What They Do And Who They Fund

As the events of 2015 have shown, there is no political left or right. There are power elites who play musical chairs at the levers of power. They are in it for them and you and I are simply pawns to be moved around. The latest example:

With inequality at its highest levels in nearly a century and public debate rising over whether the government should respond to it through higher taxes on the wealthy, the very richest Americans have financed a sophisticated and astonishingly effective apparatus for shielding their fortunes. Some call it the “income defense industry,” consisting of a high-priced phalanx of lawyers, estate planners, lobbyists and anti-tax activists who exploit and defend a dizzying array of tax maneuvers, virtually none of them available to taxpayers of more modest means.

In recent years, this apparatus has become one of the most powerful avenues of influence for wealthy Americans of all political stripes, including Mr. Loeb and Mr. Cohen, who give heavily to Republicans, and the liberal billionaire George Soros, who has called for higher levies on the rich while at the same time using tax loopholes to bolster his own fortune. [My underlines]

And people wonder why Trump is riding so high. The pawns are realizing they are the big losers in the game and life for the pawn is no better on the opposite side of the board.

Some of the biggest current tax battles are being waged by some of the most generous supporters of 2016 candidates. They include the families of the hedge fund investors Robert Mercer, who gives to Republicans, and James Simons, who gives to Democrats; as well as the options trader Jeffrey Yass, a libertarian-leaning donor to Republicans.

So just understand. All this talk about Trump being a fascist, racist, xenophobe is to distract the voter from noticing or even seeing what's going on. Trump told the public in the first debate exactly how this works. Not a one of them could call him a liar.

There’s this notion that the wealthy use their money to buy politicians; more accurately, it’s that they can buy policy, and specifically, tax policy,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who served as chief economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Did I mention musical chairs?

Digital Money

Last week I saw this post at Takis Mag

“Your kids will not know what money is,” Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, told U.K. broadsheet The Daily Telegraph in November 2015, predicting that cash itself will disappear within a generation. To be precise: when today’s university students have children. About ten, twelve years?

The article is very good and contains some comments I believe to be very important.

one of them being Yu E Bao, a node of Jack Ma’s Alibaba empire. Their offering Yu E Bao allows customers to have surplus cash invested for them—in low-risk securities—at a 6% annual return rate, double what a physical bank can offer. Yu E Bao is really a money market fund, not a bank deposit. However, for customers there is little difference. And since Alibaba itself is not taking the liquidity risks, it doesn’t need a banking license, neatly avoiding the heavy regulation levied on the industry by central banks. Nonetheless, this a “gray area.” No denying it.

A Reuters Breakingviews report from February entitled “Lend and Pretend,” by John Foley, explains why: “Alibaba isn’t a bank. But for customers it’s getting hard to tell the difference. Users of China’s dominant e-commerce website can now deposit funds, make investments, take out loans and even give out gifts of virtual cash…. Banks typically offers savings, loans and transactions…. Alibaba’s foray into finance has seen it target all three…. While Alibaba doesn’t have a bank’s lending expertise, it does have masses of data on borrowers’ transaction habits.” China’s Amazon.com equivalent had made 170 million yuan worth of loans by February 2015, mainly to small- and mid-size companies on its Taobao marketplace.

Does any of this sound familiar? Anything posted on this blog that this reminds you of? No? Maybe this will help:

If you use an iPhone there’s a good chance you will adopt an Apple banking service sometime, one that might resemble a PayPal lite—the account without the bank transfers. Apple is superbly well positioned to reap the rewards from our cell phones turning into mini banks. It manufactures the hardware, software, and—crucially—the security and identification capabilities that virtual banking will require.

No? Well go refresh your memory about Mpesa In essence the "future of money" is already happening in Africa. Kenya to be exact. One thing you'll note in the 60 minutes piece is the resistance of European countries to adopt MPesa. Now when you read the above you understand why. If an African company owned this space by virtue of international patents on the process, MPesa and by extension Africa would profit greatly on this. This, my friends is real deal White Supremacy. Not that BS the BLM movement is ranting about. My gut says that these big players are watching MPesa, or have watched MPesa and are busy trying to determine how they can implement it worldwide and cut MPesa out or at a minimum keep it a small player where it's customers would be siphoned off into non-African systems in part by making (or maintaining) things like ApplePay as aspirational signifiers of digital wealth. Lets look at more from the article:

The benefits are real: Metro opens accounts and mints fresh plastic debit cards for new clients in 30 minutes (versus five to 10 working days).

