Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Code Word Of The Day: Bribery

So over the past couple of days I've noticed that the following talking point has been floating around in regards to impeachment:


I assume this is going to be the hat, or one of them, that Dems will try to put on Trump. I suppose that they finally understood that impeachment actually requires the commission of a crime. So let's look at this. Bribery, as it deals with Trump acting as president is defined as:

a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant.
Since the president was talking to the president of Ukraine, then the charge would be that Trump was offering "something of value" to the president of Ukraine to do certain investigations. For the moment lets assume that Trump's conversation did in fact include a bribe. That is, Ukraine's president was not disposed to investigate Burisma or Crowdstrike but since Trump was offering US money, he decided to do so. IF that is bribery then how do we deal with Joe Biden?

Again. We already have Joe Biden on public record

The money shot:

I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk (sp) that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had were walking out the press kind of said I'm not gonna go or we're not gonna give you the billion dollars, they said you have no authority you're not the president. The president said, I said 'Call him'. I said I'm telling you you're not getting a billion dollars. I said you're not getting a billion...
Now we have seen the Trump transcript. There is nothing in the transcript as blatant as what Joe Biden said. Nothing. The so called "witnesses" have either given 2nd and 3rd hand info or have made statements to the effect of "well it was strongly hinted at, or strongly implied".

But above we have a clear. Do this or don't get the billion.

So if we are going to convict people of bribery, which I'm all for, then Joe Biden is first in line. I will side with my fellow citizens who hate Trump, to try Trump, in a fair trial for bribery ONLY if they apply the same law to the Biden and Obama. Because if what Biden did (again, you can listen for yourself) is NOT bribery then there is no way to convict Trump of bribery in any fair trial. And why did I mention Obama? Well Biden made the claim that Obama knew full well that Biden was going to ask for the investigation into Burisma to be dropped ("Go ahead, call him"). So that makes Obama a co-conspirator in the bribery of Ukrainian officials. That's what we call "equal protection" and "equal liability" under the law.

My position is this:

International monetary aide has always come with strings and "asks". It's the nature of the beast. It's not always pretty. This line of attack (coup) is as shortsighted as it is stupid. Trump's lawyers will easily slap down this charge, particularly when that IG report comes out (provided it comes out prior to the senate portion of the show). So called news organizations are doing the public a disservice by not asking these talking heads why Biden hasn't also been charged. That very fact should leave you very suspicous of the events going on in DC.

Thursday, November 07, 2019

"So It's Treason Then"

The news I read this morning troubled me deeply. It should have troubled every citizen regardless of party affiliation, candidate preferences or the like. A lawyer for a "whistleblower" openly calling for a coup and actually trying to get it done crosses a line that every citizen should recognize.

Let me explain how this republic works, electorally, for those sympathetic to "resistance":

The election for president is indirect. The US has never had a popular vote for president. Most times the popular vote and the electoral vote align. However; every so often the math works out that one can lose the popular vote and win the electoral college vote. The latter is what matters under the US Constitution. Everyone since the founding has understood this. This is how it's done here. What is done elsewhere doesn't matter. That's how it's done here and for better and worse it has worked out to the extent that the US has become a very prosperous place with an extremely high level of personal freedom for its citizens.

In a stable government the losers of elections, no matter how bitterly fought, conceded defeat, congratulated the victor and went off stage left...and shut the fuck up. In stable governments, it has long been understood that one did not use your defeat to "resist" the duly elected official. You may make plans to run again, but those plans did not include fomenting a coup. The supporters of the losing candidate also understood that they lost this time with this candidate but there will be another election in x amount of time and if they so chose they could try again.

They did not plot a coup of the winning candidate.

Trump's election was not the first time that squeaker elections have happened:

So all the grousing about changing the electoral college and the like is the talk of losers who prefer treason to admission of defeat. I've been calling out the treason for years now. I'm sure a lot of readers (regular and not) have rolled their eyes and thought I was speaking in over the top language. Hopefully, you now understand that I have not been.

It is simply unacceptable for an officer of the court to be declaring that a "coup has started" in anything other than an observation. This guy has clearly said that he wishes to "get rid" of the duly elected president and that he sees the resistance as a "coup" and is in support of that.

The Law and Crime website asked Zaid about his tweets:

Law&Crime also asked Zaid to clarify what he meant by the “we will get rid of him” tweet. “I referred to any lawful methods that exist, whether impeachment, if justified, or voting him out. My views are in sync with the majority of the country,” he said. “In fact, there are tweets I made that speak out against impeachment.”
So why hasn't this fellow been charged with anything? You can thank the 1st Amendment for that. Both sedition and treason require the use of or planned use of force. This requirement weighs heavily against Antifa and their street nonsense but for Zaid, it's his only cover.

For me, any candidate for elected office who cannot forthrightly reject persons who call for "coups", is not fit for office. As far as I'm concerned, each and every Dem candidate for office should be front and center to condemn this Zaid fellow. And even though the law requires force, as far as I'm concerned: It's treason.

Monday, November 04, 2019

Is "Bake That Cake" A Violation of The 13th Amendment?

Hello folks. Long time no post. I know. I don't get paid to do these posts so when time isn't available I don't post. Since I'm not going for cheap clicks by making inane commentary on the most recent event, I post only when I have had a chance to digest an issue, research it, if necessary and then post on it.

I'd comment on the impeachment fiasco but until there is an actual trial in the Senate there's not much to say. There has been no crime alleged. Impeachment requires a crime (misdemeanor or high crime, which I assume to mean felony). None has been alleged. "Improper" is not a crime. "Uncomfortable" is not a crime. The people who have come forward thus far have made claims that reverse the order of things. Intelligence agencies report to the president, who sets national priorities, not the other way around. So Trump doing something that an unelected agent is "uncomfortable with" is not a crime. So keep that in mind when watching or reading anything in regards to impeachment. Recall (if old enough) that Clinton was impeached because he lied to investigators in regards to Monica. The lie got him impeached because the lie was a crime. Nixon was similarly under investigation because an actual crime was committed that implicated him. Neither of these applies to Trump. I do believe that the Democrats are attempting to get a "process crime", a-la Flynn. Whether Trump falls into that trap remains to be seen.

