Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Monday, September 16, 2019

The Kavanaugh Horse Dug Up For More Beating

The NYT, which recently outed itself for pushing the fake Russian Collusion story as a means to get Trump, did us a huge favour by finding time to dig up the accusations against Kavanaugh, so that we can be reminded again of the utter trash that the NYT currently is, as well as reminding us how far off the rails the Democrats have gone.

Once again, the story that [a drunk] Kav exposed himself and perhaps had his penis put into the hands of some [drunk] chick while at a party was put on display for the public. The purpose being to retcon the past for "gotchya" moments to take out people whom Democrats don't like. There are a few things about this that I'd like to comment on.

1) Why is this even important? Unlike the claims against Justice Thomas, the claims against Kavanaugh have nothing to do with any of his work or jobs. Thomas was accused of behavior while he was a grown ass man and in a management position over his alleged victim. Clearly, had the allegations been provable and proven, he should not have been confirmed. Why? Because it would have reflected poorly against the employer (the government) to continue to employ someone who had a known history of victimizing those who he manages. That's important.

But nothing of the sort applies to Kavanaugh. These folks attempted to go back to high school. High. Fucking. School. To try to show that some 50 odd year old man is unfit to be a supreme court justice.

The fuck out of here.

I admit, I was a real square. I'm still a square. But I know a lot of people that got into some *interesting* situations that they probably are not very proud of now and have moved on from and lead productive lives. There would be no purpose to revisit those activities except to try to smear their name for my own personal pleasure.

I know people from when I was in college that got so drunk that they did things they probably don't want anyone bringing up now. Played "games" that they are glad most of the others have a hazy recall of. A lot of people at colleges do things due to peer pressure. They want to fit in. It's their first time away from adult supervision. Some naive, some acting naive. Some get in over their heads, live and learn. Some become victims of serious crimes. Some don't report. And that's their choice, but they get to live with that choice for the rest of their lives. Like the pastor says at the wedding. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

I have little sympathy for people who sit on these kinds of allegations for 30+ years and then when the person they hate (for legitimate or non-legitimate reasons) is about to make big. Noooo. You were good when you thought they were average Joe Shmoe living the same [boring] average life you were.

No, these smears and revisits to times past reveal their non-importance, particularly when there is *nothing* in the persons more recent past that shows the same behavior.

2) It may not have even been a crime. The alleged incident happened at Yale. In CT. Connecticut has rules against public indecency but says nothing about what happens in private (e-mail me if you find otherwise). The closest thing I could find was:

§ 764. Indecent exposure in the second degree; unclassified misdemeanor. (a) A male is guilty of indecent exposure in the second degree if he exposes his genitals or buttocks under circumstances in which he knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person. (b) A female is guilty of indecent exposure in the second degree if she exposes her genitals, breast or buttocks under circumstances in which she knows her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person. Indecent exposure in the second degree is an unclassified misdemeanor.
And that actually matches *DELAWARE*. So even if the event occurred, under CT law as I read it, unless someone could prove it was hazing, there was no law broken. Furthermore; even if a law was broken it would have been a misdemeanor. And no misdemeanor is going to be tried 30 years after the fact. So for all intents and purposes, even if this event occurred there was no crime to be investigated, even if "morals" or "feelings" were hurt. Which brings us to point 3.

3) The FBI did investigate. There was nothing for them to go into because as mentioned before, even if it happened, there was no crime likely committed. Furthermore, even if there was a suspected crime, there is no evidence to proceed on. Again, it was 30+ years ago. But that's the point isn't it?

As I wrote about Clyburn's comments about the Bill of Rights, the this radical left that is consuming the Democratic Party has no regard for the rule of law, particularly when it comes to people they dislike. It is appalling to watch Democratic candidates for the highest office of the land speak of how the government failed to "exonerate" or "clear" a target of investigation as if THAT is the standard *here in America*.

So once again I'm glad the NYT sunk once again into the gutter. It reminds me of why I consider it a trash organization now and why my current low opinion of the DNC is not without good reason. I'm just saddened that I see so many people blinded by their hate of Trump to see this huge actual factual threat to the Republic (not democracy) that the DNC has grown into.

Friday, September 13, 2019

Andrew Yang For Small Government?

I did not watch the Dem "debate" last night cause I already know:

Orange Man Bad
We'll take your guns
We work for foreign nationals.


But in the news this morning a clip featuring Andrew Yang caught my attention. In it he made a sales pitch for his Freedom Dividend which included the following:

“I’m going to do something unprecedented tonight," Yang said in his opening statement. "My campaign will now give a freedom dividend of $1,000 a month for an entire year to 10 American families – someone watching this at home right now. If you believe that you can solve your own problems better than any politician go to and tell us how $1,000 a month will do just that.”
I'm not sure how legal it is for a presidential campaign to pay potential voters in order to get their support but that's not what caught my attention. No, the line was:
If you believe that you can solve your own problems better than any politician go to
This is a classic "conservative" position. You are better at spending your money on your needs than the government. Hence the government should tax you less, allowing you to spend your money "wisely". You cannot be for Yang (or agree with his freedom dividend) and then have a problem with Trump's tax cut (which, on average spared tax payers $1k).

My understanding is that the comment got laughs from the other candidates. Not surprising, such a "you can do better with the money than the government" attitude is alien to the current left. I hope you enjoyed that $1K 'cause if Trump loses, you'll be giving up more of your cheque...again.

Monday, September 09, 2019

Clyburn Is Right

As read in Breitbart:
Clyburn said based off of conversations he has all the time, he believes there would be “strong support against the Bill of Rights” among people who would like to see many of the guarantees “uprooted.”
No lie.
“I really believe sincerely – the climate that we’re in today – if the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the United States Constitution, were put before the public today, I’m not too sure that we would hold onto the Bill of Rights,” Clyburn declared during the interview with MSNBC. “Especially when I see what people are doing with the Second Amendment and no telling what they would do with the First Amendment.”
Clyburn is absolutely right. Lets examine:

1)"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The left has created this thing called "hate speech" in which they decide what terms they don't like and attempt to "cancel" anyone who uses said language. I guarantee that if they could they would kill the 1A (cause they don't think "hate speech" is free speech).

Second example: The attacks on Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Cake Shop, etc. So yup. 1A, done.

2)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." All gun control laws are infringements period. Whether we agree with the whole "state interest" angle or not, they are infringement. I won't go into the "militia" argument because there are those who have covered it better than I can (for example). At the end of the day, we have candidates for the highest office in the land talking about confiscation of semi-auto guns (which almost all of them nowadays are).

So 2A done. Skipping 3rd since we're not there yet. I'm going to put 4, 5 and 6 together since they all apply to legal issues

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[93]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[93]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.[93]
#MeToo. If you've been accused you must be guilty.

Rape shield laws: Cannot confront accuser.

Campus kangaroo courts.

Nuff said.

I don't really see the others being endangered. Perhaps it's my ignorance of their importance (I get entire powers not delegated part), But since most people have no working knowledge of them I can't say whether they would toss them as well. I will say that I have met people who think the Federal Government should have all power over states though.

So Clyburn is right.

Thursday, September 05, 2019

Dorian and Trump

So trump was seen with a clearly "faked" weather forecast about Dorian's path. Once again, he left himself open to being shown to be a liar. But was he lying?

If you go strictly by the doctored image, then yes. But if you had been following reports of the storm then you know that he was NOT. Early Dorian forecasts showed that Dorian had multiple probable paths:

All of these models show that Alabama would have had some impact from the storm. It was only later as Dorian came closer to the US that the models excluded Alabama from the potential impact zones.

So whoever it was that gave Trump the fake image should be fired. That person could have easily found what I found (and what the government weather people *knew*) and used that instead. I realize that Trump is trying, sloppily, to make up for last year but he should stop playing weatherman.

