Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Priorities

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.

Awww...

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 called...school. 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:

https://www.infowars.com/video-of-migrant-gang-shoving-gun-in-swedish-boys-mouth-stirs-controversy/ 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:

Haaretz:

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].

Monday, July 01, 2019

Kamala's Adventures In One Drop Rule Land

I learned long ago that identity is a touchy subject for a lot of people so I tend to avoid the issue unless it is brought up in a scientific manner. The recent "outrage" about Kamala Harris not being an 'American Black" is of interest to me only because it highlights the current trends in identity politics.

The original commentary (made by a black person) was that since Kamala's parents were an at least 1/2 black Jamaican and a "full" [apparenty Dravidian as opposed to Aryan] Indian, she was not an "American Black". "American Black" being those descended directly from the mostly (but not exclusively) West-Africans brought to America via the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. The original poster is absolutely correct in that observation. Whether it should matter is an entirely different conversation. I don't think it does, at least as it relates to qualifications for office.

Some are saying this is like the 'birther" conspiracy lodged at Obama. I don't agree with that analysis. Obama had a Kenyan father and a without a doubt American mother. The "questions" regarding his citizenship was based on his being born in Hawaii and it's alleged 'interesting" practices in determining the citizenship of those born there who may not be citizens. It also was about his ties to Indonesia and Islam. So the issue there was whether Obama was a citizen due to place of birth rather than his not having "American" parents. I can see someone saying that's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Sure. Again, not my particular interest.

What is interesting, particularly in Kamala's case is that there was a time when a person of African descent in America would welcome the opportunity to be able to "exit blackness". The phrase "passing for white" is common in America. In the past if one could "breed up" and produce lighter and lighter children, they could eventually pass for white and avoid the negatives of being black in America. Almost every time you hear about a white person who "discovers" the proverbial "Negro in the family tree" that they didn't know about, you have a likely incident of some recent ancestor who saw themselves "out of the race".

W.E.B. DuBois mentioned that there may become a time when African-Americans would be full of people who were not black at all. How would they identify. Indeed there are many people who are classified as African-American who are not black. I'm not talking about Rachel either. But Rachel D also illustrates a point. How did a white person with absolutely no black ancestors manage to "pass as black" for the length of time she did?

Remember that the one drop rule only applies in America and more broadly in the Anglosphere. Outside of the Anglosphere, people who are not black by what I call the "across the street test"* are NOT considered black. There are all kinds of terms used for them. So if Rachel or Kamala OR Obama left America and was seen on the streets of Venezuela or Uganda, it is highly unlikely that they would be considered "black". Kamala would likely be identified as an Indian, Obama likely an Arab and Rachel, the white woman that she is. And it is likely that each one of them would gladly accept the non-black identities and the benefits that accrue to that.

But turning back to Kamala, and Obama to an extent, they had political (and perhaps social) success because they chose to identify as black (using the USA One Drop Rule). So I think it interesting that was have this historical swing where blackness (or non-whiteness) is now a benefit rather than a hindrance; at least in politics. Indeed socially, being anything other than straight, male and white can accrue quite a few benefits and immunities. I know that's hard for some people to swallow but it's true.

Personally, I'm hoping for the day that we can evaluate candidates on their records and positions rather than what they look like. I think there was someone else who had that idea. I'm sure there's a statue of him in DC. * The Across The Street test is the idea that if you can't tell a person is black from across the street then they aren't. This isn't a matter of mannerisms, clothes or hairstyles. All black people can be readily identified from a distance. In daylight, they contrast sharply with the light and at night they tend to "blend in" (this is where the whole can only see the eyes at night "joke" comes from). A corollary to that is the paper bag test that was used to exclude black persons from so-called "blue vein" societies.

This test doesn't mean that the person is "white". That is an assumption made by many who adhere to the One Drop Rule where one is either black or white. "Failure" to pass the test simply means that one is at least a hybrid (mixed in common parlance). There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with being mixed. This is not a value judgment. Also, One can be "mixed" and still "pass" the Across The Street Test.

Saturday, June 29, 2019

Democrat Debate Disaster?