MPesa has no need for debit cards. It leverages the phone the client already owns and the cellular network already in existence. +5 for MPesa.

What Apple, and Android, possess is ownership of the consumer at the moment he/she makes mobile purchases. Who needs bank branches and marathon phone-call holding times when Siri’s able to pay a bill for you instantly? Competition lies in the form of digital-only banks, also primed for mobile users, like Germany’s Fidor: a well-established lender, with plans to enter the U.S. market stymied by obstructed access to the big payment systems owned by big U.S. banks. Money is already a turf war, even in cyberspace

Notice the total lack of mention of MPesa. Never mind it was featured on 60 minutes not long ago. I do hope that the people running MPesa understand that the competition is collaborating to leave it out of the market.

The article goes on to discuss Bitcoin. Honestly I haven't spent time researching or using it. However I believe that MPesa could easily be modified to use or include 'coin.

But getting back to my point. MPesa is already here for Africans. In this future of digital money, Africa could take an even more commanding, though largely invisible lead in this change. It would behoove the governments all across Africa to stop being short and non-sighted and aggressively seek to expand it's use before the European and Asian financial giants step in and take over.

Shawn King: NY Daily News Clown

Shawn King is good for many laughs about what passes for informed journalism at the NY Daily News. Indeed the BLM movement has managed to guilt trip many an institution into paying people to "teach" and write things that sully the reputation (assuming there is one to sully) of the hosting institutions. Today we have Shawn King comparing Tamir Rice to Emmett Till.

On Monday, when I received the news — a full 400 days after Tamir Rice was killed by police — that no charges would be filed against the officers who shot him, I was out with my wife and kids at the Center for Civil and Human Rights. We had just walked past an exhibit on 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was brutally tortured and killed by a racist mob in 1955. Nobody was ever held accountable for his murder, even though everybody knew full well who did it.

Are these two incidents comparable in any way other than it involved to black teens? Lets examine:

Emmett Till was lynched because he made a pass at a white woman in a store. We can all agree that not only is making pass at a woman isn't a crime [yet but that's another discussion] but it doesn't warrant a death sentence in the least bit. Even if the lynch mob was offended that Till would make a pass at a white woman, that woman was in no way, shape or form in any physical danger, real or perceived. She may not have liked Till making the pass at her, but liking or not liking the person who makes a pass at you is not grounds for legal action [yet]. Thus the justice denied Till is a clear case of white's covering for their own.

In the case of Tamir Rice, we have a kid playing with what appears to be a real gun in public. He (or one of his friends) removed the bright orange tip that is supposed to let police and others know that the gun is not real. A concerned person called the police to report a young man walking around and waving a gun in public. One could argue that such a call was unwarranted. That's a matter of opinion. We do know that where Tamir Rice was waving his fake gun around is a place where gun related homicides happen often (Some place called Linndale is clearly a war zone). So police have a reason to be alarmed when a call about a man walking around with a gun comes in. Particularly when said gun waver is in a park where children are present.

In the video we see that the officers arrive and shoot Tamir Rice within seconds. We can certainly argue whether the speed with which they shot Tamir was appropriate. However; as I pointed out in my last post, 50-50 chance of not going home today. I don't know about you, but I'm going home. This brings me to a strong position my mother took with me when I was a child: No. Toy. Guns. Period. My mother in her wisdom understood that a toy gun could be mistaken for a real gun with very real circumstances so she forbade me from having one. Tamir Rice is a victim of those very real probabilities that comes with walking around in public with a very real looking gun. And this is why the comparison to Emmett Till is not only inappropriate but sullies the legacy of Till.

Till did not present a danger, real or perceived to anyone. Rice did. It's very unfortunate but that's the fact. As I've been saying all year long, if black people (and Shawn is not black thank you very much) are concerned with the welfare of their children, particularly the boys, they are going to have to change how they socialize them AND what toys they give them to play with. Those orange tops are there for a reason.

