In this past election, like many before it, the left used the specter of The Klan and Old Jim Crow in order to motivate black people to vote for Republicans. Democrats who had previously accused the Republican party of trading in "fear politics" regularly uses historical fear of the KKK to motivate black people to vote for them. Of course in this election not only did we get KKK but we got Hitler re-incarnate. I said earlier that the fact of the matter is that if one is black, one has very little to fear from KKK members. As a matter of fact a black person has a far higher probability of being killed by another black person (usually male) than by a KKK member if for no other reason than the minuscule number of actual Klan members. As if to prove this point, A&E has been caught paying white folks to be Klan members and say "nigger" on tv.
The KKK leaders who were interviewed by Variety detailed how they were wooed with promises the program would capture the truth about life in the organization; encouraged not to file taxes on cash payments for agreeing to participate in the filming; presented with pre-scripted fictional story scenarios; instructed what to say on camera; asked to misrepresent their actual identities, motivations and relationships with others, and re-enacted camera shoots repeatedly until the production team was satisfied...
The production team even paid for material and equipment to construct and burn wooden crosses and Nazi swastikas, according to multiple sources
Made up cross burnings? What's next hoax swastikas and Hijab grabs? Oh wait...
I've said for a long time that the Democratic Party is a plantation for Negroes. Apparently they also have Klansmen on that plantation. Who knew.
Oh wait...and tax evasion:
On the Tennessee shooting location of the KKK documentary, Nichols and Hutt describe being paid by a man with a blue, rectangular bank money bag, which he would unzip and hand out $50 or $100 bills.
You know, when you have to make up "hate", there can't be much of it in actual existence.
Up until the election of Donald Trump, leftists were of the position that providing a service to a customer was not an endorsement of the person or behavior. This is what they said when homosexual were turned down by various businesses to do something for their weddings. These [Christian] bakers, caterers and photographers were willing to serve the customers in [any] other capacity that did not conflict with their beliefs. That is, because the events in question were in conflict with their beliefs, they felt that by being there or otherwise cooperating would be an endorsement or enablement of said behavior. However the homosexuals (and their supporters) felt that such arguments were false. They were of the opinion (unfortunately supported by courts in stark contradiction to the US Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act) that homosexuals could compel Christians to do things that were against their creed or suffer financial (and potential criminal) ruin.
Now we have the Trump inauguration and we have multiple left wing artists who are refusing to entertain. Why? They do not like Trump and do not want to be seen as endorsing this person. Now since I'm all for freedom of association and freedom of disassociation, I have no problem with the Rockettes and whomever else saying they want no parts of Trump. I may not agree, but I think that in a free country citizens should be free to decline to participate. Of course I'm not a hypocrite. I believe that the same freedom applies to Christian bakers, photographers and caterers as well.
This is yet another reason why The Ghost is no longer a lefty (I'm centrist). I see these double standards all the time and the MSM never calls them out on it. Lefties are not interested in personal freedom. They are not interested in equal rights for all. They are only interested in rights for people who think like them.
Saw this report in RT.com:
British universities ‘no-go zones’ for Jewish students – top peer
Now as recently as perhaps 1960 you could safely assume that such a title meant that white Britons (I repeat myself) were the ones making these university no-go zones. But this is 2016, soon to be 2017 and if you made such an assumption, well who's the ass? Reading the report:
Deech’s comments come after a series of high-profile incidents at top universities where Jewish students claim they have been verbally or physically attacked.
“Amongst Jewish students, there is gradually a feeling that there are certain universities that you should avoid,” she said.
“Definitely SOAS [in London], Manchester I think is now not so popular because of things [that] have happened there, Southampton, Exeter and so on.”
Well being a relatively bright person, I asked myself "who is doing these things". Well there is nothing in the report that directly states who, but you do get a strong indirect comment:
Speaking to the Telegraph, Deech said some institutions are failing to combat hatred against Jewish students because they are “afraid of offending” their potential investors from Gulf states.
“Many universities are in receipt of or are chasing very large donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and so on, and maybe they are frightened of offending them,” she said.
Wait what? Why would the rise of "no-go" universities for Jews involve "Saudi Arabia and Gulf States"? Unless those creating such an environment are from those areas?
Two. Why is the British public OK with this? Why is the government allowing this to happen? Is the UK so un hock to "Arab money" that they are willing to shit on their own (to the extent the affected parties can be said to be "their own")?
So just to summarize, in the past two years or so we have seen the British government turn a blind eye to imports who have set up sex-prostitution rings victimizing natives and now have created hostile social environments in it's universities.
Have the Brits any self respect?
Here in the US there has been a release of video of a black football player in a physical altercation with a white female. The usual gender outrage suspects have been carping on the "if this doesn't get you barred then..." line. White Knights of various stripes have been opining on sexism and domestic violence involving sports figures. Black Lives Matter has been silent.
Here's the video:
Link in case video doesn't appear: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4055302/University-Oklahoma-football-star-Joe-Mixon-punched-woman-defends-police-interrogation-video.html#v-5312172578574875482
Now when I saw it I thought to myself: Why hasn't the chick been charged with assault? Under the law striking a person without their consent is assault. She hit him twice before he hit her back. Even if you are of the opinion that men should never hit a woman, there is still the issue of equality, specifically equality under the law.
Joe Mixon has a right to not be hit by any other citizen without his consent. Molitor has no legal right to hit anyone without their consent. Furthermore; the fact that she hit him a second time despite not being hit or threatened shows that she intended to do harm. I will remind the public that just because someone is 'small" and has no weapon does not mean that they cannot do serious harm to a person. So again I ask: why wasn't this chick charged with assault at the minimum and aggravated assault at the maximum? Either we are FOR women being treated equally or we are not. Period.
Some have argued that Molitor was short and lighter than Mixon and that somehow this mitigates the fact that Mixon was assaulted. The argument is that somehow a taller and heavier person has some obligation to allow smaller and lighter people to hit them at will. This is total nonsense. In man circles a few things are understood:
1) If you strike another man you are asking to be hit back. In fact you should expect to get hit back. You get no sympathy from other men because one should never hit someone if one doesn't expect to be hit back.
2) You should evaluate your ability to defend yourself against another man. Men regularly size each other up to determine their threat potential. This is actually done throughout the animal kingdom. Since any random male could present a life threatening situation, one must be able to make a quick evaluation of whether it is better to run or avoid conflict or stand your ground/continue on with your business. This is why, generally speaking larger more muscular men are used as security guards and the like.
Molitor, who probably thinks that the world owes her some special favors failed to do these two things because generally speaking women have been given a pass on these rules. Now in the past the reason for this pass was that women in general knew not to antagonize a man and secondly it was generally socially acceptable to physically "remind" a woman who stepped out of line. But here we are in 2016, soon to be 2017 and women say they want the equal treatment as men, but then fail to observe the two rules above? Why? Because women want equality until they don't.
The way I see it Mixon ought to be suing two entities:
1) The state and police department for failing to press charges against Molitor for assault. It is clear from the video that she initiated non-consensual contact twice. The state and police department should be sued for gender discrimination for failure to prosecute Molitor. I see no reason other than her gender for her not being arrested.
2) Mixon ought to sue Molitor directly for a number of items:
a- Defamation of Character: She has been saying that Mixon deliberately tried to cause her distress and harm when the video clearly shows who the aggressor was.
b- Infliction of bodily and psychological harm: Again, video shows who hit. Further evidence may show that there were words involved.
Given that Molitor has already filed suit I would love for the judge to render a summary judgment (if possible) or discard any jury verdict in favor of Molitor. No more gender bias in law. She wants to hit a man (twice!) then she can't sue for the consequences of her dumb behavior. AND the judge should make her pay for Mixon's lawyers fees (and then some).
Per the last post on Germany, I was thinking of a nice analogy to explain the way the elites of Germany view "refugees" and how sane people would see it.
The elites want you to look at refugees as thermostats in your car. You see thermostats are necessary for the proper functioning of your vehicle's internal combustion engine. Without the thermostat your engine would overheat, parts would melt and the engine die. If a thermostat is stuck open then the engine never reaches optimal temperature and emissions go high and the engine is inefficient. Thermostats eventually die. Some sooner than others but you know they are going to go "boom."
