This is a specific subject page, dealing exclusively with, or primarily with, the subject in the title. Because of need, there are many such pages at RHWW: usually, but not always, linked to primary pages. For those in a hurry, they enable a quick summary of many important subjects. The menu for these pages is here: Click>>>

 

 

 

Bits-n-Pieces

Headlines of our times

 

The likely drivers of Headlines of our Times, for the foreseeable future, are going to be

Trump and his Trumpies; so here is background on the Trumpies.

 

 

 

 


Donald Trump, while on the campaign trail, said at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa:

"I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters".

Incredibly, that statement has proven to be true - But Why?

 

 

 

 

Ostensibly one would think of a Bigot, Racist, White supremist, as a middle-class to wealthy Albino, jealously guarding his level of wealth and privilege. But as recent Political Polls and Analyses show: it’s quite the opposite. They are mostly people on the bottom, marginally surviving, and jealously guarding their place in line for the "American Dream". They are ignorant, but they accept their ignorance: they don't know, and see no need to learn. They don't care about what's true, they believe what they believe, and they want to be left alone with that. They reject higher education as a risky gamble for advancement. (No doubt thinking: Why should we have to do anything special to get ahead, we're White ain't we?).

Older Blacks might remember that when they complained about their lack of opportunity; they were told that they lacked the Education to compete. And when they got the education, they were told that they lacked the experience to compete. Clearly Albinos viewed the goings-on as being the same as throwing a stick for a Dog to chase after. But the last laugh might be on them; Black Women are now the best educated group in the United States, let’s see what Albinos tell them.

Continuing: As a consequence of their intellectual laziness, few Trump supporters actually know anything about a particular politician or political party’s record or position, all they know is that they want jobs. They chose Trump, not because of his politics: most don't even know what his politics are - including the buffoon Trump himself. Rather, they voted for Trump because he openly and unabashedly espoused their Bigoted, Racist, White supremacy views: while the other Republicans simply offered nodding acquiesce.


As an example: According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. More than three-quarters of Republican voters, 76 percent, think the news media invent stories about Trump and his administration, compared with only 11 percent who don’t think so.

 

 

 

What Trump voters believe: a Berkeley sociologist goes to the source
Strangers in Their Own Land:

Anger and Mourning on the American Right, a book by Arlie Russell Hochschild


“Across the country,” she writes, “red states are poorer and have more teen mothers, more divorce, worse health, more obesity, more trauma-related deaths, more low-birthweight babies, and lower school enrollment. On average, people in red states die five years earlier than people in blue states.” Yet the politicians supported by voters in red states consistently vote against policies and programs that successfully address many of these issues in blue states. And they seek to slash the “very large proportion of the yearly budgets of red states—in the case of Louisiana, 44 percent—” that comes from federal funds. And, she notes, “Virtually every Tea Party advocate I interviewed for this book has personally benefited from a major government program or has close family who have.” Nonetheless, Governor Bobby Jindal offered $1.6 billion in incentives to attract more industry while firing 30,000 state employees, cutting funds by 44 percent for the state’s 28 public colleges and universities, lowering corporate as well as individual taxes, and rejecting Medicaid funds available under the Affordable Care Act. “Only after public outcry did the governor restore some funds to public education—and cut public health and environmental protection instead.”

 

 

 


Hochschild’s research led her to a greater appreciation for her interviewees as people and to a better understanding of their worldview. Influenced by Fox News, industry, state government, church, and the regular media, “[p]eople on the right seemed to be strongly moved by three concerns—taxes, faith, and honor.” The “deep story” she crafted provides a window onto this mindset. She calls it “Waiting in Line.” The line leads up to the crest of a hill. On the other side is the American Dream. Though they’re patient and never complain, the “white, older, Christian, and predominantly male” people in the middle of the line notice that others are cutting into the line ahead of them: blacks benefiting from affirmative action, women who take “men’s jobs,” immigrants, refugees, “overpaid” public sector workers who are mostly women and minorities, “the brown pelican”—and President Obama! “But it’s people like you who have made this country great.” There’s a lot more to this deep story, but that’s the gist of it: “you are a stranger in your own land.” And Hochschild reports that practically all her interviewees claimed it fairly represented how they felt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


NBC News:

L’Oreal Drops Transgender Model After ‘All White People’ Racism Post

Sep 1 2017, 12:23 pm ET by John Paul Brammer

 

Transgender model Munroe Bergdorf made history earlier this week when it was announced that she would be the face of a L'Oréal UK campaign. But after attention was called to her Facebook post on racism following the events in Charlottesville, Va., the cosmetics corporation decided to let her go.

UK media outlet Daily Mail published Bergdorf's Facebook post in which the model said white people must "admit their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth."

"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people," Bergdorf wrote in the post. "Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism. From micro-aggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this s***."

Following backlash, L'Oréal removed a promotional video for Bergdorf's campaign, which focused on diversity, from its official YouTube page and tweeted out that it had ended its partnership with the model.

 

 

 

 

Clearly Munroe Bergdorf is a student of "Realhistoryww": You go Girl!

 

 

 

 


The Independent - US

Donald Trump's father was arrested at Ku Klux Klan

riot in New York in 1927, records reveal

President heavily criticised for failing to single out violent actions of white supremacists demonstrating in Charlottesville, Virginia

Philip Bump Monday 14 August 2017 06:31 BST

This report, unearthed in September by the technology blog Boing Boing.

On Memorial Day 1927, brawls erupted in New York led by sympathisers of the Italian fascist movement and the Ku Klux Klan. In the fascist brawl, which took place in the Bronx, two Italian men were killed by anti-fascists. In Queens, 1,000 white-robed Klansmen marched through the Jamaica neighbourhood, eventually spurring an all-out brawl in which seven men were arrested.

One of those arrested was Fred Trump of 175-24 Devonshire Road in Jamaica. This is Donald Trump's father. Trump had a brother named Fred, but he wasn't born until more than a decade later. The Fred Trump at Devonshire Road was the Fred C. Trump who lived there with his mother, according to the 1930 Census.

The predication for the Klan to march, according to a flier passed around Jamaica beforehand, was that “Native-born Protestant Americans” were being “assaulted by Roman Catholic police of New York City.” “Liberty and Democracy have been trampled upon,” it continued, “when native-born Protestant Americans dare to organise to protect one flag, the American flag; one school, the public school; and one language, the English language.” It's not clear from the context what role Fred Trump played in the brawl. The news article simply notes that seven men were arrested in the “near-riot of the parade,” all of whom were represented by the same lawyers. Update: A contemporaneous article from the Daily Star notes that Trump was detained “on a charge of refusing to disperse from a parade when ordered to do so.”

 

One of the truly weird aspects to race issues in the United States is that Whites have become so deluded, that they now consider themselves to be “Native” to the United States”. As an “Eyeopener” here is the story of Donald Trumps grandfather.

 

Donald Trump’s grandfather wrote letter begging not to be deported. Here it is

by Chloe Farand,The Independent

 

When Donald Trump's German grandfather was ordered by a royal decree to leave the country and never return, he wrote a letter pleading the prince regent of Bavaria not to deport him. Friedrich Trump wrote the letter in 1905 when he returned to Germany with his wife and daughter after having emigrated to the US. German authorities had given him eight weeks to leave and denied him repatriation because he failed to complete his mandatory military service and to register his initial emigration to the US 20 years earlier.


In the letter, Mr Trump described the moment he received the news from the High Royal State Ministry he had to leave as "a lightning strike from fair skies". "We were paralysed with fright, our happy family life was tarnished. My wife has been overcome by anxiety, and my lovely child has become sick," he wrote. "Why should we be deported?" he asked, "This is very, very hard for a family. What will our fellow citizens think if honest subjects are faced with such a decree." The letter, translated from German into English and published in Harper's Magazine, shows how desperate Mr Trump was to remain with his family in Bavaria. Writing to Luitpold, prince regent of Bavaria, he begged for mercy.


He said: "In this urgent situation I have no other recourse than to turn to our adored, noble, wise, and just sovereign lord, our exalted ruler His Royal Highness, highest of all, who has already dried so many tears, who has ruled so beneficially and justly and wisely and softly and is warmly and deeply loved, with the most humble request that the highest of all will himself in mercy deign to allow the applicant to stay in the most gracious Kingdom of Bavaria." Mr Trump was born in the village of Kallstadt, in the Rhineland region in west Germany in 1869.

He left the country at the age of 16 with little possessions and went to the US in the hope of making fortune. He trained to become a barber and he went on to run a restaurant, bar and allegedly even a brothel and became a wealthy man. Despite his letter, Mr Trump was not allowed to stay in Bavaria and returned to New York, where he settled with his family. More than a 100 years later, his grandson, Donald Trump, imposed new immigration rules that would have kept his grandfather out of the US.

The Trump administration's hardline immigration stance has also set precedent for the First Lady Melania Trump to be deported. Meanwhile, deportation raids in the US which are part of a crackdown by the Trump administration on all undocumented immigrants have led to a increase in arrests of immigrants who do not have criminal records. In the latest deportation sweep, immigration officers arrested 650 people in communities across the US over a four-day span in July. Among them, 520 had no criminal records. In June, President Trump reversed on his campaign promise to deport immigrants' children, known as "Dreamers", but their parents could still be sent back to their home countries.


Here is Friedrich Trump's letter in full, translated from German by Austen Hinkley:

 

Most Serene, Most Powerful Prince Regent! Most Gracious Regent and Lord! I was born in Kallstadt on March 14, 1869. My parents were honest, plain, pious vineyard workers. They strictly held me to everything good — to diligence and piety, to regular attendance in school and church, to absolute obedience toward the high authority. After my confirmation, in 1882, I apprenticed to become a barber. I emigrated in 1885, in my sixteenth year. In America I carried on my business with diligence, discretion, and prudence. God’s blessing was with me, and I became rich. I obtained American citizenship in 1892. In 1902 I met my current wife. Sadly, she could not tolerate the climate in New York, and I went with my dear family back to Kallstadt. The town was glad to have received a capable and productive citizen. My old mother was happy to see her son, her dear daughter-in-law, and her granddaughter around her; she knows now that I will take care of her in her old age. But we were confronted all at once, as if by a lightning strike from fair skies, with the news that the High Royal State Ministry had decided that we must leave our residence in the Kingdom of Bavaria. We were paralyzed with fright; our happy family life was tarnished. My wife has been overcome by anxiety, and my lovely child has become sick. Why should we be deported? This is very, very hard for a family. What will our fellow citizens think if honest subjects are faced with such a decree — not to mention the great material losses it would incur. I would like to become a Bavarian citizen again.

In this urgent situation I have no other recourse than to turn to our adored, noble, wise, and just sovereign lord, our exalted ruler His Royal Highness, highest of all, who has already dried so many tears, who has ruled so beneficially and justly and wisely and softly and is warmly and deeply loved, with the most humble request that the highest of all will himself in mercy deign to allow the applicant to stay in the most gracious Kingdom of Bavaria. Your most humble and obedient, Friedrich Trump.

 

 

 

The 1924 Immigration Act

Slate News:


AG Jeff Sessions Once Said Restrictions on Jewish and Italian Immigration Were “Good for America”

By Ben Mathis-Lilley

On Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration will terminate the DACA program and resume the deportation of undocumented individuals with clean records who have lived in the United States since they were children. Both Sessions' remarks and a statement issued by the White House attempted to frame the decision as one motivated by constitutional principles rather than racial/ethnic animosity.

Sessions: ... The nation must set and enforce a limit on how many immigrants we admit each year and that means all can not be accepted. This does not mean they are bad people or that our nation disrespects or demeans them in any way. It means we are properly enforcing our laws as Congress has passed them. This argument is belied by Trump and Sessions' history of involvement with the white nationalist/supremacist alt-right movement and their history of remarks like the one Sessions made in 2015 during a radio interview with Steve Bannon. As flagged by Right Wing Watch and transcribed in the Atlantic:


In seven years we'll have the highest percentage of Americans, non-native born, since the founding of the Republic. Some people think we've always had these numbers, and it's not so, it's very unusual, it's a radical change. When the numbers reached about this high in 1924, the president and Congress changed the policy, and it slowed down immigration significantly, we then assimilated through the 1965 [Immigration Act] and created really the solid middle class of America, with assimilated immigrants, and it was good for America. We passed a law that went far beyond what anybody realized in 1965, and we're on a path to surge far past what the situation was in 1924.


This is nuts even by Trump administration standards; the Immigration Act of 1924 is one of the most infamously racist laws in American history, having been passed by advocates of Nazi-style eugenics in order to cut down on the number of Jews, Italians, and other allegedly inferior groups who were allowed into the United States. Here's an excerpt from a paper by a Georgia state historian named Paul Lombardo about a Congress-appointed eugenecist named Harry Laughlin who helped create the law:


Using data for the U.S. Census Bureau and a survey of the number of foreign-born persons in jails, prisons and reformatories, he argued that the "American" gene pool was being polluted by a rising tide of intellectually and morally defective immigrants – primarily from eastern and southern Europe ... His research culminated in his 1924 testimony to Congress in support of a eugenically-crafted immigration restriction bill. The Eugenics Research Association displayed a chart beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol building in Washington showing the cost to taxpayers of supporting Laughlin's "social inadequates."


The resulting law, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, was designed consciously to halt the immigration of supposedly "dysgenic" Italians and eastern European Jews. The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating – the Japanese in particular – would no longer be admitted to the United States. Many in Japan were very offended by the new law, which was a violation of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The Japanese government protested, but the law remained, resulting in an increase in existing tensions between the two nations. Despite the increased tensions, it appeared that the U.S. Congress had decided that preserving the racial composition of the country was more important than promoting good ties with Japan.


The Act controlled undesirable immigration by establishing quotas. The Act barred specific origins from the Asia–Pacific Triangle, which included Japan, China, the Philippines (then under U.S. control), Siam (Thailand), French Indochina (Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia), Singapore (then a British colony), Korea, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Malaya (mainland part of Malaysia). Based on the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1870, only people of white or African descent were eligible for naturalization, and the Act forbade further immigration of any persons ineligible to be naturalized. The Act set no limits on immigration from Latin American countries.


In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed. By contrast, the annual quota for Germany after the passage of the Act was over 57,000. Some 86% of the 155,000 permitted to enter under the Act were from Northern European countries, with Germany, Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas. The new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe [where?] were so restrictive that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Jews, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.

 

Historymatters.gmu.edu:

Who Was Shut Out?: Immigration Quotas, 1925–1927.


In response to growing public opinion against the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the years following World War I, Congress passed first the Quota Act of 1921 then the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). Initially, the 1924 law imposed a total quota on immigration of 165,000—less than 20 percent of the pre-World War I average. It based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on the percentage of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census—a blatant effort to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which mostly occurred after that date. In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the United States each year. With the 1924 Act, the annual quota for Italians was set at less than 4,000. This table shows the annual immigration quotas under the 1924 Immigration Act.

 

Northwest Europe and Scandinavia

Country


Germany
Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Irish Free State (Ireland)
Sweden
Norway
France
Denmark
Switzerland
Netherlands
Austria
Belgium
Finland
Free City of Danzig
Iceland
Luxembourg

Total (Number)
Total (%)

Total Annual immigrant quota: (164,667)

 

 

Quota


51227
34007
28567
9561
6453
3954
2789
2081
1648
785
512
471
228
100
100

142483
86.5

 


 

Eastern and Southern Europe

Country


Poland
Italy
Czechoslovakia
Russia
Yugoslavia
Romania
Portugal
Hungary
Lithuania
Latvia
Spain
Estonia
Albania
Bulgaria
Greece

Total (Number) 18439
Total (%) 11.2

Quota


5982
3845
3073
2248
671
603
503
473
344
142
131
124
100
100
100

 

 

Other Countries

Country

Africa (other than Egypt)


Armenia
Australia
Palestine
Syria
Turkey
Egypt
New Zealand & Pacific Islands

All others

 

 

 


Quota

1100

124
121
100
100
100
100
100

1900

 

 

 

 

 

Unrestricted populations: the Western Hemisphere

Migration Policy Institute

Unlike flows from other parts of the world, the uptick in Caribbean immigration was not prompted by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act because migration from the Western Hemisphere had not been subject to the national origin quotas set in 1921 and 1924. Instead, the growth had to do with circumstances specific to each country. Migration from Jamaica and other former British colonies was driven by immigration restrictions set by the United Kingdom and the simultaneous recruitment by the United States of English-speaking workers of varying skill levels (from rural laborers in agriculture or construction to nurses). Flows from Cuba, Haiti, and to a lesser extent the Dominican Republic, were first driven by the political instability at home, prompting members of the elite and skilled professionals to emigrate. As economic conditions deteriorated, these migration flows increased and grew to include other social groups. Thus, while the upper middle class represented a sizable portion of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic in the 1960s, it declined as a share later. In contrast, a relatively high share of Jamaican immigrants to the United States has consistently been skilled professionals.

Cuban immigrants receive unique treatment under current U.S. immigration law. The Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) in 1966 and the 1994 and 1995 U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords set the groundwork for what eventually became known as the “wet foot, dry foot” policy. Under this policy, which is still in effect, Cubans who reach U.S. soil are fast-tracked for U.S. permanent residence and have the right to receive public assistance as refugees, while those intercepted at sea are returned to Cuba. President Obama’s announcement of the restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba in December 2014 created uncertainty about the future of the policy and inadvertently prompted a significant increase in migration flows from Cuba without prior authorization. In fiscal year (FY) 2015, about 43,200 Cubans entered the United States in this manner, a 78 percent increase from 24,300 the previous year, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data released to the Pew Research Center. During the first ten month of FY 2016, CBP recorded 46,600 Cuban entries. These flows are significantly higher than in prior years; for instance, an average of 10,000 Cubans entered the United States annually between FY 2005 and FY 2010.

Historically, most Cubans (without prior authorization) attempted to reach the United States by crossing the Florida Straits. More recent data suggest that the routes have shifted, or at least diversified: The majority of Cuban arrivals in FY 2015 (66 percent) and the first 10 months of FY 2016 (64 percent) entered by land through CBP’s Laredo Sector in Texas. Many of these migrants transited through a number of Latin American countries (e.g., Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Mexico), although recent visa and other policy changes in these countries have made this route more difficult.

One distinct feature of Caribbean immigration is its racial diversity. Although roughly half of Caribbean immigrants identified themselves as black, this share varied by country of origin: More than 90 percent of immigrants from Jamaica and Haiti self-identified as black, compared to only 3 percent and 14 percent of immigrants from Cuba and the Dominic Republic, respectively.

The increased Caribbean migration flows after the 1960s also included a significant number of unauthorized immigrants, some of whom arrived illegally by boat while others arrived legally and subsequently overstayed their visas. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that approximately 232,000 unauthorized Caribbean immigrants resided in the United States during the 2010-14 period, representing 2 percent of the total 11 million unauthorized immigrants. The Dominican Republic (98,000), Jamaica (59,000), and Haiti (7,000) are the leading origin countries of unauthorized immigrants from this region.

The United States is the top destination for Caribbean emigrants, accounting for more than 60 percent of the 6 million Caribbean emigrants worldwide. It is followed by Canada (365,000), the Dominican Republic (334,000), and Spain (280,000), according to mid-2015 estimates from the United Nations Population Division.

On average, most Caribbean immigrants obtain lawful permanent residence in the United States (also known as receiving a green card) through three main channels: They qualify as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, through family-sponsored preferences, or as refugees and asylees. Compared to the total foreign-born population, Caribbean immigrants are less likely to be Limited English Proficient (LEP), but have lower educational attainment, lower median incomes, and higher poverty rates.

Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau (the most recent 2014 American Community Survey [ACS] as well as pooled 2010-14 ACS data), the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and World Bank annual remittance data, this Spotlight provides information on the Caribbean immigrant population in the United States, focusing on its size, geographic distribution, and socioeconomic characteristics.

Note: Detailed socioeconomic characteristics are available only for immigrants from the Caribbean overall and those from Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago due to sample size limitations.

 

 

 

 

 

Republicans and Tax Cuts

 

 

We have known for some time now that "Cracker" Republican politicians fanatical cleaving to political ideology was just a way to hide their own innate stupidity, and inability to think of any intelligent and useful procedures or policies for the United States Government. As has been clearly demonstrated by this Republican controlled 109th Congress, and Republican President Trump: Republicans are idiots who haven't a clue as to how to govern. Of course intelligent people already knew that, and they also know that the Republican love for "Tax Cuts" is intended to make Rich people Richer, you can't really use them to govern. Everyone knows it but the people of Kansas, and the idiot they elected Governor - Sam Brownback.

 

The Atlantic:


Kansas Republicans Sour on Their Tax-Cut Experiment

The state legislature nearly reversed Governor Sam Brownback’s signature policy after a voter rebellion. His economic legacy, one GOP lawmaker says, “is going down in flames.”

Charlie Riedel / AP, Russell Berman Feb 24, 2017

The GOP-controlled legislature in Kansas nearly reversed the conservative governor’s tax cuts on Tuesday, as a coalition of Democrats and newly-elected centrist Republicans came within a few votes of overriding Brownback’s veto of legislation to raise income-tax rates and eliminate an exemption for small businesses that blew an enormous hole in the state’s budget. Brownback’s tax cuts survive for now, but lawmakers and political observers view the surprising votes in the state House and Senate as a strong sign that the five-year-old policy will be substantially erased in a final budget deal this spring. Kansas legislators must close a $346 million deficit by June, and years of borrowing and quick fixes have left them with few remaining options aside from tax hikes or deep spending cuts to education that could be challenged in court. The tax bill would have raised revenues by more than $1 billion over two years.

