Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Monday, September 16, 2019

The Kavanaugh Horse Dug Up For More Beating

The NYT, which recently outed itself for pushing the fake Russian Collusion story as a means to get Trump, did us a huge favour by finding time to dig up the accusations against Kavanaugh, so that we can be reminded again of the utter trash that the NYT currently is, as well as reminding us how far off the rails the Democrats have gone.

Once again, the story that [a drunk] Kav exposed himself and perhaps had his penis put into the hands of some [drunk] chick while at a party was put on display for the public. The purpose being to retcon the past for "gotchya" moments to take out people whom Democrats don't like. There are a few things about this that I'd like to comment on.

1) Why is this even important? Unlike the claims against Justice Thomas, the claims against Kavanaugh have nothing to do with any of his work or jobs. Thomas was accused of behavior while he was a grown ass man and in a management position over his alleged victim. Clearly, had the allegations been provable and proven, he should not have been confirmed. Why? Because it would have reflected poorly against the employer (the government) to continue to employ someone who had a known history of victimizing those who he manages. That's important.

But nothing of the sort applies to Kavanaugh. These folks attempted to go back to high school. High. Fucking. School. To try to show that some 50 odd year old man is unfit to be a supreme court justice.

The fuck out of here.

I admit, I was a real square. I'm still a square. But I know a lot of people that got into some *interesting* situations that they probably are not very proud of now and have moved on from and lead productive lives. There would be no purpose to revisit those activities except to try to smear their name for my own personal pleasure.

I know people from when I was in college that got so drunk that they did things they probably don't want anyone bringing up now. Played "games" that they are glad most of the others have a hazy recall of. A lot of people at colleges do things due to peer pressure. They want to fit in. It's their first time away from adult supervision. Some naive, some acting naive. Some get in over their heads, live and learn. Some become victims of serious crimes. Some don't report. And that's their choice, but they get to live with that choice for the rest of their lives. Like the pastor says at the wedding. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

I have little sympathy for people who sit on these kinds of allegations for 30+ years and then when the person they hate (for legitimate or non-legitimate reasons) is about to make big. Noooo. You were good when you thought they were average Joe Shmoe living the same [boring] average life you were.

No, these smears and revisits to times past reveal their non-importance, particularly when there is *nothing* in the persons more recent past that shows the same behavior.

2) It may not have even been a crime. The alleged incident happened at Yale. In CT. Connecticut has rules against public indecency but says nothing about what happens in private (e-mail me if you find otherwise). The closest thing I could find was:

§ 764. Indecent exposure in the second degree; unclassified misdemeanor. (a) A male is guilty of indecent exposure in the second degree if he exposes his genitals or buttocks under circumstances in which he knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person. (b) A female is guilty of indecent exposure in the second degree if she exposes her genitals, breast or buttocks under circumstances in which she knows her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person. Indecent exposure in the second degree is an unclassified misdemeanor.
And that actually matches *DELAWARE*. So even if the event occurred, under CT law as I read it, unless someone could prove it was hazing, there was no law broken. Furthermore; even if a law was broken it would have been a misdemeanor. And no misdemeanor is going to be tried 30 years after the fact. So for all intents and purposes, even if this event occurred there was no crime to be investigated, even if "morals" or "feelings" were hurt. Which brings us to point 3.

3) The FBI did investigate. There was nothing for them to go into because as mentioned before, even if it happened, there was no crime likely committed. Furthermore, even if there was a suspected crime, there is no evidence to proceed on. Again, it was 30+ years ago. But that's the point isn't it?

As I wrote about Clyburn's comments about the Bill of Rights, the this radical left that is consuming the Democratic Party has no regard for the rule of law, particularly when it comes to people they dislike. It is appalling to watch Democratic candidates for the highest office of the land speak of how the government failed to "exonerate" or "clear" a target of investigation as if THAT is the standard *here in America*.

So once again I'm glad the NYT sunk once again into the gutter. It reminds me of why I consider it a trash organization now and why my current low opinion of the DNC is not without good reason. I'm just saddened that I see so many people blinded by their hate of Trump to see this huge actual factual threat to the Republic (not democracy) that the DNC has grown into.

Friday, September 13, 2019

Andrew Yang For Small Government?

I did not watch the Dem "debate" last night cause I already know:

Orange Man Bad
We'll take your guns
We work for foreign nationals.


