Tuesday, October 10, 2017

A black conservative's view of race relations under trump.

TWEET METhe Field Negro education series continues.

This is an opposing point of view from a slave catcher black conservative about race relations in America.

Never say that the Field Negro doesn't give you an opposing point of view from time to time.

"Controversy has surrounded President Trump since the day he descended the escalator in Trump Tower and announced his intention to seek the highest office in our government. Of all the issues roused by the Trump campaign, none has conjured as much emotion as race relations – a subject no less divisive at the one hundred day mark. The first one hundred days of the Trump administration have not been any different.

While many blame the president for the state of race relations in the U.S., the reality is that racial tensions had been growing more strained over the past few years. Racial animosity seems to be at its highest peak since the 1960’s, and it shows no sign of getting better.
While there have been some legitimate cases of racism during President Trump’s first one hundred days, there have also been false accusations of racism and an increase in fake hate crimes.  Most of all, we saw the media doing their part to fan the flames of racial discord.

The beloved fourth estate perpetuated the lie that racism motivated the majority of Trump voters. They claim that the reason so many whites voted for the president is that they are afraid of minorities rising and gaining more power. The Washington Post recently published a poll that suggested that racism was the motivating factor for people who voted for President Trump. Liberty Nation’s Graham Noble explained that the Post conducted the survey in a manner designed to paint Trump supporters as bigots:
According to a report in the Daily Caller, the poll did not ask direct questions about strictly racial attitudes; instead, it asked voters how much they agreed with such statements as “Irish, Italians, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors,” and “It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.”

Unfortunately, this mistaken belief is still pervasive in our society. The reality is that bigotry does not drive Trump supporters. They supported Trump because they did not want a continuation of the Democrats’ failed policies. As a matter of fact, Trump won a significant number of counties who voted twice for former President Barack Obama. Did these people who voted for a black president decide to become racists in the period of eight years? Of course not.

While the majority of Americans are not racists, it seems there has been a marked increase in the frequency of racial incidents during President Trump’s first one hundred days. We have seen numerous stories of people committing racially-motivated acts. At the New School in New York City, people drew swastikas on doors in one of their residence halls. At the University of California at San Diego, someone drew a swastika on a bus stop. The person wrote the words “Heil Trump” as well.
While there are many legitimate cases of racially-motivated acts, there has also been an increase in incidents involving fake hate. Earlier this year, a student at the University of Michigan said that a man threatened to set her on fire if she refused to remove her hijab. The police found that the student fabricated the story. A black waitress in Ashburn, Virginia stated that a white customer left her a $.01 tip with a note which read: “great service, don’t tip black people.” She received over $3,600 from good Samaritans through an online fundraiser. The problem? Her story was found to be a lie. These are only two of the many examples of situations involving false allegations of racism.

Of course, we cannot forget about the racism on the left. While hurling false accusations of racism at conservatives, they have engaged in their usual hypocritical tolerance. Although they claim to promote acceptance of people of color, they have shown that they are only tolerant of those who subscribe to their leftist ideology.

When Comedian Steve Harvey went to Trump Tower to meet with President Trump before he took office, Harvey received scathing criticism from the left. Professor Marc Lamont Hill referred to Harvey and other prominent black Americans as “mediocre negroes” because they committed the unpardonable sin of speaking with President Trump. This hatred of blacks who don’t toe the leftist line also extended to Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). While addressing Congress, Senator Scott took the time to read some of the racist tweets and emails sent to him by people on the left in response to his support for Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

During the first one hundred days of President Trump’s presidency, race has become an increasingly significant issue. Racial tension is the highest it has been in decades, and there is no sign that these feelings will subside in the near future.

Many on the left – including the establishment media – place the blame on President Trump and conservatives. However, it is the left who continually uses race to polarize the American public. The media has become the left’s primary tool to foment enmity between minorities and whites. Instead of encouraging productive political dialogue, they have chosen to label their political opponents as bigots in an effort to demonize and discredit them.

The government cannot resolve the racial divide in the U.S. as this is a cultural problem. President Trump is not responsible for the racial animosity we are experiencing today. Neither is former President Barack Obama. The American people are responsible for creating our current political climate. If we want to promote unity among Americans of all races, we need to create an environment in which people can speak honestly with one another. The late, great Andrew Breitbart said it best: “Politics is downwind from culture.” When we take it upon ourselves to fix our society, the right governmental policies will follow." [Source]


"Late great, Andrew Brietbart"?! OK then.

Thoughts?

70 comments:

PilotX said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PilotX said...

trump is responsible for some of the racial animus and it would be nice if he would actually do something to bring us together as citizens.
On another note I'm in DC for my union working on Capitol Hill pushing some initiatives we want moved forward. There are some crazy republicans I have to talk to and will probably end up rolling my eyes but I'm also looking forward to meeting Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Cedric Richmond, Shelia Jackson Lee and seeing Bobby Rush again. I'll let you know how it goes.

Faith_and_Fairness said...

What a wonderful opportunity, Pilot: Devaluing the impact of our nation’s unions is beyond short-sighted. Hoping the initiatives set forth in these discusions will generate favorable results.

Anonymous said...

" "Late great, Andrew Brietbart"?! OK then."

This was the best part: quoting slimy bottom-feeder and professional slanderer Breitbart as the authority on healing our racial divide.

You know, Andrew Breitbart, the man who selectively edited a speech by a black female federal bureaucrat to make it sound like she hated white people (she did not, and this got her fired), all so he could score some points on Obama.

That Andrew Breitbart, God rest his soul. I mean, Satan roast his soul.

Faith_and_Fairness said...

Me thinks the primary premise of conservative writer, Jeff Charles of Liberty Nation warrants consideration. In particular, quite a few of my comments throughout the 2016 general election cautioned the mistake of labeling all Trump supporters as racists.

