Site Admin

Oct 112017

Black people have a Congressional Black Caucus. White people don’t. Black people have #BlackLivesMatter. White people don’t. White people are hated because of their skin color.
Racism towards white people exists. Now I know that your first bigoted instinct is to immediately discredit me for being a spoiled white man who doesn’t understand black peole but I’ve been to more black countries than most people so you lose on that one.

White people oftentimes aren’t allowed to have problems. Our “white privilege” supposedly prevents us from fully appreciating the suffering of others, and is to blame for our narrow-minded and superior attitudes. Pardon my french, but that’s crap. White people invented compassion.
Any type of prejudice or discrimination towards any person based on their skin color is blatant racism regardless what the less enlightened people think.
A “Miss Black America” contest is held every year in the United States. If a similar pageant was organized exclusively for white women, protesters would be screaming “Racism” and calling for justice and claiming society was moving backwards. If black skinned people can celebrate their culture, why can’t I do the same? Racism. RACISM AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.
The Legacy of slavery.
Slavery ended in 1865 with the 13th amendment. That was 152 years ago. That was almost eight generations ago. There have been no slaves in America for 152 years yet some people claim and actually believe slavery was eliminated just a little while ago so they bring it up as oppression even though it’s false.
There are millions more white people in America so there are more targets to hate for those who hate white people.
Where does the hate end? Nowhere. Hate is part of humanity so we’re all stuck with it. Happy Hatin’t.

Aug 222017

American’s have a Right to a trial by their peers and are guaranteed one appeal of any ORDER in a higher court. That supposedly would prevent wrong verdicts of guilty against innocent people but is a very uncertain situation that’s been proven time after time where innocent people were wrongly judged guilty and were wrongly punished.

The case of sheriff Joe Arpaio proves the value of the Right to one appeal but what about all of the people who didn’t have the abilities or the resources of sheriff Joe?

They were wrongly punished.

Learn about the court system. You’ll have to teach yourself or pay attention to people like me who although we are not attorneys we’ve have learned just a little bit about the law but we know enough to know the law runneth forward and back. The law can protect but it can punish and it’s somewhat capricious which way it goes. See Kipling for the source of the line about the law running forward and back. The rest of the poem “The Law Of The Jungle” doesn’t apply here but you can find the line Here.

Aug 222017

Of course it’s sheriff Joe Arpaio and he doesn’t need a pardon because he can appeal the horribly wrong decision by a Federal Court U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton that he was in criminal contempt. He was not. Sheriff Joe tried to get his case in front of a jury as is the right of every American citizen but the judge denied his motion.
That’s a violation of the U.S. Constitution and probably a violation of the Arizona constitution too.
In addition he federal judge was obviously biased in her treatment of Sheriff Joe.
Besides all that, the ORDER which sheriff Joe was accused of violating is clearly unconstitutional. It ordered Sheriff Joe to ignore Federal Immigration law. That’s an invalid order because the judiciary cannot order the sheriff to refuse to follow the law.

Sheriff Joe has a guaranteed right to an appeal at the Federal Circuit Court. The appeal should toss the case back to the Federal District Court for a reversal of the unconstitutional ORDER that started the trial and the unconstitutional ORDER wrongly issued by Judge Bolton.

Aug 202017

Was Jerry Lewis a gracious man?
Was he caring and compassionate towards people?
Here is his last interview at age 90. HERE.

Can’t say he’ll be missed.

Lewis made a movie that he refused to release about a Jewish man who was a clown who was forced by the NAZI’s to lead the children into the gas chamber. The exact status of the film and the status of the owner(s) is on dispute. A copy has been given to the Library of Congress with the proviso it not be shown for a number of years and the Library won’t release it until there are no questions about it’s ownership. . . . But the story itself seems to be available. 

Aug 202017

The current attacks of president Trump from Liberals, Democrats and Washington DC Republicans cause this question: Who was the first person wrongly accused and killed by the mob and why?
Was it Socrates? Samson? Jesus? Galileo? Joan of Arc? Ayn Rand, . . .No, Rand wasn’t killed. Neither was Charles Murray. . .At least not yet.