And for you, dear reader, stop believing the MSM.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

8th Circuit Does What SCOTUS Should Have

On August 23, the 8th Circuit court found in favour of Carl and Angel Larson of Telescope Media Group in their suit against the state of Minnesota. Specifically mentioned are Keith Ellison and Rebecca Lucero. A general overview of the case is similar to the Masterpiece Bakery case and stands on the same constitutional principle that no one can be compelled, particularly by the state, to participate in an event or compelled to speak favourably (or disfavourably) about a thing they find objectionable (or not). It is a core 1st amendment right. From the decision:
Carl and Angel Larsen wish to make wedding videos. Can Minnesota require them to produce videos of same-sex weddings, even if the message would conflict with their own beliefs? The district court concluded that it could and dismissed the Larsens’ constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s antidiscrimination law. Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say, we reverse the dismissal of two of their claims and remand with instructions to consider whether they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. [My underlines]
In short, can a/the state pass a law that abridges the 1st Amendment rights of citizens? The short answer is (and should have been) no. Except in very extreme circumstances the state has no such power.
The Larsens “gladly work with all people—regardless of their race, sexual orientation, sex, religious beliefs, or any other classification.” But because they “are Christians who believe that God has called them to use their talents and their company to . . . honor God,” the Larsens decline any requests for their services that conflict with their religious beliefs. This includes any that, in their view, “contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman.”
This is identical to the situation that was in play with Masterpiece. It was not a rejection of the homosexual customer, it was a rejection of the particular service requested. I find it "interesting" that these homosexuals find their way to Christian establishments rather than say Whahabist Muslim ones. But that's not within the scope of this post.

So Minnesota tried to get at Telescope via it's "Human Rights Law":

It is an unfair discriminatory practice . . . to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of . . . sexual orientation.
Recall that Telescope said it would engage with homosexual customers within the parameters of their Christian business model So, had the couple 9(or individual) asked Telescope to video the wedding of one of their heterosexual friends, Telescope would have contracted with the homosexual customer because the request fell within the parameters of their business model. In other words, Telescope is partially in the business of making videos of heterosexual weddings, asking it to do otherwise is asking it do so something outside it's business parameters.
It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person engaged in a trade or business or in the provision of a service . . . to intentionally refuse to do business with, to refuse to contract with, or to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person’s . . . sexual orientation . . . , unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.
The "legitimate business purpose" is that it is beyond the scope of the business to do videos of homosexual weddings.

Minnesota takes it to another level though:

Minnesota reads these two provisions as requiring the Larsens to produce both opposite-sex- and same-sex-wedding videos, or none at all. According to Minnesota, the Larsens’ duty does not end there. If the Larsens enter the wedding- video business, their videos must depict same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally “positive” light. Oral Argument at 26:08–27:15. If they do not, Minnesota has made clear that the Larsens will have unlawfully discriminated against prospective customers “because of” their sexual orientation. [my underlines]
Let me take out that underlined portion just so you see how far this rabbit hole goes:
their videos must depict same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally “positive” light. Oral Argument at 26:08–27:15. If they do not, Minnesota has made clear that the Larsens will have unlawfully discriminated against prospective customers “because of” their sexual orientation.
You must approve.

Says the state.

For those of you who are too young to have witnessed the "progress" of this nonsense, I'll lay it out. It went like this:

1) Stop harassing us where we congregate.
2) Stop criminalizing what we do in private.
3) Stop denying us benefits of marriage
4) We need to be included in anti-discrimination laws
5) We need better representation in the media
6) You will approve of our marriages.
7) This man is a woman. This woman is a man.
8) We will indoctrinate your children.
9) If you resist we'll have the state deal with you. <-- we are here.

There is no "slippery slope fallacy". It's a logical fallacy *only* because it's premises cannot be proven. Hence the slippery slope is a predictive model. Anyway.

So we're at the point where a state has decided that it's citizens not only *have to* participate in events and speech they do not approve of, but if they don't engage in that speech or event in such a way that meets the approval of the state they can be sanctioned.

This passed multiple legislative sessions. Think about that.

In discussing the previous court ruling, the 8th said:

According to the court, the Larsens’ free-speech claim failed as a matter of law because the MHRA serves an important governmental interest— preventing discrimination—without limiting more speech than necessary to accomplish this goal. It also ruled that the MHRA did not violate any of the other constitutional rights identified by the Larsens.
The state interest in "preventing discrimination" involves "limiting speech as necessary to accomplish that goal." Can we say expansive? As we have seen the left expand the list of The Aggrieved and what words and deeds it considers "discriminatory", "white supremacist" and the like, why should the state be given such power?
The First Amendment, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. It promotes the free exchange of ideas by allowing people to speak in many forms and convey a variety of messages, including those that “invite dispute” and are “provocative and challenging.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). It also prevents the government from “[c]ompelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable.” Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2463 (2018). As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[t]here is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive” approach because “the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas . . . by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.” Terminiello, 337 U.S. at 4–5. [my underlines]
So "provocative and challenging" speech is protected.
It also does not make any difference that the Larsens are expressing their views through a for-profit enterprise. See post at 48. In fact, in holding that motion pictures are protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the idea that films do not “fall within the First Amendment’s aegis [simply] because” they are often produced by “large-scale business[es] conducted for private profit.” Joseph Burstyn, 343 U.S. at 501; see also Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. at 1745 (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[T]his Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that a speaker’s profit motive gives the government a freer hand in compelling speech.”). Other commercial and corporate entities, including utility companies and newspapers, have received First Amendment protection too. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (collecting cases); Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 258; see also Citizens United v. FEC, 558
That said "provocative and challenging" speech is done for profit does not strip 1st amendment protection.
Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways. First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech.
This is the most obvious thing. As pointed out above, it represents a great overstep of power by the state and should not be taken lightly. The second part is of interest:
The State asserts an interest in ensuring “that all people in Minnesota [are] entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations and services.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This interest has a substantial constitutional pedigree and, generally speaking, we have no doubt that it is compelling....

But that is not the point. Even antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution...

As the Supreme Court has explained, even if the government may prohibit “the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services,” it may not “declar[e] [another’s] speech itself to be [a] public accommodation” or grant “protected individuals . . . the right to participate in [another’s] speech.” Id. at 572–73 (emphasis added).

As these cases demonstrate, regulating speech because it is discriminatory or offensive is not a compelling state interest, however hurtful the speech may be. It is a “bedrock principle . . . that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989); see also Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. at 1731 (“[I]t is not . . . the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive.”). After all, the Westboro Baptist Church could carry highly inflammatory signs at military funerals, see Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 448– 49, 460–61 (2011), the Nazis could march in areas heavily populated by Jewish residents, see Nat’l Socialist Party of Am. v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 43–44 (1977) (per curiam), and an activist could burn the American flag as a form of political protest, see Johnson, 491 U.S. at 399.
Judge Kelly's dissent should be of interest to the reader. As dissents go it is pretty strong. I disagree with it, but I think it is strong and it points to the fundamental problem: th 1964 Civil Rights act and its creation of "protected classes". When that law was passed the primary concern was "Negroes". Black people were generally barred outright from certain businesses or afforded limited accommodation. I don't think anyone at the time even thought that protected classes would be made of persons who's behavior was not only agreed to be immoral by those persons who the law sought to protect but that the behavior of these new protected classes was illegal country wide at the time. I'm pretty certain that had someone gone back in a time machine and said that homosexuals would be covered under the act being considered, they would have probably added language that expressly limited the ability to expand the classes or would have scrapped the entire thing.

That said, once homosexuals became a protected class, it put the state on a direct collision course with the 1st amendment and the idea of freedom of (and from) association. One of the items of interest in Kelly's dissent is the following:

Likewise, regardless of who asks TMG to create the wedding video, if the Larsens refuse to provide the service because of the sexual orientation of the video’s subjects, that is discrimination “because of” sexual orientation.
This goes to my earlier argument in regards to a heterosexual person asking for a video for their homosexual friends. The heterosexual couple are the customers but under the Minn. law it would still be discriminatory to the non-customer subject.