And as an ardent Hillary supporter, I really hoped a far more effective strategy would have been employed articulating the concerns of these voters, as only a segment was injecting racism, bigotry and hatefulness in our political discourse.

Especially interesting about Mr. Charles is perspective of another complex subject matter as noted below:

https://www.libertynation.com/whats-deal-black-black-crime/

Given that he takes on Michael Harriot of The Root, this would make for a very enlightening exchange.

Faith_and_Fairness said...

By the way, I must ask: When presenting opposing views with pejoratives such as “slave catcher” and “house negro,” doesn’t this kind of disdain make it harder for progressives to remain on the side of tolerance and mutual respect?

Anonymous said...

"And as an ardent Hillary supporter, I really hoped a far more effective strategy would have been employed articulating the concerns of these voters, as only a segment was injecting racism, bigotry and hatefulness in our political discourse."

Hillary Clinton herself never actually labeled all Trump supporters racist. Her "deplorables" comment referred to half of them falling in that category, and I doubt she meant anyone to take it as literally half. This was a figure of speech.

The problem for her is that the other motives for voting for Trump weren't necessarily any easier to address than racism.

If you're stupid enough to believe Trump's economic promises, how is a competing candidate supposed to respond to that? Trump told a lot of nice-sounding lies about what he was going to do to make the economy better for "left-behind" people, and too many of those people were taken in by how much they wanted those things to be true. They didn't ask other very important questions, such as: "Can Trump deliver on any of this?" And "Does he even want to?" If you're too dumb to consider those points, what is the solution for that?

Likewise, if you're so stupid you believed all the made-up Crooked Hillary smears (Benghazi, emails, the works), what is the solution for that? Anyone who believed Hillary Clinton had worse personal character than Donald Trump is an utter, irredeemable fool.

Finally, if you knew damn well that Trump was an incompetent racist moron and didn't like him, but voted for him anyway, because you're so selfish you just don't care if the country goes to hell in a handbasket as long as you get a tax cut, what is the solution for that?

Trump voters aren't all racist, but they are all shitheads in one way or another, and it's hard to see how to make them stop being shitheads.

dinthebeast said...

No, Fergus isn't responsible for all of the racism in the country, but boy howdy does he want everyone to pay attention to it. It's one of the few areas of politics where he has unflagging support, and he really needs that sort of support right now to maintain his dwindling position as a bully to be feared by Republican congresscritters who as of yet are too scared of a primary challenge fueled by the wrath of his idiot hordes to act on their best political instincts that tell them to run like hell from the ignorance, incompetence, and dangerously crazy behavior of the president of the United States.

And to the author of the article: You show your own twisted racial agenda when you accuse liberals of being racist for denigrating people of color who meet with Fergus. If you paid any attention at all (or weren't just lying to try to support your bias) you would notice that such denigration is not reserved for people of color, but is spread evenly among all of the idiots and proto-Pig-People who debase themselves in the service of the blithering idiot.

-Doug in Oakland

Anonymous said...

"No, Fergus isn't responsible for all of the racism in the country, but boy howdy does he want everyone to pay attention to it. It's one of the few areas of politics where he has unflagging support ..."

As Trump's popularity nosedives, you can expect him to become more racist, not less. After his support shrivels down to his hardcore base, racists will be the last remaining group still in his corner, so he will cater to them more and more.

dinthebeast said...

They are the +/- 27% who will never leave him no matter how he treats them.
It's the rest of the weasels who are already eyeing the exits and working on their cover stories that we have to body-block from access to the memory hole.
They own this bullshit, and they need to have it hung around their necks for five years or so, or sure as shit they will pull another goddamn "rebrand" and slither away from their responsibility in foisting this damn fool on us.
No new "TEA party" escape vehicle. They did this, and we have to make sure nobody forgets it until some elections are won.

-Doug in Oakland

Limpbaugh said...

Sometimes anti Trump protestors look like they are protesting for killing people overseas to me. I've upset Trump supporters on different forums by writing about Trump's racism as much as I have upset Democrats by writing about Hillary's and Obama's war crimes here and other places. More than one conservative has called me a classic liberal because I am against war crimes by both parties. Most people see only what they want to see. There is a lot of truth in what the conservative guy wrote. There are progressives and libertarians who see through the corporate military industrial complex establishment. Pilot X mentioned one, Bobby Rush. And there are a lot of us in the general population.

In the senate, only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voted against increasing sanctions on Russia. Only Rand Paul asked about moving weapons from terrorist in Libya to terrorists in Syria in the Benghazi hearings. Both parties ignored the real issue of Obama supporting McCain's ISIS "moderate rebels". I've written detailed explanations of why the Benghazi hearings were a witch hunt that everyone here would agree with. But realizing that Russia never gave anything to WikiLeaks would burst your group therapy session bubble. It was reported today that Dana Rohrabacher met with Rand Paul. Since Paul talks to Trump more, Rohrabacher wants Paul to relay information about negotiating for proof that the Russia hack conspiracy theory is a lie. Paul agreed. You might see Assange pardoned, WikiLeaks with a seat at the White House press briefings, and Seth Rich revealed as the DNC leaker, before the 2018 elections. You should have been pushing to reform your party instead of parroting media war drum lies.

Limpbaugh said...

Yes, all Trump voters are racist and the eight million who voted for Obama twice suddenly turned racist. And all Hillary voters are neocons. All Hillary voters wanted to continue the covert CIA support of "anti Assad forces" in Syria that Obama and Hillary approved, and Trump ended. They wanted to shoot down Russian planes over Syria with Hillary's no fly zone. They wanted another NAFTA, the TPP. They want ISIS to rape kids and kill their families. They want the refugee crisis. At least they got Libya overthrown before Trump got in. It doesn't look like they'll get Syria. And it isn't just the Middle East. If you get a chance ask someone from the Congo what they think about Hillary. Hmmmm...., maybe some Trump voters were voting against Hillary, and visa versa?

