Klan Hysteria

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.

Liberals and Their Double Standards

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.

England Continues with Own Fails

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?

Women Want Equality, Until They Don't

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).

Of Thermostats and HoverBoards

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.

Germany Has Fallen

Like I said about Belgium earlier this year:

Any sane people would not invite persons hostile to their culture and peoples to live among them in large numbers. They would not allow them to create "no-go" areas of insular communities where the police are afraid to enforce the national laws. If you don't believe me look at Japan. Look at China. Look at Hungary. Look at Poland. The leadership of these places understand exactly who they represent. They are not afraid to be proud of who they are and they do what they must to maintain their identity. To be blunt, they are not traitors.

The French leadership and a large percentage of their population are traitors to their own countries. I'm not going to beat around the bush with this. Let us state it plainly and clearly. The French got what they had coming to them. The Belgians have gotten what they had coming to them. The Germans, and all those countries who have invited hostile persons to leech off their governments while large numbers of their people assault and rape citizens. Each of them will continue to get what they have coming to them until they are either made to completely submit or they rise 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.

The Blackest Thing You Can Do

This is England:

This is an English person (AKA: Native):

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.

The Russians Are Hacking!

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.

Kaepernick and the "White-on-White"Crime argument

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.

$PLC Omits Facts. Only Lefties Are Surprised.

From the NY Post:

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.

MAGA Ideology Getting Black Folks Jobs

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.

Link here if above is not working: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-mississippi-factory-jobs-joe-max-higgins/

Now what is important to note is the sheer number of black people in the video. Now it is entirely possible that this was staged like many companies do. However; that is Mississippi. Lots of black folks there. All those black folks with higher wages than before thanks to the idea of bringing jobs BACK. Black folks stand to win with less illegal immigration and even legal immigration. Black folks stand to win with an America first ideology that brings back or creates manufacturing jobs that can employ those persons not particularly suited for jobs requiring advanced education.

It will be rather interesting if during the presidency of a Republican (in name only?) black unemployment drops significantly.

The Slager Mistrial

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.

Fidel Castro

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.