Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Wyclef Whines as Police Do Their Jobs

Here's Wyclef:
"I have family on both sides of the lens but I got a chance to see what happens with a citizen versus a police firsthand, and I have to tell you, I was scared for my life to the point where I could have acted different. And if acted different, something else would have happened to me," Jean told ABC News' "Good Morning America.”
I suppose LAPD is no better than TonTon Macoute.

But lets be real here. Wyclef is being a dramatic B.I.T.C.H. looking for drama and the press has given him a platform for his hysterics.

Lets look at the report to see why any sane reporter should have challenged Mr Jean on his drama-queen behavior.

The episode started just after 1 a.m. Pacific time, when deputies were investigating a report that a man and a woman had been robbed at gunpoint and beaten at a Sunset Boulevard intersection.
So the police got a call about a violent crime featuring a use of a firearm. So this is not a speeding ticket. This isn't expired registration. This isn't broken taillight. This is a looking for an armed suspect.
Sgt. Duncan said in a telephone interview that the suspect was described as a black man with a dark hoodie who fled in a gold or tan Toyota.
Unfortunately a typical description of perps of violent crimes in urban areas. Don't hate me, hate the statistics. Wyclef needs to be MAD as hell about those statistics! Now we know that the police are looking for a black male in a hoodie, in a Toyota.
deputies pulled over a vehicle matching that description driven by a woman with a male passenger. When the man, who later turned out to be Mr. Jean, was seen wearing a red bandana, the victims, contacted by radio, said that the suspect had also been wearing one, Sgt. Duncan said.
So police stopped a vehicle that matched the one seen at the alleged crime scene. With two passengers, which fits the profile, dressed in a manner that matches what the police were told.

How is this "profiling"? It isn't. It's called police work.

Mr. Jean and the woman were told to get out of the car, and Mr. Jean was handcuffed and detained, Sgt. Duncan said. They were released when the victims said there was no female in the getaway car, and the three deputies and the sergeant at the location with Mr. Jean were also informed that the real suspect had been arrested elsewhere.
The police had no choice but to behave as if the person they had stopped was the suspect. This means taking control of the situation and making sure that the suspect, believed to be armed, cannot draw their weapon. This means handcuffs. No it's not a nice thing to have happen. But that is what police do to protect themselves against criminals who may intend to kill them.

Also of note, the "real" suspects were arrested not that far away from Wyclef. Which means that the police were doing their jobs in stopping vehicles that matched what they were told rather than some made up excuse to harass Mr. Jean.

Mr. Jean’s first tweet was posted at 4 a.m. Eastern, and was followed by a series of them describing what happened. Around 9 a.m., he summed up, “I was asked by the police to put my hands up. Then I was told do not move. I was instantly hand cuffed before being asked to identify myself.”
Because police should do policing according to the policing expertise of Wyclef Jean.

Right.

Mr. Jean’s descriptions about what happened to him were circulated on Twitter, with some remarking that it was an example of how quickly black men are treated as suspects in their encounters with law enforcement officers.
Except of course the suspects were in fact black and therefore the police actions were completely justified.

When is the media going to stop giving crybaby drama queen attention whore black folks platforms for their nonsense?

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Pat Buchanan on RussiaGate

Pat Buchanan asks the same questions I did in regards to the hearings:
How could DNI Director Clapper and CIA Director Morell say that no connection had been established between Trump’s campaign and the Russians, without there having been an investigation? And how could such an investigation be conclusive in exonerating Trump’s associateswithout some use of electronic surveillance?[ my underlines]
This is the first thing I thought. They've been investigating Trump and co since July of 2016 and there wasn't any electronic surveillance of ANY KIND?
More questions arise. If, in its investigation of the Russian hacking and a Trump connection, the FBI did receive the fruits of some electronic surveillance of the Trump campaign, were Attorney General Loretta Lynch, White House aides or President Obama made aware of any such surveillance? Did any give a go-ahead to surveil the Trump associates? Comey would neither confirm nor deny that they did.
Comey would neither confirm or deny. This is spook speak for "yeah we do but we cannot say due to legal issues". Comey was at other times willing to confirm or deny items. Therefor the ONLY reason to not confirm or deny something is because it IS the case (or NOT the case if that is relevant).
Again, the only known crimes committed by Americans during and after the campaign are the leaks of security secrets by agents of the intel community, colluding with the Fourth Estate, which uses the First Amendment to provide cover for criminal sources, whom they hail as “whistleblowers.”

