The media, as usual spun this as Trump "attacking" a Civil Rights icon, as if people involved in the Civil Rights era are infallible, when Trump didn't roll over and play dead when attacked by a black person. Trump pointedly showed how black political leadership has utterly failed in their alleged "duty" to represent black America. He pointed out how far Selma, AL has fallen. He pointed out the totally unacceptable levels of homicides and other violence that plague urban black America.Of course neither Lewis nor the MSM can handle the truth and have no answers for the facts pointed out by Trump, so they fall back on the tired, worn out, creased, missing corners race of spades card. See, John Lewis knows that Trump is legitimate. He knows how the Electoral College works. He knows the popular vote does not determine presidential elections. He's been fine with that for as long as he's been in office. Lewis doesn't have to like Trump. Lewis doesn't have to agree with Trump. Lewis, as a representative of his district took an oath to uphold the Constitution. In his declaring Trump illegitimate, he failed to live up to his oath. In stark contrast to Lewis, Steve Harvey, to the ire of his fans, accepted an invitation from Trump to meet and probably discuss issues affecting black folks. I don't know, wasn't in the room. I'm not that much of a Harvey fan. I don't listen to the show unless I have to (company car with no aux input). I did hear that he was very much against Trump during the campaign. That was his right and to some "duty" as a citizen. I have no problem with that on principle. But what is important here is that once the election was over (or shortly thereafter) Steve understood that the time is now to move along. Trump is president. You respect the office, even if you don't respect the office holder and as a citizen, when called, you provide service. Period. For this, Steve Harvey has gained more respect from me. Lewis can go away. While on the subject let me also point out that Jennifer Holliday is also a sham and shame who will not get any support from me. She previously agreed to perform at the inauguration. Her position was that though she didn't agree with Trump, that her performance would be for healing and bringing people together. Now personally, I don't think a citizen should have to explain why he or she is performing for or with the head of state, but this seems to be a trend now. Anyway, Holliday backed out of her agreement (which shows a lack of character IMO). She said that her fans or whomever were mad because her performance would be seen as endorsing Trump and his ideas. Once again I'll point out the double fucking standard at work here. When Christian bakers and caterers refused to sell gay wedding cakes or provide catering to a gay marriage because they felt that such participation was and endorsement of something they opposed morally, They got hemmed up in courts. Shut down, sued and trashed by the media. Never mind that they were exercising constitutional rights. The left said that their cakes and catering services were not endorsements but rather simple business transactions with no moral statements. So now performing for Trump is an endorsement of him and his ideas. This is why I'm not a Democrat. This is why I am not a liberal. This is why I'm no longer "on the left" (I am center). These blatant hypocrisies are unacceptable. If there is one thing I hope this term of office does, I hope it breaks the hypocrisy. It needs to happen. And if it means taking out a few Civil Right's icons, then so be it.
Monday, January 16, 2017
John Lewis brought shame to himself and his office when he made an ass of himself by announcing that he was going to boycott Trump's inauguration. In his publicity seeking attack on Trump, and that's what it was, he not only announced his non-attendance but he said that Trump was an illegitimate president.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
In this past election, like many before it, the left used the specter of The Klan and Old Jim Crow in order to motivate black people to vote for Republicans. Democrats who had previously accused the Republican party of trading in "fear politics" regularly uses historical fear of the KKK to motivate black people to vote for them. Of course in this election not only did we get KKK but we got Hitler re-incarnate. I said earlier that the fact of the matter is that if one is black, one has very little to fear from KKK members. As a matter of fact a black person has a far higher probability of being killed by another black person (usually male) than by a KKK member if for no other reason than the minuscule number of actual Klan members. As if to prove this point, A&E has been caught paying white folks to be Klan members and say "nigger" on tv.
