Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Monday, January 22, 2018

Colony USA

When a country is colonized, the colonist set up a government for the benefit of themselves and their mother country. Governmental decisions are generally made to keep taxes, goods or whatever other benefits flowing to the colonial power. While the colonized country may get investments, those investments are generally to ensure that the primary reason for colonization is met. So, for example, a country may get an extensive railroad network. But that railroad is funded for the purposes of getting materials from the manufacturing sector to the coast for shipment to the mother country.

Similarly there may be public transport created, but again the purpose is to get needed workers to manufacturing areas. In slave societies of the past, so long as new slaves could be [cheaply] obtained, the development of that country is mainly for the owning class. This is important to understand. A colony works for the benefit of those who colonize it.

Today the US Government is "shut down" because Democrats (and a number of Republicans) are working on behalf of foreign nationals, mostly those who have no legal right to be in the country. What is clear then is that the US Government and the Democratic party at large is a colonial government. America is officially a colony.

I have lived through a number of government "shut downs". Never before has the event been precipitated by supposed representatives of the citizens holding out for the benefit of foreign nationals. In the 1995-1996 conflict between President Clinton and Republicans, the issues were:

The United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget.
Nothing at all about "immigration" or "dreamers" or any such cover for "on behalf of foreign nationals". Even the last shutdown in 2013 was about policies directed at citizens (the ACA). This is unprecedented (as far as I know) in US history.

This may not be selling secrets to a foreign power but as far as I'm concerned this is treason, full stop. It will be to the shame of the US voting public that these so called representatives of the citizens will find themselves still employed in "government service" after their next bid. Such is how deep the rot is.

And note, I have said nothing about Trump. Trump doesn't matter in this issue. At no time should any so called representative of a sovereign country allow it's government to be shut down or otherwise compromised for the benefit of foreign nationals. Period.

There are outlets and personalities talking about the affects on military and children. Not to be crass, but I don't particularly care. There is a far larger issue at stake here. What good is a paid military, when the government is already in the hands of agents of foreign nationals? And make no mistake about it, these persons who are holding the government hostage are in fact agents of foreign nationals.

The United States is a colony.

Monday, January 15, 2018

Homosexuals vs The US Constitution

Once again, like the Christian baker case, we have a case that should be resolved quite promptly and easily but isn't because an quickly enlarging treason class is unwilling to recognize the US Constitution. This example from the University of Iowa.
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The University of Iowa is caught up in a legal fight with a conservative Christian student group that denied a leadership position to a student who is gay.

The case pits a university policy barring discrimination based on sexual orientation against the religious beliefs of a 10-member group called Business Leaders in Christ. The group sued after the state's flagship university in Iowa City revoked its campus registration in November.

The group says its membership is open to everyone, but that its leaders must affirm a statement of faith that rejects homosexuality. The university says it respects the right of students, faculty and staff to practice the religion of their choice but does not tolerate discrimination of any kind.

First thing to note is that the U of Iowa is a public university which means it has an extra burden of protecting the constitutional rights of it's employees and students. Unlike a private university which are largely exempt from such requirements the U of Iowa is required to protect the constitutional right of freedom of exercise of religion. No if, and, buts or maybes.

A student member of Business Leaders in Christ, Marcus Miller, filed a complaint with the university last February after the group denied his request to serve as its vice president. Miller's request was rejected after he disclosed he was gay.
He has no basis for the complaint. The first amendment clearly covers the group and the U of Iowa is bound by law to recognize the group. But this is another example, like the baker case, where a person who knew full well the culture of the organization he was dealing with, decided to make a nuisance of himself and deny the group it's constitutionally protected rights.

Miller did not respond to messages seeking comment about the lawsuit. He has since started his own university-recognized, Jesus-centered student organization, Love Works, to advocate for justice on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual issues.
While I don't agree with this organization I recognize that this is also the right of this student. Just as the Christian group had a right to decide how it would exercise it's religion, Miller and his friends are able to create a group and exercise his religion the way he sees fit without interference from the university or the state.