This is how the elites view these "refugees". They view them as necessary, if not for tax purposes, then to prove that they are not racists. The inevitable catastrophic failure of the thermostat is something you the people have to tolerate as a necessary risk of having a thermostat.
Now we have hover boards. Hover boards are not necessary for anyone. They simply exist for entertainment purposes. That meet some want in the purchaser and user, but if the hover board were to disappear the user would find something else to do with his time. Now it was discovered that these hover boards had a habit of going "boom" and injuring the users. Now these catastrophic failures were relatively rare and represented a minority of boards in the hands of customers, but the authorities, being sensible. Did not want to endanger the public and so mass bans of hover boards were passed even though catastrophic incidences were "rare". Now one rarely sees a hover board and most people look at them with suspicion.
See, the authorities can be sensible when they want to. Whenever the authorities are NOT being sensible there is a [usually monetary] reason for it and it has nothing to do with the safety and security of their constituents.
Of course there is a person reading this saying that "refugees are people" and not objects. All I have to say starts with an "F" and ends with an "F". Figure it out.
Any sane people would not invite persons hostile to their culture and peoples to live among them in large numbers. They would not allow them to create "no-go" areas of insular communities where the police are afraid to enforce the national laws. If you don't believe me look at Japan. Look at China. Look at Hungary. Look at Poland. The leadership of these places understand exactly who they represent. They are not afraid to be proud of who they are and they do what they must to maintain their identity. To be blunt, they are not traitors.
The French leadership and a large percentage of their population are traitors to their own countries. I'm not going to beat around the bush with this. Let us state it plainly and clearly. The French got what they had coming to them. The Belgians have gotten what they had coming to them. The Germans, and all those countries who have invited hostile persons to leech off their governments while large numbers of their people assault and rape citizens. Each of them will continue to get what they have coming to them until they are either made to completely submit or they rise up
Last year when "refugees" wilded out in Germany over the new year and assaulted women (and men) left right and center, the German authorities proceeded to coverup the "who" and "whom" of the crimes as much as possible. The government has gone so far as to enlist Facebook and who knows who else to censor "fake news" that reported on the actual truth (remember in liberal land, truth is false). Left wing women even went on record as saying that they refused to report their rapes because they felt that the "racism" against the perps was worse than the actual rape (I suppose that puts and end to the argument that rape is the ultimate traumatic incident that can befall a woman).
So no, other than the people who voted for AFD I have little sympathy for the German people after this blatant attack on their country in the furtherance of the Jihad against their land and people. Any group who re-elects the party and leadership that has brought this war into their land gets exactly that war they ask for.
This person presumably speaks English but is not English:
See, just because you speak English doesn't mean you get to define it. Now this is important because of the following bullshit:
The blackest thing ever happened on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania: A group of students recently removed a picture of William Shakespeare and replaced it with one of Audre Lorde.
You read that? The Blackest thing ever was that students at UPenn manhandled an icon of the English as well as the English language and posted a person who merely speaks English. All done because:
Fisher-Bennett Hall is home to Penn’s English department, and the portrait of Shakespeare has resided over the main staircase in the building for years. The English department, in an effort to represent more diversity in writing, voted a few years ago to relocate the portrait and replace it.
First of all, I'm not even sympathetic to the faculty at UPenn. If they had any self respect they would have told whomever was offended at Shakespeare in the English department to fuck off, pack their shit and find somewhere else to teach. That this is the ENGLISH department and the icon of English literature will be going nowhere. So having failed that shit test, I repeat, I have no sympathy.
The second problem is this:
more diversity in writing
First of all writing is not exclusive to English. Anyone looking for a diverse set of written material is free to go to the Asian Studies dept., African Studies dept., Latin studies, French, etc. And they can find all KINDS of writing. This is the ENGLISH department. Studying and teaching English has to be on the list of the least black thing you could do.
Esty, who declined to be interviewed, said in an email to the Daily Pennsylvanian, “Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.”
No, what it was was a display of power. The BLM movement is a great black shark. White people cower in fear at it's very mention. Now that the shark has smelled the blood in the water, black folks, particularly on campuses feel free to impose themselves at will. They know that these administrators are cowards who are afraid of being called racists.
Her comments were echoed by junior English major Mike Benz, who told the newspaper that college curricula typically focus on European and Western ideals, leaving outside texts to be ignored or set aside.
No really. Your majoring in ENGLISH (see above) and complaining that it focuses on European and Western ideals.
The fuck out of here.
Since this isn't a community college, these students can afford to go to just about any university. UPenn is NOT cheap. Therefore we need to ask: Why haven't these students applied to and attended an HBCU? That would be real black. Why aren't they taking courses in Housa, Yoruba, Swahilli and reading Ngugi Wa Thiongo in his native tongue?
Because they aren't really all that interested in doing the "blackest thing ever" such as supporting actual BLACK INSTITUTIONS. They just wanna force themselves on other people's culture (which if done to them, they would object to) and bully guilt ridden white people.
With all this recent "interest" in fake news, you would think that the MSM would review it's own recent commentary on the alleged accuracy of the American voting system before running full bore with the Russians helped Trump get elected story.
Before this election when Trump said he wouldn't necessarily accept the results. Clinton and the MSM (revealed to be one and the same) went ape shit, declaring that Trump was threatening the very foundations of American democracy by attempting to delegitimize the apparently tamper proof election process. Now with Clinton's loss. Everyone on the left who was yapping on about "delegitimized elections being dangerous" are running around talking about how Trump is "not their president." We have recounts targeting states that Trump won but not states that Clinton won as if no one can see the rank hipocrisy of that And now the word is that Putin has somehow "influenced the election."
Mind you before this election, particularly with the Bush election, Democrats and the left spent much energy talking about how ballot boxes are hackable and we can't trust them. They spent 8 years "delegitimizing" US elections. Apparently these machines were run by big money Republicans who were going to conspire to make sure no Democrat ever won a presidential election again. Then Obama got elected.
During most of the Obama term, talk about hackable and hacked ballot boxes all but disappeared. Yeah in certain tech circles there were discussions on the matter, but for much of Obama's term nobody on the left had much to say about voting machines. All the attention went to making it easier for people who should not vote to be able to vote by making sure to challenge any and every piece of legislation requiring voter ID.
See the argument was this. Black people are too poor and too fucking lazy to go to a government office and get an ID. But these same poor and lazy black people manage to get ID's for shit like bank accounts, auto loans, cigarettes and alcohol. The other argument being that some black people live so far away from government offices that they could not get to one in time for the election that was years away.
Really.
Never mind that any legislation could have had a provision that the state send mobile units to people who could not make it to the ID location. Never mind that the state could (and many do) use mail in ID.
And then there was the entire, some black people don't have birth certificates because Jim Crow. Never mind that persons in the US illegally manage to get all manner of ID's, some from the states themselves, a black person without a birth certificate can't do anything. Oh never mind that they didn't apparently CARE about that issue before. Never mind that.
So these same folks going on and on about how Putin is influencing the election apparently see no problem whatsoever with the "honor system" the US has in place for voting. That is, any mofo can walk in off the street, swear he or she is a citizen, and if their name is not on a roll, vote "provisionally". And if they are on a roll because they got one of those ID's the states have been handing out like candy, they can actually vote. Nothing can possibly go wrong there.
The Democratic delegitimizing machine has gotten so bad that the current president is telling the troops that they should question the orders of the incoming commander in chief. I don't think i've ever heard of a sitting president doing such a thing. Certainly private citizens have said such things many many times, but I've NEVER heard of a president making such commentary. It really shows how little respect the Democrats have for institutions and organizations they are not in direct control over.
Showing just how in the pocket the MSM is to Democratic party talking points is the fact that we KNOW for a fact that a country has been trying and actually directly influencing the US elections: Mexico. Their embassies have been instructing their citizens on how to become dual citizens so that they can vote in the interests of Mexico. And that's just on elections. They have been constantly hammering the US with illegal immigration as well. So knowing this is the case, you would think that actual journalists would present this to the citizenry. Nope. Somehow the Democrats have found a use for Russiaphobia, something they used to hammer Republicans on. Democrats are doing everything they can to delegitimize the recent election and no one in the MSM is calling them on it. It's clear and it's blatant and that is far more "problematic" than whatever they *think* Putin has done.
