Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

The Party Of Traitors

Last year I kept hammering on the subject that the DNC has essentially become the party of traitors. They had internalized and integrated so many persons who are by and large, so mad at white males, that they have no duty to country or other citizens. While this used to be the provence of small minded first level "conscious" black folks, in the 8 years since Obama took office, it mastasticized to the rest of the left like a swiftly moving cancer cell. Since Trump has followed through on his wall and "ban", the left has dropped the mask and with it all pretense of patriotism and civic duty to other citizens. The treason is in full view of the public and they are so arrogant and so haughty and believe in their own infallibility that they do not even believe there will be any public consequences for their actions.

Here is Bill de Blasio, Mayor of NYC:

This traitor here said:
“We’re not going to see families torn apart over a very minor offense,” the mayor told Tapper

“But is grand larceny or drunk driving a very minor offense?” Tapper asked.

“Drunk driving that doesn’t lead to any other negative outcome, I could define as that,” de Blasio responded.

Let us understand. de Blasio believes that the law shouldn't apply to illegal immigrants. Imagine you, Mr Citizen getting pulled over at a DUI patrol stop and were caught with an illegal alcohol level in your blood. Can you imagine telling a police officer that since there was no "negative outcome" you should be free to go? What about Eric Garner? He didnt' sell a legal product to children. There was no "negative outcome" to his actions. He's dead.

It's time we start asking these lefties about their alleged support of "Black Lives Matter" when they don't think they or illegal immigrants ought to be subject to the same laws as citizens are. Lets not forget that it is a crime to simply be in the country without permission.

And lets be clear, De Blasio and his ilk don't even think that an illegal immigrant should be deported if they commit a "negative outcome" because De Blasio and his ilk have been releasing known illegal immigrant criminals out due to "sanctuary city" policies.

This brings me to Jeff Sessions. I believe the REAL reason why Democrats are doing everything they can to not confirm Sessions is because their lawyers have told them, in private no doubt, that by their own actions and statements they are criminally liable for breaking federal immigration law. They have seen in the past week that Trump is not like any president since maybe FDR. He will follow through on his promises. They see the writing on the wall. Perp walks have a high probability of happening should Sessions be confirmed. They know this. They are like teenagers who had the house to themselves and didn't realize the parents just pulled in the driveway. The party is over. The adults are back and the traitors are going to be dealt with.

I urge all Democrats, particularly the black ones who may be reading this to seriously think upon the party you are aligned with. The lines are very brightly lit here. The only question you need to answer is "how many citizens are you willing to have maimed, killed, unemployed or underemployed in order to support DNC policies?" Any answer higher than 0 makes you a traitor.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Judge Ann Donnelly: Unconstitutional Decision

Judge Donnelly following the example of certain Supreme Court justices [sic] made a ruling that is in direct contradiction to the law as passed by Congress:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
I'd underline the relevant parts, but the entire section is clear on it's face. This judge had no standing whatsoever to interfere with the lawful execution of powers granted to the president by Congress.

Understand that this is behavior fits into the larger treasonous pattern of behavior that has been normalized under Obama and festering in Democrats since Bill Clinton left office. They are making themselves known now that Trump has dropped the hammer on sanctuary cities. You have elected officials who took an oath of office, such as the one for NYS:

[Oath of office; no other test for public office]

Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;" and no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

Who are out there absolutely violating said oaths and the public, well left leaning public, loves it.

It comes down to this. Either we follow the laws and have an orderly society or we have a society in which laws are enforced on the whim of whoever holds office. The latter encourages lawlessness and resistance to legitimate enforcement of law (see BLM). The former forces us to accept things that may not be emotionally pleasant but necessary. Children avoid the emotionally unpleasant. Adults accept them as a part of life. An adult is in the White house and he is dealing with children in various offices.

Friday, January 27, 2017

The Shock And Awe of Masculine Leadership

The first president I remember was Carter. I liked him because he seemed nice. I thought "nice" was a good quality. I was child. I didn't know better. Like many children of the 70's and beyond, I grew up in a single, mother lead household. This meant that ale authority in the home was a foreign concept to me. I never had to negotiate a father. Men who came to the house knew to be "nice" to me in order to stay on good terms with my mother, except one. I hated him. The one male figure that was there in the later years, an uncle, was "nice". A provider was still dependent upon my mother for shelter. The only other male "authority figures" I knew were the few male teachers I had in school who's ability to punish was very limited and elders and pastors in the church I attended. Most of those men were "nice" and very few of them, well actually only one, commanded any respect from me whatsoever.