The Black Fainting Couch

Senator Durbin:
When it came to the issue of, quote, 'chain migration,' I said to the president, do you realize how painful that term is to so many people? African-Americans believe they migrated to America in chains and when you talk about chain migration, it hurts them personally. He said, 'Oh, that’s a good line.'"
Yeah. And you know what, when I went to Miami last year I could barely contain myself when I saw all those ships docked in Port Miami.

Very problematic.

Also trips to Home Depot are very traumatizing. You know they have ropes and chains in that place?

The Left Is Good With African Brain Drain

One of the main points of Garveyism was that Africans with skills should use those skills to develop Africa into a modern society. It was Garvey's belief that it was the responsibility of the Afican to do this development and that doing this development was how the African proved his equality on the world stage. To that end the UNIA used the Black Star Line corp to transport goods to Liberia. W.E.B DuBois along with the NAACP was front and center in the opposition to this plan. DuBois being of the opinion that the mosquitoes and disease (shit hole?) in Africa was not desirable. He preferred the US until very late in life where he had an epiphany and took himself to Ghana.

The point here being that Africa needed it's educated class more than any European country or the US. Yet here we have lefties, including a great number of so called "woke" black people who want to deprive the very black countries who need the expertise, their high IQ members. Why is that?

Back in 2013 I wrote about the then "scandal" in Italy about Cecile Kyenge:

Kyenge, 48, was born in Congo and moved to Italy three decades ago to study medicine. An eye surgeon, she lives in Modena with her Italian husband and two children.
So this woman left the Congo to study medicine and decided to stay put while...
I believe the above to be a bigger problem. Italy is not lacking for doctors of any kind. According to the US Global Health Policy website Italy has 35 Physicians per 10,000 persons. It has a ranking of 25 out of 145* putting it at the 82 percentile. Not bad at all. Where does the Congo place? 127 of 145*. That's the 12 percentile. Now you tell me, Who would be better served by Kyenge's considerable skills? Italy or the Congo?
and Kyenge is not an isolated case. You can go to many hospitals, particularly in large urban areas and see the sheer number of doctors and nurses hailing from "third world" countries where their skills are needed.

On top of that back in 2006 I noted a report on the financial cost of the African brain drain.

Africa spends US$4 billion per year, representing 35% of total official development aid to the continent, to employ some 100,000 Western experts.

These are recruited to perform functions generically described as 'technical assistance', which could have been done by African experts lost to the brain drain of the western world.

So woke Africans should agree with limiting the numbers of Africans allowed into the US. Such a limit would be a financial and technical boon to Africa. However; when one is stuck in "stick it to the white man" mentality, all you can see is "sticking it to the white man".

But this once again shows the clear racism of the left. Blacks cannot be expected to work on their own countries. They need to have white people scoop them up and transplant them to "magic dirt" that is white countries.

Not Helping Your Case

You know that point in an argument when the other party is so lost they start making arguments against their own arguments and they don't realize it. Here's The Independent. Where do we start?
Donald Trump prefers immigrants from Norway but more Americans move to Scandinavia than vice versa
That's the headline. So Americans are going to Norway instead of....Oh. I see.
In 2016, 895 people emigrated from the US to Norway, while only 502 went the other way, according to Statistics Norway.
So more Americans went to an even more white country than America than Norwegians went to a less white country. And this proves that...
An estimated 800,000 Norwegians moved across the Atlantic from the mid-1800s to the early 1900s
Yes and strangely, where they settled tend to vote Republican.

Wealth Inequality Simply Explained

It doesn't get much simpler than this. The problem with the left is that it mistakes "hours worked" for "hard work". It's not the same. You will see them say/write that a company needs to pay a "living wage" because if you work 40 hours a week saying "Hi how may I help you" you should be able to make $40-$50k.

It is similar to an argument I heard about the recent tax bill. Apparently we're supposed to be upset that business owners get tax deductions that employees do not get. Really.