No, I didn't watch the debates. Since I have paid attention to what the various candidates have had to say since 2016 there was nothing they would be saying that I didn't know: 1) Open borders while denying they are for it.
2) Orange Man Bad
3) Medicare for all (a concept I'm not altogether opposed to.
4) Orange Man Bad.
5) Tax "the rich" (to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens to boot).
6) Men dressed as women, or who think they are women ARE REAL WOMEN.
7) Orange Man Bad.

So knowing this, I didn't see the point. However; I don't share the analysis of various outlets that Democrats are doomed because they have gone so far left. Maybe...MAYYYBE, on this election. But the long term trends suggest that the past couple of contests have been tests of the demographic changes in America. If they are correct, the Democrats will not need to "go to the middle" to win national elections. So lets look at why I believe this.

Here's the electoral map of the 2016 election

So you see that Trump won the electoral college vote by winning most of the south and mid-west. Now lets look at the county results:

Yes, there is a lot of red there. But most important is where the blue is. Notice that the places where there are major cities or college towns are blue. Why is that important? Here's the population density map from 2016.

Do you see it? Yes. Democrats win where there are large populations. Republicans win in places with low population density AKA: farmland. Now when you have a party that has been practicing importation of a new electorate by both legal and illegal immigration, you understand that Democrats only need to flip a few of the red counties in various states to win. Every year, the white population, which makes up most of the Republican base, shrinks. The replacement population, where it exists tends to be non-white and to prefer Democrats to Republicans by upwards of 75%.

Add to this the looming "compact" of states who are willing to disenfranchise their citizens and deliver their electoral college votes to whichever candidate has more popular votes and the Republican party along with us moderates are screwed (yes I test moderate thank you very much).

The way I see it, the fact that open socialists are winning elections in America tells you all you need to know about the pendulum. Stuff that was political suicide a mere 10-15 years ago has gone mainstream. There will also be intimidation tactics. Recall that we have large financial institutions refusing to do business with people and businesses based on whether their political views align with the left. Expect more collusion among arms of the Left to intimidate the [relatively] easy to intimidate by social and economic means.

So even if Trump manages to win in 2020 (not a foregone conclusion imo), You have 8 years of new voters graduating from HS indoctrination camps. 22 year olds graduating from institutions of higher indoctrination, Children of illegal immigrants coming of age along with their amnestied peers. Along with that you'll have 8 years of old heads dying off.

All that to say that the Dem debate wasn't for moderates or general election Republicans. Trump won in 2016 by a slim margin on 3 mid-western states. Very slim margins. If he loses any one of the larger states he's done for. If not 2024 Florida and Texas is going to be very different than 2016 Florida and Texas. So maybe the Dem debates were not the disaster some people think it is.

Monday, June 24, 2019

Google Narrative Manipulation

I don't have the time currently to discuss this but I think it is important to get this out.

Using BitChute because, well, when you watch the video you'll understand.

It doesn't matter if you like/support Trump or anyone else. It should bother you that a company with the reach it has is engaging in this kind of manipulation.

Never Seen A Man Cry

Rapper Scarface has a track from back in the 90s called Never Seen A Man Cry:

Essentially, it talks about how these tough guys, when facing their final moments on earth, cry like everybody else. This track came to mind when I saw this video:

Oh. You're crying now. You want your momma now? But 10 minutes ago you were the big man stealing people's stuff. [edit] Completely assumed that people knew what this was. Mr Crybaby is the student that was caught stealing from Gibsons. This is what started Oberlin's Adventures in Libel-land(tm) that has cost them millions of dollars in damages.

Sunday, June 23, 2019

40 Acres and a Mule

So once again there is discussion of reparations going on in the US government. I don't have a dog in the fight because my parents came to the US after 1965. No slavery. No Jim Crow. No violation of voting rights. None of that. I have not been injured therefore I "deserve" nothing. Everything I can do now is because of those African-Americans who put their lives on the line and I respect and appreciate that. That said, I'll throw in a few cents on the subject.

