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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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