L.A. Times

Hard times for Kansas and its schools as economic 'experiment' creates gaping budget hole.

In February 2015, three years into the supply-side economics experiment that would upend a once steady Midwestern economy, a hole appeared in Kansas’ finances. To fill it, Gov. Sam Brownback took $45 million in public education funding. By April of this year, with the hole at $290 million, Brownback took highway money to plug it. A month later, state money for Medicaid coverage went into the hole, but the gap continued to grow.

Today, the state’s budget hole is $345 million and threatens the foundation of this state, which was supposed to be the setting for a grand economic expansion but now more closely resembles a battleground, with accusations and lawsuits flying over how to get the state’s finances in order.

 

L.A. Times

Kansas' tax cuts are a spectacular failure. Meanwhile, in California ...

Republican legislators in Kansas did the unthinkable this month: They voted to raise income taxes, ending a painful five-year experiment with an extreme anti-tax agenda introduced by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback. The Republican-held Legislature had to override a veto by the governor to pass the emergency tax increase, now crucial to prevent deep budget cuts for schools and other essential public services.

Kansas embarked on its trickle-down experiment in 2012. Brownback slashed taxes across the board, calling his plan “a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy.” Five years later, the state’s economy is on life support, and government expenses are expected to outpace income by $1.1 billion through June 2019. Instead of a poster child for the small-government theories championed by economist Arthur Laffer, tax reform activist Grover Norquist and the rest of the Republican Party, Kansas has become a cautionary tale about what happens when you expose their economic ideas to sunlight.

Meanwhile, a state that Republicans love to mock – California – has done just the opposite. In November of 2012, the same year Kansas plunged into its tax-slashing experiment, more than 54% of California voters approved Proposition 30, a measure that temporarily raised income taxes for the state’s wealthiest residents and increased the sales tax in order to fund schools and pay down debt. The tax hikes helped California erase $27 billion in debt, and the state has since enjoyed some of the strongest economic growth in the country. (Of course that growth isn’t due to tax hikes alone; the state has a robust tech sector, among other factors.)

 

 

 

 

Cracker Republican hypocrisy

 

 

L.A. Times

Column: More than 20 Texas representatives and senators voted against

Hurricane Sandy aid in the North-East. How will they vote on Harvey?

More than 30,000 people across the Gulf Coast are likely to seek temporary shelter as Tropical Storm Harvey continues to drench southeastern Texas and Louisiana with heavy rains and surging floodwaters. (August 28, 2017)

The representatives, and Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, all voted against a $50.5-billion relief package for victims of 2012’s Superstorm Sandy when it came before them in January 2013. (The measure passed anyway.) Although the shape and size of a relief package for victims of Harvey won’t emerge for at least several months, it’s clear that a big one will be needed. Damage estimates from the storm still pummeling the Gulf Coast around Houston have reached $40 billion, and are likely to rise.

Texas is almost certain to pose a drain on federal emergency resources for the indefinite future. “FEMA is going to be there for years,” Brock Long, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Sunday on CNN.

Of the 24 GOP members of the Texas House delegation in 2013, all but one voted against the Sandy relief package in 2013. The one “yea” vote was Rep. John Culberson, whose district includes Houston. But seven other Houston-area congressmen voted the package down. All 12 Democratic members of the delegation voted in favor of Sandy relief with the exception of Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents central Houston and didn’t cast a vote. Three Republicans and two Democrats in office at the time of the vote are no longer serving in Congress.

 

L.A. Times

Column These Louisiana politicians are demanding flood aid, but voted against Sandy relief:

The three lawmakers, all Republicans, are Rep. Steve Scalise (currently the House majority whip); Bill Cassidy, who moved up to the Senate last year; and John Fleming. They’re all likely exemplars of another Washington truism: fiscal responsibility is great, until it’s your own district that’s getting fiscally hammered. Then Job One becomes working to “help the residents of the threatened areas in their time of need.”

 

 

The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Here Are The 17 Republicans Who Voted Against Hurricane Harvey aid, Debt Ceiling Bill:

Republican senators were the only ones to vote against a measure to advance a bill that would provide emergency relief funding to the victims of Hurricane Harvey and temporarily raise the debt ceiling and fund the government through mid-December.

The 17 senators include: Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Steve Daines of Montana, Jeff Flake of Arizona, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Michael Enzi of Wyoming, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Mike Lee of Utah, James Risch of Idaho, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, John McCain of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

Lawmakers voted 80-17 in favor of sending the bill back to the House for renegotiations Thursday. The Senate’s vote comes off the heels of the measure passed in the House Wednesday, which allocated $7.85 billion for Hurricane Harvey relief funding with near-unanimous support.

 

The Gateway Pundit

Meet the Three Congressmen Who Voted Against the Emergency Harvey Relief Bill

September 6, 2017 by Joshua Caplan

Despite the mass devastation and eye-watering estimated $190 billion price tag, three GOP House members voted against the Emergency Harvey Relief Bill.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) voted against the bill.

 

 

 

The Jemele Hill controversy:

Jemele Juanita Hill is an American sports journalist on ESPN which is owned by Disney.

 

HER TWEETS:


Jemele Hill
Replying to @DonnyParlock and 2 others
Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists.
7:54 PM - Sep 11, 2017

Jemele Hill
Replying to @DonnyParlock and 2 others
The height of white privilege is being able to ignore his white supremacy, because it's of no threat to you. Well, it's a threat to me.
7:55 PM - Sep 11, 2017

Jemele Hill
Replying to @DonnyParlock and 2 others
He has surrounded himself with white supremacists -- no they are not "alt right" -- and you want me to believe he isn't a white supremacist?
7:59 PM - Sep 11, 2017

Jemele Hill
Replying to @DonnyParlock and 2 others
No the media doesn't make it a threat. It IS a threat. He has empowered white supremacists (see: Charlottesville).
8:00 PM - Sep 11, 2017

Jemele Hill
Replying to @DonnyParlock and 2 others
How is it a "false narrative?" Did he hire and court white supremacists? Answer: YES
8:01 PM - Sep 11, 2017

Jemele Hill
Replying to @DonnyParlock and 2 others
Donald Trump is a bigot. Glad you could live with voting for him. I couldn't, because I cared about more than just myself
8:03 PM - Sep 11, 2017

Jemele Hill
Replying to @jemelehill and 3 others
I hate a lot of things but not enough to jeopardize my fellow citizens with an unfit, bigoted, incompetent moron. But hey, that's just me.
8:07 PM - Sep 11, 2017

 

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the remarks 'outrageous' and a 'fireable offense' and calls on ESPN to FIRE Jemele Hill during her daily White House briefing for calling Trump a 'white supremacist'

The Wrap
The Democratic Coalition, has filed an ethics complaint against White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders with the Office of Government Ethics for her comments calling on ESPN host Jemele Hill to be fired.


The group claims federal law prohibits government employee from influencing “a private entity’s employment…solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation.” When Sarah Huckabee Sanders called for Jemele Hill to be fired by ESPN, she crossed the line and put herself in dubious legal territory,” Coalition Chairman Jon Cooper said in a statement Thursday. “Even in Donald Trump’s America, there’s still such a thing as freedom of speech. For Sanders to publicly call for the dismissal of a Trump critic is bizarre and disturbing, to say the least. If anyone is to be fired, it should be her.”

Philadelphia Media Network
by Howard Gensler, STAFF WRITER

 

Some Blacks do stick together:


The Jemele Hill tweetstorm, which resulted in the White House encouraging ESPN to fire the 6 p.m. anchor, has led to a lot of discussion and trolling about whether the sports network went too soft on Hill for her tweet labeling the president a “white supremacist.”

According to ThinkProgress.org, ESPN wanted to suspend Hill for Wednesday’s show, but co-anchor Michael Smith said he wouldn’t go on air without her. ESPN then reportedly asked Michael Eaves and Elle Duncan, two other black anchors, to sub for Hill and Smith, but they refused, too. Faced with the dilemma of seeming to bow to White House pressure and the bad optics of subbing two black co-hosts with white co-hosts, ESPN gave Hill a green light to return, ThinkProgress reported.

ESPN disputed the reports.
“Yesterday was a hard and unusual day, with a number of people interpreting the day without a full picture that happened,” Rob King, the senior vice president for news and information at SportsCenter, told ThinkProgress. “In the end, ultimately, Michael and Jemele appearing on the show last night and doing the show the way they did is the outcome we always desired.”

ESPN's public editor wrote Jemele Hill had made a "mistake" with her tweets calling President Donald Trump a "white supremacist" this week, saying Friday she had violated network guidelines about making public political pronouncements. Hill, a SportsCenter anchor, ignited controversy last week with a series of tweets attacking Trump, particularly two that called him a "white supremacist" and his rise to power a "direct result of white supremacy. Period." "Let’s dispense with the suspense: I think Hill made an error in judgment in those tweets," public editor Jim Brady wrote. "And, no, it's not specifically because of what she said; she is, of course, entitled to her opinions, and Hill’s opinion of President Trump is a mystery to precisely no one who has ever read her Twitter feed."

Friday September 15th, 2017
ESPN President John Skipper released a statement to employees, reminding them that the company "is about sports" and to always do what's best for the business.
The network has been the subject of controversy this week after anchor Jemele Hill released a series of Tweets criticizing President Donald Trump, calling him a white supremacist and suggesting he is unfit for office.

ESPN disavowed Hill's comments but did not appear to punish her seriously. That drew the ire of many, who pointed to Curt Schilling's firing for similarly outspoken political views as evidence that the network has a liberal bias.

Donald J. Trump Tweet:
ESPN is paying a really big price for its politics (and bad programming). People are dumping it in RECORD numbers. Apologize for untruth!
7:20 AM - Sep 15, 2017

Hill Comment:
Hill herself apologized for her comments, saying "My comments on Twitter expressed my personal beliefs. My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfair light. My respect for the company and my colleagues remains unconditional." ESPN said it accepted her apology.

 

Donald Trump Hypocrisy:


The Apprentice was an American game show that judges the business skills of a group of contestants. It has run in various formats across fourteen seasons since January 2004 on NBC. Real estate tycoon Donald Trump was the show's host for the first fourteen seasons. After Trump declared that he would run for President, it was announced The Celebrity Apprentice would be hosted by actor and former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Original network was NBC

Donald Trump Tweets on Racism:
Donald J. Trump
See June 2007 speech--is Obama a total racist?
11:15 AM - Oct 3, 2012

Donald J. Trump‏
Obama's '07 speech which @DailyCaller just released not only shows that Obama is a racist but also how the press always covers for him.
12:44 PM - 3 Oct 2012

Donald J. Trump
You must admit that Bryant Gumbel is one of the dumbest racists around - an arrogant dope with no talent. Failed at CBS etc-why still on TV?
11:21 PM - Aug 20, 2013

Plus many more:

The Trailer Trash shill Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not ask NBC to fire Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anatomy of the death of Anthony Lamar Smith, December 20, 2011 in St. Louis Mo.

 

 

The Killing

ST. LOUIS, Mo. A former police officer with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department was charged with murder in the 2011 shooting death of Anthony Lamar Smith. Jason Stockley is charged with first-degree murder for the incident that occurred near Acme and West Florissant on December 20, 2011. The officers were investigating what appeared to be a drug transaction in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant. The car sped away and a high-speed chase ensued.


Anthony Lamar Smith
 
Jason Stockley
 

 

Prosecutors allege Stockley and another police officer chased Anthony Lamar Smith at speeds over 80 MPH following an alleged drug deal in a fast food restaurant at Thekla and Riverview. During the pursuit, the officers’ car crashed, but the officers continued pursuing Stockley. Prosecutors said that during the pursuit, Stockley is heard saying he is “going to kill this [expletive].” At the end of the chase, the defendant is heard telling the other officer to “hit him right now”, at which point prosecutors say the police SUV slammed into his car. Stockley then, allegedly, approached the driver’s side of the car and shot five times into the car, striking Stockley with each shot. Smith died as a result of the shooting.

 

The setup


St. Louis Circuit Judge Timothy Wilson had agreed to waive a jury trial and decide the case against Jason Stockley over the objection of prosecutors, writing that, "after 28 years serving as a trial judge, the Court is confident in its own judgment and analytical abilities." Judges and jurors give heavy weight to an officer’s word, which is the reason why police defendants tend to take bench trials and put their fate into the hands of a judge. Since 2005, no judge has ever convicted an officer of murder or manslaughter while using lethal force in the line of duty, according to data. The legal system gives the police the benefit of the doubt but doesn’t give it to the average citizen.

 

St. Louis Circuit Judge Timothy Wilson

 

The decision


St. Louis Circuit Judge Timothy Wilson determined Friday that prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jason Stockley’s use of deadly force was not justifiable self-defense. Anthony Lamar Smith was killed in the 2011 encounter. The judge’s decision to acquit an officer of murder in the death of a black suspect came down to two major questions: Did the officer plant a gun, and did his outburst about killing the man seconds before the shooting signal premeditation? “Ultimately when people argue about this case, they are going to be arguing whether the judge drew the right conclusion from the evidence and probably less about the law,” said Ben Trachtenberg, an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri.

Here’s a look at how the judge parsed those arguments in his ruling:
Prosecutors argued the presence of Stockley’s DNA — and absence of Smith’s DNA — on the gun proved the gun must have been planted by the officer. But the defense countered that Stockley heard his partner yell “gun” and saw the driver’s hand on a gun as the car sped by him. Stockley testified he did not draw his service revolver and fire until he saw Smith reaching around inside the vehicle after it was stopped. He said Smith changed his demeanor, suggesting he found the gun. Stockley testified that after the shooting he found the gun tucked down between the seat and the center console, and he rendered the gun safe by unloading cartridges from the cylinder and then left the gun and cartridges on the passenger seat.

In his ruling, Wilson wrote that “a fact issue that is central” to the case is whether Smith had the gun when he was shot. He found the state’s contention that the officer planted the gun is not supported by evidence. A full-sized revolver was too large for the officer to hide in his pants pockets and he was not wearing a jacket, the judge said. If the gun had been tucked into his belt, it would have been visible on a bystander’s video that showed Stockley walking between the police car and Smith’s car, he found. Wilson also noted none of the officers standing next to the vehicle were called to testify that Stockley planted a gun. And he recounted witness testimony that the absence of a person’s DNA on a gun does not mean that person did not touch the gun.“Finally, the Court observes, based on its nearly thirty years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly,” the judge wrote.

 

The St Louis protests


Protests broke out Friday following the acquittal of Jason Stockley, a former police officer charged with first-degree murder after shooting dead Anthony Lamar Smith in 2011. Police were reportedly heard chanting “whose streets, our streets” after making arrests during the third consecutive night of protests in St Louis, Missouri. David Carson, a reporter at the St Louis Post-Dispatch, said he had heard police chanting the slogan during Sunday night's clashes. Footage of the incident appeared to confirm his and other reporters' accounts, though the video remains inconclusive. Mr. Carson said on Twitter: “I spoke with the commander at the scene, he said he did not hear the chant, but said chant was not acceptable, said he would deal with it.” St Louis police have been contacted for comment.

Smith was a new father and engaged to be married when he was killed on December 20, 2011. According to a CNN report, many protesters on Saturday expressed anger over the Stockley verdict, and called for city leaders to step down.

 

 

 

 


NBC News

Sep 20 2017, 8:34 am ET

Trump Threatens to ‘Totally Destroy’ North Korea in First U.N. Speech

by Ali Vitali

UNITED NATIONS — President Donald Trump, in his first address to the United Nations, derided Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s leader, as a “rocket man” on Tuesday as the president warned that he may be forced to "totally destroy" the rogue nation. "If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph," Trump said, as he detailed the horrors of what he called the "depraved" North Korean regime. "Rocket man is on a suicide mission," he said, using a nickname for Kim that refers to the North Korean leader's recent missile tests. "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of tough talk for a relatively "Puny" adversary.

For those wondering what's really going on:

See the linked page on modern Korean history, and the actual strengths of the involved countries.

<<Click Here>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Black Lives Matter and the Crackers

 

 


Black Lives Matter From Wikipedia:


Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international activist movement, originating in the African-American community, that campaigns against violence and systemic racism towards black people. BLM regularly holds protests against police killings of black people and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system.

 

 

 

 

 

Colin Kaepernick, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback:

"At what point do we take a stand and, as a people, say this isn't right? You (the police) have a badge and you're supposed to be protecting us, not murdering us."Colin Kaepernick I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder. Colin Kaepernick, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Aug. 26, 2016.

 

 

 

Trump - ESPN.com news services - Mar 21, 2017

President Donald Trump reignited his feud with Colin Kaepernick, taking credit for the fact that the quarterback has not signed with a team since opting out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers three weeks ago. Speaking at a rally Monday night in Louisville, Kentucky, Trump said he was reading an article about NFL owners' fears about signing Kaepernick and said, "They don't want to get a nasty tweet from Donald Trump. Do you believe that?" Trump added that he wanted to share this with "the people of Kentucky because they like it when people actually stand for the American flag."

 

Trump - Fox News - Sept. 2017


Trump calls NFL kneeling 'disgraceful,' disrespectful to veterans. President Trump doubled down Tuesday on his criticism of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem, calling the protests “disgraceful” and blatantly disrespectful to veterans who fought for flag and country.“I don’t think you can disrespect our country, our flag, our national anthem,” Trump said at a Rose Garden press conference. But explaining his decision to speak out on the anthem protests, Trump cited all those who have died or been injured fighting for the United States.

 

“They were fighting for our country, they were fighting for our flag, they were fighting for our national anthem,” he said, referring to injured soldiers he’s visited at Walter Reed. “For people to disrespect that by kneeling during the playing of our national anthem I think is disgraceful.” Echoing an earlier tweet, he said the NFL should not allow players to kneel, saying he was “ashamed” by the protests.

 

 

Steelers, Seahawks, Titans remain in locker room during national anthem

Jeremy Fowler ESPN Staff Writer - Sep 25, 2017

 

 

New York Post - Lone Steeler comes out of locker room without team during anthem protest By David K. Li - September 24, 2017

 

 

The Pittsburgh Steelers took part in the national-anthem protest Sunday by bowing out — staying in the locker room as “The Star-Spangled Banner” was performed. But one Steeler staged a patriotic counterprotest by walking out onto the sidelines alone and saluting the flag as the anthem played. Offensive tackle Alejandro Villanueva — a West Point grad who served as an Army Ranger in Afghanistan — stood silently by himself, just outside the tunnel to the locker rooms, with his hand over his heart throughout the anthem at Chicago’s Soldier Field.

 

 

 

Huffington Post - Trump’s Call To Fire NFL Players Is Not Normal By Dana Liebelson, Sept. 2017


WASHINGTON ― When President Donald Trump called on NFL owners to suspend or fire players who protest racism and police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem, he was doing something rare for a U.S. president: using the power of the state to publicly call for people engaged in political protest to lose their jobs.“The McCarthy era is the closest comparison that comes to mind,” said Kevin Boyle, a professor of American history at Northwestern University, referring to the blacklisting of professors, writers and autoworkers during Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s campaign to root out alleged Communists. “Even then I don’t remember a case of a president explicitly calling for a particular American to be fired from private employment. And what does it say about our moment that the closest comparison is McCarthyism?”


FORBES - Colin Kaepernick Can't Get a Job, But Dave Bliss Can? - Bob Cook - Aug. 2017

One of the absurdities of the NFL right now is the parade of quarterbacks worse than Colin Kaepernick who are getting signed instead of him, and how the free agent's notorious national anthem protests are seen as toxic even by teams who seem comfortable with employing, say, players who beat women. There's also a lesson in what teams -- and their fans -- are willing to forgive, and just as important, who they're willing to forgive. And this brings me to the new hire for boys basketball coach and athletic director at Calvary Christian Chapel School in Las Vegas: Dave Bliss.


You might recognize the 73-year-old Bliss from his days coaching basketball at Oklahoma, Southern Methodist and New Mexico, though the job that pops to mind is Baylor, for reasons outlined by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which broke the story of his hiring: His biggest controversy came when he resigned from Baylor in 2003 following NCAA investigations into circumstances surrounding the murder of player Patrick Dennehy by teammate Carlton Dotson. In 2005, the NCAA issued Bliss a 10-year show-cause notice, an administrative punishment for a coach who has committed major rules violations. The notice can be transferred to any other NCAA member school that wants to hire the coach during that time. After Dennehy’s death, Bliss suggested that the player was a drug dealer to help explain tuition payments the coach admitted later to providing. Bliss reiterated the claims that Dennehy was a drug dealer in a Showtime documentary that aired this spring and subsequently resigned from his job at Southwestern Christian [an NAIA school where he was coaching basketball]. Bliss did more than suggest Dennehy was a drug dealer -- he was actively attempting to create the illusion that Dennehy was a drug dealer so he cover up payments that violated NCAA rules. (And that was only a part of Bliss' tarnished legacy.) Sure, Bliss is no longer getting big-time college jobs -- that show-cause notice pretty much made that impractical. But Bliss has kept a Bible in his hand and talked the talk of fundamental Christianity, the devil and sin to explain himself away, and for that schools with a similar mindset are happy to bring him aboard.

 

 

Donald Trump's Military Cowardice Goes Beyond His 5 Draft Deferrals

He continuously disrespects those who actually served.