One of the thorny issues with the current calls for reparations is that it makes claims against people who had no hand in "the crime". Generally under US law, you cannot hold the descendant of a criminal liable for what his ancestor did. Even if it is his father. If that were not the case a lot of people would be in legal jeopardy for things they know nothing about. Breaking this rule shouldn't be taken lightly at all.

Secondly, it is improper to compare to Jewish or Japanese internment reparations because in both those cases, the damaged parties were still alive and in cases where they are not, researched claims showing direct connections were established. In the case of reparation for African-Americans, the claim is that blacks as a class have been "injured" and that whites as a class are the responsible party, regardless of actual evidence of either injury or participation in an specific event.

This line of thinking also involves an implicit (and sometimes explicit) claim that blacks as a group would be in a different social and economic situation had x,y or z not happened and whites as a group would be in a different social and economic situation. That's a pretty hard thing to prove. Of course legislation doesn't require proof. But what about actual damaged parties? Let's take a look.

It should be noted that the idea of reparations was not foreign to the US government. The Freedman's Bureau was created as a means of helping formerly enslaved Africans. Then we have the infamous 40 acres and a mule rumor.

According to a letter Sherman wrote a year later, Secretary Stanton concluded that if given land, the freed slaves could "take care of themselves." And as land belonging to those who rose up in rebellion against the federal government had already been declared "abandoned" by an act of Congress, there was land to distribute...

Following the meeting, Sherman drafted an order, which was officially designated as Special Field Orders, No. 15. In the document, dated January 16, 1865, Sherman ordered that the abandoned rice plantations from the sea to 30 miles inland would be "reserved and set apart for the settlement" of the freed slaves in the region.

According to Sherman's order, "each family shall have a plot of not more than 40 acres of tillable ground." At the time, it was generally accepted that 40 acres of land was the optimal size for a family farm.

General Rufus Saxton was put in charge of administering the land along the Georgia coast. While Sherman's order stated "each family shall have a plot of not more than 40 acres of tillable ground," there was no specific mention of farm animals.

General Saxton, however, did apparently provide surplus U.S. Army mules to some of the families granted land under Sherman's order.

It's important to note that this field order was for Georgia. I'm going to skip a few lines to get to this part:
It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 former slaves received grants of land under Sherman's order. But the land was taken away from them.
So 40,000 formerly enslaved Africans received at least 40 acres of Ga land which was later take away from them by the government. Why did the government take this land "back"?
Andrew Johnson became president following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April 1865. And Johnson, on May 28, 1865, issued a proclamation of pardon and amnesty to citizens in the South who would take an oath of allegiance.

As part of the pardon process, lands confiscated during the war would be returned to white landowners. So while the Radical Republicans had fully intended for there to be a massive redistribution of land from former slave owners to former slaves under Reconstruction, Johnson's policy effectively thwarted that.

I've often mentioned to people that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but about preserving the Union. Had the confederate states not decided to break away (as they apparently had the right to, but that's another discussion) and kept hammering away in congress over the issues that they had with the northern states (all of whom benefited from southern slavery produced materials, along with their own slave populations that were NOT freed in the Emancipation Proclamation), then there would have been no Civil War. Johnson, like Lincoln wanted the Union and slavery was a means to threaten the rebellious states. Hence it should not be surprising that in order to preserve the Union, Johnson would throw a few Africans under the bus...cart...plow.

So returning to this 40,000 people with 40 Acres of Georgia land we should ask what would that land value be today had:

1) They had not been tossed off of it.
2) The laws of the land were not corrupted to disenfranchise them?
According to MSN Money the current average value of land in Georgia is:

So $14,242/acre x 40 =$569,680 per person. Multiplied out by 40,000 it equals:
$22,787,200,000

Yes, that's 22 billion dollars.

Now that's average. Clearly the specific plot of land could be of a higher or lower value. But that can be found out and dealt with.

So I think that any honest discussion of reparations should start with finding the names of the 40,000 people granted land by Sherman. Finding their descendants and paying them out $570k each.

Some could argue that not all those families would have kept the land or whatever. That isn't relevant. All over the country there are wrongful death lawsuits in which the families are able to claim "lost wages" and the like, even though there is no way to know whether such wages would have ever appeared. It is based on what they had at the time of the event. Here the event was reneging on a land grant.