Anyway, onto the subject at hand. So over the weekend, I was reading about yet another case where a state was trying to get a Christian creative professional to do some work for a homosexual organization and/or event. It's pretty clear that these organizations and the state are purposely targetting Christian businesses and the Fed needs to step in. The states where these clear violations of the 1st amendment are taking place are using so-called "anti-discrimination" laws in order to run around the 1st. Such that even if you don't blanket deny services to a homosexual, the simple fact that you decline to do a particular service for a homosexual or on behalf of homosexuals, you have thereby violated the right of the homosexual to have you do work for them or on their behalf.

Thus far the arguments I have seen have rested on the 1st Amendment prohibition against that state abridging free speech and against the state compelling speech. The second argument has been the 14th Amendment of states required to make sure all laws are equally applied (equal protection) to all citizens.

The 1964 Civil Rights act circumvents the 14th Amendment because it designates and allows "protected classes" of citizens Who can get the state to sue on their behalf any organization or citizen whom they think has violated their civil rights.

What I haven't seen raised, and perhaps I missed it, is a direct argument against involuntary servitude. It's been alluded to in terms of "compelled speech" which is another way of saying "involuntary speech", but I have not seen a direct argument that no customer of a business can demand that the owner of that business perform labour which he or she does not want to perform.

So for example, I had a car that I thought had a bad drive shaft. The car was 20 years old at the time and I took it to a specialist. We took it for a test drive so he could hear the sounds I thought were indicative of the problem. After the drive he said to me that he declined to do the work.

I was annoyed but it was his business and his labour (or those of his mechanics whom he is obliged to pay) and I couldn't force him to work on my car even though that was what his business was and even if the job would not fix the problem, it was my money to waste if I so chose.

The 13th Amendment states:

SECTION 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You'll note that the 13th not only abolishes slavery but it also abolishes involuntary servitude. That is in recognition that one can be forced to do labour while not being the property/Chattel (slave) of a person (or legal entity).

So the question here is, if a shop owner declines to "bake that cake" for the homosexual wedding, isn't the customer who demands that he does it, attempting to extract involuntary servitude? And, when the state steps in with its monopoly on legal deadly force on the side of the "customer" to force the baker to "bake that cake", isn't the state attempting to enforce involuntary servitude on the baker?

Can the state pass legislation that effectively stipulates involuntary servitude as a condition of being able to operate a public business?

And no, just because one is being paid doesn't make it any less involuntary. If the customer pulled a gun and put it to the baker's head to demand the cake (yes a total exaggeration, but take the walk with me), and after the cake is made, pays the baker would we consider that "voluntary"?

Again, I'm not sure if lawyers for the various companies and organizations have looked into this but if not I think they should. I know there are large legal implications of this argument, particularly around civil rights legislation but that should not stop looking into this.

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Mo' Slavery. Mo' Slavery! Mo..Slavery!!

You know. This weekend I was on a high cause we had black folks doing all kinds of big things. Kipchoge, broke the 2 hour marathon, even if it wasn't an official world record due to the set up.

We had Simone Biles racking up medals at the world championships.

We had Tyler Perry making his studio and naming his stages after black actors and actresses (instead of whining about other people's shit). And note, I'm not really a TP fan. But I respect his hustle.

But then we gotta deal with the damn fools. Here's Steve Harvey, who I've had to correct before, pulling the slavery rabbit out the hat.

Now I know his brand took a bad beat when he met with Trump back in January of 2017. I gave him credit for it then because I recognize that having a seat at the table is better than complaining about who's at the table. Sitting at the table isn't an endorsement. Sitting at the table means you get a chance to leverage power. But negroes are too busy hating the president to understand this.

To be fair, this slavery is just around the corner BS is not unique to Steve. In fact the whole morning crew is dull as bricks on the subject. Matter of fact, every DJ on the station that carries him, in the area I live in, are no better. At this point I listen to it only to see what new dumb nonsense is going to pop out the DJ's mouth.

Like the DJ who was going on about Columbus day and how it's indigenous people's day cause Columbus was a rapist and murderer and thief. Two seconds later talking about how she was going to cut "her" lawn. Umm. No, Native American people didn't do private land ownership so, since you're on this "indigenous day" thing, you should be consistent and not own property either. Matter of fact, there are a number of poor native people on reservations that YOU should trade places with. Right? 'Cause what righteous person keeps possession of stolen property?

Matter of fact is that all nations are the result of conquest. And none of it was pretty. You think Ghana, Songhai and Mali were expanded peacefully? Sure. You believe that. You think the native Americans of both the north and south were gentle with all other tribes/nations? Sure. Believe that. Oh. Right. Only the white man doing it to non-whites is bad.

Anyway. One of the reasons I'm even posting on this is because almost four years ago Tavis Smiley did the same "They want to bring back slavery" shtick:

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...

Thus far it has been 998 days and Trump still hasn't proposed his "back to slavery" legislation. I'm also old enough to have heard this "back to slavery" nonsense for every Republican candidate for president as well as some other positions.

It's tired.

It's played.

And I've had enough of it.

You wanna know who the new slaves are? They are the illegal aliens that Democrats and Republicans have winked and nodded into the country. They are in fields (I've seen them). They are in poultry factories and other places where not only are they exploited but are also used to depress the wages of the citizen workforce, with particular devastation to the low/no skill [ex-slave] African-American population. They won't pay you, the citizen a fair wage needed to live in whatever city you live in, but will get [enter meso-American name here] to cross the border and live 5 to a fire hazard room or a van or a camper, or even under highway overpasses, for dirt cheap. Same company will then lecture you about their values.

All someone has to do with these Negroes is say Trump and they'll be blind to everything else.