The KKK leaders who were interviewed by Variety detailed how they were wooed with promises the program would capture the truth about life in the organization; encouraged not to file taxes on cash payments for agreeing to participate in the filming; presented with pre-scripted fictional story scenarios; instructed what to say on camera; asked to misrepresent their actual identities, motivations and relationships with others, and re-enacted camera shoots repeatedly until the production team was satisfied... The production team even paid for material and equipment to construct and burn wooden crosses and Nazi swastikas, according to multiple sourcesMade up cross burnings? What's next hoax swastikas and Hijab grabs? Oh wait... I've said for a long time that the Democratic Party is a plantation for Negroes. Apparently they also have Klansmen on that plantation. Who knew. Oh wait...and tax evasion:
On the Tennessee shooting location of the KKK documentary, Nichols and Hutt describe being paid by a man with a blue, rectangular bank money bag, which he would unzip and hand out $50 or $100 bills.You know, when you have to make up "hate", there can't be much of it in actual existence.
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Up until the election of Donald Trump, leftists were of the position that providing a service to a customer was not an endorsement of the person or behavior. This is what they said when homosexual were turned down by various businesses to do something for their weddings. These [Christian] bakers, caterers and photographers were willing to serve the customers in [any] other capacity that did not conflict with their beliefs. That is, because the events in question were in conflict with their beliefs, they felt that by being there or otherwise cooperating would be an endorsement or enablement of said behavior. However the homosexuals (and their supporters) felt that such arguments were false. They were of the opinion (unfortunately supported by courts in stark contradiction to the US Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act) that homosexuals could compel Christians to do things that were against their creed or suffer financial (and potential criminal) ruin. Now we have the Trump inauguration and we have multiple left wing artists who are refusing to entertain. Why? They do not like Trump and do not want to be seen as endorsing this person. Now since I'm all for freedom of association and freedom of disassociation, I have no problem with the Rockettes and whomever else saying they want no parts of Trump. I may not agree, but I think that in a free country citizens should be free to decline to participate. Of course I'm not a hypocrite. I believe that the same freedom applies to Christian bakers, photographers and caterers as well. This is yet another reason why The Ghost is no longer a lefty (I'm centrist). I see these double standards all the time and the MSM never calls them out on it. Lefties are not interested in personal freedom. They are not interested in equal rights for all. They are only interested in rights for people who think like them.
Friday, December 23, 2016
Saw this report in RT.com: British universities ‘no-go zones’ for Jewish students – top peer Now as recently as perhaps 1960 you could safely assume that such a title meant that white Britons (I repeat myself) were the ones making these university no-go zones. But this is 2016, soon to be 2017 and if you made such an assumption, well who's the ass? Reading the report:
Deech’s comments come after a series of high-profile incidents at top universities where Jewish students claim they have been verbally or physically attacked. “Amongst Jewish students, there is gradually a feeling that there are certain universities that you should avoid,” she said. “Definitely SOAS [in London], Manchester I think is now not so popular because of things [that] have happened there, Southampton, Exeter and so on.”Well being a relatively bright person, I asked myself "who is doing these things". Well there is nothing in the report that directly states who, but you do get a strong indirect comment:
Speaking to the Telegraph, Deech said some institutions are failing to combat hatred against Jewish students because they are “afraid of offending” their potential investors from Gulf states. “Many universities are in receipt of or are chasing very large donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and so on, and maybe they are frightened of offending them,” she said.Wait what? Why would the rise of "no-go" universities for Jews involve "Saudi Arabia and Gulf States"? Unless those creating such an environment are from those areas? Two. Why is the British public OK with this? Why is the government allowing this to happen? Is the UK so un hock to "Arab money" that they are willing to shit on their own (to the extent the affected parties can be said to be "their own")? So just to summarize, in the past two years or so we have seen the British government turn a blind eye to imports who have set up sex-prostitution rings victimizing natives and now have created hostile social environments in it's universities. Have the Brits any self respect?