Indeed, if there was no surveillance of Trump of any kind, where did all these stories come from, which their reporters attributed to “intelligence sources”?

Now I've seen these reports in various media outlets. They specifically mention FISA warrants and the like. Were these warrants asked about at any time?

Side note, you have noticed that even though the following has been said:

“On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. … There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”
Why are we still seeing "Russia ties and Russia hacks" new leads?

Presentation by Larry Elder

Kind of goes with my post on Fences.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Who's Missing

On occasion I get to look at the winners of various IQ dependent contests and note who is present and who is absent. For your consideration Pwn to Own:
Stills:

Remember IQ doesn't exist and Asians definitely do not [generally] outscore everyone else. It's all racist hokum meant to keep the black man down 'cause the black man can't afford computers and schools suck.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

How Come You Ain’t Never Liked Me?

So I had the pleasure, extreme pleasure of watching Denzel and Viola do their thing in Fences. I personally think this was his best performance since Training Day. Yes, I know people think that Malcolm X was the highlight of Washington's career but I disagree. Now The Book of Eli was also a good Denzel film but this Fences was, in my opinion, Denzel's best performance. But this isn't an ode to Denzel. Rather the point of this post is a very poignant scene between Troy and his son which I think is relevant to black people today:
Cory: How come you ain’t never liked me?

Troy: Liked you? Who the hell say I got to like you? What law is there say I got to like you? Wanna stand up in my face and ask a damn fool ass question like that. Talking about liking somebody. Come here boy, when I talk to you. .. Straighten up dammit! I asked you a question… what law is there say I got to like you?

Cory: None.

Troy: Well, all right then! Don’t you eat every day? (Pause) Answer me when I talk to you! Don’t you eat every day?

Cory: Yeah

Troy: Nigga, as long as you in my house, you put that sir on the end of it when you talk to me!

Cory: Yes…sir

Troy: You eat every day.

Cory: Yessir!

Troy: You got clothes on your back.

Cory: Yessir.

Troy: Why you think that is?

Cory: Cause of you.

Troy: Ah, hell I know its cause of me… but why do you think that is?

Cory (hesitant): Cause you like me.

Troy: like you? I go out of here every morning… bust my butt putting up with them crackers everyday… ‘cause I like you? You about the biggest fool I ever saw.

(Pause)

It’s my job, it’s my responsibility! You understand that? A man got to take care of his family. You live in my house, sleep on my bedclothes, fill your belly up on my food… cause you my son. You my flesh and blood. Not cause I like you! Cause it’s my duty to take care of you. I owe a responsibility to you! Let’s get this straight here, before it go along any further… I ain’t got to like you. Mr. Rand don’t give me my money come payday ‘cause he likes me. He gives me ‘cause he owes me. I done given you everything I had to give you. I gave you your life! Me and your mama worked that out between us. And liking your black ass wasn’t part of the bargain. Don’t you try and go through life worrying about if somebody like you or not. You best be making sure they doing right by you. You understand what I’m saying boy?

Cory: Yessir[My underlines]

This dialog just hit me. I see black people wandering around the US wanting to be liked. They think people need to do shit for them because they like them. And so if people are not doing shit for them, then they must not like them. I've said it many times here, that black people are seen as and treated as children. Just like Corey. Liberal white folk think it's their job to clothe us, feed us and put roofs over our heads. Indeed since most of our children are not even in homes with their fathers, the white man, in the form of the government, is The Man of the house in many of our homes.

Too many people out here trying to be liked. So busy trying to be liked that they are getting taken advantage of by folks smiling in their faces.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

The Only Question That Needs Asking

Many people do not understand how a "pro black" Garveyite would be posting against BLM and things such as that. It's quite simple: Africa for the African, Asia for the Asian and Europe for the European. Simple. You should be comfortable and safe in your own homeland. Thus for anyone running around with Red Black and Green needs to be able to answer the following question:

Is the caption above acceptable?