By Lincoln Anthony Blades Aug 3, 2017


When I look at President Donald Trump, I see a pot-bellied, 71-year-old man with a doughy frame. But in 1968, when he was a 22-year-old University of Pennsylvania graduate, Trump was a tall, fit athlete who played football, tennis, and golf. His age and clean medical history qualified Trump as a perfect candidate for the draft to serve in the United States Army and fight in the Vietnam War, but he avoided combat after receiving a 1-Y medical deferment, which he has said was due to "bone spurs in his heels." More than half a million American men were stationed in Vietnam by the end of that year, which was the bloodiest 12 months of the conflict. On the day of Trump's graduation from the University of Pennsylvania, 40 Americans were killed in Vietnam, according to The New York Times.


The son of Fred Trump, a wealthy New York real estate developer, Donald Trump did what many other wealthy young men were allowed to do: He dodged the draft. Between 1964 and 1972, a few months before the draft ended, he received five deferments — in addition to his "bone spurs" claim, the other four were based on his educational status. He received two deferments while he attended Fordham University from 1964 to 1966, and two more after transferring to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. As a draft dodger, Trump never knew the horrors of war, but in 1997, he laughed when telling radio host Howard Stern that avoiding sexually transmitted diseases was like his "personal Vietnam." "It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam era,” Trump said to Stern, discussing his sex life. "I feel like a great and very brave soldier.” Today, Trump struggles to recall the most basic facts about the medical condition that was the basis for his final deferment. He doesn't remember the name of the doctor who provided him with the note of proof and has repeatedly failed to provide a copy of it to The New York Times. He's also forgotten which of his heels had the spurs, now just claiming it was both. (During the 2016 presidential election, the affliction wasn't noted by Dr. Harold Bornstein, a physician who performed a physical on Trump and found that he had "no significant medical problems." in his medical history).


Unlike the 2,709,918 soldiers who fought in Vietnam, Trump never served. He wasn't injured like the 304,000 Americans who fought in the war, or among the more than 58,000 killed in combat. Despite this inexperience, he is now in charge of the U.S. armed forces, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and the Marine Corps as commander-in-chief. As president, he is tasked with dictating to all military generals and admirals which battles should be fought, where they should be fought, and who gets to fight in them on behalf of the United States. He is certainly not the first American leader to receive draft deferments. Former vice president Joe Biden received five student deferments, former VP Dick Cheney received five deferments, and former president Bill Clinton received deferments and even penned a letter to an ROTC officer thanking him for "saving me from the draft." (It should also be noted that before Clinton's administration, LGBTQ servicemen and women were banned from serving. In his time, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy began, which forced them to conceal their identities or risk being discharged, effectively condoning discrimination.) This column will afford these men no absolution for their decisions, but what makes Trump's behavior obscene is that despite having never served, he has fashioned himself as the arbiter of military courage.

It was Trump who, as a presidential candidate in July 2015, dissed Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war for roughly five and a half years during Vietnam, by stating, "I like people who weren't captured." He publicly disrespected Khizr Muazzam Khan and Ghazala Khan, the gold-star Pakistani-American parents of Army captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in combat in 2004 and posthumously awarded a Purple Heart for his bravery. Not only did Trump attack an immigrant family who made a sacrifice for their adopted nation, but he even compared their loss to the "sacrifices" he made while becoming a real estate tycoon. To insult the family of Khan, who died at war at 27 — just two years older than Trump was when he received his 4-F classification, permanently disqualifying him from military service — by comparing it to his own business ventures is a claim only made equatable in the mind of a man with little recognition of his own internalized cowardice. Now the president, the five-time draft dodger, is weakening the military to satisfy his own bigotry.

 

Trump calls NFL kneeling 'disgraceful,' disrespectful to veterans.

“They were fighting for our country, they were fighting for our flag,

they were fighting for our national anthem,” he said,

referring to injured soldiers he’s visited at Walter Reed.

 

 

As is normally the case, most of the Worlds problems are not intrinsic, but rather, simply a function of the Ignorant and Stupid (Crackers), not knowing what they are talking about. And the Charlatans and Demagogues (Donald Trump), taking advantage of the Crackers Ignorance and Stupidity to advance their own interests. Naturally, not All Albinos are Crackers.

 

 

In this case, the idiots don't even know

what a Soldier swears allegiance to!

 

 

 

Soldiers oath of Enlistment - United States Military


I, _(your name)_, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

 

 

Note that a Soldier swears allegiance to the Constitution, NOT to the United States

 

 

And what does the Constitution say about PROTESTS?

 

 

U.S. Constitution - First Amendment (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.

 

 

Clearly - A peaceful protester is nearest to perfection in the eyes and spirit of the U.S. Constitution:

rather than the Bible thumping, holier-than-thou, lying hypocrite.

 

 

Here are earlier versions of the Soldiers oath of Enlistment:

Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read:
"I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

The version voted 3 February 1778, reads:
"I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

THE FIRST TIME THE CONSTITUTION IS HELD SUPREME
The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read:

"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States."
The second part read:

"I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."

The next section of that chapter specified that: "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

 

 

A Strange Dichotomy

The "Second" Amendment to the United States Constitution states:


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.

So then, Why do lovers of the "SECOND" amendment "HATE" lovers of the "FIRST" amendment?

That is because lovers of the first amendment, are usually people protesting something lovers of the second amendment have done to them.


So are lovers of the second amendment, the Albino elite, who are using their guns to protect the great wealth they have stolen from pigmented people all around the world?

NO, not on this (local) level - In the U.S. second amendment lovers are the Albino Rabble, fearful that on a level field: upwardly mobile Blacks and immigrants, will displace them.

 

 

 

 

 

"Conservatives"? - Not really.

Haven't we all wondered how it is that the Vile, Murderous, Racist of today, and the descendants

of the Rebel traitors of the Civil War era, could be called "Conservatives" today?

 

Historically there are four (4) basic political ideologies.


Liberals - Who want Quick change.
Conservatives - Who want Slow change.
Moderates - Who want change at a Medium speed.
Reactionaries - Who want to return to an Earlier time.

 

It is interesting how modern sources now define these political ideologies

 

Definition of liberal (Wiki)
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.


Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.


Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution.

Definition of moderate (MW)
Professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme

Definition of conservatism (MW)
A disposition in politics to preserve what is established: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.

Definition of Reactionary (rWiki)
A reactionary is a politician or political philosopher who wants to reverse political changes and seeks to restore society to a state believed to have existed before. It is usually used pejoratively to describe a conservative opposed to modernity. Like much of the political language of left wing and right wing, the usage arose as a result of the French Revolution. The original use of the word "reactionary" (Fr. réactionnaire) in this political sense was to describe the position of monarchists in the French Revolution and its aftermath, a position otherwise known as legitimism These reactionaries had two goals: the restoration of the House of Bourbon to the throne of France, and the restoration of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church in French society. Its ideologues were the monarchs themselves.

 

So how did the party of Abraham Lincoln (Republican), become the party of the Vile Racist of today?


Today's conservatives are generally dim-witted people, who unfortunately make-up as much as 40% of the U.S. electorate. Because of their love of the lie, and their tendency to delusion, (they refuse to accept that they are Albinos), they also refused to accept the Presidency of Barack Obama, and angered because they could not detail his presidency, they demonstrated their anger by foolishly electing someone just like themselves: the ignorant, mentally challenged, Buffoon, Donald Trump. Incredibly, they often refer to themselves as "The Good People". As an example: after the Charlottesville march and riot: Donald Trump said some of the people marching along with the white nationalists were "very fine" people.

History of the United States Democratic Party
The Democratic Party of the United States is the oldest voter-based political party in the world, tracing its heritage back to the anti-Federalists of the 1790s. The Democratic party was a proponent for slave-owners across the country, urban workers, and Caucasian immigrants. It was especially attractive to Irish immigrants who increasingly controlled the party machinery in the cities. The party was much less attractive to businessmen, African American Evangelical Protestants, and social reformers. The party advocated westward expansion, Manifest Destiny, greater equality among all white men, and opposition to the national banks. In 1860 the Civil War began between the mostly-Republican North against the mostly-Democratic, slave-holding South.


Starting with 32nd President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 during the Great Depression, the Democratic Party dominated the "Fifth Party System", with its liberal/progressive policies and programs with the "New Deal" coalition to combat the emergency bank closings and the continuing financial depression. The Fifth Party System refers to the era of American national politics that began with the New Deal in 1932 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. This era emerged from the realignment of the voting blocs and interest groups supporting the Democratic Party into the New Deal Coalition following the Great Depression. For this reason it is often called the New Deal Party System. Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the Democrats dominance. The conservative coalition generally controlled Congress from 1938 to 1964, again based on the powerful rural white control of the Democratic Party (and congressional representation) in the South, with its disfranchisement of blacks. The activist New Deal members promoted American liberalism, anchored in a New Deal Coalition of specific liberal groups—especially ethno-religious constituencies (Catholics, Jews, African Americans)—in addition to Southerners, well-organized labor unions, urban machines, progressive intellectuals, and populist farm groups.

Mary McLeod Bethune once noted, the Roosevelt era represented “the first time in their history” that African Americans felt that they could communicate their grievances to their government with the “expectancy of sympathetic understanding and interpretation.


It is also important to recognize that this hope was not merely based on empty promises of change, but on the actual words and deeds spoken by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and taken by the federal government at a time when racism was deeply seared into the American psyche. With respect to the critical issue of employment, for example, we know that by 1935, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was employing approximately 350,000 African Americans annually, about 15% of its total workforce. In the Civilian Conservation Corps, the percentage of blacks who took part climbed from roughly 3% at its outset in 1933 to over 11% by the close of 1938 with a total of more than 350,000 having been enrolled in the CCC by the time the program was shut down in 1942.

The National Youth Administration, under the direction of Aubrey Williams, hired more black administrators than any other New deal agency; employed African American supervisors to oversee the work the agency was doing on behalf of black youth for each state in the south; and assisted more than 300,000 Africa American youth during the Depression. In 1934, the Public Works Administration (PWA) inserted a clause in all government construction contracts that established a quota for the hiring of black laborers based on the 1930 labor census and as a consequence a significant number of blacks received skilled employment on PWA projects.


African Americans also benefited from the Federal Music Project, which funded performances of black composers; from the Federal Theatre and Writing Projects, which hired and featured the work of hundreds of African American artists; and from the New Deal’s educational programs, which taught over 1 million illiterate blacks to read and write and which increased the number of African American children attending primary school.


As the leader of a political party that was heavily represented in Congress by racist Southern Democrats who supported segregation and even opposed the adoption of a federal anti-lynching law as an infringement of state’s rights, FDR had to choose his battles carefully and at times appears timorous in the face of racial injustice-especially when viewed from today.


But this is the President who appointed a far greater number of blacks to positions of responsibility within his government than any of his predecessors, so much so in fact that this group became known as the “Black Cabinet” or “Black Brain Trust” in the press. FDR was also the first president to appoint an African American as a federal judge; to promote a black man to the rank of Brigadier General in the Army; and, incredible as it might seem, the first president to publicly call lynching murder — “a vile form of collective murder”-which W.E B. Dubois applauded as something that sadly was long overdue.


Overall FDR’s administration tripled the number of Africa Americans working for the federal government, including thousands of black engineers, architects, lawyers, librarians, office managers, and other professionals, and under his leadership, and with the strong support of Eleanor Roosevelt, the Democrats included the first specific African American plank in the party platform at the 1936 convention.

 

So because of Roosevelt, the party of Vile Murderous Racists was becoming the party of "Liberals". So how did the party of Lincoln become the party of the Vile Murderous Racists? - Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater!


The Southern Strategy: (From Wikipedia).
In modern times it all really started to get bad when Richard Nixon moved to counteract the power enjoyed by Democratic progressives like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Kennedy, who in large part, were the albinos responsible for the Civil Rights Laws enacted by the U.S. Congress. But these laws angered the degenerate Albinos of the Confederate South - who were also Democrats.

Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater
In American politics, "Southern Strategy" refers to methods the Republican Party used to gain political support in the South by appealing to the racism against African Americans harbored by many southern white voters. As the African American Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened pre-existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.

Ronald Reagan:
In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair. His speech there contained the phrase "I believe in states' rights" and was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. Reagan's campaigns used racially coded rhetoric, making attacks on the "welfare state" and leveraging resentment towards affirmative action. Dan Carter explains "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose." During his 1976 and 1980 campaigns Reagan employed stereotypes of welfare recipients, often invoking the case of a "welfare queen" with a large house and a Cadillac using multiple names to collect over $150,000 in tax-free income. Aistrup described Reagan's campaign statements as "seemingly race neutral" but explained how whites interpret this in a racial manner, citing a DNC funded study conducted by CRG Communications. Though Reagan didn't overtly mention the race of the welfare recipient, the unstated impression in whites' minds were black people and Reagan's rhetoric resonated with Southern white perceptions of black people.

 

 

Rouges Gallery of powerful Modern Racist who held or hold the United States Back.

 

 
     
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1973 Nelson Rockefeller had to be "Tough" on Niggers,

to satisfy the parents of Donald Trumps "Base".

But now that it's Albino youth dying, what do Donald Trumps base want him to do?

Why get them medical and psychological help of course!

 

 

 

Get the full story of the double standard at the bottom of this page: <<Click>>.

 

 

 

 

 

Vin Scully: 'I will never watch another NFL game' due to protests


By Chris Cwik, Big League Stew


Retired Los Angeles Dodgers announcer Vin Scully (born November 29, 1927), rarely talked about anything but baseball when he was up in the broadcast booth. Sure, there were stories, but they always found a way to come back to the game. Now that Scully is retired, though, he’s able to give his opinion about things he normally would not have discussed during his career. That includes the NFL protests, which have caused Scully to stage his own protest against the league. Scully’s full statement wasn’t captured on video. The recording picks up Scully mid-sentence. Here’s the relevant part of his statement:

 


“It’s not that I’m such great patriot. I was in the Navy for a year — didn’t go anywhere, didn’t do anything — but I have overwhelming respect and admiration for anyone who puts on a uniform and goes to war. The only thing I can do in my little way is not to preach. I will never watch another NFL game.”


Scully may fall into the group of people Miami Marlins owner Derek Jeter was talking about when he said people have lost sight of why athletes are protesting. The players kneeling aren’t protesting the military or veterans. They are protesting racial inequality in the United States. Given Scully’s history, he should have been able to bring a unique perspective here. He talks about his own time in the U.S. Navy, but then brushes that aside as if it had nothing to do with his decision. He’s expressed admiration for Jackie Robinson — a man he knew well — throughout his career, but doesn’t acknowledge that Robinson later stated he would not stand for the anthem or salute the flag. For all the people who wish Scully would have just stuck to baseball … well … he didn’t really want to go there. Following the Dodgers’ Game 7 loss in the 2017 World Series, Scully told TMZ he “better not give any opinion” on the decision to start Yu Darvish over Clayton Kershaw. Ultimately, Scully’s making a personal decision by no longer watching the NFL. He’s free to do what he wants. But there will be people who are disappointed Scully has defaulted to the normal reasoning here instead of bringing the unique perspective he brought to his job every day.

 

Above, the coward Scully is indicating that to criticize the Black Dodger Manager on the Yu Darvish over Clayton Kershaw decision, would open him to claims that he is a Racist for criticizing Dave Roberts the Black/Japanese manager of the Los Angles Dodgers. This is what the lying Rabble Albinos call "Political Correctness". Actually, like so much of what these degenerates say, its just a way for them to pass a sly lie, while claiming innocence. For the record: the average TOP White Baseball manager has about a 0.520 career average. Black managers do a bit better than that, and Dave Roberts has an even 0.600 record (195-130). Further: Black managers are criticized and fired just like anyone else. But to the degenerate Racist looking for an excuse to hate, that fact is ignored.


_________________________________________________________

Like the other Albinos talking that lying nonsense, Vin Scully is not stupid, he understands perfectly well what the true meaning of the knelling protests is - it's been stated a million times. The situation is this, Vin Scully is just another vile cowardly Racist who is against anything Black. But he also knows that if he were to state his true feelings, he would be made a pariah in polite society. So for cover, he repeats that same lies as his kindred Albinos - they purposely conflate support for the military, the Country, and the Flag, with support for Murdering Policemen. These are truly degenerate, lying people, and we should spare no effort to expose them.


Funny: all of this from a man whose only claim to fame is the fact that he has a nice "Speaking Voice".

 

 

 

 

 

FINALLY!



It took a long time, but others have finally realized that White Evangelicals and the so-called "Christian Right" were nothing but White Racists and White Supremacists HIDING behind Christianity.


Donald Trump’s White Christian Supremacy

Terrell Jermaine Starr 9/13/17

Donald J. Trump is the antithesis of a true follower of Christ. His xenophobic assault against Muslims, racist remarks about Mexicans, troubled history with women and sympathy for neo-Nazis make him remarkably unqualified to represent God’s teachings.

 

 

He has rarely—if ever, really—mentioned faith as an essential force in his life, though, as a presidential candidate and now president, he has been trumpeted by leading white evangelicals like Jerry Falwell Jr. as their “dream president.” Falwell’s exuberance is warranted. Eighty-one percent of evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016 and have arguably become his most ardent supporters. They have one of their own in the Oval Office, but not in the way you’d think. See, Trump doesn’t give a damn about the Bible or Jesus. He’s pimping the gospel, just as he pimped racially insecure “working class” white men and women into voting for him in exchange for an America that doesn’t threaten their whiteness. Closing the borders and embracing isolationism means more economic prosperity for Americans (read: white people) struggling with economic anxiety, in Trump’s logic. Evoking images of “bad hombres” and “black-on-black crime” in Chicago also enflamed white people’s fears and, ultimately, secured their votes. Indeed, racism and God are the perfect cocktail for political assent. Trump realized early on that white evangelicals generally share a lot of his sexist, anti-Muslim and anti-black views. Historically, Christianity has often been used to exact violence against anything and anyone that challenges white supremacy.


Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in The Guardian that Trump’s blatant racism against minorities signals to white evangelicals that he embraces their homogenized view of America. “By othering these groups, Trump allows evangelicals to persist in their belief that white Anglo-saxon protestantism, is the default for true American Christianity and is best suited to lead America as a ‘Christian Nation,’” she wrote. If you do not believe that Christianity has often been peddled as white supremacist doctrine, you know very little about how it functions in white, mainstream society. In a piece for the Washington Post, the Rev. William J. Barber II details the racist history of Southern white evangelicalism and how, ultimately, white Christians were taught to build a wall between their faith and their politics, which, of course, relieved them of their obligation to the biblical pursuit of social justice.


This is the genesis of how mainstream Christianity came to be in America and why it has rallied around Trump. It has nothing to do with the word. Jesus was a radical, an activist who spoke truth to power. He protected the poor, never shamed the disadvantaged and rebuked the abuse of power. If there ever was an anti-colonial force on this earth, it was Jesus. But white evangelicals have subverted his words to attack the poor and disenfranchise the vulnerable, all in an effort to protect their white male homogeneity. In this respect, not only is Trump a practicing Christian, but he is arguably the church of white supremacy’s most active member. One of his first tithes came in 1989 when he spent $85,000 on front-page ads in major New York City newspapers blasting five black and Latino boys as “muggers and murderers” after they were accused of raping a white woman in Central Park. (The city of New York eventually paid the men a settlement of $40 million after they were exonerated.)


In a follow-up interview with Larry King that same year, Trump said America needed to “bring back the police,” a clear nod to white people nationwide that he understood how law enforcement symbolizes the guardianship of whiteness. In 2017 he amplified this symbolism when he encouraged police brutality on national television. Trump’s white evangelicals ignore this because they believe it maintains the white homogeneous America that Trump vows to maintain and that God intended.


Molly Worthen explains in The Atlantic that the white evangelical movement was born out of America’s revolutionary period, when there were deep suspicions of an encroaching government that put the nation in danger of losing its homogeneity. To counter this, white Christians had no issues aligning themselves with nonbelieving politicians who shared their fears. There is another quality that Trump shares with many white evangelicals, as Worthen notes: that of the dictatorial know-it-all who professes to return America to the place where whiteness can rule with abandon:

To the majority of Americans—those who did not vote for him—Trump has all the allure of the boorish boss who takes too many liberties at the staff Christmas party. But his authoritarian machismo is right in step with a long evangelical tradition of pastor-overlords who anoint themselves with the power to make their own rules—and, in the event of their own occasional moral lapses, assure their followers that God always forgives. This explains why many white people of faith were so fast to forgive Trump for his “grab ’em by the pussy” remarks. As long as Trump is resurrecting “God’s country,” his sexism gets a pass. And so does his racism.


We saw white, mainstream Christianity in action after Charlottesville, Va. After sympathizing with Nazis after a white nationalist was charged with running over a woman and killing her during the protests, Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White insisted that Trump “100 percent is a Christian” and “not a racist.” Megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress dismissed accusations of Trump being racist after his “both sides” comments, saying, “If we’re going to denounce some racism, we ought to denounce all racism, and I believe that was the point the president was making.”


Mainstream Christianity is acting as an enthusiastic cheerleader of Trump’s white supremacist agenda. Of course, this is not the true gospel as Jesus wanted us to practice it. This is a bunch of white men and women co-opting faith and evangelizing millions of white Americans behind the false narrative that God’s word mirrors those of Trump. And it is working.