But in the news this morning a clip featuring Andrew Yang caught my attention. In it he made a sales pitch for his Freedom Dividend which included the following:

“I’m going to do something unprecedented tonight," Yang said in his opening statement. "My campaign will now give a freedom dividend of $1,000 a month for an entire year to 10 American families – someone watching this at home right now. If you believe that you can solve your own problems better than any politician go to and tell us how $1,000 a month will do just that.”
I'm not sure how legal it is for a presidential campaign to pay potential voters in order to get their support but that's not what caught my attention. No, the line was:
If you believe that you can solve your own problems better than any politician go to
This is a classic "conservative" position. You are better at spending your money on your needs than the government. Hence the government should tax you less, allowing you to spend your money "wisely". You cannot be for Yang (or agree with his freedom dividend) and then have a problem with Trump's tax cut (which, on average spared tax payers $1k).

My understanding is that the comment got laughs from the other candidates. Not surprising, such a "you can do better with the money than the government" attitude is alien to the current left. I hope you enjoyed that $1K 'cause if Trump loses, you'll be giving up more of your cheque...again.

Monday, September 09, 2019

Clyburn Is Right

As read in Breitbart:
Clyburn said based off of conversations he has all the time, he believes there would be “strong support against the Bill of Rights” among people who would like to see many of the guarantees “uprooted.”
No lie.
“I really believe sincerely – the climate that we’re in today – if the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the United States Constitution, were put before the public today, I’m not too sure that we would hold onto the Bill of Rights,” Clyburn declared during the interview with MSNBC. “Especially when I see what people are doing with the Second Amendment and no telling what they would do with the First Amendment.”
Clyburn is absolutely right. Lets examine:

1)"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The left has created this thing called "hate speech" in which they decide what terms they don't like and attempt to "cancel" anyone who uses said language. I guarantee that if they could they would kill the 1A (cause they don't think "hate speech" is free speech).

Second example: The attacks on Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Cake Shop, etc. So yup. 1A, done.

2)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." All gun control laws are infringements period. Whether we agree with the whole "state interest" angle or not, they are infringement. I won't go into the "militia" argument because there are those who have covered it better than I can (for example). At the end of the day, we have candidates for the highest office in the land talking about confiscation of semi-auto guns (which almost all of them nowadays are).

So 2A done. Skipping 3rd since we're not there yet. I'm going to put 4, 5 and 6 together since they all apply to legal issues

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[93]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[93]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.[93]
#MeToo. If you've been accused you must be guilty.

Rape shield laws: Cannot confront accuser.

Campus kangaroo courts.

Nuff said.

I don't really see the others being endangered. Perhaps it's my ignorance of their importance (I get entire powers not delegated part), But since most people have no working knowledge of them I can't say whether they would toss them as well. I will say that I have met people who think the Federal Government should have all power over states though.

So Clyburn is right.

Thursday, September 05, 2019

Dorian and Trump

So trump was seen with a clearly "faked" weather forecast about Dorian's path. Once again, he left himself open to being shown to be a liar. But was he lying?

If you go strictly by the doctored image, then yes. But if you had been following reports of the storm then you know that he was NOT. Early Dorian forecasts showed that Dorian had multiple probable paths:

All of these models show that Alabama would have had some impact from the storm. It was only later as Dorian came closer to the US that the models excluded Alabama from the potential impact zones.

So whoever it was that gave Trump the fake image should be fired. That person could have easily found what I found (and what the government weather people *knew*) and used that instead. I realize that Trump is trying, sloppily, to make up for last year but he should stop playing weatherman.

And for you, dear reader, stop believing the MSM.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

8th Circuit Does What SCOTUS Should Have

On August 23, the 8th Circuit court found in favour of Carl and Angel Larson of Telescope Media Group in their suit against the state of Minnesota. Specifically mentioned are Keith Ellison and Rebecca Lucero. A general overview of the case is similar to the Masterpiece Bakery case and stands on the same constitutional principle that no one can be compelled, particularly by the state, to participate in an event or compelled to speak favourably (or disfavourably) about a thing they find objectionable (or not). It is a core 1st amendment right. From the decision:
Carl and Angel Larsen wish to make wedding videos. Can Minnesota require them to produce videos of same-sex weddings, even if the message would conflict with their own beliefs? The district court concluded that it could and dismissed the Larsens’ constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s antidiscrimination law. Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say, we reverse the dismissal of two of their claims and remand with instructions to consider whether they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. [My underlines]
In short, can a/the state pass a law that abridges the 1st Amendment rights of citizens? The short answer is (and should have been) no. Except in very extreme circumstances the state has no such power.
The Larsens “gladly work with all people—regardless of their race, sexual orientation, sex, religious beliefs, or any other classification.” But because they “are Christians who believe that God has called them to use their talents and their company to . . . honor God,” the Larsens decline any requests for their services that conflict with their religious beliefs. This includes any that, in their view, “contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman.”
This is identical to the situation that was in play with Masterpiece. It was not a rejection of the homosexual customer, it was a rejection of the particular service requested. I find it "interesting" that these homosexuals find their way to Christian establishments rather than say Whahabist Muslim ones. But that's not within the scope of this post.

