Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Monday, May 06, 2019

Biden brings up Jim Crow. We Are Not Surprised

Every time a Democrat runs for office, they go to black communities and never, ever fail to bring up slavery, Jim Crow, MLK and the Civil Rights movement. Most times it's all at one speech but sometimes one or two are left out. Though not for long. It's pretty telling about what Democrats think of black folks that the go to thought they have upon seeing one of us is:


Gosh it feels so nice to know that when people want something from me, particularly my vote, they think:


Makes my heart warm. Sho' nuff.

Yass boss. Slabery sho' was bad. SHo nuff don't want that coming back. Where I sign boss?

As you can see from the subhead of this blog, I keep a running count of days since Trump has been in office. Tavis Smiley said, straight up that Trump would make slavery come back. I kid you the fuck not. So I decided that I'd keep a count of how long it took Trump to put we folk back on plantations (getting rid of expensive Mexican day labourers in the process). As of this writing it is 836 days. Any day now. Any day.

They must be busy making the shackles.

Anyway, here's ol Joe:

“Folks,” the former vice president told an audience gathered inside a hot community center gymnasium, “last year, 24 states introduced or enacted at least 70 bills to curtail the right the vote. And guess what — mostly directed at people of color. You see it. We have Jim Crow sneaking back in.”
Yas boss. You see it is racist to ask people to:

1) Be actual citizens of the US to vote.

During her 2018 campaign for governor of Georgia, Abrams told supporters there would be a "blue wave" of Democratic victories fueled by many people, including "those who are documented and undocumented." At the time, the Washington Free Beacon contacted her campaign for comment and did not hear back.
"Didn't hear back".

See this silly woman, with nary a peep from the DNC bigwigs said that illegal aliens should be able to vote. Say black folks why should your vote be nullified by the vote of someone who shouldn't even be in the country? Explain to me how getting our asses beat on the Edmund Pettus bridge was so that someone who shouldn't be here should be able to nullify our vote.

2) Get an ID to vote:

Let me give you an example of how assinine this one is. I missed a package delivery on Friday. They left a notice saying it would be delivered to a center that has "cubbies" where I could pick it up. However, in order to get the package not only did I need the delivery notice, I needed government issued ID. That ID had to have the same address as the location they had on file. Apparently, THIS is not racist. Clearly if expecting a person to have ID violated civil rights laws, then the delivery company could not requre it. Yet it is perfectly legal. This is important. To have the same requirement so that people don't do things like vote more than once. Vote where they are not residents. Vote when they are not eligible to vote because they are NOT citizens, is considered racist. Why? Because someone at the ACLU thinks that it is a racist burden to require a citizen to get a government issued ID. Not only that. Black people are apparently waaaaaaaaaay too busy in their lives to get this ID even for elections they know happens every 4 years. Talk about lead time. Lastly in regards to this comment from Biden:

And a few minutes after the Jim Crow remark, when talking about the need to “uplift” communities trapped in poverty and to end “the legacy of systemic racism,” Biden offered an allusion to an old Obama lament: “When two equally qualified people, one Jamal and one John, both apply for a job and John gets the job.”
Depends on the job, in many cases, both Jamal and John will be told that they will hear back soon and Juan will be picked up at the local Home Depot parking lot.

Here's an example I wrote about in 2013:

“I’ve been turned down from McDonald’s because I was told I was too articulate,” she says. “I got denied a job scrubbing toilets because I didn’t speak Spanish and turned away from a laundromat because I was ‘too pretty.’ I’ve also been told point-blank to my face, ‘We don’t hire the unemployed.’ And the two times I got real interest from a prospective employer, the credit check ended it immediately.” [my underlines]
Or as the people in Lordstown OH found out: Jamal and John will have the factory shut down and their job moved to Mexico so Juan and Maria can get a job at lower wages.

But don't you worry Jamal. At least you won't have to worry about slavery and Jim Crow coming back....any day now.

Friday, May 03, 2019

Sen Klobuchar Is A Bad Lawyer

Imagine if you will:

You have been accused of selling drugs. You have hired Amy Klobuchar as your legal representative. After looking at the totality of the evidence against you, none of which includes any actual evidence of selling drugs your court day arrives. The judge asks how you plead and Amy says that you will plead guilty.

Shocking. I know.

Amy continues to tell the court that although there is absolutely no definitive or direct evidence supporting the charge that her client has sold drugs, since there is evidence that her client knew drug users and sellers and had "friendly relations" with said persons including telling one drug seller that "I guess you have to do what you have to do", the "totality of the evidence" shows guilt and thus her client is guilty as charged.

Preposterous right? What lawyer in their right mind would do such a thing? Well this is exactly what Sen Klobuchar proposed when questioning AG Barr.

Here are some important points:

And Barr is right. How do we know this? We know this because the report shows the many times Trump asked people to do things and they refused to do them. Hence since we know people have refused to do what Trump wants, then it is not a clear cut (as in beyond resonable doubt) case of obstruction.

Hanging that hat on Cohen is probably not the best strategy. Aside from that, offering support to a witness is not seeking to tamper with testimony. If that was the case then any witness called by the defense at a trial would be corrupt. Duh. I do wonder what the senator actually learned in law school. So Barr has to re-educate the senator:

Thursday, May 02, 2019

It's Not A Crime But Is It OK?

Here is an example of the assinine questions lobbed at Barr yesterday.

It is not the job of the AG to opine on whether something is "OK" if it is not criminal. It is the job of the AG to determine whether a crime (or civil infraction) has occurred. If one has not occurred the AG has nothing to do.

And to answer Hirono's assinine question: Yes it is OK because it is the power of the executive to fire those he can appoint.

Note on the Barr Testimony

This morning I watched a "report", more properly considered propaganda, on Barr's testimony to the Senate committee. In that report was a clip of Barr flatly stating "That isn't a crime". The tone of voice and look on his face underscored his weariness of having to explain to these "representatives" what does and does not constitute criminal behavior under the law. For far too many people, particularly on the left, that which they dislike is "criminal" for which "something has to be done".

On this same report was a guest who opined, incorrectly, that Trump, in seeking to remove Mueller was committing obstruction of justice. Why? Because Trump was trying to remove "the accuser". which if she had her law correct would indeed be obstruction of justice by means of witness intimidation or tampering. The problem is that is not what happened. Let me explain.

In the American system of law, a person is considered innocent of any criminal charge until proven guilty after the consideration of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. In this system, a person (sometimes a group) may inform the authorities of some crime. Let's say murder for this example. Person A may say that person X killed person B. The authorities cannot simply go and arrest person X just because person A said so. The authorities conduct an investigation. The probable cause being the initial statement on person A. The authorities may, for example, try to locate the body of person B. Say that the body of person B has been found dead. The police have reasonable grounds to say a crime has occurred. They also have reason to question person X. Why? because evidence of an actual crime has been found and there is testimony that person x may be involved. Here's the thing though, person X doesn't have to cooperate. The US Constitution's 5th Amendment allows that a citizen cannot be compelled to testify against himself (pleading the fifth). In other words, non-cooperation is specifically allowed for by US law and is not grounds for criminal prosecution. It is the burden of the state to prove it's case against any target.

Lets say that the case goes to trial. If the accused attorneys feel that the judge (or any jury member) has a conflict of interest or bias against the accused, he may ask that the judge be recused or jury member dismissed. Hence it is known that it is the right of the accused to not be subject to biased proceedings. It is not "obstruction of justice" to request these things. So let's return to Trump.

Unlike Nixon's Watergate, there was no crime being investigated by authorities. Nor was there a substantiated crime to investigate to base an investigation of. So the very first problem is that the authorities were set upon a citizen with no legal grounds to do so. But surely the Russian Meddling(tm) was "the crime".