Lt.Commander Johnson said...

Blogger PilotX said...
trump is responsible for some of the racial animus and it would be nice if he would actually do something to bring us together as citizens."

Exactly what is Trump responsible for?

"citizens"...you gotta be kidding me.

Lt.Commander Johnson said...

Yeah, we know you're there, Queenie....watching and waiting to post.

It's not like you actually work, with your 15 tax-payer payed degrees.

How's that Jaguar, and Dodge Ram running for ya?

PilotX said...

Well we're pushing H.R. 2797 so I'll let you know how it goes.

PilotX said...

Well lesse, "you blacks have no education, your lives are shit and you have nothing to lose" paraphrased of course. "You get shot walking down the street". "Mexico doesn't send us their best". Judge Curiel, ect. I know I know that isn't racist to you because I know many who defend this language but the defenders are all white and conservative. All if my fellow blah and Latino friends and family see this language for what it is. That type of language is divisive and not helpful. Hopefully that answers your question.

PilotX said...

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/9-fierce-reactions-fbis-dangerous-new-targeting-black-identity-extremists

PilotX said...

Interesting.

Wisconsin Reader said...


Retired guy - living Summers in a rural county in Northern Wisconsin. The county did vote for Mr. Obama, twice, yet went for Mr. Trump last Fall. Mr. Obama represented "hope" to voters here - since he was not part of the elite establishment which basically controls BOTH political parties. Mrs. Clinton however has been part of that elite for nearly 30 years - many who changed their vote in 2016 simply knew she could not be trusted to represent rural residents. Mr. Trump, campaigning shrewdly as a "different type of Republican" - regularly ridiculed and disavowed past and current GOP leadership. Enough people here thought it was worth taking a chance on him - knowing that with Mrs. Clinton it would be more East Coast elites calling the shots. I held my nose and voted for her - and thus far a majority of Trump voters here are coming to grips that they were hustled - but, they don't know that Mrs. Clinton would have been any better for them on economic issues either. . .

Anonymous said...

SPARKLEFARTS!!

Anonymous said...

2014 Race of Victim/Attacker:Chicago

Race
Victim
Attacker
Black
353
99
Hispanic
67
16
White/Other
32
12
Police
-
17


As of 1/1/15

mike from iowa said...

Let's fan some more flames-the Justicky Department (under perjurer Sessions) is planning to use snippets of videos produced by white supremacists to try American's on charges of riots during Inauguration Day. Couldn't possibly be any selective editing going on, now could there?

mike from iowa said...

Wisconsin Reader- ask yer neighbors what exactl2y has Drumpf done for them on rural matters or anything else. Wisconsin needs Dumpd like they neeed more Snott Wanker as governor.

mike from iowa said...


Hillary Clinton herself never actually labeled all Trump supporters racist. Her "deplorables" comment referred to half of them falling in that category, and I doubt she meant anyone to take it as literally half. This was a figure of speech.

Women, and especially HRC, aren't allowed the equivalent of locker room talk.

mike from iowa said...

Anonymous Lt.Commander Johnson said...

Yeah, we know you're there, Queenie....watching and waiting to post.

It's not like you actually work, with your 15 tax-payer payed degrees.


Dumkopf! That was 98.6 degrees I have and someone wrote a song about it decades ago, Swinekopf!

mike from iowa said...

Faith_and_Fairness said...

By the way, I must ask: When presenting opposing views with pejoratives such as “slave catcher” and “house negro,” doesn’t this kind of disdain make it harder for progressives to remain on the side of tolerance and mutual respect?

You wanna engage the swamp creatures you must meet them in the swamp where they feel protected. Why do you think they never come out of the muck and shower and make themselves presentable?

Yīshēng said...

Yeah PX, labeling freedom fighters as domestic terrorists/extremists is as old as the US.

F&F, I generally agree that name calling isn't the best way to engage in healthy discussions, but the people being engaged aren't entitled to an ounce of respect, IMHO.

And once again, Mike saves the conversation with his humor!!😀 BTW, you know you SERIOUSLY chap these folks assess, right??

BAWHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnZx0mYfvJs

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gkbj5bY6AE

Anonymous said...

"You wanna engage the swamp creatures you must meet them in the swamp where they feel protected."

I dunno. Realistically, someone needs to find a rational way to reach out to these people (the ones who aren't actual Nazis, I mean) and make convincing arguments to change their minds. And that will require being nice to them.

I just don't know what kind of arguments will get through to people who are so willfully ignorant or unapologetically selfish. And it won't be me making the arguments because I won't be able to stop myself from punching them.

Queen Yisheng said...

Uh PX, do you mind sharing with your colleagues that they should line up with the runway in AMPLE enough time so as not to induce heart attacks in passengers with flying issues. Making what feels like 45 degree turns to line up at the last minute is MUY NO BUENO!!

PilotX said...

Ah, the old kick it and stick it technique. I'll pass that along. Ha!

pterochromics said...

- Re: the original article, once I got to "The beloved fourth estate...", I just did the most cursory speed-read possible, and yeah, everything that followed was exactly what I expected.
- Anyone who turns off their Google cookies, and receives results other than just those that the Google algorithm 'calculates' what they *want*, can find the info ((I link to the 2 main articles at the end of this comment)) about WHO OWNS THE MEDIA.
- The reason I focus so heavily upon media ownership is that it immediately shows that snarks regarding the "liberal media" or "beloved fourth estate" and similar immediately show that the speak or writer is about to engage in blatant inveigling and obfuscation - in other words, total BS propaganda.
-
- Here are the 2 main links, but turn off those Google cookies and trackers and so on, and search "who owns the media". And Yes, I realize Google is part of the corporate media, but it's all so entrenched, AND they already have most people bamboozled by the practice of only feeding people "sweet nothings", that they figure a few fact-finders are no threat any more.