In an interview with Breitbart Kaepernick said the following:
Kaepernick: I’m trying to help Chicago as well. I donated to an organization in Chicago. I plan to visit Chicago and see what I can do to help there. But to try to bring up an issue like black-on-black crime, according to FBI crime stats, over 80 percent of white people that are murdered are murdered by other white people. So there is white-on-white crime as well. So to single out a city or a community like that is unfair in my opinion.
This tired "white folks commit crime so..." argument is one I used to subscribe to. And it's true. White people commit crimes. Murder even. When one is not aware of the data, one would assume as Kaepernick does and the left wants you to, you would think that the level of white crime, particularly murder is equal to or in proportion to the white population. However; this is simply not the case. Since I'm near NY I use that data and you can find NYPD compstat data here:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2015/10/yes-black-on-black-crime-is-thing.html
At that link I show that black crime rates both against each other as well as non-blacks is well out of proportion to the population of blacks. In some places like Wilmington Delaware, ALL murders were committed by black people for a given year. See here's the thing. For too many black folks, they cannot imagine living somewhere where a murder happens maybe once every 10 years. Yet there are communities in America, usually white communities where this is the norm. Too many black people do not understand that there are places in America where IF a violent crime happens, it is usually committed by someone who is not from their community and is usually (thought not exclusively) a non-white suspect. This is particularly the case when it does NOT involve domestic violence.
Of the black people that do know this, they are guilt ridden and ashamed and so do whatever they can to hide this information. Many of the most vocal deniers of these facts reveal their actual state of mind by where they choose to live and raise their children. In the case that they live in middle class black neighborhoods you can catch them talking about the "negroes" (among other names) who "don't know how to act" and "always acting up" and all other kinds of negativity, but as soon as someone, not black points out these same things, these black folks get defensive and start in on the "white people do it too" shit.
So Kaepernick is a fool. The reporter should have called him out on the "white people commit crimes" argument. The entire BLM movement is a movement of convenient idiots who really do not care one bit about black lives.
At least 2,000 educators around the country reported racist slurs and other derogatory language leveled against white students in the first days after Donald Trump was elected president. But the group that surveyed the teachers didn’t publish the results in its report on Trump-related “hate crimes.”
Is is rank hypocrisy like this that drove me from left (never call it "progressive") ideologies. I am against racial hate. Period. There is no such thing as "reverse racism". there is racism and any group of people can have racist ideologies.
But the SPLC didn’t present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators — whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”
Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”
"hard time getting the information" means "hard time trying to figure out how to disappear this data or a way to present it as anti-non-white racism."
There is a movement to get the SPLC's tax exempt status revoked. Lets hope it succeeds. This organization has to be taken down.
It's sad that a mere 8% of black folks voted for Trump. At a most basic level, the idea that one is all in on one of two major parties means that when the party you back is out of office, you're screwed. But sadly black folks generally stayed off the Trump wagon due to fear mongering by Democrats (what else do they do?). Meanwhile MAGA ideology is getting black folks employed.
One point in the MAGA ideology is that jobs should return to the US. Now the MSM and Democrats (I repeat myself...really) have tried to say that message is only for white working class men. Yet Trump never made such a statement (go ahead and look for it). He made a plea to working class Americans and that includes Black Americans.
Last night on 60 Minutes was a segment on bringing jobs to Miss.
Mistrial.
And I agree.
Officer Slager is facing yet another trial and a federal trial. Talk about triple jeopardy. Yes, I know it's not really double jeopardy because he wasn't declared "not guilty". But I maintain that this trial, these trials, are show trials that have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the BLM silly narrative of innocent black men being shot by police for no good damn reason.
Of course the truth is nothing like it is being presented by the media: That Walter Scott was shot "because he had a broken tail light". The tail light was the justification for the stop. That was not what got Scott shot. I have not gone over the actual testimony but the video that I have seen lays the ground for reasonable doubt.
The first relevant video is that of the stop. Scott is stopped and asked to produce license the registration. Slager repeatedly tells Scott to stay in the vehicle. Scott decides that because he has outstanding warrants for failure to pay child support he would take his chance and run away from the scene. How he thought that would be better than staying put, I have no idea. But I'm not that stupid. Now the understanding is that Slager did not know about the warrant at the time Scott made his dash. Therefore Slager had reason to believe that Scott was running away because he had committed some crime. This is called "reasonable suspicion". Now once Slager thought Scott was a potential criminal (and running away from a police stop is a crime in itself) he was under no obligation to stop pursuing Scott. Scott doesn't get a pass because he thinks he Usain Bolt.
Now once Scott is caught, something never mentioned by the media, he struggles with Slager. From the video footage we know that Slager had attempted to use non-lethal force on Scott. Scott decided after that attempt to continue to run. Understand that by physically struggling with the officer, Scott has now committed a felony and Slager has reason to believe that Scott would use even more force if caught again. No officer has to wait to have his eye poked out or perhaps shot with his own weapon before escalating force against a suspect who has already assaulted him.
Now the entire reason we are even having this show trial is because of the Tenn ruling on fleeing suspects. In that ruling the circumstance was that a police officer arrived at a scene of a crime and an alleged suspect was running away. The court ruled that the suspect had a right to self interest and posed no danger to the officer who could not be certain that the suspect was even the person who committed the crime.
In this case however, Slager knows Scott is the suspect because Slager pulled him over. Furthermore Scott already resisted arrest by having a physical altercation with Slager. So he wasn't just fleeing, he was showing a willingness to escalate violence against Slager and perhaps anyone else he ran into who tried to stop him. Scott had plenty of opportunities to not get shot. He passed on all of them. Oh. The fuck. Well.
I'm glad there was at least one juror who saw through the bullshit of holding Slager responsible for Scott's piss poor decision making. Time to let everyone know that if you assault a police officer who is doing his or her lawful duties, emphasis on "lawfull" then if you get shot and killed, you get no sympathy from the rest of us.
And to the next set of white jurors who will likely be put on the next show trial. Do not let the court system or anyone else tell you you are racist for expecting grown ass black men to behave in a civil and civilized manner when dealing with police.
So in the week that passed after Castro's death I was once again reminded of my own precarious position on the political spectrum. To my left were those for whom Castro could have done no wrong and to my right were those who saw Castro as the devil incarnate. Unfortunately this broke down largely along racial lines. My own view of Castro is far more complex, so here goes.
As a Pan-Africanist of the Garveyite strain Castro was a hero of mine. It is simply impossible to be a conscious black person, against colonialism and it's attendant evils and be completely down on Castro. Unless you are or were pro Apartheid you have to thank Castro for aiding those Africans who fought against that regime. Similarly I cannot fault Cuba and Castro for taking in Assata.
I've written on Assata in the past. You can find those writings here:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2013/05/hands-off-assataagain.html
and here:
http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2009/04/hands-off-assata.html
I'm sure this has already pissed off a few people, particularly those of right leanings. Don't care. Anyone familiar with the actions of government (on all levels) against black people fighting for their civil rights as citizens knows about COINTELPRO. That program specifically targeted "radical" black people and organizations for neutralization. One of the means of doing this was to infiltrate these organizations and sometimes commit criminal acts (or get members to conspire to do so) in order to bring down the organization. I have seen interviews with persons who have done these things. I honestly believe that Assata was, in fact, set up and that Foerster would be alive today had the racist COINTELPRO not been in effect.
Of course I disagree with many right leaning people on the subject of Trayvon Martin as well.
One of the oft cited proof of the failure of the Castro regime was the poverty on the island. I think such arguments are silly. Cuba's asinine decision to allow the placement of nuclear missiles on it's island aside, the fact that Cuba could not trade with what would be it's largest partner has a lot to do with the "failure" of the regime. Look at it this way. over 60% of the US is involved in trade with Canada. Imagine if the US was unable to trade with Canada? Between Mexico and Canada, we have 80% of the economic activity of various states. Again. If the US could not trade with these countries (just two), the US would be a basket case. Sure it could be said that the economics were a consequence of the decisions of the regime but the fact still stands that we did not and will not see what kind of economic success (if any) a Cuba free to trade with the largest economy could have been.
And it's not like the US wouldn't do business with communists. They just prefer their communists to be non-hostile.