The only answer appropriate to anyone claiming Red Black and Green, is "NO". No Swede should be unsafe in any part of his country. No invader should be able to make a native feel unsafe in his country. Just as we, actual pro-black people do not care for or excuse colonialism and it's alienation and exploitation of the native in Africa, it is equally unacceptable to run into someone elses land and impose oneself on that population.

Full stop.

Any other answer is a function of ego and revenge fantasies. Neither of these things creates industry, feeds families and any other thing necessary for long term sustenance of black communities. It's that simple.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

No Law That Needs Respecting

The time has come. Maybe even past due. Let me rewind first. In the infamous Dredd Scott decision the Supreme Court ruled that black people have no rights that white men (people) were bound to respect. Today Dredd Scott has been returned in whiteface. Today the American citizen has no rights that non-citizens are bound to respect. Let me repeat this:

The American citizen has no rights that a non-citizen is bound to respect.

Indeed not only do non-citizens have to abide by the law that is dutifully and zealously enforced against citizens but the ruling elites and their "judges" are in plain view in their seditious and treasonous activities because they are certain that there are no consequences for their behavior. With their gated communities, secret entrances and security personnel and technology along with the general law abiding nature of the very citizen they shit on, they do not fear the warranted exacting of justice that their treason calls for. As they say, incentives drive behavior. In the past, judges that made the kinds of decisions such as the ones we witnessed yesterday would have feared for their jobs if not their very lives. Today, insulated from such direct consequences, the "judges" of the day have free reign to willfully commit treason. And be clear. Treason is exactly what we are seeing. Bold and unfiltered.

Trump's first travel ban was unlawfully blocked. I have already explained why in a previous post so I wont go into it again. Trump then revised the ban in order to comply with the ludicrous and wholly unconstitutional reasons given for the blocking of his original ban. Yet another set of "judges" decided that this "made for compliance" ban was also "unconstitutional". Herein shows why we are supposed to be a country of laws and not of men. It simply should not be possible for a executive order that is made in compliance with relevant congressional law to be blocked by a judge AND then again when the so-called "unlawful parts" are modified to address the alleged illegality. What this shows is that the bans have nothing to do with law but with the whims and caprices of whoever is looking at the order. This is law by man.

Under the law, the best any of these judges could have done is said that they strongly oppose the ideology that Trump has in regards to Muslims or whomever but that the law is very clear (and it is) as to the powers given to the executive (and notice I say executive not Trump) to determine who may or may not enter the country for whatever reason. And that if the people don't like the law then they should get their representatives to pass another law to address their concerns. That is how the US democracy [is supposed] to work.

The current situation is kind of like video games from back in the day where if you made a mistake you were forced to go back and play from the last checkpoint. A frustrating experience to be sure but those were the rules. Of course since players are impatient, game developers had to make it so that you could save any point in the game so that if you died due to a mistake you could just pick up from the last save point, which was usually much closer to point of death and not have to play through stuff you already mastered.

Similarly these people don't want to trudge through the long democratic process and risk losing and having to go through all that again. So better to get to the last save point via a judge willing to be treasonous and keep having a go at the boss until they win.

Back to the matter at hand though. You'll note that these judges and indeed the people who support them simply do not believe that the US is a sovereign nation that can include and exclude whomever. Indeed they do not see the US as they see their own private property (or leased). This is the fundamental problem. The disconnect if you will.

The United States was founded on the Blackstonian idea of limited government, protections of the individual citizen against the power of the state and the principle of a man's house as his castle. I have found that liberals are either unfamiliar with Blackstone or English common law (a total failure of the educational system) and therefore do not understand the nature of nationalism (or if they do, they simply do not care...to a point).

Simply stated, the English idea was that a man's castle was his. His rules apply in his house and the state couldn't just barge in there and do whatever it wanted.