I think this also shows an example of how reparations can be dealt with legally without the whole holding a class of people who had no direct or even indirect part in slavery (and I'm not even getting into Jim Crow). Find cases where the rights, privileges and immunities (as laid out in the 14th Amendment) of black person(s) were infringed upon by the Feds and repair each and every case. Where the Fed is not the culprit, then the state or municipality should be held to account so long as the evidence is there.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Comrads Bernie and Cortez Would Have Blown Up Chernobyl

I saw this on YouTube and HAD to post because it is damn scary to think these two are popular.

Wow.

Really...

You know what this reminded me of? Watching Chernobyl.

That movie revealed that one of the primary reasons Chernobyl happened was that total incompetents were placed in positions of power due to their loyalty to the party and their willingness to follow the party line regardless of consequences. The people who actually knew what they were doing lived in fear of these apparatchiks.

For real though. You should watch that movie. it's also a great demonstration of "male privilege" like being exposed to lethal doses of radiation so that your people can live, eat and drink. But I digress.

Secondly, I have an issue with Bernie and Cortez treating people like children. You sign up for credit and don't look at the terms? You know what? Sucks to be you. You didn't look and see that 5% had a star next to it? Never crossed your mind to see what that star stood for? No? Sucks to be you.

Look. I'm not with banks being vultures. I've had banks try to shaft me. I paid the card off and cancelled the account. Next level game is getting banks to pay you to use their services. That's what Comrad Cortez and Bernie ought to be teaching their constituents. How to make Bank Of America chip on on your gasoline. How to get Chase to help feed your family. How Citibank can chip in on your next vacation. Yes. It can be done. And it doesn't matter what the interest rate is. But first you gotta get off the victim mentality.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

NY Magazine Finds Hillary Clinton Guilty.

Full credit to Mr. Obvious for bringing this to my attention via his video.

NY Magazine wrote the following while reviewing AG Barr's interview:

This is just a wild lie. Mueller was unable to establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia. He was unable to establish this, in part, because “some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right,” or “provided information that was false or incomplete,” or “deleted relevant communications.” Indeed, the two Trump campaign officials most closely linked to Russian cutouts, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, refused to cooperate with prosecutors. A failure to establish a criminal conspiracy is not the same thing as finding “no evidence of a conspiracy.” Nowhere does the Mueller report say there’s no evidence of a conspiracy. Some of the potential conspiracy elements were unprovable — Mueller never figured out why Manafort gave 75 pages of polling data to a Russian agent.
Did you see it? No? Let me pull out the relevant part:
He was unable to establish this, in part, because “some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right,” or “provided information that was false or incomplete,” or “deleted relevant communications.”
So according to NYMag, "deleting relevant communications" is evidence of a crime (in their argument, collusion). Indeed if someone "deleted relevant communications" then they are probably under indictment, assuming they aren't already in jail.

Here is Snopes.com's summary of Hillary's server. Mind you Snopes is no friend of Trump.

March 4, 2015: The Benghazi committee issues a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over all emails from her private server related to the incident in Libya.

Between March 25-31, 2015: The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit.

However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.

The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department.

Uh huh. So some 'Trump associate" "deleted relevant communications" and it's evidence of criminal activity. When a Clinton associate "deletes relevant communication" it "is unprovable and flat out wrong" to imply some sort of criminal intent.

Uh huh.

Upended Rule Of Law

Continuing my discussion on the fundamental changes going on in American society, here is a video discussing Mueller's little speech the other day. Mr. Gorka makes a point that I had missed.

Did you catch it?

Gorka:

He provides the presumption of innocence to the Russian military intelligence officers involved in the attack against our election. He actually stated that. "I do not want to make any comment against their presumed innocence." He actually stated that. A page later he denies that of the president. He provides the option of innocence to foreign intelligence operators but says no to our president?
Let's not take Gorka's word for it. Let's look at the transcript itself:
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation, where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election. These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
And
So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
So it is clear. Mueller gives Russian agents the presumption of innocence but "cannot determine, either way" when it comes to the president. This is totally consistent with the New Left Crow. Others/Foreigners are given more deference than citizens by "our" own representatives and agents.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

The Next Stage

Recently I posted about how the New Left Crow should be in full view. The video clip below will show you the full danger of de-platforming.