1)) This link is to the Google cache of this article, because Forbes has some sort of bizarre script that will not allow me to even access the article, never mind link to it:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3JG0oe9k5D8J:https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/+&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

2)) from 2012:
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

pterochromics said...

Anonymous Limpbaugh said...
"But realizing that Russia never gave anything to WikiLeaks would burst your group therapy session bubble."


- You started off with some things I found worth consideration, but the only bubble that's popped is the one wherein I was almost fooled into paying attention to your comment.

Limpbaugh said...

Groper Ben Affleck should have been arrested for his propaganda lies in Argo. The NY Times could have exposed rapist Harvey Weinstein in 2004, but Matt Damen and Russell Crowe were among the people who pushed to suppress the expose and allowed almost 13 years of more victims. These people play heroes and tell us to vote for Harvey Weinstein's buddies, but we are finding out how they get their roles. They are immoral empty shells. Yes, they aren't president. Neither was Trump when he talked about doing it. He was a game show host who donated to Hillary. They actually did what he talked about and worse. And you don't vote for who Trump tells you to.

Flying Junior said...

I was saddened by the discovery of Nazi and Trump graffiti on a bus stop at UC San Diego. The Hillel that worked to insure its removal is actually a Jewish Community enter in La Jolla. So I got to thinking. This is not the first such incident at my beloved alma mater by any stretch. UCSD has always been a very inclusive campus with a rich tradition of multi-ethnicity going back fifty-five years. But in 2010 there was the first warning sign. It was an off-campus party dubbed the Compton Cookout hosted by the PKE fraternity. You can imagine the theme. This might have been the inspiration for a similar event depicted on favorite white guilt Netflix show, "Dear White People." In intervening time, a hand-knotted noose was left somewhere in the Central Library.

Both of these incidents happened well before Trump, but not before Obama. It is my contention that the same social forces that we saw beginning to be unleashed after the election of 44 have simply culminated and gathered strength with the election of the monster. So the current racial divide really didn't begin with Trump, but he rode into power on its gale force wave of anger.

Limpbaugh said...

For the sake of peterochromics I'll repost this:

Russia supposedly spent $100,000 on Facebook ads. Facebook has annual revenue of 72 billion. Dr Evil was ashamed of Putin. They also counted ads after the election and ads against fracking, etc. Of course we know all Russians have Kremlin links and only Russians have fake Facebook accounts. Adam Schiff, who voted  to authorize the Iraq War and is on a committee that got to vote on approving the covert CIA support of ISIS program, wants the search expanded to include Estonia which is in NATO and not allied with Russia. Him pimping a new cold war is a good indication that he voted for financing ISIS. That "Russian lawyer" just said she wanted to talk to Hillary too.

Here's a quote from the Russia interference intelligence assessment: “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.”

But the intelligence assessment did get specific about how RT News helped interfere in the election. They hosted a debate of third party candidates, covered the Occupy Wall Street protests, and reported on the dangers of fracking.

The war profiteer sponsored corporate media tells us it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC. They eventually admitted that the assessment came from "hand picked individuals" in three agencies, not 17. Honest independent journalists on YouTube had been saying that for a long time. The fourth estate has become fascist. But there is a 5th estate, the internet.

The VIPS group told Obama that the NSA would have to know if Russia did it. The NSA surveils data transfers. And Obama admitted that we didn't know before he left office. Also, the NSA, which would know, only had "moderate confidence" The CIA and FBI had "high confidence", which is only a guess. Not quite a "slam dunk" like the WMDs in Iraq. And they haven't even shown us vials of talcum powder this time.

The determination that Russia hacked the DNC came from a private company, Crowdstrike, that the DNC hired. Comey testified that the DNC never even let the government see their "hacked" server.

The Guccifer 2.0 data used for the third party "Russia did it" conclusion that the FBI relied on didn't match the Wikileaks data. For one thing, the Wikileaks data came from a computer with Microsoft Office registered to a DNC official, as is to be expected. The Guccifer 2.0 data was copied from a computer that had been owned by a former Obama White House staff member, Warren Flood. Russian "fingerprints" were copy and pasted into the Guccifer 2.0 version. The fictional Guccifer 2.0 then supposedly gave the data to Wikileaks and then promptly published the data himself, starting with the Trump opposition research, before Wikileaks could. They told us Russia wanted to help a lost cause instead of waiting and blackmailing Hillary as president. Quite a story, huh?

Forensic science analysts say time stamps show the data was downloaded in the EST time zone. That could be Maine, but not Russia. I'll narrow it down some. How about in D.C. at the DNC headquarters? The download speeds were also too fast for a remote hack over the internet. The data was copied directly to a USB device. As the VIPS group told Obama before he left office, the NSA would have a record of the data transfer if the DNC were hacked remotely. Obama later said there is no conclusive proof that the Russians did the hack before he left office.

The DNC data that Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 published separately wasn't even hacked. It was copied and leaked by DNC insiders. Probably a pissed off Bernie Sanders supporter. Maybe Seth Rich or Imran Awan. Your government and media are lying to you again. Believe Trump was behind it if you want, but the Russians didn't give anything to Wikileaks. That conspiracy theory has already been debunked.

mike from iowa said...

They supported Trump because they did not want a continuation of the Democrats’ failed policies.

Drumpfuck is sure taking credit for a lot of Obama and Dems policies, especially with job creation and the economy.

mike from iowa said...


