This blog will be about whatever suits my fancy. Chances are, it will concentrate on media misrepresentations of the American "Black community", Black politics, politics in general, and whatever else I want to mentally masturbate about.
Lenny McAllister (@Lennymcallister)
7/31/12 10:07 AM
Should the #NAACP and #GOP be able to work together for #BlackAmerica moving forward? My thoughts: lennymcallister.com/2012/07/31/rep… #SpokenThoughts
HARLEM — The NYPD has created a "wanted" poster for a Harlem couple who film cops conducting stop-and-frisks and post the videos on YouTube — branding them "professional agitators" who portray cops in a bad light and listing their home address, DNAinfo.com New York has learned.
The flyer featured side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye, 35, and his partner Christina Gonzalez, 25, and warned officers to be on guard against them. It was spotted by multiple people, including the couple, when it was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room in the 30th Precinct house last Thursday, where residents met for precinct council meeting.
"Be aware that above subjects are known professional agitators," read the flyer, which bears the NYPD shield and a seal of the NYPD's Intelligence Division. It also gave the home address of the couple.
"Above subjects MO is that they video tape officers performing routine stops and post on YouTube," the sign said. "Subjects purpose is to portray officers in a negative way and too deter officers from conducting there [sic] responsibilities."
The flyer also listed the name and cellphone number of a Sgt. Nicholson in the 30th Precinct, and implored cops to "not feed into above subjects propaganda."
Nicholson did not respond to a request for comment. The NYPD also did not respond to repeated requests.
If Brown Shirt is too strong of a term to use, what would YOU call it?
As I read and listen to some conservatives coming to the defense of Chief Justice Roberts, I'm stunned almost beyond belief.
Some are saying it was a blow to the commerce clause in that Roberts said the health care law didn't come under the commerce clause. But, if I understand it correctly, the majority didn't agree to that point. Next, they are saying that since the ruling also said the federal government can't forces states to comply by withholding funding, it is a vote for states rights, in a way.
Lastly, some are saying that Roberts has deftly placed the health care ball back in the political arena and has, on purpose, handed the Republicans a tool to use against President Obama in the general election. Well, if that is true, then they have just supported Michelle Bachman's comment that Roberts is an activist judge, although she meant it as an attack because he was the swing vote. For them to praise "activist judges" in an interesting twist.