That is how powerful white Christian supremacy is. It can colonize nations, leaving ruin in its wake. And it can colonize faith to the point where Christian leaders use it as a means to justify and ignore the most horrific abuses against humanity without batting an eye. But, most important for the white evangelical who fears that his existence is losing value, white Christian supremacy elected Donald J. Trump. Their God on earth. For many Americans, my words may come as a shock. But for those of us who understand how faith has been used to justify the rape, pillaging and murder of the disenfranchised, Trump’s rise as a white-evangelical darling is just another reminder of how the teachings of Jesus have so often been twisted to echo the words of Satan

 

 

 

Roy Stewart Moore (born February 11, 1947) is an American politician and former Alabama state judge best known for being twice elected to, and twice removed, from the Alabama Supreme Court. He also is the founder and president of the Foundation for Moral Law. Moore is the Republican nominee in the special election on December 12, 2017 to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.


In November 2017, four women accused Moore of inappropriate sexual behavior which occurred when they were in their teens and Moore was in his thirties. The youngest of the women was 14 at the time. The most jarring accusation comes from a woman who told the Post that Moore engaged in two sexually inappropriate meetings with her at age 14 when he was a 32-year-old district attorney.

Leigh Corfman, now 53, said she met Moore outside an Alabama courthouse in 1979. She was with her mother, Nancy Wells, who was attending a child custody hearing. Moore offered to watch Corfman while her mother went inside. The two chatted, and Moore asked if he could call her sometime. Corfman gave him her phone number, she says, and the two made plans to meet. Moore picked her up around the corner from her house and drove her to his home:

She remembers an unpaved driveway. She remembers going inside and him giving her alcohol on this visit or the next, and that at some point she told him she was 14. She says they sat and talked. She remembers that Moore told her she was pretty, put his arm around her and kissed her, and that she began to feel nervous and asked him to take her home, which she says he did. The two met up one more time, Corfman said, and Moore again took her to his home: She says that Moore drove her back to the same house after dark, and that before long she was lying on a blanket on the floor. She remembers Moore disappearing into another room and coming out with nothing on but “tight white” underwear.

She remembers that Moore kissed her, that he took off her pants and shirt, and that he touched her through her bra and underpants. She says that he guided her hand to his underwear and that she yanked her hand back. “I wasn’t ready for that — I had never put my hand on a man’s penis, much less an erect one,” Corfman says. She remembers thinking, “I don’t want to do this” and “I need to get out of here.” She says that she got dressed and asked Moore to take her home, and that he did.

Moore has also earned significant national attention and controversy over his strongly anti-homosexual, anti-Muslim, and far-right views, his belief that Christianity should order public policy, as well as his past ties to neo-Confederates and white nationalist groups. According to Vox, if Moore is elected, he is likely to be the most far-right senator, "far afield from even the most conservative Republican currently in the Senate." Moore was also a leading voice in the anti-Obama birther movement, which promoted the debunked conspiracy theory that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Moore had also argued that Obama was a secret Muslim. Among other beliefs, his view that Christianity should supersede public laws has been cause for criticism and has earned him the nickname of "Ayatollah of Alabama" by his critics.

 

 

New Republic


Why Evangelicals Can’t Quit Roy Moore


Not even pedophilia is out of bounds for a political

movement that is less animated by religiosity than resentment.

By Sarah Jones - November 10, 2017


Roy Moore, Republican candidate for Senate and alleged child molester, enjoys much of his political longevity to his celebrity status within the Christian right. The gay bashing, the Ten Commandments fetish, barring Muslims from serving in Congress—Moore’s most extreme positions are precisely what makes him a beloved figure to so many white evangelicals. This hasn’t always translated to popularity within his home state of Alabama—winning the GOP primary is the closest he’s gotten to higher office—but it has established his reputation as an authentic Christian. One poll conducted before The Washington Post broke the accusations against Moore had him up 11 points over Democrat Doug Jones, who, by contrast, has campaigned on the fact that he prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan members responsible for bombing the 16th Street Baptist Church.


Moore and Jones represent the two faces of the South. Moore’s Christianity is as reactionary as his Alabama; Jones, with his civil rights background and his mainline Methodism, is the opposite. This distinction is even sharper now that four women have gone on record to accuse Moore of outright sexual misconduct and/or inappropriate “dating” when he was an adult in his thirties and they were teenagers. These revelations raise questions that had seemingly been answered, when Moore was on track to easily win the race. Is Alabama the state of Roy Moore, or is it the state of Doug Jones? Given the state’s large number of white evangelicals, they will likely dictate its direction for the foreseeable future. So the answer depends on a second question: Will they desert Roy Moore?


It’s true that evangelicals have, at times, seemed lukewarm on Moore, but the Christian right’s admiration for the former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice has been pretty consistent. He recently appeared at the same Values Voter Summit that hosted Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and Sebastian Gorka to great applause. And even the national GOP hasn’t been as full-throated in their condemnation of Moore as one would expect: Republicans have mostly restricted themselves to the milquetoast acknowledgement that he should withdraw from the race if the allegations are true.


For its part, the Alabama GOP, which is particularly far-right and particularly fanatical, has been emphatic that he should stay. Worse, many aren’t even denying the allegations. “There is nothing to see here. The allegations are that a man in his early 30s dated teenage girls. Even The Washington Post report says that he never had sexual intercourse with any of the girls and never attempted sexual intercourse,” Ziegler later told the Washington Examiner. No big deal, then! He only allegedly had a 14-year-old touch his genitals. Another Alabama Republican suggested that Moore’s accusers should themselves be prosecuted. And here is Alabama Marion County GOP chair David Hall:“I really don’t blame Roy Moore’s voters for sticking with him and I know they are going to come under withering attacks for standing by their man. They don’t deserve it. Clearly a lot of people would prefer to avoid dealing with how we got to this point of moral decay among conservatives who used to really believe character counted,” Erick Erickson wrote, before pivoting to a discussion of the Sutherland Springs shooter’s “militant” atheism.


Moore, for his part, is framing the controversy in terms familiar to any evangelical: as spiritual warfare. This isn’t accidental, and it reveals quite a bit about why many white Alabamian evangelicals will stick with him. Never underestimate the depth of the evangelical martyrdom complex: In their view, Moore has taken public stands for the word of God, and now the secular world is punishing him for his righteousness. This is the fate promised to all faithful Christians. Thus, Moore’s brother compared Moore, an alleged pedophile, to Jesus Christ. In an email to Religion News Service, Jerry Falwell Jr. was not much more circumspect:“It comes down to a question who is more credible in the eyes of the voters — the candidate or the accuser,” said Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of evangelical Liberty University who has endorsed Trump and Moore, both Republicans. “The same thing happened to President Trump a few weeks before his election last year except it was several women making allegations,” Falwell told RNS in an email. “He denied that any of them were true and the American people believed him and elected him the 45th president of the United States.”


There is not a shred of Christian feeling here, certainly not for the women who claimed they suffered from Trump and Moore’s predations. What animates this movement is a sense of persecution; after all, you can’t be part of a faithful remnant unless you are surrounded by enemies. This is such a bedrock belief for some evangelicals that little can change it; the claims of mere women do not suffice. A general disdain for women is another reason evangelicals will continue to defend Moore. As any woman who grew up evangelical can tell you, the subculture is not overly concerned with the bodily autonomy of its female members, who are often treated as mere vessels for procreation. Look even further into the wilder weeds of this world, and you’ll find that antiquated ideas about courtship—essentially arranged, chaperoned dating—still hold and are still used to justify relationships between young girls and older men. Former ex-fundamentalist Kathryn Brightbill explains: The Chapmans later married their 16-year-old daughter to a 26-year-old man. They were regular guests at Christian homeschooling conventions, and while this is an admittedly fringe faction even within evangelicalism, Christian homeschoolers still represent powerful lobbying blocs at the state level.

This is the upsetting truth: Religious traditions that embrace retrograde beliefs—that female sexuality somehow endangers men, that women should submit to men in the home and in the public sphere—aren’t equipped to deal with accusations of abuse. Whether it happens on the mission field or in the church sanctuary or in a lonely moment with a Christian politician, conservative Christians have often greeted sexual abuse as a cause for outrage when victims speak up.

 

 

 

How birth control became part of the evangelical agenda

Trump’s latest birth control rollbacks seem like a victory for the religious right. But why?

Updated by Tara Isabella Burton @vox.com Oct 7, 2017.

The Trump administration announced Friday that it would roll back the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employers cover workers’ birth control. “The Affordable Care Act mandate forced countless business owners to pay for abortion drugs and contraceptives, even if doing so went directly against their deeply held religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Yet among evangelical Protestants, at least, birth control — and who has access to it — has only recently become a major political issue. Unlike Catholics, whose catechism denounces use of most forms of contraception as a sin, evangelical Protestants by and large do not. But alongside Catholic organizations like Little Sisters of the Poor, it’s evangelical-led companies like Hobby Lobby that have been on the forefront of opposition to the ACA birth control mandate.

The evangelical right’s anti-abortion stance is more recent than you’d think


Meanwhile, despite the evangelical right’s current commitment to anti-abortion policies, this was not always the case. As late as the 1960s, abortion seems to have been a debated issue among the Christian right. According to an excellent article by Rob Shryock at Salon, a 1968 document produced at a conference co-sponsored by Christianity Today and the Christian Dental and Medical Association treated the question as unresolved: “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord. … When principles conflict, the preservation of fetal life … may have to be abandoned to maintain full and secure family life.”


But amid the culture wars of the late 1970s and the ’80s, evangelicals disillusioned by Jimmy Carter’s first term (he was very friendly with Blacks), used the 1973 Supreme Court decision for Roe v. Wade as a rallying cry for conservative Christians to deny him another one. Evangelical Protestants joined their Catholic brethren — whose position against abortion and contraception had long been more established — in understanding life to begin at conception.

 

L. A. Times

Under Trump, evangelicals show their true racist colors

By Randall Balmer Aug. 23, 2017


The statistics tell one story: 81% of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump. The deafening silence from leaders of the religious right in the wake of the neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville, Va., points to an even larger one, which places racism at the very heart of the movement. On the face of it, evangelical support for Trump is anomalous. How can a movement ostensibly concerned about “family values” support a twice-divorced, thrice-married man who said that his “personal Vietnam” was avoiding sexually transmitted diseases? How could evangelicals vote for someone who flaunted his infidelities and who boasted about his tawdry behavior toward women?

The standard rejoinder is that evangelicals were so concerned about abortion and, therefore, judicial appointments that they were prepared to ignore Trump’s indiscretions to advance the one cause — opposition to abortion — that lay at the core of their political movement. That argument collapses, however, on historical examination. Several evangelical leaders and evangelical organizations applauded the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. The late Paul Weyrich, architect of the religious right, was emphatic that abortion had nothing whatsoever to do with the genesis of evangelical political activism in the 1970s, a sentiment echoed by other conservative leaders, including Richard Viguerie and Grover Norquist.


What galvanized Jerry Falwell and other leaders in the 1970s was not abortion, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” They mobilized instead to protest the rescission of tax-exempt status at Bob Jones University and other “segregation academies.” (Falwell had opened his own segregation academy in Lynchburg, Va., in 1967.) Only later, in advance of the 1980 election, did Weyrich and others recognize that abortion could mobilize grass-roots evangelical voters.


Evangelicals’ overwhelming support for Trump represents not so much a concern for securing a “pro-life” judiciary as a return to the founding principles of their political movement. Trump himself may or may not be a racist, but his campaign rhetoric undeniably appealed to racist sentiments: his assertion that a judge of Mexican heritage could not be impartial, his characterization of Mexican immigrants as rapists, his castigation of Muslims.


The 2016 presidential election, then, allowed the religious right finally to dispense with the fiction that theirs was a movement concerned about family values. Evangelical voting behavior suggests that the religious right was merely reverting to the racism that prompted its entry into the political arena in the late 1970s. If this interpretation is mistaken, if the religious right — or at least its leadership — is not racist, then we might reasonably expect that the leaders of the movement would rush to condemn white supremacists and the equivocal responses of the president, who blamed the violence in Charlottesville on “both sides.” Where are these evangelical voices of condemnation? In a word, nowhere.


What about Richard Land, former official of the Southern Baptist Convention and now president of Southern Evangelical Seminary? Land was unsparing in his criticisms of Presidents Clinton and Obama, and he once worried that Hillary Clinton would “park her broomstick” at the Supreme Court. Regarding Trump, however, Land has been uncharacteristically silent. How about Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and frequent visitor to the White House? Perkins, who addressed white nationalist groups when he was a state legislator in Louisiana and who has had dealings with David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, issued a statement condemning the violence in Charlottesville, but not one condemning Trump.


Where’s Ralph Reed or Paula White or James Dobson, who in the course of the 2016 campaign pronounced Trump a “baby Christian”? (He was half right.) All of them have vocally supported the president, but they have remained mute on his relationship to racism and white supremacy.

 


DAILY BEAST

Report: Alabama Mall Banned Roy Moore in the ’80s for Pursuing Teens

 

REUTERS/Marvin Gentry - 11/15/2017


Roy Moore, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Alabama, was banned from a mall in the early 1980s after he repeatedly attempted to pick up teenage girls, former mall employees and local police told The New Yorker. Other locals also told AL.com that Moore was known for prowling the mall. Moore, whom five women have accused of making advances on them or molesting them when they were teenagers, allegedly had a reputation for hanging around the Gadsden Mall, in Gadsden, Alabama, in pursuit of high school-age girls. One former mall employee told The New Yorker that a security guard asked mall employees to be on the lookout for Moore, who was “banned from the mall.” Blake Usry, who was a teenager in town at the time, told AL.com Moore was known to "flirt with all the young girls," and would hang out at the mall on weekends "like the kids did." Other locals told AL.com that Moore's penchant for flirting with teens was common knowledge in town. One former waitress told AL.com that Moore made young waitresses uncomfortable by staring at them, then becoming rude if they did not "give him an opening." A police officer, one of two who spoke with The New Yorker, said that “general knowledge at the time when I moved here was that this guy is a lawyer cruising the mall for high-school dates” and that Moore may not have received an official ban but was a persona non grata at the mall and had been “run off” from “a number of stores.”

 

 

   

 

 

"Chester the Molester" Roy Moore, will likely win election to the United States Senate from the state of Alabama, "unless Black Alabamians" decide to turn out to stop him. Which they should NOT do, Roy Moore is more valuable in the Senate, as is Donald Trump in the White House: as a constant reminder to normal Albinos of just how degenerate and "Tribal" the Rabble Evangelicals/Christian-Right/Tea-Baggers really are. Sexually Assault Women - No Problem! Sexually Molest Minors - No Problem! Allow a hostile Power to control the United States by virtue of a Compromised Puppet President - No Problem! (Remember - these are the same people who attacked the United States at Fort Sumter in 1861, setting off the Civil War): they NEVER gave a shit about Democracy, the Constitution, or any of that stuff. As long as you are against Niggers, Jews, (it USED to be Communists too), but clearly no more: and Non-Albinos in general, you are okay with the Rabble.


The problem is that normal Albinos, having seen the ascending power of the Black electorate, are nervous themselves. This is evident in their efforts to fund programs to "Turn" or appeal to Suburban Rabble Albino voters (it won't work), rather than fund programs to "Dismantle" Gerrymandered districts, repeal Voter ID laws, End Purging of Blacks from Voter Rolls, and intimidation of Black voters at the Polls. While it is perfectly normal for Albinos to be nervous about Black power, they must constantly be reminded that the Rabble Albinos have PROVEN themselves to be a greater danger to them, and a civil life, than any other power. So if they want Civil Society’s, progressive governments, and care for all, they must fight their own sense of "Tribalism" and REJECT the Albino Rabble.

 

 

Yahoo News

 

Hate in America: Where it comes from and why it's back

Andrew Romano and Lisa Belkin

On Oct. 19, former President George W. Bush traveled to New York City to deliver a speech at an event dedicated to “The Spirit of Liberty: At Home, In the World.” His message was sobering. Most of the media focused on Bush’s “implicit rebukes” of the man who currently occupies his old office, Donald J. Trump: his barely veiled critiques of “conspiracy theories and outright fabrication”; of “bullying and prejudice in our public life”; of a “discourse degraded by casual cruelty.”


But less attention was paid to what might have been the most significant part of his speech. George W. Bush, the previous Republican president, was appearing on the political stage for one of the few times since leaving the White House nearly nine years ago – to announce that hate, of all things, was back. “We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism,” Bush lamented. “Bigotry seems emboldened.” The signs are insistent. The odious memes. The “Heil Trump” salutes. The racist graffiti. A rally to save a Confederate statue — and “unite the right” — that descended into violence, including the death of a young woman counter-protester. “Recently I was kind of introduced to the concept of activism and rallies,” says Gunther Rice, a 22-year-old New Jersey native who attended that deadly event in Charlottesville but was not implicated in the attack on the woman. “I’m like, ‘Wait, there’s a bunch of white nationalists that go out in public and speak and do all this cool stuff and cool events? Hell yeah.’”

The statistics tell a similar story. The most recent were released by the FBI just this week, the agency’s annual measure of the number of hate crimes reported in the United States the previous year. . The FBI defines a hate crime as “a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.” In 2016 there were 6,100 reported instances of people targeted based on their race, religion, sexuality, disability or national origin, an increase of 300 over 2015, and like last year the overwhelming majority of those victims were targeted because of their race or religion. Of the 4,496 targeted because of their race, 50.2 percent were black or African-American. Of the 1,583 targeted because of their religion, 55 percent were Jewish and 25 percent were Muslim. This is the second year in a row that hate crime numbers have increased, reversing the trend of the preceding 20 years.


“I’m not surprised,” said Dr. Jeff McDevitt, an associate dean and director of the Institute on Race and Justice at Northeastern University who has worked with the FBI to train agents to identify hate crimes. The numbers are consistent with those reported in recent months by groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, he says, as well as by cities and other municipalities. In fact, their numbers for 2017 are looking worse: In America’s six largest cities, more than 525 hate crimes have been committed so far this year, up 22 percent from the same period in 2016. “The reason I’m not surprised is this is just another indication of a coarsening of relations in America in the past year or two, particularly aimed at people of color and certain religious groups.”

Still, hearing a former leader of the free world concede that hate is having a moment? That’s a turning point — an admission that’s impossible to ignore. Why is this happening? And why now? Haven’t we put hate — the bigotry that Bush denounced as a “blasphemy against the American creed” — behind us? The answer, sadly, is no. Hatred of outsiders has been a cyclical thing in America, and we seem to be in such a cycle now. Economic and social insecurity fuels bigotry, and new forms of communication — the internet, especially — helps it spread. But psychologists and sociologists over the last few decades have begun to understand the qualities that make a person susceptible to what was once called “xenophobia,” meaning fear of outsiders — a useful term that perhaps deserves to be resurrected in Trump-era America. And understanding how people are recruited into hate is a first step in combating it.


Hate in America began even before there was an America. Among Benjamin Franklin’s many written rants against what he called the “Stupid, Swarthy Germans,” was this: “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.” The new nation, he wrote, should be a haven for “the … purely white People in the World”, because so many other places were “black or tawny” [Africa], “chiefly tawny” [Asia], or “swarthy” [most of Europe, including Spain, Italy, France, Russia, and — to the puzzlement of historians for centuries, Sweden.) It is only logical to distrust those who look different, he argued, because “I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.” (Please see other sections of Realhistory for the complete text of Franklin’s essay).


This wariness of “the other” is one of the entwined threads that form the foundational myths of the country — of a melting pot contains within it an assumption that blending in rather than standing out is what is valued; the ideal of pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps assumes an upper and lower rung of social order with membership rules determined by those already at the top. And so any graph of America’s emotional temperature over time would show periods of exclusion punctuated by spikes of outright hate. As a consensus begins to emerge among experts that the friction we’re now experiencing, from Charlottesville, Va., to Berkeley, Calif., may represent yet another one of those hateful peaks, it’s worth considering what the present moment has in common with the past, and how it differs. The lesson learned from such a look is that while history and psychology act on our prejudices in predictable ways, hate manifests itself differently in every era.

Today’s haters — the white-nationalist radicals of the so-called alt-right — are not nearly as powerful as Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, or as pervasive as the small-town bigots of the Jim Crow South. But that doesn’t mean they’re harmless. Like all waves of hate, this newest one comes with distinct origins and unique challenges. Specifically, the rise of the alt-right has been enabled by changing norms and technology that make it easier to become radicalized in the first place. In fact, the rise of hate within America shares roots with the rise of hate toward America; the same tools and trends are helping to facilitate both terrorism and nativism. Hate, in short, is becoming more accessible than ever before — and that poses a distinctive, and particularly insidious, threat.

“The capacity to hate is relatively constant,” says Brian Balogh, a history professor at the University of Virginia and a host of “Backstory,” a popular history podcast. “But there are certain circumstances that tend to bring it front and center.” Hate has been simmering under the surface of American life since the beginning. There have been ebbs and flows of xenophobia, directed at specific groups, such as the Chinese, the targets of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. But historians generally agree that America has endured four especially hateful eras — and that each of them can help us figure out what’s happening today.


The first began during Reconstruction, when the Ku Klux Klan emerged in the defeated South, its malice aimed at freed slaves who were exercising newly granted rights. Next, the early 1920s, when Klan activity increased again, now directed at recent immigrants — particularly Catholics and Jews from Southern and Eastern Europe. Those years marked the first era that immigration quotas were established in the U.S. Third, the “Great Deportations,” also known as the “Mass Deportations” of the Depression Era. In this little-remembered episode during the 1930s, more than half a million Mexican immigrants – including one-third of the entire Mexican population of Los Angeles — were repatriated by the Hoover administration. Among these were hundreds of thousands of children who were born in the U.S. and therefore American citizens. These were followed in the next decade by the Japanese internment camps during World War II.