Tuesday, October 08, 2019

Impeachment for Dummies

Quid Pro Quo 101:

I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk (sp) that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had were walking out the press kind of said I'm not gonna go or we're not gonna give you the billion dollars, they said you have no authority you're not the president. The president said, I said 'Call him'. I said I'm telling you you're not getting a billion dollars. I said you're not getting a billion...

Foreign Collusion 101:

Foreign Collusion 102:

Foreign Collusion 103:

Foreign Collusion 201:

If "foreign collusion" is a crime then why haven't the people involved in the above listed reported been charged and prosecuted?

If foreign collusion" for political gain is a crime then why hasn't Clinton and her associates been charged and prosecuted? If Trump saying "could you do me a favor" is "clear evidence" of quid-pro-quo and some sort of crime, then why hasn't Joe Biden been charged and prosecuted? If none of the above are "crimes" then there is no grounds for impeachment and we're all being taken for a ride. If all of the above are crimes then there should be a whole lot of Democrats lawyering up.

The NBA Cares More About China Than You The Citizen Of USA

A brief note on this NBA-China thing. See not so long ago when the people of North Carolina, USA decided that they weren't having it with men in dresses with mental disorders going into women's bathrooms, the NBA among others, went to bat against the citizens:
In one of the biggest economic consequences to come out of North Carolina’s controversial law that bans transgender people from using bathrooms in accordance with their gender identities, the National Basketball Association has decided to pull the 2017 All-Star game out of Charlotte...

“Today the NBA and Commissioner Silver sent a clear message that they won’t stand for discrimination against LGBTQ employees, players or fans,”said Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin in a statement. “The NBA repeatedly warned state lawmakers that their hateful HB2 law created an inhospitable environment for their 2017 All-Star Game and other events.

So the NBA to Americans who aren't down with the tranny bullshit: Fuck off.

NBA to the Chinese: Please, baby please, baby please!

More specifically:

“These are complex issues they don’t lend themselves easily to social media,” Silver said. “I can’t ultimately run the NBA based on trying to satisfy everyone on Twitter.” He later added that: “we are not apologizing for Daryl exercising his freedom of expression.”
So people objecting to be subject to the demands of the mentally disturbed: Not complicated.

Supporting "democracy" in Hong Kong: Complicated.


Totally not unexpected. I said it when the whole Target boycott thing came around: Unless you have the power to make the parking lots empty on a major shopping holiday, these boycotts will mean nothing. Why have so many companies essentially come out an put the middle finger up to anyone who is not far left these days? Persons Per Square Foot. Lefties live, generally speaking in high population urban centers. Companies have figured out that they can make plenty of profits selling to these persons and do not need the support of people who live in the middle of "grassland" USA, who largely speaking don't have a choice as to where and with whom they will shop.

Support Trump all you want but if the local Walmart decides to up and go, a LOT of red state America is foooked.

So the NBA just let you know America. The Chinese are more important than you are. Don't forget to tune in.

Monday, September 30, 2019

Doha Games Demolish Tranny Nonsense

The Left is currently in the grips of a mass delusion that males and females are "the same" and that one can "change sexes" and other such nonsense. Having taken control of many levers of power, they are attempting to brainwash children into this nonsense and punish right thinking adults who reject the tranny nonsense for what it is: nonsense.

Not only do we have the tranny nonsense but we have a crop of athletes who think that male and female athletes are "equal". Even athletes who know better have been spouting that nonsense because they are afraid of the Alphabet Mafia (for good reason). However; this weekend in Doha we were treated to a grand scientific experiment that blew up this entire "equal" and "same" nonsense in front of the whole world.

Behold the mixed 400 meter relay final:>

Despite being given a lead of nearly 100 meters. Not only did the polish woman get utter CRUSHED by the leading American runner but she was passed by the slowest male in the field. Let that sink in. The fastest woman on the Polish team could not beat the slowest male who had the most distance to make up.

This is HBD people. This is what we are talking about. I have no doubt that all those women could beat me in a 400 meter race. But I am not a top male athlete.

In the earlier semi-final, Japan fielded three men and left the woman for their anchor leg. Their second male was made to wait for what appeared to be 10 seconds before he could do his leg and he STILL caught all of them. Japan's female athlete was CRUSHED by all the male athletes despite once again having a lead.

This worldwide spectacle should be the be-all and end-all of the tranny nonsense, especially in sport. None of these males in female events. Period.

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Democrats Sacrifice Biden On The Alter Of Orange Man Bad

So having failed to topple the current president with a Russia collusion charge, Democrats have decided that Joe Biden, clearly suffering from what I believe to be age-related dementia, needs to be offed in an attempt to try to sink Trump prior to the 2020 election. They call this "impeachment inquiry" but I seriously think it's a knife in Joe Biden's back. Not that I mind since he's a proven liar. But lets get to the meat here.

Supposedly Trump made a call to the [newly elected] president of Ukraine. On that talk the subject of Joe Biden's son's [lack of] prosecution came up. Trump allegedly dangled the money appropriated by Congress for military aid in exchange for the president looking into how/why a former Ukrainian prosecutor was fired shortly after Joe Boden threatened to withhold loan guarantees if THAT prosecutor wasn't fired. Got it?

To recap: The current US president, asked the current president of Ukraine to look into why the Ukrainian justice system caved to pressure from a foreign vice-head of state to not investigate possible crimes committed by the son of that foreign vice-head of state.

This is an "impeachable offense" to Democrats.

Ok. But this goes deeper. Watch this clip as seen on ABL's Youtube channel:

Did you hear that? No? Go back to time 4:53 and watch it again. Did you catch it?

I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk (sp) that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had were walking out the press kind of said I'm not gonna go or we're not gonna give you the billion dollars, they said you have no authority you're not the president. The president said, I said 'Call him'. I said I'm telling you you're not getting a billion dollars. I said you're not getting a billion...
You see it now?

Biden said that he told the Ukrainians to call Obama because Biden was confident that Obama had his back. This means that Obama had approved of Joe Biden using his status vice-head of state to tell the Ukrainians to fire a state prosecutor who was investigating his son, IF they wanted a billion dollars.

