The Shock And Awe of Masculine Leadership

The first president I remember was Carter. I liked him because he seemed nice. I thought "nice" was a good quality. I was child. I didn't know better. Like many children of the 70's and beyond, I grew up in a single, mother lead household. This meant that ale authority in the home was a foreign concept to me. I never had to negotiate a father. Men who came to the house knew to be "nice" to me in order to stay on good terms with my mother, except one. I hated him. The one male figure that was there in the later years, an uncle, was "nice". A provider was still dependent upon my mother for shelter. The only other male "authority figures" I knew were the few male teachers I had in school who's ability to punish was very limited and elders and pastors in the church I attended. Most of those men were "nice" and very few of them, well actually only one, commanded any respect from me whatsoever.

I say all this to point out that Americans by and large are unfamiliar with strong male leadership. Obama was a very passive, feminine president. His way of handling conflict was very feminine in that it was the passive aggressive type rather than direct and confrontational. It worked for him because many Americans are really only familiar with that kind of man. I was always off put by an Obama that crossed his legs. In my opinion, men crossing their legs is an extremely feminine act. It goes against our anatomy (we have narrow hips not wide ones) and the idea of not allowing my testicles and penis space to hang out, bothers me. If you noticed, Obama would change to "legs open" when dealing with more masculine people, though he would occasionally fall back to crossing his legs. This was one of the things that struck me about Trump. I have not seen Trump sit with his legs crossed. Now it may have happened but I haven't witnessed it. When I saw that, I knew we were dealing with alpha. Now let me get to the point of all this.

Since Trump has taken office, he has executed a number of items that he said he would execute. This has had the effect of shocking the public because they have been used to cucked "leadership" that put's its fingers in the wind to find out which way to go. It will be but a short amount of time before mayors and governors, among others realize that they are not dealing with some beta, approval seeking male as president. They are dealing with a stone cold alpha male. A lot of the noise we're hearing from left leaning women is because they understand that they hold exactly ZERO sway over alpha men. Alpha men could give a fuck about any particular woman's approval (aside from perhaps his mother and even THAT is limited). And when it comes to a group of women he has no sexual interest in, who serve no purpose to him, that is, NOT PRODUCTIVE, he doesn't give them the time of day. These women know this. This why a bunch of them marched all over the US. They are scared to death that the gig is up. They are not really afraid of Trump himself. They are afraid that his success would be seen as an example by other men whom they have been able to emotionally and financially manipulate.

And so this feminized country where "he wouldn't dare" is a common refrain, Trump's willingness to build the wall has shocked the public. That he will make Mexico pay for it (by any number of means) is also shocking to them. They are all saying "he can't do that!" Well yes he can and he can because he has the will to execute. This will to execute is what has been lacking in the Republican party. They are still behaving as cucks with their howls about The Wall and sanctuary cities because they have been trained to seek approval before executing. As I said earlier, these folks are going to realize that they are dealing with an actual man.

For example, when Trump announced that the government exists to serve the "citizens". it is a reformulation of "this is my home, this is my castle, these are my people and I decide who gets to come in and who gets to stay." It is a very masculine statement that could never have come out of Obama's mouth or any Democrat for that matter. And understand that the ISIS Jihadis and other countries where men are not nearly as cucked recognizes this. Males ALWAYS recognize the higher status male and very few have the guts to stand up to him to take his crown. See for all their talk about "unfit to serve" as president, the opposition only shows that they are unfit to run any business. You cannot run a large successful business that regularly takes risks without being willing to execute. You cannot run such a large enterprise without the large balls to negotiate from a position of strength or the appearance of strength. To people who are unaccustomed to risk and live the "need approval" life, these things are absolutely alien. However; to those of us who know, we recognize this.

The left has tried to vilify alpha behavior as "hyper-masculine" and "bullying" (mind you there is such a thing as bullying but that's a different convo). In this way, masculine behavior: taking charge, executing, not bending to female emotional blackmail for example, is seen as negative. This is why these women's marches have many many males (many of whom raised by single mothers) that speak so much gibberish about rights their wives already have or how the government rather than them, should be providing for their wives and [usually] female children. And I note the female children because many times when I hear men trying to cuck other men, they lead with "I have daughters".

And? That you have a daughter is no excuse to try to enslave other people's male children.

So yes, this new administration is going to be a master class in manliness for a lot of boys and young men who have not seen such examples on TV (where simpering, idiot males rule) or in their lives. There will be errors and mistakes. They happen but even those will be lessons in how men should handle fails.

Millions of Fraudulent Votes?

So the latest MSM hissy fit is over Trump's assertion that millions of people voted illegally or fraudulently. The press has asked Trump for proof. That is reasonable. His "proof" thus far has been to point to two studies, the authors of whom have claimed that Trump has misrepresented their studies. Thus the MSM have declared that Trump's allegations are false "fake news". But is it?

First, the MSM has still not figured out Trump. By bringing up the subject Trump is forcing the media to put voter fraud front and center to the electorate. This is exactly what he wants to have done. With the question out there, someone or some organization is going to have to spend some time researching the claim because of course they can't let Trump slide on his "lies". What would such intrepid people find out? Lets take a look at the possibilities.

First, let us recall that when Jill Stein wanted to have recounts the results in Michigan uncovered a trove of voter ballots that had no provenance. After that news came out the whole recount thing was dropped and fell off the media radar. The existence of such a trove in one state should have sent alarm bells ringing across the country. There should have been investigations in every state. There wasn't. We know why. But lets continue down this hypothetical.

Trump said "millions of people". Plural. So lets assume that "millions" means a minimum of 2 million votes. Is that a lot of votes? Well lets look at it this way, CNN says that there were a total of 128,824,833 votes in the presidential election. 2 million votes would be 1.55% of the vote (just about the difference between Hillary and Donald's popular number). That's actually not a whole lot. There are 50 states. If we assume that all these "illegal" votes were equally distributed among the states (not the case in the least bit) then it would mean that each state would have 40,000 votes. In the least populous state, Wyoming, which has 544,270 that would be less than 10% of it's population (a greater percentage of it's voting population):

Statewide, most other counties, aside from Teton, still use standard precinct voting and, other than Teton and Natrona, standard paper pollbooks. Even so, turnout at the state level also broke records, with an unofficial tally of 258,725 votes cast.

. However we know that if we are discussing illegal voting from persons who should not be voting, usually resident aliens and illegal immigrants, they are highly packed in north eastern and south eastern states with large urban populations and sanctuary policies.

This brings us to the next point. Voter ID.

Many [Democrat run] States and cities have laws in place that allow people to show up on election day and vote without any challenge whatsoever. In fact some of these laws explicitly forbid asking citizenship status or anything like that because they call it "voter intimidation". Thus anyone can walk into a voting precinct on election day and without any barriers cast a ballot. Since no one can challenge these voters no one knows how many people have voted illegally.

This is THE problem. The MSM is claiming Trump's claim as false without telling the audience that laws have been in place that actually hides any potential voter fraud. Thus when studies are done on the subject no one can "find" voter fraud because the government officials actively cover-up and hinder discovering such things. By the time anyone can show such fraud, such as the case of Al Franken's election, it is too late. It is the case that these fraudulent votes affect local races far worse than they do larger elections. Illegal voters tend to be concentrated in certain neighborhoods and therefore affect the representatives from those neighborhoods. This is not only a US thing. The UK has recently uncovered massive voter fraud in neighborhoods that are predominantly "Asian" (and they don't mean Chinese).

Lastly I'll mention the use of immigration policy as a means of affecting elections. While this is not legal "fraudulent" voting, it is something that I have no doubt in on Trump (and other's) mind. Up to 1965 the US was a 90% white nation. Since the passage of the immigration act and various amnesties all of which were passed with assurances that the balance of the population would go unchanged, resulted in the white population in the US dropping to around 65%. In any other nation, this would be called ethnic if not racial cleansing in progress. Many of these new comers vote Democrat (Cubans being a huge exception). Democrats therefore have a existential interest in a decreasing white population (so long as they continue to supply the majority of the tax revenue, but that's another topic). The last election showed that Democrats did best in urban "diverse" locations and did diarheally shitty everywhere else. Where, outside of DC is it easiest to hide 40,000 illegal votes? Why in states with large urban populations where such votes would be "only" 50-100 votes where you can claim worries are "overblown". We know that there was a concerted effort between Democrats and foreign nations to get citizens of other countries to become nationalized citizens in order to vote "against Trump"(2).