Then came the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, when the two steps forward in voting rights and housing and school desegregation sparked the one bloody and chilling step backward of racial reaction: lynching’s in the South and race riots in the North. Carol Anderson, chair of African-American studies at Emory University and the author of the book “White Rage,” offered some examples in a recent essay: “The ‘Heil Trump’ salutes at a gathering of white nationalists shortly before the inauguration. An uptick in reported hate crimes across the country. The killing of Lt. Richard Collins by a white supremacist in Maryland. The double homicide and severe wounding of good Samaritans defending teen girls in Portland [Ore.] from another white supremacist. The nooses found at and near the National Museum of African American History and Culture.” Any analysis of American hate, therefore, requires parsing what these eras do and do not have in common.

Albert Camarillo, an emeritus professor of history at Stanford University,who specializes in the study of American minorities, believes all hateful chapters start with the same stewing “intolerance, a hatred, a feeling of ‘our problems are caused by someone else and something needs to be done about that.’ That’s fundamental whether you’re talking about the 1860s or the 1960s or the times between and since.”

 

Addendum to this article: Four voices of white nationalism

we spoke to four individuals caught up in this movement. From a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard to a 22-year-old ex-“social justice warrior,” each described a combination of factors that — despite their varying ages and diverse upbringings — led all four of them on the path to white nationalism.

 

<< Click here for the News article >>

Caitlin DicksonReporter
Yahoo News - November 15, 2017

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

The above News article and others like it are not offered because they are necessarily "True". But rather to give the intelligent Black a reference point between: What a Normal Albino says (this article), What a degenerate Rabble Albino says: And the TRUTH!

Note that nowhere in the above article did anyone give the true cause of today's increase in Racism: That is - the ascension of Black political power starting with the election of Bill Clinton, and culminating in the election of Barack Obama.

 

 

 

 

 

The Nationalist's Delusion:

Trump’s supporters backed a time-honored American political tradition,

disavowing racism while promising to enact a broad agenda of discrimination.

 

 

The Atlantic

Adam Serwer Nov 20, 2017


THIRTY YEARS AGO, nearly half of Louisiana voted for a Klansman, and the media struggled to explain why. It was 1990 and David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, astonished political observers when he came within striking distance of defeating incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston, earning 43 percent of the vote. If Johnston’s Republican rival hadn’t dropped out of the race and endorsed him at the last minute, the outcome might have been different. Was it economic anxiety? The Washington Post reported that the state had “a large working class that has suffered through a long recession.” Was it a blow against the state’s hated political establishment? An editorial from United Press International explained, “Louisianans showed the nation by voting for Duke that they were mad as hell and not going to take it any more.” Was it anti-Washington rage? A Loyola University pollster argued, “There were the voters who liked Duke, those who hated J. Bennett Johnston, and those who just wanted to send a message to Washington.” What message would those voters have been trying to send by putting a Klansman into office?


“There’s definitely a message bigger than Louisiana here,” Susan Howell, then the director of the Survey Research Center at the University of New Orleans, told the Los Angeles Times. “There is a tremendous amount of anger and frustration among working-class whites, particularly where there is an economic downturn. These people feel left out; they feel government is not responsive to them.”


Duke’s strong showing, however, wasn’t powered merely by poor or working-class whites—and the poorest demographic in the state, black voters, backed Johnston. Duke “clobbered Johnston in white working-class districts, ran even with him in predominantly white middle-class suburbs, and lost only because black Louisianans, representing one-quarter of the electorate, voted against him in overwhelming numbers,” The Washington Post reported in 1990. Duke picked up nearly 60 percent of the white vote. Faced with Duke’s popularity among whites of all income levels, the press framed his strong showing largely as the result of the economic suffering of the white working classes. Louisiana had “one of the least-educated electorates in the nation; and a large working class that has suffered through a long recession,” The Post stated.

{Comment - Once again we saw progressive Albinos lying about the true nature and intentions of the Albino Rabble. Why? Perhaps because they don't want to face the truth about their kind. Make no mistake, in racists movements, the MAJORITY of Albinos always participates}.


By accepting the economic theory of Duke’s success, the media were buying into the candidate’s own vision of himself as a savior of the working class. He had appealed to voters in economic terms: He tore into welfare and foreign aid, affirmative action and outsourcing, and attacked political-action committees for subverting the interests of the common man. He even tried to appeal to black voters, buying a 30-minute ad in which he declared, “I’m not your enemy.”


Duke’s candidacy had initially seemed like a joke. He was a former Klan leader who had showed up to public events in a Nazi uniform and lied about having served in the Vietnam War, a cartoonishly vain supervillain whose belief in his own status as a genetic Übermensch was belied by his plastic surgeries. The joke soon soured, as many white Louisiana voters made clear that Duke’s past didn’t bother them. (Ü·ber·mensch - the ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–85).


Many of Duke’s voters steadfastly denied that the former Klan leader was a racist. The St. Petersburg Times reported in 1990 that Duke supporters “are likely to blame the media for making him look like a racist.” The paper quoted G. D. Miller, a “59-year-old oil-and-gas lease buyer,” who said, “The way I understood the Klan, it’s not anti-this or anti-that.” Duke’s rejoinder to the ads framing him as a racist resonated with his supporters. “Remember,” he told them at rallies, “when they smear me, they are really smearing you.” The economic explanation carried the day: Duke was a freak creature of the bayou who had managed to tap into the frustrations of a struggling sector of the Louisiana electorate with an abnormally high tolerance for racist messaging.

While the rest of the country gawked at Louisiana and the Duke fiasco, Walker Percy, a Louisiana author, gave a prophetic warning to The New York Times. “Don’t make the mistake of thinking David Duke is a unique phenomenon confined to Louisiana rednecks and yahoos. He’s not,” Percy said. “He’s not just appealing to the old Klan constituency, he’s appealing to the white middle class. And don’t think that he or somebody like him won’t appeal to the white middle class of Chicago or Queens.”


A few days after Duke’s strong showing, the Queens-born businessman Donald Trump appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live. “It’s anger. I mean, that’s an anger vote. People are angry about what’s happened. People are angry about the jobs. If you look at Louisiana, they’re really in deep trouble,” Trump told King. Trump later predicted that Duke, if he ran for president, would siphon most of his votes away from the incumbent, George H. W. Bush—in the process revealing his own understanding of the effectiveness of white-nationalist appeals to the GOP base.


Was racism the driving force behind Trump’s candidacy? If so, how could Americans, the vast majority of whom say they oppose racism, back a racist candidate? During the final few weeks of the campaign, I asked dozens of Trump supporters about their candidate’s remarks regarding Muslims and people of color. I wanted to understand how these average Republicans—those who would never read the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer or go to a Klan rally at a Confederate statue—had nevertheless embraced someone who demonized religious and ethnic minorities.

What I found was that Trump embodied his supporters’ most profound beliefs—combining an insistence that discriminatory policies were necessary with vehement denials that his policies would discriminate and absolute outrage that the question would even be asked. It was not just Trump’s supporters who were in denial about what they were voting for, but Americans across the political spectrum, who, as had been the case with those who had backed Duke, searched desperately for any alternative explanation—outsourcing, anti-Washington anger, economic anxiety—to the one staring them in the face. The frequent postelection media expeditions to Trump country to see whether the fever has broken, or whether Trump’s most ardent supporters have changed their minds, are a direct outgrowth of this mistake. These supporters will not change their minds, because this is what they always wanted: a president who embodies the rage they feel toward those they hate and fear, while reassuring them that that rage is nothing to be ashamed of.


“I believe that everybody has a right to be in the United States no matter what your color, no matter what your race, your religion, what sex you prefer to be with, so I’m not against that at all, but I think that some of us just say racial statements without even thinking about it,” a customer-care worker named Pam—who, like several people I spoke with, declined to give her last name—told me at a rally in Pennsylvania. However, she also defended Trump’s remarks on race and religion explicitly when I asked about them. “I think the other party likes to blow it out of proportion and kind of twist his words, but what he says is what he means, and it’s what a lot of us are thinking.” Most Trump supporters I spoke with were not people who thought of themselves as racist. Rather, they saw themselves as antiracist, as people who held no hostility toward religious and ethnic minorities whatsoever—a sentiment they projected onto their candidate.


The specific dissonance of Trumpism—advocacy for discriminatory, even cruel, policies combined with vehement denials that such policies are racially motivated—provides the emotional core of its appeal. It is the most recent manifestation of a contradiction as old as the United States, a society founded by slaveholders on the principle that all men are created equal.


Trump has reneged or faltered on many of his biggest campaign promises—on renegotiating NAFTA, punishing China, and replacing the Affordable Care Act with something that preserves all its popular provisions but with none of its drawbacks. But his commitment to endorsing state violence to remake the country into something resembling an idealized past has not wavered. He made a farce of his populist campaign by putting bankers in charge of the economy and industry insiders at the head of the federal agencies established to regulate their businesses. But other campaign promises have been more faithfully enacted: his ban on travelers from Muslim-majority countries; the unleashing of immigration-enforcement agencies against anyone in the country illegally regardless of whether he poses a danger; an attempt to cut legal immigration in half; and

an abdication of the Justice Department’s constitutional responsibility to protect black Americans from corrupt or abusive police, discriminatory financial practices, and voter suppression. In his own stumbling manner, Trump has pursued the race-based agenda promoted during his campaign. As the president continues to pursue a program that places the social and political hegemony of white Christians at its core, his supporters have shown few signs of abandoning him.


One hundred thirty-nine years since Reconstruction, and half a century since the tail end of the civil-rights movement, a majority of white voters backed a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities, and stood by him as that pledge has been among the few to survive the first year of his presidency. Their support was enough to win the White House, and has solidified a return to a politics of white identity that has been one of the most destructive forces in American history. This all occurred before the eyes of a disbelieving press and political class, who plunged into fierce denial about how and why this had happened. That is the story of the 2016 election.


One of the first mentions of Trump in The New York Times was in 1973, as a result of a federal discrimination lawsuit against his buildings over his company’s refusal to rent to black tenants. In 1989, he took out a full-page newspaper ad suggesting that the Central Park Five, black and Latino youths accused of the assault and rape of a white jogger, should be put to death. They were later exonerated. His rise to prominence in Republican politics was first fueled by his embrace of the conspiracy theory that the first black president of the United States was not an American citizen. “I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding,” he said in 2011. “If he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics.”

The plain meaning of Trumpism exists in tandem with denials of its implications; supporters and opponents alike understand that the president’s policies and rhetoric target religious and ethnic minorities, and behave accordingly. But both supporters and opponents usually stop short of calling these policies racist. It is as if there were a pothole in the middle of the street that every driver studiously avoided, but that most insisted did not exist even as they swerved around it.

One measure of the allure of Trump’s white identity politics is the extent to which it has overridden other concerns as his administration has faltered. The president’s supporters have stood by him even as he has evinced every quality they described as a deal breaker under Obama. Conservatives attacked Obama’s lack of faith; Trump is a thrice-married libertine who has never asked God for forgiveness. They accused Obama of being under malign foreign influence; Trump eagerly accepted the aid of a foreign adversary during the election. They accused Obama of genuflecting before Russian President Vladimir Putin; Trump has refused to even criticize Putin publicly. They attacked Obama for his ties to Tony Rezko, the crooked real-estate agent; Trump’s ties to organized crime are too numerous to name.

Conservatives said Obama was lazy; Trump “gets bored and likes to watch TV.” They said Obama’s golfing was excessive; as of August Trump had spent nearly a fifth of his presidency golfing. They attributed Obama’s intellectual prowess to his teleprompter; Trump seems unable to describe the basics of any of his own policies. They said Obama was a self-obsessed egomaniac; Trump is unable to broach topics of public concern without boasting. Conservatives said Obama quietly used the power of the state to attack his enemies; Trump has publicly attempted to use the power of the state to attack his enemies. Republicans said Obama was racially divisive; Trump has called Nazis “very fine people.” Conservatives portrayed Obama as a vapid celebrity; Trump is a vapid celebrity.

There is virtually no personality defect that conservatives accused Obama of possessing that Trump himself does not actually possess. This, not some uncanny oracular talent, is the reason Trump’s years-old tweets channeling conservative anger at Obama apply so perfectly to his own present conduct.

Trump’s great political insight was that Obama’s time in office inflicted a profound psychological wound upon many white Americans, one that he could remedy by adopting the false narrative that placed the first black president outside the bounds of American citizenship. He intuited that Obama’s presence in the White House decreased the value of what W. E. B. Du Bois described as the “psychological wage” of whiteness across all classes of white Americans, and that the path to their hearts lay in invoking a bygone past when this affront had not taken place, and could not take place.


That the legacy of the first black president could be erased by a birther, that the woman who could have been the first female president was foiled by a man who confessed to sexual assault on tape—these were not drawbacks to Trump’s candidacy, but central to understanding how he would wield power, and on whose behalf. Americans act with the understanding that Trump’s nationalism promises to restore traditional boundaries of race, gender, and sexuality. The nature of that same nationalism is to deny its essence, the better to salve the conscience and spare the soul.


Among the most popular explanations for Trump’s victory and the Trump phenomenon writ large is the Calamity Thesis: the belief that Trump’s election was the direct result of some great, unacknowledged social catastrophe—the opioid crisis, free trade, a decline in white Americans’ life expectancy—heretofore ignored by cloistered elites in their coastal bubbles. The irony is that the Calamity Thesis is by far the preferred white-elite explanation for Trumpism, and is frequently invoked in arguments among elites as a way of accusing other elites of being out of touch.

Perhaps the most prominent data point for the Calamity Thesis is a pair of recent Brookings Institution studies by the professors Anne Case and Angus Deaton, which showed that life expectancy has fallen among less-educated white Americans due to what they call “deaths of despair” from drugs, alcohol, and suicide. While the studies themselves make no mention of Trump or the election, the effects they describe are frequently invoked as explanations for the president’s appeal: White people without college degrees are living in deprivation, and in their despair, they turned to a racist demagogue who promised to solve their problems. This explanation appeals to whites across the political spectrum. On the right, it serves as an indictment of elitist liberals who used their power to assist religious and ethnic minorities rather than all Americans; on the left, it offers a glimmer of hope that such voters can be won over by a more left-wing or redistributionist economic policy. It also has the distinct advantage of conferring innocence upon what is often referred to as the “white working class.” After all, it wasn’t white working-class voters’ fault. They were suffering; they had to do something.

Clinton defeated Trump handily among Americans making less than $50,000 a year. Among voters making more than that, the two candidates ran roughly even. The electorate, however, skews wealthier than the general population. Voters making less than $50,000, whom Clinton won by a proportion of 53 to 41, accounted for only 36 percent of the votes cast, while those making more than $50,000—whom Trump won by a single point—made up 64 percent. The most economically vulnerable Americans voted for Clinton overwhelmingly; the usual presumption is exactly the opposite.

{Exposing the Albino lie that out-of-work or underemployed Obama voters voted for Trump. As a point of fact, who but an idiot, an in-denial Albino, or a Rabble liar, would claim that Obama voters would EVER vote for a racist degenerate like Trump}.

If you look at white voters alone, a different picture emerges. Trump defeated Clinton among white voters in every income category, winning by a margin of 57 to 34 among whites making less than $30,000; 56 to 37 among those making less than $50,000; 61 to 33 for those making $50,000 to $100,000; 56 to 39 among those making $100,000 to $200,000; 50 to 45 among those making $200,000 to $250,000; and 48 to 43 among those making more than $250,000. In other words, Trump won white voters at every level of class and income. He won workers, he won managers, he won owners, he won robber barons. This is not a working-class coalition; it is a nationalist one.

One early use of economic anxiety as an explanation for the Trump phenomenon came from NBC News’s Chuck Todd, in July 2015. “Trump and Sanders supporters are disenchanted with what they see as a broken system, fed up with political correctness and Washington dysfunction,” Todd said. “Economic anxiety is fueling both campaigns, but that’s where the similarities end.”

In Black Reconstruction in America, W. E. B. Du Bois examined not only the acquiescence of Northern capital to Southern racial hegemony after the Civil War, but also white labor’s decision that preserving a privileged spot in the racial hierarchy was more attractive than standing in solidarity with black workers.

“North and South agreed that laborers must produce profit; the poor white and the Negro wanted to get the profit arising from the laborers’ toil and not to divide it with the employers and landowners,” Du Bois wrote. “When Northern and Southern employers agreed that profit was most important and the method of getting it second, the path to understanding was clear. When white laborers were convinced that the degradation of Negro labor was more fundamental than the uplift of white labor, the end was in sight.” In exchange, white laborers, “while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage.” For centuries, capital’s most potent wedge against labor in America has been the belief that it is better to be poor than to be equal to niggers.

Overall, poor and working-class Americans did not support Trump; it was white Americans on all levels of the income spectrum who secured his victory. Clinton was only competitive with Trump among white people making more than $100,000, but the fact that their shares of the vote was nearly identical drives the point home: Economic suffering alone does not explain the rise of Trump. Nor does the Calamity Thesis explain why comparably situated black Americans, who are considerably more vulnerable than their white counterparts, remained so immune to Trump’s appeal. The answer cannot be that black Americans were suffering less than the white working class or the poor, but that Trump’s solutions did not appeal to people of color because they were premised on a national vision that excluded them as full citizens.

 

When you look at Trump’s strength among white Americans of all income categories, but his weakness among Americans struggling with poverty, the story of Trump looks less like a story of working-class revolt than a story of white backlash. And the stories of struggling white Trump supporters look less like the whole truth than a convenient narrative—one that obscures the racist nature of that backlash, instead casting it as a rebellion against an unfeeling establishment that somehow includes working-class and poor people who happen not to be white. The nature of racism in America means that when the rich exploit everyone else, there is always an easier and more vulnerable target to punish. The Irish immigrants who in 1863 ignited a pogrom against black Americans in New York City to protest the draft resented a policy that offered the rich the chance to buy their way out; their response was nevertheless to purge black people from the city for a generation.


The nature of the partisan opposition to Obama altered white Republicans’ perceptions of themselves and their country, of their social position, and of the religious and ethnic minorities whose growing political power led to Obama’s election. Birtherism is rightly remembered as a racist conspiracy theory, born of an inability to accept the legitimacy of the first black president. But it is more than that, and the insistence that it was a fringe belief undersells the fact that it was one of the most important political developments of the past decade. Birtherism is a synthesis of the prejudice toward blacks, immigrants, and Muslims that swelled on the right during the Obama era: Obama was not merely black but also a foreigner, not just black and foreign but also a secret Muslim. Birtherism was not simply racism, but nationalism—a statement of values and a definition of who belongs in America. By embracing the conspiracy theory of Obama’s faith and foreign birth, Trump was also endorsing a definition of being American that excluded the first black president. Birtherism, and then Trumpism, united all three rising strains of prejudice on the right in opposition to the man who had become the sum of their fears. In this sense only, the Calamity Thesis is correct. The great cataclysm in white America that led to Donald Trump was the election of Barack Obama. History has a way of altering villains so that we can no longer see ourselves in them.


As the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, in his 1861 “Cornerstone Speech,” articulated that the principle on which the Confederate States had been founded was the “great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.” That principle was echoed by the declarations of secession from almost all of the Southern states.

Sitting in his cell at Fort Warren years later, the rebels defeated and the Confederacy vanquished, Stephens had second thoughts. He insisted in his diary, “The reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors.” In fact, Stephens wrote, he didn’t like slavery at all.

“My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished,” Stephens wrote. “Great improvements were, however, going on in the condition of blacks in the South … Much greater would have been made, I verily believe, but for outside agitation.”


Stephens had become first in line to the presidency of the Confederacy, an entity founded to defend white people’s right to own black people as chattel. But that didn’t mean he possessed any hostility toward black people, for whom he truly wanted only the best. The real problem was the crooked media, which had taken him out of context. The same was true of the rest of the South, he wrote, which had no love for the institution of slavery. “They were ready to sacrifice property, life, everything, for the Cause, which was then simply the right of self-government,” Stephens insisted. “The slavery question had but little influence with the masses.” Again, the problem, as he saw it, was a media that deliberately lied about the cause of disunion.


{Here we see an example of the Degenerate Albinos "melanin deficient brains" ability to completely ignore fact, and substitute in its stead, a Fantasy}.

 

Click here for the complete un-excerpted News Story: << Click >>

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Art of the Deal’ co-author says:

Trump is "half awed" and

"half frightened" by Black people.

 

 

HuffPost US

By Lee Moran, Nov. 23rd 2017

Donald Trump’s former ghostwriter Tony Schwartz has dissected the president’s attack on the father of a college basketball player. On Wednesday, the co-author of Trump’s 1987 book The Art of The Deal told CNN’s John Berman that POTUS’ feud with LaVar Ball stemmed from his perception of black people and his standard reaction to being under threat. Trump has traded insults in recent days with Ball, whose son LiAngelo Ball was one of the three UCLA basketball players detained in China earlier this month on shoplifting charges. Trump took credit for the trio’s release, but Ball dismissed his involvement. Berman asked whether Trump’s attack was down to “what LaVar Ball said or, as some are alleging, how he looks.”