A community is a collection of men's castles. On the community level, no outsider can just walk in and do whatever they pleased. If one entered a community and offended the locals in some way, they could remove you and you have no appeal. While these communities generally had customs regarding strangers, strangers could not expect to change the fundamental cultures and folkways of that community. If they didn't like it, they could leave. Bye.

You'll note that this collection of communities only works if they share a common set of values and customs. All throughout human history, wherever a community diverges in customs and values, they split apart and form new communities.

A nation is a collection of communities which are collections of men's castles. Same rules apply simply on a larger geographic area. Again it must be understood that a nation has a set of values and customs that grow out of the communities that make it up. A nation cannot long exist where it's communities are fractured, with different values and customs and competing for national dominance.

What liberals are doing is saying that the national castle doesn't exist. At the same time, if you tried to impose yourself on a liberal's individual castle you would likely find yourself arrested. Hence they have not made the connection between the nation as a greater community that is an expression of the "castles" within. Worse, though is that now the liberal sees itself as separate from or worse should dominate the "not liberal".

Judges are supposed to be neutral agents in these conflicts. They are not supposed to be swayed by the why a law was passed and "intent" comes to play only when the letter of the law is in serious dispute. For example, speed limits on highways were imposed in the US for reasons of reducing gasoline consumption in response to the Arab oil embargo. Now states will claim that these limits are for safety. Can you imagine going to court to argue against a speeding ticket by stating that the "intent" of the law was for consumption and since my car gets xMPG relative to whatever the MPG was at the time of the passage of speed limits, that the ticket should be thrown out?

Me neither.

Do you even think you could make a safety argument like since the vehicle you are driving is 5x safer than when speed limits were imposed, that the safety argument is moot. Besides you had your seatbelt on, were indicating when changing lanes, and generally going with the speed of traffic so what was the safety hazard?

No, me neither.

Yet a "judge" decided to block a lawful executive order because of something Trump and/or his staffers said. This is what passes for jurisprudence these days? There is a saying that (paraphrasing) where justice is not evenly applied, the law abiding see no benefit in being so.

And understand that we are currently in a low level civil war. States that are outright saying they will not cooperate with the federal government are in open rebellion. No different than 1861. Understand that the violence visited upon "non-liberals" at various institutions of "higher education" are the shots fired. The only question now is whether the troops are going to be deployed to "save the Union".

Sessions has the AG job. It's time he stop pandering to them and blathering about Russia and wiretaps and get to work.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

As I said, Adults Not Running Things At University

The Federalist has a good rundown of the events at Middlebury. I would end up quoting the entire article as it underlines my previous commentary that university officials have essentially stopped running the show at universities. I will however point out one thing:
I assume the students who physically assaulted Stanger will be met with some kind of punishment, though it is hard to see that anything other than permanent expulsion would convey the right message. Be that as it may, the problem remains with the hundreds of students who gleefully ignored the college’s strictures on demonstrations and protests. The number is so large as to make the imposition of significant sanctions impossible. The better course is probably to impose that sanction on the administrator or administrators who allowed the situation to veer out of control. The next time a Middlebury president is faced with such a situation, he or she might have greater presence of mind.
This is the "too many illegal immigrants to deport" argument. I don't buy it for illegal immigrants and I don't buy it for these "students". I put students in quotes because if universities are not breaking them of their anti-intellectualism, then they are not teaching, they are indoctrinating. It is of paramount importance that the administration make full examples of every student that can be identified. At a minimum they should be suspended with anyone involved in the assault permanently expelled with all loans due immediately with extortionate rates of interest. OK. Maybe that's extra but it should be clear to all prospective students parents that if their kid does this bullshit, it will cost them dearly

I know that the fear of losing potential future students motivates many administrators and trustees to allow this nonsense but believe me, there are more students and parents willing to have a safe, rule enforced environment for their children than are given public/media attention.

That suspensions and expulsions have not happened (or at least been publicized) shows that these colleges and universities still don't get it and it will not be long before the "deplorables" on campus will not allow themselves to be assaulted without response. When this occurs there will be massive lawsuits that the universities (and govt if publicly owned) will lose for they are establishing a pattern of neglect for the safety of students and faculty.