Now having noted all that, it is a shame that much like the revolutionaries in Africa, after the revolution came the devolution. The resort to violence to maintain power. The control of media to maintain power. Elimination of opposition all underscores how limited the "revolutions" were. If these "people revolutions" were so powerful then wouldn't The People vote out or not vote FOR those who threatened it? If the press is lying don't you have libel laws? Wouldn't other press check them? If your "revolution" requires the silencing of opposition then your revolution is faulty. But if it's power you want then I suppose anything goes.
So I was happy when Obama decided to change the US posture to Cuba. I don't think it's the business of the US to tell other countries what form of government they should have. I don't like such "bringing democracy" bullshit in Syria, Egypt or Iraq either. A lot of the reasoning for the human rights abuses (disappearances, etc.) were born out of the meddling by the US, including attempted coups. Removing hostility removes the excuse for these acts. There are a lot of dead people in a lot of countries simply because the US has hostile policies towards the governments in those countries.
That said, some of what went on in Cuba was simply the use of "justice" as an excuse for murder. Can't hide from that fact either. Reading some of Che's thoughts makes that very clear. It also shows where the American left is headed...slowly but surely.
Sorry folks but I had other things I had to do (including a half marathon) so I couldn't post in the run-up to the election. This post is about what Trump should be doing in the first year in office.
Restore Law and Order in Government!
Pretty sad that this even needs to be said but the reason there are more than 11 million persons residing illegally in the United States is because the government is no longer enforcing the law (unless you are a citizen...a "nobody" citizen). This needs to be turned around pronto. Here's what I think a Trump administration needs to handle this:
1) Announce, very publicly a meeting with INS, Border Patrol and related bodies. Just announce the meeting is happening. This is the warning shot to those persons who should not be here, that time is up.
2) Announce that any municipality, city or state with "sanctuary policies" are in direct violation if immigration law and that:
a) Will have all federal funds frozen until such policies are reminded.
b) Charges will be brought against any and all officials responsible for enacting such illegal policies. These charges will include accessory to murder or negligent homicide if any illegal resident that was given sanctuary committed a homicide.
3) Have the INS and whatever related body subpoena all ID records of states with sanctuary policies. This includes any state that hands out driver's licenses and other non-driver ID's (which serve as a means of facilitating illegal immigration). Have lawyers on standby for the inevitable lawsuits. Remember that the Arizona ruling that the Federal Government is responsible for immigration matters has already gutted any state objection to such subpoenas.
Anyone on this lists who "fit the profile" of someone not in the country legally will be asked to report to INS. those who comply get 3 months to get their affairs in order and leave the country. Those who do NOT get a visit from INS and if determined to be in the country illegally are immediately removed.
The point here is to show that the state is not fucking around anymore. Those who object should know that it was the fault of the Democrats and Republicans who failed to enforce the law that they swore to uphold and who flouted the law for their own personal reasons.
2) Deal with BLM and Soros' Open Society organization. BLM that Soros funded uprising against police and law in general needs out be dealt with firmly. There are dead police out there. Investigations should be done into any organization that the BLM murderers were involved with. Soros's Open Society organization should be held criminally and financially responsible for any deaths that are connected to their activities. While criminal prosecution may not be successful, it will send the same message: The government is not fucking around now.
In particular we need prosecution of those DNC/Hillary support organization that broke election law by coordinating as well as by inciting actual violence at Trump rallies. They need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
3) Time to deal with Academy.
While it is not possible (and shouldn't be) to police private schools, those run by the state should be held to account for their liberal bias. The skewed representation of liberal to conservative (and whatever else) academics is evidence of employment discrimination. a Trump DOJ should open investigations for state run universities.
The absolutely overhyped "rape culture" bullshit needs to be dealt with head on. State universities should be held accountable for railroading those accused of sexual assault. Heads need to roll where such gender discrimination is being done. In my opinion all sexual assault claims should go through the police. No police report, no action by university. Period. Time to treat women as grown ups. If they cannot be bothered to report (for whatever reason) then we're not going to assume guilt.
These are things that certainly can be done to great effect within the first year.
“To the guys out there, I want to be honest, you know there’s a reason why there hasn’t been a woman president before,” he said. “And I think that sometimes, you know, we’re trying to get over the hump.”
There are a lot of reasons why women have not been president before, including not being able to participate in the political process, but generally speaking it has been down to two things:
1) Women not running. When women run for office they are more likely to be voted in. Emphasis on when. If you don't participate no one is going to vote for you.
2)Playing the pussy card. If you tell me I have to vote for you because you are a woman then I won't vote for you. Simple. Having a vagina is not a qualification for me. Having ideas I agree with is. I personally have already supported female candidates for office including president.
But to show the level of cuckness that Obama has, which has been evident to anyone who has watched him and Michelle, he says this:
Obama made his remarks during a campaign rally in Ohio for Hillary Clinton. He added that his wife Michelle Obama was better than he was.
“I know that my wife is not just my equal but my superior,” he said.
And this is why so many men are attracted to Trump. The above statement is offensive to me and other men. Worse it shows once again that the left is not in it for equality of women but for women to be seen as superior to men. Fuck that and fuck that. I tell this to men all the time: Stop calling your wife or girlfriend your "better half". She is your other half, your partner with strengths to match your weaknesses and vice versa. She is not superior or better than you in any way, shape or form. And to underscore how bad it is out there, most men I tell this to say something to the effect of "happy wife, happy life." This shows that many of these men are simply afraid of their significant others. That is total bullshit. What we see with Trump is a man who does not defer to his wife. He respects his wife and she respects him, as is clear by their interactions, but it is clear who "the man" is in that relationship.
Lastly let me point out that Obama is a beneficiary of the "sexism" he claims men have (if we ignore how unpopular Clinton is). Clinton, with her government service [sic] was way more qualified for office than Obama was, yet Obama won the election largely because he was the popular black guy that people thought would wipe away the sin of racism and launch the era of equality.
Joke's on you.
So just like Obama speaking on rates of sexual assault and rape culture, he just doesn't know of what he speaks.
Black folks risk crossing the Sahara. Risk drowning on rickety boats all to sleep on the streets of Paris
Let that shit sink in.
So when next you hear some black person complaining about all that racism that is holding him or her down. Or how "white supremacy" is the cause of all that ills black people, you watch this video and think again.
If only I was talking about a Bond movie.
Apparently the October Surprise is not the mountains of leaks showing that Clinton is an admitted two face liar who would like to change the rules of the Senate (and executive) in order to allow Democrats to do whatever it is that peaks their fancy. Nor is it that her foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia even though they knew it was funding ISIS organizations. The million dollar birthday gift to Bill Clinton for an hour long meeting about who knows what.
Never mind that after the attacks on Sanders by the DNC because he is a non practicing Jew, something that would put them in league with orgs like Stormfront, But who also assailed the Catholic church (for purposes of disclosure I'm not a fan of either) and Catholics for being backwards. Never mind that Clinton's folks called Muslims and Blacks and Democratic voters in general, low information, low achievers and easy to manipulate. No, the most important thing, if you watch the rigged election, is whether Trump is down with pussy galore.
Which brings us to the actual topic of this post: The election is rigged.
Most of us understand "rigged' elections as someone hacking voting machines. Miscounts of ballots. Disappearing ballots. Purposely mismanaging voting locations to limit voting. But that is not what Trump means and it is not how this election is being rigged.
Again, we know from various leaks that various "news" organizations and internet giants are down with the DNC and with Clinton in particular. Since these outlets have an outsize influence on what people see, they are able to manipulate opinion and information and therefore have an outsize influence on the election (or anything else).
Let's give an example. When gay marriage was something that the media wanted you to get behind they changed the phrasing to "marriage equality". They knew that the public by and large associates very strongly with "equality". Thus if you were against "equality" you were for discrimination. Discrimination is bad to therefore opposition to gay marriage is bad. next thing you know, gay marriage sweeps America and Christians who actually follow the Bible get sued, something that could have never happened even 20 years ago.
Hence we see the media can stack the deck in favour of or against a topic. Which brings us to Trump. The media has been very willing to allow people to make unsubstantiated allegation against Trump. In decades past no news organization would dare risk their reputation, let alone lawyer and verdicts that could be in the millions by allowing their organzations to be used for libelous speech. Now if a woman says she was "assaulted" by a man, its put out as if it is fact. Reputations are damaged and there is no recourse. Why? Because 9 times out of 10, there is no official report to anyone. How can you defend yourself against a charge that only exists, legally, in the mind of the accuser?