Now I used to think that way until I started a business, in part to get the tax benefits. The one thing that many/most employees do not get about being a business owner is that the business owner gets paid last. The business owner has no guaranteed paycheck at the end of the week. If business sucks this week, the business owner doesn't get paid. But that person he hired to ring up the customers? They get their check, even if the business owner has to go to the bank and put up his last possession as collateral for a loan to make payroll.

Being an employee is low risk. Why shouldn't the person(s) who take the great personal risk not get a benefit for doing so? That said, I am of the strong belief that if one's business profitability is dependent upon the taxes [not] paid, then that business is in serious trouble. The IRS thinks so too because if you're running a loss year after year, they're going to be looking at you.

What Part of Temporary Do You Not Understand?

So one of NY Chanel 7's Sunday political shows discussed the ending of TPS status for El Salvadorians. This is not the link but it is the basis of the Sunday broadcast:
BRENTWOOD, Long Island (WABC) -- The Trump administration's decision to end special protections for about 200,0000 Salvadoran immigrants filled many Salvadoran families with dread Monday, raising the possibility that they will be forced to abandon their roots in the U.S. and return to a violent homeland they have not known for years, even decades.
So we can call Salvadore a hellhole rather than a shit hole? Besides, crime is not a natural disaster. It is a consequence of human activity. But this part about a "homeland they have not known for years" is of interest.
What should be an exciting time of life is now buried in a nightmare. His parents are from El Salvador. They have lived, worked, and paid taxes for the last 20 years with their temporary protected status. TPS protects them from deportation while allowing them to drive, and obtain a temporary social security card.
Why were this fellow's parents, and himself, in the country for 20 years on the basis of a temporary entrance? What part of temporary did they not understand? What part of temporary did the people running this system not understand. It was unfair to these Salvadorians to have been given the impression that this "temporary" status was anything but that. The only reason I can see for a 20 year "temporary status" would be for a nuclear meltdown on the level of Chernobyl. Even then, even though there is no returning to Chernobyl, the rest of the country is habitable. No, this TPS should have been able to be extended exactly 1 (one) time. Thats 4 years to work, save, wire transfer and plan for your return to your country. End of story. There should have been no way to take out loans, purchase property or in any way put down anything resembling roots anywhere.
But on Monday the Trump administration announced the end of TPS for Salvadoran immigrants, which means Rodman's parents could soon be deported and returned to their mother country, which is besieged by violence, high unemployment, and corruption.
Aside from describing some cities in America, how is that the problem of US Citizens? US Citizens had no hand in the violence. Nor did they create and maintain the corruption or lack of employment.
"My mom and dad, they consider themselves to be New Yorkers," said Rodman. "When they came to this country they were pursuing the American dream."
This statement again makes it clear that they were under the impression that they were in the US to stay. Whoever explained the TPS to them clearly gave them the impression that they had reached the "promised land" and that they were home free. What the Trump administration is doing is what should have been done in the beginning: Make it clear that residency is temporary.

To take them away from their homes, their families, their friends, it's immoral," said Rodman.
No, what is immoral is taking advantage of the generosity of US Citizens to provide shelter during a natural disaster and then refusing to leave.

Free Loading

From the
In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.

California allows over half of the people who arrived there to collect state assistance? Talk about wealth transfer. Why is this acceptable. And note that if an illegal immigrant comes in and has citizen children, the "children" can receive aid. And you know, if children are receiving aid, then the parents are, so the disbursements to non-citizens in California are even higher than this number.

Why is this acceptable? Why is it OK to import poverty and then spend millions, if not billions on transferring citizen wealth, via taxation to these persons? This doesn't even account for use of medical facilities, schools or strains on public utilities.

Wednesday, January 03, 2018


Africa for the African.
Asia for the Asian.
Europe for the European.
and Palestine for the Jew.
-Marcus Garvey

If you are interested in the European then be for the European.
If you are interested in the Asian then be for the Asian.
I am interested in the African so I am for the African.
-Marcus Garvey.