“Both,” replied Schwartz. “So first of all, his father (LaVar Ball) is a tall black man and I think Trump is half awed and half frightened by black people and his only way of dealing with them is to attack them.”


“On the other hand, I think he has a zero tolerance for any criticism of any kind, that’s why he goes after anybody who says virtually anything about him that’s negative,” he added. Biographer Michael D’Antonio, who wrote The Truth About Trump, agreed with Schwartz’s analysis. “I think what Tony said was correct, that there are these dual motivations on his part,” he said. “On the one hand it is racial, on the other hand he has very thin skin.”

 

 

 

 

 

Final update for 2017

 


One of the reasons why “Real history World Wide” has been so successful in uncovering truth; is that we recognize ostensibly innocent data put out by the Albinos to be insights into what they are trying to hide. We use that data to create corollaries that can then be extrapolated to find new truth. Such is the case from this Washington Post story about the Nov. 2017 Alabama vote for U.S. Senate.

The Washington Post

Alabama presented the demographic nightmare that’s been looming for the Republican Party
By Philip Bump December 12

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/12/alabama-presented-the-demographic-nightmare-thats-been-looming-for-the-republican-party/?utm_term=.b02df8a0a033

 

Part of the story is this Pie Chart which says that Donald Trump received 87% of the White Vote in the 2016 Presidential election.

 

 

 

According to the Final Vote Update; published Jan. 2017: [Hillary Clinton 2016 = 65,844,954], [Donald Trump in 2016 = just 62,979,879], Remembering that Trump LOST the popular vote but WON the Presidential election through the "Electoral College".

 

Now let’s look at what the Census bureau says about the 2016 Presidential election.

 

[Total U.S. Population = 245,502,000] [Total Citizen Population: (This means actual number of U.S. citizens) = 224,059,000].


Total Citizen Population reported registered = 157,596,000 - 70.3%| Reported voted = 61.4%

Whites = 177,865,000 - total Reported registered = 127,463,000 - 71.7%| Reported voted = 62.9%

Blacks = 28,808.000 - total Reported registered = 19,984,000 - 69.4%| Reported voted = 59.4%

Hispanic = 26,662,000 - total Reported registered = 15,267,000 - 57.3%| Reported voted = 47.6%

Note: {Hispanic includes Blacks, Mulattoes, and to a lesser extent Whites}.

While at the same time, Hispanic Blacks and Mulattoes often declare themselves to be White.

 

 

Now let’s look at the data from this Politico article from October of 2016

Headline: America hits new landmark: 200 million registered voters

By SHANE GOLDMACHER 10/19/2016

 

The 2016 campaign may have reached dispiriting new lows, but voter registration in America has soared to new heights as 200 million people are now registered to vote for the first time in U.S. history. The milestone is a sign of the aggressive voter registration efforts ahead of Nov. 8 and a symptom of the fast-growing and demographically shifting electorate that is expected to redound to the benefit of the Democratic Party in the coming years. There is no current national database of voter registration because each state independently runs its own election. But TargetSmart, a Democratic political data firm, told POLITICO that the country passed the 200 million threshold in recent days as North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and New York reported new voter numbers.

Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, said national registration now stands at 200,081,377 voters. The figure means more than 50 million new people have registered to vote in the past eight years. Only 146.3 million were registered as recently as 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama first won the White House — a remarkable 33 percent surge in the electorate during a single presidency. The last time a Clinton was on the presidential ballot 20 years ago, the electorate was 127.6 million people. The wave of new voters this year has dramatically favored the Democratic Party, according to TargetSmart, which analyzed the expected party preferences of the new registrants in 15 of the first- and second-tier presidential battlegrounds.


Overall, TargetSmart found that 42.6 percent of the new voters registered this year lean Democratic, and only 29 percent lean Republican (28.4 percent lean independent). Worse for the GOP, registration trended more Democratic in every single battleground state, from a small margin in Georgia (4.3 percentage points) to massive leads in diversifying states like Colorado (29.3 points), Nevada (20.4 points) and North Carolina (9.2 points). And since June 1, the trend has been even more stark. In Virginia, TargetSmart’s data show only 11.7 percent of new registrants lean Republican — versus nearly 50 percent expected to lean Democratic. Across all 15 battlegrounds, the Democratic advantage is nearly 22 percentage points since June 1. “As we cross the threshold of 200 million registered voters for the first time, there are signs of an ever diversifying electorate, and one that is more favorable to Democratic candidates,” Bonier said.

In a study earlier this year, the Pew Research Center said that the 2016 electorate would be the “most racially and ethnically diverse ever,” forecasting 31 percent of the vote would come from ethnic minorities, up from 29 percent in 2012. “It remains to be seen how different demographics perform proportionally but we are very encouraged by the early signs that we have seen,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told reporters this week. Clinton is pushing aggressively for increased turnout among black, Asian-American and Hispanic voters. The electorate has been growing by leaps in recent years, with Hispanic population growth behind much of the surge. Two decades ago, in 1996, there were not even 200 million people of voting-age population in the United States, let alone registered voters. The Clinton campaign has been preparing for and predicting record-setting turnout this fall even amid widespread frustration about the tenor of the campaign. “We do expect more voters to turnout in this election than any in our history,” Mook told reporters this week. Previously, the biggest turnout in presidential election history came in 2008, when 131.4 million people voted (turnout dipped slightly to 129.2 million in 2012). By percentage, however, the share of eligible Americans who actually complete ballots is not expected to be anywhere near a record. It has been nearly a half-century since 60 percent of voting-age adults voted. That last happened in 1968.


BACK TO THE MATH!


People who voted for Donald Trump = 62,979,879. They say 87% of that number were WHITE. Therefore 54,792,494 were WHITE VOTERS, and 8,187,383 were "OTHER." The 2016 Presidential election was the most polarizing in history. Gone was any talk about coming together, almost ALL Whites voted for Donald Trump IN MASS! Gone was the lie that White Suburban Women were more "Racially Tolerant": because like White men, they voted for Trump in Mass! In fact, except for some Urban Whites, and the White intelligentsia: just about EVERY White voter in the United States voted for Donald Trump: yet they could only muster 62,979,879 votes. Now if we extrapolate that number out, that means that 72,390,665 Whites voted in the 2016 Presidential election.


Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from voting. In 2013, NEW discriminatory voter ID laws arose following the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which some argue amounted to voter suppression against African-Americans. And when all else fails, the Albinos will use BRUTE FORCE!


In 2001, the white mayor and the all-white Board of Aldermen for the small town of Kilmichael, Mississippi attempted to cancel an election shortly after black citizens became a majority of the registered voters. DOJ objected, finding the cancelation was designed to weaken African Americans’ voting strength. The town refused to reschedule the election until DOJ required it to hold one in 2003, when the town’s first African-American mayor and three African-American aldermen were elected. So from experience, we know that because of voter suppression by Albinos, and voter apathy among poor Blacks, Black voter turnout percentages will be much LOWER than White turnout percentages.


Point being...if 62,979,879 are 87% of the total 72,390,665 White votes cast in the 2016 election. Then what does Hillary Clintons 65,844,954 votes represent? We know that only 9,410,786 of them were WHITE votes. That means that 56,434,168 were Black, Hispanic, and Asian. The Asian population is small and Hispanic participation is even less than Blacks. That means that the great majority of those 56,434,168 voters were Black. And if less than 50% of ELEGIBLE Black voters actually Vote, that means that we are dealing with a probable Black electorate of perhaps 80,000,000 (you will remember that early on: immediately after the election, we calculated a Black electorate of approx. 75 million). And if we use THEIR number of 69% of Blacks are registered to vote (No way it’s that high), that means that we have a Black adult population of 115,942,028 in the United States.


As a reminder The U.S. Census says there are 177,865,000 Whites, 26,662,000 Hispanics, and 28,808.000 Blacks in the United States. Yet by using REAL numbers, we find that there are more than 115,942,028 Black adults in the United States. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the numbers say that even though Whites are a “Plurality” in the United States, they are certainly NOT the Majority of the population in the United States. If these numbers surprise you, then please go to the "Special Subject and in-house videos" page, and select the video titled "Naive - Thinking that Whites would tell you the truth".

 

 

 

 

 


News.com.au

Book suggests Donald Trump wasn’t serious about becoming president:


AN EXPLOSIVE new book by a Republican insider has revealed

the true story behind Donald Trump’s incredible election win.

Charis Chang news.com.au January 4, 2018

 

A NEW book on Donald Trump has revealed the businessman never expected to win the US election and the result was met with tears and disbelief. In his book Fire And Fury: Inside The Trump White House, Michael Wolff said Trump was described as looking like he had “seen a ghost” as it became clear the television personality had secured victory. “Shortly after 8pm on election night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost,” an excerpt published in New York Magazine reveals.

 

 


“Melania (Trump’s wife) was in tears — and not of joy”. Until the very end Wolff suggests that Trump’s team, and even Trump himself, saw losing as winning as they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or views. “His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared would be international celebrities. Steve Bannon would become the de facto head of the Tea Party movement. Kellyanne Conway would be a cable news star. Mr Trump reportedly never expected victory and was considering launching his own TV channel after defeat.


“Melania Trump, who had been assured by her husband that he wouldn’t become president, could return to inconspicuously lunching. Losing would work out for everybody. Losing was winning.” Wolff, a provocative author who has previously written a book on media mogul Rupert Murdoch and contributed to USA Today, Vanity Fair, Hollywood Reporter and New York Magazine, has been challenged before over the accuracy of quotes and the events he describes.


But so far many revelations are attributed to comments from Trump’s campaign chairman Steve Bannon, who has not yet denied their accuracy. It’s also based on more than 200 interviews as well as Wolff enjoying a “semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing”. The writer was reportedly even encouraged by the president himself. In the book, Wolff said Trump reportedly told his aid Sam Nunberg of the modest ambitions he had for his campaign: “I can be the most famous man in the world.” “His longtime friend Roger Ailes, the former head of Fox News, liked to say that if you want a career in television, first run for president,” the book states. “Now Trump, encouraged by Ailes, was floating rumors about a Trump network. It was a great future. He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunities. “‘This is bigger than I ever dreamed of,’ (Trump) told Ailes a week before the election. ‘I don’t think about losing, because it isn’t losing. We’ve totally won.’”


Trump was so convinced of his eventual loss that he was reluctant to put his own money into the campaign. He only provided $10 million as long as he got it back as soon as money could be raised elsewhere. But once the numbers started coming in on election night, Trump began to contemplate life in the White House. Steve Bannon described a “befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump”. But as the news began to wash over him, Trump changed. “Suddenly, Donald Trump became a man who believed that he deserved to be, and was wholly capable of being, the president of the United States.”


It also marked a transformation in the ambitions of those around him. The book suggests Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared decided to accept jobs at the White House, “over the advice of almost everyone they knew”, in the hope it would “catapult them into a heretofore unimagined big time”. “It was a joint decision by the couple, and, in some sense, a joint job,” the book said. “Between themselves, the two had made an earnest deal: If sometime in the future the opportunity arose, she’d be the one to run for president. The first woman president, Ivanka entertained, would not be Hillary Clinton; it would be Ivanka Trump.” (Steve Bannon once called President Donald Trump's daughter and White House adviser Ivanka Trump "dumb as a brick", according to the latest excerpt).

 

 

 


However, Trump’s apparent plan for failure caused complications for the businessman once he was in the Oval Office. “Almost everybody on the Trump team, in fact, came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president once he was in office. “Michael Flynn, the retired general who served as Trump’s opening act at campaign rallies, had been told by his friends that it had not been a good idea to take $45,000 from the Russians for a speech. “‘Well, it would only be a problem if we won,’ ¬Flynn assured them.” Trump himself refused to release his tax returns or consider potential conflict of interest questions impacting on his own business deals and real estate holdings. “Why should he? Once he lost, Trump would be both insanely famous and a martyr to Crooked Hillary,” the book said. And even though the accidental president gradually came to embrace his success, he struggled to enjoy it. "Trump did not enjoy his own inauguration,” the book states. “He was angry that A-level stars had snubbed the event, disgruntled with the accommodations at Blair House, and visibly fighting with his wife, who seemed on the verge of tears. Throughout the day, he wore what some around him had taken to calling his golf face: angry and pissed off, shoulders hunched, arms swinging, brow furled, lips pursed.”


He was also poorly prepared to adapt to a new life in the White House. “Trump, in fact, found the White House to be vexing and even a little scary. He retreated to his own bedroom — the first time since the Kennedy White House that a presidential couple had maintained separate rooms. “In the first days, he ordered two television screens in addition to the one already there, and a lock on the door, precipitating a brief standoff with the Secret Service, who insisted they have access to the room. “He ¬reprimanded the housekeeping staff for picking up his shirt from the floor: ‘If my shirt is on the floor, it’s because I want it on the floor.’ Then he imposed a set of new rules: Nobody touch anything, especially not his toothbrush. (He had a longtime fear of being poisoned; one reason why he liked to eat at McDonald’s — nobody knew he was coming and the food was safely premade.) Also, he would let housekeeping know when he wanted his sheets done, and he would strip his own bed.”


Clearly, neither Donald Trump, his family, or any sensible person in the whole World, though that Americas Albinos would carry their outrage and anger over a Black President (Barack Obama): so far as to elect an imbecile like Donald Trump, President of the United States, based solely on his Racism. But you might remember that these are the same type people, who started Americas "Bloodiest War" (the Civil War), not for their own benefit, over 85% of them DIDN'T OWN SLAVES, they simply liked the idea of a White southern aristocracy, and the ability to feel that they were superior to Blacks. Normal people don't think those are ideas worth fighting, killing, and dying for. But clearly their Brainpower has not increased. So an incompetent President, a Money Laundering President, a Treasonous Presidential Family, are all things not worth worrying about. These people never cared about the United States as a Whole, or that pretentious thing called the Constitution. No, their concern is their Fear of Blacks, and their never ending battle to "feel" superior to them.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

 

The Telegraph


Donald Trump says Steve Bannon has 'lost his mind'

after former aide attacks president's son for 'treasonous' meeting

By Ben Riley-Smith, 4 January 2018

Mr. Bannon said a meeting Mr. Trump’s son Donald Jr had with Russian figures in Trump Tower was “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to a copy seen by the Guardian. The meeting, which took place before the election, is seen as key to the FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the campaign. He is also quoted as saying Mr. Trump repeatedly tried to meet Vladimir Putin but that the Russian president “couldn’t give a s--- about him”, according to an extract in New York Magazine.


Said Bannon: The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately. Bannon goes on to say that such a treasonous meeting should have taken place away from Trump Tower with people who could provide deniability to the campaign, after which you'd launder the information through the media. He added, “The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.”

 

 


Steve Bannon says Donald Trump Jr. will 'crack like an egg' under Russia investigation pressure. Bannon has criticized Trump’s decision to fire Comey. In Wolff’s book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced. “You realize where this is going,” he is quoted as saying. “This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner … It’s as plain as a hair on your face.” Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: “It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They’re going to go right through that. They’re going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me.” Scorning apparent White House insouciance, Bannon reaches for a hurricane metaphor: “They’re sitting on a beach trying to stop a Category Five.”

Top White House officials derided President Donald Trump for his intelligence, according to claims in the upcoming book. Michael Wolff's book, "Fire and Fury," describes colorful comments made by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, former chief of staff Reince Priebus, chief economic advisor Gary Cohn and national security advisor H.R. McMaster. "There was now a fair amount of back-of-the-classroom giggling about who had called Trump what. For Steve Mnuchin and Reince Priebus, he was an 'idiot.' For Gary Cohn, he was 'dumb as shit.' For H.R. McMaster he was a 'dope.' The list went on," an excerpt reads, according to NBC. The book, set to be released Tuesday, follows reports this summer that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the president a "moron." Tillerson has not specifically denied making that comment.

 


_______________________________________________________________________________

 

 

HUFFPOST


Some Trump Supporters Think Mueller’s Grand Jury Has Too Many Black People


The racist attack on the federal grand jury in D.C.

adds to the ways the president’s backers are trying to discredit the Russia probe.

By Ryan J. Reilly - 01/03/2018

 

 

WASHINGTON ― Supporters of President Donald Trump have opened a new line of attack on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election: They think special counsel Robert Mueller’s federal grand jury has too many black people on it. A Trump associate who “recently testified” complained to New York Post columnist Richard Johnson that the members of the grand jury in Washington looked like they came from a Black Lives Matter protest. “The grand jury room looks like a Bernie Sanders rally,” the witness told Page Six. “Maybe they found these jurors in central casting, or at a Black Lives Matter rally in Berkeley.”

The complainant contended that 11 of the 20 grand jurors in the room during the testimony were African-Americans, which isn’t a surprising figure because it roughly lines up with the percentage of black residents of the District of Columbia. The witness also told Page Six that there “was only one white male in the room, and he was a prosecutor.” If the witness recently testified before the grand jury, which is charged with determining whether there’s probable cause to indict any additional Trump campaign figures, that witness presumably knows a lot about what precisely the grand jury inquiry is focused on at this point. But instead of pursuing that story, Page Six gave a sympathetic airing to the witness’s complaints about the racial makeup of the grand jury ― though the story did include a “racism” tag.

The complaint about who serves on the D.C. grand jury was clearly a bad faith argument from someone who appears sympathetic to Trump and ― based on the fact that they were called to testify ― may have information of interest to Mueller’s team. Natasha Bertrand, a reporter for Business Insider, tweeted that she was pitched the story about the grand jury’s racial makeup about a month ago and “genuinely thought the person was joking.” Yet the Page Six column quickly gained traction in conservative media circles Tuesday night.

Gateway Pundit wrote that the Page Six report indicated the grand jury was completely biased “and full of liberal hacks who most likely hate President Trump” and said it was “way past time for the unconstitutional witch hunt to be shut down.” Setting aside the precise demographics of this particular grand jury, it’s no secret that a selection of D.C. voters isn’t likely to include many Trump fans. The president received just 4.1 percent of the District’s votes in 2016, 90.9 percent of which went to Hillary Clinton. Page Six reported that the grand jury “doesn’t appear to include any supporters of President Donald Trump,” an assertion evidently based upon a Trump associate’s assumptions about the individuals in the room.

But the complaints about the racial makeup of the jury seize upon widespread misunderstanding of the role of a federal grand jury and represent an attack on a fundamental component of the federal criminal justice system that you wouldn’t typically expect to hear from supporters of a president who ran a “law and order” campaign. The witness who testified before the grand jury complained to Page Six that it wasn’t “a room where POTUS gets a fair shake.” It is not, nor is it set up to be. Nobody gets a “fair shake” before a grand jury because its role is to serve as a (relatively weak) check on prosecutors, not to determine whether defendants are guilty of a crime.

More broadly, the attacks on the grand jury fit into a larger pattern of Trump supporters undermining the entire Russia investigation by attacking Justice Department employees, the FBI and, most recently, Mueller ― a Republican former FBI director appointed as special counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, also a Republican. On Tuesday, Trump tweeted his complaints about the “deep state” Justice Department and called for it to jail a former top Clinton aide. The complaints about the racial makeup of the grand jury might give him new ammunition.

 

 

 

 

 

Backing up our claims of Stupidity:

 

Some may recall that early-on, after Trumps victory, some liberal Albinos like Michael Moore attributed Trumps victory to "Working Class White" voters who SWITCHED from Obama to Trump. We laughed at that stunning bit of nonsense and Naiveté. But understood it for what it was, People who consider themselves champions of "Working Class Whites" being so eager to think well of their brethren, that they happily picked-up on revisionist explanations for the election outcome.

The fact is that common sense would tell anyone willing to think about it, that there is no way that an Obama voter of reasonable intelligence would ever vote for Trump. Jobs? Republicans promised more jobs as a rouse, the Obama Job market was already great: Coal miners were too few to make any difference. The proof is that the number of Democratic as well as Republican Election Voters went UP: from the norm, except for 2008, when Obama’s numbers reached new heights never before or after achieved. Imagine - A White person who voted for the countries first BLACK president, then turning around and voting for an obvious RACIST like Donald Trump. The very idea is preposterous!

 

THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE!

2004 Election totals: George W. Bush = 62,040,610 - 50.73%| John Kerry = 59,028,444 - 48.27%| Total U.S vote = 122,294,846

Hillary Clinton 2016 = 65,844,954


Donald Trump in 2016 = just 62,979,879| (Trump lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College vote).

Total U.S vote in 2016 = 136,669,237 (Add Libertarians, Green Party, Independents).

Please note: 14,374,391 more Americans voted in 2016 than in 2004 - BUT Republican (White) numbers STAYED THE SAME!

 

__________________________________________________

 

Here at Real History, we often speak of the abject stupidity of the Albino Rabble.

This Politico Magazine article does a great job of identifying and detailing those stupidities.

 


HOWEVER: though the following is about "the White Working Class" Trumps victory was a COMPLETE White Effort. Over 80% of the United States White people Voted for Donald Trump! That includes Rich and Poor, Suburbanites and Rural. The only White group which didn't go overwhelmingly for Trump, was Urban Whites, we think - those numbers have yet to be parsed.

 

Politico Magazine


Does the White Working Class Really Vote Against Its Own Interests?
Trump’s first year in office revived an age-old debate about why some people choose race over class—and how far they will go to protect the system.