I don't know if these allegations are true. Neither does any of the news outlets who are running with these stories. The responsible thing would be to not report until they are confirmed or at least some kind of verification process, other than the word of the accuser is done. But that's not what we're seeing here. So this is the rigging. Get the media to influence the people. Make them fearful of a candidate. Minimize the coverage and questioning of the preferred candidate and blow up or fabricate reports on the "out" candidate. Use key fear triggering words like "terrifying", "crazy", "unstable", etc. Those of us familiar with NLP know that these are trigger words and by associating them with a candidate will trigger a fear response (or worse) when confronted with anything associated with the candidate.
To make things worse, the media, in collusion with elected officials have allowed physical violence against supporters of a candidate to go unpunished. When reported on, these criminal and IMO treasonous acts are said to be "lively" and "peaceful' protests or the violence is blamed on the rhetoric of the candidate who the victims support. It defies logic but is repeated often.
So again, this rigged election is not about hacked machines and all that. No, it is a huge psy-op against the public. It is the use of economic blackmail against those who support a particular candidate. But most revealing it is the apparent triumph of Vagina Politics.
Pussy Galore indeed.
So we have been treated to the Great Russian Conspiracy" in regards to the US election. Democrats who used to be against chicken hawk type behavior are fanning the flames of the Evil Empire for the purposes of scaring the shit out of the electorate and raising the spectre of "rigged elections" on the off chance they lose this one. The lynch pin (are you triggered?) of this plan is the notoriously short memory of the electorate, assuming the voters in question even paid attention the first time around. What has been forgotten? Ukraine.
See, not too long ago the US along with allies in the EU meddled and interfered with the elections of and government operations of Ukraine. This forced a complete breakdown of the Ukrainian government and a low intensity civil war within that country for the purposes of pulling it away from Russian sphere of influence and allowing NATO to edge that much closer to Moscow.
Therefore anyone in camp Hillary or camp Democrat who is flapping their gums and their hands about Russian influence on US elections either thinks you are a fool (and apparently there are a LOT of fools out there), or boldly believes that the US has carte blanche to mess with the elections of other countries but that rooster can't settle down on domestic fences.
Lastly it is of great irony that a party that houses a good number of actual communists is making noise about an ex-KGB agent who runs an ex-communist country.
Newark. 8AM. If you're 12, 13 or 15 years old what should you be doing? Normal people would say, at or on my way to school. Others, not so much
"Give me, give me, give me," the teen reportedly told the woman while he pointed a gun at her as she walked to her house from her driveway around 8 a.m. Friday, police said. The teen took her car keys and fled in the woman's SUV.
And what did this school age teen do after grabbing someone's property?
Two Newark boys, 13 and 14 years old, were also in the stolen Toyota Highlander when it crashed, Ricciardi said. The driver apparently picked up the others after the carjacking.
Oh yeah, pick up your younger boys and joy ride. Now, I suppose he just wanted to give the youngstas a ride to school and they were averse to cheese busses. But really. 8AM. Eight. A. M. All of these children should have been on their way to school. Instead they are packing heat, running up on hard working people in their driveways and saying "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie" while waving guns in their victim's faces.
And this of course is not only the fault of white folks, but the police too.
I suppose we should also blame the 'failing school" and the "bad teachers" for not making education more attractive than car jacking.
There is only ONE thing you need to take from tonight's "debate". Hillary Clinton failed to mention as a requirement of her SCOTUS picks, adherence to the Constitution. She mentioned many things but not once did she mention the Constitution. This epic failure on the part of a person seeking the executive office should be a disqualifying event. It doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal, as a citizen your rights and privileges are defined by the supreme legal document. The fact that Clinton does not deem it important enough to even MENTION in her qualifications for SCOTUS pick should bother you more than any kind of pussy talk, fat talk, tax talk, e-mail talk, any of it.
I'm going to keep this brief. This presidential election cycle has bared it's true face. I have been saying that we are being treated to a dish of Vagina Politics but this recent "tape" is bare misandry of the base form.
Let us be clear here. Men and women speak of each other, when in private with people whom they trust (and sometimes not but usually) in terms that are sometimes not child friendly. Men talk about women's looks, including tits, ass, legs and cameltoe if visible (yay Yoga pants). Women discuss male "packages" and often his social status as reflected by his ownership or at least possession of material things. Whatever you think of these types of conversation, they happen and there is nothing wrong with them. It is simply how human sexuality operates. The problem here is that men are increasingly under attack for being straight men while women are allowed to maintain their straightness and their privacy and now can publicly say sexist things about men without reprimand or consequences. But even that is not important here. What is important here are two very stark facts:
1) Trump discussed grabbing a woman by the pussy, which as far as we know he has not done to anyone....physically.
2) Bill Clinton had an intern suck his dick in the Oval Office. Committed perjury when under oath and has multiple rape accusers. Yet Democrats rallied around this man. Hillary defended this man by going after Bill's victims (some alleged, some verified). There is only ONE person who is in league with an actual sexual predator: Hillary Clinton. Full stop.
If you have no problem with the facts laid out and wish to not vote for Trump because he commented, but not committed sexual assault. then YOU are a hypocrite of the highest order and you too are fighting a war against straight men.
Since someone leaked one of Donald Trump's income taxes (or that of his organization), I've seen a lot of shit reporting on the matter. Of course most of that MSM "journalism" is really an extension of the Clinton campaign and so they benefit from further misleading the public. So in the interest of education this post will explain how the US tax system works in it's most general form.
I used to have a business. It fails. Most businesses fail. Most fail shortly after starting. While I had it I learned eye opening things about this corporation called The United States.
1) Individuals pay taxes on income BEFORE expenses. Businesses pay taxes on income AFTER expenses.
This one difference explains the vast majority of why Trump (or his organization) did not pay taxes in that year (and others) that the nearly $1 billion was lost. You see, if Trump was simply an individual who messed around and got himself into $1 billion in debt, the IRS would say "well sucks to be you but you made 30K and you owe us 12% of that."
I just threw that 12% out there. The point is that Trump would have had to pay taxes on any income he made while he was piling up that debt because individuals pay taxes BEFORE expenses. However; since Trump Inc. is a business. Trump gets to tell the IRS: "Yeah I had 200 million in income this year, but since I lost the Casino, Airline and the cost of getting the Hotel, I'm actually 900 million in the hole. Sorry."
The IRS would have no choice but to say:"Oh damn, that sucks. See you next year."
And don't get it twisted, This applies to EVERY business regardless of size. You have a loss that is greater than your income? You don't pay taxes. This is one reason why entrepreneurship is a positive.
2) If you have a corp. IT makes money not YOU.
This is another item that many people fail to understand. WHen you have a business your clients don't pay YOU they pay your business. At it's extreme if you never took a paycheck from your business and your business made $100,000. It is your BUSINESS that owes taxes, not you. Many smart business people use this fact and pay themselves a small fraction of their businesses income. They keep their income low to avoid relatively high personal tax liabilities. You as an individual cannot do this. Well actually if you have a 401K or related investment you are doing the exact same thing. Sheltering income and avoiding tax payment.
The next thing you do is you put anything you have to pay for in the business name. YOU don't buy a car, the BUSINESS buys a car. YOU don't buy a suit, your BUSINESS buys a suit. Etc. Etc. if you work it legally a lot of items you would be using for personal use becomes a business expense and therefore a tax write off.
I know people who go out to dinner with friends and they take about 5-10 minutes of the 2 hour dinner to discuss "business" and due to tax rules THAT dinner has now become a business dinner and therefore a tax deduction. This is one reason why business people like to "do lunch" and the like. All perfectly legal. You may not like it, but I always say why are you hating the player? Why not play the game?
Lastly, people need to understand that just because a particular business doesn't pay any income taxes, it doesn't mean that the state doesn't benefit from the existence of that company. There is a reason why many stats give companies multi-year "no taxes" guarantees (which I personally don't care for but that's another topic for another time). Companies that are not sole proprietorships tend to employ people. And what was the number one point made above? Individuals pay taxes before expenses. Employees are "expenses" of a business (cost of labour). The state makes money of the money businesses pay to employees (which is also why automation is also a large threat to state and federal tax revenue).