I say all this to point out that Americans by and large are unfamiliar with strong male leadership. Obama was a very passive, feminine president. His way of handling conflict was very feminine in that it was the passive aggressive type rather than direct and confrontational. It worked for him because many Americans are really only familiar with that kind of man. I was always off put by an Obama that crossed his legs. In my opinion, men crossing their legs is an extremely feminine act. It goes against our anatomy (we have narrow hips not wide ones) and the idea of not allowing my testicles and penis space to hang out, bothers me. If you noticed, Obama would change to "legs open" when dealing with more masculine people, though he would occasionally fall back to crossing his legs. This was one of the things that struck me about Trump. I have not seen Trump sit with his legs crossed. Now it may have happened but I haven't witnessed it. When I saw that, I knew we were dealing with alpha. Now let me get to the point of all this.

Since Trump has taken office, he has executed a number of items that he said he would execute. This has had the effect of shocking the public because they have been used to cucked "leadership" that put's its fingers in the wind to find out which way to go. It will be but a short amount of time before mayors and governors, among others realize that they are not dealing with some beta, approval seeking male as president. They are dealing with a stone cold alpha male. A lot of the noise we're hearing from left leaning women is because they understand that they hold exactly ZERO sway over alpha men. Alpha men could give a fuck about any particular woman's approval (aside from perhaps his mother and even THAT is limited). And when it comes to a group of women he has no sexual interest in, who serve no purpose to him, that is, NOT PRODUCTIVE, he doesn't give them the time of day. These women know this. This why a bunch of them marched all over the US. They are scared to death that the gig is up. They are not really afraid of Trump himself. They are afraid that his success would be seen as an example by other men whom they have been able to emotionally and financially manipulate.

And so this feminized country where "he wouldn't dare" is a common refrain, Trump's willingness to build the wall has shocked the public. That he will make Mexico pay for it (by any number of means) is also shocking to them. They are all saying "he can't do that!" Well yes he can and he can because he has the will to execute. This will to execute is what has been lacking in the Republican party. They are still behaving as cucks with their howls about The Wall and sanctuary cities because they have been trained to seek approval before executing. As I said earlier, these folks are going to realize that they are dealing with an actual man.

For example, when Trump announced that the government exists to serve the "citizens". it is a reformulation of "this is my home, this is my castle, these are my people and I decide who gets to come in and who gets to stay." It is a very masculine statement that could never have come out of Obama's mouth or any Democrat for that matter. And understand that the ISIS Jihadis and other countries where men are not nearly as cucked recognizes this. Males ALWAYS recognize the higher status male and very few have the guts to stand up to him to take his crown. See for all their talk about "unfit to serve" as president, the opposition only shows that they are unfit to run any business. You cannot run a large successful business that regularly takes risks without being willing to execute. You cannot run such a large enterprise without the large balls to negotiate from a position of strength or the appearance of strength. To people who are unaccustomed to risk and live the "need approval" life, these things are absolutely alien. However; to those of us who know, we recognize this.

The left has tried to vilify alpha behavior as "hyper-masculine" and "bullying" (mind you there is such a thing as bullying but that's a different convo). In this way, masculine behavior: taking charge, executing, not bending to female emotional blackmail for example, is seen as negative. This is why these women's marches have many many males (many of whom raised by single mothers) that speak so much gibberish about rights their wives already have or how the government rather than them, should be providing for their wives and [usually] female children. And I note the female children because many times when I hear men trying to cuck other men, they lead with "I have daughters".

And? That you have a daughter is no excuse to try to enslave other people's male children.

So yes, this new administration is going to be a master class in manliness for a lot of boys and young men who have not seen such examples on TV (where simpering, idiot males rule) or in their lives. There will be errors and mistakes. They happen but even those will be lessons in how men should handle fails.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Millions of Fraudulent Votes?

So the latest MSM hissy fit is over Trump's assertion that millions of people voted illegally or fraudulently. The press has asked Trump for proof. That is reasonable. His "proof" thus far has been to point to two studies, the authors of whom have claimed that Trump has misrepresented their studies. Thus the MSM have declared that Trump's allegations are false "fake news". But is it?

First, the MSM has still not figured out Trump. By bringing up the subject Trump is forcing the media to put voter fraud front and center to the electorate. This is exactly what he wants to have done. With the question out there, someone or some organization is going to have to spend some time researching the claim because of course they can't let Trump slide on his "lies". What would such intrepid people find out? Lets take a look at the possibilities.

