Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?

Retired British couple living in Costa Blanca Spain

In the lexicon of human migration there are still hierarchical words, created with the purpose of putting white people above everyone else. One of those remnants is the word “expat”.

Posh white blokes: holding back the struggle for a fairer world?

What is an expat? And who is an expat? According to Wikipedia, “an expatriate (often shortened to expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country other than that of the person’s upbringing. The word comes from the Latin terms ex (‘out of’) and patria (‘country, fatherland’)”.

Defined that way, you should expect that any person going to work outside of his or her country for a period of time would be an expat, regardless of his skin colour or country. But that is not the case in reality; expat is a term reserved exclusively for western white people going to work abroad.

Africans are immigrants. Arabs are immigrants. Asians are immigrants. However, Europeans are expats because they can’t be at the same level as other ethnicities. They are superior. Immigrants is a term set aside for ‘inferior races’.

Don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal, the leading financial information magazine in the world, has a blog dedicated to the life of expats and recently they featured a story ‘Who is an expat, anyway?’. Here are the main conclusions: “Some arrivals are described as expats; others as immigrants; and some simply as migrants. It depends on social class, country of origin and economic status. It’s strange to hear some people in Hong Kong described as expats, but not others. Anyone with roots in a western country is considered an expat … Filipino domestic helpers are just guests, even if they’ve been here for decades. Mandarin-speaking mainland Chinese are rarely regarded as expats … It’s a double standard woven into official policy.”

Is there any space in the development debate for African experts?
The reality is the same in Africa and Europe. Top African professionals going to work in Europe are not considered expats. They are immigrants. Period. “I work for multinational organisations both in the private and public sectors. And being black or coloured doesn’t gain me the term “expat”. I’m a highly qualified immigrant, as they call me, to be politically correct,” says an African migrant worker.

Most white people deny that they enjoy the privileges of a racist system. And why not? But our responsibility is to point out and to deny them these privileges, directly related to an outdated supremacist ideology. If you see those “expats” in Africa, call them immigrants like everyone else. If that hurts their white superiority, they can jump in the air and stay there. The political deconstruction of this outdated worldview must continue.

Mawuna Remarque Koutonin is the editor of SiliconAfrica.com, where this blog was first published. Follow @siliconafrica on Twitter.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/13/white-people-expats-immigrants-migration

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Man Made Global Warming Is A Big Scam

 

global-warming-scientist-resigns-scam-900x350he following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

read more

http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/

Ross Ulbricht, Sentenced to life for running website silk road, files for appeal.

 

7717ec743ace6f07c8807a41b553fbdb

Ross Ulbricht, convicted and sentenced to life in prison last year for running the darknet sales website Silk Road, had his legal team file an appeal yesterday. (I reported on his lawyer Joshua Dratel’s initial appeal plans right after sentencing).

The defense’s main points of contention, as specifically expressed in the suit (in forceful ALL CAPS) below.

Interpolated will be excerpts and summations from me and more extended quotes from the appeal explaining what the defense’s contentions mean:

THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DENIED ULBRICHT HIS FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE, AND A FAIR TRIAL BY (A) PRECLUDING THE DEFENSE FROM USING AT TRIAL THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO DEA SPECIAL AGENT CARL FORCE’S CORRUPTION; (B) REFUSING TO ORDER THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND BRADY MATERIAL REGARDING CORRUPTION; AND (C) DENYING ULBRICHT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BASED ON ADDITIONAL POST-TRIAL DISCLOSURES REGARDING FORCE AND ANOTHER CORRUPT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT INVOLVED IN THE SILK ROAD INVESTIGATION….

Here is some previous reporting on Force and his corruption. He was a DEA agent who did a lot of the communication with “Dread Pirate Roberts” (DPR), the pseudonymous operator of Silk Road, and was responsible for entrapping him into an alleged murder for hire. Force also leaked info about the ongoing investigation to DPR in exchange for bitcoin payoffs.

Dratel in the appeal continues to argue that Ulbricht being the admitted launcher of Silk Road does not mean he was necessarily the “Dread Pirate Roberts” who continued to run it. He posits that the purely digital nature of most of the evidence linking DPR to Ulbricht could have been falsified, and that agents deeply involved in the case are known to have been in the game essentially for the chance to steal bitcoin.

This leads the appeal to state that all that evidence against Ulbricht “was permeated by corruption of two law enforcement agents participating in the investigation, the restrictions on cross-examination, and preclusion of expert witnesses offered to overcome those restrictions” and that all that “eviscerated Ulbricht’s defense and denied him a fair trial.”