The above is Garveyite Pan-Africanism in very short. This is the meaning behind the Red, Black and Green. If you claim the RBG and do not adhere to the above, then you are not a Garveyite and therefore should not be flying the RGB. This post isn't a discussion of what is or is not Garveyism, but rather what real, actual factual "Black Nationalism" is supposed to be about. When Garvey brought his brand of nationalism to the world stage he was very clear that the aims of that nationalism was to bring the African onto the world stage as an equal to all others. One of his aims was to end the exploitation of one group by another. His idea was that when a man (or group of people) are weak, they are likely to be predated upon. His idea was that the African doesn't become free and equal by guilting people into doing things forthem but by doing for self. This is encapsulated in the statement:

Anything one man has done you can do also.
Part of Garveyite philosophy as shown in the lead quotes is that the natives of a land have the rights to that land. They have the right to say what their culture is. Who gets to come. who should go and to have that society work for the interests of the natives of that land. Over the past decade or so, we have seen that many lefty people have denied one group their native status: The European.

If you are a Pan-Africanist of the Garvey variety, this should bother you. If Africa is for the African because the African is native to Africa, then Europe is for the European because he is native there. However; somehow the European is being dispossessed of claims to his very home:

In Collier’s own book on the subject, “Exodus,” he used the term “indigenous” British which Hasan, whose parents were from India, found deeply offensive...
Why does Hasan's opinion or feelings on the matter even matter. He is in fact NOT indigenous to England. He knows it too.
A less defensive Collier might have suggested that Europeans’ use of tribal nomenclature should be no more offensive than referring to descendents of America’s pre-Columbian inhabitants as indigenous peoples. Although in pushing for such claimed status, without evidence , Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, aka “Pocahontas,” might have unknowingly reinforced Hasan’s concerns that exclusion from “indigenous status” must incur some disadvantage. A cowed Professor Collier hesitatingly agreed that Hasan was indeed an “indigenous” Brit. [my underlines]
When a Brit has to apologize to a non-brit because he called the non-Brit exactly what he is, then you know you have reached a point in which you have lost your country. Many so called conscious black people like to quote Malcolm X in which he says that a kitten born in an oven is still a kitten rather than biscuits. You cannot agree with such a sentiment (that simply being born somewhere somehow magically transforms someone into a native of that place) as it applies to Africans (born in America) but then be offended when the same applies to others.

I have to say that I was pretty shocked to read that someone actually had to apologize to a foreigner for calling him what he was. We know full well that such a thing would not have happened in Japan, China, Africa or to a Native American talking about "pale face".

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Plantation Mentalities

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Black people believe in White Supremacy more than any other racial group out there. Black people are apparently unable to help themselves and so need the Democratic party to "help them". I think Barkley has it all wrong. Black people need to get off THEIR ASSES and help themselves.

When I decided I wanted to seriously build wealth, I did not ask the Democratic party for help. I cut my cable. I turned off as many lights as possible. I got myself on a very restrictive budget. I paid off all my debt. I made a calendar of all spending for the year that I could foresee. I didn't go out. At all. I had no vacations. I traded in my car for a beater and got off the car payment treadmill.

I don't buy expensive clothes. I buy store brand food unless there is a significant difference in taste or quality. I have an old computer and buy them second hand as to not get hit with depreciation.

Nothing I did requires or required the help of Democrats. Nor did it require some change to the tax code. What I did was practice discipline. You do what you have to to do what you want to. But to many people want to do whatever they want to and then get mad when they don't get the results they expected and then want other people to bail them out of the consequences of their bad decisions.

6 years from now Black Alabama will be in the same state that they are in today. Mark those words.

An Important Warning From Alabama

And so Roy Moore's aspirations to become a senator are doused. Many are celebrating. I'm not going to comment on the politicking of the event. Whether one agrees with the platforms or Moore or Jones is not of vital interest to me since I see both parties as being owned by the same elites who are not really interested in the welfare of the citizenry. What is concerning to me is the roll that accusations of what is legally child molestation played in this election.