This is already happening in America. China is further along with it's Social Credit system. China is further along because it has no constitutional restraint on it's power. What is currently keeping US persons, in general, out of danger is the constitutional restraints put upon government. But understand that these restraints are not unbreakable. As we see things like the Electoral College compact, where states will disenfranchise its voters to turn elections into rule by mob (which is what majority rule is). As we see government officials turning centuries of jurisprudence on its head and declare that they cannot "exonerate" a person who is to be presumed innocent. As we see governments passing legislation that bans boycotting of "favoured states". As we see governments running struggle sessions called "diversity training". As we see governments creating concepts as "hate speech" and then declaring said speech as "illegal" in flat contradiction to the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings. As we see government openly asking private companies to censor those who it [currently] cannot legally censor, we must understand what is actually coming down the pipe.

Monday, June 10, 2019

My Intersectionality Score

So apparently 73% of people have more privilege than I do. Now if I changed one thing, being not white, then I become more privileged than 75% of people:

Oh and the intersectional score of the 30-ish white, able-bodied male on the side of the highway I gave food to, last year while driving my German Convertible, while on my way to a relatively high-end resort in Virginia Beach is:

Imagine telling some poor white guy begging for food on the side of a highway exit that he's more privileged than 83% of the population, including the black guy giving him food and you can imagine why Trump got elected.

Take the test here: https://intersectionalityscore.com

Third Discrimination Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop

Let's be clear here: Masterpiece Cakeshop is being harassed. Period.
Scardina had filed a previous lawsuit against Phillips following her request for a cake – an order she placed the day of the SCOTUS ruling. Previous reports say Scardina’s order was for a cake celebrating her gender transition.
"The day of the SCOTUS ruling".

Clear harassment.

I also blame The Court for this. The case should have been decided on clear 1st and 14th Amendment grounds which would have put an end to this harassment by making those attempting to harass the cakeshop liable for civil rights violations. But let's go on.

The newest lawsuit claims Phillips discriminated against Scardina and used deceptive and unfair trade practices.

“The dignity of all citizens in our state needs to be honored. Masterpiece Cakeshop said before the Supreme Court they would serve any baked good to members of the LGBTQ community. It was just the religious significance of it being a wedding cake,” Griesen said. “We don’t believe they’ve been honest with the public.”

In the complaint’s text, Scardina’s attorneys cite testimony in previous court proceedings: “Mr. Phillips, for himself and on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop, confirmed that they would happily make the exact same cake requested by Ms. Scardina for other customers.”

So the pin here is that since Mr. Phillips said he would make the exact same cake for other customers, he, therefore, should make that cake for them too. On the surface this looks like a slam dunk argument. I've even said that the cake shop would be discriminating if it refused to sell a cake to any homosexual. However; that isn't the issue here.

Let's go back to the statement about the wedding cake. Obviously, it could have been said that Mr. Phillips would have made the exact same cake (or AN exactly identical cake) for a heterosexual couple. The issue wasn't directly about "the cake" but the purposes of the cake. Mr. Phillips operates his business in a way that expresses his Christian faith. Standard Christianity is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman (male and female). Mr. Phillips refusal to make the cake was his refusal to participate in a behaviour that contradicted his held beliefs.

This is what the Supreme Court should have ruled on rather than the state's hostility to Phillips beliefs.

The same exact thinking goes here. That Phillips would make the same exact cake for other customers is not relevant. Once the customer revealed the purpose to which they wanted the cake to be made for, Phillips retained the right to decline to participate based on his clearly known beliefs.

The customer could have simply walked into Masterpiece and asked for the pink and blue birthday cake and declined to say what it was for. They could have told any story at all and gotten the cake. Instead, they wanted to force Phillips to participate and approve of their behavior.