Ultimately Kelly believes that the state should and can override a citizen's conscience because the state disagrees with it:

I recognize that the complaint alleges that the reason for the Larsens’ differential treatment of same-sex couples is not because of prejudice against homosexuals, but because they disagree with the message that a video of a same-sex marriage would convey. But that does not make their intended conduct nondiscriminatory under the law. They want TMG to offer different services to customers based on sexual orientation, running afoul of the MHRA. Whatever the Larsens’ motivations, the premise of this lawsuit is that TMG would violate the MHRA if it engages in the conduct described in the complaint.
Kelly even brought up separate but equal:
Thus, TMG cannot avoid violating the MHRA by providing other types of non-wedding services to gay and lesbian clients, nor can it provide services to same-sex couples that are inferior to those that it provides to heterosexual couples. Courts have long rejected the notion that the provision of “separate but equal” services is anything but discrimination by another name. Brown v. Bd. of Ed., 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954); see also Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 296–99 (1964) (concluding that a restaurant that provided “a take-out service for Negroes” but “refused to serve Negroes in its dining accommodations” violated Title II’s public accommodations provision).
I don't think this argument stands. Even the example given is not analogous. "Negroes" made to go to the pick up window" are being denied entrance to the establishment. No such thing is present in this case. Secondly there is no "separate" service whatsoever in discussion here. There is no service where the subject is a homosexual wedding. A better "Negro" example would be a venue that refuses to sell the Negro a particular product in it's store that it sells to non-Negroes.

What Kelly and the state of Minn. is saying is that you will do business in the way that Minn. decides (with the very real chance that some new protected class will show up) or you do no business whatsoever. It is the very definition of compelled speech. Do this or do not work...and die.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

The Jokes Write Themselves

Chicken boxes featuring warnings about the dangers of carrying a knife have been sent to takeaways in England and Wales as part of a government campaign. More than 321,000 boxes will replace standard packaging at outlets including Chicken Cottage, Dixy Chicken and Morley's, the Home Office said.

I laughed so hard when I saw this. I mean. They couldn't just come out and say that the knifing crime in England is actually black crime, so they use the chicken as a proxy. I mean this is the level of "How many lights do you see?" rabbit hole that the left has sunk England into.

Dal Babu, a former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police, said: "This initiative seeks to target chicken shops because the assumption is that's where young black people go. "There's a racial element to it - it stereotypes people, it's patronising and I can understand why people see it as racist."
"I can understand why people see it as racist." Yes I'm sure, but more importantly....Is it TRUE?

Courtney Barrett, who runs his own knife amnesty in east London told BBC News the scheme was a "step in the right direction" but stressed that it should not just involve chicken shops.
Say....patty shoppes. Barber shoppes.

Recent figures showed most perpetrators of knife crime were over the age of 18.
And they eat lots of chicken.

But seriously, in the original "recent figures" linked to this page: Where apparently nobody...I mean NO BODY thought of making a chart of race of perps,victims and population percent. No. NO. Don't want to do that.

Philly Shooting As An Example Of Why Gun Laws Don't Work

So yesterday a felon with a gun shot 6 philly cops.

Not soon after, we had politicians calling for more or "better" gun laws.


Let's get this out the way: Felons are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms. Therefore there was no way that this person came into possession of a firearm by legal means.

So apparently it is news to some people that people will get things via not legal means.

Gun laws do one thing and one thing only: prevent the [currently} law-abiding to obtain and carry firearms.

The second important thing of note here is that 6 police officers were shot. They were armed. Being armed is no guarantee that you will not be harmed in an altercation. Hence, it is irresponsible and wrong to make statements that simply by having a gun, the "good guy" will prevail. No. It doesn't work like that.

But also of importance is that at least the police officers had the option of being armed to protect themselves. Politicians do not want us civilians to have the same opportunity. That is unacceptable to me. Why should I as a civilian be less able to defend myself from imminent danger, while a state agent is given that ability? Why do I have to "wait and hope"?

Saturday, August 10, 2019

The Departed

If you believe that Mr. Epstein simply "committed suicide" then there is a bridge to Brooklyn that I'll take offers on. He tried it once. My speculation was that he was "given the opportunity" to do himself the first time but he couldn't do it hence being "found in the fetal position with marks".

Those "interested parties" then took more "firm" actions. The camera was allegedly "down for service". The guards were called off.

There is a scene in The Departed where one of the crooks is met by Matt Damon in the interrogation room. He's told to "call mother". The viewer is supposed to be like "damn, he did that right under the nose of the camera and other people watching."

You right.

Anyone can get got. The names that were going to get dropped into the public domain were not going to go quietly and honestly I don't think it's just Clinton.

To quote another movie:

"The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere..."

Joe's "Gaffe"

So Joe Biden said that poor people are just as good as white people. The MSM has been saying that the statement was [another] Biden gaffe. It wasn't. It reflects what is essentially the party line of Democrats: If you are not a "Straight White Male" then you are a victim of said Strait White Male. In addition, it is another confirmation of a recent study that showed that liberals were more likely than conservatives to talk down to black people.

People dumb down their speech to people they consider less informed or less intelligent than they are. So Joe was simply stating what it is the Democrats believe. Elizabeth Warren stated an outright lie when she said that Mike Brown was murdered in Ferguson. Never mind that no such finding was arrived at by investigators. Never mind that Witness 101, who reluctantly testified because he was afraid for his and his mother's safety, provided testimony that backed Wilson.

For Democrats, everything bad that happens to black people is the fault of some white man somewhere.That black people are agency less, children who are being blown around by the vicious winds of "white supremacy". Black people locked up? Must be because of some white man rather than the dead body. Black kids not performing in school? It's because of some white man somewhere (other than in the seat next to them providing good grades by osmosis).

I said it before and I'll say it again. When Democrats see black people, they think "slave". Add "poor" and "stupid" to that list.

Wednesday, August 07, 2019

Due Process of Law

What is "due process"? Forgive me if I've arrived late to the party but it recently dawned on me that "due process" doesn't mean anything. Due process means whatever the authorities says it means. Today "due process" can mean a court proceeding. Tomorrow "due process" can mean police knocking on your door and taking you or your stuff.

In the wake of the shootings, there is a lot more talk about "red flag" laws where just about anyone can call "the authorities" and say that you are behaving (or speaking) in a manner that "concerns" them. Then the police can come to your place of residence and demand you surrender your firearm or else be killed by the same authorities. You may be thinking that the last part is not in the law. No, but any law is ultimately enforceable by the use of deadly force. Ask Eric Garner.

Another example. Statutory rape. There is no defense to statutory rape. If a person has sex with a minor regardless of circumstances, they are guilty of statutory rape. What circumstances could there be that works in the favor of the defendant? Not knowing the age of the person. A few years ago an ex-football player was caught in just such a situation. He paid for a prostitute. Whether you agree with prostitution or not is not the subject here. The person who came to his hotel room was underage. He did not know that. He assumed (wrongly) that the woman who presented herself to him was of age. She did not tell him she was underage. After the event, the ex-football player was arrested and charged with statutory rape. Apparently, the girl's pimp misrepresented the girl to the ex-footballer.

Would the ex-footballer have knowingly engaged in sex with a minor? It's possible. It certainly does happen. And certainly, a person who does so would have an incentive to lie and say they didn't know. But I still find it objectionable that a person can be found guilty of a crime in the absence of criminal intent. And for those who say that he should have known because she "looked" young, I say, come out from under the rock you live under. Many young, legal women do not look their age. There are 18-year-olds who do not look it. Not my personal taste, but they are out there and it's not my job, or the state's to dictate what those women should do, or with whom.

So back to the "due process" discussion. Since Trump has been elected to office, various left-leaning "judges" have made decisions that are unsupported by the letter of the law that they are supposed to be upholding whether they like it or not. Many of these judges have gone so far as to overextend the scope of their decisions far beyond their jurisdictions. In short, these judges have created new "due processes" out of thin air. If the government and/or its agents can decide what "due process" is based on how they felt on that particular day, then there is nothing safe from the state. Either the state is restrained by law or it isn't.

Another way "due process" becomes an "illusions" is by creeping criminalization. The entire concept of "hate speech" runs against the 1st amendment. Yet we have the department of homeland security calling the owner of a private business in for questioning because the El Paso shooter allegedly posted his manifesto to a site hosted by or that does business with Cloudflare.

How did this even get past the agency lawyers? Whether the shooter's manifesto was posted to the site or not, it is still protected speech. The government has absolutely no business in calling in citizens to question them about their or other's speech.