17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid

By Lauren Carroll on Thursday, July 6th, 2017 at 4:26 p.m.
The requested video is no longer available
Up Next:
PolitiFact: Mike Pence repeats dubious Thomas Jefferson quote
Autoplay: On | Off
President Donald Trump, during a visit to Poland, said he believes Russia may have interfered with the US election, along with other countries. (AP/July 6, 2017)

President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland July 6, downplayed the strength of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to his benefit.

He justified his doubt by noting that the New York Times and the Associated Press recently corrected stories to clarify that four agencies, rather than 17, were directly involved in the January intelligence assessment about Russia’s interference in the election.

"I heard it was 17 agencies. I said, boy, that’s a lot. Do we even have that many intelligence agencies? Right, let’s check that," Trump told NBC’s Hallie Jackson. "We did some heavy research. It turned out to be three or four. It wasn’t 17. ... I agree, I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure."

It’s valid for Trump to criticize news organizations for not being specific enough in their reports (more on that in a bit). But this does not invalidate the report by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Director of National Intelligence, nor their "high confidence" in their judgment that Russia engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election.
Relevance over quantity

Trump asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence organizations. Yes, it does.

They are as follows: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Some of these are large, independent agencies, like the FBI, CIA and NSA. Others are smaller offices within agencies whose main focus is not intelligence, like the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research or the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Four out of the 17 were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations.

This doesn’t mean the remaining 13 intelligence organizations disagree with the January assessment, nor does it mean the report was insufficient, according to multiple national security experts

PilotX said...

"So the current racial divide really didn't begin with Trump, but he rode into power on its gale force wave of anger."

Absolutely.👏🏾

Anonymous said...

Segregation, Sterilization, Repatriation.....Jubilation !

mike from iowa said...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/prosecutor-threw-away-slam-dunk-cases-against-weinstein-and-trump-kids

Yo, Limpaw. I knew someone from Drumpfuck's den of iniquity chatted with the prosecutor and got him to drop charges against Drumpfuck's crooked, spoiled brats. He also wouldn't prosecute Weinstein. Sheer incompetence from right wing judicial system. Fits right in with the incompetence of the rest of the administration

Before your kinickers get twisted, Obama didn't appoint this ass hat.

pterochromics said...

@ Limpbaugh

- Setting Trump aside for the moment, my first reaction is, well, fVck the NYT for selling out. As for actors, um, I personally haven't been "star struck" since I left 4th grade; yes, a lot of people do seem to confuse actors with the roles they play, but that's been true ever since humans first did play-acting.
- As for what they did or didn't do, I honestly can't comment intelligently because I personally pay no attention to "celebrities". Anything I find out about is only in passing if someone mentions it on FaceBook, but I pay MUCH more attention to my artisan, gardening, space, etc. interest groups, than to the typical stuff.
- I will say that, if someone does something to impede a criminal investigation, that's a crime and ought to be prosecuted, *especially* ((not except!)) if the obstructor has a position of influence. That includes whichever NYT editor(s) sold out, AND whomever paid them *to* sell out, if it was known that Harvey was, in fact, practicing criminal misconduct.
- The Dems who had received political donations from Harvey have, as far as I've heard, given them all back, but I honestly have not fact-checked it for myself. It's not that I "don't care"; it's only that I have the same number of hours in a day as does everyone on earth, and I have things I need and want to get done, AND I have to do them all during the hours when I have the least pain and some measure of mobility.
- I dunno what more I, or anyone, can say about Harvey, except that he should be tried in accordance with the law, and if convicted, serve his time like anyone, although we all know that he'll never be treated the same as would any of us "peons".
-
- Regarding Trump, I've been hearing about his shenanigans, and listening to his dumbass blither, off and on for around 40 to 45 YEARS, and no, I never watched his dippy tv show because I refused to grant him even that much attention, given that my opinion of him has, for a *VERY* long time, been that he belonged under a rock with the rest of the slugs and worms. He's been worse than Harvey, because his harm has been *far* more wide-reaching. He got elected because too many people acted as though he only sprang magically into existence when that tv show began, and damn few paid any attention to the previous decades.
- I don't "hate" him because he's a Republican; I despise him because he's always been a zhlob, and he only tacked his tuckus onto the Republican party as a stunt - I personally don't think he ever expected to be elected.
- And again, as in the past, the harm he does will be FAR more widespread than anything that Harvey or some group of actors did.
-
- That's about all I can say about it. Well, OK, I *could* say more, but Jeopardy is coming on, I need some lunch cuzza my blood sugar is dropping and giving me an ugly headache, and anything more I say will be pretty much the same as the above anyway, just with more words, which *nobody* really wants, LOL!
-


pterochromics said...

- FWLIW, I'm not getting into the "Russia" part yet. Not ignoring, not "don't care", just need lunch and to do some practical real-life things at this point in the day.

field negro said...

Fair point F&F.
I will work on my be nice skills.

Anonymous said...

Only problem negroes have with Trump is he and his constituents want to hold criminals accountable for their actions.

negroes do not want to be held accountable for anything anymore. They have the "gibs me dat" attitude.
Negroes want to live their thug lifestyle.

mike from iowa said...

mfi- you keep giving me the long form intelligence assessment birth certificate that sez Russia hacked the election.

What I really wanted was the short to intermediate form birth certificate from the intelligence agencies claiming Russia hacked the election. Of course, had you provided me with that form I would have demanded the short to insignificantly small birth certificate form that shows Russians hacked the election. Had that one been provided I would have said what I really wanted was an affidavit from a couple Russian crows who could positively identify Vlad Putin from a million miles away. That's the birth certificate I really want. Affectionately, Limpaw.