What needs to be done here is for the SCOTUS to make clear that the states are prohibited from creating laws, commissions and the like that infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of citizens as stated in the 14th Amendment. Secondly, no one can be forced to participate in behavior that they do not wish to be associated with.

If YouTube can refuse service to anyone who runs afoul it's "rules", then so can Masterpiece.

If the protected Class framework stands in the way, then it's time to revisit and remove this legal concept as it is in contradiction to section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It is clear that some of these "classes" are using their super-citizen powers to disenfranchise "lesser citizens".

Thursday, June 06, 2019

Carranza Thinks Non-Whites Are Inferior

I've written before that The Regressive Left believes that black people are inferior to whites. One of the proofs of this is that The Regressive Left keeps saying, and instituting, that black people cannot be held to the same standards as whites. So for example, Blacks need different policing because, well blacks don't respond to authority the same.

Black children shouldn't be suspended for "willful defiance" of teachers in school, because, well, blacks can't be expected to respect teachers in schools. It's just asking for too much.

Impulse control? Can't expect that of black people.

NYC has a nutcase of a schools chancellor who says:

Carranza says that he’s combating a “white-supremacy culture,” characterized by such concepts as “individualism,” “objectivity” and “worship of the written word.” It’s hard to imagine any educator disparaging the written word, but Carranza has crossed that Rubicon.
This is not new. I wrote about this back in 2016:
So lets be clear. Hackman is saying that it is white or "acting white" if one is "honest, hardworking disciplined, rigorous and successful." Therefore to be non-white is to be dishonest, lazy, undisciplined, lax and generally a failure. Moreover to be black is to be emotional ("How you're doing") and to not be able to master the language.
And prior to that:
Jane Addams thought that blacks were “unique and spontaneous” and naturally humorous and rhythmic, but she also believed that blacks were uniquely inferior to other groups in their lack of social control and family stability. ... Addams spoke of the “lack of inherited control” by blacks. ... [Social worker] Frederick Bushee, for instance, described the typical Boston black as “low and coarse, revealing much more of the animal qualities than the spiritual.” (1)
So here we have the head of NYC schools speaking of non-white students as being inferior. Don't be fooled by the "white supremacy culture", a term he picked up via The Isis Papers (and properly termed there as the White Supremacy SYSTEM and Culture). He apparently doesn't understand that in the modern world, things like objectivity and a written word are what keep planes in the sky, computers running and medical science advancing.

Black parents should be alarmed that people like Carranza are using their children as pawns in a game that will leave them miss-educated and unprepared for jobs requiring high mental skills. But if black parents are OK with the language used by Carranza and others then they should not complain when they AND their children are treated as inferiors.

Can You See The Left Crow Now?

I have discussed the rise of what I call The Left Crow in American society. It actually goes further than America but we'll keep it here at the moment. So in a past post I discussed the plight of Christian bakers:
In stark contrast, Sarah Sanders was seated in a restaurant and was told flat out to leave. She was declined any and all service, in what should be regarded as a blatant violation of her civil rights. The owner has allegedly claimed that her [gay and supposedly immigrant] wait staff and cooks were bothered (read: being total drama queens), by the prospect of serving niggers, sorry, Sanders. Sanders hadn't asked the restaurant to do anything special for her. She did not ask for a special "immigrant" meal. She did not ask for a special "fuck the gays" meal. She did not enter the premises without a shirt. She did not enter the premises without shoes. She was not being loud and obnoxious (like repeatedly using the word "nigga" in public like so many black people do). No, She was denied any and every service because of who she was and for behavior that the restaurant was not a, nor asked to be a party to.
Yesterday YouTube decided to do a purge of users. While it is arguable that YouTube as a private entity can decline service to whomever it chooses. One cannot square the actions with Civil Rights law. And YouTube is not the only issue here. PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, Banks such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank Of America have decided to not provide services to people whom they deem ideologically problematic as opposed to people breaking the law with their services. Even software companies like Salesforce has gotten in on the act by banning companies who do legal firearms business from using its software.

There are undoubtedly a number of black folks who think all this is great. The whip hand has been changed and it's time. Sure. OK.