First, let us recall that when Jill Stein wanted to have recounts the results in Michigan uncovered a trove of voter ballots that had no provenance. After that news came out the whole recount thing was dropped and fell off the media radar. The existence of such a trove in one state should have sent alarm bells ringing across the country. There should have been investigations in every state. There wasn't. We know why. But lets continue down this hypothetical.

Trump said "millions of people". Plural. So lets assume that "millions" means a minimum of 2 million votes. Is that a lot of votes? Well lets look at it this way, CNN says that there were a total of 128,824,833 votes in the presidential election. 2 million votes would be 1.55% of the vote (just about the difference between Hillary and Donald's popular number). That's actually not a whole lot. There are 50 states. If we assume that all these "illegal" votes were equally distributed among the states (not the case in the least bit) then it would mean that each state would have 40,000 votes. In the least populous state, Wyoming, which has 544,270 that would be less than 10% of it's population (a greater percentage of it's voting population):

Statewide, most other counties, aside from Teton, still use standard precinct voting and, other than Teton and Natrona, standard paper pollbooks. Even so, turnout at the state level also broke records, with an unofficial tally of 258,725 votes cast.
. However we know that if we are discussing illegal voting from persons who should not be voting, usually resident aliens and illegal immigrants, they are highly packed in north eastern and south eastern states with large urban populations and sanctuary policies.

This brings us to the next point. Voter ID.

Many [Democrat run] States and cities have laws in place that allow people to show up on election day and vote without any challenge whatsoever. In fact some of these laws explicitly forbid asking citizenship status or anything like that because they call it "voter intimidation". Thus anyone can walk into a voting precinct on election day and without any barriers cast a ballot. Since no one can challenge these voters no one knows how many people have voted illegally.

This is THE problem. The MSM is claiming Trump's claim as false without telling the audience that laws have been in place that actually hides any potential voter fraud. Thus when studies are done on the subject no one can "find" voter fraud because the government officials actively cover-up and hinder discovering such things. By the time anyone can show such fraud, such as the case of Al Franken's election, it is too late. It is the case that these fraudulent votes affect local races far worse than they do larger elections. Illegal voters tend to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods and therefore affect the representatives from those neighborhoods. This is not only a US thing. The UK has recently uncovered massive voter fraud in neighborhoods that are predominantly "Asian" (and they don't mean Chinese).

Lastly I'll mention the use of immigration policy as a means of affecting elections. While this is not legal "fraudulent" voting, it is something that I have no doubt in on Trump (and other's) mind. Up to 1965 the US was a 90% white nation. Since the passage of the immigration act and various amnesties all of which were passed with assurances that the balance of the population would go unchanged, resulted in the white population in the US dropping to around 65%. In any other nation, this would be called ethnic if not racial cleansing in progress. Many of these new comers vote Democrat (Cubans being a huge exception). Democrats therefore have a existential interest in a decreasing white population (so long as they continue to supply the majority of the tax revenue, but that's another topic). The last election showed that Democrats did best in urban "diverse" locations and did diarheally shitty everywhere else. Where, outside of DC is it easiest to hide 40,000 illegal votes? Why in states with large urban populations where such votes would be "only" 50-100 votes where you can claim worries are "overblown". We know that there was a concerted effort between Democrats and foreign nations to get citizens of other countries to become nationalized citizens in order to vote "against Trump"(2).

In Chicago, Aurora Rosiles, 76, and her husband Abelardo, 75, attended a citizenship workshop at the Mexican consulate organized by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the couple is originally from Michoacán, Mexico. About 2.7 million of the 8.8 million legal residents in the U.S. are Mexican immigrants, but as a group they are less likely to become citizens.
I consider this fraudulent voting. Of course it's perfectly legal but for a major party to be party in stacking the voter rolls with foreigners in collusion with foreign governments to be treasonous.

So it is certainly correct to say Trump has no "proof" that millions of fraudulent votes were cast. However the MSM has not provided "proof" that such an event doesn't occur (proving a negative is hard). But here's the thing, if Trump is serious and uses the power of the Fed to force investigations in every state and to back voter ID laws (which should be nationwide), we could find out what the real deal is.

Monday, January 23, 2017

The Rights They Already Have

There was a time where legally women were second class citizens. They couldn't vote. Were excluded from obtaining credit. Could be raped by their husbands, etc. There were many reasons why women, in the US, wanted to have those issues addressed. If 2017 was the same as those times, then the masses of women that we saw rallying in various cities in the US would have made sense. But today we see that what these women want are not equal rights but legally enshrined entitlement.

