Here is your typical Leftist racist

My mother-in-law told me, just before she passed away of pancreatic cancer in 2007, that some people are simply on this earth to be an example of what not to do or how not to act.

The young female Hispanic unit portrayed in the below video is a perfect example. I wanted to post the video here so you could see and watch the true nature of most Leftists today and certainly the bulk of the Silkworms** on campus. I think her behavior and her words illustrate my point infinitely better than I ever could.

This is another reason free speech is brilliant. It allows you see the true person behind the vocal cords.

She and other Leftists live in a land where “fuck you” is a legitimate reply to a question and to steal the property belonging to another is valid and where racist remarks are not only justified but mandated when it comes to Caucasoids.

The fact pattern is this. Both are students at the University of California at Riverside. On Thursday, September 28th, Edith “Chata” Macias (chata in Spanish means “boring”), the unit in the video, steals the red MAGA hat from the head of fellow student Matthew Vitale (his Facebook post is here) in a classroom.

Here is the video from the Facebook page of Macias where it clearly shows her stealing the red hat of Vitale.

Macias then runs to the “student life” office in order to “report” the hat. You see the rest.

Macias believed it was mandatory to steal the hat from the head of another student because she disagreed vehemently with the red MAGA item. That this act is illegal — theft — made no difference to her. That he had a right to wear it made no difference to her. That he had property rights made no difference to her. What made all the difference to her was that he was a Caucasoid and by dint of that and the hat, he is inherently racist and evil.

However, the only racist utterings we hear are those of Macias. The only disrespect, lies and foul language we hear and see is attributed to Macias. Frankly, it seems to me that Macias has committed a hate crime well documented on video.

Vitale states he only wants the hat back and what she did was illegal; that is, she stole property belonging to him.

Frankly, I could make an excellent case for the applicability of California section 211 PC, which reads as follows:

Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

That is completely immaterial to the Hispanic unit. Laws mean nothing to her. The country means little to her. You heard what she said.

“Look at the kind of shit he’s wearing?” she said. “You know what this represents? Genocide.”

The hat-owner began filming the altercation as the hat-taker implored administrators to punish him for wearing it. “This is mine,” he said. “You do not get to take other people’s property that is legally theirs in this country.”

“Man, fuck your laws,” was her reply.

The Hispanic unit began the entire loving event by saying:

“So this guy thought it would be a good idea to go into a conference wearing this fucking hat. Look at the kind of shit he’s wearing, You know what this represents? This represents genocide—genocide of a bunch of people.”

She pauses for a brief moment expecting vindication, a round of applause, an award, a porcelain dalmatian, a certificate of excellence, people to jump out of closets and tackle the guy taking the video and turning him into a puddle of beaten goo?

Yes. She altogether expected the cowering GOWPs behind the counter to instantly side with her and declare his obvious oppression.

Uh oh. Worse yet. They didn’t. Note their reactions throughout the whole mine minute video. It’s what you would expect of GOWPs.

“Your freedom of speech is killing a lot of people out there,” she said.

“Do you have any fucking conscience? Your fucking freedom of speech is genocide, homeboy,” she said.

“I swear to God I could burn this shit. I swear to God I could burn this shit,” she says.

“That’s full of shIt, because you all are just going to, like, mediate this and make it so like we’re all okay here, freedom of speech, whatever,” she says.

The laws of the land from the founding fathers: whatever.

“How about we think about what’s actually going on in this country?” she says.

As in your commission of a crime?

“Fuck your fucking freedom of speech, boy. Fuck it. Fuck it because your freedom of speech is literally killing a lot of people out there. That’s what it is, because you’re out there wearing hats like these that promote laws and legislations that literally kill and murder in the masses people of color,” she says.

Boring Macias accuses Vitale of “micro-aggressions against people of color.”

“Micro-aggressions.” Ripped from the Snowflake handbook. Not one original thought, Boring Macias.

“We need to get rid of all y’all,” she says. White genocide is peachy nifty with her.

“Oh, because ‘you stole my property.’ Y’all stole this land! Your ancestors stole this land, motherfucker,” she says.

We’ll get to that, Boring Macias.

The best yet?

“I fucking hate this country. I hate it, and I’m not leaving. I’m staying here because there’s shit that needs to be fixed here. We need to get rid of all y’all. You’ve got a shitload of privilege, and it shows by you wearing this hat. . .while there’s literally people getting killed out there.”

If you fucking hate this country, Boring Macias, I’ll wager there are thousands and thousands of Americans who feel the same way about you.

Vitale, by the way, said he’s half-Nicaraguan. Immaterial to Boring Macias because he is “white presenting.”

Her final point?

“Oh my God, you’re going to keep letting him wear it?” Macias says. “That just shows how the fucking UCR is and the education system. It’s geared to benefit white people, white people, not me.”

After all, it’s all about her and no else. No one may do anything she doesn’t approve in Chata Land.

I wonder how she would be acting if someone stole a piece of property from her? How would others on campus be reacting?

This is “Panchita’s” little motto she writes on Facebook: “La cara represora de un régimen débil que golpea para generar temor, el que agrede no muestra fuerza, sino miedo a la fuerza del agredido.”

Translated: The repressive face of a weak regime that strikes to generate fear, the one that attacks does not show force, but fear to the force of the aggressor.

One question to the Hispanic bint. Do you know why you speak Spanish instead of Nahuatl? Because Mexico was conquered. By Spain. You are speaking the language of your European conqueror. Spain is this odd country of Caucasoids far, far away. Look it up.

Yet she is being repressed in the United States. Only her.

An aside: Boring Macias begs GoFundMe for $200 on an apartment deposit. Why? You’ll love it.

I attend the University of California, Riverside. I found a place to stay next school year but need help getting enough money to put a down payment on it. I have one week to raise $200 but my mom can’t help and the rest of my family won’t help. My moms rent just went up $100 which makes it harder for her to help me. I had a job when summer started in riverside… But was forced to move to LA with my mom because I was evicted of my home by a racist white bitch. In LA finding a job has been hard for me. I’m going to be looking for other ways to make enough money to pay the down payment… But I thought id take a shot. Thanks you.

She’s the victim. Her mother is the victim. How horrible that the “racist white bitch” likely wanted rent for home. How evil to expect cash for shelter! Corporatist! Money grubber! These things must be provided for free! She has spoken!

Who’s the money grubber? She’s raised $1,067 so far after the video. Before the video, por nada. Are you thinking what I’m thinking.  .  . ?

On her Facebook post of the video, Macias wrote “You feel safe cuz you got the cops and politicians on your side. Youre not safe… just saying. We need to make racists scared.”

Let me please note that Reason.com thought Vitale, the student whose hat was stolen, was every bit responsible for the incident.

Watch and weep as two students at the University of California-Riverside fight—like children—over a MAGA hat.

These were adult college students. Not preschoolers. Not toddlers. We repeat, adults. One saw something she didn’t like—a hat—and thought the best thing to do was steal it, and tattle to mom and dad (the administration) assuming their obligation to protect her from hats she doesn’t like. His response was to tattle to the entire world— with his phone.

So recording it on the telephone was “tattling to the world.” In a world where the most minute event in which a conservative is involved would itself otherwise, not having been immured on video, resulted in the conservative being nothing but wrong wrong wrong. Even now, with video, elements insist the conservative — worse yet, a Caucasoid — was wrong wrong wrong. And a racist. And everything -ist and -obe.

Again, to be clear, people get to walk around a public university campus wearing whatever hats they want. If this makes you want to set something on fire, you’re in for a rough life.

But if someone takes your MAGA hat because they fell for the trap you set, maybe you don’t have to be such a whiny little snowflake about it.

Wait. “Reason” magazine made the heuristic leap from “you can wear whatever hat you want” to “this was nothing more than a trap for a poor little jejune Leftist Hispanic unit?” and, by dint of that, the actual victim in this case is “whiny”?

Apparently, Reason be damned. On oh-so-numerous levels.

Because Vitale’s summary was this:

“I respect her opinion. She has her opinion…..whatever sources and life experience… that’s okay. I have my opinion. That should be okay too.”

Oppressive! Heinous! Off with his head!

This Hispanic bint doesn’t care about our laws. She hates our country. She hates free speech. Only her thoughts matter. The GOWPs in the student life office offer what GOWPs offer: “let’s talk about this. We want you to feel safe. Let’s mediate. We’re neutral”

“You’re neutral my ass,” she said.

She has no interest in mediating anything. There is only one perspective here: hers. Every other opinion or speaker can go to hell. This is not up for debate. She has spoken. Everyone must accede to her wishes no matter what law is broken or where.

As far as she is concerned, she is inviolate. Untouchable.

She wasn’t born thinking this was. This was first taught to her and then reinforced in a consequence-free United States.

Thankfully, over the past weekend, the video went viral.

Thanks honey. You made all the points I ever needed about the true nature of today’s Leftists who are, at heart and soul, spoiled, petulant children.

BZ

P.S.

**Silkworm is a new term I’ve started for what are essentially Snowflakes. “Silk” because they way overvalue their worth and, simultaneously, are expensive to maintain and quite dainty. “Worms” because they are grubby, disgusting and primarily found to have no real purpose save that of, well, no real purpose.

P.P.S.

And while we’re on the topic, here’s a fabulous video of a swarm of loving black individuals deciding that it’s absolutely acceptable and recommended to beat Caucasoid women. Anyone think this might be a group hate crime? Perhaps to the tune of “slam her dumb white ass”?

Nah, me neither.

This is America, folks.

Why include the video, BZ?

Because you won’t see it anywhere else.

I am pushback.

 

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, Thursday, September 28th, 2017, with guests Dr Michael Jones and Kari Baxter Donovan

My, that’s a long title.

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.

Tonight we featured The Underground Professor, Dr Michael Jones, who spoke about positive vs negative rights in the Constitution at the beginning of the show. We wrapped up with the East Coast Political Goddess (ECPG), Kari Baxter Donovan.

Tonight in the Saloon:

  • Our new Arrakis ARC Talk Blu board is working wonderfully AND I have the ability to actually make it work appropriately; the sound is great;
  • Fabulous, the phone lines work through the new board!
  • Fabulous, the audio cuts work through the new board!
  • Dr Michael Jones reveals that he is smoking a stogie and sitting in his Tahoe as he calls into the show; it’s raining in Texas;
  • Dr Jones reveals that Texas experiences two whole weeks of Fall;
  • We talk about negative vs positive rights in the US Constitution;
  • Obama was upset that the Constitution contained so many negative rights;
  • That pesky US Constitution!
  • Dr Jones tells us about the Right Nullification Test; if you can nullify it, it’s probably not a right;
  • Positive rights are those that require someone to do something for you.
  • Negative rights require nothing; God gave you those rights;
  • Warning: do not dance naked on the Eiffel tower dangling snakes under the serious influence of ganja;
  • We do not live in a Democracy; it is a Constitutional federated Republic;
  • We meet John, who is given cookies to take upstairs from Dr Jones;
  • Who are the Fabian Socialists?
  • Steve Scalise returns to Congress; Sheila Jackson Lee couldn’t care less;
  • Happy Stories & Good Times: a fight in the Berkeley “empathy tent”;
  • Caucasoid Antifa Leftist discovers that Antifa puts Caucasoids at the bottom;
  • Frank mows the White House lawn;
  • Leftists have no damned sense of humor, perspective or proportion;
  • Kurt Schlichter’s article about “Conservative Inc.”
  • We wrap up the night by speaking to Kari Baxter Donovan, the official East Coast Political Goddess of the Berserk Bobcat Saloon.

If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on the yellow start button at the upper left.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, Thursday, September 28th, 2017” on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on the red start button.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.

BZ

 

It’s official: FUCK THE NFL

You just drew your final line with me, National Football League.

You and all your sponsors and your Leftist sycophants at ESPN can all go to hell.

You are dead to me.

What’s acceptable and unacceptable in the NFL. The bottom are shoes of Tennessee Titans player Avery Williamson who was threatened by the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell when he wanted to wear them in honor of 9/11.

Also, remember when NFL Commissioner Goodell refused to allow the Dallas Cowboys to wear a sticker honoring five murdered Dallas Police officers in 2016? I certainly do, as I wrote about it in August last year.

Here is the heinously-offensive sticker that had to be removed and never further applied. A five-pointed star, with each point to represent one murdered officer.

From the NYDailyNews.com:

NFL rejects Cowboys petition to wear helmet decal memorializing Dallas officers that were killed

by Daniel O’Leary

The NFL has gone from the No Fun League to the No Feelings League.

According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Dallas Cowboys filed a petition for permission to wear a helmet decal memorializing the five officers killed in a tragic shooting in Dallas back in July.

The decal featured a star – similar to the one featured prominently in the Dallas PD logo – with a black circle around it and the phrase “Arm In Arm,” to signify support for the police and the Dallas community after the tragedy. The Cowboys opened up training camp while walking with their arms interlocked with members of the Dallas police department.

The team has worn the decal on its helmets during training camp, but will now have to be removed. According to the Star-Telegram, Cowboys VP Stephen Jones said the league had already rejected the team’s petition to wear it during the regular season but extended the ban to the preseason as well.

“Expanded the ban to the pre-season as well.” Translated: not just no, but hell no.

Anyone perceive the slightest bit of hypocrisy? Anywhere?

Let’s first start with this, as the Ravens and Jaguars decide to all take a knee across the pond at Wembley Stadium in England this Black Sunday the 24th.

From CNBC.com:

In rebuke to Trump, Ravens and Jaguars take a knee in London during US national anthem

About two dozen players, including Baltimore Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs and Jacksonville Jaguars running back Leonard Fournette, took a knee during the playing of the national anthem before the start of the teams’ game at Wembley Stadium on Sunday.

Other players on one knee during the performance included Ravens linebacker C.J. Mosley, wide receiver Mike Wallace and safety Lardarius Webb as well as Jaguars linebacker Dante Fowler, defensive tackle Calais Campbell, defensive end Yannick Ngakoue and cornerback Jalen Ramsey.

Players on both teams and Jaguars owner Shad Khan, who were not kneeling, remained locked arm-in-arm throughout the playing of the national anthem and “God Save The Queen,” the national anthem of Britain.

No players were kneeling during the playing of the British national anthem.

Of course not. That might offend the Brits. They’re a new and expanding market.

NFL, oh yes, you’ll definitely need some new and expanding markets after this Black Sunday the 24th.

How did the fans react?

Some other reactions on Twitter.

Then there is this, from ESPN.com. I want you to see and read how this is crafted by ESPN and Leftist journalistas.

Steelers remain in locker room during the national anthem

by Jeremy Fowler

CHICAGO — In a sign of solidarity, the Pittsburgh Steelers stayed in the locker room during the national anthem before their 1 p.m. ET kickoff with the Chicago Bears.

As the anthem began in Soldier Field, several Steelers coaches were on the sideline, including head coach Mike Tomlin, while the players were not present. Offensive coordinator Todd Haley, offensive line coach Mike Munchak and running backs coach James Saxon also were spotted.

ESPN translation? Race traitors and racists, every one of them.

Players took the field within a few seconds of the anthem’s end, just after fireworks launched, with quarterback Ben Roethlisberger one of the first players out of the tunnel.

Note this:

Left tackle Alejandro Villanueva, an Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, was seen on the CBS broadcast at the edge of the tunnel during the anthem, hand over heart.

Trust me. There are already Leftists readily attempting to identify and locate the black employee at the bottom left of the photo, hand over heart like most Americans, in order to expose him, humiliate him, embarrass him, perhaps even harm him.

He was outside. Standing. One man. Hand over heart. During the national anthem. One man who had served in the US military, who had served his nation and who had the courage, the balls, to be the one Steeler who honored and respected the US flag.

Standing. One man. Hand over heart.

But wait; there’s more. One day later Villanueva had regrets. He feels he let his team down. Translated: he’s a good man but the rest of his teammates made him feel guilty for his stance.

Jeanine Pirro wasn’t the only one weighing in. So did The Black Sphere’s Kevin Jackson.

Other people weighed in on the NFL issue. Why is it that the bulk of the insightful and cogent opinions were by young black males? Listen. First from CJ Pearson.

Terrence Williams spoke about the situation.

Then there was this brilliant piece by Brandon Tatum.

As far as the NFL is concerned — just like Hillary Rodham Clinton — it doesn’t have a problem. Everyone else has the problem. It’s everyone else’s fault but theirs.

And, like Hillary, they lack the ability to conduct introspection or self examination despite Captain Obvious visiting on a daily basis.

From the DailyCaller.com:

It’s Shocking How Empty The Stadium Was For Thursday Night Football

by David Hookstead

The San Francisco 49ers Thursday night game against the Los Angeles Rams kicked off in front of a nearly empty stadium.

Los Angeles Times reporter Lindsey Thiry tweeted a photo at the time of kickoff, which showed thousands of open seats. In fact, most sections in the photo have more empty seats than fans.

Further, we must remember the probity and innocence of the NFL players themselves, anyway. Ahem.

So what is this really about? You should ask the question and all the involved players should ask the question. Is it about this loose word “unity” as some are insisting? Unity in what, specifically? Unity in terms of only what those on the Left are advocating?

Or is it — as I suspect — about what Colin Kaepernick originally stated? The rampant and overwhelming gunning-down by Caucasoid police officers of innocent and unarmed young black males?

Except that premise is a fallacy. Police shootings of blacks have gone down over the years, not up.

From the NationalReview.com, this incredibly powerful, accurate and factual article:

Police Violence against Black Men Is Rare

by Phillippe Lemoine

And the media narrative to the contrary is damaging.

A few days ago, former police officer Jason Stockley, who is white, was acquitted of first-degree murder; he had fatally shot Anthony Lamar Smith, who was black, in 2011. Protests started in St. Louis, where the shooting took place and Stockley was judged, immediately after the verdict was announced. Although they were initially peaceful, they soon turned violent, and dozens of protesters were arrested while several police officers were injured. Since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, just outside St. Louis, in 2014, this has become a familiar pattern.

This article is not about whether Stockley should have been acquitted. Instead, I want to talk about the underlying narrative regarding the prevalence of police brutality against black men in the U.S., which is largely undisputed in the media.

According to this narrative, black men are constantly harassed by the police and routinely brutalized with impunity, even when they have done nothing wrong, and there is an “epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men.” Even high-profile black celebrities often claim to be afraid of the police because the same thing might happen to them. Police brutality, or at least the possibility that one might become a victim of such violence, is supposed to be part of the experience of a typical black man in the U.S. Events such as the death of Brown in Ferguson are presented as proof that black men are never safe from the police.

This narrative is false. In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face.

Let’s start with the question of fatal violence. Last year, according to the Washington Post’s tally, just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police. The year before, the number was 36. These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year, considering that happens to about 300 Americans annually and black men are 7 percent of the population. And they include cases where the shooting was justified, even if the person killed was unarmed.

Of course, police killings are not the result of a force of nature, and I’m not claiming these are morally equivalent. But the comparison illustrates that these killings are incredibly rare, and that it’s completely misleading to talk about an “epidemic” of them. You don’t hear people talk about an epidemic of lightning strikes and claim they are afraid to go outside because of it. Liberals often make the same comparison when they argue that it’s completely irrational to fear that you might become a victim of terrorism.

One might retort that, while it may be rare for a black man to be killed by the police, black men are still constantly stopped and routinely brutalized by the police, even if they don’t die from it. However, even this weaker claim is false. It just isn’t true that black men are kicked, punched, etc., on a regular basis by the police.

In order to show that, I’m going to use data from the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), which, as its name suggests, provides detailed information about contacts between the police and the public. It’s conducted on a regular basis by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and is based on a nationally representative sample of more than 70,000 U.S. residents age 16 or older. Respondents are asked whether they had a contact with the police during the past 12 months; if they say they did, they answer a battery of questions about the nature of their last contact, including any use of force. Since the respondents also provide their age, race, gender, etc., we can use this survey to calculate the prevalence of police violence for various demographic groups. The numbers in this piece are from my own analysis of the data, the details and code for which I provide here, but they are consistent with a 2015 report compiled by the BJS itself to the extent the two overlap.

First, despite what the narrative claims, it’s not true that black men are constantly stopped by the police for no reason. Indeed, black men are less likely than white men to have contact with the police in any given year, though this includes situations where the respondent called the cops himself: 17.5 percent versus 20.7 percent. Similarly, a black man has on average only 0.32 contacts with the police in any given year, compared with 0.35 contacts for a white man. It’s true that black men are overrepresented among people who have many contacts with the police, but not by much. Only 1.5 percent of black men have more than three contacts with the police in any given year, whereas 1.2 percent of white men do.

If we look at how often the police use physical force against men of different races, we find that there is indeed a racial disparity, but that this experience is rare across the board. Only 0.6 percent of black men experience physical force by the police in any given year, while approximately 0.2 percent of white men do. To be fair, these are probably slight undercounts, because the survey does not allow us to identify people who did not experience physical force during their most recent contact but did experience such force during a previous contact in the same year.

Further, physical force as defined by the PPCS includes relatively mild forms of violence such as pushing and grabbing. Actual injuries by the police are so rare that one cannot estimate them very precisely even in a survey as big as the PPCS, but the available data suggest that only 0.08 percent of black men are injured by the police each year, approximately the same rate as for white men. A black man is about 44 times as likely to suffer a traffic-related injury, according to the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Moreover, keep in mind that these tallies of police violence include violence that is legally justified.

Now, it’s true that there are significant differences in the rates at which men of different races experience police violence — 0.6 percent is triple 0.2 percent. However, although people often equate racial disparities with bias, this inference is fallacious, as can be seen through an analogy with gender: Men are vastly more likely to experience police violence than women are, but while bias may explain part of this disparity, nobody doubts that most of it has to do with the fact that men are on average far more violent than women. Similarly, if black men commit violent crimes at much higher rates than white men, that might have a lot to do with the disparity in the use of force by the police.

This is evident in the National Crime Victimization Survey, another survey of the public conducted by the BJS. Interviewers ask respondents if they have been the victim of a crime in the past 12 months; if they have, respondents provide information about the nature of the incidents, including the race and ethnicity of the offenders. This makes it possible to measure racial differences in crime rates without relying on data from the criminal-justice system, in which racial bias could lead to higher rates of arrest and conviction for black men even if they commit violence at the same rate.

NCVS data from 2015, the most recent year available, suggest that black men are three times as likely to commit violent crimes as white men. To the extent that cops are more likely to use force against people who commit violent crimes, which they surely are, this could easily explain the disparities we have observed in the rates at which the police use force. That’s not to say that bias plays no role; I’m sure it does play one. But it’s unlikely to explain a very large part of the discrepancy.

Some might say that, instead of consulting statistics like these, we should defer to black Americans’ own perceptions of how the police treat them. As various polls have demonstrated, black people are much more likely than white people to think that police violence against minorities is very common. But the issue cannot be settled this way.

Since individuals have direct knowledge of what happened to them personally, you can trust them about that. But when it comes to larger social phenomena, people’s beliefs are influenced by far more than just their personal experience, including the media. The far more compelling fact is that, if you draw a representative sample of the population and ask each black man in that sample whether a police officer has used physical force against him in the past year, you find that it’s extremely rare.

On many issues, liberals have no problem recognizing this problem. For instance, there is a cottage industry of articles deploring the fact that, although crime has fallen spectacularly in the U.S. since the 1990s, most Americans believe it has increased. Liberals are absolutely right to point out this misperception, but if people of any color can be wrong about this, there is no reason to think black people can’t be wrong about the prevalence of police violence against minorities.

Let’s throw in some more facts. Facts that some apologist elements may not care for because they’re, well, factual. Heather McDonald, a significant author when it comes to law enforcement facts and statistics, notes:

A recent “deadly force” study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios. Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he found that blacks were 24 percent less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent.

An analysis of the Washington Post’s Police Shooting Database and of Federal Crime Statistics reveals that fully 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. By contrast, only four percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops.

But isn’t it a sign of bias that blacks make up 26 percent of police-shooting victims, but only 13 percent of the national population? It is not, and common sense suggests why. Police shootings occur more frequently where officers confront armed or violently resisting suspects. Those suspects are disproportionately black.

Here are more damning facts that race apologists, racists, Race and Poverty Pimps, Leftists and Demorats don’t want you to know.

According to the most recent study by the Department of Justice, although blacks were only about 15 percent of the population in the 75 largest counties in the US, they were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults. In New York City, blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, commit under two percent of all shootings in the city, though they are 34 percent of the population. New York’s crime disparities are repeated in virtually every racially diverse city in America. The real problem facing inner-city black communities today is not the police but criminals.

In 2014, over 6,000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. In fact, a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. If the police ended all use of lethal force tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on the black death-by-homicide rate.

In Chicago, through just the first six-and-a-half months of 2016, over 2,300 people were shot. That’s a shooting an hour during some weekends. The vast majority of the victims were black. During this same period, the Chicago police shot 12 people, all armed and dangerous. That’s one half of one percent of all shootings.

The problem is now, with that and more, crime is going up. From UPI.com:

FBI: Violent crime up in 2016 for second year in a row

by Allen Cone

Sept. 25 (UPI) — Violent crime across the United States increased in 2016 for the second year in a row — a climb of 4 percent, according to annual figures released Monday by the FBI.

The 2016 violent crime rate was 386 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants — up from 373 in 2015, and the highest figure since 2012.

The FBI said last year there were 1,248,185 violent crimes — which include murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The report noted that those types of crimes increased across all population categories.

The 2016 rate, though, was still 18 percent lower than it was a decade ago — and the murder rate was 6 percent lower.

The Justice Department said the data report “reaffirms that the worrying violent crime increase that began in 2015 after many years of decline was not an isolated incident.”

I know why. You suspect it as well. It’s called “proactive” vs “reactive” police philosophies. You can only yell “over-policed” at law enforcement for so long before they take you up on the demand to reduce.

All that said, why are so many persons caving to what appears to be protests based in ignorance (Black Lives Matter itself was created behind the falsehood of “hands up don’t shoot)?

Easy. The NFL is a business. And as a business Roger Goodell and the NFL team owners realize that the NFL is 70% black. Not a shocking statistic. What this means is that the NFL itself fears its players — more protests, possible walkouts, etc. — more than it fears you, the purchasing and attending public. You’ll come back. You always have. You always will.

The NFL is, literally, counting on it.

Despite what Leftists and anarchists are pushing, this is at least for the time being, a free country.

Players — as long as there are no contractual conflicts, as with the Dallas Cowboys — are free to take a knee and refuse to attend the national anthem all they wish.

The owners are free to support their players.

Roger Goodell is free to support all the players who take knees or refuse to attend the national anthem wholesale.

Just as I am free to write this post. I am free to not just disagree but disagree vehemently.

I am free to stop watching the NFL and ESPN.

I am free to cut the cord to cable companies who still make me pay for channels that go against my views, such as anything having to do with Disney, ESPN, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, Comcast, CBS, et al.

I am free to compile a list of those advertisers who support the NFL and cut their cord as well.

And I am free to publish all this information far and wide on social media, on the blog and on the air at SHR Media.com.

We are all free. For the time being.

Do as you wish, NFL. I shall do as I wish.

Tomi Lahren nails it.

But even so, the bottom line is this: it’s not about the NFL. It’s not about ratings. It’s not about attendance or ticket sales or viewers. It’s something much larger.

First question that came to my mind: how long will it be before sports and other entities decide that it’s simply too controversial to even play the national anthem at all?

I value honesty and clarity. So let’s be honest and clear. We know why this occurs in the NFL and why it is not only accepted but in many ways encouraged. It occurs via GOWPs and guilt.

I have said and will continue to say: “no one is equal until everyone is equal.”

And even then, the picture is so much, much larger. It’s about the total dismantling of this nation, the removal of our current Constitution and Bill of Rights via the installation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and its subsequent rebuilding by Leftists and anarchists.

For now:

Black Sunday the 24h was the day the NFL pounded the final nail into its own coffin.

Lines are drawn. I am pushback.

So be it.

BZ

 

Frank mows the White House lawn

It started with a letter to the White House, which read:

Dr Mr President:

It would be my honor to mow the White House lawn some weekend for you. Even though I’m only ten, I would like to show the nation what young people like me are ready for. I admire your business background and have started by own business. I have been mowing my neighbors’ lawns for some time. Please see the attached flier. Here’s a list of what I have and you are free to pick whatever you want: power mower, push mower, and weed whacker. I can bring extra fuel for the power mower and charged batteries for the week whacker. I will do this at no charge.

Sincerely,

Frank

So 11-year-old Frank from Falls Church, Virginia, came to the White House on Friday the 15th and mowed the White House lawn.

Frank was so intent on doing his job that, when approached by President Trump, he kept calm and carried on.

From TheHill.com:

Boy gets his wish to mow White House lawn, refuses to stop for Trump

by Judy Kurtz

Not even a chat with President Trump himself could stop an 11-year-old boy from fulfilling his wish of mowing the White House lawn.

Frank Giaccio, of Falls Church, Va., had written to Trump earlier this year, saying it would be his “honor” to “mow the White House lawn some weekend for you.”

In the letter, shared by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at a press briefing last month, Giaccio said he would cut the grass “at no charge.”

Giaccio was seen making good on his mowing offer on Friday after the White House invited the 11-year-old to spend the morning alongside a groundskeeper at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

In videos posted on Twitter, Giaccio — sporting a red shirt and shorts — is seen pushing a lawnmower in the Rose Garden as Trump approaches him. Laughter from onlookers is heard as the boy doesn’t stop mowing, despite the president standing on the grass right beside him.

On a second pass, Giaccio did indeed stop long enough to shake the president’s hand before continuing with his yard work.

Of course, something as simple and honest as this couldn’t be allowed to stand by certain Leftists, could it? Of course not.

First there were these responses amongst many others.

Then from Twitchy.com:

Why Trump won: Former NYT labor reporter thinks boy mowing White House lawn sends a bad signal

As Twitchy reported Friday, an 11-year-old from Virginia who had volunteered to mow the White House lawn did exactly that this week, pushing a mower around the Rose Garden while the press took pictures.

Frank also met President Trump and was invited to the Oval Office; to us, it was the feel-good story of the week. But we were warned …

We compiled quite a few tweets from critics, but it seems fitting that the New York Times’ former labor reporter should be given special consideration. He thought it was a great display of patriotism and the work ethic that made America great, right?

Yeah, no.

Greenhouse has written a lot about kids being hurt by machinery. It’s a good thing, then, that no parent in America would let a child under 21 operate something as dangerous as a push mower out in the back yard, let alone pay them an allowance rather than an hourly minimum wage.

Steven Greenhouse doesn’t stop there. He refers someone to a website called the “Amputee Coalition” whose headline is this:

Lawn Mower Accidents Cause Needless Amputations

More Than 600 Children Undergo Mower-Related Amputations Each Year

More attention needs to be paid to lawn mower safety to avoid accidents to the operator and children. Needless limb loss accidents can be prevented by taking simple commonsense precautions. (See the checklist at the end.)

Depending on where you live in the U.S., you may mow your lawn 30 times or more this year. Every time you start your mower, you are dealing with a dangerous and potentially deadly piece of equipment. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission statistics are shocking: Each year, 800 children are run over by riding mowers or small tractors and more than 600 of those incidents result in amputation; 75 people are killed, and 20,000 injured; one in five deaths involves a child. For children under age 10, major limb loss is most commonly caused by lawn mowers.

Without a doubt, parents, it’s time to start dressing your children in gigantic Nerf suits before sending them out the door. Better yet, keep them inside the house wearing the Nerf suits. Who knows what could occur when they leave your home. Wait! Don’t most accidents occur in the home?? Oh no! Now what should GOWPs do??

Here … if you don’t believe child labor is dangerous, read this website about amputees who lost a limb to a lawnmower. Actually, don’t read it — just get rid of your lawnmower and put the time you save mowing into getting them banned. Hell, start a lobbying group called Everylawn for Mower Safety.

Greenhouse couldn’t stop there. What does the American Academy of Pediatrics say about the terrible situation President Trump not only enabled but encouraged, the ignorant bastard?

Lawn mower injuries send 13 children to the emergency department every day

On average every day in the United States, 13 children receive emergency treatment for a lawn mower-related injury. That adds up to almost 4800 children injured each year. A recent study from the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine shows that, while there has been a decrease in the number of children injured by lawn mowers over the last few decades, this cause of serious injury continues to be a concern.

Run for your lives! Briggs & Stratton, Toro, Honda and Craftsman all exist to do nothing more than power child-eating machines!

But wait, there’s more. Maybe we should, in the end, ask Frank what he thought about the whole affair.

“It was really cool.”

Best summary I could envision.

BZ

 

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon Radio Show, “The Aftermath,” with Professor Michael Jones, Thursday, September 14th, 2017

Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.

Thursday’s show featured the Underground Professor, Dr Michael Jones, and also a few stories which led up to one massive revelation — finally given verbalization by an individual I highly respect — that I term the DC Axiom, which answers most questions about the swamp. And why little gets done in Washington.

Tonight in the Saloon:

  • Jersey Joe wasn’t on tonight so YouTube decided not to hose me;
  • UK teachers scared to teach about 9/11, fearing Muslims will complain;
  • Dr Jones talks first about how Houston and Florida are no longer on the radar scopes of the American Media Maggots because Trump isn’t booting the issue;
  • Give Trump a break; keep cool and carry on regarding Trump, Schumer, Pelosi;
  • Schumer and Pelosi jumped first to create the narrative that Trump deflated;
  • Only a completely secular person can now hold a position in the federal gov’t?
  • Feinstein & Demorats grill a Catholic professor nominated for the 7th DCA;
  • California wants to secede? Straight ahead; you’ll all fail abjectly;
  • Can a state secede? Dr Jones thinks, after everything, yes, a state could;
  • We compare and contrast California vs Texas and their infrastructure;
  • Dr Jones differentiates the central government vs the federal government;
  • Texas has energy independence absolutely nailed;
  • Dr Jones: sanctuary cities are entirely unconstitutional;
  • What authority does a government have to not follow laws?
  • Picking and choosing what laws will be obeyed and disobeyed;
  • Is the FBI Constitutional? Dr Jones thinks, bottom line, it isn’t;
  • Happy Stories: “that sucker’s coming down!”
  • North Korea launches another missile over Japan;
  • Are we looking directly into the eyes of WW III?
  • We know: WW IV will be fought with rocks and sticks;
  • Susan Rice admits unmasking Trump team after strident denial; SHE LIED;
  • Diane Feinstein grills Professor Barrett because she isn’t a complete secularist;
  • Those grillings have a slight bit of consequence; it’s all about Trump, not her;
  • Nancy Pelosi is losing whatever marbles she once possessed;
  • Sessions’s DOJ will not investigate the IRS and Lois Lerner;
  • Three branches of government? No, there are 4, to include the Bureaucratic;
  • GOP senators say: Comey cleared Hillary Clinton before her interview;
  • Shame on the FBI for dropping Hillary’s email scandal;
  • James Comey has managed to drag the FBI into every terrible cesspool;
  • Comey conducted a FAKE investigation into Hillary Rodham Clinton;
  • The ultimate DC Axiom finally revealed.

If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” with The Underground Professor, Thursday, September 14th, 2017″ on Spreaker.

If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start.

Next Tuesday’s show on September 19th will feature Dan Butcher of the High Plains Pundit media empire as he and I chat about time political and social events. Miss it at your own peril.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.

BZ