In Chicago, Aurora Rosiles, 76, and her husband Abelardo, 75, attended a citizenship workshop at the Mexican consulate organized by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; the couple is originally from Michoacán, Mexico. About 2.7 million of the 8.8 million legal residents in the U.S. are Mexican immigrants, but as a group they are less likely to become citizens.

I consider this fraudulent voting. Of course it's perfectly legal but for a major party to be party in stacking the voter rolls with foreigners in collusion with foreign governments to be treasonous.

So it is certainly correct to say Trump has no "proof" that millions of fraudulent votes were cast. However the MSM has not provided "proof" that such an event doesn't occur (proving a negative is hard). But here's the thing, if Trump is serious and uses the power of the Fed to force investigations in every state and to back voter ID laws (which should be nationwide), we could find out what the real deal is.

The Rights They Already Have

There was a time where legally women were second class citizens. They couldn't vote. Were excluded from obtaining credit. Could be raped by their husbands, etc. There were many reasons why women, in the US, wanted to have those issues addressed. If 2017 was the same as those times, then the masses of women that we saw rallying in various cities in the US would have made sense. But today we see that what these women want are not equal rights but legally enshrined entitlement.

One of the things that struck me about the "reporting" on the marches was the total lack of basic journalism. Certainly it occurred to at least one of the "reporters" to ask what specific right do men have in the US that women do not. Of course there aren't any. Legally, women in the US have the same rights as men. In fact, women have more rights and privileges than men do in the US. How so, let me go over two obvious points:

1) While women may volunteer to join the military, every male citizen is required to register for selective service. Failure to do so is a crime. In the past when the draft was in effect, any male was subject to being called up for military service. Women, in America, have never been subject to such a legal requirement, even when they gained the right to vote. They could help decide policy but never had to actually be forced to put their lives on the line for said policy.

2) Total control over reproduction and parenthood. Once the Supreme Court decided that abortion was legal because the fetus was a part of the woman's body and therefore her literal property to do with as she pleased, women gained the exclusive right to determine whether a human being could be born or not. Because of this, men lost the ability to have any real, legal input into whether he could have children. If a man wanted a child and impregnated a woman and she decided that she didn't want it, tough for him. Her body her choice.

Now this wouldn't be a problem if a woman didn't also have the right to go to court and have the state force a man to pay for a child he did not wish to be a parent of/. Women, in America have been granted the "right" to force a man to pay for a child he has no wish to have or be a part of simply because it has his DNA. Think about it. A woman can discard this same DNA at any time she wishes above the father's objection, but if the man attempts to similarly decline parental responsibility he can be forced to pay for a child he had no wish in making. That is not equal treatment under the law.

It doesn't matter whether socially you think that a man should "man up" and "take care of his responsibilities". Under the law each of us should be equally protected and privileged. If a woman can decide whether she wants to be a parent, including the financial responsibilities that goes with it, then so should a man. Period.

Those are the two glaring inequalities that are weighed in favor of women. A lot of women think that social inequalities, that is, how they are viewed economically and socially are somehow in the realm of 'rights". They are not. Because they think that, they think they are owed goods and services for free. lets look at birth control.

There are women who think that access to free to them, out of pocket birth control is a right. It is not. It is slavery. The only right a woman has, as it pertains to birth control, is access to it. That is all. When women say they have a right to free to them birth control, what they are saying, quite clearly is that they do not feel that they have to pay for any of the procedures that took and takes place to get that. Other people should pay for that. So since an insurance company is not simply going to take a hit to their bottom line to provide "free" birth control, the cost is passed on to the consumer. We all pay higher healthcare costs, and half of us who do not use this service underwrite this cost for women we are not involved with sexually.

So while these women have their hands in the pockets of millions of men, they march around talking about how they want to government and corporations off their bodies and out of their vaginas. I agree 100%.

Some women talk about how pay is not equal. Well nobody has the same pay. Ever. But again, there is no law, state or federal that requires that women be paid less than men. In fact there are locations and industries where women, particularly single women, have higher incomes than men. Many studies have shown that once controlled for variables, these claims of unequal pay vanish. In cases where companies or managers of certain areas of a company actually conspire to pay their female employees less, women have, like men, the right to take them to court and involve government agencies for corrective action.

So to anyone who can see, the millions of women who we saw plastered over the news are showing just how much of an entitlement attitude they have. One thing I'm hoping with this "change of the guard" and it's adversarial relationship with the mainstream media is that sacred fake cows start getting speared in the brain.

Slavery Countdown or Countup

So for those of you who pay attention, you'll noticed that there is now a "days and Trump Still Hasn't Re-Enslaved Black People Mr Smiley" banner at the top of the blog. The reason for this is because Tavis Smiley said one of the most ridiculous things prior to the election:

But at the conclusion of my talk, I was introduced to another question that still haunts me. I had handled most of the closing Q&A questions. Then one student hit me with this:

“Mr. Smiley, do you believe that given the crisis state of our democracy, we black folk could ever find ourselves enslaved again?”

Whoa. Didn’t see that one coming. Neither did the mostly white audience. A quiet fell over the room. I swallowed hard.

Looking directly at the student, I could see he was dead serious, and I wanted to treat his question with the soberness it deserved. But, truthfully, I stumbled as I began to respond, not knowing how to properly frame my response.

My answer? Yes...

So, could the Constitution be thwarted and black folk end up enslaved again? Legal scholars, of course, will find the question ludicrous and laughable.

It wasn’t farfetched for the young student who pressed me at Lehigh that evening. And, honestly? With the hair-raising, bone-chilling, spine-breaking, nerve-wracking path we’re on right now, I shudder to think where this democracy could end up one sad day, if we don’t get off this low road and make our way to higher ground soon.

Yes. This is the levels to which so called black leadership such as John Lewis have sunk to. They actually peddle the belief that slavery is just around the corner. Never mind that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade could not have occurred without the direct, willing participation of Africans (stories of kidnapping by white people are wholly over stated). So unless a significant portion of black people who have power over the lives of black people, countrywide, decide to engage in slave trading, it's not happening.

Never mind that. Just think that Time Magazine, an alleged reputable journal of news would allow Tavis to make such a statement without corrective commentary, shows how much the media and the Democratic establishment wishes to keep black folks in mental slavery by continuously reminding them that 1955 is just around the corner and can happen any day now.

If Smiley had any self respect and respect for black people he would have ridiculed the student for his self-induced (or maybe professor induced) fear of enslavement. If only for the reason of rapid automation of manual labour types of "slave work".

So this count up clock will remain at the top of the blog throughout President Trump's term or until black slavery is officially back on the books (apart from 13th amendment allowances). And every day that it stays, it shows the utter stupidity, opportunism and rank exploitative nature of the DNC and so called black leadership.

Steve Harvey Proves a Better Leader Than John Lewis

John Lewis brought shame to himself and his office when he made an ass of himself by announcing that he was going to boycott Trump's inauguration. In his publicity seeking attack on Trump, and that's what it was, he not only announced his non-attendance but he said that Trump was an illegitimate president.

The media, as usual spun this as Trump "attacking" a Civil Rights icon, as if people involved in the Civil Rights era are infallible, when Trump didn't roll over and play dead when attacked by a black person. Trump pointedly showed how black political leadership has utterly failed in their alleged "duty" to represent black America. He pointed out how far Selma, AL has fallen. He pointed out the totally unacceptable levels of homicides and other violence that plague urban black America.

Of course neither Lewis nor the MSM can handle the truth and have no answers for the facts pointed out by Trump, so they fall back on the tired, worn out, creased, missing corners race of spades card. See, John Lewis knows that Trump is legitimate. He knows how the Electoral College works. He knows the popular vote does not determine presidential elections. He's been fine with that for as long as he's been in office. Lewis doesn't have to like Trump. Lewis doesn't have to agree with Trump. Lewis, as a representative of his district took an oath to uphold the Constitution. In his declaring Trump illegitimate, he failed to live up to his oath.

In stark contrast to Lewis, Steve Harvey, to the ire of his fans, accepted an invitation from Trump to meet and probably discuss issues affecting black folks. I don't know, wasn't in the room. I'm not that much of a Harvey fan. I don't listen to the show unless I have to (company car with no aux input). I did hear that he was very much against Trump during the campaign. That was his right and to some "duty" as a citizen. I have no problem with that on principle. But what is important here is that once the election was over (or shortly thereafter) Steve understood that the time is now to move along. Trump is president. You respect the office, even if you don't respect the office holder and as a citizen, when called, you provide service. Period.

For this, Steve Harvey has gained more respect from me. Lewis can go away.