Of course Shawn King is entitled to his opinion on the matter. The Daily News is entitled to run a rag of a paper that's only good for local items of interest and celebrity gossip, but I'll lay odds that while they let this clown write for their paper, they don't let their kids run around in public parks with real looking guns.

Did They Follow Directions?

Any long time reader of this blog knows full well that I have a dim view of the BLM movement. With the exceptions of Eric Garner and Sandra Bland's arrest (not suicide), they have attached themselves to people who were engaging in behavior which directly lead to their demise and not a few of them were predators in our communities who should have received no sympathy at all (Freddie Gray comes to mind). To believe the BLM narrative, black men are dying in genocidal proportions at the hands of police officers while these black men are doing nothing at all. Excuses included:

1) He was just walking down the street.
2) He was just walking down the street.
3) He only owed child support.
4) He was only driving away.
5) He only had a sandwich in his hand.
6) He was turning his life around.
and the ubiquitous: He didn't do nothing.

Of course those of us who actually care about the well being of the entire black community and who don't make excuses for criminal behavior (and their outcomes) pointed out the false narratives for what they were. Of course no one is interested in true narratives and true problems because there is a vested interest in shifting all blame and adult responsibility onto white people and keeping the view of black people as children who are incapable of being responsible for themselves. The latter being one of the primary justifications used to keep black folks under Jim Crow.

So the Washington Post posted an article on police involved shootings that quite clearly shows the BLM movement to be the idiot movement that it actually is:

Nearly a thousand times this year, an American police officer has shot and killed a civilian.

Two things about this opener. Consider that there are ~300 million people in the US. 1000 "civilians" is but 0.0003% of the total population. That is a stunningly low proportion. Secondly look at the word "civilians". The post could have simply written "people" but it chose "civilians" because civilians feeds into the "us v them" narrative. Civilians are supposed to be protected from the authorities. This sets a bias in the mind of the reader.

In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.

4%. If you watched any TV in the past year would you have thought the number was that low? Also, let us consider that since we know that black men commit actions that garner police attention 7x more than whites you would expect such a number to be higher no?

Of course the elephantine question here is if unarmed (which does not mean non-threatening) black men are only 4% of those persons shot by police, WHO are the other 96%?

The Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.

"At least one of three categories".

Ferguson: Ran when officer told them to halt.
South Carolina: Ran when officer told him to halt, repeatedly.
Illinois: Ran/Walked when officers told him to halt, repeatedly. Had a weapon.
Baltimore: Ran when officers told him to halt.
Ohio: Drove away after being told to get out the car, repeatedly.

Lets call this "failure to follow directions". In each of the cases above, each person would be alive today had they followed the directions given to them. Why is following directions so hard?

Race remains the most volatile flash point in any accounting of police shootings. Although black men make up only 6 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 40 percent of the unarmed men shot to death by police this year, The Post’s database shows. In the majority of cases in which police shot and killed a person who had attacked someone with a weapon or brandished a gun, the person who was shot was white. But a hugely disproportionate number — 3 in 5 — of those killed after exhibiting less threatening behavior were black or Hispanic.

6% of the population has fatal encounters with police. That is hugely disproportionate. I agree. But lets revisit the examples above. How many of these folks failed to follow directions and escalated a situation. It seems to be that the Post's position is that a police ought to beg and negotiate with persons who have decided to flee (and this assumes that's all they did). As any martial art practitioner will tell you, being unarmed does not mean that one is not a threat. A weapon minimizes the effort requires to do fatal harm and allows those with no martial skills to kill with relative ease but a weapon is not required to kill at all. Most importantly though, officers, and civilians, can use deadly force to prevent injury as well as death. So for example, if an unarmed man is attempting to gouge out my eye, I can, under the law, kill that person in order to keep my eye. losing my eye is not a fatal injury, yet I can kill a person to keep my eye. Similarly a police officer may kill a suspect who is fighting the officer and that officer believes that the person is willing to use, or is using enough force to cause serious bodily injury OR if that suspect can reasonably be believed to pose a threat to any third (or fourth) party that the suspect may come across while making his or her escape.