So perhaps I'm late to the party but it seems that the idea of "due process" isn't really what we think it is. After all, if courts can rule that "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be abridged" means they can infringe and abridge, then there really is no "due process" worth believing in.

Tuesday, August 06, 2019

The Growing Threat of "White Supremacy"

White Supremacy is indeed growing and a threat to America. This is beyond doubt. If anything has shown us that this is the case, it is the recent shootings. Indeed we must do what we can to deal with this growing problem of "White Supremacy". What exactly is the threat of "White Supremacy"? Well, it is its use by certain groups to dismiss and censor legitimate political, religious and other differences among people. The term "white supremacy" used to mean specifically people who think that white people are [to be] supreme over any and everyone else. What we find today is that it is used to describe all manner of things that are not white supremacy whatsoever. Let us examine:

1) Restricting immigration. Apparently wishing to restrict immigration is white supremacy. Not only in America, arguably a country that was founded by an immigrant (as in came from elsewhere) population, but also to the native lands of Europeans. Sticking with America, there was a time when almost all immigration was stopped. The reasoning being that there was such a high population of [European] immigrants in America, that the country risked being fractionalized as these growing populations held onto the habits and thinking of their mother countries. Hence to "Americanize" these populations, they were cut off from new supplies and forced to become Americans. Current America is in a similar situation. Large areas of the country are very much not America. English is a subordinate language and indeed in some places, completely unnecessary to conduct business, be it private or government.

But even if one disagreed with restricting legal immigration. The idea that one is a "white supremacist" if one opposes trespassing, which is what illegal entry is a total misuse of the term. Nobody likes or agrees with trespassing. This is why we lock our doors. This is why we reserve the right to say who can enter (and stay) in our places of living. Illegal entry is illegal entry. Prettying it up with "undocumented this" and "asylum" the other is just that. Prettying up an act that simply would not be tolerated if it happened on your private property. So again, if opposing illegal entry into the US is "white supremacy" then Barbara Jordan is a white supremacist.

Another reason to restrict immigration is the impact on jobs. Any person with an above room temperature IQ should know that if you increase the pool of labour, you depress the prevailing wages for that labour. Illegal immigration AND legal immigration depresses wages for the entire market.

Lastly, immigration, particularly from "developing nations" strips them of intellectual capital that could be used to build that nation. The US literally strips doctors from countries that now depend on organizations such as "doctors without borders" to do basic medical treatment. How do people who are so concerned with "White supremacy" square their immigration stands with the strip mining of "POC" intellectuals? 2) Opposition to handing out public benefits to illegal aliens. This is what we call "theft of services". To claim that it is "white supremacist". Nonsense. Citizens and legal alien residents pay taxes (property etc.) to not only fund current services as well as future services. Future services are based on extrapolations of what the populations will be. If millions more people are in the area that were not budgeted for, then services are strained. Citizens should not be subject to such things. This is not "white supremacy" this is respect for the taxpayer. 3) Opposition to illegal alien crime. This is another thing that is called "white supremacist". Certain parties will claim that crime among illegal aliens is lower than that of citizens. First of all that is not entirely true. The rate of crime in America is racially stratified with African-Americans committing far more than their demographics would predict if all things were equal. If AA crime were eliminated in total, American crime rates would be at or below European levels.

But even if it was not. No citizen or legal resident alien should be threatened by any person who should not be here. Every person killed or otherwise harmed by an illegal alien is a preventable event. Whether it be 1 or 1 million. None of it should occur. It is the job of government to keep its citizens safe (within reason), particularly from foreign nationals. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. 4) Opposition to the Tranny BS. This is considered "white supremacy" because it re-enforces "The patriarchy" and "binary definitions" which are supposed hallmarks of "white supremacy". We are told that we should allow children to "transition" to whatever they think they are because....because. We are supposed to be OK with children being put on display at gay bars and so-called "pride" events. We have moved from "the government should leave consenting adults to do whatever it is they want to do in the privacy of their own homes" to "the government should punish whoever objects to what I do in private AND in public and does not recognize that I think I'm a [choose] today."

John Derbyshire mentioned the Chinese proverb of the emperor who presented his court with a deer and said it was a horse. It is an apt story which I'm probably butchering but go along with me. In the story, this emperor wanted to know which of his courtiers would go along with him. So when he presented the deer as a horse, his various courtiers either said the horse was in fact a deer (in other words were committed to telling the truth). Others remained silent. Some said that the deer was a horse (whatever the emperor said is good enough for me!). The emperor had all the people who correctly identified the deer killed.

This is where we are. Those who dare speak the absolute truth or at least give reasonable arguments are being set upon by people drunk with ever-accumulating power. The "white supremacy" smear is just one of the tools. 5) Upholding freedom of speech. This too is now "white supremacy". The very concept that got African-Americans out of slavery, out from under Jim Crow, etc. is now scorned by the very people that benefited from it. Since "speech" can be used to "harm" those whom it may be directed or about, it should be policed and punished. Never mind that there is no "harm". What actually exists are people who think they are 'entitled" to be liked and accepted by everyone. There is no such right. If I don't care for Joe or Joe's behavior then I don't care for Joe or Joe's behavior. Joe cannot force me to like Joe or Joe's behavior and the state has no right to punish me for not liking Joe or Joe's behavior or for stating that I don't like Joe, Joe's behavior or anyone who engages in the same behavior as Joe. And Joe has to deal with it.

By attacking freedom of speech as "white supremacist", those engaging in the smear are essentially asserting their power over the population. Because the attack on speech is not an attack on speech. It is the legitimizing and delegitimizing ideas. Not only can YOU not speak but you also cannot "LISTEN" to counter arguments because those arguments have been deemed "beyond the pale". This is the essence of the ubiquitous "white supremacy" squeals from various persons. They are telling you what to think...or else.

So yes we have a "white supremacy" problem. How about we address it.

Monday, August 05, 2019

New Shooters, Old Issues

I'm going to do my little bit to dispell media dis-information in regards to the two recent shootings in the US.

1) The El-Paso shooting was instigated by Trump's...well Trump.


If you read the manifesto you'll see that he specifically mentioned Trump. He said that his particular view of the "invasion" of Texas (and America) predated Trump. In fact he had pointed words for both parties on that subject. So if the shooter is to be believed then all commentary that Trump's words were the reason for this guy's criminal act is dis-information.

2) The Dayton Shooter was Antifa.


These two issues are an indication of how much blood the media has on its hands. One the one hand it has "delegitimized" and suppressed discussion of absolutely valid issues and concerns of broad swaths of the citizenry by labeling them "white nationalists". It has legitimized absolutely ridiculous claims such as concentration camps. It has, depending on the political winds claimed there was no border crisis or that there is a border crisis. It has openly endorsed a group of people who wear masks in public who assault people it claims are "Nazis". Due to these two phenomenons: The delegitimization of valid issues of one group and the amplification of fake assertions of another has, in my opinion, fed the recent shootings.

After all, if we're going to say Trump's rhetoric caused El-Paso, then since the Dayton shooter followed Warren, should she be held accountable?

What about the guy who shot Rep. Scalise? He was a Bernie supporter. Should Sanders be held responsible for him?

Why haven't the so-called journalists asked this question of each candidate who has made the claim that Trump is responsible? Because we are living in a time of dis-information. Let's see how many times we hear about the Antifa connection of the Dayton shooter.

3) Guns are the problem.


As I've said many many times. Guns are inanimate objects. If you sit one down and nobody touches it, nobody gets shot. People shoot people. Not guns. There is no such thing as "gun violence" or "gun crime". There are people who shoot and/or kill people with guns. It is also the case that guns have been a part of American life for its entire existence, yet mass shootings of the type we are seeing is a very recent phenomenon. I've already shown that young people used to learn how to handle gun at school.

What we have is a cultural problem. It is highly likely that the cultural problem is being fed by the increased media dis-information that may be pushing mentally unstable people over lines they would not have crossed. This is pure speculation on my part. A lot of people talk about how Europe has less "gun crime". Europe also, until very recently, also has a very different culture, informed largely by a homogeneous demographic.