I'm not saying the tax code is perfect, but the media frenzy about Trump "avoiding taxes" as if he wouldn't have preferred to have $1 billion more in revenue makes no sense. So the fact is Trump paid what he owed: Nothing. And if YOU even had the assets to have that kind of loss you'd do the same thing. Don't be mad 'cause you're relatively broke. 'Cause it's not his fault.
For the second straight day the media and Hillary campaign (I repeat myself) has been putting Alicia Machado in our faces. The premise being that we should all be upset because Trump called her Miss Piggy. This is how stupid and emotional the press thinks you are. Think about this for a moment.
Miss Machado, of her own volition, entered a BEAUTY CONTEST. The entire POINT of a BEAUTY CONTEST is to be judged on your looks (which includes your weight). You WIN a BEAUTY CONTEST by having people (judges) PASS JUDGEMENT on your looks. You then have a job for a year. The entire purpose of that job is to look exactly like you did when you WON the BEAUTY CONTEST as a representative of said contest. FAILURE to do so, is a breech of contract. Not only that but in order to even make it to the Miss Universe contest you had to beat out other women in previous LOOKS JUDGING CONTESTS. Not only that, not a single woman in ANY Of those contests could be described as even remotely "plus size".
How the hell do you get upset for a woman who volunteered for the above? If you do YOU ARE STUPID.
The second thing, not getting as much press now, because "hoes before dead black people in the streets killed by other black people", is how lester and other MSM black folks pestered Trump about the "birther" issue to the complete burial of the point that thousands of black bodies are piling up in Chicago (and other places) at rates unseen since the 90's.
We had a negro on ABCNews after the debate tell us that Black people are "upset" due to the birther issue and therefore Trump is bad for black folks. Seriously. If your dumb ass is more concerned with a birth certificate sideshow than with the continued killing of black folks (mostly men) by other black folks (mostly men), then you DESERVE more dead black men in the street.
This is how STUPID the MSM thinks you are. The only question is whether you confirm this thought.
Tavon lay wounded on the floor as his family looked on in horror...
Chicago Police Sgt. Bryan Topczewski, who was leaving another homicide scene, heard the call -- "child's been shot" -- and raced toward their house.
This was at least the fourth shooting that day, Topczewski said. [My underlines]
Trust me. NO BLM was present and will not contribute to the medical bills. Secondly We won't hear from [enter athlete type] about any of this. There will be no national news media interviewing [enter athlete's name] on the kind of "conversation" we need to be having.
This is why BLM is a Soros funded scam and assault on decent black people.
Anyone who's read this blog long enough knows I have zero respect for the BLM movement and the liberal whites who enable them. Here we have another example of why.
This is a clear response to Trump Jr's Skittle's commentary. What this response shows is just how stupid the BLM people are. They failed to understand the original point and were dumb enough to respond as if the circumstances were comparable. Let me explain.
Trump's comment was that you have a bowl of Skittles or a bunch of people. You don't know which one is the poison candy (or the one who will up and blow him/herself up other terrorist act). Your best recourse in such a situation is to eat none of them because you can avoid being poisoned by your actions.
I've made a similar argument in regards to sexual assault. If you were to use the statistics that 97% of men have not and will not rape a woman...ever. then if you were in a bar/club with 100 men, there are 3 of them who has or will rape. You have two choices here. You can either avoid all bars or you can engage in risk mitigation. You can for example not leave your drink when you go to the bathroom. Don't take drinks that you didn't see poured and passed to you. You can not get fall out/pass out drunk. etc.
This is called risk assessment. It is what sane people do. Liberals are not sane people so they think that there is nothing a person can (or should!) do to manage risks that they come across. Hence the above picture. Now lets show why the above picture is out of order.
First and foremost we know that the percentages of cops involved in killing black people is, in the example of Chicago on the order of half a percent. So the poster inflates the occurrence of suicide by cop by 6x. But again this is common of liberals: Exaggerate the claim and hope nobody is around to check 'em on it. So you notice that they don't tell you how many skittles are in this bowl AND show you a very small bowl. All of this to get you to think that the suicide by cop statistics are larger than they actually are.
But more to the point the BLM poster here makes the implication that the behavior of black persons are not a part of the problem. Again you cannot compare a terrorist with a person who decides to not follow directions. What BLM wants you to think is that police generally just pop up and shoot niggaz just for sport. Those black men killed just happened to be random victims like Amadou Diallo of Jamaica Queens was yesterday.
No, the fact is that with one exception I can think of, each person shot by a police officer since BLM (and really before but lets stick with this) has been getting people killed, had failed to follow directions. They either tried to drive away. Failed to raise hands. Failed to stop walking or running. It's almost like liberals don't think black people should be expected to follow directions. Not almost, it is. A judge, on a bench. Actually said that black suspects have a right to run away from police because racism.
"Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."
Black people who are not engaged in crime, who never have or will do so, don't run from police upon making eye contact. Most of us know when we have been legitimately contacted and when we are profiled. Unfortunately too many of us feel entitled and want to make everything racial.
If black men are tired of being profiled, then they should get their peers to commit less crimes. Almost if by magic, police presences will be reduced dramatically because as people in small, low crime areas know, less crime means less cops to employ. But BLM doesn't want this simple formula to be put out there because it would mean black people taking responsibility for our [in]actions. Under liberal America, black people are not to be held responsible for anything negative. There are white people for that.
Sorry for the lack of posts, working on alternative income streams that has taken time away from this. What? You thought I made money on this?
Anyway, this is not my writing but rather a link that I think hits the nail on the head as to where the US two party state is headed in this and forthcoming elections. Way too many items I could quote so I'm just linking to the piece.
http://amgreatness.com/2016/09/12/decius-responds/
Ok. One quote:
My use (once each) the terms thymos and virtù was taken as evidence that I am advocating a politics of “great daring” or some such. I’d like to be generous here and just presume this is a misunderstanding. I suggest to anyone who holds this interpretation to look at the specific contexts in which those words were used. The former referred to go-along, get-along conservative intellectuals, who could do with a double dose of thymos. Several writers on the Left obligingly made the point. Good conservatism adheres to the parameters we set for you. You may say this, but not this. If you do and say what we tell you to, your reward will be that we will call you racist Nazis a little less. Also, what we allow as “good conservatism” will drift ever leftward, so that something we permitted a year or two ago is subject to revocation without notice and you better get on board immediately or the deal is off. [my underlines]
A good example would be to compare Obama of 2008 election season and Obama now on a bunch of issues. Similarly Hillary Clinton had positions then that would get her in deep shit now. This moving goalpost is a huge stumbling block for those who are left of well the left. Once you give in on some, they just move it further. You simply have to stop playing the game. Mind you there are costs to this. A man is looking at losing his job for simply refusing to play the game at his place of employment. I say bravo to him and he has a larger set of balls than most. Most of us would watch the video, shut up, put our heads down and be thankful we've been deemed worthy of a paycheck. This is the future people. You cannot even object. You have no free speech. The government cannot abridge your speech (or lack thereof), yet an arm of the government is doing just that. As the above link explains, Constitutional government is on it's deathwatch. Stakes is High
Over the last six years, police in Chicago, Illinois have fired 2,623 bullets at citizens, killing 92 people and injuring 170 others, according to a new database by the Chicago Tribune. The department has drawn intense criticism for its brutality.
Between 2010 and 2015, the Chicago Police Department was involved with 435 shootings, many of which never caught the public’s attention. In those officer-involved shootings, police fired at least 2,623 bullets. At least one person was struck in 235 shootings, while officers missed hitting anyone in 200 instances, the Chicago Tribune found.
You don't say.
Quick question: How many of these "citizens" were armed? How many were in the process of committing a crime? Aren't such questions relevant to such a headline?
If you read the linked Chicago Tribune piece you don't get a SINGLE mention of the crime rates in Chicago. It's almost like these people think that the crime rate is irrelevant to all that police activity. Well here's the count:
2010:456
2011:455
2012: 523
2013: 442
2014: 436
They stopped counting in 2015. To get current year info you go here: http://crime.chicagotribune.com. Continuing from that site:
2015: 490
2016: 464 so far.