In other words, Biden is saying here that He and Obama conspired and carried out obstruction of [Ukranian] justice by way of extortion. That's the real story here.

One president, Trump asking the president of Ukraine to investigate why his justice system was corrupted by Biden and another president allowing his VP to extort/bribe a country in order to get his son out from under investigation.

But Trump is the alleged criminal here.

Yeah OK.

This is going to backfire so badly on Democrats. I cannot overstate how bad this looks. So long as this stays in the media, more and more people are going to see the above video. They are going to get more and more info into what Hunter Biden was doing in Ukraine. They are going to connect this with the failed Russia colussion hoax and they will be entirely turned off. I'm talking about mainstream middle of the road citizens. The one's required to win high office.

I simply cannot believe that the people running this clown show don't actually realize that they are going to kill Biden's run with this. They cannot be that stupid. The only explanation is that they realize Joe is on his way out and they are simply accelerating his fall to clear the way for more viable candidates.

Imagine an impeachment proceeding in the Senate where Obama is asked under oath whether he approved of Joe's actions. If he says he did, then he admits to a criminal conspiracy to obstruct [Ukrainian] justice and he also admits to the same "crime" they are accusing Trump of. If he says No, then Joe is shown to be a rogue VP using his office for favours for his family. Again, the same thing Trump has been accused of since taking office. Either way it's BAD for JOE.

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

And The Children Shall Be Lead [Astray] By Them

When I was growing up there was a common thought in the culture I was raised in:

Children shall be seen but not heard.
The general idea being that there were arenas for children and arenas for adults. Children, in the presence of adults deferred to them. A great deal. When in the presence of adults children were not to be heard from unless spoken to. Why? Because children, being irresponsible and not knowing a damn thing, generally had nothing of value to tell an adult unless they were *asked*. Children hence were socialized into knowing that they gained the ability to "hold court" as it were as they aged and gained wisdom.

To go along with this was that during social occasions there were children's tables and adult tables. Similar to the above it was generally the case that children didn't engage in "grown folk talk".

This is not to say that children were ignored by adults, but that the hierarchy of authority (and attendant responsibility) was enforced socially.

Recently I saw a commercial in which a child was mad at her father because apparently, he had to move for his job. The child was mad an *slammed the door in her father's face*. Every time I see this commercial, I say to myself that only in my wildest dreams would I even THINK about slamming my room door in my mother's face.

If I didn't lose a few teeth soon thereafter, I could find all my shit, excuse me, the shit purchased for my by my mother, out at the front door with a declaration that since I was so grown I could find somewhere to live where I can slam doors all day on whomever I wanted.

Needless to say, such blatant displays of disrespect towards a parent, much less any other adult was simply not tolerated. How times have changed.

Today we have a 16-year-old child, who up and decided she was no longer going to attend school, allowed to throw a temper tantrum at a UN meeting on climate change. I don't know of any situation where a 16-year-old, school dropout would be allowed to speak as an authority on *anything* other than "don't drop out of school". Yet here is this child being given extra-ordinary attention (and financing) by various media and "climate" organizations.

It's clear that this child has never been put in a situation where an adult said "who TF do you think you're speaking to" prior to that adult administering "correction". Children as rude as Greta are generally speaking the result of non-parenting. While personality is hereditary, it's expression is subject to environmental pressure and an assertive adult is extreme pressure.

But Greta is but one example of the newish push to use children as the pawns in the global power play by the Socialist-Communist-Climate mafioso that has it'stooges in all nations, at all levels of government.

Why are they using children? Children are like animals that have been born and raised in captivity. They know no other reality than that which has been allowed by their captors. Animals that have been raised in the wild and who know the freedom (and responsibilities) that entails are far more dangerous because they *remember* what it was like.

Children, particularly those in The West are like born captive children. They have never experienced the past as known by the adults and so everything they experience is "new" to them. Those in power understand that if they can capture the minds of children, all they have to do is wait out the dying off of adults. Of course, if the adults are not dying off (transferring power) fast enough, then what you do is restrict the ability of adults to be in control of their children. You restrict their ability to speak truth and to resist lies by imposing social and economic punishment for resisting the new paradigm.

So in regards to climate, adults who remember that the last "scientific consensus" was that by now NYC would be under water. Or that the globe was going into an ice age and that scientists were in consensus that something had to be done about global cooling, are considered "climate deniers" (which is a not so subtle way of associating them with Holocaust Deniers) and anti-science.

Other actual scientists who show how the data has been and is continuing to be manipulated are de-platformed, fired, censored and non-personed because this entire enterprise is NOT about science. Science isn't about consensus, it is about proof. Most people fall for this because generally, most people are scientifically illiterate. This isn't to knock them. Most of us are wildly illiterate on many subjects. This is why we must have science free from bias and politics. We may now know about a thing, but we can see when the person advocating a thing has a bias for or against it. We will judge them based on that bias.

Today CBS news was talking about glaciers going away as if this is new. Now if you had no idea that glaciers have disappeared in arctic regions before, it's OK. You are a layperson. You're not expected to go the library and research newspapers from the 1950s, 1940s and further back. You are not expected to know that there have, in fact been times in artic where glaciers were melting so fast that the newspapers thought they were all going to go away, forever. You aren't expected to know that. But the people pushing Greta are. And they DO.

Having said all this we have to deal with real climate change: First, the climate has always been changing on earth. Not only has the climate always been changing but even the geography has been changing. In fact GPS has to be adjusted to take into account plate movement

So since we do not live on a static earth, anyone who speaks of climate change as if we are entitled to some static climate is not talking science. We are no more entitled to a static climate anymore than we are entitled to a sunny day. Climate change people talk about the areas that will be under water. Even if they are correct, Who entitled humanity to Forever Miami Beach? No one. When humans decided to build right on the Atlantic ocean it was a risk humans took. Same goes for all coastal cities. Only the shortsighted and scientifically illiterate thought that Forever Miami Beach was a thing.