It should bother every and anybody who is concerned about "justice" and fairness, when anyone can decide, 40 years after the fact to raise accusations of serious legal implications. This is especially true with Moore because those same persons had multiple opportunities to make their claims when Moore was a judge and was in the Alabama and national public eye. It was only after having defeated the party preferred candidate did these accusations become public. To say that this was somehow coincidental is to believe the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale.

But politics is politics. We expect mud slinging. Fine. But what was really at stake here was the inherited idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That it is entirely unfair to a person to have accusations leveled against them decades after the alleged event. It is without a doubt that had this ambush not occurred that Moore would now be senator elect of Alabama if for no other reason than that decent people do not like persons who are child molesters. But the thing is, there is no evidence that Moore is or ever was one.

The accusation leveled against Moore was of an event that occurred some 40 years ago. What court can go and find evidence of this event from 40 years ago? What witness is going to be reliable 40 years later? What is worse in this case is that we have an actual forged document. Now lets' be clear about forgery, since if this piece is shared on Facebook, they might flag it as "fake". If a document is modified from it's original form then it is forged. So for example, if I write a check for $100 and fail to sign it and someone signs my signature as if I had done so and passed that off to a bank to cash it, they have forged a document. The entire document doesn't have to be made up from scratch. ANY modification of the document that is presented as if it was the original IS forgery. When the yearbook was presented to the public, the signature of Moore including the "D.A" and commentary was presented as written by Moore. This turns out to be not true. This was admitted to by the accuser 1 week prior to the election. Had this been presented in a trial, the evidence would be thrown out and the jury instructed to disregard. Hence legally there is no grounds to convict Moore. Moore, had he been given his day in court would have been acquitted of any and all charges. However; Moore did not get his day in court and may never get his day in court. Now that he has been defeated at the ballot box, there is no need for his accusers to continue. I expect that they will become silent and the event memory holed at least until Jones is seated. Moore will be permanently stained. And so will the nation.

Why? Because now we have ample evidence that we can accuse people of things and ruin their lives without consequence. The accused, if innocent, will unlikely be able to "prove" their innocence, which itself is a profound shift in American culture, because they will unlike have any evidence. How do you prove you didn't grab a booty? How do you prove you didn't go for that kiss? How do you defend against an "off color" joke that you thought was OK because you thought you had a relationship that allowed for that? What if you DID have a relationship that allowed for that kind of joke but some HR policy (or God forbid actual legislation) allows for someone else to be offended on behalf of the person they think to be the victim to make the accusation? Good luck. Of course businesses keen on reducing their liability for the sake of reputation and insurance premiums, not to mention the EEOC and whatever other 3 and 4 letter organizations that are ready to pounce, will quickly sever ties to the now untouchable.

So whether Jones is best for Alabama is for Alabamans to figure out. They have 6 years to deal with that decision. But the new standard of how to lose jobs and other opportunities is going to be felt by everybody. Because now all of us are officially on notice that a single accusation of something "inflammatory" enough in the minds of HR (if one is subject to an HR) can be the end of one's financial life. If it happens to you and you didn't object, on principle, the way Moore has been treated by the press on the issue, then you got what you didn't care about and have no one to blame but yourself.

PS: Since Alabamans are so against the 30 year old chatting up teenagers, I hope they are consistent and pass legislation that modifies their age of consent laws to address that. Failure to do so will only show just how hypocritical the entire situation is.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

The Rot Runs Deep

The Feces in the FBI stinks so bad that even CNN cannot ignore the stench:
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said.

This is actual obstruction of justice. Clear cut.

This is also an example of why the US needs to designate English as the official language. It is clear from this report that simple words, which a lay person may not pick up on, can be the difference between jail and not jail. I knew that Comey was full of shit when he made that speech about "extreme carelessness" but to see that it was more than Comey shows a conspiracy to protect Clinton which morphed into a conspiracy to "get" Trump. This entire investigation should be stopped immediately as the entire process has been shown to be compromised and a clear political head hunt.