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Here in the US there has been a release of video of a black football player in a physical altercation with a white female. The usual gender outrage suspects have been carping on the "if this doesn't get you barred then..." line. White Knights of various stripes have been opining on sexism and domestic violence involving sports figures. Black Lives Matter has been silent. Here's the video: Link in case video doesn't appear: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4055302/University-Oklahoma-football-star-Joe-Mixon-punched-woman-defends-police-interrogation-video.html#v-5312172578574875482 Now when I saw it I thought to myself: Why hasn't the chick been charged with assault? Under the law striking a person without their consent is assault. She hit him twice before he hit her back. Even if you are of the opinion that men should never hit a woman, there is still the issue of equality, specifically equality under the law. Joe Mixon has a right to not be hit by any other citizen without his consent. Molitor has no legal right to hit anyone without their consent. Furthermore; the fact that she hit him a second time despite not being hit or threatened shows that she intended to do harm. I will remind the public that just because someone is 'small" and has no weapon does not mean that they cannot do serious harm to a person. So again I ask: why wasn't this chick charged with assault at the minimum and aggravated assault at the maximum? Either we are FOR women being treated equally or we are not. Period. Some have argued that Molitor was short and lighter than Mixon and that somehow this mitigates the fact that Mixon was assaulted. The argument is that somehow a taller and heavier person has some obligation to allow smaller and lighter people to hit them at will. This is total nonsense. In man circles a few things are understood: 1) If you strike another man you are asking to be hit back. In fact you should expect to get hit back. You get no sympathy from other men because one should never hit someone if one doesn't expect to be hit back. 2) You should evaluate your ability to defend yourself against another man. Men regularly size each other up to determine their threat potential. This is actually done throughout the animal kingdom. Since any random male could present a life threatening situation, one must be able to make a quick evaluation of whether it is better to run or avoid conflict or stand your ground/continue on with your business. This is why, generally speaking larger more muscular men are used as security guards and the like. Molitor, who probably thinks that the world owes her some special favors failed to do these two things because generally speaking women have been given a pass on these rules. Now in the past the reason for this pass was that women in general knew not to antagonize a man and secondly it was generally socially acceptable to physically "remind" a woman who stepped out of line. But here we are in 2016, soon to be 2017 and women say they want the equal treatment as men, but then fail to observe the two rules above? Why? Because women want equality until they don't. The way I see it Mixon ought to be suing two entities: 1) The state and police department for failing to press charges against Molitor for assault. It is clear from the video that she initiated non-consensual contact twice. The state and police department should be sued for gender discrimination for failure to prosecute Molitor. I see no reason other than her gender for her not being arrested. 2) Mixon ought to sue Molitor directly for a number of items: a- Defamation of Character: She has been saying that Mixon deliberately tried to cause her distress and harm when the video clearly shows who the aggressor was. b- Infliction of bodily and psychological harm: Again, video shows who hit. Further evidence may show that there were words involved. Given that Molitor has already filed suit I would love for the judge to render a summary judgment (if possible) or discard any jury verdict in favor of Molitor. No more gender bias in law. She wants to hit a man (twice!) then she can't sue for the consequences of her dumb behavior. AND the judge should make her pay for Mixon's lawyers fees (and then some).
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Per the last post on Germany, I was thinking of a nice analogy to explain the way the elites of Germany view "refugees" and how sane people would see it. The elites want you to look at refugees as thermostats in your car. You see thermostats are necessary for the proper functioning of your vehicle's internal combustion engine. Without the thermostat your engine would overheat, parts would melt and the engine die. If a thermostat is stuck open then the engine never reaches optimal temperature and emissions go high and the engine is inefficient. Thermostats eventually die. Some sooner than others but you know they are going to go "boom." This is how the elites view these "refugees". They view them as necessary, if not for tax purposes, then to prove that they are not racists. The inevitable catastrophic failure of the thermostat is something you the people have to tolerate as a necessary risk of having a thermostat. Now we have hover boards. Hover boards are not necessary for anyone. They simply exist for entertainment purposes. That meet some want in the purchaser and user, but if the hover board were to disappear the user would find something else to do with his time. Now it was discovered that these hover boards had a habit of going "boom" and injuring the users. Now these catastrophic failures were relatively rare and represented a minority of boards in the hands of customers, but the authorities, being sensible. Did not want to endanger the public and so mass bans of hover boards were passed even though catastrophic incidences were "rare". Now one rarely sees a hover board and most people look at them with suspicion. See, the authorities can be sensible when they want to. Whenever the authorities are NOT being sensible there is a [usually monetary] reason for it and it has nothing to do with the safety and security of their constituents. Of course there is a person reading this saying that "refugees are people" and not objects. All I have to say starts with an "F" and ends with an "F". Figure it out.