Same for the people living in areas that may become deserts. Who said they were entitled to Forever Savanah? No one. Humans, unlike many species have an extra-ordinary ability to adapt to and transform an environment for their living. This is something that will have to happen. You do know the Sahara was once lush and green right?

It’s important to note that the green Sahara always would’ve turned back into a desert even without humans doing anything—that’s just how Earth’s orbit works, says geologist Jessica Tierney, an associate professor of geoscience at the University of Arizona. Moreover, according to Tierney, we don’t necessarily need humans to explain the abruptness of the transition from green to desert. Read more:
Now are there things that humans are doing that are a danger? Certainly. We can discuss them without scaring the shit out of children in order to implement ant-democratic policies worldwide. I personally believe deforestation and other de-greening of the planet is a [growing] problem. Plants convert CO2 into O2. We need O2 to live and our respiration released CO2 (and water vapour) it's a cycle, Animal respiration (along with combustion) consumes O2 and plant life releases O2. There has to be a point at which there are not enough plants to convert enough CO2 to O2 to allow O2 dependent life from continuing. I don't know where this point is, perhaps a reader out there knows. But it seems pretty clear to me that places like NYC are dependent on greener parts of the world in order for it's inhabitants to be alive. Perhaps scoffing at "fly over country" is not such a good idea.

I'd be all for a plan to address the removal of plant life. For example, perhaps abandoned towns should be leveled and trees (or whatever native plant life) put back in it's place.

I'm for mitigating the NOx polution from combustion since that is known to adversly affect respiration in animal life. So I'm for electric (or other feasable non-oil resplacements) energy for transport.

But we should be looking at other disposables such as tires. Your tires wear out? Where do you think that rubber goes? into the air that you breath. I think we should invest in science that produces rubber (or whatever) that reduces the amount of rubber shedding from the normal use of tires. Electrification is not going to address that.

So yes, you CAN be concerned about the environment (as you should) without resulting to brainwashing children and handing dicatorial power to those who want it for their own ends. And please someone put Greta back on her boat and back into a [real] classroom. And perhaps charge her parents with child abuse for giving her such a phobia.

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.

Wednesday, August 07, 2019

Due Process of Law

What is "due process"? Forgive me if I've arrived late to the party but it recently dawned on me that "due process" doesn't mean anything. Due process means whatever the authorities says it means. Today "due process" can mean a court proceeding. Tomorrow "due process" can mean police knocking on your door and taking you or your stuff.

In the wake of the shootings, there is a lot more talk about "red flag" laws where just about anyone can call "the authorities" and say that you are behaving (or speaking) in a manner that "concerns" them. Then the police can come to your place of residence and demand you surrender your firearm or else be killed by the same authorities. You may be thinking that the last part is not in the law. No, but any law is ultimately enforceable by the use of deadly force. Ask Eric Garner.

Another example. Statutory rape. There is no defense to statutory rape. If a person has sex with a minor regardless of circumstances, they are guilty of statutory rape. What circumstances could there be that works in the favor of the defendant? Not knowing the age of the person. A few years ago an ex-football player was caught in just such a situation. He paid for a prostitute. Whether you agree with prostitution or not is not the subject here. The person who came to his hotel room was underage. He did not know that. He assumed (wrongly) that the woman who presented herself to him was of age. She did not tell him she was underage. After the event, the ex-football player was arrested and charged with statutory rape. Apparently, the girl's pimp misrepresented the girl to the ex-footballer.

Would the ex-footballer have knowingly engaged in sex with a minor? It's possible. It certainly does happen. And certainly, a person who does so would have an incentive to lie and say they didn't know. But I still find it objectionable that a person can be found guilty of a crime in the absence of criminal intent. And for those who say that he should have known because she "looked" young, I say, come out from under the rock you live under. Many young, legal women do not look their age. There are 18-year-olds who do not look it. Not my personal taste, but they are out there and it's not my job, or the state's to dictate what those women should do, or with whom.

So back to the "due process" discussion. Since Trump has been elected to office, various left-leaning "judges" have made decisions that are unsupported by the letter of the law that they are supposed to be upholding whether they like it or not. Many of these judges have gone so far as to overextend the scope of their decisions far beyond their jurisdictions. In short, these judges have created new "due processes" out of thin air. If the government and/or its agents can decide what "due process" is based on how they felt on that particular day, then there is nothing safe from the state. Either the state is restrained by law or it isn't.

Another way "due process" becomes an "illusions" is by creeping criminalization. The entire concept of "hate speech" runs against the 1st amendment. Yet we have the department of homeland security calling the owner of a private business in for questioning because the El Paso shooter allegedly posted his manifesto to a site hosted by or that does business with Cloudflare.

How did this even get past the agency lawyers? Whether the shooter's manifesto was posted to the site or not, it is still protected speech. The government has absolutely no business in calling in citizens to question them about their or other's speech.

So perhaps I'm late to the party but it seems that the idea of "due process" isn't really what we think it is. After all, if courts can rule that "shall not be infringed" or "shall not be abridged" means they can infringe and abridge, then there really is no "due process" worth believing in.

Tuesday, August 06, 2019

The Growing Threat of "White Supremacy"

White Supremacy is indeed growing and a threat to America. This is beyond doubt. If anything has shown us that this is the case, it is the recent shootings. Indeed we must do what we can to deal with this growing problem of "White Supremacy". What exactly is the threat of "White Supremacy"? Well, it is its use by certain groups to dismiss and censor legitimate political, religious and other differences among people. The term "white supremacy" used to mean specifically people who think that white people are [to be] supreme over any and everyone else. What we find today is that it is used to describe all manner of things that are not white supremacy whatsoever. Let us examine:

1) Restricting immigration. Apparently wishing to restrict immigration is white supremacy. Not only in America, arguably a country that was founded by an immigrant (as in came from elsewhere) population, but also to the native lands of Europeans. Sticking with America, there was a time when almost all immigration was stopped. The reasoning being that there was such a high population of [European] immigrants in America, that the country risked being fractionalized as these growing populations held onto the habits and thinking of their mother countries. Hence to "Americanize" these populations, they were cut off from new supplies and forced to become Americans. Current America is in a similar situation. Large areas of the country are very much not America. English is a subordinate language and indeed in some places, completely unnecessary to conduct business, be it private or government.