If "meddling" in US elections by foreign actors was the actual concern of the authorities then Podesta would be in jail right now. Also a number of Mexican officials would be in jail (or expelled from the country) right now. The Clinton campaign would be in the dock for having collaborated with a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to influence the 2016 election. However; none of these things, which have been established by evidence, resulted in the targetted investigation or prosecution of individuals and groups.

The Russian meddling "crime" consisted of:

1) Fake Twitter and Facebook profiles that supported and were against both candidates.
2) Supposed "fancy bear" hacking of DNC officials. You'll note that none of the media discuss how the Russian Meddling supported Black Lives matter[2]: Furthermore, it was clear that Mueller's team was composed of persons who were biased against Trump:

The president is ignoring one important fact: Robert S. Mueller III, who heads the team, is a longtime registered Republican. He was appointed by another Republican, Rod J. Rosenstein, whom Trump nominated as deputy attorney general. But publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found...

Mueller's critics, too, already had ammunition to criticize the investigators as biased, after messages were released showing two top FBI officials involved in the case — agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page — exchanged texts disparaging Trump.

Over 2/3 of the investigators were persons predisposed to be against the "target" of the investigation. 1/2 of whom put their money where their mouths were and donated to the Clinton campaign. And two individuals carrying on an affair and discussing "insurance plans" regarding the election. And yet with this clearly biased team, they could not come up with an actual criminal charge against the president. All the charges that came out of the investigation were either process crimes (People lying or whatever due to the investigation) or financial crimes that preceded the Trump campaign and had nothing to do with it.

Going back to the murder hypothetical, there is no way a competent lawyer would see people with such conflicts of interest seated on a jury or being a judge and NOT move to have all of those persons removed. But the president has an ace up his sleeve that a lawyer in a court does not. The president of the United States has the constitutionally granted power to fire justice department officials.

Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president is given the authority to appoint – with the approval of the Senate – “Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.”

Congress is also allowed, by law, to “vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

And in 1926, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft said in Myers v. United States that “the President has the exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials.” Subsequent court decisions narrowed this power somewhat for certain officials outside of the Cabinet. But few people doubt today that a President can remove a Cabinet officer.
Hence that Trump asked Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane to "get rid of" Mueller is not obstruction of justice because he has the lawful power to make such requests. Furthermore had he intended to do so he could have called Mueller into his office and fired him on the spot and broken no laws whatsoever. Now it would have looked bad but not all things that "look bad" are criminal. Which brings us to Barr's comment: "That isn't a crime".

To support the Democrats push to criminalize legal behavior or to punish legal behavior because it is done by someone they do not like is a return to lynch law.

Barr ought to be applauded for standing on the law and the law alone. What Democrats want is for Barr to make up law like the Supreme Court and lower courts have been doing. But since Democrats are so concerned with people who attempt to "obstruct", Barr should start going after the persons who lied to the Senate during Kavanaugh's confirmation. He should find out who supplied the Steele dossier and prosecute all involved for their abuse of the FISA courts for political gain.

Wednesday, May 01, 2019

Plainly Unconstitutional

From the Sun-Sentinel:
Abill prohibiting anti-Semitism in Florida's public schools and universities is going to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
And what pray tell are they calling "anti-semitism"?
The anti-Semitism definition also includes expressing hatred for Jews, calling for the killing or harming of a Jewish person, criticizing the collective power of the Jewish community, or accusing Jewish people or Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Apparently the 1st Amendment is unknown in the sunshine state as this shit
The Senate unanimously passed the bill Monday
Because if the 1st Amendment was known to these traitors and they could read they would know it says:
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.
And yeah, "Congress" includes state legislatures. since the 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You can see the text of the current bill here: Of note:
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective, especially, but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
In essence you're not allowed to comment on facts. And it encodes into law that such facts, like Jews are hugely disproportionately owners and other operators of "American" media, are "myths". The fact that Jews are responsible for a huge proportion of monies raised by the DNC, as reported by Jewish media outlets is considered "myth" under the proposed law. In essence the law outlaws the telling of facts. And somehow they think this will "help".

Now they try to protect themselves against 1st Amendment claims by putting in the following:

(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or the State Constitution. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to conflict with federal or state discrimination laws.
But the law as written diminishes and infringes on 1st amendment rights. Period.

They don't want people thinking that jews are more loyal to their own people (and Israel) but they'll pass laws in America to criminalize Americans exercising their rights in order to protect Jews from having to hear people say "hurty" things.

Now about that Measles outbreak...

How The Media Lies

Exhibit A:

This is why I saw to always find the sources of quotes. If a "report" fails to provide the reference for the quote you should immediately be suspicious of it.

In reference to this incident, it is interesting that it was a member of the UKIP party itself that apparently did this smear.

Monday, April 29, 2019

He Used To Be Trans

As "World War T" heats up:

A great lesson here about enabling behavior.

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Is AG Barr What Sessions Was Expected to Be?

It seems that AG Barr is perhaps what we thought Sessions was supposed to be. Currently the DC types are stuck on the Mueller report. While Mueller was allowed to drag out his investigation under Sessions, Bar let Mueller know that he had to put up or shut up. Barr saw the investigation for what it was and wasn't going to let that continue under his watch. But this is not what really separates him from Sessions. The recent action in Mass, is:
BOSTON – Federal prosecutors charged a Massachusetts judge with obstruction of justice and perjury on Thursday, saying she prevented immigration agents from arresting an undocumented immigrant after a state court hearing by allowing him to leave the courthouse through a back door.
I'm not entirely clear why the action taken by a judge in Cal. wasn't pursued but it is welcome that an example is being made of.
Prosecutors alleged that during an April 2018 court hearing in Newtown, Mass., Joseph and MacGregor allowed the Dominican national, detained on drug and outstanding warrant charges, to leave the courthouse from a downstairs back door after the judge instructed an immigration agent to wait in the hallway outside her courtroom...

n court documents, federal prosecutors offered up a partial transcript of the court proceeding in which the judge, defense attorney and court clerk refer to the migrant's status and the risk that he would be detained by immigration officials following the hearing.

"ICE is gonna get him?" Joseph asks the migrant's defense attorney.

"Yeah," the attorney responds.

Soon after the exchange, prosecutors allege, Joseph directed the courtroom recorder to be "turned off" for 52 seconds while the discussion continued.

The defense attorney later asked that Medina-Perez be allowed to retrieve his property from a downstairs lockup.

Reminded that the ICE agent was waiting outside the courtroom, the judge allegedly said: "That's fine. I'm not gonna allow them to come in here. But (the migrant) has been released on this."

When he was escorted downstairs, prosecutors asserted that MacGregor used his security access card to release Medina-Perez "out the back door."

I believe this to be a shot across the bow for other jurisdictions. While Sessions asked if/how the judge in Oakland could be prosecuted, Barr has taken action.

Expect to not hear much about this case unless the judge gets off. Even then. Here's the other thing: I've long thought that any family of citizens killed by illegal aliens who are walking free in the US due to local government action, should be able to sue said governments and the specific individuals for wrongful death. If the prosecution of this judge succeeds I think that such families will be able to pursue these claims since they will be able to show that the actions of the government agents are criminal.

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Mayor Pete Has a Problem With His Bible

One of the things I have "enjoyed" since the election of Trump and the reaction from "The Left" is how so much hypocrisy and treason has been laid bare to the public. Among these things is how Christians are starting to see what is in store for them once the Democrats (with the assist of some Republicans, to be fair) get ahold of the courts and other levers of power. Which brings us to Pete Buttigieg.