While on the subject let me also point out that Jennifer Holliday is also a sham and shame who will not get any support from me. She previously agreed to perform at the inauguration. Her position was that though she didn't agree with Trump, that her performance would be for healing and bringing people together. Now personally, I don't think a citizen should have to explain why he or she is performing for or with the head of state, but this seems to be a trend now. Anyway, Holliday backed out of her agreement (which shows a lack of character IMO). She said that her fans or whomever were mad because her performance would be seen as endorsing Trump and his ideas.

Once again I'll point out the double fucking standard at work here. When Christian bakers and caterers refused to sell gay wedding cakes or provide catering to a gay marriage because they felt that such participation was and endorsement of something they opposed morally, They got hemmed up in courts. Shut down, sued and trashed by the media. Never mind that they were exercising constitutional rights. The left said that their cakes and catering services were not endorsements but rather simple business transactions with no moral statements.

So now performing for Trump is an endorsement of him and his ideas. This is why I'm not a Democrat. This is why I am not a liberal. This is why I'm no longer "on the left" (I am center). These blatant hypocrisies are unacceptable. If there is one thing I hope this term of office does, I hope it breaks the hypocrisy. It needs to happen. And if it means taking out a few Civil Right's icons, then so be it.

Klan Hysteria

In this past election, like many before it, the left used the specter of The Klan and Old Jim Crow in order to motivate black people to vote for Republicans. Democrats who had previously accused the Republican party of trading in "fear politics" regularly uses historical fear of the KKK to motivate black people to vote for them. Of course in this election not only did we get KKK but we got Hitler re-incarnate. I said earlier that the fact of the matter is that if one is black, one has very little to fear from KKK members. As a matter of fact a black person has a far higher probability of being killed by another black person (usually male) than by a KKK member if for no other reason than the minuscule number of actual Klan members. As if to prove this point, A&E has been caught paying white folks to be Klan members and say "nigger" on tv.

The KKK leaders who were interviewed by Variety detailed how they were wooed with promises the program would capture the truth about life in the organization; encouraged not to file taxes on cash payments for agreeing to participate in the filming; presented with pre-scripted fictional story scenarios; instructed what to say on camera; asked to misrepresent their actual identities, motivations and relationships with others, and re-enacted camera shoots repeatedly until the production team was satisfied...

The production team even paid for material and equipment to construct and burn wooden crosses and Nazi swastikas, according to multiple sources

Made up cross burnings? What's next hoax swastikas and Hijab grabs? Oh wait...

I've said for a long time that the Democratic Party is a plantation for Negroes. Apparently they also have Klansmen on that plantation. Who knew.

Oh wait...and tax evasion:

On the Tennessee shooting location of the KKK documentary, Nichols and Hutt describe being paid by a man with a blue, rectangular bank money bag, which he would unzip and hand out $50 or $100 bills.

You know, when you have to make up "hate", there can't be much of it in actual existence.

Liberals and Their Double Standards

Up until the election of Donald Trump, leftists were of the position that providing a service to a customer was not an endorsement of the person or behavior. This is what they said when homosexual were turned down by various businesses to do something for their weddings. These [Christian] bakers, caterers and photographers were willing to serve the customers in [any] other capacity that did not conflict with their beliefs. That is, because the events in question were in conflict with their beliefs, they felt that by being there or otherwise cooperating would be an endorsement or enablement of said behavior. However the homosexuals (and their supporters) felt that such arguments were false. They were of the opinion (unfortunately supported by courts in stark contradiction to the US Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act) that homosexuals could compel Christians to do things that were against their creed or suffer financial (and potential criminal) ruin.

Now we have the Trump inauguration and we have multiple left wing artists who are refusing to entertain. Why? They do not like Trump and do not want to be seen as endorsing this person. Now since I'm all for freedom of association and freedom of disassociation, I have no problem with the Rockettes and whomever else saying they want no parts of Trump. I may not agree, but I think that in a free country citizens should be free to decline to participate. Of course I'm not a hypocrite. I believe that the same freedom applies to Christian bakers, photographers and caterers as well.

This is yet another reason why The Ghost is no longer a lefty (I'm centrist). I see these double standards all the time and the MSM never calls them out on it. Lefties are not interested in personal freedom. They are not interested in equal rights for all. They are only interested in rights for people who think like them.

England Continues with Own Fails

Saw this report in RT.com: British universities ‘no-go zones’ for Jewish students – top peer Now as recently as perhaps 1960 you could safely assume that such a title meant that white Britons (I repeat myself) were the ones making these university no-go zones. But this is 2016, soon to be 2017 and if you made such an assumption, well who's the ass? Reading the report:

Deech’s comments come after a series of high-profile incidents at top universities where Jewish students claim they have been verbally or physically attacked.

“Amongst Jewish students, there is gradually a feeling that there are certain universities that you should avoid,” she said.

“Definitely SOAS [in London], Manchester I think is now not so popular because of things [that] have happened there, Southampton, Exeter and so on.”

Well being a relatively bright person, I asked myself "who is doing these things". Well there is nothing in the report that directly states who, but you do get a strong indirect comment:

Speaking to the Telegraph, Deech said some institutions are failing to combat hatred against Jewish students because they are “afraid of offending” their potential investors from Gulf states.

“Many universities are in receipt of or are chasing very large donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and so on, and maybe they are frightened of offending them,” she said.

Wait what? Why would the rise of "no-go" universities for Jews involve "Saudi Arabia and Gulf States"? Unless those creating such an environment are from those areas?

Two. Why is the British public OK with this? Why is the government allowing this to happen? Is the UK so un hock to "Arab money" that they are willing to shit on their own (to the extent the affected parties can be said to be "their own")?

So just to summarize, in the past two years or so we have seen the British government turn a blind eye to imports who have set up sex-prostitution rings victimizing natives and now have created hostile social environments in it's universities.

Have the Brits any self respect?

Women Want Equality, Until They Don't

Here in the US there has been a release of video of a black football player in a physical altercation with a white female. The usual gender outrage suspects have been carping on the "if this doesn't get you barred then..." line. White Knights of various stripes have been opining on sexism and domestic violence involving sports figures. Black Lives Matter has been silent. Here's the video:

Link in case video doesn't appear: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4055302/University-Oklahoma-football-star-Joe-Mixon-punched-woman-defends-police-interrogation-video.html#v-5312172578574875482

Now when I saw it I thought to myself: Why hasn't the chick been charged with assault? Under the law striking a person without their consent is assault. She hit him twice before he hit her back. Even if you are of the opinion that men should never hit a woman, there is still the issue of equality, specifically equality under the law.

Joe Mixon has a right to not be hit by any other citizen without his consent. Molitor has no legal right to hit anyone without their consent. Furthermore; the fact that she hit him a second time despite not being hit or threatened shows that she intended to do harm. I will remind the public that just because someone is 'small" and has no weapon does not mean that they cannot do serious harm to a person. So again I ask: why wasn't this chick charged with assault at the minimum and aggravated assault at the maximum? Either we are FOR women being treated equally or we are not. Period.

Some have argued that Molitor was short and lighter than Mixon and that somehow this mitigates the fact that Mixon was assaulted. The argument is that somehow a taller and heavier person has some obligation to allow smaller and lighter people to hit them at will. This is total nonsense. In man circles a few things are understood:

1) If you strike another man you are asking to be hit back. In fact you should expect to get hit back. You get no sympathy from other men because one should never hit someone if one doesn't expect to be hit back.

2) You should evaluate your ability to defend yourself against another man. Men regularly size each other up to determine their threat potential. This is actually done throughout the animal kingdom. Since any random male could present a life threatening situation, one must be able to make a quick evaluation of whether it is better to run or avoid conflict or stand your ground/continue on with your business. This is why, generally speaking larger more muscular men are used as security guards and the like.

Molitor, who probably thinks that the world owes her some special favors failed to do these two things because generally speaking women have been given a pass on these rules. Now in the past the reason for this pass was that women in general knew not to antagonize a man and secondly it was generally socially acceptable to physically "remind" a woman who stepped out of line. But here we are in 2016, soon to be 2017 and women say they want the equal treatment as men, but then fail to observe the two rules above? Why? Because women want equality until they don't.

The way I see it Mixon ought to be suing two entities:

1) The state and police department for failing to press charges against Molitor for assault. It is clear from the video that she initiated non-consensual contact twice. The state and police department should be sued for gender discrimination for failure to prosecute Molitor. I see no reason other than her gender for her not being arrested.

2) Mixon ought to sue Molitor directly for a number of items:

a- Defamation of Character: She has been saying that Mixon deliberately tried to cause her distress and harm when the video clearly shows who the aggressor was.

b- Infliction of bodily and psychological harm: Again, video shows who hit. Further evidence may show that there were words involved.