Dratel tried during the trial to get it delayed until Force’s case had been adjudicated—the defense only learned of the case’s existence about a month before Ulbricht’s trial began—but his request was denied. The existence of a second corrupt agent on the case, Treasury agent Shaun Bridges, was not revealed to the defense until the trial was over.

Despite the government’s insistence that the investigation had to be kept secret, both of the accused were already well aware they were under investigation. The filing contains much detail about their behavior that would make one wonder about the veracity of any investigatory information they were responsible for.

The appeal offers the suggestion that whoever was DPR at the height of the investigation may have been tipped off by Force enough to attempt to falsely implicate Ulbricht.

The appeal continues to propose the alternate theory that Bitcoin exchange operator Mark Karpeles might have been the DPR operating the site during the period of the investigation. Karpeles is currently facing criminal charges in Japan related to embezzlement from his collapsed exchange, Mt. Gox.

Dratel also argued the unfairness of being denied cross-examination on some government computer forensics experts and then also denied introducing some of his own witnesses on those issues. The appeal notes that they need not prove that excluded evidence regarding Force would have changed the verdict, merely that it had a reasonable probability of doing so.

•The next point:

THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY CURTAILING CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE DEFENSE THEORY AT TRIAL …

The Court eventually refused to allow questioning of one witness, a homeland security agent from Chicago, Jared Der-Yeghiayan, over his belief for a time that Karpeles might be DPR. This, Dratel insists, goes precisely to their defense of raising reasonable doubt that Ulbricht was DPR during the time of the investigation.
•The next point:

THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING TWO DEFENSE EXPERTS …

Dratel insists that two computer expert witnesses they were not permitted to bring to the stand prevented the jury from understanding certain abstruse aspects of the government’s case, particularly pertaining to bitcoin wallets.

Thus, “by precluding the defense experts, who would have countered the complex testimony regarding bitcoin presented by the government, the government witnesses’ testimony essentially went unchallenged, and Ulbricht was denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to present a defense.”

Many elements of the testimony of FBI special agent Ilhwan Yum that the denied witnesses were meant to clarify or contest were revealed to the defense, Dratel says, far too late in the process, including in many cases after the trial had started.

In summation:

While the government was permitted to present testimony regarding extremely complicated processes outside the ken of the average juror, Ulbricht was denied the vital opportunity to challenge that testimony and evidence, some of which was generated and provided only mid-trial shortly before its admission, and therefore, the Court’s preclusion of the two defense experts was an abuse of discretion.

•The next point:

THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING ADMISSION OF ANDREW JONES’S STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST PURSUANT TO RULE 804(3)(b),FED.R.EVID., AND/OR RULE 807, FED.R.EVID

Dratel tried to admit into evidence a statement by a former Silk Road administrator Andrew Jones that indicated the DPR he was communicating with during the investigation, a couple of months before Ulbricht’s October 2013 arrest, was not the same DPR who had first hired him, because he apparently wasn’t able to respond properly to an agreed-on prompt. This obviously would have supported the defense assertion that despite being the founder of Silk Road, Ulbricht was not the DPR acting during the investigation.

•The next point:

THE COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULINGS CONSTITUTED CUMULATIVE ERROR THAT DEPRIVED ULBRICHT OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL…

As Dratel summed it up:

While each of the series of evidentiary trial errors set forth above individually are sufficient to warrant vacating Ulbricht’s convictions and granting him a new trial, cumulatively they require it. In combination, they served to prevent Ulbricht from presenting any meaningful defense to the charges, and permitted the government to argue that the defense theory was unsupported by facts.

•The next point:

THE UNLIMITED SEARCHES AND SEIZURE OF ULBRICHT’S ENTIRE LAPTOP AND GMAIL AND FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THEY CONSTITUTED THE FRUIT OF (A) A WARRANT THAT LACKED ANY PARTICULARITY; AND (B) UNLAWFUL AND WARRANTLESS PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE ORDERS .

Dratel related two previous cases, Ganias and Galpin, whose outcome should lead the Court to the conclusion that the things being searched for in Ulbricht’s digital life were so wide-ranging and non-particular as to qualify as a Fourth Amendment violation.

Dratel writes that:

Rather than require the government to establish probable cause in advance of reviewing categories of electronic data, they would license the government to examine every file to assure that probable cause to seize it did not exist. Any more dramatic or patent example of the “rummaging” could not be envisioned, yet that is what the government has done in this case with respect to Ulbricht’s laptop and Gmail and Facebook accounts.

Dratel also says all the pen register and trap-and-trace searches in the investigation against Ulbricht were not justified under the Fourth Amendment as they arose “by court order and not by a warrant based on probable cause.” Dratel argued at length, including quoting Reason contributing editor Julian Sanchez, that the dominant Smith v. Maryland case about information allegedly freely volunteered to third parties shouldn’t apply in the internet age. He cites a great deal of precedent indicating that pen registers and trap and trace that reveal location and activities inside the home, as per the ones in this case, should require a warrant.

