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?

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.

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:

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.

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: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/741/BillText/er/PDF 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.