Mayor Pete has been picking on Vice President Pence, saying:

"Yes, Mr. Vice President ... it has moved me closer to God. ... That's the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand: That if you have a problem with who I am, your quarrel is not with me. ...Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator."
In other words Pete asserts that God made him the way he is and since we [must] approve of that which God as made, we must accept his homosexuality and his homosexual behavior, including his "marriage". His is a very wrong understanding of scripture. It's hard to blame him on this because there are so many so-called Christian denominations that are teaching [and allowing] things that are not Christian.

Now it would be easy to understand if Pete declared himself not a Christian. Then he could assert whatever he wanted. However; when he blatantly misrepresents the faith it should not go uncorrected. So here it is.

First for Mayor Pete is Genesis:

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So here we have established that God made [hu]mans as male and female pairs and meant for them "to be fruitful" (have sex) and multiply (make babies).

Since two males and two females cannot "multiply" that kind of coupling was not the purpose of creation.

In case that wasn't clear, Genesis 2 goes into details:

18And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
So man was originally "alone".
19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.gave: Heb. called

So out of everything out there none was satisfactory.
22And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Two points here. I think the science conflicts with the "woman from man" thing, but that's not the point here. Point being that if you are a Bible believing Christian, the above is what you hold to. The important points being:

Eve was female.
Eve was the wife [help meet] of Adam
God declares that a man leaves his mother and father (at which point there was no mother and father for Adam to leave) and "cleave" (meaning join) to his wife.
So if it wasn't clear from Gen 1 that it's man and woman. Then Gen 2 further underlines the point. Since Mayor Pete is supposed to be highly intelligent, with his Harvard degrees and language skills, he ought to know this.

Which brings us to God's creation. Genesis 3 discusses the fall of man. Eve eats the forbidden fruit of knowledge (why didn't she get at that tree of life?) Adam eats because Eve gave him a piece to eat. They "discover" they are naked (among other things) and [hu]mankind starts the slow decline in life expectancy as the "original sin" takes it's toll.

Again this runs counter to what we know from science where human life expectancy has gone UP since we've arrived rather than down but again this is about what a Christian claims to believe. If you are a Bible believing Christian, Genesis is what Genesis is. And homosexuality comes after the fall of man and is *NOT* the creation of God but a consequence of sin . In this case the original sin was *rebellion* against God's instructions.


But in case it still wasn't clear as to what was intended as human coupling we find Exodus:

12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Not "your parents". Not your "fathers". Not your "mothers". Thy father and thy mother.

17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,
Neighbor's wife. One of the reasons why "husband" is not mentioned is because a wife was something bought. Just keeping it real. What do you think "Bride price" means? I'm not suggesting chattel but wives, or better said, their parents don't pay for husbands.

Lastly from Exodus:

3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

This is a discussion of servants, AKA slaves. But notice "he were married, then his wife..." Didn't say his "spouse", "partner", husband" or any of the other things. A man has a wife. Period. Wife is female. Period.

There are those who like to do the whole "New Testament supersedes the Old Testament" thing. Well not on this point it doesn't. Mathew 19:

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So this is supposed to be Jesus speaking. A man...shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Nope, no husband here. Wife = female. Period.

Mark 10

5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

So it is evidently clear as to what the Biblical scriptures have to say on the subject of marriage and sex. So Mayor Pete is deceiving the public when he makes his statements that God created him the way he is and thus condones his behavior. This brings us to what knowledgable Christians should be aware of:

2 Timothy:

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

As Pence said: Pete knows better. So did the serpent in the garden.

Tuesday, April 09, 2019

They're Rapists...Murderers....

A bedrock principle of U.S. and international law known as nonrefoulement prohibits the United States from returning individuals to countries where they are more likely than not to face persecution, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
-ACLU (sic)
They fled their homes in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to escape extreme violence, including rape and death threats.
-ACLU (sic)
Yet Defendants returned the Individual Plaintiffs to Mexico where they had already experienced physical and verbal assaults, are living in fear of future violence, and are struggling to survive.
-ACLU (sic)
The individual plaintiffs present uncontested evidence that they fled their homes in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to escape extreme violence, including rape and death threats. One plaintiff alleges she was forced to flee Honduras after her life was threatened for being a lesbian. Another contends he suffered beatings and death threats by a “death squad” in Guatemala that targeted him for his indigenous identity. Plaintiffs contend they have continued to experience physical and verbal assaults, and live in fear of future violence, in Mexico.
-"Judge" (sic) SeeBorg
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people. It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America,
-Trump Only one of these comments is "racist". Guess which one.

Tuesday, April 02, 2019

Science knowledge varies by race and ethnicity in U.S

By Pew Research

Given the recent rehash of the issue of blacks being given earning only 7 seats at Stuyvesant HS, I figured this would be a good piece to add to the [largely unneccessary] discussion.

I would like to bring the reader's attention to the lower third of the chart starting with "The main components in Antacids are bases". These kinds of questions reflect the kind of knowledge required to do STEM work. If Blacks make up 13% of the population and only 1/3 (Just grabbing one of the question about hypothesis about a computer slowing down) of that group has basic science understanding, then only 4.3% of the population has enough basic science understanding to even start in a STEM field. Since the average was 9% then you're talking about 1.17% of the population with what Pew refers to as "high on science knowledge scale". So hypothetically, out of 37 million black people in America only 432,900 would score "high on science knowledge scale". That's less than a million.

Another note:

Whites with less than a college degree did better than black college grads.

So does it surprise anyone that only 7 black kids earned a seat at a HS that requires a high grade on standardized tests? Is it surprising there are so few black people at the upper reaches of STEM? It can only come to as a surprise to those unfamiliar with the data.

Monday, April 01, 2019

Examining the NZ Shooter Manifesto

You can find the complete transcript here:

First: A big fuck you to the NZ government and the companies cooperating with them to censor the manifesto. It is 100% intolerable for any government to tell citizens what they can and cannot read. If you are an adult you should be able to read whatever you like. Reading does not equal endorsement of what is read. That some people may read the material and decide to do something criminal is part and parcel of living in a free society. And now onto the show. The shooter opens with a poem that I first became familiar with when I watched Interstellar. I'm going to guess the shooter also learned of it there. I suppose we should be banning Interstellar, right?

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
He quotes the entire poem (I believe). It's actually quite good.
If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, its that the birthrates must change. Even if we were to deport all Non-Europeans from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still be spiraling into decay and eventual death.
This is actually something The Ghost has pointed out for years. While many white people of a certain bent go on and on about white genocide, the truth of the matter is that white people are simply not breeding. Now there are indeed arguments for how a declining population can be beneficial to the environment, which the author does discuss. If one's society runs on a system that requires a stable, if not increasing population in order to stay afloat, then declining births is a mortal danger. The author goes at length about this issue and how mass immigration accelerates the demographic replacement of whites/Europeans in their own homelands. As a Garveyite who believes in Africa for the African, I cannot oppose a man who desires Europe for Europeans. It's only fair. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine. What we agree to trade is fair.
1. In general Who are you?