4) White Men are the biggest danger:

Patently false.

The FBI defines a mass shooting as one where 3 or more people have been shot in a single event. The "news" media puts white shooters front and center often for political purposes. However; when it comes to shootings period, non-whites, specifically black males, far outrank anyone else in America for shootings. This includes public places. See Ask yourself a question: If there have been so many mass shootings in America this year alone, how come you've only heard of 5?

The answer is, that most of them don't make it past the local news. Most of them do not fit the national dis-information narrative. This is not to minimize the events of this weekend. This is to not deal in dis-information.

5) No conceal carry present in Texas? Lastly, one of the things I was surprised by was that no one in the area was a concealed or open carry. Texas is a "shall issue" state. That means that anyone who is of age and is not a felon can purchase a firearm and receive a permit/license. Furthermore; it is legal in Texas to openly carry a firearm so long as it is holstered. I'm not entirely clear as to the policy Walmart has in regards to carrying in their stores.

The reason I bring this up is that the first interview I heard was of a woman who saw the shooter in the parking lot. I don't know how many people were in the parking lot but she indicated at least one other person was there. Had she or the other person been carrying it is likely that the incident would have been ended there. Criminals tend to pick places and people where they are unlikely to meet resistance. It is often said in self-defense circles that no one can help you except you. No disrespect for the police, but many people were killed in both incidences because there was no one in the immediate environment who could resist the shooter with deadly force. Armed citizens do not in any way, shape or form guarantee that no one will be shot and killed. However, the presence of armed (and trained) citizens can absolutely drop the potential body count because shooters often end their crimes once resistance is met. If you think I'm lying here's video evidence:

And because I'm honest, the other side:

Perhaps a CC was present but decided it was best to not intervene.

So closing this out I just want to say that these are dangerous times, relatively speaking. What is making this dangerous is the censoring of legitimate issues by state and corporate actors. The reason we have free speech is in part because those who feel they can communicate will often NOT resort to violence. The most dangerous people are those who believe they have nothing to lose (and now media fame to gain). The second reason we have free speech is that we cannot be absolutely sure of the rightness or correctness of our beliefs. Therefore; the ability of those to challenge our beliefs via their speech, is how we become better thinkers ourselves. Name-calling and ad-hominem attacks are not arguments. Resorting to them doesn't prove your case. Living in echo chambers does nothing for critical thinking because echo chambers by definition have no critiques to offer.

Beware the dis-information.

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

The Mueller Testimony

If you believe in equal protection under the law and such things as "innocent until proven guilty" you should be mad as hell at what Mueller said today:

This was a what?

"A unique situation"

No. The president, like every other fucking citizen is protected under the law. That includes the presumption of innocence.

A few years ago I wrote about the stop and frisk policy in NYC. Even though it undoubtedly saved lives, I was and AM against it because it blatantly violated the 4th amendment rights of the persons stopped. Courts agreed and ordered NY to stop the practice. It was the right thing to do. No citizen should be subject to "unique situation" prosecutions that abridge their rights. Such behavior is a threat to each and every one of us.

Shame on Mueller for even moving his mouth to speak such a thing. Shame on any and every media outlet that lets such a thing pass. Shame on any and every elected official that thinks such a thing is OK. Shame on YOU if you're a US citizen reading this and are not bothered.

"justice" due to "unique situation".

Monday, July 22, 2019

The Mis-Education

An article from dropped in my feed the other day. Entitled Overdue Assignment: Making NYC Schools Culturally Responsive, it encapsulates a lot of what is wrong with the American educational system and why there are attacks on what used to be considered core tenets of American society such as "innocent until proven guilty". Let's look at the piece:

“The curriculum taught me that white people captured me and took away my freedom. Why would I want to learn this?”

That goes through the minds of many black students as they sit in social studies class, says Jamaal Bowman, principal of Cornerstone Academy for Social Action in Co-op City.

Well you shouldn't want to learn that because it is not what happened. This myth of the "white man stole us" is, unfortunately embedded in the minds of many black people. History shows that what actually happened was that Africans were sold to Europeans (when they weren't being sold to Arabs) by other Africans. Many of these enslaved Africans were victims of warfare (sometimes motivated by the selling of Africans). Others were simply kidnapped, by other Africans.

These enslaved Africans were then brought to the coast where they were housed in places like El Mina

Where they awaited boarding for the middle passage. They were bought for things like bathtubs, cloths and Cowry shells.

Yes these things

So no, you were not stolen by white people who deprived you of your freedom. You were enslaved by black people, who deprived you of your freedom and sold to white people as property.

Onto the next.

Cornerstone takes a different approach. While many schools begin their study of black history with American slavery, Cornerstone reaches back to Ancient Egypt’s African roots. His students, Bowman told a town hall on education in the Bronx last month, learn that they “are descendants of kings and queens, not descendants of slaves. That’s a big difference.”
Ahh history class as self-esteem boosting session. Think about this. In England there is one king and one queen and a few princes and princesses, etc. Out of a population of 53 million people. How do you think that YOU are descended from "kings and queens"? Seriously. While there are noted cases where a king or queen were captured and transported, the sheer number of people means that YOU are *unlikely* to be descended from *any* of them. If you need to be told that you are descended from "kings and queens" in order to feel better about yourself, you have serious issues. Schools should not be lying to students. That there are/were African royalty doesn't mean that all Africans are "descended from kings and queens" anymore than being English makes you English royalty.
Nelson Luna of the Bronx, now a first-year student at Columbia University, agrees that’s not currently the case. “When you don’t see yourself, you don’t feel connected and you don’t feel passionate. You feel out of place,” says Luna, a co-founder of Teens Take Charge, which organizes students to speak out about integration and other issues.
It is not the purpose of American history classes to "make you see yourself". It is the purpose of American history classes to teach American history, which for the large part doesn't include a lot of non-whites. Why? Because they are not the founding population. This is like going to Japan and complaining that you don't "see yourself". Why should you?
More than a half century after schools abandoned the “Dick and Jane” readers in the wake of concerns about their whiteness and sexism, many lessons and materials in New York City schools seem out of touch with a student body that is about 85 percent of black, Latino and Asian.
Colonizers erase the history and language of the "host" country. This is colonization. the "Dick and Jane" readers that I grew up on didn't bother me one bit. I spent hours reading books because I liked to read. No one was telling me how oppressive it was to read The Count of Monte Cristo, Moby Dick, etc. Here's the thing, you can be "inclusive" without tossing "Dick and Jane". These black, Latino and Asian" students need to recognize that "Dick and Jane" founded the country and have a right to be in the curriculum.
A few highly publicized incidents have drawn attention to the issue. There was the 5th grade practice test that praised Robert E. Lee’s wife for showing “genuine concern” for her slaves by teaching them to read, write and sew.
I'm old enough to remember when my elders in the "struggle" told me that there were many "good white people" who did things that could get them killed. Teaching an enslaved African how to read or write was often a severely punishable offense. Many of us cannot fathom the idea that such a simple thing that we take for granted could result in hanging from a tree somewhere. We never used to "shit" on such persons. Now I suppose such things are not "woke" enough. I thought the new woke was supposed to support white people being "race traitors". Clearly Lee's wife would qualify.

By the way, both Nat Turner and Fredrick Douglass were taught to read by white people.