So Minnesota tried to get at Telescope via it's "Human Rights Law":

It is an unfair discriminatory practice . . . to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of . . . sexual orientation.
Recall that Telescope said it would engage with homosexual customers within the parameters of their Christian business model So, had the couple 9(or individual) asked Telescope to video the wedding of one of their heterosexual friends, Telescope would have contracted with the homosexual customer because the request fell within the parameters of their business model. In other words, Telescope is partially in the business of making videos of heterosexual weddings, asking it to do otherwise is asking it do so something outside it's business parameters.
It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person engaged in a trade or business or in the provision of a service . . . to intentionally refuse to do business with, to refuse to contract with, or to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person’s . . . sexual orientation . . . , unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.
The "legitimate business purpose" is that it is beyond the scope of the business to do videos of homosexual weddings.

Minnesota takes it to another level though:

Minnesota reads these two provisions as requiring the Larsens to produce both opposite-sex- and same-sex-wedding videos, or none at all. According to Minnesota, the Larsens’ duty does not end there. If the Larsens enter the wedding- video business, their videos must depict same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally “positive” light. Oral Argument at 26:08–27:15. If they do not, Minnesota has made clear that the Larsens will have unlawfully discriminated against prospective customers “because of” their sexual orientation. [my underlines]
Let me take out that underlined portion just so you see how far this rabbit hole goes:
their videos must depict same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally “positive” light. Oral Argument at 26:08–27:15. If they do not, Minnesota has made clear that the Larsens will have unlawfully discriminated against prospective customers “because of” their sexual orientation.
You must approve.

Says the state.

For those of you who are too young to have witnessed the "progress" of this nonsense, I'll lay it out. It went like this:

1) Stop harassing us where we congregate.
2) Stop criminalizing what we do in private.
3) Stop denying us benefits of marriage
4) We need to be included in anti-discrimination laws
5) We need better representation in the media
6) You will approve of our marriages.
7) This man is a woman. This woman is a man.
8) We will indoctrinate your children.
9) If you resist we'll have the state deal with you. <-- we are here.

There is no "slippery slope fallacy". It's a logical fallacy *only* because it's premises cannot be proven. Hence the slippery slope is a predictive model. Anyway.

So we're at the point where a state has decided that it's citizens not only *have to* participate in events and speech they do not approve of, but if they don't engage in that speech or event in such a way that meets the approval of the state they can be sanctioned.

This passed multiple legislative sessions. Think about that.

In discussing the previous court ruling, the 8th said:

According to the court, the Larsens’ free-speech claim failed as a matter of law because the MHRA serves an important governmental interest— preventing discrimination—without limiting more speech than necessary to accomplish this goal. It also ruled that the MHRA did not violate any of the other constitutional rights identified by the Larsens.
The state interest in "preventing discrimination" involves "limiting speech as necessary to accomplish that goal." Can we say expansive? As we have seen the left expand the list of The Aggrieved and what words and deeds it considers "discriminatory", "white supremacist" and the like, why should the state be given such power?
The First Amendment, which applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. It promotes the free exchange of ideas by allowing people to speak in many forms and convey a variety of messages, including those that “invite dispute” and are “provocative and challenging.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). It also prevents the government from “[c]ompelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable.” Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2463 (2018). As the Supreme Court has made clear, “[t]here is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive” approach because “the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas . . . by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.” Terminiello, 337 U.S. at 4–5. [my underlines]
So "provocative and challenging" speech is protected.
It also does not make any difference that the Larsens are expressing their views through a for-profit enterprise. See post at 48. In fact, in holding that motion pictures are protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the idea that films do not “fall within the First Amendment’s aegis [simply] because” they are often produced by “large-scale business[es] conducted for private profit.” Joseph Burstyn, 343 U.S. at 501; see also Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. at 1745 (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[T]his Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that a speaker’s profit motive gives the government a freer hand in compelling speech.”). Other commercial and corporate entities, including utility companies and newspapers, have received First Amendment protection too. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion) (collecting cases); Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 258; see also Citizens United v. FEC, 558
That said "provocative and challenging" speech is done for profit does not strip 1st amendment protection.
Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways. First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech.
This is the most obvious thing. As pointed out above, it represents a great overstep of power by the state and should not be taken lightly. The second part is of interest:
The State asserts an interest in ensuring “that all people in Minnesota [are] entitled to full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations and services.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This interest has a substantial constitutional pedigree and, generally speaking, we have no doubt that it is compelling....