By JOSHUA ZEITZ - December 31, 2017

As his first year in the White House draws to a close, Donald J. Trump remains in almost every respect a singular character. He exists well outside the boundaries of what most observers previously judged possible, let alone respectable, in American politics. To catalogue the norms he has violated, the traditions he has traduced or trampled, and the rules—written and unwritten—that he has either cunningly sidestepped or audaciously blown to smithereens would require volumes. Love him or loathe him, Trump operates apart from history.

Yet if Trump defies history, paradoxically, he has also resurfaced questions that historians have long debated, including some that many considered settled for many years. In this sense, Trump hasn’t just defied history; he has changed it—and he has changed the way that we think about it, forcing us to look back on our past with a new lens. This Politico Magazine series, to be published in three installments over the next few weeks, will look at three historical debates that simmered on low heat for years, until the historic presidential election of November 2016 brought them back to a boil. These debates are foundational. They concern race and identity. National character. The dark side of populism. They drive at the core meaning of American citizenship.


The first in this series, perhaps the most fundamental, centers around the white working class. Are working-class white voters shooting themselves in the foot by making common cause with a political movement that is fundamentally inimical (harmful) to their economic self-interest? In exchange for policies like the new tax bill, which several nonpartisan analyses conclude will lower taxes on the wealthy and raise them for the working class, did they really just settle for a wall that will likely never be built, a rebel yell for Confederate monuments most of them will never visit, and the hollow validation of a disappearing world in which white was up and brown and black were down? If they did accept that bargain, why? Or are we missing something? Might working-class whites in fact derive some tangible advantage from their bargain with Trump? Is it really so irrational to care more about, say, illegal immigration than marginal income tax rates?

 

 


These are good questions. They’re also not new ones. The historian W.E.B. Du Bois asked them more than 80 years ago in his seminal work on Reconstruction, when he posited that working-class Southern whites were complicit, or at least passive instruments, in their own political and economic disenfranchisement. They forfeited real power and material well-being, he argued, in return for the “psychological” wages associated with being white. Since then, the issue has inspired a vibrant debate among historians. Until last year, most agreed with Du Bois that the answer to the question was not so simple as “yes” or “no”—that whiteness sometimes conferred benefits both imaginary and real. In the age of Trump, we’re once again pressure-testing Du Bois’ framework. As one might expect, it’s complicated. White identity pays dividends you can easily bank, and some that you can’t.

 

 


In 1935 Du Bois published his most influential treatise, Black Reconstruction, a reconsideration of the period immediately following the Civil War. One of the historical quandaries that Du Bois addressed was the successful effort of white plantation owners in the 1870s and ’80s to build a political coalition with poor, often landless, white men to overthrow biracial Reconstruction governments throughout the South.“ The theory of laboring class unity rests upon the assumption that laborers, despite internal jealousies, will unite because of their opposition to the exploitation of the capitalists,” wrote Du Bois, who trained at both the University of Berlin and Harvard, and whose grounding in Marxist political economy taught him to view politics through the lens of different but fixed stages in capitalist development. “This would throw white and black labor into one class,” he continued, “and precipitate a united fight for higher wages and better working conditions.”


That, of course, is not what happened. In most Southern states, poor whites and wealthy whites forged a coalition that overthrew biracial Reconstruction governments and passed a raft of laws that greatly benefited plantation and emerging industrial elites at the expense of small landowners, tenant farmers and factory workers. “It failed to work because the theory of race was supplemented by a carefully planned and slowly evolved method,” Du Bois wrote, “which drove such a wedge between white and black workers that there probably are not today in the world two groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and fear each other so deeply and persistently and who are kept so far apart that neither sees anything of common interest.”

Du Bois famously posited that “the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white.” Decades before so many white working-class citizens of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin—to say nothing of Alabama, West Virginia and Mississippi—cast their lot with a party that endeavors to raise their taxes and gut their health care, Du Bois identified the problem: Some wages aren’t denominated in hard currency. They carry a psychological payoff—even a spiritual one.


The most obvious time and place to pressure-test Du Bois’ theory is the Jim Crow South. In the 60-odd years between the collapse of Reconstruction and World War II, the South—still reeling from the Civil War, in which it lost the present-day equivalent of approximately $5.5 trillion in real property and wealth—slipped into a semi-permanent state of economic crisis.

In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt declared the region “the Nation’s No. 1 economic problem.” It was, as historian Gavin Wright famously observed, a “low-wage region in a high-wage country,” one where two-thirds of the population lived in small towns of fewer than 2,500 people, derived meager incomes from agriculture, mining or manufacturing, and even in the midst of a national depression, stood out for poor health, want of education and lack of opportunities for upward mobility.


The vast majority of farmers, black and white, were tenants or sharecroppers, and repressive poll taxes disenfranchised not just black men and women, but also poor white people. Designed by wealthy plantation owners and industrialists, the poll tax was expressly a class measure, meant to preserve the region’s prevailing low-tax, low-wage, low-service economy. It was more ingenious and insidious than many people today realize. In Mississippi and Virginia, it was cumulative for two years; if a tenant farmer or textile worker couldn’t pay in any given year, not only did he miss an election cycle, he had to pay a full two years’ tax to restore his voting rights. In Georgia, the poll tax was cumulative from the time a voter turned 21 years old—meaning, if one missed 10 years, he or she would have to pay a decade’s worth of back taxes before regaining the right to vote. In Texas, the tax was due on February 1, in the winter off-season, when farmers were habitually strapped for cash. It was, as one Southern liberal observed at the time, “like buying a ticket to a show nine months ahead of time, and before you know who’s playing, or really what the thing is all about.”


Little wonder that in 1936, three of four voting-age adults outside the South participated in the presidential election, but in the South, just one in four cast ballots. The system kept men like Eugene Cox, a conservative Democrat who held the powerful post of House Rules Committee chairman, in power. In 1938, Cox won reelection with 5,137 votes, though his district in southwest Georgia had a total population of 263,606 residents. Yet when working-class Southern whites could participate in the political process, they often jettisoned their natural class interests in favor of racial solidarity. Historians have focused special attention on the rise and fall of the Readjuster movement, a biracial coalition that controlled the Legislature, governor’s office and most federal posts in Virginia from 1879 to 1883. Forged in opposition to a conservative Democratic establishment that had shuttered schools, imposed regressive taxes and favored creditors over debtors, the alliance passed a raft of measures that presaged much of the Populist movement’s agenda in coming years. For a time, it held. But in 1883, Democrats campaigned with intense focus on the issue of inter-marriage and miscegenation—a rare phenomenon that nevertheless struck a raw nerve with white workers and farmers. They warned that Readjuster rule would result in “mixed schools now and mixed marriages for the future.” It worked. Conservative “Bourbon” Democrats regained control of state government and reintroduced regressive, one-party rule that benefited a small minority of Virginians.


To reduce Jim Crow politics to a single trajectory is to oversimplify a complicated story. But the problem of white working-class Southerners bedeviled generations of liberal activists and historians. When the labor federation Congress of Industrial Organizations launched Operation Dixie, a massive effort to unionize Southern workers in the mid-1940s, organizers ran into the same wall: Conservative politicians and their wealthy patrons successfully used race as a cudgel to turn white workers away from collective bargaining agreements that would have raised their wages. Even those Southern populists who ostensibly opposed Bourbon rule—from Georgia’s Tom Watson in the early 20th century to Mississippi’s Theodore Bilbo in the 1930s—more often flipped the playbook and used race as a blunt instrument against their elite opponents.

Southern liberals in the 1930s and ’40s applied a sharp class focus and concluded that wealthy Democrats wanted, in historian Gavin Wright’s words, to keep labor “cheap and divided.” The white liberal writer Lillian E. Smith famously captured this thinking in her short story “Two Men and a Bargain,” which began: “Once upon a time, down South, a rich white man made a bargain with a poor white ... ‘You boss the nigger, and I’ll boss the money.’”


Critically, Du Bois never insisted that the psychological wages of whiteness were wholly devoid of tangible value. What they forfeited in material benefits, working-class whites also recouped in limited power and privilege. “They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools,” he wrote. “The police were drawn from their ranks. … The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule. On the other hand, the Negro was subject to insult; was afraid of mobs; was liable to the jibes of children and the unreasoning fears of white women; and was compelled almost continuously to submit to various badges of inferiority.” You couldn’t necessarily buy groceries with these benefits, but they were palpably meaningful.


David Roediger, a historian of class and race who writes with a Marxian lens, emphasized exactly this point in his classic volume, The Wages of Whiteness, published in 1991 (the title was a direct tribute to Du Bois). He encouraged a generation of scholars to consider that working-class whites may not have been unwitting dupes in their own economic subjugation; instead, they knowingly harvested certain real advantages of whiteness. While this pattern was most visible in the South, it also deeply influenced political culture in the North and West, where whiteness was no less central to popular conceptions of American citizenship. And Roediger’s focus was on Northern workers in antebellum cities—workers undergoing the jarring transition from pre-industrial forms of work and leisure to a more regimented existence as wage laborers.


The workers whom Roediger describes, and whom dozens more scholars would similarly study, understood that American citizenship was predicated on race and independence; Congress, after all, had opened citizenship to all “free white persons” in 1790. That law remained on the books into the 20th century. But what did it mean to be “white?” Congress never made that point clear. Indeed, there was no immediate consensus that certain new immigrants met the qualification. And what did it mean to be “free?” Their new status as wage earners—economically dependent on other men to earn a living—seemingly made many working men and women something less than free. Many non-black workers keenly understood that they might be left outside the boundaries of citizenship. They also resented new forms of industrial discipline that their employers foisted onto them. Many addressed these anxieties by drawing a sharp dichotomy between white and black—citizen and slave—and placing themselves on one side of that divide.


They became avid purveyors of blackface minstrelsy—a popular form of entertainment in which working-class whites reveled in watching other working-class whites apply burnt cork to their faces and act out what the historian George Rawick (writing more generally about early American racism) described as a “pornography of [their] former [lives].” The black characters they portrayed on stage were shiftless, sexually promiscuous and rowdy; they reveled in pre-industrial activities like hunting. They were coarse. In short, they deflected on black people, both slave and free, the very same social demerits that wealthier whites—who were trying to impose new discipline on the urban working class—ascribed to them.
Playbills commonly “paired pictures of the performers in blackface and without makeup—rough and respectable,” Roediger observed. The former were labeled, “Plantation Darkeys.” The latter, “Citizens.” By culturally differentiating themselves from black people, actors and audience members alike established themselves as “free white persons.”

While it’s easy to imagine that working-class whites embraced the new racial dichotomy in order to enjoy leverage in the new urban job market, in many cases, black and white workers weren’t even in competition with each other. Many of the most popular blackface actors were former artisans and mechanics—coach makers, typesetters and wood craftsmen who were now increasingly likely to fall into “wage slavery.” They were unlikely to vie for employment with free black men, who were normally consigned to unskilled jobs as dockworkers, day laborers and (until Irish women displaced them) domestic servants.

 

The (White) Irish

One group that did sometimes compete for unskilled jobs with African-Americans were Irish immigrants. Regarded as racially suspect—depicted in political cartoons as dark and ape-like, and patently unqualified for citizenship—Irish immigrants became some of the most avid and violent practitioners of white identity politics. Even when they weren’t in direct competition with black men for jobs—as when a group of Irish hand-loom weavers was displaced by white Protestant weavers in Philadelphia in 1844—they donned blackface and mobbed their black neighbors. The point wasn’t to get their jobs back.

Indeed, more was at stake than cash wages. To achieve standing as free white persons—and to enjoy the many benefits of citizenship that accrued from that definition—working-class men in the antebellum era consciously asserted their white identity and set it apart from blackness through language, performance, politics and violence. To imagine that they didn’t understand the full impact of their decisions is to deny them any modicum of intelligence or agency.


If working-class whites historically derived both psychological and citizenship wages by privileging race over class, is it possible that they sometimes enjoyed real wages as well? Beginning 25 years ago, a rising generation of political historians including Thomas Sugrue, Kevin Kruse, Matthew Lassiter, Robert Self and Craig Steven Wilder concluded that they did. Giving special focus to labor and housing markets, they found that many working-class white families benefited directly from government policies that placed African-Americans at a disadvantage.

Take housing. Beginning in the 1930s, most mortgages were underwritten by the Federal Housing Administration, a federal agency that insured banks against losses from homeowners who defaulted on their loans. The FHA insured these mortgages in return for securing the banks’ pledge to provide home loans at low interest rates and to spread interest payments over at least 15 and as many as 30 years to pay back their loans. At minimal expense to the federal government and with only the pledge of default insurance, the FHA freed up unprecedented levels of capital and helped create a postwar social order in which 60 percent of American households owned and accumulated wealth in their own homes. In deciding whether or not to insure mortgages, the FHA rated every census tract in the country. Assuming that houses lost value in neighborhoods that were racially mixed or primarily populated by African-Americans and Latinos, the FHA assigned such areas lower scores or “redlined” them altogether, refusing to insure mortgages in these neighborhoods or insuring them on unfavorable terms. This meant that most black Americans could not secure mortgages, as their mere presence in a neighborhood would choke off affordable credit. In a perverse twist, black residents in many Northern cities had little recourse but to rent cramped, subdivided apartments in buildings whose white landlords often neglected repairs and upkeep, but the physical decay of their homes fed the white Americans’ suspicions that black residents chose to live in squalor.

It was not just a matter of housing. A powerful combination of private-sector discrimination and nepotism within trade unions had long excluded black workers from well-paid, blue-collar industries. As George Meany, the president of the AFL-CIO crassly admitted, “When I was a plumber, it never [occurred] to me to have niggers in the union!” Even in liberal bastions like New York City, African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s composed less than 5 percent of all dock workers, skilled machinists, electricians or unionized carpenters—the types of jobs that afforded non-college educated white men access to middle-class comfort and economic security in the post-war period. The black unemployment rate was double that of the city’s overall unemployment rate. And New York was better than most places. In Chicago, 17 percent of black adults in the early 1960s were unemployed. In Cleveland, 20 percent. In Detroit, 39 percent.

By the time federal and state officials got serious about enforcing fair employment laws in the 1970s, America’s manufacturing and extractive industries had already fallen into steady decline. In effect, two postwar forces most responsible for lifting millions of working-class families into middle-class comfort and privilege—the suburban housing boom and unionized blue-collar jobs—became available en masse to black Americans only as the post-war boom drew to a close.

This wasn’t a simple case of discrimination or inequality. Working-class white families affirmatively enjoyed what the historian George Lipsitz termed a “possessive investment in whiteness.” They availed themselves of the G.I. Bill’s housing and education benefits, paid for in part by black people’s taxes, at a time when black veterans faced sharp limitations on where (or whether) they could draw the same benefits. They accumulated equity in their suburban homes and used it to send their children to college or to save for their retirement. They enjoyed access to public services—from public schools and public trash collection, to clean water and sewage—that were deficient in majority-minority neighborhoods. These advantages conferred second-order benefits, including better health and a higher average life expectancy.

In other words, whiteness did pay real wages. It delivered an intergenerational advantage to those who were in a position to claim it. And white working-class Americans seemed on some level to understand it. When, in 1966, Lyndon Johnson attempted to ram through Congress a law banning racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing, white working-class voters revolted both in the streets and at the polls. (Ronald Reagan, a washed up former actor, unseated the otherwise popular incumbent governor of California, Pat Brown, largely by touting his opposition to the state’s open housing law.) That summer, when Martin Luther King Jr. led protests throughout the “bungalow belt” in Chicago’s working-class white neighborhoods and the nearby blue-collar suburb of Cicero, Polish, Italian and Irish residents who had once been staunch Democratic voters now erupted in fury. They pelted protesters with rocks and beat them with clubs amid cries of “White Power!”; “Burn them like Jews”; “We want Martin Luther Coon!”; “Roses are red, violets are black, King would look good with a knife in his back.”

Just a few years later, when the federal government began requiring that government contractors and industrial unions that did business with them begin making affirmative efforts to integrate their work forces, white voters gravitated to backlash politicians who promised to preserve their privilege in the job sector. Even as late as 1990, conservative Republican Senator Jesse Helms was able to make openly racist appeals on such grounds and pay no price. On the contrary, it was a winning formula.

 

 

In 1973 The Justice Department, sued Trump Management for discriminating against blacks. Both Fred Trump, the company’s chairman, and Donald Trump, its president, were named as defendants.


Trump’s response to the lawsuit can be seen as presaging his handling of subsequent challenges, in business and in politics. Rather than quietly trying to settle — as another New York developer had done a couple of years earlier — he turned the lawsuit into a protracted battle, complete with angry denials, character assassination, charges that the government was trying to force him to rent to “welfare recipients” and a $100 million countersuit accusing the Justice Department of defamation.

Internal Justice Department records, court documents and interviews with tenants, civil rights activists and prosecutors — uncovered a long history of racial bias at his family’s properties, in New York and beyond. That history has taken on fresh relevance with Mr. Trump arguing that black voters should support him over Hillary Clinton, whom he has called a bigot. When it was over, Mr. Trump declared victory, emphasizing that the consent decree he ultimately signed did not include an admission of guilt.

 

Consent Decree


A settlement of a lawsuit or criminal case in which a person or company agrees to take specific actions without admitting fault or guilt for the situation that led to the lawsuit.

A consent decree is a settlement that is contained in a court order. The court orders injunctive relief against the defendant and agrees to maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the settlement is followed. (Injunctive relief is a remedy imposed by a court in which a party is instructed to do or not do something. Failure to obey the order may lead the court to find the party in Contempt and to impose other penalties.) Plaintiffs in lawsuits generally prefer consent decrees because they have the power of the court behind the agreements; defendants who wish to avoid publicity also tend to prefer such agreements because they limit the exposure of damaging details. Critics of consent decrees argue that federal district courts assert too much power over the defendant. They also contend that federal courts have imposed conditions on state and local governments in Civil Rights Cases that usurp the power of the states.

 

The same dynamic that Du Bois grappled with is on display today. In breaking for Donald Trump and the GOP, working-class white voters are manifestly undercutting their economic self-interest. To be sure, Trump didn’t campaign like an archetypal GOP plutocrat. He railed against free trade and immigration, policies that many white working-class citizens believe, with some justification, have hurt their communities. He promised to bring back manufacturing and coal mining jobs, eliminate generous tax loopholes for wealthy families like his own, and—like Andrew Jackson, after whom he has patterned his presidency—privilege the many over the few.

But Democrats and Never Trump Republicans shouted at the top of their lungs that Trump’s campaign promises either weren’t possible or that they wouldn’t help working-class voters as much as he pledged. And they appear to have been right. The president recently signed into law a tax bill whose benefits, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the Congressional Budget Office, accrue principally to corporations and super-rich individuals; many middle-class and working-class families will ultimately face a tax hike. The administration and its congressional supporters have also taken steps to make health care less affordable or altogether inaccessible, destabilize retirement security for working-class families, and allow industrial polluters to despoil the air they breathe and the water they drink.

Despite what Trump said on the campaign trail, his agenda does little to help and much to hurt struggling white families. Of course, whiteness still delivers other dividends—as it always has. It makes one less likely to be killed by a police officer during a traffic stop. It enables white men to carry assault weapons (including long guns) in places of public accommodation, while a black man might be shot and killed by law enforcement officials merely for picking up a BB gun displayed on a sales rack at Walmart. It affords working-class white families the peace of mind that the government won’t invade homes or hospitals in pursuit of undocumented children or grandparents. Whiteness, in other words, continues to pay tangible benefits, and rightly or wrongly, it makes some sense that its primary beneficiaries are loath to support candidates who expressly promise to disrupt this privileged status.

Yet Trump has also, arguably more than any other candidate for president in the past hundred years (excepting third-party outliers like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace), played to the purely psychological benefits of being white. From his racially laden exhortations about black crime in Chicago and Latino gangs seemingly everywhere, to his attacks on an American-born federal judge of Mexican parentage and on Muslim gold star parents, he has paid the white majority with redemption and revanchism. Trump might be increasing economic inequality, but at least the working-class whites feel like they belong in Trump’s America. He urged them to privilege race over class when they entered their polling stations.


And it didn’t just stop there. As Ta-Nehisi Coates argues, Trump swept almost every white demographic group, forging a “broad white coalition that ran the gamut from Joe the Dishwasher to Joe the Plumber to Joe the Banker.” It’s not just blue-collar white people who seem blithely willing to sacrifice economic rationality for racial solidarity. After all, it arguably took a special kind of stupid for upper-middle class suburbanites in high-tax states to support a party that just raised their taxes.

(No, this wasn't a bait-and-switch. The GOP leadership has talked openly about eliminating deductions for state and local taxes since 2014). AND, cutting Social Security and Medicare, Programs that Working Class Whites desperately need! Doubt that the wages of whiteness will save them then.

 

 

____________________________________________________________

 

 

 

How the stupidity of the Albino Rabble,

effects Working Class Workers (of every color) Today!

 

Quote from the previous article: "To reduce Jim Crow politics to a single trajectory is to oversimplify a complicated story. But the problem of white working-class Southerners bedeviled generations of liberal activists and historians. When the labor federation Congress of Industrial Organizations launched Operation Dixie, a massive effort to unionize Southern workers in the mid-1940s, organizers ran into the same wall: Conservative politicians and their wealthy patrons successfully used race as a cudgel to turn white workers away from collective bargaining agreements that would have raised their wages. Even those Southern populists who ostensibly opposed Bourbon rule—from Georgia’s Tom Watson in the early 20th century to Mississippi’s Theodore Bilbo in the 1930s—more often flipped the playbook and used race as a blunt instrument against their elite opponents."