CNN has also learned that Strzok was the FBI official who signed the document officially opening an investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to sources familiar with the matter. As the No. 2 official in counterintelligence, Strzok was considered to be one of the bureau's top experts on Russia.
So in the space of one week we have seen the extent to which the state policing apparatus has been hijacked by liberals/Democrats for political ends. It has been revealed that lib/Dem officials in Charlottesville purposely mishandled the Unite The Right demonstration with the police chief specifically wanting to have potentially fatal violence occur even though weeks prior the same agency provided proper police protection to an actual Klan rally.

We have an 5x deported and convicted felon get away with killing a citizen in San Francisco which was the direct result of "sanctuary" policies enacted by the city and approved by the state.

And now we have this.

I repeat my call for citizens on juries where a citizen is charged with anything short of anything resulting in bodily harm *against another citizen or legal resident* to exercise their right of nullification and decline to convict unless or until this situation is addressed. We may be forced to pay taxes and feed the system but we certainly do not have to cooperate with allowing the govt to selectively enforce laws against our fellow citizens when they fail to enforce the law against those who are not supposed to be here or against liberals of all stripes.

Peddling "Stay Broke" Mentalities

Not long ago I posted on a recent Pew report on different politically leaning groups. I noted that there was a class of perpetually aggrieved Liberals who are Democrats by a large margin who simultaneously believe that:
Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents
Hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people
. A recent article in RT contained the following image:

More peddling of "stay broke" mentalities. If you are dumb enough to think that "The rich" got that way only because they either popped out the womb to money or simply managed to exploit everyone around them (which of course requires no effort, planning or "can do" attitude to pull off), then what you are saying is that it is impossible for the not rich to every become wealthy.

Look. Stop listening to these fucking losers. Below is a guy who is what one would consider "rich". Listen to how he did it.

He clearly wasn't born "rich". He didn't exploit people. So how exactly did he do it?

And yeah, Grassley is largely right. Broke/poor people often stay poor because they spend money (and time) on stuff of little to no value beyond a momentary feeling of satisfaction. And no, it's not an either your poor or you're a multi-millionaire. There's a whole lot of middle ground where many would be very comfortable.

See when you realize that the above happens, then you realize that these people pushing the whole "the rich get rich by exploiting the poor" is largely bull. Now lets be clear that there are in fact people getting rich off of exploitation. But these people are a small proportion of "the rich" (who themselves are a small proportion of the wealthy).

Friday, December 01, 2017

Kathryn Steinle: Victim of Liberal/Democratic Policies

I pondered some time back during the campaign for president whether we should ask Liberals or Democrats how many citizens they were willing to have killed in order to protect foreigners. In essence it was a question of whether these folk are traitors in the very real sense of the word. You see, if any candidate for office was OK with allowing foreigners to kill citizens they are not only unfit for office, but should be seen and treated as the traitors that they are. Of course such a question was never put directly to any of the candidates but we do know that not only is the question relevant, but it has been answered, many times, including yesterday.
An undocumented Mexican immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges on Thursday in the killing of Kathryn Steinle, whose death while out walking on a San Francisco pier became a touchstone in the national debate over immigration fueled by Donald J. Trump.

The man, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, who was also found not guilty of assault with a firearm, was convicted only of being a felon in possession of a firearm. …

Now admittedly, I had not followed the case as I have had other things in my life to do and trust me on this, following such cases and writing blog entries on them is very time consuming. Just see my series on Sean Bell or Trayvon Martin. The reason I make this note is because I was unaware that the defense was claiming that the defendant had been trying to shoot a seal and the bullet hit the ground and then struck Steinle.
Ms. Steinle, known as Kate, a 32-year-old medical equipment saleswoman, was walking along Pier 14 in San Francisco when she was struck by a bullet and collapsed into her father’s arms. Mr. Garcia Zarate acknowledged firing the weapon, but said it was an accident.