But that is not the point. Even antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution...

As the Supreme Court has explained, even if the government may prohibit “the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services,” it may not “declar[e] [another’s] speech itself to be [a] public accommodation” or grant “protected individuals . . . the right to participate in [another’s] speech.” Id. at 572–73 (emphasis added).

As these cases demonstrate, regulating speech because it is discriminatory or offensive is not a compelling state interest, however hurtful the speech may be. It is a “bedrock principle . . . that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989); see also Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. at 1731 (“[I]t is not . . . the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive.”). After all, the Westboro Baptist Church could carry highly inflammatory signs at military funerals, see Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 448– 49, 460–61 (2011), the Nazis could march in areas heavily populated by Jewish residents, see Nat’l Socialist Party of Am. v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 43–44 (1977) (per curiam), and an activist could burn the American flag as a form of political protest, see Johnson, 491 U.S. at 399.
Judge Kelly's dissent should be of interest to the reader. As dissents go it is pretty strong. I disagree with it, but I think it is strong and it points to the fundamental problem: th 1964 Civil Rights act and its creation of "protected classes". When that law was passed the primary concern was "Negroes". Black people were generally barred outright from certain businesses or afforded limited accommodation. I don't think anyone at the time even thought that protected classes would be made of persons who's behavior was not only agreed to be immoral by those persons who the law sought to protect but that the behavior of these new protected classes was illegal country wide at the time. I'm pretty certain that had someone gone back in a time machine and said that homosexuals would be covered under the act being considered, they would have probably added language that expressly limited the ability to expand the classes or would have scrapped the entire thing.

That said, once homosexuals became a protected class, it put the state on a direct collision course with the 1st amendment and the idea of freedom of (and from) association. One of the items of interest in Kelly's dissent is the following:

Likewise, regardless of who asks TMG to create the wedding video, if the Larsens refuse to provide the service because of the sexual orientation of the video’s subjects, that is discrimination “because of” sexual orientation.
This goes to my earlier argument in regards to a heterosexual person asking for a video for their homosexual friends. The heterosexual couple are the customers but under the Minn. law it would still be discriminatory to the non-customer subject.

Ultimately Kelly believes that the state should and can override a citizen's conscience because the state disagrees with it:

I recognize that the complaint alleges that the reason for the Larsens’ differential treatment of same-sex couples is not because of prejudice against homosexuals, but because they disagree with the message that a video of a same-sex marriage would convey. But that does not make their intended conduct nondiscriminatory under the law. They want TMG to offer different services to customers based on sexual orientation, running afoul of the MHRA. Whatever the Larsens’ motivations, the premise of this lawsuit is that TMG would violate the MHRA if it engages in the conduct described in the complaint.
Kelly even brought up separate but equal:
Thus, TMG cannot avoid violating the MHRA by providing other types of non-wedding services to gay and lesbian clients, nor can it provide services to same-sex couples that are inferior to those that it provides to heterosexual couples. Courts have long rejected the notion that the provision of “separate but equal” services is anything but discrimination by another name. Brown v. Bd. of Ed., 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954); see also Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 296–99 (1964) (concluding that a restaurant that provided “a take-out service for Negroes” but “refused to serve Negroes in its dining accommodations” violated Title II’s public accommodations provision).
I don't think this argument stands. Even the example given is not analogous. "Negroes" made to go to the pick up window" are being denied entrance to the establishment. No such thing is present in this case. Secondly there is no "separate" service whatsoever in discussion here. There is no service where the subject is a homosexual wedding. A better "Negro" example would be a venue that refuses to sell the Negro a particular product in it's store that it sells to non-Negroes.

