778 Firearms Taken Off The Street During City Of LA’s Annual Gun Buyback

The Confirmation Files:

Posted by Libergirl

Originally posted on CBS Los Angeles:

LOS ANGELES ( — More than 750 guns were taken off the streets of Los Angeles during the city’s annual Gun Buyback program.

Mayor Eric Garcetti and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck announced Monday that 778 firearms were turned in for gift cards during Saturday’s event.

In total, 369 handguns, 228 rifles, 140 shotguns, and 41 assault weapons were collected at two locations.

“The Gun Buyback gives Angelenos the opportunity to help make our city safer by taking these guns off the street so they don’t fall into the hands of criminals or children,” said Mayor Garcetti.

In exchange for surrendering weapons, participants received either a $100 or $200 Ralph’s gift card, depending on the firearm.

The program has taken 13,696 guns off the streets since its inception in 2009.

View original


It is a well kept secret that institutional slavery could not have occurred or existed in America without the support of the Five Civilized Indian Tribes (Cherokees, Seminoles, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek), who were slave holders, traders, chasers, and who signed agreements with and fought with the Southern Confederacy during the Civil War to maintain Blacks in slavery. Even after President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Constitutional Amendment and the end of the Civil War in 1865, Indian Tribes continued to hold Blacks as slaves. The Indian Tribes refused to free their slaves, arguing that Tribes were sovereign nations that had the right to hold Blacks as property.
In refusing to free their Black slaves and allying with Southern rebels, the Five Tribes played into the hands of European immigrants and the government that wanted westward expansion. When the Tribes took up arms against the United Sates in the Civil War, they violated all previous treaties and therefore lost their territorial property/land claims. The United States government had given amnesty to the Southern Johnny Rebs. The federal government also offered amnesty to the Five Civilized Tribes, in the form of the 1866 Indian Treaties, which remain the basis upon which the government has provided preferential benefits to Indians for the last 150 years. The 1866 Treaties required Indian Tribes to free their black slaves, and grant freed Blacks, Black Indians and their descendants, full tribal membership and voting rights in all matters pertaining to the Tribes. The Treaties mandated that the federal government and the Tribes provide the Black freedmen and Black Indians with no less than 150 acres of land, $160 dollars, equal share in all government provided material benefits, free schooling, reservation resources, and to be treated in all matters, similar to the way non-black members of the Tribes were treated. Today, that would include free college education, tax-exempt status and the right to own and operate gambling casinos.

By 1890, however, both the federal government and the Indian Tribes began to ignore their legal mandated obligations. The government shifted focus from the foundation premise of the Treaties, to free and aid Black Freedmen and Black Indians, to instead reward unearned recognition and benefits to the slave-holding Indian Tribes and their descendants. In 1941, the United States government provided guidance to Tribes on how to redefine Indian in a way that excluded Black Freedmen and Black Indians. The government has continually narrowed its sphere of enforcement and has ignored its fiduciary responsibilities to the Black Freemen and Black Indians, as defined in those treaties. It is that failure that is the basis of the Harvest Institute Freedmen Federation’s (HIFF) lawsuit.

In November 2006, Harvest Institute Freedmen Federation (HIFF) filed ground-breaking lawsuits against the United States Department of Interior and its Bureau of Indian Affairs on behalf of descendants of Black Freedmen and Black Indians. The lawsuits are based on the requirement of the 1866 Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes that mandated that Blacks be treated in all matters, similar to any other Tribal member. The Harvest Institute Freedmen Federation has filed lawsuits in the Federal Claims Court, the Federal Appeals Court, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court. The cases continue to traverse the legal system.

The 1866 Treaties are law and the basis for non-Black Indians receiving a negotiated settlement from the courts and the Obama Administration in the case of Cobell vs. Salazar in 2012. Neither the Cobell case of the settlement included, recognized or mentioned Black Freemen or Black Indians. The basis of the HIFF law suit is that the United States government has discriminated against Black Freedmen and Black Indians by continuing to exclude them from the clear mandates of the law, ignoring their rights and benefits. Non-Black Indians have received preferential treatment for the last 150 years. While the courts continue to withhold or acknowledge the Harvest Institute Freedmen Federation legal cases, it is clear that the barrier is not only legal, but political. The HIFF has pursued this quest for equity and fairness in the courts for seven years. It is an expensive but right endeavor. The pursuit is made more difficult because of the indifference and naïveté of Black elected officials, civil rights organizations, and the Black masses who do not know or understand the facts of this issue or the importance of the Treaties. Below are the points of legal redress the HIFF lawsuits are seeking:

Classification of Black Freedmen and Black Indians as a separate federally recognized Tribe;
A public declaration from the U.S. Department of Interior that Black Freedmen and Black Indians must be included in the mandated benefits that non-blacks have been receiving for over 150 years;
An order from the Courts directing the governmental agencies to retro-actively distribute benefits to eligible Freedmen and Black Indians with Dawes Roll numbers;
A greater awareness on the part of Black Americans of the importance of seeking and fighting for their historical monetary entitlements.
Since that time, the government has ignored its fiduciary responsibilities. Instead, the government began to offer guidance to the Tribes, (See link: Department of Interior correspondence with Tribes) to shift focus to reward only the descendents of the slave-holding Indians, the primary purpose and mandate of the 1866 Treaties. By 1920, the United States government gave the tribes guidance on how to redefine who is Indian, in a way that excluded Black Freedmen and Black Indians.