Given that Molitor has already filed suit I would love for the judge to render a summary judgment (if possible) or discard any jury verdict in favor of Molitor. No more gender bias in law. She wants to hit a man (twice!) then she can't sue for the consequences of her dumb behavior. AND the judge should make her pay for Mixon's lawyers fees (and then some).

Of Thermostats and HoverBoards

Per the last post on Germany, I was thinking of a nice analogy to explain the way the elites of Germany view "refugees" and how sane people would see it.

The elites want you to look at refugees as thermostats in your car. You see thermostats are necessary for the proper functioning of your vehicle's internal combustion engine. Without the thermostat your engine would overheat, parts would melt and the engine die. If a thermostat is stuck open then the engine never reaches optimal temperature and emissions go high and the engine is inefficient. Thermostats eventually die. Some sooner than others but you know they are going to go "boom." This is how the elites view these "refugees". They view them as necessary, if not for tax purposes, then to prove that they are not racists. The inevitable catastrophic failure of the thermostat is something you the people have to tolerate as a necessary risk of having a thermostat.

Now we have hover boards. Hover boards are not necessary for anyone. They simply exist for entertainment purposes. That meet some want in the purchaser and user, but if the hover board were to disappear the user would find something else to do with his time. Now it was discovered that these hover boards had a habit of going "boom" and injuring the users. Now these catastrophic failures were relatively rare and represented a minority of boards in the hands of customers, but the authorities, being sensible. Did not want to endanger the public and so mass bans of hover boards were passed even though catastrophic incidences were "rare". Now one rarely sees a hover board and most people look at them with suspicion.

See, the authorities can be sensible when they want to. Whenever the authorities are NOT being sensible there is a [usually monetary] reason for it and it has nothing to do with the safety and security of their constituents.

Of course there is a person reading this saying that "refugees are people" and not objects. All I have to say starts with an "F" and ends with an "F". Figure it out.

Germany Has Fallen

Like I said about Belgium earlier this year:

Any sane people would not invite persons hostile to their culture and peoples to live among them in large numbers. They would not allow them to create "no-go" areas of insular communities where the police are afraid to enforce the national laws. If you don't believe me look at Japan. Look at China. Look at Hungary. Look at Poland. The leadership of these places understand exactly who they represent. They are not afraid to be proud of who they are and they do what they must to maintain their identity. To be blunt, they are not traitors.

The French leadership and a large percentage of their population are traitors to their own countries. I'm not going to beat around the bush with this. Let us state it plainly and clearly. The French got what they had coming to them. The Belgians have gotten what they had coming to them. The Germans, and all those countries who have invited hostile persons to leech off their governments while large numbers of their people assault and rape citizens. Each of them will continue to get what they have coming to them until they are either made to completely submit or they rise up

Last year when "refugees" wilded out in Germany over the new year and assaulted women (and men) left right and center, the German authorities proceeded to coverup the "who" and "whom" of the crimes as much as possible. The government has gone so far as to enlist Facebook and who knows who else to censor "fake news" that reported on the actual truth (remember in liberal land, truth is false). Left wing women even went on record as saying that they refused to report their rapes because they felt that the "racism" against the perps was worse than the actual rape (I suppose that puts and end to the argument that rape is the ultimate traumatic incident that can befall a woman).

So no, other than the people who voted for AFD I have little sympathy for the German people after this blatant attack on their country in the furtherance of the Jihad against their land and people. Any group who re-elects the party and leadership that has brought this war into their land gets exactly that war they ask for.

The Blackest Thing You Can Do

This is England:

This is an English person (AKA: Native):

This person presumably speaks English but is not English:

See, just because you speak English doesn't mean you get to define it. Now this is important because of the following bullshit:

The blackest thing ever happened on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania: A group of students recently removed a picture of William Shakespeare and replaced it with one of Audre Lorde.

You read that? The Blackest thing ever was that students at UPenn manhandled an icon of the English as well as the English language and posted a person who merely speaks English. All done because:

Fisher-Bennett Hall is home to Penn’s English department, and the portrait of Shakespeare has resided over the main staircase in the building for years. The English department, in an effort to represent more diversity in writing, voted a few years ago to relocate the portrait and replace it.

First of all, I'm not even sympathetic to the faculty at UPenn. If they had any self respect they would have told whomever was offended at Shakespeare in the English department to fuck off, pack their shit and find somewhere else to teach. That this is the ENGLISH department and the icon of English literature will be going nowhere. So having failed that shit test, I repeat, I have no sympathy.

The second problem is this:

more diversity in writing

First of all writing is not exclusive to English. Anyone looking for a diverse set of written material is free to go to the Asian Studies dept., African Studies dept., Latin studies, French, etc. And they can find all KINDS of writing. This is the ENGLISH department. Studying and teaching English has to be on the list of the least black thing you could do.

Esty, who declined to be interviewed, said in an email to the Daily Pennsylvanian, “Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.”

No, what it was was a display of power. The BLM movement is a great black shark. White people cower in fear at it's very mention. Now that the shark has smelled the blood in the water, black folks, particularly on campuses feel free to impose themselves at will. They know that these administrators are cowards who are afraid of being called racists.

Her comments were echoed by junior English major Mike Benz, who told the newspaper that college curricula typically focus on European and Western ideals, leaving outside texts to be ignored or set aside.

No really. Your majoring in ENGLISH (see above) and complaining that it focuses on European and Western ideals.

The fuck out of here.

Since this isn't a community college, these students can afford to go to just about any university. UPenn is NOT cheap. Therefore we need to ask: Why haven't these students applied to and attended an HBCU? That would be real black. Why aren't they taking courses in Housa, Yoruba, Swahilli and reading Ngugi Wa Thiongo in his native tongue?

Because they aren't really all that interested in doing the "blackest thing ever" such as supporting actual BLACK INSTITUTIONS. They just wanna force themselves on other people's culture (which if done to them, they would object to) and bully guilt ridden white people.

The Russians Are Hacking!

With all this recent "interest" in fake news, you would think that the MSM would review it's own recent commentary on the alleged accuracy of the American voting system before running full bore with the Russians helped Trump get elected story.

Before this election when Trump said he wouldn't necessarily accept the results. Clinton and the MSM (revealed to be one and the same) went ape shit, declaring that Trump was threatening the very foundations of American democracy by attempting to delegitimize the apparently tamper proof election process. Now with Clinton's loss. Everyone on the left who was yapping on about "delegitimized elections being dangerous" are running around talking about how Trump is "not their president." We have recounts targeting states that Trump won but not states that Clinton won as if no one can see the rank hipocrisy of that And now the word is that Putin has somehow "influenced the election."

Mind you before this election, particularly with the Bush election, Democrats and the left spent much energy talking about how ballot boxes are hackable and we can't trust them. They spent 8 years "delegitimizing" US elections. Apparently these machines were run by big money Republicans who were going to conspire to make sure no Democrat ever won a presidential election again. Then Obama got elected.

During most of the Obama term, talk about hackable and hacked ballot boxes all but disappeared. Yeah in certain tech circles there were discussions on the matter, but for much of Obama's term nobody on the left had much to say about voting machines. All the attention went to making it easier for people who should not vote to be able to vote by making sure to challenge any and every piece of legislation requiring voter ID.

See the argument was this. Black people are too poor and too fucking lazy to go to a government office and get an ID. But these same poor and lazy black people manage to get ID's for shit like bank accounts, auto loans, cigarettes and alcohol. The other argument being that some black people live so far away from government offices that they could not get to one in time for the election that was years away.

Really.

Never mind that any legislation could have had a provision that the state send mobile units to people who could not make it to the ID location. Never mind that the state could (and many do) use mail in ID.

And then there was the entire, some black people don't have birth certificates because Jim Crow. Never mind that persons in the US illegally manage to get all manner of ID's, some from the states themselves, a black person without a birth certificate can't do anything. Oh never mind that they didn't apparently CARE about that issue before. Never mind that.

So these same folks going on and on about how Putin is influencing the election apparently see no problem whatsoever with the "honor system" the US has in place for voting. That is, any mofo can walk in off the street, swear he or she is a citizen, and if their name is not on a roll, vote "provisionally". And if they are on a roll because they got one of those ID's the states have been handing out like candy, they can actually vote. Nothing can possibly go wrong there.

The Democratic delegitimizing machine has gotten so bad that the current president is telling the troops that they should question the orders of the incoming commander in chief. I don't think i've ever heard of a sitting president doing such a thing. Certainly private citizens have said such things many many times, but I've NEVER heard of a president making such commentary. It really shows how little respect the Democrats have for institutions and organizations they are not in direct control over.