 

 

This is the result of that Stupidity...

 

 

THE WASHINGTON POST


Headline:

The richest 1 percent now owns more of the country’s

wealth than at any time in the past 50 years.

By Christopher Ingraham December 6, 2017

 


The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth, according to a new paper by economist Edward N. Wolff. That share is higher than it has been at any point since at least 1962, according to Wolff's data, which comes from the federal Survey of Consumer Finances. From 2013, the share of wealth owned by the 1 percent shot up by nearly three percentage points. Wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent, meanwhile, fell over the same period. Today, the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. That gap, between the ultrawealthy and everyone else, has only become wider in the past several decades.

 


Let's talk a bit about that wealth gap. Wealth, often described as net worth, describes how much stuff you actually have: It's the value of your assets minus the value of your debts. If you have a $250,000 house but you still owe $200,000 to the bank on it, and you have no other debts or financial assets, that means your net worth is $50,000. In the United States, the distribution of that wealth is even more skewed toward the top than the distribution of income. For the sake of illustration, let's say that America is a country of 100 people, and all of the wealth in the country — the homes and land and financial assets — is represented by 100 slices of pie.


 

That works out to an average of one slice of pie per person, which is exactly what everyone would get if we lived in a society where wealth was equally distributed. But that's not the society we live in, and indeed that's not the society that most of us want to live in either. People generally agree that if you work harder you're entitled to more of the pie, and that if you don't work at all, well, barring certain circumstances, no pie for you. In 2010, Michael Norton and Dan Ariely surveyed more than 5,500 people to find out how they thought wealth should be distributed in this country: How much of the pie should go to the top 20 percent of Americans, and to the next 20 percent, and so on, all the way down to the bottom of the distribution?

 

 

On average, respondents said that in an ideal world the top 20 percent of Americans would get nearly one-third of the pie, the second and middle quintiles would get about 20 percent each, and the bottom two quintiles would get 13 and 11 slices, respectively. In an ideal world, in other words, the most productive quintile of society would amass roughly three times the wealth of the least productive. Now, let's take a look at how the pie is actually distributed. These figures come from Wolff's working paper, and he expands on them further in his new book, "A Century of Wealth in America."

 

 

The top 20 percent of households actually own a whopping 90 percent of the stuff in America — 90 slices of pie! That's exactly 4½ slices per person, nearly triple their “ideal” share according to Norton and Ariely's survey respondents. Their average net worth? $3 million. That leaves just 10 percent of the pie for the remaining 80 percent of the populace. The next 20 percent of households (average net worth: $273,600) help themselves to eight slices, while the middle 20 percent ($81,700 net worth, on average) split a measly two slices. Don't go feeling too sorry for that middle quintile, though — at least they get some pie. The fourth quintile of households gets literally nothing: no pie. But they're still doing better than the bottom 20 percent of households, who are actually in a state of pie debt: Their net worth is underwater, meaning they owe more than they have. Combined, the average net worth of the bottom 40 percent of households is -$8,900. These figures, staggering as they are, mask a lot of the variation in the top 20 percent. Let's run those numbers again, breaking out some of the richest households separately.

 

 

 

There's the top 1 percent, gobbling up an astonishing 40 slices of American pie. The next 4 percent split 27 slices between them, while the next 5 percent take another 12 slices (a little over two slices per person). The bottom 10 percent of the top 20 percent get, on average, one slice of pie each. But don't feel too bad for them: Their net worth is, on average, about $740,800. Among rich nations, the United States stands out for the extent of its wealth inequality. The top 1 percent in the U.S. own a much larger share of the country's wealth than the 1 percent elsewhere. The American 1 percent gobble up twice as much pie (40 percent) as the 1 percent in France, the U.K., or Canada, and more than three times as much as the 1 percent in Finland.

 

 

This kind of extreme inequality is bad for the economy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which represents a number of the world's richest countries including the United States, estimates that inequality has knocked nearly five percentage points off the economic growth in those countries between 2000 and 2015. In high-inequality countries, people from poor households typically have less access to quality education. This leads to “large amounts of wasted potential and lower social mobility,” which directly harms economic growth, according to the OECD. If you were designing a tax plan to reduce the extreme inequality in the United States, you'd probably try to find ways to redistribute some of the wealth from the richest households to the poorest ones. But the Senate GOP tax plan does precisely the opposite of that, according to the CBO: In the short term the richest households get the biggest tax cuts, while longer term the taxes of the poorest households actually increase. Estate tax? Cut. Income tax rate for millionaires? Cut (at least in the Senate bill). Corporate tax rate? Biggest rate cut ever. In the long term that probably means more of the pie for the super-rich, and less of it for everyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

'White Racism' class at Florida University

will be guarded by police officers

By Greg Norman - Jan. 11, 2018 | Kristine Phillips - Jan. 11, 2018: et. al.

A Florida professor teaching a "White Racism" course designed to show "the U.S. has been and remains a white supremacist society” will have his classroom guarded by two police officers as his students meet for the first time Tuesday, the university has revealed. Ted Thornhill, an assistant professor of sociology at Florida Gulf Coast University, said out of an abundance of caution he sent campus police 46 pages of disturbing emails and voicemail messages he received after the class was announced, The News-Press of Fort Myers, Fla. reported.


"We have prepared for any possible distractions related to Tuesday's first class of the White Racism course, but we are expecting normal campus civility as our students engage in this and other courses at the spring semester's start," Susan Evans, FGCU's spokeswoman and chief of staff, told the newspaper. Thornhill said none of the messages threatened violence or a disruption of the class, but some called him racial slurs. A few prospective students told the professor they had safety concerns. "The number of emails I got pales in comparison to the thousands and thousands of comments and post on all manner of social media and traditional media outlet websites that said things that were unspeakable," he told The News-Press. A security plan was put in place after the professor met with FGCU’s president and other school officials. Administrators would not say if police will remain for the rest of the semester and campus police would not comment on the plan, The News-Press reported. "I think most of us don't anticipate there being any unrest or protest or anything like that," Thornhill said. "But it's more of a prudent measure to have law enforcement present just in case."

 

 

 

He called the reaction to the course "upsetting but perhaps not entirely surprising given the nature of these more rabid white racists." Thornhill told Fox News in November that his class is “about the search for truth” and any controversy around the title or description proves its “urgency.” “Too many Americans, especially whites, are cocooned in a ‘bubble of unreality’ as it concerns racial matters,” Thornhill said. Students will read “important scholarship” to “gain a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of race, white racism, racial inequality, and white supremacy,” in addition to challenging “widely and adamantly held, but empirically unsubstantiated myths about racial matters in the U.S.,” Thornhill added. Thornhill was adamant that the course isn’t “anti-white” but rather is “anti-white racism.” “Clearly, not all white people are racists; some are even anti-racist,” Thornhill said, though he added all white people “derive, in some measure, material and psychological benefits by virtue of being racialized as white.” The course was expanded from 35 to 50 students and is currently at capacity.


As was the case all over America as this type classes were created: Controversy over the class ballooned in late November after local media reported that it was being offered for the spring semester. Thornhill said that he had expected some grumblings but hadn’t foreseen such an uproar from many who saw the class as an affront to an entire race — and some who viewed it as a personal attack on them for being white. “It’s not simply the title. As a sociologist, I tell my students all the time, they need to depersonalize. It’s not all about you,” Thornhill said. “I’m not talking about specific white individuals. I’m talking about a group racialized as white. So many people in this hyperindividualized society, they tend to take all this personally. They think they’re being attacked.”


In a lengthy statement that Thornhill had released earlier, he said his course is not “anti-white” but “anti-white racism.” “Clearly, not all white people are racists; some are even anti-racist. However, all people racialized as white derive, in some measure, material and psychological benefits by virtue of being racialized as white,” he wrote. There are also the what-about questions. What about black racism? What about Latino racism? Blacks, Latinos and other people of color, indeed, can harbor racially prejudiced views, Thornhill said. “But sociologists study racism from a structural perspective. It’s about who has the power and the privilege, and it’s about the history of this country,” he said. “This country is founded in a particular way, based on genocide, colonization and enslavement, and you can’t escape that or pretend that time has rendered those historical facts inconsequential. Because it has not.”


For Alex Pilkington, treasurer for the group College Republicans on campus, the problem lies in the title. “I would have preferred a name more like ‘Systematic Racism’ because giving it ‘White Racism’ as the name of the class I feel like it’s intentional that you are trying to make white people look at the class a certain way,” Pilkington, 22, told the News-Press. Asked about his choice for the course name, Thornhill said that it fits the course material and that he meant for it to be provocative. “The nature of higher education and a university education is one of challenging people to think about the beliefs they have and to engage with critical and provocative material in an effort to grow and cultivate your intellect,” he said. Said Oliva-Infante, president of FGCU College Democrats and FGCU for Dreamers. "For the first time, ever, at FGCU, I was in an academic setting where the majority of people were students of color," he said. "It was beautiful to see that many of my classmates had cultural backgrounds similar to mine. One thing we all have in common was that our communities all suffer from white racism."

Thornhill said he has been teaching the same material for years, just under a different course name. He also is not the first to call his course “White Racism.” He points to one that the University of Connecticut began offering two decades ago. Back then, the title had angered many, as well.“The title made it seem like an attack on whites rather than racism,” Thomas Roberts, a professor who opposed the course, told the Hartford Courant in 1996. “There is a difference between a course that is saying all whites are racist, and one that is saying that racism is a problem in the United States.”

 

 

 

Note: In the CNN interview, later edited out, Thornhill made the point that though people of all colors and nationalities may have Prejudice, but White Europeans were the first Humans to establish a "SYSTEM of RACISM," to AID themselves, and to exclude all others. Clearly only a people who felt they needed protection would develop such an outrageous institution! Imagine that, the least people numerically, trying to "Horde" all the worlds Wealth for themselves by use of Armed Force. Of course there has always been conquest, the winner took booty, and allowed the looser to rebuild. Only the Albino sought to eliminate the looser by Genocide.


But why would the Albinos do that? The answer is simple, without their superior weapons, the Albinos would return to their normal position of Subservience, (that is why they started their program of acquiring the most advanced weapons from around the world, 400 years ago). They lack both the physical and numerical wherewithal to compete successfully against other Humans - specifically Blacks and Mongols. So they see killing-off as many non-Whites as they can, as a winning strategy for the future. Seeing what the Albinos have done over the past 400 years, one would be justified in exclaiming "They Can't be Human"!

But they are in fact HUMANS! Though what they do is fundamentally INHUMAN! If one reads the page: "Genocide of the California Indians", in the "Special Subjects" section of this site. And then compare what those Albinos did and said in the late 1800s (barely more that a hundred years ago): to modern Albino Californians: one would say that these modern "Liberal, Easy-living, Live-n-let-live, Californians, can't be related to those Murdering, Greedy, Animalistic, creatures of so RECENT a time. But they ARE! They are the Grandchildren of those Murdering, Greedy, Animalistic, creatures. And it is here that we see the shallow depth of the Albino. While other Humans find it hard to go against their "Basic Humanity": to the Albino, it appears to be based on circumstance, consider the following:

 

 

The Demographics of California:


In 2000, California’s 33.9 million residents were 46.6% white non-Hispanic, 32.3% Latino, 11.1% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6.4% black non-Hispanic and about 1% Native American. In 1990, white non-Hispanics made up more than half (57.4%) of the state’s then 29.7 million residents, while 25.4% of Californians were Latino, 9.2% were Asian American or Pacific Islander, 7.1% were black non-Hispanic and about 1% were Native American.

 

 

Study: The Distribution of Wealth in California, year 2000. Elias S. Lopez, Ph.D. and Rosa Maria Moller, Ph.D.

The main findings of our study are:


• In California, Whites* are richer than other ethnic groups. While Whites comprise half of the California population, they hold more than 80 percent of the total household wealth in the state. For Asians, the distribution of wealth is more equitable since their share of wealth is comparable to their share in California population. Latinos and African Americans are relatively the poorest ethnic groups.
• Over 38 percent of Latinos and 45 percent of African Americans live in households where the combined wealth of all the household members is under $3,925.

 

 

Clearly, Albinos in California have taken EVERYTHING of value with the INHUMAN Murderous acts of their Grandfathers, so there is nothing left to fight about, they can afford to be Humane and liberal. But what about Albinos who are not that well-off, but can no longer Kill or enslave others for their benefit? It is worth noting that when you call an Albino Racist, or call Racism, Racism: Albinos go berserk, they insist that you call it by another name. They don't bother denying their Racism, they can't, but they hate to think of themselves as such "Base" creatures: especially since they have spent their lives falsely accusing others of the same, so they demand that you change the wording to be not so accusatory. In other words, they don't want you to force them to face the truth about themselves. Most chroniclers acquiesce, only because they know how violent Albinos can be. Another cute thing they do is to try and "Turn the Tables": THEY CREATE ALBINO GRIEVANCE!

 

 

 

 

THE NEW YORK TIMES

The Policies of White Resentment

By CAROL ANDERSONAUG. 5, 2017

 

White resentment put Donald Trump in the White House. And there is every indication that it will keep him there, especially as he continues to transform that seething, irrational fear about an increasingly diverse America into policies that feed his supporters’ worst racial anxieties. If there is one consistent thread through Mr. Trump’s political career, it is his overt connection to white resentment and white nationalism. Mr. Trump’s fixation on Barack Obama’s birth certificate gave him the white nationalist street cred that no other Republican candidate could match, and that credibility has sustained him in office — no amount of scandal or evidence of incompetence will undermine his followers’ belief that he, and he alone, could Make America White Again.


The guiding principle in Mr. Trump’s government is to turn the politics of white resentment into the policies of white rage — that calculated mechanism of executive orders, laws and agency directives that undermines and punishes minority achievement and aspiration. No wonder that, even while his White House sinks deeper into chaos, scandal and legislative mismanagement, Mr. Trump’s approval rating among whites (and only whites) has remained unnaturally high. Washington may obsess over Obamacare repeal, Russian sanctions and the debt ceiling, but Mr. Trump’s base sees something different — and, to them, inspiring.


Like on Christmas morning, every day brings his supporters presents: travel bans against Muslims, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Hispanic communities and brutal, family-gutting deportations, a crackdown on sanctuary cities, an Election Integrity Commission stacked with notorious vote suppressors, announcements of a ban on transgender personnel in the military, approval of police brutality against “thugs,” a denial of citizenship to immigrants who serve in the armed forces and a renewed war on drugs that, if it is anything like the last one, will single out African-Americans and Latinos although they are not the primary drug users in this country. Last week, Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions put the latest package under the tree: a staffing call for a case on reverse discrimination in college admissions, likely the first step in a federal assault on affirmative action and a determination to hunt for colleges and universities that discriminate against white applicants.

That so many of these policies are based on perception and lies rather than reality is nothing new. White resentment has long thrived on the fantasy of being under siege and having to fight back, as the mass lynching’s and destruction of thriving, politically active black communities in Colfax, La. (1873), Wilmington, N.C. (1898), Ocoee, Fla. (1920), and Tulsa, Okla. (1921), attest. White resentment needs the boogeyman of job-taking, maiden-ravaging, tax-evading, criminally inclined others to justify the policies that thwart the upward mobility and success of people of color.


The last half-century hasn’t changed that. The war on drugs, for example, branded African-Americans and Latinos as felons, which stripped them of voting rights and access to housing and education just when the civil rights movement had pushed open the doors to those opportunities in the United States.
Similarly, the intensified war on immigrants comes, not coincidentally, at the moment when Latinos have gained visible political power, asserted their place in American society and achieved greater access to schools and colleges. The ICE raids have terrorized these communities, led to attendance drop-offs in schools and silenced many from even seeking their legal rights when abused.


The so-called Election Integrity Commission falls in the same category. It is a direct response to the election of Mr. Obama as president. Despite the howls from Mr. Trump and the Republicans, there was no widespread voter fraud then or now. Instead, what happened was that millions of new voters, overwhelmingly African-American, Hispanic and Asian, cast the ballots that put a black man in the White House. The punishment for participating in democracy has been a rash of voter ID laws, the purging of names from the voter rolls, redrawn district boundaries and closed and moved polling places.


Affirmative action is no different. It, too, requires a narrative of white legitimate grievance, a sense of being wronged by the presence of blacks, Latinos and Asians in positions that had once been whites only. Lawsuit after lawsuit, most recently Abigail Fisher’s suit against the University of Texas, feed the myth of unqualified minorities taking a valuable resource — a college education — away from deserving whites.


In order to make that plausible, Ms. Fisher and her lawyers had to ignore the large number of whites who were admitted to the university with scores lower than hers. And they had to ignore the sizable number of blacks and Latinos who were denied admission although their SAT scores and grade point averages were higher than hers. They also had to ignore Texas’ unsavory racial history and its impact. The Brown decision came down in 1954, yet the Dallas public school system remained under a federal desegregation order from 1971 to 2003. The university was slow to end its whites-only admissions policy, and its practice of automatically admitting the top 10 percent of each Texas public high school’s graduating class has actually led to an overrepresentation of whites. Meanwhile, African-Americans represent only 4 percent of the University of Texas student body, despite making up about 14 percent of the state’s graduating high school students.


Although you will never hear this from Mr. Sessions, men are the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action in college admissions: Their combination of test scores, grades and achievements is simply no match for that of women, whose academic profiles are much stronger. Yet to provide some semblance of gender balance on campuses, admissions directors have to dig down deep into the applicant pool to cobble together enough males to form an incoming class.


Part of what has been essential in this narrative of affirmative action as theft of white resources — my college acceptance, my job — is the notion of “merit,” where whites have it but others don’t. When California banned affirmative action in college admissions and relied solely on standardized test scores and grades as the definition of “qualified,” black and Latino enrollments plummeted. Whites, however, were not the beneficiaries of this “merit-based” system. Instead, Asian enrollments soared and with that came white resentment at both “the hordes of Asians” at places like the University of California, Los Angeles, and an admissions process that stressed grades over other criteria.


That white resentment simply found a new target for its ire is no coincidence; white identity is often defined by its sense of being ever under attack, with the system stacked against it. That’s why Mr. Trump’s policies are not aimed at ameliorating white resentment, but deepening it. His agenda is not, fundamentally, about creating jobs or protecting programs that benefit everyone, including whites; it’s about creating purported enemies and then attacking them.


In the end, white resentment is so myopic and selfish that it cannot see that when the larger nation is thriving, whites are, too. Instead, it favors policies and politicians that may make America white again, but also hobbled and weakened, a nation that has squandered its greatest assets — its people and its democracy.

 

 

__________________________________________________

 

 

The neophyte to this subject might look at the preceding New York Times article, and think:

Eureka, Albinos have finally become Civilized!

NOT SO FAST!

 

Fortune Maginazine

Commentary: racial inequality

 

Blacks and Latinos Will Be Broke in a Few Decades

 

Many people see progress on racial equity in the U.S. as a steady march forward, in which people of color become more equal with their white counterparts as the years go by. Those are people who don’t pay attention to household wealth figures.

A new report I co-authored, “The Road to Zero Wealth,” looks at the past 30 years of wealth accumulation across racial lines, as well as what the future will bring if current trends continue. Our findings were bleak.

The divide between the wealth of a typical black family and a typical white family today is vast.

A median black family has just $1,700 in wealth—total assets minus total debt. Thirty years ago, that same family had $6,800 in today’s dollars.

Latino families at the median have similarly small assets, just $2,000, and also saw a decline over the past three decades.

White median household wealth, meanwhile, is significantly higher: $116,800, up from $102,000 over the same period.

So black and Latino families at the middle have seen their wealth slip while white families in the middle saw their wealth rise. What does this look like projected into the future?

By 2053, just 10 years after the country is projected to become majority non-white, black median families will own zero wealth if current trends continue. Twenty years later, Latino median families will follow suit. White median families will continue to own six figures.

Even those black and Latino families who’ve achieved the traditional markers of middle class life—a good-paying job and a college degree—still lag far behind their white counterparts in terms of wealth. Black and Latino families with a member holding a four-year degree own just a fifth of the wealth of equivalent white families. In fact, they own less wealth than a white family whose head has just a high school diploma.

 

__________________________________________________

 

Have you guessed why those August Albino Institutions are so concerned with the current situation of Blacks? No it is not because they have suddenly become Civilized. Rather: it is if this New York Times concern comes TRUE: Quote "In the end, white resentment is so myopic and selfish that it cannot see that when the larger nation is thriving, whites are, too. Instead, it favors policies and politicians that may make America white again, but also hobbled and weakened, a nation that has squandered its greatest assets — its people and its democracy."

Not to put too fine a point on it: but without their own systems of self-preference, most Albinos wouldn't survive, and they know it. It's almost pitiful, how after their take-over in Europe, they spent the next few hundred years erasing Blacks from History, and building a bogus fantasy World where Albinos were the best of humanity, and Mongols and especially Blacks, were barely human: and certainly no match for an Albino! Funny thing is that in their Delusion and Hubris, they actually started to believe their own lies: and allowed Mongols and Blacks to compete with them - big mistake for the Albinos, they are bested on all fair ground. As a result we now stand at a crossroads, the Albino lies are now known, but not generally known. The Albino theft is still in their hands. The problem is, how to expose TRUE history, AND equitably distribute Wealth, without Blowing everything up, and destituting everyone.

 

If America FAILS and FALLS, guess who will suffer the MOST - by FAR

They who have just about EVERYTHING already - the Albino!

 

 

 

 

 

Click for Realhistoryww Home Page