In history, many issues are ignored or distorted. “Often, we don’t tell complex histories nor do we tell truthful histories,” says coalition coordinator Natasha Capers. “Students are still learning that Columbus discovered American and he was a brave explorer tried and true. That is just not true. And it erases the true history of what Columbus did across the Americas to other folks.”
See opening paragraphs in regards to "distorted" and "untrue" history. You don't replace one "untrue" story with another. Secondly whether one like Columbus or not, sailing around the globe at that time was a brave act. Particularly going to "wrong" direction at a time that people generally thought the world was flat. It's really easy for city kids with zero experience sailing to talk shit about Columbus.
Aneth Naranjo, director of youth leadership at IntegrateNYC and a recent graduate of Leon Goldstein High School for the Sciences in Brooklyn, thinks her history courses there had a white male perspective. “The American Revolution gets so much time but they skip over hundreds of years of slavery,” she said, adding, “As a Latina, I know my people’s history has a place in our history but I never got that.”
Firstly, I'm getting quite annoyed about all these "youth leaders". Secondly, as stated before, the United States was founded by whites (including males). That's why they get so much time. Again, it's like going to Japan and complaining about how Asians are 99% of the history. Duh. Slavery in America proper lasted a bit over 100 years. Slavery as an institution is about as old as humans have been organized and is not peculiar to America (the country). Lastly the entire "as a Latina" means squat outside of Puerto Rico, the American southwest and California. The latter being previously property of Mexico, a Spanish colony, who lost a war with America.
Luna graduated from Democracy Prep Charter school in Upper Manhattan, which follows the state curriculum for global history. “You spend one day on South America, and two days on Africa, and most of the lessons are concentrated on European and American history,” he says. “The French Revolution–you go very in depth on that, almost two months.”
Please send her back.

To school, because clearly "Democracy Prep" failed to educate this person. There is a reason why the French Revolution looms large in American history. There is a reason why European history looms large in American history classes. Does this chick understand the implications of America basically being an extension of England? You cannot fully understand why we have the governing system we have if you do not understand European (specifically English) history.

Maurice Blackmon, a leadership and advocacy coach at IntegrateNYC, teaches a class called Worlds Collide at Essex Street Academy in lower Manhattan. It looks at three major American civilizations–the Maya, Taino and the Aztec–and considers “what made these civilizations unique and advanced for their time. We don’t spend the majority of the time talking about the genocide or the colonizing of civilizations. I think that is a unique approach,” Blackmon says.
The Taino were not "advanced". Period. The Maya and Aztecs were advanced to a degree. I'm pretty certain that Mr. Blackmon doesn't want to get into the massive amounts of human sacrifices that were practices in Mezo-America. Nor do I believe that Blackmon would call any of that "civilized" nor want to be subject to it. I'm certain it pains Mr. Blackmon to admit that the Spanish were responsible for ending that practice and that many of the smaller tribes were extremely happy to no longer be subject to that barbarism.

This strikes a chord with the many Latino students at Essex. But Blackmon says studying those civilizations and reading multiple accounts of them helps the entire class: “It enables us to talk about how history is taught and whose history is taught and which context. [Students] really feel that they are doing the work of historians by engaging in these conversations instead of just sitting there and being fed history from a particular perspective”
So these students graduate with no understanding of the cultures and people that actually founded the country they live in and hence why the institutions that were created by those people are the way they are. Again, History classes in these "schools" are actually indoctrination and self-esteem boosting enterprises. Explains a lot.

I'm not against teaching about other histories and cultures in schools. I'm not even against critiquing the "standard" education curriculum. I am against inflating the egos of non-white students and turning them into victims by trying to equalize cultures and their achievements (and lack thereof). I'm against creating fake histories to compensate for fake histories. Sometimes the stone hard truth is:

You and your people had shit to do with making America what it is, but please do take the opportunity to contribute without shitting on those who made the opportunity possible.

Thursday, July 18, 2019


So I take some time and visit Niagara Falls, leave the laptop, generally stay unplugged and I come home to see the media in a tizzy. I thought perhaps that they had finally discovered the fact that an Asian man was beaten by a band of white people wearing masks. After all the whole Jussie incident taught me that white people beating "POC" is a universally bad thing.

I was wrong.

Then I thought that perhaps the media discovered that a member of the same mask wearing group had stormed a government building armed with incendiary devices and a gun. Because I'm old enough to remember when a man blew up a government building and that such activities were a very bad thing.

No, I was wrong.

Apparently the actual outrage was that Trump said some snarky stuff to a set of women who spend a lot of their public press time talking snarky stuff about Trump. Politicians trading insults. I'm not going to comment on the comments. What I want to know is why actual political violence perpetrated by masked and armed "Antifa" is barely news in the MSM and barely worthy of commentary by those running for office.

This latest Trump commentary took less than 6 hours to be news everywhere including morning show "analysis" while the aforementioned criminal and terrorist activities of a masked group of people warrant not much more than a peep.

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

If They Were So Inclined...

So Apple is launching free workshops to "young Londoners" [BAME] at risk of being "caught up" in gangs.


Bi-weekly sessions, which will also include workshops on photography and health and fitness tech, will be led by the company’s London team members, with Instagram influencers and industry experts brought in to speak and provide demonstrations.
I assure you that the "young Londoners" who are "at risk" already have access to Instagram and whatever and whoever artist they are going to do the dog and pony show with. Why is there a need for a special program?

They include north London-based Art Against Knives, which runs art projects with 10 to 25-year-olds, and Croydon’s City Listeners, which supports young people aged 12 to 18 identified as being ‘at risk’ with mentors, 1:1 sessions and group workshops to build key life skills. [my underlines]
"Workshops to build key life skills" is called "school" and "parenting". Why does the city of London need to do what the parents are supposed to be doing? And if the "young Londoners" were so inclined to learn "key life skills" in a group setting wouldn't they be in, you know, school?
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “I am determined to do everything I can to provide positive opportunities for young people this summer and that’s why I am pleased to be working with Apple on a series of programmes to help young people develop the skills they need to get the jobs of tomorrow, while also ensuring they have something constructive and safe to do during the summer holidays.” [my underlines]
Once again, "Programmes to help young people develop skills they need to get the jobs of tomorrow" is If they were so educationally inclined already, wouldn't they not be "at risk"?

The "jobs of tomorrow" that require coding skills, require that a person be inclined to sit in front of a screen for hours at a time while solving problems in a logical way. If these "young Londoners" were so inclined, wouldn't they not be "at risk"? And if they are NOT already so inclined, exactly what is the point?

The only good I see this doing is getting "young Londoners" who are at risk of being victims of gangs wilding out with various bladed objects, off the street. That's a good thing. But to pretend that those who are wilding out with blades are doing so because they have nothing better to do with their time (as they perceive it) is foolish. They will play with Logic and Garageband on Apple's dime during the day and poke holes in a vic that evening. Trust.

RE: The Obituary for Western Civilization Can Now be Written

Paul Craig Roberts writes:
Here is a video of one of the migrant gangs that have been welcomed into Europe sticking a pistol’s barrel into the mouth of a male Swedish teenager and ordering him to dance. Having been taught that it is racist, and perhaps a crime, to oppose invaders from the Third World, instead of fighting back the Swedish teenager complies and accepts, like a good European male, the humiliation.
Video: Just want to point out that if someone has a gun in your mouth or pointed in your direction you do whatever they tell you to do. As Active Self Protection says:

You wait your turn.

Other than that, I concur. Much of Europe is done for and have only themselves to blame.

The Fatal Flaw Of Brown V Board Exposed in NYC

Brown V Board is the [American] historic decision that desegregated schools. Since desegregation is a word tossed around without any apparent understanding of what it is, I'll take the time to remind the reader that segregation was a legal framework that separated races in various areas of people activities including education. There was nothing "voluntary" about it. One couldn't move into a better neighborhood to get your kid into a white school. Your money didn't matter.

What passes today as "segregation" are either a result of living patterns that people voluntarily enter into or are the result of scores on standardized tests. There is no "segregation" in America today. People choose to aggregate in groups based on income, social status, etc. Getting back to Brown, the decision was based on some extremely faulty thinking:

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. [Footnote 10]" [My underlines]
So here we have the court saying that black children, in the absence of white children would be unable to develop properly and that they needed the contact with white children to receive benefits. Furthermore; it was the existence of segregation laws that brought about this mental "underdevelopment". In conclusion, Black people, prior to Brown V. Board were mentally deficient due to their inability to sit with white children.

Let that sink in.