Showing just how in the pocket the MSM is to Democratic party talking points is the fact that we KNOW for a fact that a country has been trying and actually directly influencing the US elections: Mexico. Their embassies have been instructing their citizens on how to become dual citizens so that they can vote in the interests of Mexico. And that's just on elections. They have been constantly hammering the US with illegal immigration as well. So knowing this is the case, you would think that actual journalists would present this to the citizenry. Nope. Somehow the Democrats have found a use for Russiaphobia, something they used to hammer Republicans on. Democrats are doing everything they can to delegitimize the recent election and no one in the MSM is calling them on it. It's clear and it's blatant and that is far more "problematic" than whatever they *think* Putin has done.

Kaepernick and the "White-on-White"Crime argument

In an interview with Breitbart Kaepernick said the following:

Kaepernick: I’m trying to help Chicago as well. I donated to an organization in Chicago. I plan to visit Chicago and see what I can do to help there. But to try to bring up an issue like black-on-black crime, according to FBI crime stats, over 80 percent of white people that are murdered are murdered by other white people. So there is white-on-white crime as well. So to single out a city or a community like that is unfair in my opinion.

This tired "white folks commit crime so..." argument is one I used to subscribe to. And it's true. White people commit crimes. Murder even. When one is not aware of the data, one would assume as Kaepernick does and the left wants you to, you would think that the level of white crime, particularly murder is equal to or in proportion to the white population. However; this is simply not the case. Since I'm near NY I use that data and you can find NYPD compstat data here:

http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2015/10/yes-black-on-black-crime-is-thing.html

At that link I show that black crime rates both against each other as well as non-blacks is well out of proportion to the population of blacks. In some places like Wilmington Delaware, ALL murders were committed by black people for a given year. See here's the thing. For too many black folks, they cannot imagine living somewhere where a murder happens maybe once every 10 years. Yet there are communities in America, usually white communities where this is the norm. Too many black people do not understand that there are places in America where IF a violent crime happens, it is usually committed by someone who is not from their community and is usually (thought not exclusively) a non-white suspect. This is particularly the case when it does NOT involve domestic violence.

Of the black people that do know this, they are guilt ridden and ashamed and so do whatever they can to hide this information. Many of the most vocal deniers of these facts reveal their actual state of mind by where they choose to live and raise their children. In the case that they live in middle class black neighborhoods you can catch them talking about the "negroes" (among other names) who "don't know how to act" and "always acting up" and all other kinds of negativity, but as soon as someone, not black points out these same things, these black folks get defensive and start in on the "white people do it too" shit.

So Kaepernick is a fool. The reporter should have called him out on the "white people commit crimes" argument. The entire BLM movement is a movement of convenient idiots who really do not care one bit about black lives.

$PLC Omits Facts. Only Lefties Are Surprised.

From the NY Post:

At least 2,000 educators around the country reported racist slurs and other derogatory language leveled against white students in the first days after Donald Trump was elected president. But the group that surveyed the teachers didn’t publish the results in its report on Trump-related “hate crimes.”

Is is rank hypocrisy like this that drove me from left (never call it "progressive") ideologies. I am against racial hate. Period. There is no such thing as "reverse racism". there is racism and any group of people can have racist ideologies.

But the SPLC didn’t present the whole story. The Montgomery, Ala.-based nonprofit self-censored results from a key question it asked educators — whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”

Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”

"hard time getting the information" means "hard time trying to figure out how to disappear this data or a way to present it as anti-non-white racism."

There is a movement to get the SPLC's tax exempt status revoked. Lets hope it succeeds. This organization has to be taken down.

MAGA Ideology Getting Black Folks Jobs

It's sad that a mere 8% of black folks voted for Trump. At a most basic level, the idea that one is all in on one of two major parties means that when the party you back is out of office, you're screwed. But sadly black folks generally stayed off the Trump wagon due to fear mongering by Democrats (what else do they do?). Meanwhile MAGA ideology is getting black folks employed.

One point in the MAGA ideology is that jobs should return to the US. Now the MSM and Democrats (I repeat myself...really) have tried to say that message is only for white working class men. Yet Trump never made such a statement (go ahead and look for it). He made a plea to working class Americans and that includes Black Americans.

Last night on 60 Minutes was a segment on bringing jobs to Miss.

Link here if above is not working: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-mississippi-factory-jobs-joe-max-higgins/

Now what is important to note is the sheer number of black people in the video. Now it is entirely possible that this was staged like many companies do. However; that is Mississippi. Lots of black folks there. All those black folks with higher wages than before thanks to the idea of bringing jobs BACK. Black folks stand to win with less illegal immigration and even legal immigration. Black folks stand to win with an America first ideology that brings back or creates manufacturing jobs that can employ those persons not particularly suited for jobs requiring advanced education.

It will be rather interesting if during the presidency of a Republican (in name only?) black unemployment drops significantly.

The Slager Mistrial

Mistrial.

And I agree.

Officer Slager is facing yet another trial and a federal trial. Talk about triple jeopardy. Yes, I know it's not really double jeopardy because he wasn't declared "not guilty". But I maintain that this trial, these trials, are show trials that have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the BLM silly narrative of innocent black men being shot by police for no good damn reason.

Of course the truth is nothing like it is being presented by the media: That Walter Scott was shot "because he had a broken tail light". The tail light was the justification for the stop. That was not what got Scott shot. I have not gone over the actual testimony but the video that I have seen lays the ground for reasonable doubt.

The first relevant video is that of the stop. Scott is stopped and asked to produce license the registration. Slager repeatedly tells Scott to stay in the vehicle. Scott decides that because he has outstanding warrants for failure to pay child support he would take his chance and run away from the scene. How he thought that would be better than staying put, I have no idea. But I'm not that stupid. Now the understanding is that Slager did not know about the warrant at the time Scott made his dash. Therefore Slager had reason to believe that Scott was running away because he had committed some crime. This is called "reasonable suspicion". Now once Slager thought Scott was a potential criminal (and running away from a police stop is a crime in itself) he was under no obligation to stop pursuing Scott. Scott doesn't get a pass because he thinks he Usain Bolt.

Now once Scott is caught, something never mentioned by the media, he struggles with Slager. From the video footage we know that Slager had attempted to use non-lethal force on Scott. Scott decided after that attempt to continue to run. Understand that by physically struggling with the officer, Scott has now committed a felony and Slager has reason to believe that Scott would use even more force if caught again. No officer has to wait to have his eye poked out or perhaps shot with his own weapon before escalating force against a suspect who has already assaulted him.

Now the entire reason we are even having this show trial is because of the Tenn ruling on fleeing suspects. In that ruling the circumstance was that a police officer arrived at a scene of a crime and an alleged suspect was running away. The court ruled that the suspect had a right to self interest and posed no danger to the officer who could not be certain that the suspect was even the person who committed the crime.

In this case however, Slager knows Scott is the suspect because Slager pulled him over. Furthermore Scott already resisted arrest by having a physical altercation with Slager. So he wasn't just fleeing, he was showing a willingness to escalate violence against Slager and perhaps anyone else he ran into who tried to stop him. Scott had plenty of opportunities to not get shot. He passed on all of them. Oh. The fuck. Well.

I'm glad there was at least one juror who saw through the bullshit of holding Slager responsible for Scott's piss poor decision making. Time to let everyone know that if you assault a police officer who is doing his or her lawful duties, emphasis on "lawfull" then if you get shot and killed, you get no sympathy from the rest of us.

And to the next set of white jurors who will likely be put on the next show trial. Do not let the court system or anyone else tell you you are racist for expecting grown ass black men to behave in a civil and civilized manner when dealing with police.

Fidel Castro

So in the week that passed after Castro's death I was once again reminded of my own precarious position on the political spectrum. To my left were those for whom Castro could have done no wrong and to my right were those who saw Castro as the devil incarnate. Unfortunately this broke down largely along racial lines. My own view of Castro is far more complex, so here goes.

As a Pan-Africanist of the Garveyite strain Castro was a hero of mine. It is simply impossible to be a conscious black person, against colonialism and it's attendant evils and be completely down on Castro. Unless you are or were pro Apartheid you have to thank Castro for aiding those Africans who fought against that regime. Similarly I cannot fault Cuba and Castro for taking in Assata.