So a total of 3266 dead. Not total shot. Not total assaulted. Just the dead in 6 years. The police SHOT 435 people, or 13% of the total homicides and we know that most of those were justifiable homicides.
Why would the Chicago Tribune spend time acting as if the shootings by police there are a big problem or even the biggest problem? Seems to me that the Chicago PD are not shooting enough people to put a dent in the homicide rate in that city.
Dear Dwayne Wade;
I woke up this morning to the news that you had lost your cousin Nykea Aldridge to crime in Chicago. I want to extend my condolences and hope that you and your extended family get through this as a strong(er) unit. However; this is not all I have to say on the subject.
I recall that recently during the Espys, you and fellow NBA ball players made a very public show of support for the Black Lives Matter "movement". You said in part:
Wade picked up where the Clippers point guard left off: “The racial profiling has to stop. The shoot-to-kill mentality has to stop. … Enough is enough. Now, as athletes, it’s on us to challenge each other to do even more than what we already do in our own communities.”
You are now no doubt uncomfortable close to the reality of violence in black communities. No doubt you know that the person who killed your cousin was not not a police officer. No doubt that the person who shot your cousin was a black person and most likely a male. You called this "profiling" yet, it is a statistical fact that in Chicago 90+ percent of homicides are committed by black people (mostly males).
I hope that as you work through your grief that you reflect on the reality that this Black Lives Matter movement is a total fraud. They are more concerned with the very few people who are wrongly abused by a small cadre of police officers than with the lives of you and your family who are obeying the law and living a clean life.
Understand that as a group the Black Lives Matter movement has denied(1,2) the very existence of black on black violence. The actions of this movement has caused homicides to increase in many urban areas, including Chicago which has seen the most homicide rate since the 1990s. Where were the BLM people when your cousin got shot? Are they going to solve the crime? Pay for the funeral? Are they going to raise the child that is now motherless? The answer is "no" on all counts.
The Black Lives Matter movement wanted attention, it is funded by white philanthropists like George Soros and the Ford Foundation. People who never lived in and will never live in the communities like the one your cousin lived in. They live in gated communities with personal body guards and high tech security systems. They will never ever have to walk the streets with killers. And these people would make you think YOU are a sellout for calling the BLM what they are: A Democratic Party front group.
Hopefully I haven't come off too strongly. I just hate to see young black men who are sincerely trying to do what is best for the black community, get used for nefarious ends. I hope that out of this tragedy you are able to see BLM for what they are and the real problems in our communities for what they are.
Sincerely;
SKO
As I prepare an "epic" post (if I say so myself) on Liberal Pseudoscience(tm), I'll point the reader to a recent article on Apple's Machine Learning team.
Firstly, as usual, I will point out the "complexion" of Apple's technology leadership, even as it crows about "diversity".
Look who's missing.
Now lets look at what the general requirements are for doing machine learning at Apple (and presumably other companies doing similar AI work):
What’s interesting is that Apple’s ML is produced by many people who weren’t necessarily trained in the field before they joined the company. “We hire people who are very smart in fundamental domains of mathematics, statistics, programming languages, cryptography,” says Federighi. “It turns out a lot of these kinds of core talents translate beautifully to machine learning. Though today we certainly hire many machine learning people, we also look for people with the right core aptitudes and talents.” [my underlines]
As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, Liberal Pseudoscience tells black people and liberal whites that:
“The racial narrative of White tends to be like this: Rugged individual, honest, hard-working, disciplined, rigorous, successful,” she said. “And so then, the narrative of U.S. public education: Individual assessments, competition, outcome over process (I care more about your grades than how you’re doing), ‘discipline’ where we care more about your attendance and making sure you’re not tardy than we care about your relationships … proper English must be spoken (which is just assimilation into standard U.S. dialect), hierarchical power structure, and heavy goal orientation.”
If "white" is "discipline, "rigorous" and "hardworking", then by direct inference black is "lazy", "lackadaisical", etc. Thus the liberal narrative for black education is in direct opposition to the very skills that are needed in the technology arena. Liberals are literally setting up black students to fail.
You cannot do statistics, programming and cryptology without being rigorous and disciplined. Liberals are saying that white people are inherently capable of these things and blacks are not. To quote Donald Trump: Liberals are bigots. But we knew this already.
It takes a high IQ to do mathematics and related fields. in the US blacks are 13% of the population. Even if we assumed that blacks and whites have identical IQ distributions (they do not), the availability of black folks with the required IQ's to engage in the kind of work Apple does in machine learning would be extremely limited.
So when we see pictures like the one above, with a total lack of black folks it should not strike us as odd. And if liberals continue to dominate education with the ideologies quoted above, we will see less blacks as they are not held up to the high standards required to succeed in STEM fields.
So I'm on Road and Track's website doing my automobile thing when the following advert shows up:
Firstly, I'm sending a note to Road and Track telling them I don't appreciate SJW bullshit on a automobile website.
Secondly to Unilever, I don't know what recent school of feminism grad you hired in your marketing department, but insulting the intelligence of men is NOT going to win you customers and this one will be actively seeking replacements for any of the products you produce that I use.
I, and all man can, in fact, observe the beauty of a woman as ONE of the things about her. I LOVE watching women track athletes run around in the little shorts. Did I mention I love that? And still I appreciate the training and other hard work that comes with being an athlete at that level. I cheered for the US women's 4x100 regardless of what they were wearing. Shame on YOU, Unilever for attempting to shame me for being a heterosexual man who appreciates the female bodies as part of what makes them who they are.
Fire the marketing company and any person who thought that such an advertisement was a good idea.
Meanwhile "Tonga Man" was being groped by the members of the NBC staff without a peep:
China, Russia and Iran have come together in a tripartite alliance supporting the Syrian government in the war against radical fundamentalist insurgents.
The main targets of this alliance are Islamic State and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly al-Qaeda’s affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, and its partners.
Until last week Russia and Iran were the military mainstays of the overstretched and undermanned Syrian army.
By opposing Assad, the US is now militarily against two nuclear powers.
Moscow, Tehran and Beijing fear the fall of secular Damascus would lead to the establishment of jihadi fiefdoms in Syria from which radicals would mount attacks into southern Russia and Iran and promote Muslim dissidence in China.
If China did not have the attention of ISIS before, it does now. Understanding that China has a far different (saner?) immigration policy than Europe or the US, it will be interesting to see if there is an uptick in "activities" by Muslims in that country or by those who manage to get in.
So yesterday I was crossing the Tappan Zee Bridge and observing the construction of it's replacement. I am always awed by the construction of such objects. It takes the cumulative efforts of many generations to get the technical knowhow to build such things. It takes precision and attention to detail. If construction is not done properly lives are literally at stake.
When I was in Tuskegee a professor Fluker used to tell us that Africans will only be respected when we:
build a plane that can go 3x the speed of light.
Now warp 3 may be a rather high goal but I think that his point was that Africans would need to develop among themselves the abilities necessary to create and maintain a [future] modern society. You can call for reparations and the like all you want, but if you cannot produce, eventually you are surpassed and bypassed by those who do.
The other thing that he used to ask is whether a student had an inferiority complex due to race, gender, economic status, etc. This was usually brought on by self-deprecating comments or behavior said or done by a student. He recognized, as I recognize now, that those who have inferiority complexes are already defeated and are not motivated. As Carter G. Woodson said (more or less, not a direct quote):
A man who believes himself inferior does not have to be barred from entering the front door, he will find the backdoor himself and if there isn't one he'll create one for himself.
Persons with inferiority complexes not only position themselves in inferior positions, they become resentful of those they see as superior to themselves. That resentfulness can often lead to violence. If they cannot directly lash out at the object of their resentment they will lash out at that which they deem to be symbols of their superior. Therefore when we see black folks rioting in burning "their own communities" it is because they, as James Baldwin pointed out, do not see it as "their community". Rather it is simply someplace they live. They know they didn't build any of it. They know that if anything breaks, that the people actually capable of building and maintaining it, will have to be called. For these individuals their whole entire life is essentially a wonderment like the new bridge crossing the Hudson.