So what does this have to do with NYC 2019? Glad you asked. City-Journal has a piece on Richard [The blacks are too stupid to pass the test] Carranza "work" as NYC Schools Chancellor. In the transcript of the podcast we find the following:

Ray Domanico: I don't think the chancellor has been very explicit in explaining to us why this is an issue. The research itself is very complicated. There have been some studies which indicate that a mix of students in schools might lead to some benefit. But we're up against some pretty stark numbers in New York City. Over 40% of the New York City public school population is Hispanic and close to 30% is black. And there are more Asian students than whites in New York City; both of those groups come in around 15 to 16%. So if it were true that integration were a necessity to have good schools, we're going to run out of the white kids to move around. The other group of schools, though, that suggests that success can be attained without this approach would be the charter schools in New York City, which are doing better than the district-run public schools. There are close to 120,000 students in charter schools right now in New York City and the vast majority of them are black and Hispanic. These are schools of choice for families of color in the city who are seeking better alternatives. At the same time, there are private schools, particularly Catholic schools and other religious schools, that serve the black and Latino community. There are quite a few students enrolled there and those schools seem to be doing well.
So non-white student make up 86% of the school population (including Asians). So by the logic of the 1954 court. Since segregation laws no longer exist black students should be doing just fine. But they apparently aren't. So if the laws weren't the reason (by looking at the evidence), then it must be the proximity to white students. Since there aren't many to sit next to then the failure of black students to perform [as well as white and Asian ones] must necessarily mean that blacks are incapable of performing in the absence of said students.

If it is not the law, nor the lack of available white students to sit next to then we are left with one other conclusion: Blacks as a group are inherently incapable of keeping up with white or Asian students.

So what of these charter schools? Steve Sailor recently wrote of the KIPP schools in NY. He linked to an article from the NYT:

Mr. Buery, who is black and grew up in East New York, Brooklyn, noticed that black and Hispanic students in KIPP schools were sometimes being disciplined too harshly by their white teachers. The network’s high schools had impressive academic results and graduation rates, but their students then struggled in college. And KIPP executives’ relationships with elected officials were fraying. [My underlines]
How exactly do you have "impressive academic results and graduation rates" and students who "struggled in college"? Either the students aren't actually up to par or they are enrolling in schools where they are in way over their heads.
The college graduation rate for KIPP alumni is about 35 percent, above the national average for low-income students but not nearly as high as its founders had envisioned. After years of attempts to help KIPP alumni graduate, the network is proposing new solutions, which it hopes other schools will emulate.
So the schools do a better job than the student's zoned school but they are still behind whatever benchmark the KIPP schools are using.

There's a lot of effort going into externalizing the issue of academic performance of black students. It's wasting a lot of time. We all know the bright students when we interact with them. We all know the bright but lacking in impulse control students when we interact with them. We know the "not all that bright" when we interact with them. At some point "we" are going to have to come to reckon that the "not all that bright" are not going to suddenly become A students because some teacher was put through "bias training" or some other nonsense.

Equal Pay

So since the US Women's soccer team has won (again) they are, well Rapinoe is, talking about equal pay for equal work. Unlike say women's tennis where the women literally play less than the men, this argument has at least the veneer of truth under it. The men play 90 minute regulation and so do the women. However; the men get paid more. Why is that?

Here's Forbes on the matter:

As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women's World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men's World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players.

The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men's World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women's World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.

So $6 billion in revenue vs. $131 million in revenue. If the women were paid at the same percentage of revenue as men then the women's pay would decrease. I'm pretty sure they don't want that.

Why does this matter? Well, soccer is a business. A business pays it's workers what it can afford to (or in some cases, get away with). All computer programmers don't make the same money. The ones who work for financial firms who make billions are paid far more than a company that make far less.

Similarly, in the past I have had black academics say how they refused to work at HBCUs because the pay was too low and "slavery is over". Somehow they think that the average HBCU which have very very small endowments and budgets have the same ability to pay as a public state or even Ivy league institution. But back to sports.

I have a solution to this entire issue. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it but here it is: For one season only, mix the men and women. So for track, men and women compete at the same races. For tennis, the men are paired off with whomever, male or female. In soccer you either mix genders on each team OR have the women's teams compete as "duos" for each country. That is, you may get to play the men's team or the women's team. So on and so forth with the winners advancing to the finals.

What you will see is that with the possible exception of the soccer "mixed team" that all the women will be knocked out in the earlier rounds. This would end the entire "equal pay" discussion because it would be clear to the public that men and women are not equal in physical competition. And that's OK.

Tuesday, July 09, 2019

When They Hate Us

A play on the title of the previous post in regards to a not funny situation. One of the things about trying to be fair and neutral about incidents that are claimed to be "racist" is that sometimes you have to find for the alleged racist. Whether I like a security guard approaching a black guy who ducks in "his" hotel to make a call or not, the security guard is there for a reason and is doing his job.

Whether I like having my large bills scanned six ways to Sunday by a store clerk or not, she's doing her job and if I had been passed a fake bill and passed that fake bill onto her and she failed to check it, she's fired. She's doing her job.

But then there are events that there are no "neutral" explanations. Running up on someone who is minding his business and killing him is one of them.

Police say a man accused of fatally stabbing a 17-year-old in the throat at an Arizona convenience store told them he felt threatened because the teen had been listening to rap music.
It wasn't the rap music. The largest consumers of rap music are white people. This was about race. Period.
Witnesses told police that the man, who's been identified as Michael Paul Adams, 27, walked up behind the teen, grabbed him and stabbed him in the neck, according to a probable cause statement obtained by CNN affiliate KPHO/KTVK.
So unlike the guy who shot at the kid who knocked on his door asking for directions or the one who shot other black people playing loud music at a gas station, he can't even claim some sort of self-defense. Because walking up behind your victim and stabbing him in the neck is in no way "self-defense".
He said Al-Amin didn't do anything threatening but that the youth had been listening to rap music in his car in the parking lot, according to the statement.

"Adams stated rap music makes him feel unsafe, because in the past he has been attacked by people (Blacks, Hispanics, and Native American) who listen to rap music. Adams further stated, people who listen to rap music are a threat to him and the community," the report said.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this person is not all that stable. Still, it stands as a warning to always be aware of your surroundings.

Now as a link to the previous "When They See Us" post; isn't it a shame when people who are minding their own business, running, biking, walking, going to to store, get assaulted and/or killed by random people? Isn't it a SHAME? It is. That's why you can't be all "Central Park Five!" on the one hand and "this racist piece of sh*t" on the other. Random violence against people is wrong. Period.

Sunday, July 07, 2019

When They See Us

I haven't watched the documentary so I'm not going to comment on it as a work of art. I mention it because last week my mother brought up the movie and how sad it was that the boys went through so much in prison. I wasn't sympathetic and reminded her that her son, that would be me, was almost a victim of "wilding" that very same year. She only has me to take her to the supermarket due to a few factors I'll discuss at the end of this post. In regards to The Five one thing gets lost in the discussion: Even if they didn't beat AND rape the woman, they were up to no good in the park. They were not "innocent". Lets look at the facts:
“They picked me up by my neck and then by my feet,” he told jurors during the trial for Salaam, Santana and McCray. He said the attackers threw him to the ground and “kept kicking at me and hitting me with their fists.” In their statements, Wise, Richardson, Salaam, McCray and Lopez admitted to attacking Diaz and dragging his body off to the side.
So they admitted to more than the assault on the jogger, who I'll agree got press because she was white.
Lopez and McCray told investigators that someone grabbed Diaz’s beer and poured it on him. McCray also said a kid named Tony stole Diaz’s food. Four others, according to a motion filed by the district attorney’s office, accused Montolvo, one of the teens arrested and charged, of eating Diaz’s food. Montolvo similarly told police that the group tried to jump a solo biker and then encountered the “bum.” “Everybody,” he said, began kicking him. Montolvo said he ate Diaz’s food while the others continued to beat Diaz.
Again, They clearly weren't all that innocent.
Within 30 minutes of the assaults, several boys were stopped in the park and taken into custody, including Richardson and Santana. Between April 20 and 21, the team of detectives that questioned the Central Park Five also took video statements from Steven Lopez, Clarence Thomas, Lamont McCall, Jomo Smith and Michael Briscoe. Although these individuals said they were in the park with the Central Park Five and detailed other attacks, none of them confessed to sexually assaulting Meili.

In addition to the Central Park Five, Lopez, Briscoe, Thomas, McCall, Antonio Montalvo, Orlando Escobar and Jermaine Robinson were arrested.