I've written on Assata in the past. You can find those writings here:

http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2013/05/hands-off-assataagain.html

and here:

http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2009/04/hands-off-assata.html

I'm sure this has already pissed off a few people, particularly those of right leanings. Don't care. Anyone familiar with the actions of government (on all levels) against black people fighting for their civil rights as citizens knows about COINTELPRO. That program specifically targeted "radical" black people and organizations for neutralization. One of the means of doing this was to infiltrate these organizations and sometimes commit criminal acts (or get members to conspire to do so) in order to bring down the organization. I have seen interviews with persons who have done these things. I honestly believe that Assata was, in fact, set up and that Foerster would be alive today had the racist COINTELPRO not been in effect.

Of course I disagree with many right leaning people on the subject of Trayvon Martin as well.

One of the oft cited proof of the failure of the Castro regime was the poverty on the island. I think such arguments are silly. Cuba's asinine decision to allow the placement of nuclear missiles on it's island aside, the fact that Cuba could not trade with what would be it's largest partner has a lot to do with the "failure" of the regime. Look at it this way. over 60% of the US is involved in trade with Canada. Imagine if the US was unable to trade with Canada? Between Mexico and Canada, we have 80% of the economic activity of various states. Again. If the US could not trade with these countries (just two), the US would be a basket case.

Sure it could be said that the economics were a consequence of the decisions of the regime but the fact still stands that we did not and will not see what kind of economic success (if any) a Cuba free to trade with the largest economy could have been.

And it's not like the US wouldn't do business with communists. They just prefer their communists to be non-hostile. Now having noted all that, it is a shame that much like the revolutionaries in Africa, after the revolution came the devolution. The resort to violence to maintain power. The control of media to maintain power. Elimination of opposition all underscores how limited the "revolutions" were. If these "people revolutions" were so powerful then wouldn't The People vote out or not vote FOR those who threatened it? If the press is lying don't you have libel laws? Wouldn't other press check them? If your "revolution" requires the silencing of opposition then your revolution is faulty. But if it's power you want then I suppose anything goes.

So I was happy when Obama decided to change the US posture to Cuba. I don't think it's the business of the US to tell other countries what form of government they should have. I don't like such "bringing democracy" bullshit in Syria, Egypt or Iraq either. A lot of the reasoning for the human rights abuses (disappearances, etc.) were born out of the meddling by the US, including attempted coups. Removing hostility removes the excuse for these acts. There are a lot of dead people in a lot of countries simply because the US has hostile policies towards the governments in those countries.

That said, some of what went on in Cuba was simply the use of "justice" as an excuse for murder. Can't hide from that fact either. Reading some of Che's thoughts makes that very clear. It also shows where the American left is headed...slowly but surely.

Back in December

No, the blog is not dead. Be back on Dec. 1.

High Priority Items for Trump in 2017

Sorry folks but I had other things I had to do (including a half marathon) so I couldn't post in the run-up to the election. This post is about what Trump should be doing in the first year in office.

Restore Law and Order in Government!

Pretty sad that this even needs to be said but the reason there are more than 11 million persons residing illegally in the United States is because the government is no longer enforcing the law (unless you are a citizen...a "nobody" citizen). This needs to be turned around pronto. Here's what I think a Trump administration needs to handle this:

1) Announce, very publicly a meeting with INS, Border Patrol and related bodies. Just announce the meeting is happening. This is the warning shot to those persons who should not be here, that time is up.

2) Announce that any municipality, city or state with "sanctuary policies" are in direct violation if immigration law and that:
a) Will have all federal funds frozen until such policies are reminded.
b) Charges will be brought against any and all officials responsible for enacting such illegal policies. These charges will include accessory to murder or negligent homicide if any illegal resident that was given sanctuary committed a homicide.

3) Have the INS and whatever related body subpoena all ID records of states with sanctuary policies. This includes any state that hands out driver's licenses and other non-driver ID's (which serve as a means of facilitating illegal immigration). Have lawyers on standby for the inevitable lawsuits. Remember that the Arizona ruling that the Federal Government is responsible for immigration matters has already gutted any state objection to such subpoenas.

Anyone on this lists who "fit the profile" of someone not in the country legally will be asked to report to INS. those who comply get 3 months to get their affairs in order and leave the country. Those who do NOT get a visit from INS and if determined to be in the country illegally are immediately removed.

The point here is to show that the state is not fucking around anymore. Those who object should know that it was the fault of the Democrats and Republicans who failed to enforce the law that they swore to uphold and who flouted the law for their own personal reasons.

2) Deal with BLM and Soros' Open Society organization. BLM that Soros funded uprising against police and law in general needs out be dealt with firmly. There are dead police out there. Investigations should be done into any organization that the BLM murderers were involved with. Soros's Open Society organization should be held criminally and financially responsible for any deaths that are connected to their activities. While criminal prosecution may not be successful, it will send the same message: The government is not fucking around now.

In particular we need prosecution of those DNC/Hillary support organization that broke election law by coordinating as well as by inciting actual violence at Trump rallies. They need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 3) Time to deal with Academy.

While it is not possible (and shouldn't be) to police private schools, those run by the state should be held to account for their liberal bias. The skewed representation of liberal to conservative (and whatever else) academics is evidence of employment discrimination. a Trump DOJ should open investigations for state run universities.

The absolutely overhyped "rape culture" bullshit needs to be dealt with head on. State universities should be held accountable for railroading those accused of sexual assault. Heads need to roll where such gender discrimination is being done. In my opinion all sexual assault claims should go through the police. No police report, no action by university. Period. Time to treat women as grown ups. If they cannot be bothered to report (for whatever reason) then we're not going to assume guilt.

These are things that certainly can be done to great effect within the first year.

Mr Obama, You are Full Of Shit

Real quick. this AM I see on Breitbart that Obama is playing the pussy card for Clinton:

“To the guys out there, I want to be honest, you know there’s a reason why there hasn’t been a woman president before,” he said. “And I think that sometimes, you know, we’re trying to get over the hump.”

There are a lot of reasons why women have not been president before, including not being able to participate in the political process, but generally speaking it has been down to two things:

1) Women not running. When women run for office they are more likely to be voted in. Emphasis on when. If you don't participate no one is going to vote for you.

2)Playing the pussy card. If you tell me I have to vote for you because you are a woman then I won't vote for you. Simple. Having a vagina is not a qualification for me. Having ideas I agree with is. I personally have already supported female candidates for office including president.

But to show the level of cuckness that Obama has, which has been evident to anyone who has watched him and Michelle, he says this:

Obama made his remarks during a campaign rally in Ohio for Hillary Clinton. He added that his wife Michelle Obama was better than he was.

“I know that my wife is not just my equal but my superior,” he said.

And this is why so many men are attracted to Trump. The above statement is offensive to me and other men. Worse it shows once again that the left is not in it for equality of women but for women to be seen as superior to men. Fuck that and fuck that. I tell this to men all the time: Stop calling your wife or girlfriend your "better half". She is your other half, your partner with strengths to match your weaknesses and vice versa. She is not superior or better than you in any way, shape or form. And to underscore how bad it is out there, most men I tell this to say something to the effect of "happy wife, happy life." This shows that many of these men are simply afraid of their significant others. That is total bullshit. What we see with Trump is a man who does not defer to his wife. He respects his wife and she respects him, as is clear by their interactions, but it is clear who "the man" is in that relationship.

Lastly let me point out that Obama is a beneficiary of the "sexism" he claims men have (if we ignore how unpopular Clinton is). Clinton, with her government service [sic] was way more qualified for office than Obama was, yet Obama won the election largely because he was the popular black guy that people thought would wipe away the sin of racism and launch the era of equality.

Joke's on you.

So just like Obama speaking on rates of sexual assault and rape culture, he just doesn't know of what he speaks.

All The Way To The Top

White Supremacy Is So Bad....

Black folks risk crossing the Sahara. Risk drowning on rickety boats all to sleep on the streets of Paris

Let that shit sink in.

So when next you hear some black person complaining about all that racism that is holding him or her down. Or how "white supremacy" is the cause of all that ills black people, you watch this video and think again.

Pussy Galore

If only I was talking about a Bond movie.

Apparently the October Surprise is not the mountains of leaks showing that Clinton is an admitted two face liar who would like to change the rules of the Senate (and executive) in order to allow Democrats to do whatever it is that peaks their fancy. Nor is it that her foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia even though they knew it was funding ISIS organizations. The million dollar birthday gift to Bill Clinton for an hour long meeting about who knows what.

Never mind that after the attacks on Sanders by the DNC because he is a non practicing Jew, something that would put them in league with orgs like Stormfront, But who also assailed the Catholic church (for purposes of disclosure I'm not a fan of either) and Catholics for being backwards. Never mind that Clinton's folks called Muslims and Blacks and Democratic voters in general, low information, low achievers and easy to manipulate. No, the most important thing, if you watch the rigged election, is whether Trump is down with pussy galore.