How is this much different from when the African came into contact with the European "Ju-ju"? The smarter African leadership recognized that in the European they had met their technical superior and sent their sons and other higher ups to learn from the European. The smart Africans, when they saw the power of the "fire stick" didn't turn to the witch doctor, but they got their best smiths to try to recreate gunpowder (failed). But the rest, transported across the Atlantic found themselves in an inferior position where they essentially lived and died at the whim of the white population. In essence black employment in America has been the result of white employers. Where black people are unemployable, the government steps in with various programs. But dependency is dependency. Many black people know it, resent it, and will lash out in various forms if able. Which leads us to this fellow below:
Do not think for a minute that he's the only person who thinks this way. Do not think for a moment that he doesn't represent the mainstream of "mainstream" blacks.
This what happen because they not helping the black community
They? They who?
Like you know, the rich people got all this money. They like, you know, not trying to give us none
"Give"? This is the central problem. "Give". Other than those who were born into the top wealth, those who are "rich" worked for it. And even among those who inherited wealth, they got it because their parents did the work. Does this guy think that if he won a $500 million lottery and died that his kids ought to get nothing at all? I doubt that.
But more than that it shows the slave mentality. Once again, the slave depends upon his superior for his living because he cannot provide it for himself. Those who ask for a handout have already admitted his inferiority. Had this fellow had the mentality that he was equal in ability to those "rich" persons, he would have said 'we have been denied the opportunity..."
Lastly, I like to point out to folks, particularly those in the US. that generally speaking, this country was built from nothing. Europeans may have exploited enslaved African labour but they still built it. Most of us alive now, black or other, have little to nothing in the way of economic hands up via slave labour finances. Most of the companies we depend on and live with weren't in existence at any proximity to slavery or Jim Crow. Continuing to use JC and slavery as the explain all for black issues shows a level of desperation and yes, inferiority complexes that no amount of yelling and protesting can hide. It is only because white people in general are but a shadow of themselves and having a civil war among themselves have black folks been even able to get away with the juvenile antics.
It is fascinating to watch the British who at one point could claim to run at least half the known world, become one of the most self hating set of people next to Germans. If I had no idea about what the British had done in the past and someone told me they could have colonized and controlled as much of the world that they did, I would call you a damn fool and to stop taking whatever drugs you were on.
Today's example of British loss of basic self-respect is as follows:
A spokesman of the police force told Huffington Post UK: “We are continuing to seek a full injunction banning Britain First organisers Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen from entering Luton town centre and Bury Park for three years.”
Understand what is happening here. The British government is seeking to ban the free movement of native British persons in their own country. That's pretty low. Not only that but:
Earlier this year, Mr Golding and Ms Fransen led a group of activists through the town of Luton – which they call an “Islamist hotspot” – confronting local Muslims and handing out newspapers.
Police arrested Mr Golding and charged him with “wearing a uniform with political objectives” under the 1936 Public Order Act – an obscure regulation originally passed to prevent the rise of fascist groups before the Second World War. He was fined £450.
Ms Fransen was charged with religiously aggravated harassment – a case that is still ongoing.
Arrested for wearing a uniform?
All to appease non-native peoples who, generally speaking despise the British people? How is it that any of the leadership in Britain is actually still in power when they act in such a manner? It is pretty clear that the British have no sense of self-respect, no wonder then that the foreigners they insist on importing don't respect them either.
So yesterday I was told that Trump said Obama founded ISIS. It was later that I saw the report about that statement. It was funny because the fact that I was told about it with the expectation that I would be upset, showed just how effective Trump's trolling was.
Now we know full well that Obama didn't found ISIS in the manner we think of founding. But this excellent example of trolling forced those who were offended to show how stupid Trump is. In doing that they run across pieces like this one where the truth is even worse than the original statement.
Let us be clear. If we are going to be strict we have to credit the rise of ISIS with the entire cold war against Russia in Afghanistan. No Mujahideen, no Taliban. No Taliban no Al-Qaeda. No Al-Qaeda no ISIS. Straight line. Now presidents and other "higher ups" knew that the way to keep these Jihadis in line was to have strong, often brutal leadership. GW Bush apparently didn't get the memo and created a power vacuum in Iraq which would be the current founding event of ISIS. No Iraq war, no ISIS.
So in brilliant fashion not only did Trump troll Obama and Democrats, he also trolled establishment Republicans, all of whom are against Trump. Those establishment Republicans started the Iraq war and they don't want the public to realize that THEY are the ones responsible for ISIS. Now lets get to Obama and Hillary.
Having established that it was mainstream Republican establishment types that are actually responsible for the Iraq war and therefore the rise of ISIS can we put any responsibility for the spread and growth of ISIS on Obama? Certainly.
It was president Obama who involved the United States to be involved in the deposition and assassination of a sitting head of state who was a partner against ISIS and Al-Qaeda. This cannot be understated. Ghadaffi with all his faults, had emerged as a force against Al-Qaeda AND as a check against massive cross meditterean immigration to Europe. The US, under Obama provided air cover for "rebel groups" some of whom later pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda. As if THAT wasn't enough, Hillary and other Obama staffers knowingly LIED about the cause of the deaths of American servicemen and an ambassador. Deaths that were the direct result of the US involvement in Libya. So we have one count of Obama enabling the rise of ISIS in an area of the world where ISIS did not exist.
Secondly, Obama, still not understanding the crucial role of certain types of leadership in the Muslim world, sided with "rebel groups" in Syria to depose Assad. As a result of funding and providing arms (and logistical support) to "approved rebel groups" ISIS established itself in Syria (which is partially how we get the name ISIS). As a matter of fact, some of those "moderate rebel groups" not only aligned themselves with ISIS but gave them the arms the US "covertly" supplied to them. You can't make this shit up.
Currently the only country in Syria that has actually not supported or supplied terrorists is Russia! Think about it!
So we have a second count where Obama has in fact enabled the establishment of ISIS in a place that had no ISIS.
So while it may be total sarcasm to say that Obama "founded" ISIS, it is entirely correct to say that in at least two cases, Obama enabled the creation of ISIS camps/strongholds where they did not exist. The more the media reports on Trump's comments the more those of the public who seek to "verify" information will learn the truth. It may not be exactly what Trump says, but that is not the point.
While ignoring actual factual violence against persons who at a minimum appear to be Trump supporters, the MSM and just about every Democrat leaning talking head has made the claim that Trump made a threat against Hillary Clinton when he said the following:
"Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
Had this been a prepared speech, delivered to the letter rather than the usual Trump speaking extemporaneously as he habitually does, one could understand some level of concern. I say some level because we should take any apparent call for political violence very seriously. However since there is a concerted effort by Republicrats and their water carrying boys and girls in the MSM to smear trump as badly and as often as possible, level headed thinking is nigh impossible. Let me explain how this statement is truly supposed to be taken given who gave it and the usual way that he speaks:
Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment.
This is an assertion. It is the assertion that is the theme of the statements.
By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks
This is the "mechanics" of how his assertion would get done. The claim here is that if Clinton gets her judges on the bench, supposedly those that agree with getting rid of the Second Amendment, then there is nothing you can do, folks. Now in order to actually "abolish" the Second Amendment, there would need to be an act of Congress as required by the constitution, but the implication here is that abolition would occur by means of increasingly restrictive laws that would make ownership too onerous to exercise.
But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know
The "But" here implies that he's returning to the original assertion of Hillary Clinton wanting to abolish the Second Amendment. The statement between these, the "by the way" was an aside from his main point of abolition.
So what he's actually saying here is: "But back to the Second Amendment, people, maybe there is [something you can do] but I don't know [it looks bad]." Note that I put a comma after "Amendment". This is important because it separates the "people" from the "Second Amendment". "People is used like "folks"
What the media has willfully injected a "you could kill her" as the "something you can do". But that speaks more to the actual mindset of those opposed to Trump than to Trump's own mindset. Again, 99% of the political violence that has occurred this election season has been directed at Trump's supporters by Hillary and Sanders supporters, some of whom are not even legal residents of the US.
Now I know that the spokespersons are trying to say that Trump meant that the "second amendment people" as in "NRA types" can "maybe do something" like vote in a block. I think they are mistaken in this "interpretation" and are doing so because it's an easy thing to explain to the public, than explaining the grammatical issue of the quote and how you deal with a person making extemporaneous commentary.