We know, Limpaw. You're nutz. Affectionately mfi.

Anonymous said...

"They actually did what he talked about and worse."

Trump "actually did what he talked about and worse." Loads of women have come forward to say he assaulted them.

You can bend yourself into a pretzel trying to justify your support for Trump, Limbaugh. But in the end, there is really no excuse. He is an abominable person whose actions as president oscillate between incompetence and malice.

We will be lucky if his presidency does not leave the country damaged beyond repair.

Anonymous said...

Segregation, Sterilization, Repatriation.....Jubilation ........Constipation!

You know who said...

Only problem negroes have with Trump is he and his constituents do not want to hold criminals accountable for their actions.

trump supporters do not want to be held accountable for anything anymore. They have the "gibs me dat" attitude.
trump and his supporters want to live their thug lifestyle.

There

pterochromics said...

- It seems to me there are two issues here, related but not identical.
1) The question of whether Trump and/or his representatives colluded with Putin and/or his representatives for political and/or financial gain,
and
2) The question of whether Russians hacked US computers, and/or planted false information in the media, and/or purchased political advertising.

- People seem to be talking about the two things as if they were interchangeable, but it seems to me that they could also be separate.

- It's highly unlikely that any section of the US Intelligence Community is going to release any of its analyses; that is neither the mission nor the purview of any Intel agency. Their mission is to provide information to those whose position and governmental function gives them the clearance to receive various levels of information.
- Therefore, demanding a specific report "from the intelligence agencies" before one is convinced of something is, by definition, rather a red herring, because it's unlikely that such a report would be released *by* the Intel Agencies.
- If information is to be released, it is the purview of **government officials** to release it, if such release is judged necessary or advisable.

- What *is* known is that hackers traced back to Russia have, in fact, been very busy trying to, and too often succeeding in, breaking into all sorts of US computer systems.
-
con.t--->

pterochromics said...

--->con.t


Limpbaugh said...
"The VIPS group told Obama that the NSA would have to know if Russia did [hack the DNC server(s)]"
-
- That's a misstatement by "the VIPS group", and Pres. Obama would have known that it's* a misstatement. The NSA would most probably have *evidence*, which would be evaluated for its level of confidence. And even though the evidence might "strongly suggest" X, it is not, in and of itself, sufficient to be considered "proof" - as with a trial, corroboration is sought from a variety of sources, because the decisions made on the basis of an Intel assessment have far too much potential impact to be left up to one source.
- Of course, politicians do whatever the hell they want, and I left Intel precisely because it disgusted me that evidence, including photographic, of something could be overwhelming, but all that some dimwit has to say is "Well I don't believe that", and SPLAT!!!!, all the work of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people, and the carefully considered analyses of literally some of the nation's top minds and experts, gets flushed.
- Merely because someone "doesn't believe" that reality is sometimes real.
-
- The Guccifer 2.0 data used for the third party "Russia did it" conclusion that the FBI relied on didn't match the Wikileaks data. [...] the Wikileaks data came from a computer with Microsoft Office registered to a DNC official [...] The Guccifer 2.0 data was copied from a computer that had been owned by a former Obama White House staff member, Warren Flood. Russian "fingerprints" were copy and pasted [...]
- Wait, excuse me?, "came from a computer with Microsoft Office registered to a DNC official"....? Because, what, registrations *never* accompany program ISOs on Torrent or Warez sites...?, and/or because nobody but nobody would ever be able to bring in something like a flash drive to copy registered software from a computer, along with the registry keys the software requires? Hello....people do shit like that *all* the time, sometimes to *back-up their stuff*, and sometimes just for the hell of it. So if someone was motivated to, oh, purge registered Democrats from one or more voter registration databases, this would literally be child's play.
-
- Further, re:
"Forensic science analysts say time stamps show the data was downloaded in the EST time zone",
again, that is not even close to being proof or disproof of anything at all. Time stamps can be faked without much difficulty, and transmissions can be bounced around IPs to leave a false trail and look like the come from elsewhere.
-
- None of the above is esoteric or new or even unusual. So it's totally bizarre if it's being taken as proof or disproof of much of anything.
- Re:
"Comey testified that the DNC never even let the government see their "hacked" server." ---- Given Comey's actions during the campaign, and subsequent events, it only makes sense that the DNC would seek to grasp the remaining straws of donor and member confidentiality, to prevent even more people from being targetted.
- So again, not "proof" or "disproof" of anything, aside from possibly a desperate attempt by the DNC to retain the few shreds of confidentiality that remained.
-
- As for WikiLeaks, I remain skeptical of it, because anyone can claim to be anything, and especially because I'm skeptical regarding what is being dumped into it by whom. And I don't have the time, energy, or independent wealth to go comb through through it all and try to do a proper analysis and evaluation. So I have no starry-eyed idealism towards it.
-
- mike from iowa said...
"Trump asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence organizations."

-
- Seriously...? He actually *asked* that where people could hear it...?!?! Jayzuz fricking christmas.......
-

Anonymous said...

The Outrage Over Kneeling Is Really All About Race

"...whether or not you support Black Lives Matter, kneeling is a respectful gesture that in no way insults the flag or what it stands for.

The detractors argument seems to most often come down to two points:
1) It is insulting to members of the military and their families
2) That millionaire athletes have no right to complain because they live lives of luxury

...however, these detractors premise is entirely false and most detractors are simply not willing or able to acknowledge that the real issue for them is RACE.

On the first point, that kneeling for the anthem insults the military, it should be pointed out that the act of kneeling is inextricably linked with Black Lives Matter.

More importantly, Pew Research polls indicate that most Republicans (who most overwhelmingly support Trump) take issue with BLM. That fact alone exposes the truth that it is not a "perceived insult" to the military that bothers them.