Just a ordinary White man,28 years old. Born in Australia to a working class,low income family.
I'm not entirely surprised by this demographic. Under the current social environment such a man is at the bottom of the social heap. While SJWs claim to be "fighting the patriarchy" and "sticking it to the man", they are actually actively disenfranching the average and poor white male. They *think* that all white men have privilege and whatnot, but fail to understand that the elites who are running shit are rich and disproportionately NOT WHITE and generally unaffected by the shenanigans of ANTIFA, BLM, etc.
To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.
And of course the "political enemies" did just that. Gun bans? Check. Censorship? Check.
Was there a particular event or reason you decided to commit to a violent attack?
Honestly the answer he gave for this was surprising to me. I think it bodes ill for the future and is probably why the censorship hammer was dropped (and the event dropped from the news).
Ebba was walking to meet her mother after school, when she was murdered by an Islamic attacker, driving a stolen vehicle through the shopping promenade on which she was walking. Ebba was partially deaf, unable to hear the attacker coming. Ebba death at the hands of the invaders, the indignity of her violent demise and my inability to stop it broke through my own jaded cynicism like a sledgehammer.
I consider this The Catalyst. Perhaps a better term would be event horizon. The one killing that makes one go "woah, wait."
The second event was the 2017 French General election. The candidates were an obvious sign of our times: a globalist, capitalist, egalitarian, an ex-investment banker was no national beliefs other than the pursuit of profit versus a milquetoast,feckless, civic nationalist, an uncontroversial figure who’s most brave and inspired idea resolved to the possible deportation of illegal immigrants. Despite this ridiculous match up, the possibility of a victory by the quasi- nationalist was at least, to myself, a sign that maybe a political solution was still possible.The internationalist, globalist, anti-white, ex-banker won. It wasn’t even close. The truth of the political situation in Europe was suddenly impossible to accept.My despair set in.My belief in a democratic solution vanished.
I had almost named this post The Ballot Or The Bullet New Zealand because I instantly understood what was at stake here. Do not take the above paragraph lightly. Once people come to think that they cannot resolve their differences peacefully and at the ballot box, then there is only violence left. The American Left is treading very hard on this thin ice with their Trump derangement.
Simple, white, wooden crosses stretching from the fields beside the roadway, seemingly without end, into the horizon. Their number uncountable, the representation of their loss unfathomable. I pulled my rental car over, and sat, staring at these crosses and contemplating how it was that despite these men and womens sacrifice, despite their bravery, we had still fallen so far.I broke into tears, sobbing alone in the car, staring at the crosses, at the forgotten dead. Why were we allowing these soldiers deaths to be in vain? Why were we allowing the invaders to conquer us? Overcome us? Without a single shot fired in response?
I had a similar thought when I watched the following movies:

Hacksaw Ridge

After seeing what those soldiers went through and what they were fighting for. I too had to ask what the entire FUCK is wrong with Europeans? Look, I'm glad they got out of Africa. I'm glad they stopped with the Jim Crow and other forms of discrimination. But the wholesale destruction of their own soctieties so that they cannot be called "racist" is the most self-destructive thing they've embarked upon. And the thing is that most black folk have not taken heed of Fanon's warning about the "false middle class" that aims to take over.

Did the groups you support/are aligned with order or promote your attack?

No.No group ordered my attack, I make the decision myself. Though I did contact the reborn Knights Templar for a blessing in support of the attack, which was given

I suppose this Knights Templar group is in hiding now.
Do these groups hold power/who are the people in these groups? The total number of people in these organizations is in the millions, the total number of groups in the thousands. People from every walk of life, in every place of employment and field but disproportionately employed in military services and law enforcement. Unsurprisingly ethno- nationalists and nationalists seek employment in areas that serve their nations and community. I would estimate the number of soldiers in European armed forces that also belong to nationalist groups to number in the hundreds of thousands, with just as many employed in law enforcement positions.
I believe him and you should too.
Why did you choose to use firearms? I could have chosen any weapons or means.A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources. I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.
He's an accelerationist. "Heighten the contradiction". I wonder if he knows that repeal of the 2nd requires a 2/3 approval of the states. That's not happening...anytime soon. What will happen is that an increased number of unconstitutional laws will be passed and upheld by courts long politicized that proscribe the rights of the citizens to bear arms. In the name of public safety of course.
Was there any reason you attacked that(those) mosque(s) in particular? Originally the mosque in Dunedin was the main target,particularly after watching the video on their facebook page named “Otago muslim association” 206778229358786/ The video war entitled “ Very interesting video. Only for Muslims. Please do not redistribute ” that proved their knowledge of their actions, and their guilt. But after visiting the mosques in Christchurch and Linwood and seeing the desecration of the church that had been converted to a mosque in Ashburton, my plans changed
I do not have a FB account and cannot reach the video. If anyone has a copy of the video in question, please forward. Since I cannot view the video I cannot comment on whether/how inflamatory it was or what may have gotten the shooters specific attention.
Did/do you personally hate muslims? A muslim man or woman living in their homelands?No. A muslim man or woman choosing to invade our lands live on our soil and replace our people? Yes, I dislike them. The only muslim I truly hate is the convert, those from our own people that turn their backs on their heritage, turn their backs on their cultures, turn their back on their traditions and became blood traitors to their own race. These I hate.
This "I like them in their own lands" is a common refrain I hear from right types. I see this along the lines of good fences make good neighbors. His hatred of converts gives him common ground with his enemies.
Did/do you personally hate foreigners/other cultures? No, I spent many years travelling through many, many nations. Everywhere I travelled, barring a few small exceptions, I was treated wonderfully, often as a guest and even as a friend. The varied cultures of the world greeted me with warmth and compassion, and I very much enjoyed nearly every moment I spent with them. I wish the different peoples of their world all the best regardless of their ethnicity, race, culture of faith and that they live in peace and prosperity, amongst their own people, practicing their own traditions, in their own nations. But, if those same people seek to come to my peoples lands, replace my people, subjugate my people, make war upon on my people, ,hen I shall be forced to fight them, and hold nothing in reserve.
I cannot even oppose what he said. How can you be in opposition to this? Isn't this what the great resistance struggles in Africa were about? Self-determination for all peoples in their own lands with malice to none?
Do you believe those you attacked were innocent? They are no innocents in an invasion, all those who colonize other peoples lands share guilt.
Hmmmm..."colonize other peoples lands"...
Was the attack anti-diversity in origin? No, the attack was not an attack on diversity, but an attack in the name of diversity. To ensure diverse peoples remain diverse, separate, unique,undiluted in unrestrained in cultural or ethnic expression and autonomy. To ensure that the peoples of the world remain true to their traditions and faiths and do not become watered down and corrupted by the influence of outsiders. The attack was to ensure a preservation of beauty, art and tradition. In my mind a rainbow is only beautiful to due its variety of colours, mix the colours together and you destroy them all and they are gone forever and the end result is far from anything beautiful.
I'll let that stand and point to his latter statement:
Why is it that what gives Western nations strength(diversity)is not what gives Eastern nations(China, Japan, Taiwan,South Korea)their strength? How are they so strong, China set to be the worlds most dominant nation in this century, whilst lacking diversity? Why is that their non diverse nations do so much better than our own, and on so many different metrics?
I have made the same observation. All the companies that were wildly successful and world changing were NOT diverse in the least bit. Go ahead and disprove his statement.
Why do you believe you will be released from prison? I do not just expected to be released, but I also expect an eventual Nobel Peace prize.As was awarded to the Terrorist Nelson Mandela once his own people achieved victory and took power. I expect to be freed in 27 years from my incarceration, the same number of years as Mandela, for the same crime.
I find the reference to Mandela odd. Mandela killed no one (to my knowledge) and definitely did not go on a killing spree. I'm NOT surprised he called him a terrorist since the shooter described himself the same way.
Democracy is the only solution, why are you committing to force? Democracy is mob rule and the mob itself is ruled by our enemies. The global and corporate run press controls them, the education system(long since fallen to the long march through the institutions carried out by the marxists)controls them, the state(long since heavily lost to its corporate backers)controls them and the anti-white media machine controls them. Do not suffer under the delusion of an effortless, riskless democratic victory. Prepare for war, prepare for violence and prepare for risk, loss, struggle, death. Force is the only path to power and the only path to true victory.
As I said earlier. All this censorship and "unpersoning" of large segments of the population has only one ending. I've been warning people of this for years. Ballot or Bullet. True when Malcolm said it. True now.
To Conservatives Ask yourself, truly, what has modern conservatism managed to conserve? What does it seek to conserve? The natural environment?Western Culture? Ethnic autonomy? Religion? The nation? The race?
This is a very common theme on the dissident right. Conservatism is seen as Conservativsm Inc. The right wing of the left global political system. It has conserved nothing. If the Republicans were actually conservative there would, for example, be no homosexual marriage in America (or anywhere else in so called Christendom) and Trump would *not* be president of the United States. Conservatives are essentially whatever liberals were 10 years prior. All are deathly afraid of being called sexist or racist and everyone knows it. That's why every leftist in America loves George Bush and John McCain now. And since there is no effective representation of those who are not left I bring you back to the discussion of democracy. Ballot or bullet.
The Rape of European Women Invaders
I actually thought this part would have played a larger part in the "why did you do it?" part. However; in retrospect, I think his weeping at the cemetery had much to do with what follows.
Many of you may already know about the rape of British women by the invading forces, Rotherham of course being the most well known case. But what few know is that Rotherham is just one of an ongoing trend of rape and molestation perpetrated by these non-white scum. A list of wikipedia entries from the most well known British rape cases follows: dal
I had no idea that there were that many. I follow Tommy Robinson on YouTube and I still had no idea. When I first heard about Rotherham I was in utter disbelief. The British had fallen so low that in order to not be called racist they would *allow* their children to be raped and pimped out? These are the same people whose empire the sun never set on?
The failure of Assimilation Expecting immigrants to assimilate to a dying, decadent culture is laughable. Who would willing leave their own strong, dominant and rising culture to join an elderly, decaying, degenerate culture? What culture would entice a man, one of traditions, beauty, architecture, art and prosperity, or a culture of decay, self-hatred, childlessness, disorder and nihilism? More immigrants are choosing to retain their own healthy culture, year by year, and even more telling, our own people are beginning to join them, looking outside their own watered down and deteriorating culture to look for purpose and guidance from outside sources. The weaker we become the more immigrants will refuse to join us, refuse to partake in the cultural suicide that we extol. That should surprise no one.
I think this analysis is spot on. I actually have read and heard this very comment from immigrants. The West is seen as a dying entity to be exploited in it's death throes. I remember a discussion with someone who "reverted" to Islam. They made very similar arguments as the NZ shooter.
Green nationalism is the only true nationalism There is no Conservatism without nature, there is no nationalism without environmentalism, the natural environment of our lands shaped us just as we shaped it. We were born from our lands and our own culture was molded by these same lands .The protection and preservation of these lands is of the same importance as the protection and preservation of our own ideals and beliefs.
I bet a lot of people didn't see that coming.
Emotions rule over facts Stop trying to persuade the general population with statistics, charts, tablets and figures. A a one-point-seven percentage point difference may mean something to a few, but a ingeniously worded expression or brilliantly crafted poster will convince the many.
Unfortunately he is correct on this point. Personally I'm not much moved by emotion based "arguments". In fact I'm highly suspicious of those who make those kinds of appeals. Even here on the blog I go to great lengths to provide facts and figures and tell the reader where they can find information. As the shooter said though, emotions rule. It's unfortunate.
Accept Death, Embrace Infamy Death is certain, you may die in service to some grand crusade or pass away in a hospice, either way you will die. What matters is your actions during the brief time between birth and death. The worth of your life is not measured by the length of your life, but your actions during it.
I would think this has it's parallel in "radical Islam". I also think this may be one of the things the authorities may not want young men to consider. "Grand crusade or hospice, either way you die" is a pretty compelling argument...emotional and all.
There is no democratic Solution Understand here and now, there is no democratic solution, any attempt to vote your way out of Ethnic replacement will be met with at first with derision, then contempt and finally by force.

