Biden's Child Labourers

 As we know, Biden has been flying Illegal aliens all over the US via private flights. They use the euphemism "migrant" to get around the laws they are breaking but we know exactly what is going on. Well we also now know what these aliens are doing (and why there is no serious Republican efforts to stop this):

Kids as young as 14 were found working at a Tennessee factory that makes lawn mower parts

What kind of kids?

Immigrant children as young as 14 were found working illegally amid dangerous heavy equipment at a Tennessee firm that makes parts for lawn mowers sold by John Deere and other companies, according to Labor Department officials.

Immigrant children? Well that's interesting. What KIND of immigrant children?

 Pott, the general counsel for Tuff Torq’s majority owner, said the child workers were temporary and were not hired directly by Tuff Torq. He said they used fake names and false credentials to obtain jobs through a temporary staffing agency

What kind of immigrants use fake names and fake credentials (all crimes by the way)?

Illegal aliens do so in order to get work. 

So this is actually a story of illegal aliens breaking more laws in order to work for people who are also breaking the law by hiring them. It's not mentioned in this piece whether the agency (if in fact that claim is true) has ALSO been prosecuted. You'd think THAT would be important. Perhaps the Feds are ONLY concerned with the type of work being done rather than the fact that they shouldn't be employed anywhere in the first place. 

The Diddy Raid

The saying goes something along the lines of:

When you plot revenge, make sure to dig a hole for yourself.

When I saw the raid on Diddy's two properties, I knew that it was fallout from the decision to allow people with claims of sexual abuse from way back when, to get to file suits. Diddy's lawyers said as much in response to the raids.

The alleged reasons for this extension of limitation was to get pedo priests and Trump.  Russell Simmons saw the writing on the wall and broke the hell out of the USA to a non-extradition country, making sure nobody from his past could file charges against him for things he either did not do or were done consensually at the time but could now generate income for those who suddenly find themselves aggrieved.

As we know, Diddy has had 3 suits filed against him. I believe 2 have been settled and settled QUICKLY. The swiftness of the settlements leave the skeptical person thinking there was fire to that smoke.

Another thing I was thinking about is this: Is Diddy everything Michael Jackson was said to be? Is Diddy worse? I do not know and I'm not claiming to know anything in particular. I don't generally follow celebs so I don't really care. I just find it interesting how we still don't have the Epstein client list and then this goes down. If there was in fact sex trafficking going on, WHO took part? Will we be told? How many black celebs will be caught up AND will they be exposed? If they are then why the protection of the Epstein people?

Haiti Shits The Bed. Again.

 I know that sounds harsh.

I have a poster of Toussaint L'Ouveture and Jean Jaques Desalines on my walls.  That the Haitian people threw off slavery back in 1804 is a great thing.  But that was a long time ago.

Yes, I know France made Haiti pay for it's freedom. 

But still.

Haiti first came to my knowledge due to Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier. 

Then there was a the very pretty Haitian girl in high school, but that's another story.

Hearing about the horrors of the Duvaliers stuck with me. 

Then there was Aristide, a "saviour" who, being familiar with how things went down on that Island, knew would not last long.  By that time having seen what had gone on in Gaza/Palestine, I had become very wary of charismatic leaders AND the volatile situation that occurs when citizens of such places think that this guy is going to make their lives better...RIGHT NOW.

Of course we know what happened to Aristide.

To be honest, right now, I don't even recall who came after or how many. I do know that there have been repeated failures to properly run that country. It has been example number one of those who points out the failures of black rule. And lets be honest, it's really hard to argue. Particularly when a less black half of the shared Island doesn't have the same problems.

One would have to seriously consider if Haiti is cursed. After all, there are other Islands not having such misfortune. But so long as the leadership diverts money to private accounts in America and Europe (like others such as Mobutu), and people think the government is some magic organization that produces wealth out of thin air, I don't see how I'll meet my life's end without seeing another "uprising in Haiti" story splash across a screen somewhere.

Does the Clinton Foundation, the UN and others who have been involved in Haiti bear some responsibility? Sure. Ultimately though it comes down to Haitians themselves. It's easy to burn down a building, kill a few elites and whatnot. Destroying is ALWAYS easier than building. Shooting is easier on the ego than peaceful resolution of conflict. The long game is always harder than the short game. But these are things that will need to happen to end this cycle.

This morning I read that a few power stations were destroyed by the rebels. Why? Do they not plan on using electricity ever again? Who's going to pay to rebuild these stations that need not have been destroyed? Who's GOING to get paid to rebuild?

Who's going to be making money [this time] to change the proverbial sheets?

I don't know and I don't wish I'll on Haitians, but it's time to get "potty trained" and stop being the laughing stock [and ward] of the world.

Brown-Jackson Reveals True Rot

 So i come home after driving all day returning from a half-marathon when I open my feed to see Brown-Jackson of SCOTUS claim that she's "bothered" that the First Amendment is inhibiting the government from "interacting" with speech *it determines* to be harmful.

I had to listen to the comment a few times because I thought maybe she had been taken out of context or the way she was speaking made it look like she was saying one thing (pauses can do that) but really was saying something else. 

Nope.

She had responded to a solicitor suggesting, correctly, that the government can make it's own speech. Her commentary about the First Amendment made it clear that she did not believe it is good enough that the government can speak. No, she's concerned that some other speech by citizens, could be deemed problematic by the government...let me stop here.