Evidence was presented in court that the bullet had ricocheted before striking Ms. Steinle.

If we take this story at face value and assume it to be true, then we cannot be surprised that there was a not guilty verdict for anything that required criminal intent. I've posted this many times before but we cannot assume that homicide=murder. Murder is a charge of mens rea. Lacking that you can only rise to criminally negligent homicide, sometimes called manslaughter. This is important because Zarate is on record having admitted to firing the gun in a public space. Generally speaking one cannot discharge a weapon in a public space for reasons other than self-defense and not be charged with a minimum of reckless endangerment. Since Zarete had already confessed to discharging the weapon, we know that he was being reckless.

My understanding is that the defense lawyers, probably seeing that this argument would get their client convicted made a new argument that Zarate had accidentally discharged the weapon because the weapon had a "hair trigger". I have seen persons more familiar with guns that I am say that such an argument is weak at best because there is supposed to be some kind of drop test for such arms and that the weighting of the trigger on that model does not fit with the defense claims. I cannot say either way about this because I am unfamiliar with firearms. Therefore I will stay with the "I tried to shoot a seal" statement and base the rest of the post on that.

So having discharged a weapon in a public space in blatant disregard for the safety and lives of others, Zarate should have been found guilty of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter. Period. For the jury to not have returned such a verdict means that we have an epic case of jury nullification. Mind you am I NOT OPPOSED to jury nullification. As a matter of fact, I think that as a consequence of this verdict (among other things) that until the states and federal government gets it's act together, that citizens refuse to convict other citizens of any crime or tort brought by the state or non-citizens short of murder. If "our" government refuses to properly enforce the law, then so will we. Jury nullification is legal and it can cut both ways.

Having said that, I think that the larger issue is not whether the jury gave the Steinle family the finger in an apparent attempt to "resist Trump", it is the fact that her killing could and should have been prevented. We know that his convicted felon had been deported no less than 5 times. We know that the agencies charged with enforcing the laws of the land acted to protect a known felon and illegal migrant from further deportation. We know that the state of California and the city of San Fransisco conspired to protect this felon. THIS is the real problem.

As I have written before:

I'm going to focus on Sessions here. Since the campaign we have seen unprecedented levels of political violence mostly by leftist groups. We have seen a level of lawlessness, where governors and mayors have openly violated immigration law or stated their intent (which is what is needed for criminal prosecution) to violate immigration law. Various govt. officials have brazenly told police under their watch to allow persons designated "nazis" to be beaten and to have their constitutional rights violated. All of this has happened with mice level peeps from Sessions. This is unacceptable. Where there is a lack of law, lawlessness escalates.
Where are the RICO charges? Why are these cities and states still getting federal money? It's easy to point at the jury. It's even easy to point to the officials in the city and state but ultimately it is the failure of the big dogs in Washington, you know, the ones who put troops on the ground to get desegregation done, to put the smack down on these cities and states that is the real problem. And I'm not letting Trump off the hook here. The AG reports to and serves at the pleasure of the president. If I read the 1789 law establishing the position of AG The executive can direct the justice department to drop the hammer on California. He hasn't done so. Why not?

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Current Year America

Examining a piece in the Washington Post we see that current year America is a joke of a nation.
But legislators spent little time asking Sessions about the dramatic and controversial changes in policy he has made since taking over the top law enforcement job in the United States nine months ago.
Policy changes? Ok. That sounds interesting. Lets see what they are:
From his crackdown on illegal immigration to his reversal of Obama administration policies on criminal justice and policing, Sessions is methodically reshaping the Justice Department to reflect his nationalist ideology and hard-line views — moves drawing comparatively less public scrutiny than the ongoing investigations into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin. [My underlines]
So enforcing the law is now "hard line"? Really? Shall I accuse the police officer who tickets me for speeding as being "a nationalist with 'hard line views'" or is he actually just "doing his job"? By the way. Why is it a "policy change" to be "nationalistic"? Shouldn't the people in government, that, you know, is supposed to be by and for 'the people", supposed to be "nationalistic"?
Sessions has implemented a new charging and sentencing policy that calls for prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges possible, even if that might mean minority defendants face stiff, mandatory minimum penalties.
Wait? So "minorities" are supposed to have different punishments than other people in America? How does that square with the constitution? It's almost like the Post thinks that minorities (in which it means, non asian minorities") shouldn't be held to account for their behavior.
He has defended the president’s travel ban and tried to strip funding from cities with policies he considers too friendly toward undocumented immigrants.
He defended a law passed by congress that gives the president discretionary powers on determining who may and may not enter the country. This is news?