One of the things that struck me about the "reporting" on the marches was the total lack of basic journalism. Certainly it occurred to at least one of the "reporters" to ask what specific right do men have in the US that women do not. Of course there aren't any. Legally, women in the US have the same rights as men. In fact, women have more rights and privileges than men do in the US. How so, let me go over two obvious points:

1) While women may volunteer to join the military, every male citizen is required to register for selective service. Failure to do so is a crime. In the past when the draft was in effect, any male was subject to being called up for military service. Women, in America, have never been subject to such a legal requirement, even when they gained the right to vote. They could help decide policy but never had to actually be forced to put their lives on the line for said policy.

2) Total control over reproduction and parenthood. Once the Supreme Court decided that abortion was legal because the fetus was a part of the woman's body and therefore her literal property to do with as she pleased, women gained the exclusive right to determine whether a human being could be born or not. Because of this, men lost the ability to have any real, legal input into whether he could have children. If a man wanted a child and impregnated a woman and she decided that she didn't want it, tough for him. Her body her choice.

Now this wouldn't be a problem if a woman didn't also have the right to go to court and have the state force a man to pay for a child he did not wish to be a parent of/. Women, in America have been granted the "right" to force a man to pay for a child he has no wish to have or be a part of simply because it has his DNA. Think about it. A woman can discard this same DNA at any time she wishes above the father's objection, but if the man attempts to similarly decline parental responsibility he can be forced to pay for a child he had no wish in making. That is not equal treatment under the law.

It doesn't matter whether socially you think that a man should "man up" and "take care of his responsibilities". Under the law each of us should be equally protected and privileged. If a woman can decide whether she wants to be a parent, including the financial responsibilities that goes with it, then so should a man. Period.

Those are the two glaring inequalities that are weighed in favor of women. A lot of women think that social inequalities, that is, how they are viewed economically and socially are somehow in the realm of 'rights". They are not. Because they think that, they think they are owed goods and services for free. lets look at birth control.

There are women who think that access to free to them, out of pocket birth control is a right. It is not. It is slavery. The only right a woman has, as it pertains to birth control, is access to it. That is all. When women say they have a right to free to them birth control, what they are saying, quite clearly is that they do not feel that they have to pay for any of the procedures that took and takes place to get that. Other people should pay for that. So since an insurance company is not simply going to take a hit to their bottom line to provide "free" birth control, the cost is passed on to the consumer. We all pay higher healthcare costs, and half of us who do not use this service underwrite this cost for women we are not involved with sexually.

So while these women have their hands in the pockets of millions of men, they march around talking about how they want to government and corporations off their bodies and out of their vaginas. I agree 100%.

Some women talk about how pay is not equal. Well nobody has the same pay. Ever. But again, there is no law, state or federal that requires that women be paid less than men. In fact there are locations and industries where women, particularly single women, have higher incomes than men. Many studies have shown that once controlled for variables, these claims of unequal pay vanish. In cases where companies or managers of certain areas of a company actually conspire to pay their female employees less, women have, like men, the right to take them to court and involve government agencies for corrective action.

So to anyone who can see, the millions of women who we saw plastered over the news are showing just how much of an entitlement attitude they have. One thing I'm hoping with this "change of the guard" and it's adversarial relationship with the mainstream media is that sacred fake cows start getting speared in the brain.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Slavery Countdown or Countup

So for those of you who pay attention, you'll noticed that there is now a "days and Trump Still Hasn't Re-Enslaved Black People Mr Smiley" banner at the top of the blog. The reason for this is because Tavis Smiley said one of the most ridiculous things prior to the election:
But at the conclusion of my talk, I was introduced to another question that still haunts me. I had handled most of the closing Q&A questions. Then one student hit me with this:

“Mr. Smiley, do you believe that given the crisis state of our democracy, we black folk could ever find ourselves enslaved again?”

Whoa. Didn’t see that one coming. Neither did the mostly white audience. A quiet fell over the room. I swallowed hard.

Looking directly at the student, I could see he was dead serious, and I wanted to treat his question with the soberness it deserved. But, truthfully, I stumbled as I began to respond, not knowing how to properly frame my response.

My answer? Yes...

So, could the Constitution be thwarted and black folk end up enslaved again? Legal scholars, of course, will find the question ludicrous and laughable.