•The next point:

THE LIFE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON ULBRICHT WAS PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE

The alleged deaths from drugs on Silk Road that weighed in Ulbricht’s sentencing, Dratel argues, were not properly proven as directly connected to running Silk Road, and that even the government witness on which that conclusion derived didn’t present the connection between Silk Road and the deaths as proven. “Accordingly, Ulbricht’s life sentence should be vacated and he should be remanded to a different judge for resentencing without the alleged overdose deaths as a factor at sentencing.”

He notes that it is far from common even when sentencing actual sellers of drugs to consider unadjudicated overdose deaths as a factor in sentencing, including with some actual Silk Road drug sellers who have faced prosecution.

Dratel also claims that

the life sentence was substantively unreasonable for several reasons. The Court ignored the 99 letters on Ulbricht’s behalf that apprised the Court of the positive contributions Ulbricht has made, and could make in the future if given a reasonable sentence, ignored the expertise of the forensic pathologist, and ignored the empirical and other academic and practical research presented in Ulbricht’s sentencing submission, although some of that research was about Silk Road specifically, and its harm reduction effects on the drug culture.

The overall purpose of the appeal is:

that Ulbricht’s convictions should be vacated and a new trial ordered, particular evidence against him suppressed, or,in the alternative, the matter should be remanded for re-sentencing before a different judge.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/14/ross-ulbricht-sentenced-to-life-for-runn

Left and right should stop demonizing people they don’t understand

screen-shot-2016-01-07-at-11-36-54-am

Peruse your Facebook or Twitter feed over the last couple of days and you’ll probably find a liberal friend or two snickering about “#YallQaeda.”

Dig a little deeper and you’ll even find people muttering about domestic terrorism, sedition, and the need to use brutal force to crush the occupation of a tiny building on a remote wildlife preserve by armed protesters.

Think that’s ridiculous and over the top? Before liberals were eagerly attacking the small band of armed men holed up in a federal building in Oregon, it wasn’t that long ago that some conservatives were calling demonstrators in Ferguson terrorists who might even be in league with ISIS.

What’s up with this? Are armed militias and ISIS-inspired rioters coming to get us? Or is a polarized America getting distracted by the fringes of legitimate movements and losing sight of the big picture?

Irresponsible demonization of one’s perceived opponents on the other side of the red state vs. blue state dichotomy is a hallmark of contemporary American political and cultural discourse.

It’s also getting really old. Isn’t it about time we moved beyond it?

Maybe it’s time to step outside of our cultural and political bubbles, listen to the grievances of people from backgrounds different than ours, and figure out what areas of unity might exist?

Don’t know any rural ranchers? Then don’t rush to judgment about them and pontificate about “something something white privilege – what could they possibly have to complain about?”

Don’t know any poor young African Americans in the inner city? Then don’t rush to judgment and condemn them as criminals who hate the police for no reason.

If you think the Oregon protesters at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are patriots and heroes but also think people protesting against police brutality in urban areas are thugs (and even more blunt terms) you might be part of the problem.

Likewise, if you think the Oregon protesters are domestic terrorists, mock them as rednecks, and call for them to be violently suppressed, but also grandstand about needing to understand the grievances of urban rioters and looters (whose violence you would never think to describe as terrorism) you also might be part of the problem.

If my equating the two makes you feel offended and in need of a safe space where you can clutch your pearls, you are definitely part of the problem.

State oppression comes in many forms. Some are more readily recognizable from within one cultural framework or ideological bubble than from another. What are the biases that make the right more afraid of urban protesters than rural armed militias who talk about overthrowing the government? What are the biases that make the left more disturbed by people with guns than people who burn down and loot businesses?

This isn’t about whether an armed occupation of an empty visitor’s center on a wildlife refuge or burning and looting a store are smart or justifiable tactics. It’s about understanding the differences in your instinctive reactions to each and recognizing the statism that we all face instead of targeting each other.

The Oregon ranchers were victims of outrageous mandatory minimum sentencing — just like many people in our cities who are swept up by the unjust war on drugs.

Why not take this moment to step outside our cultural bubbles, reach beyond the left-right false dichotomy, and work to end the mandatory minimums that oppress ranchers and urban youth alike?

For once, let’s target the forms of statism that we all have in common instead of attacking each other.

Do those commonalities mean we have duplicate experiences? Of course not. On the urban side, impoverished minorities have long borne the brunt of mandatory minimums in the drug war. On the Oregon rancher side of the issue, the use of mandatory minimums under a federal terrorism statute over a fire dispute adds a new, more frightening dimension to the topic.