Aug 202017

Press questions and President Trump’s Answers at the press conference Wed, 8/16/2017

1. On why he waited two days to denounce the racist groups
“I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct, not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. … I want to know the facts.”

2. On whether the attack that killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville was ‘terrorism’
“You can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question. Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.”

3. On whether he has confidence in White House chief strategist Steve Bannon

“He’s a friend of mine. But Mr. Bannon came on very late, you know that. I went through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that, and I like him. He’s a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He’s a good person. He actually gets a very unfair press in that regard.”

4. When asked about the ‘alt-right’s’ influence in Charlottesville

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging them? Excuse me. What about the alt-left that came charging at the — as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? … Let me ask you this. What about the fact they came charging — that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

5. On how he viewed the weekend violence and who was responsible

“I watched those very closely, much more closely than you people watched it. And you have — you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group — you had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent.”

6. Defending the ‘Unite the Right’ demonstrators against accusations of racism
“Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee.”

7. Echoing the right-wing argument against removing Confederate monuments
“So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you all — you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

8. On whether he was comparing counter-protesters and white supremacists
“You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You’ve just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.”

9. On who was to blame for the violence
“Well, I do think there’s blame — yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. You look at — you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. … But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. … You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

10. On Thomas Jefferson
“Are we going to take down the statue (of Jefferson)? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? So you know what? It’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”

11. Comparing George Washington to Robert E. Lee
“George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So, will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down — excuse me — are we going to take down — are we going to take down statues to George Washington?”

12. On the media coverage of the ‘Unite the Right’ rally
“And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You’ve got — you had a lot of bad — you had a lot of bad people in the other group.”

Aug 182017

The congressman compares different things to make his point that the two fighting sides in Charlottsville are different. He fails to comprehend they are both wrong. President Trump understands the side that showed up to fight the NAZI flag flyers was a George Soros Anti-American group sent to cause trouble. The congressman is sort of stuck on the first part so he misses the moral deficiencies of the second part.

Fitzpastrick has a law degree but he should have paid more attention to philosophy and ethics.


Aug 082017

Many countries don’t have a free press. America does but it’s corrupt. It’s one-sided, slanted towards the Left, meaning towards Socialism. It’s not traditional corruption where bribes are exchanged for favors. It’s a press that’s hostile to Liberty; to Freedom; to free individuals in favor og big government responsible to take care of everyone in some fashion or other

The premise has documentary backing. Pew Research Center in 2004 undertook surveyed 547 local and national reporters, editors and executives. The result? Thirty-four percent of national press identified as liberal, as opposed to 7 percent conservative. That’s bias. Bias instead of objectivity is corruption of the media.

At a certain point, it’s impossible to staff a journalism business based in New York City without letting at least a few pinkos in,” wrote Muto in his book about the liberal bias in the media. That corrupts the objectivity.

Aug 082017

John Daniel Davidson of The Federalist sums up the meaning of the media collaboration:

“The documents reveal what many conservative observers noted throughout the Obama administration: the media’s reluctance to cover anything that might damage the president or the Democratic Party, to the point of ignoring what would have been considered major scandals in a Republican administration.

“In this case, the DOJ documents show that reporters for The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News didn’t want to cover the meeting on the tarmac between Lynch and Clinton, although it happened when Hillary Clinton was under a legal cloud. One reporter for the Times emailed a DOJ official to say he was “pressed into service to write about the questions being raised” by the meeting. A reporter for the Post emailed that although his editors “are still pretty interested” in the story, he wanted to “put it to rest.”

“Lynch’s potential problems are with obstruction of justice depending in part on what can be established as her state of mind at the time of the acts. That speaks to intent. The use of an alias to discuss those acts and the enlistment of outside help to conceal those acts, before and after the event, speak to mindset. Then there is her motives to have the meeting and to attempt to cover it up. .