Democracy is mob rule and the mob itself is ruled by our own enemies. The global and corporate ran press controls them,...

This goes back to my ballot or bullet observation. Current events only prove this man's point. The censorship, deplatforming from public spheres, financial spheres, etc. is proof positive of his points. I had to think of the Joe Rogan program with Jack and the Indian legal person. I'm certain a large percentage of people saw her and said to themsleves "why is an Indian telling me what I can and cannot say on the internet?"
When anyone can be a German, a Brit, a Frenchmen, then being European has truly lost all meaning Make no mistake, the erosion of local and national identity has no come about by accident, it is a concerted and targeted effort against the European people.

The idea that a Frenchmen need not speak the language, share the culture, believe in the same god or even more importantly be ethnically French is ludicrous in the extreme. This is an attack on the very french people themselves and is a strategy designed to destroy national, cultural, linguistic and ethnic unity

I have long argued that the export of the American idea of "citizen" is bad. While America is indeed a non-blood and soil insomuch that those who created the *nation* were not indigenous to the land and that it was made of a varied ethnic mix, Europe is the blood and soil home of Europeans. An African from Cameroon who speaks French is NOT French. A Black from Jamaica is NOT an Englishman. Don't care how many generations he's been there. Similarly, I'll never refer to a white person born in Africa as an African much less an Igbo or Yoruba. Mind you the Chinese and Japanese think the same way. Oh and they are very successful and "strong".
Incite conflict.Place posters near public parks calling for sharia law, then in the next week place posters over such posters calling for the expulsion of all immigrants, repeat in every area of public life until the crisis arises.
Funny he should write this as we are observing Jussie. This tactic is being played out by the left for their own ends. This is why you should ALWAYS question news reports about signs and the like found in public places. There are people looking to make conflict in order to "heighten the contradiction". Don't fall for it.
The shooter was anti-slavery.
After an election cycle or two with certain Democratic victory, those remaining, non democratic voting, non brainwashed whites will see the future clear before them, and with this knowledge realize the impossibility of a diplomatic or political victory.
While I cannot say I agree with the time frame I can say that the general idea is sound. You only have to look at the late stages of Obamas presidency. If anything got Trump elected, it was the last two years of Obamas presidency and his embrace of BLM and trannyism.

I skipped over a lot of where he was calling for the assassination of various leaders. I don't agree with it. I understand why he thinks it's the way out but I think the ballot can be effective. For one reason only: large percentage of the population do not vote (particularly in the US). All across Europe there are nationalist parties winning elections. If they get enough power and don't do a Trump (talk shit but do nothing) many of the changes the shooter desires (much of which is common sense) would come to pass *without the murder*. Remembering that in a democracy you don't get everything you want.

Rank Hypocrisy

Socialism is good...until you are the one in possession of the stuff they want to take.

Thursday, March 07, 2019

Twitter and the Diapering of America

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

The above quote was a common refrain in my youth as a means of socializing children to understand the difference between a real threat and words. Children and those with impulse control issues are quick to [over] react to words. Indeed psychologists have noted that words can activate the same "hurt perceptions" in the brain as physical pain. As an aside, when gambling the loss of money has the same psychological effect. So one of the goals to becoming an adult was to train yourself to negate the power of words to your psyche. The idea being that though may have hurt feelings by what someone may have said or wrote but they are not comparable to the effects of a physical injury. This was a part of growing up.

So one may have been called a punk mo-fo on the schoolyard. Instead of having a fight about it, you either to "go somewhere" or walked off knowing you have better things to do with your time. This response, particularly the latter one, was a high sign of maturity. This socialization is and was particularly important for boys and men due to the males being more prone to physical violence. A society doesn't do well when men are set off to violence over words. Women, being generally weaker than men, also benefit greatly by such a rule since women's aggression is largely verbal.

