilia, this story comes out of the British public schools.

Children as young as SIX are to be given compulsory self-touching lessons that critics say are sexualising youngsters

Children as young as six are being taught about touching or ‘stimulating’ their own genitals as part of classes that will become compulsory in hundreds of primary schools.

Some parents believe the lessons – part of a controversial new sex and relationships teaching programme called All About Me – are ‘sexualising’ their young children.

It most certainly fucking is.

My son is five going on six.  This is not something that he needs to know about at this age at all.

There is no reason what so ever to teach this to kids for whom “playing with yourself” is being alone in a bedroom playing with Legos or dolls.

We know that children exposed to sexual acts at a young age are traumatized for the rest of their lives. So all this will do is traumatize more children.

This needs to be stopped now and the bureaucrats who thought this up need to removed from civil society.

Personally, if I ever met someone and asked them what their job is, and their reply was “I teach six-year old to masturbate” I’m going to be spending the rest of my day disposing of a body and any incriminating evidence in a swamp.

From Fox News:

Sparks fly at assault-weapons ban hearing on Capitol Hill, ex-cop vows she would ‘not comply’ 

A former police officer made a bold proclamation during a congressional hearing Wednesday regarding a proposed assault-weapons ban: she would not comply.

Dianna Muller, who served in the Tulsa Police Department for 22 years and is the founder of gun advocacy group The DC Project, was among the witnesses at the House Judiciary Committee hearing. The session on an otherwise contentious issue flew largely under the radar amid the Trump-Ukraine controversy and Democrats’ impeachment push. But reflecting the gun control divide in the country — amid a spate of deadly mass shootings that prompted renewed calls for strict laws — Muller said that such a ban would force lawful gun owners to either give up their arms or become criminals.

“Please don’t legislate the 150 million people just like me into being criminals. It has happened. You’ve already done it,” Muller said, referring to the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks, the devices that use a semi-automatic weapon’s recoil to make it rapidly fire like an automatic. “I was a bump stock owner, and I had to make a decision: do I become a felon, or do I comply?”

Should the government pass an assault-weapons ban, Muller declared, “I will not comply.”

If precedent for non-compliance for every other confiscatory gun or magazine ban enacted at the state level holds up, neither will at least 97% of other gun owners.

Muller and others at the hearing focused on the practicality of a ban, pointing out what they claimed were mainly “cosmetic” differences between weapons such as the AR-15 and standard semi-automatic hunting rifles. This issue was also raised by Heritage Foundation senior legal policy analyst Amy Swearer when Rep.Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., went down the line of witnesses asking if they believed hunting rifles should be banned if they are semi-automatic.

Swearer said no, stating that there was no difference in the mechanics or function of an “assault weapon” or a semi-automatic hunting rifle.

Heritage posted the video of that testimony and it is awesome.

Dayton, Ohio Mayor Nan Whaley, who recalled the recent mass shooting in her city, did not give a definitive answer to Sensenbrenner’s question, nor did Dr. Alejandro Rios Tovar, a trauma surgeon who treated victims of the attack in El Paso, Texas. Charlottesville, Va., Chief of Police RaShall Brackney indicated she was in favor of a ban on “any weapon that could be used to hunt individuals.”

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., countered the idea of a hunting rifle ban by referring to his assault-weapon ban bill. Cicilline said that more than 200 weapons are exempt from the bill, so there is really no issue of eliminating hunting rifles.

That is until they decide that your long-range hunting rifle is a people hunting sniper rifle.  Then it will be banned.

Swearer also noted that some features like barrel shrouds enhance the safety of a weapon for its user. But David Chipman, senior policy adviser at the Giffords Law Center, raised a counterpoint noting that a barrel shroud could allow a shooter to get a better grip on a weapon “in a way that would increase your ability to spray fire and kill more people” without burning their hand.

Which is utter horse-shit.

Congress and the Trump administration have been in talks for weeks regarding possible gun legislation, but discussion of taking away guns that are currently legal has led to criticism from both parties. After 2020 Democratic hopeful Beto O’Rourke declared during a debate, “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, AK-47,” Cicilline said, “That message doesn’t help.” President Trump said that O’Rourke was making it “much harder” to reach a deal on gun legislation with that sort of rhetoric.

Beto is going to outsell Obama on AR-15’s.

Trump’s focus when it comes to gun control has mainly been on background checks. The White House was also circulating a one-page document on Capitol Hill detailing a possible gun background-check proposal that would require private sellers – not just licensed vendors – to conduct background checks for all advertised sales, though Attorney General Bill Barr said Trump has not yet made a “firm decision” on what he ultimately will support.

An August USA Today poll showed that most American voters support increased background checks, with 85 percent of Republican voters supporting background checks for all gun sales. Presently, only federally licensed vendors are required to conduct background checks, allowing private individuals to sell without them under what has been referred to as the “gun show loophole.”