This is apparent because
* Trump's core base stood by him when he insulted John McCain (a combat veteran who heroically withstood torture for 5 1/2 years rather than cooperate with his captors).

*Trump's core base stood by him when he repeatedly insulted a Gold Star family.
*Trumps base stood by him when he stood in front of the wall at the CIA memorializing fallen and missing intelligence officers and complained that the media was not accurately reporting the site of his inauguration crowd.

Yet, when young, mostly black men peacefully and respectfully protest by kneeling (like you would before a king or in prayer)...Trump's base cries foul. There is an obvious, blatant inconsistency there.

The primary difference between these athletes and Trump is that they (implicitly or explicitly) stand with BLM while Trump cannot bring himself to denounce Neo-Nazis, and Klan members. The POTUS blows the dog whistle more than any politician in recent memory.

The only logical conclusion to draw is that the only real issue for these people opposed to the kneeling is because of these black athletes association with BLM.

So in their attempt to cover up and not be branded as racists, they instead invent "insults" where there are no insults to be found and shamefully use the brave military men and women that serve this country as justification for their tribal instincts.

Trump says that rich athletes have no right to complain. The POTUS has been wealthy from birth. However, his campaign speeches and inauguration speech describe America as a horrible place, and yet few (if any) in his base complained that he had no right to complain because of his life of privilege.

It is obvious that the issue for them is not the athletes' wealth. They don't approve of the cause that the athletes adopted.

Trumps supporters know that they can not rationally defend their stances on issues of race as well as many other issues. So they stay with the choir, or hide behind false premises that don't even stand up to even the lightest of scrutiny. "

pterochrmics said...

Re: "Anonymous'" comment above at 9:59 concerning the Kneeling Protest:

- Remembering the mid- to late-60s and early 70s, I have to say that the silent, still kneeling is about the most dignified protest I've personally ever seen. It's very much in the spirit of Gandhi.
- I'm starting the think that it's the very dignity of it that enrages those people who are so possessed by anger that they want the object of their irrational hatred to give them an excuse to strike.
- Part of their aggressive attempts to provoke conflict is a mule-stubborn *refusal* to acknowledge that the protest is not about the protests, but rather, it is about people who have reached positions of some privilege protesting the bad treatment of those who have no power, no privilege, and no voice.
- It's as though the anti-protest people are claiming that wealth and position are "tainted" when used to try to help others, which is a completely bizarre concept...
-
- As for the people who make up excuses like those described in the comment at 9:59, my past experiences with such people lead me to think that they aren't just trying to convince others to be angry, but are actually trying to also convince themselves that their own completely-irrational reactions are "justified". After all, if they can't "justify" their hatred, that would lead them to suspect that they're not the wonderful, fine, upstanding Christians and Americans that they like to continually claim they are.
-



Anonymous said...

There
8:09 PM

There what?? is this the third grade?/ oh wait it is because libtards need stress ponies and crayons.

NIGGIFICATION of America must be eradicated!!!

The niggerization has begun said...

I'll take that over the idiotization of America by the MAGA crowd. Now THAT shit must be stopped!

Mandingo said...

Well we know one thing's for sure, white women would rejoice if there's niggerization because they love them some BBC. Do an internet search of that term. It don't mean British Broadcasting Corporation.

Anonymous said...

Mandingo said...
Well we know one thing's for sure, white women would rejoice if there's niggerization because they love them some BBC. Do an internet search of that term. It don't mean British Broadcasting Corporation.
1:23 PM

nobody likes damaged goods.......

Josh said...

At 37, I'm really shocked at just how deeply people have had to dig in order to call something "racism." I mean, race relations are always a volatile thing when some people just transform what "racism" means. It used to mean one feeling one's race while superior while another is inferior, and the actions borne therefrom. Then it broadened to include using negative stereotypes or slurs, even in a joking context. So long as it was a white person. it was "racist." Now the definition is so incredibly broad that white people are just racist by mere happenstance of being born.

A great gauge of this is the young black (lying) students at university who create their lists of "microaggressions." It really is a catch-22, I mean literally a catch-22. You're racist, no matter what, so long as you're white.

- If you ask a black person where they're from, it's not just a crime against proper syntax; it's actually a racist question, because you're "othering" the black person and suggesting they don't belong in America with whites.

- If you don't ask black people questions, then you're racist because you're not being inclusive to black people and thus want a white-only space.

- If you say you're not a racist and don't see "color," then you're racist because you're white-washing a black person's blackness and trying to insert your whiteness over-top of their identity.

- If you tell a black person you do notice that they're black, and respect their identity, then you're pointing out how different they are and that they're not white and "okay" like you are, and thus are a social outcast in a "white" nation.

You're really damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Some black people in America, as oppressed as they pretend to be, call it racism unless white people wholly acquiesce and capitulate to every single demand they place upon their shoulders, including how to fucking speak in public! Anything less is horrible racism we have to hear about constantly on CNN, MSNBC, blogs like this, etc.

Honestly, If people want race relations to improve, then whiny-ass SJWs need to grow a thicker fucking skin and stop insisting that every single fucking thing a white person does, or even doesn't do, is racist. Black folks, you aren't the center of the world. And while I know it's only a minority of you folks who are THAT fucking whiny, I've never seen a single individual here call out that type of race-baiting behavior from blacks in public. Even while that shit was going on at Mizzou 2 years ago, and we had objective, indisputable proof that the black kids were lying about their bullshit just to hold hostage an entire university, Field literally turned them into the poster-children for "Field Negros" and every other step-'n-fetch asshole here sang their praises as some sort of heroes.