I bring this up because I'm about 45 minutes into the Joe Rogan podcast with Twitter execs and I noticed that there was a repeated mention of moderating tweets based on how the target "feels". Their position is that if a person felt threatened or felt some psychological disress due to someone's tweet, that Twitter should ban/force remove, etc the "offending" tweet. Indeed Joe told the female attorney at Twitter that she was the "Mother".

Why do adults need "mothers" on websites? All these "safety" and "wellness" councils at various social media companies are a sign of the diapering of America. No longer are adults expected to be adults with the ability to moderate and control their own emotions. Instead, they are to act like children: Tell the teacher (authority figure) and get the "other kid" in trouble while the "offended" goes off to their clique, points fingers and snickers because they know full well they weren't threatened at all.

Of course this an outgrowth of the femininization of American society. Men and women generally respond differently to children who are upset. Women tend to want to protect that child from further or future harm whereas men tend to want to teach the child to defend against or deter further and future harm. Though men are less likely to do that with their daughters. Since "conservativism" is far more masculine than liberalism, it is not surprising that liberal run organizations act as internet mothers and "mothering" is the default position in their policies.


Thursday, February 28, 2019

Note On Trump Documentary

So I managed to watch some of the Trump documentary. Since I was already familiar with much of the Trump story, I was more interested in details. I recall discussing the recent NYT expose on Fred Trump and the Trump organization's business practices. I commented that this story will probably disappear because the implications were not just against Trump senior and The Donald, but would implicate various persons in NYS and NYC government, without whom many of the things that transpired could not have happened. That is, some people in NYS and NYC government either did not do their due diligence or they did and essentially aided in defrauding the state and private entities. And this is before considering how much Mob influence was involved. So the two things that stood out for me in the documentary was as follows: 1) The HUGE bluffs that Trump played when getting the deal to build Trump Tower. Apparently, when asked for proof that he had permissions from the railroad company that owned the land to build on it (or something to that effect), he produced an unsigned contract. Nobody checked the signature page.


The only way Trump could have even thought that he could get away with that is if that kind of behavior worked before. IMO. That was some gross negligence to not check for signatures. This kind of behavior seemed to be typical of Trump and I would dare say other high-risk business persons in NY and elsewhere. A lot of negotiations, etc. hinge on misrepresentation. You know the saying: Buyer beware.

This was shown again when he was going for the casino license for the Taj. Again, he said banks were lining up to give him money. No one on the commission apparently asked for proof. Can you imagine going to buy a car and telling the finance guy that banks are lined up to give you money and the finance guy not asking for proof? No? Exactly. But as Trump said, they wanted to be conned. 2) The extent to which Trump depends on others to complete projects. That female contractor who essentially built Trump Tower is representative of that. The guy who ran the two Trump casinos is another example. Trump is really a relationship/transaction guy. He's a 'big picture" guy who needs to have experts around him to do the actual work. It is probably a huge shock to "progressives" that Trump put a woman in charge of building his signature building.

This brings us to president Trump. Point two above has been used by various persons in his immediate circle to undercut the issues that got him elected. He is looking at a high probability of being a one term president due to this.

The quick ejections of Bannon, among others are examples of Trump's transactional relationship style. Bannon was useful for the election. Afterward, not so much.

The thing that may/will trip up Trump is that unlike in his companies, he can be fired. He was elected on very specific issues. Failure to deliver will imperil his 2020 campaign (to the extent that the Democrats don't self-sabotage by being the political arm of the Socialist Party USA).

Monday, February 25, 2019

A Threat To Democracy

Ever since Trump's improbable election to the US presidency, Democrats and anyone in the "Never Trump" camp have wailed about the threat to democracy that Trump represented. The evidence of this has been his use of executive power in the same manner that has been done by his predecessors. However; since his use of said power is in opposition to the way certain interests want it to be, then it is "bad for democracy". One of the points trotted out is that Clinton won the popular vote and therefore Clinton should be president.

It is lost on those making the popular vote claim that the US Constitution was created specifically to thwart the popular vote. The founders realized that if the president (and at the time senators) were elected by popular vote, those areas with dense populations would be able to rule over those in [relatively] sparsely populated areas of the country. This is one of the reasons that while Representatives are delegated in proportion to population, Senators are equally apportioned. This system is a check on the seizing of power via population manipulation. It's not perfect but it is how American democracy works.

To be sure there have been times where the "loser" of popular votes have won the presidency. Those persons understood the system and agreed to abide by its rules and didn't become sourpusses. Then came Clinton. Instead of gracefully accepting defeat as she should have, it was an all-out attack on the institutions. Trump must be a Russian agent and the Electoral College is "not fair". This is typical third-world country shit where the loser claims all manner of interference in order to delegitimize the winner (though there IS often interference). The repeated claims of "unfairness" sets the population up to never trust the process. This is what American electioneering is headed to, but quick. And so the Democrats are attacking the Electoral College directly in Colorado:

he Democrat-controlled Legislature approved a bill Thursday calling for Colorado to join other states in casting presidential electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote.

Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, has said he will sign the measure. Currently, the state's electoral votes are cast for whoever wins in Colorado.

In essence, the voters of Colorado are going to be robbed of their votes. Trust and believe that this is being done ONLY because Trump won the last election. Had Clinton carried the Electoral votes and lost the popular vote this would not have even been discussed. Colorado's electors do not represent the "national vote". They represent the voters in their state and their state alone. Period. Full stop. If the people in their state voted for the "loser" in the popular vote (whoever it may be) and their electors decide to vote the way say, Florida who voted for the winner voted, it is a misrepresentation of the voters in Colorado. THAT is a threat to American Democracy.

Friday, February 22, 2019

"Trans" Folk Learn About Privilege

If the author of the video looks familiar, well, yeah but I'm not saying. Anyway, 14 minutes and feminism is broken into itty bitty pieces.

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

All Of Them Were Wrong. None of Them Will Apologize

Click for a larger version. Elected officials who cannot abide by innocent until proven guilty are not fit for office. How many times do these folk have to violate this principle before the people wise up?

Bernie Announces...He's Learned Nothing

Two things about Bernie Sanders recent announcement that he will run again:

1) He's learned NOTHING from Hillary Clinton. In his announcement he went on a tirade against Trump saying that Trump is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist...I think that's it. Basically this is his own Basket of Deplorable comment. Right out the block. Because it implies, strongly that his supporters, about half the country, are also racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. So basically he's flipped off a good portion of the electoral college right out the gate. Good luck with that.

Well let me be careful with that last bit because with the demographic changes going on, in part due to the children of illegal aliens Democrats are hoping 2020 is the year that they tip enough states, not by convincing Americans they have better policies but by having imported a new voting block. We shall see.

2) He couldn't answer the "how to pay for medicare for all" question. When asked about how to pay for his medicare for all he said that prices would fall for doctor visits and for medication. Well that doesn't answer the question. I posted on the potential costs associated with medicare for all:

Medicare presently covers some 58 million people in one or more of its plans. The government last year spent $597 billion on these beneficiaries, representing about 14 percent of all government spending, and generating 3 percent of economic activity. Had the country extended coverage to all 323 million Americans in 2017, it would have cost Washington more than $2.6 trillion, almost 65 percent of the total budget, and over 75 percent of government revenues for the year.
75% eh?