Which brings us to the actual topic of this post: The election is rigged.

Most of us understand "rigged' elections as someone hacking voting machines. Miscounts of ballots. Disappearing ballots. Purposely mismanaging voting locations to limit voting. But that is not what Trump means and it is not how this election is being rigged.

Again, we know from various leaks that various "news" organizations and internet giants are down with the DNC and with Clinton in particular. Since these outlets have an outsize influence on what people see, they are able to manipulate opinion and information and therefore have an outsize influence on the election (or anything else).

Let's give an example. When gay marriage was something that the media wanted you to get behind they changed the phrasing to "marriage equality". They knew that the public by and large associates very strongly with "equality". Thus if you were against "equality" you were for discrimination. Discrimination is bad to therefore opposition to gay marriage is bad. next thing you know, gay marriage sweeps America and Christians who actually follow the Bible get sued, something that could have never happened even 20 years ago.

Hence we see the media can stack the deck in favour of or against a topic. Which brings us to Trump. The media has been very willing to allow people to make unsubstantiated allegation against Trump. In decades past no news organization would dare risk their reputation, let alone lawyer and verdicts that could be in the millions by allowing their organzations to be used for libelous speech. Now if a woman says she was "assaulted" by a man, its put out as if it is fact. Reputations are damaged and there is no recourse. Why? Because 9 times out of 10, there is no official report to anyone. How can you defend yourself against a charge that only exists, legally, in the mind of the accuser?

I don't know if these allegations are true. Neither does any of the news outlets who are running with these stories. The responsible thing would be to not report until they are confirmed or at least some kind of verification process, other than the word of the accuser is done. But that's not what we're seeing here. So this is the rigging. Get the media to influence the people. Make them fearful of a candidate. Minimize the coverage and questioning of the preferred candidate and blow up or fabricate reports on the "out" candidate. Use key fear triggering words like "terrifying", "crazy", "unstable", etc. Those of us familiar with NLP know that these are trigger words and by associating them with a candidate will trigger a fear response (or worse) when confronted with anything associated with the candidate.

To make things worse, the media, in collusion with elected officials have allowed physical violence against supporters of a candidate to go unpunished. When reported on, these criminal and IMO treasonous acts are said to be "lively" and "peaceful' protests or the violence is blamed on the rhetoric of the candidate who the victims support. It defies logic but is repeated often.

So again, this rigged election is not about hacked machines and all that. No, it is a huge psy-op against the public. It is the use of economic blackmail against those who support a particular candidate. But most revealing it is the apparent triumph of Vagina Politics.

Pussy Galore indeed.

Why Is There So Much Concern About Russia?

So we have been treated to the Great Russian Conspiracy" in regards to the US election. Democrats who used to be against chicken hawk type behavior are fanning the flames of the Evil Empire for the purposes of scaring the shit out of the electorate and raising the spectre of "rigged elections" on the off chance they lose this one. The lynch pin (are you triggered?) of this plan is the notoriously short memory of the electorate, assuming the voters in question even paid attention the first time around. What has been forgotten? Ukraine.

See, not too long ago the US along with allies in the EU meddled and interfered with the elections of and government operations of Ukraine. This forced a complete breakdown of the Ukrainian government and a low intensity civil war within that country for the purposes of pulling it away from Russian sphere of influence and allowing NATO to edge that much closer to Moscow.

Therefore anyone in camp Hillary or camp Democrat who is flapping their gums and their hands about Russian influence on US elections either thinks you are a fool (and apparently there are a LOT of fools out there), or boldly believes that the US has carte blanche to mess with the elections of other countries but that rooster can't settle down on domestic fences.

Lastly it is of great irony that a party that houses a good number of actual communists is making noise about an ex-KGB agent who runs an ex-communist country.

Friday Morning Class

Newark. 8AM. If you're 12, 13 or 15 years old what should you be doing? Normal people would say, at or on my way to school. Others, not so much

"Give me, give me, give me," the teen reportedly told the woman while he pointed a gun at her as she walked to her house from her driveway around 8 a.m. Friday, police said. The teen took her car keys and fled in the woman's SUV.

And what did this school age teen do after grabbing someone's property?

Two Newark boys, 13 and 14 years old, were also in the stolen Toyota Highlander when it crashed, Ricciardi said. The driver apparently picked up the others after the carjacking.

Oh yeah, pick up your younger boys and joy ride. Now, I suppose he just wanted to give the youngstas a ride to school and they were averse to cheese busses. But really. 8AM. Eight. A. M. All of these children should have been on their way to school. Instead they are packing heat, running up on hard working people in their driveways and saying "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie" while waving guns in their victim's faces.

And this of course is not only the fault of white folks, but the police too.

I suppose we should also blame the 'failing school" and the "bad teachers" for not making education more attractive than car jacking.

No Constitution

There is only ONE thing you need to take from tonight's "debate". Hillary Clinton failed to mention as a requirement of her SCOTUS picks, adherence to the Constitution. She mentioned many things but not once did she mention the Constitution. This epic failure on the part of a person seeking the executive office should be a disqualifying event. It doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal, as a citizen your rights and privileges are defined by the supreme legal document. The fact that Clinton does not deem it important enough to even MENTION in her qualifications for SCOTUS pick should bother you more than any kind of pussy talk, fat talk, tax talk, e-mail talk, any of it.

War on Heterosexual Males Hits a New Peak

I'm going to keep this brief. This presidential election cycle has bared it's true face. I have been saying that we are being treated to a dish of Vagina Politics but this recent "tape" is bare misandry of the base form.

Let us be clear here. Men and women speak of each other, when in private with people whom they trust (and sometimes not but usually) in terms that are sometimes not child friendly. Men talk about women's looks, including tits, ass, legs and cameltoe if visible (yay Yoga pants). Women discuss male "packages" and often his social status as reflected by his ownership or at least possession of material things. Whatever you think of these types of conversation, they happen and there is nothing wrong with them. It is simply how human sexuality operates. The problem here is that men are increasingly under attack for being straight men while women are allowed to maintain their straightness and their privacy and now can publicly say sexist things about men without reprimand or consequences. But even that is not important here. What is important here are two very stark facts:

1) Trump discussed grabbing a woman by the pussy, which as far as we know he has not done to anyone....physically.

2) Bill Clinton had an intern suck his dick in the Oval Office. Committed perjury when under oath and has multiple rape accusers. Yet Democrats rallied around this man. Hillary defended this man by going after Bill's victims (some alleged, some verified). There is only ONE person who is in league with an actual sexual predator: Hillary Clinton. Full stop.

If you have no problem with the facts laid out and wish to not vote for Trump because he commented, but not committed sexual assault. then YOU are a hypocrite of the highest order and you too are fighting a war against straight men.

The American Tax System: A Brief Explainer

Since someone leaked one of Donald Trump's income taxes (or that of his organization), I've seen a lot of shit reporting on the matter. Of course most of that MSM "journalism" is really an extension of the Clinton campaign and so they benefit from further misleading the public. So in the interest of education this post will explain how the US tax system works in it's most general form.

I used to have a business. It fails. Most businesses fail. Most fail shortly after starting. While I had it I learned eye opening things about this corporation called The United States.

1) Individuals pay taxes on income BEFORE expenses. Businesses pay taxes on income AFTER expenses.

This one difference explains the vast majority of why Trump (or his organization) did not pay taxes in that year (and others) that the nearly $1 billion was lost. You see, if Trump was simply an individual who messed around and got himself into $1 billion in debt, the IRS would say "well sucks to be you but you made 30K and you owe us 12% of that."

I just threw that 12% out there. The point is that Trump would have had to pay taxes on any income he made while he was piling up that debt because individuals pay taxes BEFORE expenses. However; since Trump Inc. is a business. Trump gets to tell the IRS: "Yeah I had 200 million in income this year, but since I lost the Casino, Airline and the cost of getting the Hotel, I'm actually 900 million in the hole. Sorry."

The IRS would have no choice but to say:"Oh damn, that sucks. See you next year."

And don't get it twisted, This applies to EVERY business regardless of size. You have a loss that is greater than your income? You don't pay taxes. This is one reason why entrepreneurship is a positive.

2) If you have a corp. IT makes money not YOU.