But even if one disagreed with restricting legal immigration. The idea that one is a "white supremacist" if one opposes trespassing, which is what illegal entry is a total misuse of the term. Nobody likes or agrees with trespassing. This is why we lock our doors. This is why we reserve the right to say who can enter (and stay) in our places of living. Illegal entry is illegal entry. Prettying it up with "undocumented this" and "asylum" the other is just that. Prettying up an act that simply would not be tolerated if it happened on your private property. So again, if opposing illegal entry into the US is "white supremacy" then Barbara Jordan is a white supremacist.

Another reason to restrict immigration is the impact on jobs. Any person with an above room temperature IQ should know that if you increase the pool of labour, you depress the prevailing wages for that labour. Illegal immigration AND legal immigration depresses wages for the entire market.

Lastly, immigration, particularly from "developing nations" strips them of intellectual capital that could be used to build that nation. The US literally strips doctors from countries that now depend on organizations such as "doctors without borders" to do basic medical treatment. How do people who are so concerned with "White supremacy" square their immigration stands with the strip mining of "POC" intellectuals? 2) Opposition to handing out public benefits to illegal aliens. This is what we call "theft of services". To claim that it is "white supremacist". Nonsense. Citizens and legal alien residents pay taxes (property etc.) to not only fund current services as well as future services. Future services are based on extrapolations of what the populations will be. If millions more people are in the area that were not budgeted for, then services are strained. Citizens should not be subject to such things. This is not "white supremacy" this is respect for the taxpayer. 3) Opposition to illegal alien crime. This is another thing that is called "white supremacist". Certain parties will claim that crime among illegal aliens is lower than that of citizens. First of all that is not entirely true. The rate of crime in America is racially stratified with African-Americans committing far more than their demographics would predict if all things were equal. If AA crime were eliminated in total, American crime rates would be at or below European levels.

But even if it was not. No citizen or legal resident alien should be threatened by any person who should not be here. Every person killed or otherwise harmed by an illegal alien is a preventable event. Whether it be 1 or 1 million. None of it should occur. It is the job of government to keep its citizens safe (within reason), particularly from foreign nationals. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. 4) Opposition to the Tranny BS. This is considered "white supremacy" because it re-enforces "The patriarchy" and "binary definitions" which are supposed hallmarks of "white supremacy". We are told that we should allow children to "transition" to whatever they think they are because....because. We are supposed to be OK with children being put on display at gay bars and so-called "pride" events. We have moved from "the government should leave consenting adults to do whatever it is they want to do in the privacy of their own homes" to "the government should punish whoever objects to what I do in private AND in public and does not recognize that I think I'm a [choose] today."

John Derbyshire mentioned the Chinese proverb of the emperor who presented his court with a deer and said it was a horse. It is an apt story which I'm probably butchering but go along with me. In the story, this emperor wanted to know which of his courtiers would go along with him. So when he presented the deer as a horse, his various courtiers either said the horse was in fact a deer (in other words were committed to telling the truth). Others remained silent. Some said that the deer was a horse (whatever the emperor said is good enough for me!). The emperor had all the people who correctly identified the deer killed.

This is where we are. Those who dare speak the absolute truth or at least give reasonable arguments are being set upon by people drunk with ever-accumulating power. The "white supremacy" smear is just one of the tools. 5) Upholding freedom of speech. This too is now "white supremacy". The very concept that got African-Americans out of slavery, out from under Jim Crow, etc. is now scorned by the very people that benefited from it. Since "speech" can be used to "harm" those whom it may be directed or about, it should be policed and punished. Never mind that there is no "harm". What actually exists are people who think they are 'entitled" to be liked and accepted by everyone. There is no such right. If I don't care for Joe or Joe's behavior then I don't care for Joe or Joe's behavior. Joe cannot force me to like Joe or Joe's behavior and the state has no right to punish me for not liking Joe or Joe's behavior or for stating that I don't like Joe, Joe's behavior or anyone who engages in the same behavior as Joe. And Joe has to deal with it.

By attacking freedom of speech as "white supremacist", those engaging in the smear are essentially asserting their power over the population. Because the attack on speech is not an attack on speech. It is the legitimizing and delegitimizing ideas. Not only can YOU not speak but you also cannot "LISTEN" to counter arguments because those arguments have been deemed "beyond the pale". This is the essence of the ubiquitous "white supremacy" squeals from various persons. They are telling you what to think...or else.

So yes we have a "white supremacy" problem. How about we address it.

Monday, August 05, 2019

New Shooters, Old Issues

I'm going to do my little bit to dispell media dis-information in regards to the two recent shootings in the US.

1) The El-Paso shooting was instigated by Trump's...well Trump.


If you read the manifesto you'll see that he specifically mentioned Trump. He said that his particular view of the "invasion" of Texas (and America) predated Trump. In fact he had pointed words for both parties on that subject. So if the shooter is to be believed then all commentary that Trump's words were the reason for this guy's criminal act is dis-information.

2) The Dayton Shooter was Antifa.


These two issues are an indication of how much blood the media has on its hands. One the one hand it has "delegitimized" and suppressed discussion of absolutely valid issues and concerns of broad swaths of the citizenry by labeling them "white nationalists". It has legitimized absolutely ridiculous claims such as concentration camps. It has, depending on the political winds claimed there was no border crisis or that there is a border crisis. It has openly endorsed a group of people who wear masks in public who assault people it claims are "Nazis". Due to these two phenomenons: The delegitimization of valid issues of one group and the amplification of fake assertions of another has, in my opinion, fed the recent shootings.

After all, if we're going to say Trump's rhetoric caused El-Paso, then since the Dayton shooter followed Warren, should she be held accountable?

What about the guy who shot Rep. Scalise? He was a Bernie supporter. Should Sanders be held responsible for him?