Someone pose this to Bernie. Oh and on top of that he wants free college tuition. Well, having blown 75% of the budget on medicare, how much would the free college tuition cost? And after that, what else gets paid for? Oh we don't have anything left? Welcome to Socialism. Perhaps the state can take 50% or more of your income to pay for all the free stuff Bernie is promising. And you can watch him spend it on people who at the time of ratification, didn't cross the newly abolished border. After all, no one is "illegal" and if YOUR quality of care, which you were taxed through to nose for, takes a nose dive, well that's what you signed up for...ennit?

Monday, February 18, 2019

A Hoax In Chicago

You'll note that I had nothing to say when Jussie's story came out. One reason is because having woken up to the fact that fake "hate crimes" are not only a thing but that they also happen frequently. Also that even when events happen too many black people are willing to tell bald faced lies in order to "stick it to the man". To paraphrase Yoda:
The truth is my ally and strong ally it is.
Other people jumped to Jussie's "defense" because of course there are roving gangs of white men in red MAGA hats looking to noose up, bleach up and beat up black men in the middle of the night. Of COURSE there are. Except that there aren't. Even people who are running for the highest office of the land. The office in which we uphold the constitution where supposedly people are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. People running for that office, quickly jumped to conclusions, offered up new "legislation" and quickly did the Orange Man Bad routine. These people showed all that they are unfit for office. If a person in government cannot zip their mouths and let the professionals do their jobs and withhold blanket condemnations of supposed citizens until the facts are all in, then they shouldn't be president. But this isn't about candidates for office.

The story as told was preposterous on it's face. It was the beginning of the polar vortex that had Chicago at -9 degrees F. Supposedly a wind chill of -18. Allegedly two white men lay in wait for Jussie at 2AM in this kind of weather. These men were soooooooooo motivated by a hate of black people that they sat in a park at 2AM in -18F temps with bleach and rope to target one black guy and not take shit from him.

Look, there weren't even any shootings in Chicago that night. Real crooks were looking for somewhere warm (and possibly wet) that night.

Even more preposterous is that these "white men" yelled "This is MAGA country" Chicago.


In. Chicago.

Anyone with an once of sense should have been skeptical.

It is fitting to me that the great unraveling happened after Disney gave Jussie a platform with Robbin Roberts.

Disney is best known for it's fiction. Quite fitting. Robin Roberts lost my respect when she went after Chris Brown during an interview that was supposed to be about his album release. And while I think he should have handled it better (Rihanna was subject to a similar ambush and handled it much better) Roberts was out of order. Hence I was glad that the day she gave him national air time to tell his lie, it was dealt a devastating blow by Chitown PD.

One of the great laughs I got out of this was how various news agencies declined to identify the race of the Nigerians. I mean seriously. We all know where Nigeria is located on the map. Hell, you don't even have to know where Nigeria is *in* Africa to know it is *IN* Africa and that since 99% of the population *IN* Africa are black, you can say so. Why should they have said so? Because they were quick to assume white people were responsible. One news outlet even said that the Nigerian nationals were African-American. This is a mistake I've witnessed Black Americans make.

[edit 10:39PM: Reports say that the brothers were in fact born in Chicago. That would make them African-Americans. ]

As of this writing the claim by CPD is that Jussie paid the men $3500. That won't even pay the lawyers.

But lets get serious here. How NOT oppressed are people when they have to make up "hate crimes" against themselves. Feminists do it. Muslims do it. Blacks do it. I'll remind the reader that in NYC alone:

During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.
Also when it comes to attacks on black people:
In 2016, 52% of anti-black crimes were committed by Latino/as (compared to 59% the previous year). Latino/a on black crimes plunged from 64 to 38, a 41% drop.
Please note that many "latinos" are actually identified as white in crime statistics because many latinos identify and are in fact white. (something I did not know before) which inflates white crime rates in which "white" is assumed "non-hispanic white". This may change in the future as the benefits, both socially and economically, of being not-white increase. Yes, you read right, "benefits".

So what should be learned from this fiasco?

1)NEVER believe "The Victim" unless you actually witnessed the event in question. If you weren't there you have no reason to believe anyone. You respect the alleged victim by supporting them and encouraging them to report the alleged offense. Anyone unwilling to report *should not be trusted*.

2) Believe the evidence. Properly obtained and handled evidence is how things are to be judged. None of this "my truth" shit. "My truth" is another term of "anecdotal evidence" which is not useful.

3) Stop trusting media entities. This particularly applies to major media outlets both left and right. Consider any and all of them to be agents of propaganda for their particular narratives and interests. They will promote whatever fits with what they want you to think and omit (even by going back and editing their websites) whatever does not. In academia (outside of grievance studies) no one takes media references as "proof" or evidence. They are not considered primary sources. If a article quotes a paper or a person, you follow that link or search for that publication and read it yourself. Many times the news article has completely misrepresented what is said in the paper.

Treat news reports like you treat snow forecasts: Wrong enough times to be skeptical.

4) Stop believing every black person who says they were profiled or otherwise done wrong. Not that these things don't happen, but OFTEN the stories are extreme exaggerations of actual events AND the person usually behaved in a way that escalated the incident. Black people are not angels...or devils. Black people are humans with all the flaws that come with that.

5) The police can get your phone records without your permission. Giving them an edited version of them looks bad.

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Covington Truth

I learned my lesson on believing the mainstream media during the Mike Brown fiasco. While I wait out the latest from Chicago, here's a video on the Covington kids.

Monday, January 28, 2019

Example Kevin Powell

So last week I discussed the events in DC as a reflection of the twisting of Dr. King's vision. In it I mentioned that essentially the tables have been turned where black people have been given much leeway to do things that were considered " racist"done to them. I'm going to give an example of this. Before that though I want to bring the reader's attention to a comment made in an article in City-Journal:
The jurisprudential consequences of believing people merely because of the category into which they fall are obvious; but the radical feminists failed also to notice how auto-dehumanizing and demeaning to their own sex was the demand to believe a woman qua woman, inasmuch as the capacity to lie, dissemble, exaggerate, fantasize, and remember wrongly is inseparable from being fully human.
This also applies to black people. The misunderstood embrace of the idea that one cannot be "racist" without having [supreme] power is just as dehumanizing (and infantilizing) of black people as it is when referring to women. If black people cannot be "racist" then black people are not fully human. If we cannot form and act on the same prejudices that we accuse white people of harboring and acting on then we are not fully human. If we are not fully human then we either believe ourselves to be superior to white people, in which case we believe in black supremacy (evidence notwithstanding) or we believe in black inferiority.

Pick one. Can't have both.

So let's get to Kevin Powell. City Pages has a clear example of how out of control some black people, particularly of the left type, are.

Powell also has a history of violence. He assaulted women in college and once shoved a girlfriend into a bathroom door. Now he’s a sophist of male fragility, and an essential component of his activist repertoire is to engage in public reflection—usually with equal parts self-effacement and self-righteousness—upon this personal shame.
Keep this in mind. Powell makes his living performing and reflecting on his abusive past. He reacted the following:
“You are being a hypocrite. How can you present a message via dance on sexual violence, but knowingly choose to marry an admitted woman beater?!”

It continued: “Kevin Powell admits that he can relapse into violence. Don’t be deceived and trade your safety for someone who can assault you.”

Now how would a man who spends his time allegedly atoning for his past abusive behavior react to this message? Well aside from scouring Google to find the alleged sender and pouncing upon the wrong person, he wrote:
Two weeks later, Powell crafted a blistering 1,200-word open letter response, signed jointly by his wife. It read: “For you, as a so-called progressive White woman, to think it’s okay to send a note like that to a Black woman, about her relationship with her Black husband, speaks to a kind of racist privilege and racist condescension deeply steeped in the history of this country.”