Like I said about Belgium earlier this year:
Any sane people would not invite persons hostile to their culture and peoples to live among them in large numbers. They would not allow them to create "no-go" areas of insular communities where the police are afraid to enforce the national laws. If you don't believe me look at Japan. Look at China. Look at Hungary. Look at Poland. The leadership of these places understand exactly who they represent. They are not afraid to be proud of who they are and they do what they must to maintain their identity. To be blunt, they are not traitors. The French leadership and a large percentage of their population are traitors to their own countries. I'm not going to beat around the bush with this. Let us state it plainly and clearly. The French got what they had coming to them. The Belgians have gotten what they had coming to them. The Germans, and all those countries who have invited hostile persons to leech off their governments while large numbers of their people assault and rape citizens. Each of them will continue to get what they have coming to them until they are either made to completely submit or they rise upLast year when "refugees" wilded out in Germany over the new year and assaulted women (and men) left right and center, the German authorities proceeded to coverup the "who" and "whom" of the crimes as much as possible. The government has gone so far as to enlist Facebook and who knows who else to censor "fake news" that reported on the actual truth (remember in liberal land, truth is false). Left wing women even went on record as saying that they refused to report their rapes because they felt that the "racism" against the perps was worse than the actual rape (I suppose that puts and end to the argument that rape is the ultimate traumatic incident that can befall a woman). So no, other than the people who voted for AFD I have little sympathy for the German people after this blatant attack on their country in the furtherance of the Jihad against their land and people. Any group who re-elects the party and leadership that has brought this war into their land gets exactly that war they ask for.
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
This is England: ollowing bullshit:
The blackest thing ever happened on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania: A group of students recently removed a picture of William Shakespeare and replaced it with one of Audre Lorde.You read that? The Blackest thing ever was that students at UPenn manhandled an icon of the English as well as the English language and posted a person who merely speaks English. All done because:
Fisher-Bennett Hall is home to Penn’s English department, and the portrait of Shakespeare has resided over the main staircase in the building for years. The English department, in an effort to represent more diversity in writing, voted a few years ago to relocate the portrait and replace it.First of all, I'm not even sympathetic to the faculty at UPenn. If they had any self respect they would have told whomever was offended at Shakespeare in the English department to fuck off, pack their shit and find somewhere else to teach. That this is the ENGLISH department and the icon of English literature will be going nowhere. So having failed that shit test, I repeat, I have no sympathy. The second problem is this:
more diversity in writingFirst of all writing is not exclusive to English. Anyone looking for a diverse set of written material is free to go to the Asian Studies dept., African Studies dept., Latin studies, French, etc. And they can find all KINDS of writing. This is the ENGLISH department. Studying and teaching English has to be on the list of the least black thing you could do.
Esty, who declined to be interviewed, said in an email to the Daily Pennsylvanian, “Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.”No, what it was was a display of power. The BLM movement is a great black shark. White people cower in fear at it's very mention. Now that the shark has smelled the blood in the water, black folks, particularly on campuses feel free to impose themselves at will. They know that these administrators are cowards who are afraid of being called racists.
Her comments were echoed by junior English major Mike Benz, who told the newspaper that college curricula typically focus on European and Western ideals, leaving outside texts to be ignored or set aside.No really. Your majoring in ENGLISH (see above) and complaining that it focuses on European and Western ideals. The fuck out of here. Since this isn't a community college, these students can afford to go to just about any university. UPenn is NOT cheap. Therefore we need to ask: Why haven't these students applied to and attended an HBCU? That would be real black. Why aren't they taking courses in Housa, Yoruba, Swahilli and reading Ngugi Wa Thiongo in his native tongue? Because they aren't really all that interested in doing the "blackest thing ever" such as supporting actual BLACK INSTITUTIONS. They just wanna force themselves on other people's culture (which if done to them, they would object to) and bully guilt ridden white people.