The minute "that the government determines" popped out of her mouth she should have paused HERSELF given the gravity of the train of thought she was embarking on. Also, I seriously believe that the OTHER JUSTICES should have given audible gasps and yes, interfered with her question at that point. But I heard no such thing. I can only hope she gets put on blast in the decision, whichever way it goes.

But I am not surprised by this from Brown-Jackson. Not in the least bit. I said she had disqualified herself when she boldly lied about not knowing what a woman is. It was a bold faced lie. It was a clear sign that she was willing to put ideology ahead of facts if that was what required to get where she wanted.

That the senate approved of her appointment is a stain on their already nasty grimy garment that is their reputation. That answer ALONE should have resulted in her removal from consideration and WOULD HAVE a mere 10-15 years ago.

Now Brown-Jackson (and no doubt others) are looking for an end run around the First Amendment so they can censor just as Google removed my factual post about a report on  myocarditis following "vaccine" doses.  They just want to declare a swatch of speech "harmful" and "conspiracy" and then censor it and punish those who dare speak the "unspeakable".

There are those saying Brown-Jackson should be impeached over this. I would agree but as I said earlier, The senate approved of her even after her bald faced lie. And those senators were put into office by the voters. Inevitably, Jackson's commentary reflects a rather large percentage of the electorate.

That is the true rot.

9-0

 SCOTUS dropped it's Colorado decision yesterday. Every sane person knew what to expect, insofar as Colorado would be overturned. The question was what the four liberal justices would do. Well they got a 9-0 decision. This decision revealed or re-enforced a few things.

1) Keith Oberman is not a stable person. His unhinged tweet yesterday should give his employer, if he has one, reason to terminate their relationship. He should be persona-non-grata in any circle of sane people.

2) Keith Oberman shows people who are nominally left, that they took will be the target of radical leftism when the latter decides that their previously acceptable positions are no longer acceptable. They will also change up on you on a dime if you cross them. 

Once again, you have been warned.

You would have thought that since it was a 9-0 decision, people who had sworn up and down that Colorado was right, would be eating humble pie and admitting their error.

3) Neither Trump nor SCOTUS need to prove Trump is innocent of "Insurrection". A lot of left commentators pointed out that SCOTUS did not "exonerate" Trump of insurrection. These barely literate people apparently do not understand that in America:

    A) The accused doesn't have to prove a damn thing.

    B) Trumps actions on that day were not the point of the decision.

It actually would have been out of order for SCOTUS to discuss the claims of insurrection. Their point was that the constitution, via the 14th Amendment and further acts of congress had designated the power to CONGRESS to exclude federal officers. 

When I made a video on the matter, I conceded that the states have a limited ability to exclude candidates. SCOTUS said the same thing. 

4) The left wins by declaring "facts" whether they are facts or not. The left commentators has declared Jan 6 an insurrection and that's that. If the left is to be defeated, their terms, their "facts" must be dismissed. This is the same tactic used with the tranny nonsense. They up and declare a man who thinks they are a woman is a woman and will punish you for not accepting the clearly false statement. We must,  at each and every opportunity reject the premises (that are false). Playing along in order to be cordial or escape being called an 'ist" or "phone" is not a winning strategy.

5) There needs to be consequences. The lawfare being used to corrupt this election has to be met with consequences. It is not enough to "be so ordered" by SCOTUS. Trump's civil rights were blatantly violated, as Colorado is wont to do to conservatives (see the baker) and those doing so need to be held to personal account. If election workers in Ga can be handed millions for defamation by Giuliani, then this Colorado election secretary (or whatever) should meet a similar fate (though I am in favor of jail time). Also, since this is the second time SCOTUS has had to overrule COLORADO on basic constitutional issues, there needs to be a house cleaning.  I saw someone comment that when police departments are found to be deficient, they get "consent decrees" where they are overseen by a body. This needs to happen to the Colorado courts (and NY too). 

The next shoe to drop will be the immunity case. I'm on record saying that they will not say that the president has total immunity. They will probably say that like police they have an assumption of lack of mens-rea and so long as their behavior is within the scope of executing the duties of their office, they are generally immune.  If they do NOT make such a finding Obama is facing murder charges (not that he would necessarily be convicted). 

I believe that some on the left will regret having stirred this particular pot. 

We shall see.

Snow Roach?

 Yes, Snow Roach. Apparently this is an actual term to reference [certain] white people.

This is James (J.R.) Reeves

Reeves is Chief Information Officer and IT Director for USAGM, the federal agency responsible for global media coverage

He refers to Whites as "snow roaches" and celebrates the fact that the "roaches" will become a minority in the United States… pic.twitter.com/VburFKWqaB

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 1, 2024

 

 There are people out there claiming that black people cannot be racist.

Exhibit A.

That's bad enough but I cannot fathom how a black person this side of the Rwanda genocide where those targeted for elimination were literally called roaches, could write that and not say to himself,

"You know, I'm using the same language used by those who committed  genocide in 1994. Perhaps I should evaluate my thinking."

Nope. 

When you relieve and entire race of people of the human flaw of hate based on race, then they feel free to say these kinds of things with no moral brakes.

"roaches" 1994