The couple called Sellers sexist for thinking she knew another woman’s journey better than herself and accused her of committing “a form of violence.”

. “We are sharing this response widely, across various communities in Minnesota and nationally because we feel people like you are dangerous.”

Mind you the original letter never mentioned race but here's Powell talking about race? Why? Because he needed it to be about race. This is a disease that afflicts many black people. They cannot imagine life without racism and therefore look for it everywhere. Every negative incident must have a racial angle. Secondly, you'll note how Powell takes it upon himself to instruct the alleged "progressive" white writer on how she can and cannot speak to or about black people. This is a frequent occurrence in "progressive" circles. They deem to tell you what you can and cannot speak on based on genitalia, color, etc. rather than on whether one has actual data to back up what one has to say. It was this attitude that started my long walk away from left ideologies. "Sisters" tell me what I cannot speak upon because I wasn't female. Really?

But fare more telling about this e-mail from Powell was that he wasn't contrite about the actual subject of the letter. You'd think someone who is allegedly atoning for his abusive past would make a point to discuss how he wasn't a threat to his wife and how she (his wife) accepts the "danger" and they have agreed to work together on his issues and that he would hope he can earn the writer's respect.

See, such a comment would have shown a humble Powell who was working on his own demons. Instead, he showed that his need to have power over a person (or people) has simply been transferred from his wife to, apparently, white people at large. The leopard didn't change his spots, he merely changed his dietary choices.

If you read the article you find that Powell had accused the wrong person and caused great harm to his victim. What was his reaction when this was revealed?

“My life is modeled after Gandhi, Dr. King, people who gave their lives to our country. That’s what I do,” he’d say later in defense of his and his wife’s inattention to Sellers’ pleas.

Regardless if we had proof or not, what we do have proof of is the historical reality of being a person of color in America and having people talk to you in any kind of foul way and thinking it’s okay, even in the state of Minnesota that’s supposed to be liberal and progressive.”

There would be no apology. No correction. And no telling who’d received the smear. [my underlines]

Again, this is a common defect of many lefty black people. We excuse our bullshit by talking about being "black in America". Like I said before: let's bring back segregation so that these negroes can know what "being black in America" used to be like. But more disturbing is the total flagrant disregard for the truth.

So Ghandi, well he didn't actually like Africans so..., and King were against facts and truth? Nice to know. In court:

Each laments how the situation has been blown out of proportion. They assert they did nothing wrong; they genuinely thought they had the right April Sellers. They denounce Rohan Preston as more or less an Uncle Tom—a reporter lying to protect his job at a white institution.
Oh, ruin someone's life because you thought they were racist towards you is not a big deal. And the usual "Uncle Tom" accusations.

Sellers’ attorney has only to summarize the basic elements of the case—that Powell and Parker told a lie, that they did it without basic fact-checking, and that the lie had serious consequences. His statement takes about 10 minutes. Powell plugs his ears with his fingers the entire time
How old is Kevin Powell?
Neither apologizes to Sellers.
This is the black left. They don't have to apologize for being wrong. Just move onto the next.
“I also need funds for a possible and absolutely necessary appeal,” he writes. “Here we are in a majority White city and state, Minneapolis, Minnesota, two Black folks from New York City, going up against a White woman with an all-White jury. You can only imagine our trauma around this situation.”
I think we should ask the question. If the Powells are so concerned about being "two black folks from New York City" in a "Majority white city and state", then why did they move to such a location? Seriously. Why not move their black behinds BACK to NYC? Or move to Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc.? Because the Powells, like many of their ilk like to live off the fat of well run and maintained white majority locations where they can guilt trip gullible and low self-esteem whites into pandering to them.

Friday, January 25, 2019

Rare Footage of Black Town in Oklahoma

"I Do Not Know..."

I'll keep this one brief. I don't say much about the Mueller witch hunt investigation because I'm old enough to remember the Ken Star witch hunt investigation. Ken Star was appointed to find out about the Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater affair. However; all he got was Clinton lying about getting head from Monica Lewinski. There was a whole circus around this. Essentially These "special prosecutors" end up indicting people for activities related to the actual "investigation" rather than the alleged wrongdoing they were appointed to find.

The Mueller witch hunt investigation is the same thing but on super duper steroids fake weights and an electric motor in the crankshaft. Because if this was actually an investigation of "collusion", then the Clinton camp would be indicted already because it is already known that they actually "colluded" with a foreign agent, created a fake document which was then used to get the FISA court to approve an investigation of a candidate running for president, Person 1. Presenting false information to a court is a crime. We also have Clinton destroying evidence vis-a-vis her destroyed server and deleted e-mails, which is a crime called "obstruction of justice". That these activities go unindicted and untried is all we need to know about the nature of this witch hunt investigation. And really you don't need to be a Trump fan to see this. If you or I presented a court with a fake document in order to further our own cases, we'd be tossed in jail (or at least fined heavily). Why should those involved with the "pee dossier" get away with that? If you or I destroyed evidence while we were being investigated for a crime, we would be arrested. Why should Clinton receive different treatment? But that's another discussion for another day. Roger Stone is in a cell, or at least a holding area (assuming no bail has been made as of this writing) in part because he apparently told a witness to say "I don't know" while being questioned by Congress.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if this is true, then Stone did in fact cross a line and should be prosecuted for it. What I don't get is why he instructed anyone to tell THAT particular lie. When you say "I don't know" you are making a declarative statement that you "have no knowledge". Anyone with a relatively high IQ knows that the statement you make when you do not wish to disclose your knowledge of a particular thing is:

I do not recall.

See, no one can say whether you recall or not. It is something that cannot be proven at the time you said it or at any time after. You can "not recall" something one minute and "recall" it the next. Until our courts are set up with real-time brain reading devices, such a statement cannot be proven false. However; once you say "I don't know" or in the case of the referenced character, "I don't know any godfather." then you're making statements that can be proven to be false or contradictory to previous statements

Advice for those in Trump's circle, less movies, more law.

Bring Back Segregation

So I've been doing the "pro-black" thing since 1990. I'd say 1989, but to be honest, it was 1990. That would be 29 years. I mention this because I was/am continuously annoyed at how once Obama became the Democratic nominee for president, a whole lotta people who back in the 1990s didn't want anything to do with that "black shit" or that "um-foo-foo shit" or that "kunta kinte shit" all of a sudden were "all black everything". On the other side were people who were equally "on that black shit" for years suddenly became OK with imperialism, global war against non-white people (ahem..Libya) and Obama could say and do no wrong, whereas previous presidents were the racist heads of the white supremacy system. In other words, the masses got fake "woke" and the previously "woke" went comatose. I bring this all up because recently Rep Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump was the Grand Wizard of the White House. This kind of hype speech has become all too common among the "fake woke" who, from their utterances haven't cracked a book on slavery or Jim Crow. This brought to mind a spoken word piece called "Bring Back Segregation"

See there was a time when US presidents actually supported actual Klan rallies in DC:

When you know this, regardless of what you think of Trump, it would not even cross your mind to think "Grand Wizard".

But this doesn't just apply to Jim Crow era references, it includes the common "Nazi" and Fascist" claims regularly made by the fake woke. They have no idea what Nazi Germany was like for its victims. They have no idea what it's like to have government agents running up in their homes to take them away for public pronouncements against "dear leader". If they did, these words would not fall out their mouths.

But today we live in a country where people live in extremes. If they are inconvenienced then it's a major disaster ("horrifying" or "terrifying" to use the terms of left type publications). So yeah, some people need to be time traveled back to when the situations were actually bad rather than complain about First World Butt Hurts.