All that is said to point out that the Post would need to inform the reader on the circumstances of the interaction before we can form an opinion on the appropriateness of the action taken by the officer. Simply assuming that "unarmed" = "less threatening" is wrong.

Surveillance video in the Louisiana case shows Ledoux shot Martinez as he reached into a newspaper vending machine in front of a convenience store to retrieve his cellphone. Ledoux said he feared Martinez was reaching for a gun.

Obvious question: Who "stores" their cell phone in a newspaper vending machine?

Seriously though. You are a police officer called to a scene. Suspect is not cooperating and tries to retrieve "something" from a newspaper vending machine. You have a 50-50 chance of not going home when whatever it is appears. I don't know about YOU, but I'm going home. Not guilty your honor.

Below is an example of the mindset of the Monday morning quarterbacks:

“That escalated the situation in Officer Mearkle’s mind,” Benoit said. “Quite clearly, he was eluding the police and she didn’t know why. The prosecutor kept saying this was just over an inspection sticker. But when Kassick went around the other vehicle, he’s fleeing at a high rate of speed on a residential street and kids are coming home from school, so I could see where she’s coming from.”

This is similar to the claims made in South Carolina. There the argument was, "Oh he just owed child support." But the officer doesn't know that. But because of the actions of the person being stopped, the officer has to make a different conclusion. Why are they running from what would be a simple ticket? Moving on:

The research also noted whether victims were mentally ill or experiencing an emotional crisis, a category that came to account for one-quarter of those killed. Officers fatally shot at least 243 people with mental health problems: 75 who were explicitly suicidal and 168 for whom police or family members confirmed a history of mental illness.

The analysis found that about 9 in 10 of the mentally troubled people were armed, usually with guns but also with knives or other sharp objects. But the analysis also found that most of them died at the hands of police officers who had not been trained to deal with the mentally ill.

“Often they have an edged weapon, like a knife, and when officers start yelling, ‘Drop it! Drop it!’ that will not calm them down,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington police think tank. “Instead, it increases their anxiety.”

I have a pretty harsh opinion on how these can be handled:

1) Mentally ill persons should simply not be living among the sane. But if they are going to be:
2) If a person calls 911, they should be asked if the person has any mental health issues. if they do then medical personnel should be sent and NOT the police. I don't expect the police to negotiate with violent persons. Nor do I expect that they should have to risk their lives to deal with people who are hallucinating and whatever else.

In most of those cases, police were called by a relative or a neighbor who was worried about a mentally fragile person’s erratic behavior. Yvonne Mote of Alabama dialed 911 in March out of desperation, hoping police could help her brother, Shane Watkins, who suffered from schizophrenia. Instead, he wound up dead. “A week after they killed my brother, there was an armed robbery,” Mote said. “That guy had a gun, and they arrested him without killing him. Why did they have to kill my brother, who only had a box cutter? I still don’t understand.”

You don't understand? Let me help: A box cutter is a weapon that in one slash can cut a major artery in the neck with death coming soon after. If not a slash to the neck, deep lacerations to the leg, arm or torso can lead to serious external and internal bleeding that can lead to death or loss of limbs. Secondly I'm going to guess that the armed robber decided to lay down his weapon. This is not hard you know.

After Las Vegas police in 2009 adopted a use-of-force policy requiring officers to put the highest premium on “the sanctity of human life,” some other departments followed suit. Four years after the change in Las Vegas, the city’s officer-involved shootings had fallen by nearly half.

But crime rates? Not so much So ultimately this report shows that police are the minimal actors in the deaths of black men, armed or not. It also shows that generally speaking it is the failure to follow lawful orders (AKA: Directions) that results in the vast majority of the deaths. This brings us back to the theme of the year: Are Black people children? If so then we are admitting to being inferior to everyone else who apparently can become adults who are responsible for their own behavior and can follow directions. If we are NOT children then it's time we hold those responsible for their own situations accountable for their own actions. And remember, every time you see a report of a black person being killed ask yourself One question: Did they follow directions?

"All you black American people, fuck you all"

It gets better:

…just go to the office and pick up your check,” the supervisor at Hamilton Growers told workers during a mass layoff in June 2009...