Imagine if you will that the internet age occurred prior to 1960. Imagine the NAACP trying to fundraise and PayPal decided that it cannot take recurring donations because the NAACP is, in their opinion a Communist organization. Say that after going to a sit-in or boycott rally. Black folks went to their jobs to find out that they have been fired for "anti-American" activities. Imagine these black folks being unable to use any banking services whatsoever because again they are involved in "anti-American" activities. Imagine individual activists not only being unable to work but cannot receive or spend money donated to them unless it came in the form of cash.

The Civil Rights movement as we know it would have collapsed if the actions being taken by private companies today were in effect back then. In effect Regressives today are burning the very bridges that allowed black folks to get to where they are today. And those claiming there isn't anything different have NO CLUE.

And for those who think that they are "safe" because they don't have offending views; go look at the link I provided yesterday in the Who Were These Progressives? Your time will come unless you're a sheep and just follow wherever you're lead to.

One Reason I Stopped Regularly Reading The NYT

When I was in school it was required that I read the weekly NYT Science Times. I had to select an article and summarize it. The NYT was THE authority newspaper. If you were bright you read it and perhaps the Wall Street Journal. However; The Times has lost its way as it became "woke". It started burying inconvenient information faaaaar into articles it wrote often misleading its readers. I won't even get into the nonsense that passes for its opinion columns. You know what they say about opinions and assholes. Well, The Times has a lot of assholes.

Below is a video of one example of how low the NYT has fallen. I've caught the NYT writing articles that were completely contradicted by articles it posted months earlier so I'm unsurprised at the video below.

Wednesday, June 05, 2019

Who Were These Progressives?

The blogger at Those Who Can See has a [re-]post where he discusses the attitudes of various progressives over time. Sample:
During Reconstruction, the Reverend Lyman Abbott favored black suffrage and integrated schools and proclaimed that the progress blacks had made since the Civil War had refuted “slavery’s accusations of idleness and incapacity.”

By the 1890s, though,... He characterized blacks as a dependent and inferior people who could rise slowly, if at all, through hard work, improved morality, and industrial education. Nothing alarmed Abbott more than the specter of race-mixing. “For my part,” he announced, “I thoroughly and heartily sympathize with the passionate resolve of the Southern people that this intermarriage shall not go on in their borders. …” (1)

One of Boston’s finest citizens was Charles Francis Adams, Jr. a railroad executive in the Gilded Age, the grandson of the antislavery advocate John Quincy Adams. Adams viewed the Civil War as a humanitarian crusade. A colonel in the United States Army, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., led black cavalry troops into Richmond in 1865.

By 1900, however, the Boston Brahmin’s view of blacks had been transformed. After a trip to Africa, he expressed his complete disillusionment with African Americans in a 1906 article in the Century Magazine. In it, he expressed his regret that Reconstruction had been carried out “in utter ignorance of ethnological law and total disregard of unalterable fact.” At the sight of Africa, he declared, “the scales fell from my eyes.” (1)

Read the rest there.

Alan Dershowitz Speaks on The Need For The Center

No. I don't agree with everything he says. I agree with enough of it to warrant a post. It may surprise some readers but The Ghost consistently tests "moderate" when doing political orientation questionnaires. I regularly expose myself to people and ideas that are to my left and to my right. If you are not regularly exposing yourself to those who do not share your opinions, or to those who have spent more time studying an issue you are interested in, you are living in a bubble. If the election of Trump surprised you, then you are living in a bubble. If your go-to answer to issues consists of "racism", "sexism" and other things, you likely live in a bubble. The good news is that the brain is a natural needle that can pop the bubble.

It's 33 minutes. Listen during your drive if watching is inconvenient.

"All I'm asking you to do is free...your...mind."
Morpheus -The Matrix

Friday, May 31, 2019

Jussie's Colorism

Unsealed CPD documents reveal:
When Jussie Smollett was told his Nigerian trainer and his brother had been arrested for the 'homophobic, racist' attack he said he was the victim of, he reacted with: 'It can't be them, they'e[sic] black as sin.'
Black as what?

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:

Slave.

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

Slave.

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
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.