Why haven't the so-called journalists asked this question of each candidate who has made the claim that Trump is responsible? Because we are living in a time of dis-information. Let's see how many times we hear about the Antifa connection of the Dayton shooter.

3) Guns are the problem.


As I've said many many times. Guns are inanimate objects. If you sit one down and nobody touches it, nobody gets shot. People shoot people. Not guns. There is no such thing as "gun violence" or "gun crime". There are people who shoot and/or kill people with guns. It is also the case that guns have been a part of American life for its entire existence, yet mass shootings of the type we are seeing is a very recent phenomenon. I've already shown that young people used to learn how to handle gun at school.

What we have is a cultural problem. It is highly likely that the cultural problem is being fed by the increased media dis-information that may be pushing mentally unstable people over lines they would not have crossed. This is pure speculation on my part. A lot of people talk about how Europe has less "gun crime". Europe also, until very recently, also has a very different culture, informed largely by a homogeneous demographic.

4) White Men are the biggest danger:

Patently false.

The FBI defines a mass shooting as one where 3 or more people have been shot in a single event. The "news" media puts white shooters front and center often for political purposes. However; when it comes to shootings period, non-whites, specifically black males, far outrank anyone else in America for shootings. This includes public places. See Ask yourself a question: If there have been so many mass shootings in America this year alone, how come you've only heard of 5?

The answer is, that most of them don't make it past the local news. Most of them do not fit the national dis-information narrative. This is not to minimize the events of this weekend. This is to not deal in dis-information.

5) No conceal carry present in Texas? Lastly, one of the things I was surprised by was that no one in the area was a concealed or open carry. Texas is a "shall issue" state. That means that anyone who is of age and is not a felon can purchase a firearm and receive a permit/license. Furthermore; it is legal in Texas to openly carry a firearm so long as it is holstered. I'm not entirely clear as to the policy Walmart has in regards to carrying in their stores.

The reason I bring this up is that the first interview I heard was of a woman who saw the shooter in the parking lot. I don't know how many people were in the parking lot but she indicated at least one other person was there. Had she or the other person been carrying it is likely that the incident would have been ended there. Criminals tend to pick places and people where they are unlikely to meet resistance. It is often said in self-defense circles that no one can help you except you. No disrespect for the police, but many people were killed in both incidences because there was no one in the immediate environment who could resist the shooter with deadly force. Armed citizens do not in any way, shape or form guarantee that no one will be shot and killed. However, the presence of armed (and trained) citizens can absolutely drop the potential body count because shooters often end their crimes once resistance is met. If you think I'm lying here's video evidence:

And because I'm honest, the other side:

Perhaps a CC was present but decided it was best to not intervene.

So closing this out I just want to say that these are dangerous times, relatively speaking. What is making this dangerous is the censoring of legitimate issues by state and corporate actors. The reason we have free speech is in part because those who feel they can communicate will often NOT resort to violence. The most dangerous people are those who believe they have nothing to lose (and now media fame to gain). The second reason we have free speech is that we cannot be absolutely sure of the rightness or correctness of our beliefs. Therefore; the ability of those to challenge our beliefs via their speech, is how we become better thinkers ourselves. Name-calling and ad-hominem attacks are not arguments. Resorting to them doesn't prove your case. Living in echo chambers does nothing for critical thinking because echo chambers by definition have no critiques to offer.

Beware the dis-information.

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

The Mueller Testimony

If you believe in equal protection under the law and such things as "innocent until proven guilty" you should be mad as hell at what Mueller said today:

This was a what?

"A unique situation"

No. The president, like every other fucking citizen is protected under the law. That includes the presumption of innocence.

A few years ago I wrote about the stop and frisk policy in NYC. Even though it undoubtedly saved lives, I was and AM against it because it blatantly violated the 4th amendment rights of the persons stopped. Courts agreed and ordered NY to stop the practice. It was the right thing to do. No citizen should be subject to "unique situation" prosecutions that abridge their rights. Such behavior is a threat to each and every one of us.

Shame on Mueller for even moving his mouth to speak such a thing. Shame on any and every media outlet that lets such a thing pass. Shame on any and every elected official that thinks such a thing is OK. Shame on YOU if you're a US citizen reading this and are not bothered.

"justice" due to "unique situation".

Monday, July 22, 2019

The Mis-Education

An article from dropped in my feed the other day. Entitled Overdue Assignment: Making NYC Schools Culturally Responsive, it encapsulates a lot of what is wrong with the American educational system and why there are attacks on what used to be considered core tenets of American society such as "innocent until proven guilty". Let's look at the piece:

“The curriculum taught me that white people captured me and took away my freedom. Why would I want to learn this?”

That goes through the minds of many black students as they sit in social studies class, says Jamaal Bowman, principal of Cornerstone Academy for Social Action in Co-op City.

Well you shouldn't want to learn that because it is not what happened. This myth of the "white man stole us" is, unfortunately embedded in the minds of many black people. History shows that what actually happened was that Africans were sold to Europeans (when they weren't being sold to Arabs) by other Africans. Many of these enslaved Africans were victims of warfare (sometimes motivated by the selling of Africans). Others were simply kidnapped, by other Africans.

These enslaved Africans were then brought to the coast where they were housed in places like El Mina

Where they awaited boarding for the middle passage. They were bought for things like bathtubs, cloths and Cowry shells.

Yes these things

So no, you were not stolen by white people who deprived you of your freedom. You were enslaved by black people, who deprived you of your freedom and sold to white people as property.

Onto the next.