The following season, according to a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, about 80 workers, many of them black, were simply told: “All you Americans are fired.”

Those Chemical Weapons Again

So in Sept of 2013 The Ghost reported on Sarin gas getting into Syria. Now it appears that Turkish reporter is being tried for treason for reporting on the matter.

Ankara’s Chief Prosecutor's Office opened the case against Istanbul MP Eren Erdem of Republican People's Party (CHP) after his interview about sarin was aired on RT on Monday.

"Chemical weapon materials were brought to Turkey and put together in ISIS camps in Syria, which was known as the Iraqi Al-Qaeda at that time."

Erdem noted that the chemicals used for the production of weapons did not originate from Turkey. “All basic materials are purchased from Europe. Western institutions should question themselves about these relations. Western sources know very well who carried out the sarin gas attack in Syria,” Erdem told RT.

And "western" likely means NATO members. Shooting planes out the sky and trying members of parliament for treason. Seems the powers that be in Turkey are feeling some kind of heat.

You Need to Understand

When I was much younger I belonged a group of decent people who were very much for the welfare of black folks. And nothing in this entry is to slander those individuals. But I need to make a point. One of the things that was, shall we say "admired" about persons like Mao was the fact that "sellouts" were "taken out". Now I'm not saying that any of these people would have actually killed a person they considered a sellout, but what you need to understand is that such an idea was not considered beyond the pale.

Many of these individuals have by now likely seen the error in that way of thinking but as with any group there are always those who "stick to their guns". Now that we have all aged, some of these people are now in positions of power in various institutions. With the left wing thoroughly esconed in positions of power and their opposition scared of being called racist and suffering the likely gross financial fallout that can accompany such an accusation, these leftists have been feeling more and more bold to advance their more extreme thoughts on how to deal with the opposition.

We already have government mandated "sensitivity" training which is nothing more than re-education camps. These things are mandatory at various state and federal institutions with consequences for not complying going as far as termination. These education camps are a core component of left type organizations. I know because I participated in setting one up. In our case it was a voluntary set of classes that was a pre-requisite for membership, but I would be lying if I said that none of us would have been very happy to have had our program made mandatory for all students and staff. Today however, such things are promoted by various institutions of "higher education" and are run by people who came out of my generation.

Now the reason I brought this up is because of this recent news report about an ACLU member stating that Trump supporters ought to be killed.

A board member for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado has resigned after urging people to kill supporters of presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Loring Wirbel’s Facebook post was captured by The Daily Caller – a right-leaning online newspaper.

The post states, “The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before Election Day.’ They’re not going to listen to reason, so when justice is gone, there’s always force…”

You need to understand that this is the next step. Just like the socialist Nazi party, these individuals believe in a "final solution". They are NOT KIDDING. Back in my day we didn't have Facebook to announce our affinity for "killing the sellouts" so we would never have been caught for holding such beliefs. Today, it is only a matter of time before someone says it in some publicly accessible forum.

You need to understand that the reason this person has been fired is because they have stepped over the current bounds of acceptable public speech. I believe that this person has expressed such views among his associates before and they were ignored because they are generally agreed with by those persons. After all, nobody gets fired for toeing the party line.

You need to understand that the current process of trying to economically destroy the opposition is the current means of "killing the sellouts". Being put on the "racist", sexist", "homophobic", "islamophobic" list is like making the federal no fly list. Once you get on it's damn hard to get off it. Not only that but your rights can be abridged on the whim of those in charge.

You need to understand that facts do not matter to these persons. There is only power and conformity. The rest of you can FOAD (you look it up).

Of Course Not

breaking my self imposed silence to comment on the reaction to Scalia's comments

The top Senate Democrat and a civil rights legend serving in the House both condemned Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's comments during an affirmative action case on Thursday, when Scalia seemed to suggest that some African-Americans don't belong in top colleges.

Well of course some African-Americans don't belong in top colleges. And guess what? Some European-Americans don't belong in top colleges either.

This is why we have entrance requirements. You must meet the requirements for entry. Not everyone makes the cut. Why is this even controversial?

Rep. John Lewis, who helped lead the civil rights march in Selma, suggested Scalia should consider recusing himself from the case, Fisher v. University of Texas.