What Kelly and the state of Minn. is saying is that you will do business in the way that Minn. decides (with the very real chance that some new protected class will show up) or you do no business whatsoever. It is the very definition of compelled speech. Do this or do not work...and die.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

The Jokes Write Themselves

Chicken boxes featuring warnings about the dangers of carrying a knife have been sent to takeaways in England and Wales as part of a government campaign. More than 321,000 boxes will replace standard packaging at outlets including Chicken Cottage, Dixy Chicken and Morley's, the Home Office said.

I laughed so hard when I saw this. I mean. They couldn't just come out and say that the knifing crime in England is actually black crime, so they use the chicken as a proxy. I mean this is the level of "How many lights do you see?" rabbit hole that the left has sunk England into.

Dal Babu, a former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police, said: "This initiative seeks to target chicken shops because the assumption is that's where young black people go. "There's a racial element to it - it stereotypes people, it's patronising and I can understand why people see it as racist."
"I can understand why people see it as racist." Yes I'm sure, but more importantly....Is it TRUE?

Courtney Barrett, who runs his own knife amnesty in east London told BBC News the scheme was a "step in the right direction" but stressed that it should not just involve chicken shops.
Say....patty shoppes. Barber shoppes.

Recent figures showed most perpetrators of knife crime were over the age of 18.
And they eat lots of chicken.

But seriously, in the original "recent figures" linked to this page: Where apparently nobody...I mean NO BODY thought of making a chart of race of perps,victims and population percent. No. NO. Don't want to do that.

Philly Shooting As An Example Of Why Gun Laws Don't Work

So yesterday a felon with a gun shot 6 philly cops.

Not soon after, we had politicians calling for more or "better" gun laws.


Let's get this out the way: Felons are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms. Therefore there was no way that this person came into possession of a firearm by legal means.

So apparently it is news to some people that people will get things via not legal means.

Gun laws do one thing and one thing only: prevent the [currently} law-abiding to obtain and carry firearms.

The second important thing of note here is that 6 police officers were shot. They were armed. Being armed is no guarantee that you will not be harmed in an altercation. Hence, it is irresponsible and wrong to make statements that simply by having a gun, the "good guy" will prevail. No. It doesn't work like that.

But also of importance is that at least the police officers had the option of being armed to protect themselves. Politicians do not want us civilians to have the same opportunity. That is unacceptable to me. Why should I as a civilian be less able to defend myself from imminent danger, while a state agent is given that ability? Why do I have to "wait and hope"?

Saturday, August 10, 2019

The Departed

If you believe that Mr. Epstein simply "committed suicide" then there is a bridge to Brooklyn that I'll take offers on. He tried it once. My speculation was that he was "given the opportunity" to do himself the first time but he couldn't do it hence being "found in the fetal position with marks".

Those "interested parties" then took more "firm" actions. The camera was allegedly "down for service". The guards were called off.

There is a scene in The Departed where one of the crooks is met by Matt Damon in the interrogation room. He's told to "call mother". The viewer is supposed to be like "damn, he did that right under the nose of the camera and other people watching."

You right.

Anyone can get got. The names that were going to get dropped into the public domain were not going to go quietly and honestly I don't think it's just Clinton.

To quote another movie:

"The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere..."

Joe's "Gaffe"

So Joe Biden said that poor people are just as good as white people. The MSM has been saying that the statement was [another] Biden gaffe. It wasn't. It reflects what is essentially the party line of Democrats: If you are not a "Straight White Male" then you are a victim of said Strait White Male. In addition, it is another confirmation of a recent study that showed that liberals were more likely than conservatives to talk down to black people.

People dumb down their speech to people they consider less informed or less intelligent than they are. So Joe was simply stating what it is the Democrats believe. Elizabeth Warren stated an outright lie when she said that Mike Brown was murdered in Ferguson. Never mind that no such finding was arrived at by investigators. Never mind that Witness 101, who reluctantly testified because he was afraid for his and his mother's safety, provided testimony that backed Wilson.

For Democrats, everything bad that happens to black people is the fault of some white man somewhere.That black people are agency less, children who are being blown around by the vicious winds of "white supremacy". Black people locked up? Must be because of some white man rather than the dead body. Black kids not performing in school? It's because of some white man somewhere (other than in the seat next to them providing good grades by osmosis).

I said it before and I'll say it again. When Democrats see black people, they think "slave". Add "poor" and "stupid" to that list.