It wasn’t farfetched for the young student who pressed me at Lehigh that evening. And, honestly? With the hair-raising, bone-chilling, spine-breaking, nerve-wracking path we’re on right now, I shudder to think where this democracy could end up one sad day, if we don’t get off this low road and make our way to higher ground soon.

Yes. This is the levels to which so called black leadership such as John Lewis have sunk to. They actually peddle the belief that slavery is just around the corner. Never mind that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade could not have occurred without the direct, willing participation of Africans (stories of kidnapping by white people are wholly over stated). So unless a significant portion of black people who have power over the lives of black people, countrywide, decide to engage in slave trading, it's not happening.

Never mind that. Just think that Time Magazine, an alleged reputable journal of news would allow Tavis to make such a statement without corrective commentary, shows how much the media and the Democratic establishment wishes to keep black folks in mental slavery by continuously reminding them that 1955 is just around the corner and can happen any day now.

If Smiley had any self respect and respect for black people he would have ridiculed the student for his self-induced (or maybe professor induced) fear of enslavement. If only for the reason of rapid automation of manual labour types of "slave work".

So this count up clock will remain at the top of the blog throughout President Trump's term or until black slavery is officially back on the books (apart from 13th amendment allowances). And every day that it stays, it shows the utter stupidity, opportunism and rank exploitative nature of the DNC and so called black leadership.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Steve Harvey Proves a Better Leader Than John Lewis

John Lewis brought shame to himself and his office when he made an ass of himself by announcing that he was going to boycott Trump's inauguration. In his publicity seeking attack on Trump, and that's what it was, he not only announced his non-attendance but he said that Trump was an illegitimate president.

The media, as usual spun this as Trump "attacking" a Civil Rights icon, as if people involved in the Civil Rights era are infallible, when Trump didn't roll over and play dead when attacked by a black person. Trump pointedly showed how black political leadership has utterly failed in their alleged "duty" to represent black America. He pointed out how far Selma, AL has fallen. He pointed out the totally unacceptable levels of homicides and other violence that plague urban black America.

Of course neither Lewis nor the MSM can handle the truth and have no answers for the facts pointed out by Trump, so they fall back on the tired, worn out, creased, missing corners race of spades card. See, John Lewis knows that Trump is legitimate. He knows how the Electoral College works. He knows the popular vote does not determine presidential elections. He's been fine with that for as long as he's been in office. Lewis doesn't have to like Trump. Lewis doesn't have to agree with Trump. Lewis, as a representative of his district took an oath to uphold the Constitution. In his declaring Trump illegitimate, he failed to live up to his oath.

In stark contrast to Lewis, Steve Harvey, to the ire of his fans, accepted an invitation from Trump to meet and probably discuss issues affecting black folks. I don't know, wasn't in the room. I'm not that much of a Harvey fan. I don't listen to the show unless I have to (company car with no aux input). I did hear that he was very much against Trump during the campaign. That was his right and to some "duty" as a citizen. I have no problem with that on principle. But what is important here is that once the election was over (or shortly thereafter) Steve understood that the time is now to move along. Trump is president. You respect the office, even if you don't respect the office holder and as a citizen, when called, you provide service. Period.

For this, Steve Harvey has gained more respect from me. Lewis can go away.

While on the subject let me also point out that Jennifer Holliday is also a sham and shame who will not get any support from me. She previously agreed to perform at the inauguration. Her position was that though she didn't agree with Trump, that her performance would be for healing and bringing people together. Now personally, I don't think a citizen should have to explain why he or she is performing for or with the head of state, but this seems to be a trend now. Anyway, Holliday backed out of her agreement (which shows a lack of character IMO). She said that her fans or whomever were mad because her performance would be seen as endorsing Trump and his ideas.

Once again I'll point out the double fucking standard at work here. When Christian bakers and caterers refused to sell gay wedding cakes or provide catering to a gay marriage because they felt that such participation was and endorsement of something they opposed morally, They got hemmed up in courts. Shut down, sued and trashed by the media. Never mind that they were exercising constitutional rights. The left said that their cakes and catering services were not endorsements but rather simple business transactions with no moral statements.

So now performing for Trump is an endorsement of him and his ideas. This is why I'm not a Democrat. This is why I am not a liberal. This is why I'm no longer "on the left" (I am center). These blatant hypocrisies are unacceptable. If there is one thing I hope this term of office does, I hope it breaks the hypocrisy. It needs to happen. And if it means taking out a few Civil Right's icons, then so be it.