"Justice Scalia's evident bias is very troubling to me. It leads me to question his ability to make impartial judgments in this case," the Georgia Democrat said in a statement.

I question John Lewis' intelligence and fitness to be a representative in government.

Lewis said he was "shocked and amazed" by Scalia's remarks. "His suggestion that African-Americans would fare better at schools that are 'less advanced' or on a 'slow-track' remind me of the kind of prejudice that led to separate and unequal school systems -- a policy the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional decades ago," Lewis said.

A liberal who is "shocked and amazed". Imagine that. Why does John Lewis think there are different tiers of colleges? Why does John Lewis think there are academic scholarships to which some, most students do not qualify for? I wonder if John Lewis has ever considered why most of if not all the Supreme Court Justices went to "top tier" graduate schools? I wonder what John Lewis thinks about trade schools and the fact that many educators actually encourage students who are not "college material" to go to them. Actually I wonder if John Lewis actually thinks?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to decry Scalia's comments as "racist" -- and sought to tie him to Donald Trump and Republicans.

A liberal calling someone racist for making a comment they don't like in regards to black folks. Imagine that.

"These ideas that he pronounced yesterday are racist in application, if not intent," Reid said.

Yes, they are racist because Harry Reid says so. And if Harry Reid say so then...

Anyway...

"I don't know about his intent, but it is deeply disturbing to hear a Supreme Court justice endorse racist ideas from the bench on the nation's highest court.

Intent isn't the only thing Harry Reid doesn't know. And of course I've already laid out why Scalia's comment wasn't racist but hey facts have never stopped a liberal from declaring something racist.

His endorsement of racist theories has frightening ramifications, not the least of which is to undermine the academic achievements of Americans, African-Americans especially."

Racist theory eh? It's racist that it is a fact that persons of whatever race who are enrolled in a program or college that expects performance that they cannot meet should go to institutions that are a better match for their abilities. Wow. You know, this week has really shown that Democrats and liberals actually live in an imaginary world of their own making in which black people can do no ill and are apparently ALL Ivy League material.

Reid called Scalia "out of touch" with the nation's ideals and called his comments "distressing," saying they were a reminder of a need for vigilance to protect opportunity for Americans.

Firstly the issue of law is not a popularity contest (side note: I blame Kennedy and his made up constitutional rights for adding fuel to this bullshit fire). Secondly the national "ideal" is supposed to be about rewarding people for their performances. If there are students who cannot cut it in a program they either find something else to do or do an easier program. What exactly is "distressing" about that?

And why are Democrats and liberals always emoting? Shocked, amazed and distressed. Get control of your emotions!

"The idea that African-American students are somehow inherently intellectually inferior to other students is despicable," Reid said.

Well sure. If Scalia had said such a thing then I'd be on Reid's side. But Scalia made no such statement. Once again we have a liberal Democrat (I repeat myself) making up comments and sticking them on their opponent.

The idea we should be pushing well-qualified African-Americans out of the top universities into lesser schools is unacceptable."

Again, Scalia did not make this statement. His statement which is actually supported by data, is that if a candidate is not prepared to do work at the level of a school that is offering him admission, it would be better if that candidate went to a school that was a better match for his abilities. This way he does not drop out with debt to pay off or run up debt taking remedial classes and the like at the higher cost of the more prestigious institutions.

Harry Reid's commentary is just as silly as Obama's new Every Student Succeeds plan. I mean really. What wonderland do these folks live in where they think every student will succeed? But politicians like to use cutesy titles for their programs and voters fall for it.

Not every student succeeds but we can help increase the numbers by making sure they are in programs that are best for their skill and intelligence levels. And that's for everybody, not just black people.

*note: The author worked at an admissions office while an undergrad at an Ivy. He also paid close attention to admissions and dropouts of black students while attending a Big Ten school. He has seen first hand how many students are admitted with questionable academic skills who later dropped out or failed to maintain a satisfactory GPA. In every year he kept track, the schools would pronounce how many black students were admitted and every year the black enrollment numbers would shrink as many students would be gone. Meanwhile so called "black activists" would rant about the institution and never considered (at least publicly) that maybe it was simply wrong to admit some of those students in the first place.