Didn't know there were more than 5 people involved eh?

You can read the rest of the piece if you have access to WSJ online. I won't further copy the text. But here's the personal reason why I'm not sympathetic:

In the summer of 1989 I was playing handball in a queens park. At one point the people I was playing with all decided to leave. I was the only person left. Even the basketball courts were empty. I thought it was odd but continued to play. A guy I didn't know or recognize approached me and asked a question. I don't recall the exact question but whatever it was, it struck me as odd. He left and went towards a corner store where there were a few other people hanging around. I started to play again, but something told me to look around. I looked back in the direction that the guy went in and noticed that the small crowd at the corner store had grown in number. I paused and thought that perhaps I should leave like everyone else had because something was likely to go down. As I exited the handball court cage, I looked back and the crowd was running towards me at full tilt.

I was about to get jumped.

I am a runner. At the time a sprinter who untrained could run an 11 sec 100 meters (for reference that's a second off the women's world record prior to 2011) . I did just that and made it out the park. However; the mob had split up and were going to try to flank me as I was blocked by a major highway. I had only one way to get away from that crowd and that was to cross the highway against traffic. Fortunately there was a red light some 400 meters away that had just turned green so I was able to cross that road before cars reached me. However the mob didn't make it and I was able to get away.

At my high school I witnessed a gang descend upon the school at the end of the day to beat up ONE person. ONE. So I have absolutely no sympathy for any person who participates in such behavior who later has "a hard time in life".

Funny though. Nobody seems to be upset that some chick got beat up in Central Park. Nobody seems to be mad about the men who got beat up and robbed in the park. Like their victimization doesn't even count. Not to mention the untold numbers of people who had been beaten and robbed that never got media or police attention.

Friday, July 05, 2019

Make A Better Argument

One may be shocked at how open socialists are able to run and get elected in the US. You may be shocked that such persons are in all areas of US society. You shouldn't be. Firstly because it's been a long time coming. Secondly; we have a generation of people who do not understand true poverty and despotism and have only seen the failures of the system under which they live. To people who have seen and lived through the 2008 meltdown and have massive student debt and fear retirement the following sounds very appealing:

Now lets take this piece by piece:

To someone who cannot find a job, or has low job security, how does this sound like a bad thing? To someone who thinks they are being discriminated against in terms of wages?

Again, if you are "poor" and cannot afford to take a vacation because you either don't get vacation days or use your vacation to work a second job, how does this sound bad? You live in the "richest country in the world". Why should the rich be the only people who can afford to go off on vacation and play in clubs and not have to worry about their income?

Once again, who wants to worry about being sick? If you cannot afford to save/invest for retirement why should you worry about old age?

We already have state paid for (via taxes)compulsory primary education. So what's so bad about "free" higher education?

Now that linked video apparently doesn't contain his entire rant so I cannot say whether he addressed those items but if you are honest you cannot say that the examples above are not extremely appealing. You aren't going to convince someone otherwise by simply saying that this is "the Russian dream" or that Stalin said it. That's not an argument. You have to make an argument that is more compelling.

China is a communist country (with an interesting brand of capitalism). China has risen rapidly in the world. Yet it is not a "freedom loving" country. So it shows that a country doesn't have to be "democratic" in order to do well. It also shows that people will accept restrictions on their freedom if they can "see" a certain level of benefits.

The main argument made against socialism/communism is that the money eventually runs out for all the state-run programs. Unfortunately, much of the US population is woefully deficient in knowledge of financial matters. Tax the rich sounds good to them because someone having a billion dollar net worth is unfathomable. Many people think 100,000 is a lot of money until they realize that rent alone in any major city would eat that entire amount up in less than 10 years.

Simply put, there aren't enough rich people, and they don't have enough money to pay for all the programs that people think they want. The "rich" already pay most of the taxes. The top 1% paid $538,257 million in taxes. The top 10% paid $1,240,010 million. The bottom 50% paid $43,863 million. So the whole "the rich don't pay [enough] taxes" really doesn't hold up. Oh and that's income taxes. If "the rich" decide to up and relocate, well there goes most of the taxes. How exactly will these plans be paid for then?

Of course if you tax the rich to the point where they don't make any income, they won't be rich for long (bills don't go away because income has) and you're back to "how do you pay for it". Essentially the state cannot pay for all these programs without the taxes it collects. If it just prints money you get Venezuela where the money is useless. If the money is useless then none of the programs discussed above can be maintained.

I mentioned the 2008 crash. A lot of people were left with a sour taste in their mouths when the banks got bailed out. Personally, I'm in the camp of "let 'em go down and let the chips fall where they may". But another look at this is that a large percent of the population has it's retirement savings in those same banks. Could you look your parents in the eye and say that their 401k should be obliterated in order to stand on principle? Would you crash your own 401K "on principle"? Real question. Indeed there are some very bad things going on in the FIRE segments which should be addressed. But they need addressing. No amount of "Russian dream" and "Stalin said this" is going to convince someone who's been cut by the jagged edges of the American economy that "The Socialists are bad". I'm not going to spend time writing what the "better argument" is because it would take too long. But the argument will need to be made. Freedom doesn't sound all that appealing when one is in deep debt, feels they've been taken advantage of and discriminated against.

Tuesday, July 02, 2019

Of Jussie and Andy

This is Jussie.

Jussie said that on one night in Feburary during the polar vortex when it was 19 below zero. Two MAGA hat wearing white men accosted him. Beat him up and tied a noose around his neck. They shouted "This is MAGA country" and then let him go with the sandwich he had just purchased at a nearby Subway.

Within hours this story was top news across the US as celebrities and politicians lined up to condemn the "attack" as a sign of "what Trump has wrought". The only evidence of any suspect at the time was:

For weeks this story was front and center. Jussie even got Good Morning America to interview him where he boo-hoo'd about the "traumatic event".

Come to find out that the only evidence was that the event was staged and that two Nigerian friends of Jussie were paid to do the deed.

Litigation is still ongoing.

This is Andy

Andy was, in fact, beat up by multiple white people. None of them wearning MAGA hats. None of them shouted "This is MAGA country". In fact we have actual video evidence of the crime:

Allow me to point out a few frames: Here's Andy being punched:

Here's Andy getting sprayed after being kicked:

Here's Andy having an object thrown at him by a white man who I assume described himself as "anti-racist":

Here's another one:

Here's a white woman who no doubt considers herself not only "anti-racist" but also a feminist:

Andy has brain bleed and as far as I know has been released from the ER.

Now there have been disputed reports that the "milkshakes" used in to attack Andy contained "quick cement". The source of this claim is allegedly an e-mail received by Portland police. I don't know if it's true or not but that is beside the point. The point is that Andy was at an event in a public space. Andy reports on Antifa activities. Whether he is a "real journalist" is beside the point. The US Constitution protects all citizens right to speak and write on any subject matter they deem fit and the state is obligated to protect such freedom not only from state actors such as the police but also from [mobs of] private citizens who would seek to abridge that right. So claims that Andy wasn't a "real reporter" falls flat. That Andy is purportedly "right wing" is irrelevant because your right to not be assaulted in a public space doesn't disappear because your politics are unpopular.

There is simply no excuse for what happened in Portland. None.

Secondly, the fact that it hasn't been reported on just as widely as Jussie's faked assault says everything you need to know about the mainstream media. Here are some headlines prompted by the video and images I showed you above:

Huffington Post:


Self-defense eh? That's not what the video shows.

Other outlets have spent their time discussing how the claim about the concrete was fake and being used by conservatives as if the BEATING didn't happen or that the beating was justified.

Yes, Medium, please do tell us about how Andy wasn't a victim.

Antifa is a domestic (actually international) terrorist organization. It claims self-defense against those it labels Neo-Nazis. However; it regards anyone to their right (including moderates) as Neo-Nazis, hence anyone who disagrees with them is in danger of receiving the same treatment. ANY. One. Like this guy:

Who you won't hear about because he's not famous.

So remember: Fake hate crimes are more important than actual crimes [in which the victim deserves it because his skirt was too short and he was walking in a bad part of town].