It's almost like the Post thinks that illegal immigrants. Say it with me: Illegal. Immigrants have trespass rights in America. Like the law(s) don't apply to them.

Sessions has even adjusted the department’s legal stances in cases involving voting rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in a way that advocates warn might disenfranchise poor minorities and give certain religious people a license to discriminate.
It's almost like the Post is unable to look up the constitution on the internet, nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act that expressly:

1) Says the government cannot abridge the freedom of religion or exercise thereof.

2) Says that religious institutions and private clubs are exempt from laws in the 1964 CRA.

While critics lambaste what they consider misguided changes that take the department back in time, supporters say Sessions has restored a by-the-book interpretation of federal law and taken an aggressive stance toward enforcing it.
It's as if Sessions thinks that the department should do it's job: enforcing the law. Shocking policy change!
Prosecutors have brought several such cases since he became attorney general and recently sent an attorney to Iowa to help the state prosecute a man who was charged with killing a gender-fluid 16-year-old high school student last year. The man was convicted of first-degree murder.

But while civil rights leaders praised his action in that case, Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the national Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said that it “stands in stark contrast to his overall efforts” to roll back protections for transgender people.

I don't know what "rights" Kristen thinks "transgender" people have that are different from those of every other citizen, but I do know that murder is illegal, period. What's the problem?
Critics say, though, that his record shows otherwise. “We are seeing a federal government that is pulling back from protecting vulnerable communities in every respect,” Clarke said. “That appears to be the pattern that we are seeing with this administration — an unwillingness to use their enforcement powers in ways that can come to the defense of groups who are otherwise powerless and voiceless.”
No, what we have, finally, is a justice dept. and administration that is not making up "rights" via executive fiat (or court decision). This is a good thing. You don't get "rights" because you are a minority, poor or confused about your body.

Diverse = "Not White"

A common understanding in dissident right circles is that diversity is a code word for "not white" in it's less malicious usage. Of course, in left circles this claim is used as evidence of "white supremacy" and paranoia among whites who see any threat to their "central status" in America as evidence of "reverse discrimination". Of course, now that the mask has completely fallen off the left and outright bigotry against whites, at levels unseen since perhaps the Jim Crow era and quickly getting to lynch level absurdity we get reporting that to any sane person confirms the dissident right's position. Today's evidence comes from The Verge:
The 2018 Grammy Award nominations were released this morning, and certain categories looked markedly more diverse in their selections. “Despacito” became the first Spanish-language song to be nominated for Record of the Year and Song of the Year, every lead artist nominated for Record of the Year was a person of color, and the list for best Album of the Year did not contain a single white male artist for the first time in Grammy history. (Sorry, Ed Sheeran.) In short, the nominations are incredibly diverse.
Not a single white male is "incredibly diverse".
It was relatively easy for older executives and producers to vote in the previous system, but not so for someone like me. Now, the people actually contributing to cultural change the most — touring musicians, new producers and songwriters, etc. — have access to participate in ways that were never there before. This year’s list is a direct reflection of that. When you make a system easier for everyone to use, everyone wins. ■

White men are non persons.

Look, you don't have to be enamored with white people (or men in particular) to see this for what it is. It is direct evidence that the claims of so called "nazis" about being replaced is not a conspiracy theory. It is a real phenomenon. I said it years ago and I'll say it again: this will not end well.

The end of discrimination will not come about by blatant discrimination.