Give regular people access to NICS and no registration and call it a day.  The Democrats get to say they passed UBC’s, the burden on law-abiding gun owners is marginal, call it a win-win and thank your lucky stars it’s not worse than that.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley told Fox News last week that he expected an announcement on new gun legislation “very soon.” Gidley said Trump wanted to make sure that any new laws would address actual problems and not just be “feel-good legislation.”

But the Democrats’ impeachment push could complicate matters. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had resisted impeachment, announced Tuesday that an impeachment inquiry would be launched. Reflecting how policy debates could take a back seat, Pelosi said in private meetings with lawmakers that Trump called her to discuss gun legislation, but she soon changed the subject to his phone call with the Ukrainian president in which they discussed investigating Joe Biden, which stoked the latest calls for impeachment.

This is the effect of Stage 5 TDS.  I can’t complain too much about it because I am happy to watch the Democrats sink any attempted gun control by pivoting towards impeachment every other minute, thereby alienating the Republicans and getting any sport of bipartisan support for it.

It’s all mess up on the Hill.  The only good news is that the Democrats are so hell-bent for leather on nailing Trump on something that they are scuttling their own drive for strict gun control.

Update: I misread the article and the total mentioned for remodeling applies to the whole building and not just the bathrooms. However I do believe $13 would not be an incredible sum to spend on bathroom remodeling for the whole building, specially when we are talking government. It will probably be more.

The city of Portland (where else) is now banning urinals in city-owned buildings and spending taxpayer money to remove them. The first urinal-free building is appropriately called The Portland Building, where countless paper-shuffling city bureaucrats congregate to waste oxygen and demand pay raises.

The City of Portland banned urinals in the remodeled Portland Building.

The total remodel will cost taxpayers $195,000,000. A spokeswoman said she did not have a break out on how much the bathroom work cost.

She also said no one from the city was available to talk about banning the urinals.

In an email to employees last February, Chief Administrative Officer Tom Rinehart wrote:

“We will continue to have gender-specific (male and female) multi-stall restrooms that are readily available to any employee that prefers to use one. But, there will be no urinals in any restroom in the building. This will give us the flexibility we need for any future changes in signage. I am convinced that this is the right way to ensure success as your employer, remove arbitrary barriers in our community, and provide leadership that is reflective of our shared values.”

Portland Bans Urinals In Public Buildings – Out of Respect to the City’s “Shared Values”

This is The Portland Building:

According to what I found online, it is 15 stories high and the business of the city of Portland is run from it.

Let’s go back again to that number: $195 million to renew bathrooms so they can be ‘woke” and “reflective of shared values” of the Portland community. That comes to $13 million per floor so men can’t pee standing up.

One of the woes Portland authorities keep complaining about is the extensive Homeless (read addicts) that plague their streets and they keep bitching about lacking money to house. So I went to a commercial Real State website and tried to find out what could I get in the manner of apartment buildings for $13 million:. The first building is this one:

It has apartments of different capacities, but the total of bedrooms is 80.  You can put two people per bedroom and house 160 homeless for $7,950,000.

Next we have this excellent opportunity:

All the units have 2 bedrooms which means 40 rooms capable of housing 80 more homeless.

And we close with this charming offering:

14 units with 2 bedrooms each which means can house a total of 56 homeless from the rigors of weather and danger in the streets of Portland.

The total amount to comfortably house 296 homeless on properties that could be owned by the city: $ 12,700,000.

For the money that the City is wasting to knock down the handful of urinals of one lonesome floor in The Portland Building, they could have bought three apartment buildings that could house almost three hundred of the homeless they swear they care so much about.

Madness.

Hat Tip Robert E.

PS: And don’t forget every apartment as a functioning kitchen and bathroom and I imagine some sort of Living room/ Dinning Room area.

FREMONT (CBS SF) – A Tesla electric patrol car by the Fremont Police ran low on electricity in the middle of a pursuit, after the department said someone forgot to plug the vehicle into a charger.

According to officials, the officer was pursuing a vehicle headed down to the South Bay when the car began to run low on battery power.

“Just slowed down to six miles of battery on the Tesla, so I may lose it here in a sec,” the officer said, according to police radio transmissions. “If someone else is able, can they maneuver into the number one spot?”

Fremont Police Tesla Near-Dead Battery Forces Officer Off Pursuit

I know, you also gave a chuckle about the idiocy of having a Tesla doing real vehicular work and police work in particular.  Now, understand that the location of the incident being the San Francisco area, there are politicians that would like to see every government vehicle be a “Zero Emissions” vehicle and if they get their way, it will be a dangerous thing. Imagine an ambulance with your loved one inside on the way to the ER having to pull over and request help because they are running out of juice. It will be Virtue Signaling Madness.

I do believe that cars in the future will be electric. The prospect of having a vehicle with 4 computer-controlled direct drive DC motors delivering power directly to each wheel will be awesome. But we get our power from a set of batteries that are not only limited by a short capacity but add unnecessary weight to the vehicle, the electric car will be nothing more than a political posturing piece of machinery.  We need a cheap, on-demand source of inside-the-car generated electricity to finally take over the internal combustion engine.

One can dream.