This is another item that many people fail to understand. WHen you have a business your clients don't pay YOU they pay your business. At it's extreme if you never took a paycheck from your business and your business made $100,000. It is your BUSINESS that owes taxes, not you. Many smart business people use this fact and pay themselves a small fraction of their businesses income. They keep their income low to avoid relatively high personal tax liabilities. You as an individual cannot do this. Well actually if you have a 401K or related investment you are doing the exact same thing. Sheltering income and avoiding tax payment.

The next thing you do is you put anything you have to pay for in the business name. YOU don't buy a car, the BUSINESS buys a car. YOU don't buy a suit, your BUSINESS buys a suit. Etc. Etc. if you work it legally a lot of items you would be using for personal use becomes a business expense and therefore a tax write off.

I know people who go out to dinner with friends and they take about 5-10 minutes of the 2 hour dinner to discuss "business" and due to tax rules THAT dinner has now become a business dinner and therefore a tax deduction. This is one reason why business people like to "do lunch" and the like. All perfectly legal. You may not like it, but I always say why are you hating the player? Why not play the game?

Lastly, people need to understand that just because a particular business doesn't pay any income taxes, it doesn't mean that the state doesn't benefit from the existence of that company. There is a reason why many stats give companies multi-year "no taxes" guarantees (which I personally don't care for but that's another topic for another time). Companies that are not sole proprietorships tend to employ people. And what was the number one point made above? Individuals pay taxes before expenses. Employees are "expenses" of a business (cost of labour). The state makes money of the money businesses pay to employees (which is also why automation is also a large threat to state and federal tax revenue).

I'm not saying the tax code is perfect, but the media frenzy about Trump "avoiding taxes" as if he wouldn't have preferred to have $1 billion more in revenue makes no sense. So the fact is Trump paid what he owed: Nothing. And if YOU even had the assets to have that kind of loss you'd do the same thing. Don't be mad 'cause you're relatively broke. 'Cause it's not his fault.

This Is How Stupid and Emotional The MSM Thinks You Are

For the second straight day the media and Hillary campaign (I repeat myself) has been putting Alicia Machado in our faces. The premise being that we should all be upset because Trump called her Miss Piggy. This is how stupid and emotional the press thinks you are. Think about this for a moment.

Miss Machado, of her own volition, entered a BEAUTY CONTEST. The entire POINT of a BEAUTY CONTEST is to be judged on your looks (which includes your weight). You WIN a BEAUTY CONTEST by having people (judges) PASS JUDGEMENT on your looks. You then have a job for a year. The entire purpose of that job is to look exactly like you did when you WON the BEAUTY CONTEST as a representative of said contest. FAILURE to do so, is a breech of contract. Not only that but in order to even make it to the Miss Universe contest you had to beat out other women in previous LOOKS JUDGING CONTESTS. Not only that, not a single woman in ANY Of those contests could be described as even remotely "plus size".

How the hell do you get upset for a woman who volunteered for the above? If you do YOU ARE STUPID.

The second thing, not getting as much press now, because "hoes before dead black people in the streets killed by other black people", is how lester and other MSM black folks pestered Trump about the "birther" issue to the complete burial of the point that thousands of black bodies are piling up in Chicago (and other places) at rates unseen since the 90's.

We had a negro on ABCNews after the debate tell us that Black people are "upset" due to the birther issue and therefore Trump is bad for black folks. Seriously. If your dumb ass is more concerned with a birth certificate sideshow than with the continued killing of black folks (mostly men) by other black folks (mostly men), then you DESERVE more dead black men in the street.

This is how STUPID the MSM thinks you are. The only question is whether you confirm this thought.

Because Police Are THE Problem

From CNN

Tavon lay wounded on the floor as his family looked on in horror...

Chicago Police Sgt. Bryan Topczewski, who was leaving another homicide scene, heard the call -- "child's been shot" -- and raced toward their house.

This was at least the fourth shooting that day, Topczewski said. [My underlines]

Trust me. NO BLM was present and will not contribute to the medical bills. Secondly We won't hear from [enter athlete type] about any of this. There will be no national news media interviewing [enter athlete's name] on the kind of "conversation" we need to be having.

This is why BLM is a Soros funded scam and assault on decent black people.

BLM Skittles

Anyone who's read this blog long enough knows I have zero respect for the BLM movement and the liberal whites who enable them. Here we have another example of why.

This is a clear response to Trump Jr's Skittle's commentary. What this response shows is just how stupid the BLM people are. They failed to understand the original point and were dumb enough to respond as if the circumstances were comparable. Let me explain. Trump's comment was that you have a bowl of Skittles or a bunch of people. You don't know which one is the poison candy (or the one who will up and blow him/herself up other terrorist act). Your best recourse in such a situation is to eat none of them because you can avoid being poisoned by your actions.

I've made a similar argument in regards to sexual assault. If you were to use the statistics that 97% of men have not and will not rape a woman...ever. then if you were in a bar/club with 100 men, there are 3 of them who has or will rape. You have two choices here. You can either avoid all bars or you can engage in risk mitigation. You can for example not leave your drink when you go to the bathroom. Don't take drinks that you didn't see poured and passed to you. You can not get fall out/pass out drunk. etc.

This is called risk assessment. It is what sane people do. Liberals are not sane people so they think that there is nothing a person can (or should!) do to manage risks that they come across. Hence the above picture. Now lets show why the above picture is out of order.

First and foremost we know that the percentages of cops involved in killing black people is, in the example of Chicago on the order of half a percent. So the poster inflates the occurrence of suicide by cop by 6x. But again this is common of liberals: Exaggerate the claim and hope nobody is around to check 'em on it. So you notice that they don't tell you how many skittles are in this bowl AND show you a very small bowl. All of this to get you to think that the suicide by cop statistics are larger than they actually are.

But more to the point the BLM poster here makes the implication that the behavior of black persons are not a part of the problem. Again you cannot compare a terrorist with a person who decides to not follow directions. What BLM wants you to think is that police generally just pop up and shoot niggaz just for sport. Those black men killed just happened to be random victims like Amadou Diallo of Jamaica Queens was yesterday. No, the fact is that with one exception I can think of, each person shot by a police officer since BLM (and really before but lets stick with this) has been getting people killed, had failed to follow directions. They either tried to drive away. Failed to raise hands. Failed to stop walking or running. It's almost like liberals don't think black people should be expected to follow directions. Not almost, it is. A judge, on a bench. Actually said that black suspects have a right to run away from police because racism.

"Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."

Black people who are not engaged in crime, who never have or will do so, don't run from police upon making eye contact. Most of us know when we have been legitimately contacted and when we are profiled. Unfortunately too many of us feel entitled and want to make everything racial.

If black men are tired of being profiled, then they should get their peers to commit less crimes. Almost if by magic, police presences will be reduced dramatically because as people in small, low crime areas know, less crime means less cops to employ. But BLM doesn't want this simple formula to be put out there because it would mean black people taking responsibility for our [in]actions. Under liberal America, black people are not to be held responsible for anything negative. There are white people for that.

American Greatness

Sorry for the lack of posts, working on alternative income streams that has taken time away from this. What? You thought I made money on this?

Anyway, this is not my writing but rather a link that I think hits the nail on the head as to where the US two party state is headed in this and forthcoming elections. Way too many items I could quote so I'm just linking to the piece. http://amgreatness.com/2016/09/12/decius-responds/

Ok. One quote:

My use (once each) the terms thymos and virtù was taken as evidence that I am advocating a politics of “great daring” or some such. I’d like to be generous here and just presume this is a misunderstanding. I suggest to anyone who holds this interpretation to look at the specific contexts in which those words were used. The former referred to go-along, get-along conservative intellectuals, who could do with a double dose of thymos. Several writers on the Left obligingly made the point. Good conservatism adheres to the parameters we set for you. You may say this, but not this. If you do and say what we tell you to, your reward will be that we will call you racist Nazis a little less. Also, what we allow as “good conservatism” will drift ever leftward, so that something we permitted a year or two ago is subject to revocation without notice and you better get on board immediately or the deal is off. [my underlines]

A good example would be to compare Obama of 2008 election season and Obama now on a bunch of issues. Similarly Hillary Clinton had positions then that would get her in deep shit now. This moving goalpost is a huge stumbling block for those who are left of well the left. Once you give in on some, they just move it further. You simply have to stop playing the game. Mind you there are costs to this. A man is looking at losing his job for simply refusing to play the game at his place of employment. I say bravo to him and he has a larger set of balls than most. Most of us would watch the video, shut up, put our heads down and be thankful we've been deemed worthy of a paycheck. This is the future people. You cannot even object. You have no free speech. The government cannot abridge your speech (or lack thereof), yet an arm of the government is doing just that. As the above link explains, Constitutional government is on it's deathwatch. Stakes is High