THAT'S why race relations are shit. People who have never even thought about black people as anything other than people feel as if they're backed into a corner, solely because of their white skin color, and feel attacked by whiny-ass morons who insist they're oppressed in America, while they talk about it on Twitter with an $800 phone.

If we could get the whiny-ass wimpy SJW blacks to STFU, we could pinpoint REAL RACISM and fight it! You know, the motherfuckers who despise blacks and are seeking to literally harm blacks!? Wouldn't it be so fucking great for our nation if we could pinpoint and get rid of those people? Instead, we have to spend our time focusing on some white person who asked a black person the "wrong" question, dared to offer them a piece of chicken, or wore a Halloween costume that the "kangz" of America didn't first approve.

It's a fucking joke. And a bad one.

Josh is a whiny bitch said...

and feel attacked by whiny-ass morons who insist they're oppressed in America, while they talk about it on Twitter with an $800 phone.
-------------
oh fuck you Josh, just another know it all white asshole bitching about negroes. How are you any different than the thousands of other whites who claim they know everything about everything and us whiny negroes should just shut up and let you decide what is real racism and what isn't.
blah blah blah blah flash tits rinse and repeat. Next time you come back at least have some new material. Now you're just saying the same shit all other white racist assholes say. Yawn.

Josh is a bitch said...

Also Josh, I'm capable of figuring out what offends and affects me without your help. I'm also capable of figuring out the best way to remedy the situations. I have a sneaking suspicion you don't have the best interest of negroes in mind when you post your 800 page diatribes about what you think we should do.

Josh said...

It's that attitude that gave us microaggressions. You want to accuse people of causing you "offense," based on purely subjective, personal standards, yet you refuse to allow the accused a voice.

Modern-day witch-hunting, pure and simple.

It's not what's best for the negro; it's what best for YOU! You're a selfish, whiny-ass wannabe totalitarian who was born with enough eumelanin receptors activated in the skin to use "black" as your shield for crying your way through life.

Maybe that works on white people who are afraid to stand up against it for fear of some backlash, but it doesn't work on me. You don't just get to play all your cards, accusing me of shit, and have me capitulate to your thin-skinned ass. Fuck. That. Faggot.

It really is ironic and really goes to show that it's actually black people, not white people, who keep "race relations" as tense as possible. For you know, without any doubt, that the white people who kiss your feet and navigate around your ever-growing mine-field of shit you can't say, are the white people who view you as nothing more but a violent animal who will lash out if offended, so they kowtow in fear, in deference, in hopes of not offending you. It really is ironic that THAT'S what you want of white people.

They're the ones who want to lower the bar for you in school because they think you're too stupid to pass "white" materials. They're the ones who want to increase welfare measures because they think you're too lazy to work or start businesses. They're the ones who want to thought-police the entire world because they believe you're too fucking fragile, too much a pussy faggot, to hear opinions with which you disagree, or words you've been taught will cause you physical pain.

A guy like me, who thinks you're an individual fully capable of thinking as an individual, and can probably be a fuck of a lot happier if you'd escape the Marxist groupthink associated with the idea of "blackness" -- yet I'M the bad guy. I don't think you're too violent or too stupid or too animalistic to be disagreed with; yet the white people you'd call an "ally" DO hold those opinions of you.

White people who treat you just like everyone else and tell you to grow the fuck up and stop complaining at the big, mean, right-wing racists who are oppressing you! Those are the racists. White people who fear that you'll murder them and rape their daughter if they upset you? THAT'S what you seem to want.

So, are they right and I'M wrong?

Somehow in this fucked-up collectivist mind of yours, they're the good guys and I'm the bad guy.

Get fucked, you low-IQ buffoon.

Anonymous said...

Gibs me dat!!!!

Anonymous said...

Libtards are mentally ill and the DSM-V needs to be amended.

You know who said...

Conservatards are mentally ill and the DSM-V needs to be amended.

There

Josh is an attention whore said...

A guy like me, who thinks you're an individual fully capable of thinking as an individual,
-------------
why that's mighty white of you Joshy. Thank you massa suh, we'z so glad you think we'z human. And we'z so glad you know what we should do and ain't afraid to tell us.
The sad part is you're typically arrogant enough to think you have all the answers. If you're the good girl then we have to admit we're pretty fucked. Thanks for your cencern Josh but we don't need help like yours. Now go flash your tits for attention somewhere else and maybe talk this talk to your fellow white identity brothers.

pterochromics said...

Josh said...
"At 37, I'm really shocked at just how deeply people have had to dig in order to call something "racism." [...] lists of "microaggressions."


- "People"?
- Therein lies the problem. SOME people might have to "dig deep", but having lived in 8 US states and 2 Canadian provinces, and at 61, *I* have seen a *hell* of a lot of times where, far from "digging deep", people just flat-out ignored what was going on right in front of their faces.
- There have always been some people who demand all the attention for largely-imagined snubs, while they belittle people who have been deeply and seriously harmed. The lingo changes, but human nature remains the same.
-
- But really, using a few people who crave attention to claim that "all Black people are spoiled whiners" is the very same thing that you condemn others for doing, except that you then take it several steps lower by using your own perceived annoyances to impugn literally *millions* of people, regardless of what all those millions of individuals have or haven't experienced.
-
- And then, after doing that over and over and over again regardless of any and all evidence that your specious reasoning is erroneous, you actually seem surprised and upset that your repeated claims of other people's supposed "low IQ" are ridiculed for being asinine.
-
- And FWLIW, 99 times out of 100, people who go on and on that they're "damned if you do and damned if you don't" are actually "damned" because they act like conceited, imperious boors.
-

Anonymous said...

There
1:45 PM

retreat to your safe space

Anonymous said...

retreat to your safe space
-------------
You first. Punk.

kanchipuram silk sarees said...



kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees
kanchipuram silk sarees