Those are specific experiences that we should be learning from, processing, and engaging in dialogue over so we can forge alliances that can end these injustices.

We can all have tunnel vision. All the more reason to reach outside of our comfort zone, build connections with new people, and turn those connections into coalitions that have a chance to win.

An issue like mandatory minimum sentencing, where the overreach of the state is clear from the most densely populated city to the most remote ranchland, is a good place to start.

Andrew Walker lives in Los Angeles and is a doctoral candidate in psychology.

http://rare.us/story/left-and-right-should-stop-demonizing-people-they-dont-understand/

TROOPER WHO STOPPED SANDRA BLAND INDICTED FOR PERJURY, AND TO BE FIRED FROM DPS

sandra-bland

 

HEMPSTEAD, TX — A DPS trooper was charged with perjury in connection to a contentious traffic stop last summer where a black woman wound up arrested for assault and then died three days later in jail. Hours after the indictment, the Texas Department of Public Safety began termination proceedings.

A grand jury indicted Trooper Brian Encinia on the misdemeanor count, alleging he lied about how he removed 28-year-old Sandra Bland from her vehicle during the July traffic stop. The same Waller County grand jury decided last month not to indict any sheriff’s officials or jailers in Bland’s death, which was ruled a suicide.

Bland remained jailed following her arrest because she couldn’t raise about $500 for bail. Encinia, who has been on paid desk duty since Bland was found dead in her cell, also faces a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Bland’s family.

The misdemeanor charge carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

Encinia, who is white, pulled Bland over on July 10 for making an improper lane change near Prairie View A&M University, her alma mater, where she had just interviewed and accepted a job. Dashcam video from Encinia’s patrol car shows that the traffic stop quickly became confrontational.

The video shows the trooper holding a stun gun and yelling, “I will light you up!” after Bland refuses to get out of her car. Bland eventually steps out of the vehicle, and Encinia orders her to the side of the road. The confrontation continues off-camera but is still audible.

Encinia’s affidavit stated he “removed her from her vehicle to further conduct a safer traffic investigation,” but grand jurors “found that statement to be false,” said Shawn McDonald, one of five special prosecutors appointed to investigate.

McDonald declined to say whether the grand jury considered any other charges.

Neither Bland’s attorneys nor the Texas Department of Public Safety immediately returned messages seeking comment about the indictment. Department Director Steve McCraw said after the incident that Encinia violated internal agency policies of professionalism and courtesy.

About two dozen protesters attended Wednesday’s press conference where the indictment was announced. Speaking afterward, one protester, Jinaki Muhammad, called the misdemeanor charge “a slap in the face to the Bland family.”

Encinia wrote in his affidavit that he had Bland exit the vehicle and handcuffed her after she became combative, and that she swung her elbows at him and kicked him in his right shin. Encinia said he then used force “to subdue Bland to the ground,” and she continued to fight back. He arrested her for assault on a public servant.

Bland’s sister, Shante Needham, has said Bland called her from jail the day after her arrest, saying she’d been arrested but didn’t know why, and that an officer had placed his knee in her back and injured her arm.

After the traffic stop, Bland was taken in handcuffs by another officer to the county jail in nearby Hempstead, about 50 miles northwest of Houston. She was found dead in her jail cell three days later, on July 13, hanging from a jail cell partition with a plastic garbage bag around her neck.

Her family has said they were working to get money for her bail when they learned of her death.

Bland’s arrest and death came amid heightened national scrutiny of police and their dealings with black suspects, especially individuals who were killed by officers or who died in police custody.

About two dozen protesters attended Wednesday’s press conference where the indictment was announced. Speaking afterward, one protester, Jinaki Muhammad, called the misdemeanor charge “a slap in the face to the Bland family.”

 

http://abc13.com/news/trooper-who-stopped-sandra-bland-indicted-for-perjury/1148818/

Youtube shut down Hickock45

It appears that Youtube has taken down what is arguably the most popular gun related channel on the video sharing network – hickok45.

The videos featured the channel’s namesake (hickok45) showing off a variety of guns on his impressive homemade range.

Hickok45’s son, John, serves as the cameraman of the channel and is also featured in numerous videos giving his opinion on various firearms and issues.

At the time of it’s removal, the channel had nearly 2 million subscribers, hundreds of videos and hundreds of millions of video views.

Right now, if you try to visit the channel you get the following messag

A message posted to hickok’s Facebook page gives some hope that the channel will be back and reads as follows:Screen-Shot-2016-01-06-at-10.10.08-AM

Pin It on Pinterest

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.