Cornerstone takes a different approach. While many schools begin their study of black history with American slavery, Cornerstone reaches back to Ancient Egypt’s African roots. His students, Bowman told a town hall on education in the Bronx last month, learn that they “are descendants of kings and queens, not descendants of slaves. That’s a big difference.”
Ahh history class as self-esteem boosting session. Think about this. In England there is one king and one queen and a few princes and princesses, etc. Out of a population of 53 million people. How do you think that YOU are descended from "kings and queens"? Seriously. While there are noted cases where a king or queen were captured and transported, the sheer number of people means that YOU are *unlikely* to be descended from *any* of them. If you need to be told that you are descended from "kings and queens" in order to feel better about yourself, you have serious issues. Schools should not be lying to students. That there are/were African royalty doesn't mean that all Africans are "descended from kings and queens" anymore than being English makes you English royalty.
Nelson Luna of the Bronx, now a first-year student at Columbia University, agrees that’s not currently the case. “When you don’t see yourself, you don’t feel connected and you don’t feel passionate. You feel out of place,” says Luna, a co-founder of Teens Take Charge, which organizes students to speak out about integration and other issues.
It is not the purpose of American history classes to "make you see yourself". It is the purpose of American history classes to teach American history, which for the large part doesn't include a lot of non-whites. Why? Because they are not the founding population. This is like going to Japan and complaining that you don't "see yourself". Why should you?
More than a half century after schools abandoned the “Dick and Jane” readers in the wake of concerns about their whiteness and sexism, many lessons and materials in New York City schools seem out of touch with a student body that is about 85 percent of black, Latino and Asian.
Colonizers erase the history and language of the "host" country. This is colonization. the "Dick and Jane" readers that I grew up on didn't bother me one bit. I spent hours reading books because I liked to read. No one was telling me how oppressive it was to read The Count of Monte Cristo, Moby Dick, etc. Here's the thing, you can be "inclusive" without tossing "Dick and Jane". These black, Latino and Asian" students need to recognize that "Dick and Jane" founded the country and have a right to be in the curriculum.
A few highly publicized incidents have drawn attention to the issue. There was the 5th grade practice test that praised Robert E. Lee’s wife for showing “genuine concern” for her slaves by teaching them to read, write and sew.
I'm old enough to remember when my elders in the "struggle" told me that there were many "good white people" who did things that could get them killed. Teaching an enslaved African how to read or write was often a severely punishable offense. Many of us cannot fathom the idea that such a simple thing that we take for granted could result in hanging from a tree somewhere. We never used to "shit" on such persons. Now I suppose such things are not "woke" enough. I thought the new woke was supposed to support white people being "race traitors". Clearly Lee's wife would qualify.

By the way, both Nat Turner and Fredrick Douglass were taught to read by white people.

In history, many issues are ignored or distorted. “Often, we don’t tell complex histories nor do we tell truthful histories,” says coalition coordinator Natasha Capers. “Students are still learning that Columbus discovered American and he was a brave explorer tried and true. That is just not true. And it erases the true history of what Columbus did across the Americas to other folks.”
See opening paragraphs in regards to "distorted" and "untrue" history. You don't replace one "untrue" story with another. Secondly whether one like Columbus or not, sailing around the globe at that time was a brave act. Particularly going to "wrong" direction at a time that people generally thought the world was flat. It's really easy for city kids with zero experience sailing to talk shit about Columbus.
Aneth Naranjo, director of youth leadership at IntegrateNYC and a recent graduate of Leon Goldstein High School for the Sciences in Brooklyn, thinks her history courses there had a white male perspective. “The American Revolution gets so much time but they skip over hundreds of years of slavery,” she said, adding, “As a Latina, I know my people’s history has a place in our history but I never got that.”
Firstly, I'm getting quite annoyed about all these "youth leaders". Secondly, as stated before, the United States was founded by whites (including males). That's why they get so much time. Again, it's like going to Japan and complaining about how Asians are 99% of the history. Duh. Slavery in America proper lasted a bit over 100 years. Slavery as an institution is about as old as humans have been organized and is not peculiar to America (the country). Lastly the entire "as a Latina" means squat outside of Puerto Rico, the American southwest and California. The latter being previously property of Mexico, a Spanish colony, who lost a war with America.
Luna graduated from Democracy Prep Charter school in Upper Manhattan, which follows the state curriculum for global history. “You spend one day on South America, and two days on Africa, and most of the lessons are concentrated on European and American history,” he says. “The French Revolution–you go very in depth on that, almost two months.”
Please send her back.

To school, because clearly "Democracy Prep" failed to educate this person. There is a reason why the French Revolution looms large in American history. There is a reason why European history looms large in American history classes. Does this chick understand the implications of America basically being an extension of England? You cannot fully understand why we have the governing system we have if you do not understand European (specifically English) history.

Maurice Blackmon, a leadership and advocacy coach at IntegrateNYC, teaches a class called Worlds Collide at Essex Street Academy in lower Manhattan. It looks at three major American civilizations–the Maya, Taino and the Aztec–and considers “what made these civilizations unique and advanced for their time. We don’t spend the majority of the time talking about the genocide or the colonizing of civilizations. I think that is a unique approach,” Blackmon says.
The Taino were not "advanced". Period. The Maya and Aztecs were advanced to a degree. I'm pretty certain that Mr. Blackmon doesn't want to get into the massive amounts of human sacrifices that were practices in Mezo-America. Nor do I believe that Blackmon would call any of that "civilized" nor want to be subject to it. I'm certain it pains Mr. Blackmon to admit that the Spanish were responsible for ending that practice and that many of the smaller tribes were extremely happy to no longer be subject to that barbarism.

This strikes a chord with the many Latino students at Essex. But Blackmon says studying those civilizations and reading multiple accounts of them helps the entire class: “It enables us to talk about how history is taught and whose history is taught and which context. [Students] really feel that they are doing the work of historians by engaging in these conversations instead of just sitting there and being fed history from a particular perspective”
So these students graduate with no understanding of the cultures and people that actually founded the country they live in and hence why the institutions that were created by those people are the way they are. Again, History classes in these "schools" are actually indoctrination and self-esteem boosting enterprises. Explains a lot.

I'm not against teaching about other histories and cultures in schools. I'm not even against critiquing the "standard" education curriculum. I am against inflating the egos of non-white students and turning them into victims by trying to equalize cultures and their achievements (and lack thereof). I'm against creating fake histories to compensate for fake histories. Sometimes the stone hard truth is:

You and your people had shit to do with making America what it is, but please do take the opportunity to contribute without shitting on those who made the opportunity possible.