Posted by The NON-Conformist


If you scan the newspapers these days, you will notice a lot of sky-is-falling stories, only with the word ‘oil’ instead of ‘sky’. Here in Alberta, news that the price of oil is falling is treated with Armageddon-like concern. The treasury is being depleted! Cuts are on the way! Jobs will be lost! Etcetera, etcetera!

Yes, we’re all supposed to be wringing out hands here in the oiltopia that is Alberta. Me? I’m chanting ‘How low can you go?’

I’m loving this. If that sounds greedy or selfish, well, maybe it is. But to me, an Alberta motorist, the falling price of oil means only one thing — less pain at the pumps.

As I write this, you can find gas for less than 85 cents a litre. About six months ago, the price was about $1.25 a lire. That’s a 40 cent a litre drop, which equates to a saving of $20 on a 50-litre fill. So this is good news, right?

Ah, wrong. It’s supposed to be bad news, because our treasury is addicted to oil revenues — about a quarter of our revenue comes from oil revenue — and we’re going to feel the DTs from royalty withdrawal. Outside of Alberta, our stock market is falling, and the dollar is dropping. Woe is us.

Or maybe, woe is you. I’m alright, Jack.

Here’s the thing. If the province doesn’t have as much money to squander, it impacts me not at all. My interaction with provincial government offices or services is so limited, I actually can’t think of any provincial service cutbacks that could impact upon me. I’ve unloaded my Canadian oil and gas stocks from my RRSP. I don’t travel outside the country, so the lower dollar doesn’t make any difference to me. Yes, I know some produce will cost more because of the falling dollar, but I can live with that.

I know that if oil stays low (let us pray) that the big oil companies will reduce investment in Alberta. But is that a bad thing? Thousands of people are pouring into Alberta looking for some of what sweet, sweet crude money. Is it a bad thing if fewer high school grads (if that) show up looking to drive trucks in Fort Mac?

Then there’s the borderline insane downtown building boom in Edmonton. Will a sustained period of lower oil prices result in a scaling back of the dozens of projects planned for downtown, if not some outright cancellations? Probably … and that’s not an entirely bad thing either. My feeling is that the Edmonton condo/office tower building boom has been based on the belief that $100 a barrel is here to stay. Welcome to reality, Edmonton.

The bad side to lower oil prices is more Big Picture stuff. If oil stays cheap and plentiful, there will be less reason to develop alternative energy sources. Regardless of the price, there will come a day in the not-so distant future when gas will not be the primary fuel for cars, and that will change the entire oil production picture. But that’s in the future. For now, enjoy the cheap gas. I know I will.

By Maurice Tougas

Posted by The NON-Conformist

Police Officer Buys Accused Shoplifter A Carton Of Eggs, Donations Follow By The Truckload

The Confirmation Files:

Posted by Libergirl

Originally posted on Consumerist:

The exchange, as posted on Facebook.

The exchange, as posted on Facebook.

What started with a kind act from a police officer who bought a carton of eggs for an accused shoplifter instead of arresting has turned into a veritable food mountain of generosity from strangers.

View original 340 more words

Stevie Wonder Speaks Out About Ferguson, Eric Garner and Gun Control

 Posted by Libergirl

Kenny Smith’s open letter to Charles Barkley about Ferguson

The Confirmation Files:

Dear Media,
Please stop asking Charles his opinion on race relations.


Originally posted on For The Win:

(Photo by Issac Baldizon/NBAE via Getty Images)

(Photo by Issac Baldizon/NBAE via Getty Images)

Editor’s Note: NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley’s comments about recent events in Ferguson, Mo. have prompted a strong reaction from many, including Kenny Smith, his friend and fellow analyst on TNT’s “Inside the NBA.”

Smith addressed Barkley’s remarks in an open letter submitted exclusively to For The Win. The letter is featured below in its entirety:

Dear Chuck,

I hope this finds you in the way I always see you, in great spirits, with great joy and full of life. There are some things I want to openly say to you that sometimes in conversation get lost.

Firstly I lied!  You ARE the greatest Power Forward of all time. It’s not (Tim) Duncan or (Karl) Malone, they had size and height that you weren’t blessed with and you never had near the talent around you that they were blessed to have. Contrarily you took your…

View original 698 more words

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: