To Keep Da White Debils Out of His Neighborhood, Da Black Man Declares Bike Lanes to be Racist

Blacks on bikes? They make easier targets for that KKK-driver whose hobby is mowing them down.

Lew Rockwell

The left is on a roll these days when it comes to labeling everything that is (supposedly) “white” as racist. Just last week here in L.A., a prominent bicycle-rights advocate who was running for city council crashed and burned (metaphorically) when the left declared bike lanes to be racist. And not just bike lanes, but also the enforcement of safe driving laws that protect cyclists. In other words, the two things that bicycle activists hold dearest—bike lanes and safe driving awareness—are now racist. The arguments? Safe driving enforcement will lead to “racial profiling,” because apparently nonwhites are such shit drivers that any attempt to keep bikers safe will by necessity lead to drivers of color being locked up (at least that’s the reason suggested by L.A.’s favorite Stalinist weekly). And bike lanes? Why are they racist? Simple, stupid. Bike lanes lead to white people entering black communities in a manner in which blacks are forced to see them. No, I’m not kidding. That’s the new big thing out here. Blacks don’t want to see whites in their neighborhoods, showing off their ofay devil skin and scaring the chillun. No joke. Two months ago, a black entertainment-industry insurer who lives in Leimert Park, a traditionally black L.A. neighborhood, organized a Saturday-morning jogging club made up of his friends and colleagues, most of whom are white. The fact that a bunch of white devils thought they could jog through a black neighborhood set off such a massive firestorm of protest, it became Metro section front-page news in the L.A. Times.

Liberal On the commons did a long feature report on bike lanes as a KKK conspiracy.

Here’s an excerpt:

The racial dynamics of bike lanes also flared up in a traditionally African-American neighborhood in Portland that is seeing an influx of younger white people. Long-time residents raised the issue of bike lanes fueling gentrification two years ago at a public meeting about a protected bike lane project for North Williams Street. “The bike community was surprised at the reaction to the project,” recalls Michelle DePass, an avid bicyclist and African-American leader, who notes that there was little attention paid to improving traffic safety in the neighborhood when it was predominantly African- American. (Nationally, African-Americans suffer a bike fatality rate 30 percent higher than for whites, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control; for Latinos it is 23 percent higher.)

Heh, heh. Ebil whitey dun beez mowin dem po’ colored folks down.

Either that, or the pedal people of color are more careless than whites when riding a bike.

Did the Bush Family Have Ronald Reagan Shot? (Yes!)

GEORGE H. W. “POPPY” BUSH IN 2012.

When you see the term “Bush Crime Family” used somewhere, keep this little story in mind as just one example of how corrupt the Bushes are.

Condensed from Lew Rockwell

Why did George H.W. Bush and his cabinet determine that John W. Hinckley Jr. — the man who in 1981 tried to kill the newly inaugurated President Ronald Reagan — was a lone nut, and no conspiracy, foreign or domestic, was involved? How did they arrive at this conclusion just five hours after the shooting, without any thorough examination?

And why won’t the Federal Bureau of Investigation release its documents on the shooter?

Hinckley, who was released from a federal psychiatric facility on August 5 after 35 years, remains a mystery, and that’s the way the government prefers it. Among the documents the Bureau withholds are those that reveal organizations linked to him — and the names of his associates.

One noteworthy individual will not even acknowledge knowing of Hinckley beforehand, someone associated with the shooter’s family, and an even longer history of dissociation — George H.W. Bush.

Most Americans have never heard about this — and even those who have will be intrigued by some little-known aspects. One is the rather unique way the Bush clan has dealt with or sought to dismiss such peculiar situations — and this is hardly the only one in which the family has been enmeshed.

Here’s an amazing example: Bush Senior, known to family and friends as “Poppy,” claimed he could not remember where he was when he heard that President John F. Kennedy had been shot. I discovered a good reason why he should have remembered — because he, himself, had been in Dallas that morning.

I also saw an FBI memo showing that the man who would later become Bush 41 had secretly called the FBI shortly after the shooting of President Kennedy with information on a man he said might be involved. It turned out that not only was the man not involved, but that Bush knew him personally — and even, via a subordinate, gave the man an alibi.

Too weird.

Imagine my fascination, then, to learn that John Hinckley Jr., the man who shot and nearly killed President Ronald Reagan in 1981 — an attempt which, if successful, would have resulted in then-Vice President George H.W. Bush moving up to the top spot — was none other than a friend of the Bush family.

How strange is that? So strange that it literally caused NBC News’s anchor John Chancellor’s eyebrows to arch as he reported the curious connection.

The story was broken by the now-defunct Houston Post, and then picked up briefly by the AP and UPI wire services, and some newspapers, plus Newsweek.

Then it vanished without a trace or further inquiry or comment in the mainstream media.

Roger Stone is also a believer in the theory that Poppy Bush was involved in the plot to assassinate Reagan. Here’s another article naming Bush as involved in the assassination attempt.

This story offers an example of how the (((Deep State))) that wants President Trump gone operates. Pray for Trump and the Republic.

Another Obama Kiss of Death? Monkey President Endorses Macron for French President

EMMANUEL MACRON AND SEXUAL PREDATOR WIFE.

Obama’s opposition to Brexit proved to have increased the resolve of the “Leave” voters. Will his endorsement of alleged bisexual or gay Emmanuel Macron for the French presidency also prove to backfire?

The woman who is Macron’s wife began having sex with him when he was 15 and one of her students. The left loves this. It opens the doors to greater public acceptance of pedophilia. The left also loves America’s gay ex-president too.

Lew Rockwell

When the arrogant socialist former president threatened England should the British people vote to secede from the EU oligarchy, it only strengthened the resolve of the secessionists and aided their victory. This suggests that the socialist candidate for president of France, Emmanuel Macron (mislabeled by the American lying media scum as an “independent centrist”) should be a little worried today since Obama “endorsed” him yesterday.

And Marine Le Pen (always smeared as “far” right by the lying media scum) should send Obama a thank you note. Maybe even a bottle of fine French wine.

France’s left-wing feminists are ecstatic over Macron because, according to numerous articles in the media, he began sleeping with his wife, who is 25 years his senior, when he was 15 years old. “It’s about time” the taboo on such practices was lifted, they are saying. His parents reportedly said that they “didn’t call the police,” but voiced their disapproval of their 15-year-old son having sex with a 40-year-old woman. Of course, Hillary Clinton also won 100% of the left-wing feminist vote. It didn’t lead to victory because 100% of the left-wing feminist vote is just 100% of the left-wing feminist vote.

Obama and Macro are two Soros puppets. So of course Obama was going to endorse him.

Inspirational Quote of the Day: One About a “Giant Conspiracy”

Excerpt from Jeffrey Tucker’s Wikipedia

Alleged role in Ron Paul Newsletters[edit]

In an interview with Reason, Timothy Virkkala, former managing editor of the libertarian magazine Liberty, alleged that Tucker played a role in the production of racially charged newsletters written on behalf of Ron Paul. By Virkkala’s account, he heard from Bill Bradford, then the editor of Liberty, that Tucker was an “assistant, [and] probably a writer” who assisted “editor and chief writer” Lew Rockwell in creating the newsletters.[9] Eric Dondero, who served as (election) campaign coordinator and senior aide to Ron Paul in the mid to late 1990s, told the American Spectator in an on-line reader comment that “Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker wrote the newsletters.”[23] According to a political blog by Economist, unnamed “numerous veterans” of the libertarian movement said it was an “open secret” throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s that Tucker and Rockwell ghostwrote the newsletters.[24] In response to questions about his role with the newsletters from Reason, Tucker said, “I just really am not going to make a statement, I’m sorry. I’ll take all responsibility for being the editor of Mises.org, OK?”[9]

Two Dangerous Men: Trump and McMaster

From everything I’ve read, President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser H. R. Mcmaster is a Deep State warmonger. He’s only in his position because the Deep State was able to drive General Michael Flynn out.

There is so much in the way of palace intrigue right now that it’s impossible to know what’s coming next out of the White House. Trump, perhaps rattled by the press’s unceasing criticism of him, has adopted the Neocon lust for military intervention in remote parts of the globe.

What happened to America First?

Lew Rockwell

General H.R. McMaster is Trump’s National Security Advisor. He advised Trump to launch 59 missiles on a Syrian airfield. This was an act of war. He has been called “the architect” of this plan.

McMaster is reported to be the author of a plan to place 150,000 American troops in Syria in order to remove Assad.

McMaster has lied about the Idlib release of gas, blaming Assad for it. He knows that this attribution is a fabrication. The available evidence suggests that Assad’s opposition is responsible for the presence of the gasses that were released.

McMaster’s immediate goal is to remove Assad. He wants Russia to abandon Assad and Syria.

McMaster’s deeper goal is to confront Russia. He accuses Russia of “mass murder”: “We should be asking Russia how could it be if you have advisers at that airfield that you didn’t know the Syrian Air Force was preparing to execute a mass murder attack with chemical weapons?”

McMaster sometimes moderates his rhetoric in interviews, as in calling for an anti-Assad coalition. This is tactical lying. Underneath, he has a one-track mind. He’s intent on using force to get his way. This is shown when he refers to Assad’s “murderous regime” over and over.

Trump and McMaster are an explosive duo. They are confronting North Korea too with a “full range of options”. How full? They are military options, not diplomatic or other options. The aim is “to remove that threat”. The key word is “remove”.

McMaster accuses North Korea:

“This is a rogue regime that is now nuclear-capable. President Xi and President Trump agree that is unacceptable. What must happen is the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. So, the president has asked us to be prepared to give him a full range of options to remove that threat to the American people and to our allies and partners in that region.”

McMaster is a dangerous man. Trump put him there. Trump is a dangerous man. Both are able and likely to cause sweeping and deadly results unless held in check.

I found this lurid McMaster meme, which could help explain his way of thinking. But I doubt that he’s a Jew tool. He’s probably just an adult who thinks he’s a kid playing with toy soldiers.

The Brutal Reality of War with North Korea

This map of North Korea shows the country’s borders with China and South Korea. Notice also in the upper right that the North also borders Russia.

Excerpt from Lew Rockwell

The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles. But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital, Beijing.

China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and hard to identify and knock out.

This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world’s economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.

A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea’s million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang’s 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea’s political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan.

North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.

Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.

US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military conscription might have to be re-introduced.

US war planners believe that an attempt to assassinate or isolate North Korean leader Kim Jung-un – known in the military as ‘decapitation’- would cause the North Korean armed forces to scatter and give up. I don’t think so.

My visits to South and North Korea have shown me that soldiers of both nations are amazingly tough, patriotic and ready to fight. I’ve also been under the Demilitarized Zone in some of the warren of secret tunnels built by North Korea under South Korean fortifications. Hundreds of North Korean long-range 170mm guns and rocket batteries are buried into the hills facing the DMZ, all within range of the northern half of South Korea’s capital, Seoul.

North Korea is unlikely to be a pushover in a war. Even after US/South Korean forces occupy Pyongyang, the North has prepared for a long guerilla war in the mountains that could last for decades. They have been practicing for 30 years. Chaos in North Korea will invite Chinese military intervention, but not necessarily to the advantage of the US and its allies.

All this craziness would be ended if the US signed a peace treaty with North Korea ending the first Korean War and opened up diplomatic and commercial relations. No need for war or missile threats. North Korea is a horrid, brutal regime. But so is Egypt, whose tin pot dictator was wined and dined by Trump last week.

HISTORY CAN REPEAT ITSELF.

Dr. Walter Block Responds to My Email re Incident on United Airlines

A BIT OF HUMOR TO LIGHTEN THE SUBJECT.

Heh, heh. I admit to being the guilty party that sent the following email to America’s leading libertarian professor yesterday.

Dr. Walter Block, whose intellect I greatly admire, has responded, disagreeing with me and coming down on the side of “bribing” passengers with higher offers until someone agrees to leave the plane. This is regular commenter Robert’s position too.

Lew Rockwell

From: R
Sent: Tue 4/11/2017 2:21 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: incident on united airlines plane

Dear Dr. Block, Can you articulate briefly a libertarian perspective on the incident in which a man was forcibly removed from a United Airlines plane in Chicago? Twitter is raging with social justice warrior condemnations of United’s action in having him removed. A lot of that Twitter commentary revolves around accusations of racism against United. Some of it revolves around the law of transportation, which SJWs claim does not allow a carrier to remove a man from a plane once he’s boarded it. The property from which he was removed is presumably owned by United. However, it was sitting on “public” land–an airport terminal. That would mean that United has entered into a contract with the airport and must therefore agree to its rules. I’m sure that any thoughts you might have would be of wide interest. My position is that anyone has the right to remove anyone from his property. The removed man in this case received monetary compensation. Thank you. http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-shows-man-dragged-off-united-plane/story?id=46702631
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4401980/Dr-dragged-United-swapped-drugs-secret-gay-sex.html

Dear R: In my view, United had no right to remove any paying customer to whom they had issued a ticket, merely because they were overbooked. UA should have, instead, offered both that person and, all others, higher and higher buyout prices until they had one person leave that flight voluntarily. Some people think that private property rights give United the right to remove any passenger from any flight for any reason since they owned it. Not so. Of course, they may do so to an unruly or threatening passenger, but that was not true in this case. The passenger in question did not become violent until the authorities tried to remove him forcibly, and improperly. In effect, this passenger “rented” a seat on that plane, and, as long as he abided by the contract (sit quietly, behave, etc.) they had no right at all to expel him from the plane. He in effect “owned” that seat for the duration of the flight. When a landlord gives a two-year lease to a tenant, even though the former owns the building, the latter in effect “owns” that one apartment for the duration (provided of course he behaves himself.) Yes, this passenger received monetary compensation, but he did not AGREE to take it in lieu of his paid for trip

DR. WALTER BLOCK, ECONOMICS, LOYOLA UNIVERSITY.