Monkey Law Professor Tells His Children They Can’t be Friends with Whites

EKOW YANKAH. STAY AWAY FROM DEM WHITE DEBILS.

A highly educated Negro is giving up on white people because whites voted for Trump.

I’ve got news for muh professor. We gave up on him and his parasitic dindu nuffins race a long time ago.

We don’t want to be friends with a monkey in a $500 suit spouting nonsense. If Ekow wasn’t so dumb, he’d be telling his kids to “Avoid the groid.” They’re more likely to be murdered by his darkie cousins than by Richard Spencer, Donald Trump, or anyone alt-right.

Zerohedge

“Can my children be friends with white people?”

This bizarre question is the basis of a New York Times op-ed published Sunday [5], and the author answers it with a “no,” albeit with some exceptions.

“History has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people in this way [of genuine friendship], and these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities,” writes Ekow N. Yankah, a law professor at Yeshiva University.

Yeshiva University!!!

For someone who disdains white people, the Nog prof sure did his best to get himself a white wife, even if he came up a bit short.

EKOW YANKAH AND WIFE.

According to Yankah, examples of white “contempt” for racial minorities in recent months include concerns over the opioid epidemic, worries over rising unemployment among working-class whites, and criticism of NFL players kneeling for the anthem. Apparently those issues receive far more attention than the woes of African-Americans, thus revealing the secret disdain whites have for non-whites.

Continue reading

NY Times: O’Reilly Paid Lis Wiehl $32 Million to Settle Sexual Harassment Claim Prior to Fox Contract Renewal

What happened between former Fox News analyst Lis Wiehl and Bill O’Reilly is known only to them. O’Reilly certainly has shown on a number of occasions that he’s a jerk.

But $32 million given to a woman who suffered no physical or mental impairment because she had to deal with a jerk is obscenely excessive.

New York Times via NOLA

O’Reilly settled new harassment claims, then Fox renewed his contract

By The New York Times
Last January, six months after Fox News ousted its chairman amid a sexual harassment scandal, the network’s top-rated host at the time, Bill O’Reilly, struck a $32 million agreement with a longtime network analyst to settle new sexual harassment allegations, according to two people briefed on the matter — an extraordinarily large amount for such cases.

Although the deal has not been previously made public, the network’s parent company, Twenty-First Century Fox, acknowledges it was aware of the woman’s complaints about O’Reilly. They included allegations of repeated harassment, a nonconsensual sexual relationship and the sending of gay pornography and other sexually explicit material to her, according to the people briefed on the matter.

It was at least the sixth agreement — and by far the largest — made by either O’Reilly or the company to settle harassment allegations against him. Despite that record, Twenty-First Century Fox began contract negotiations with O’Reilly, and in February granted him a four-year extension that paid $25 million a year.

Interviews with people familiar with the settlement and documents obtained by The New York Times show how the company tried and ultimately failed to contain the second wave of a sexual harassment crisis that initially burst into public view the previous summer and cost the Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes, and eventually O’Reilly their jobs.

In January, the reporting shows, Rupert Murdoch and his sons, Lachlan and James, the top executives at Twenty-First Century Fox, made a business calculation to stand by O’Reilly despite his most recent, and potentially most explosive, harassment dispute.

Their decision came as the company was trying to convince its employees, its board and the public that it had cleaned up the network’s workplace culture. At the same time, they were determined to hold on to O’Reilly, whose value to the network increased after the departure of another prominent host, Megyn Kelly.

But by April, the Murdochs decided to jettison O’Reilly as some of the settlements became public and posed a significant threat to their business empire.

Early that month, The Times reported on five settlements involving O’Reilly, leading advertisers to boycott his show and spawning protests calling for his ouster. About the same time, the O’Reilly settlements arose as an issue in Twenty-First Century Fox’s attempt to buy the European satellite company Sky.

In addition, federal prosecutors who had been investigating the network’s handling of sexual harassment complaints against Ailes had asked for material related to allegations involving O’Reilly, according to an internal Fox email obtained by The Times.

“Their legal theory has been that we hid the fact that we had a problem with Roger,” Gerson Zweifach, Fox’s general counsel, wrote in the email, referring to the prosecutors and Ailes, “and now it will be applied to O’Reilly, and they will insist on full knowledge of all complaints about O’Reilly’s behavior in the workplace, regardless of who settled them.”

He warned the Murdochs that they should expect details from the January settlement to become public. Six days later, O’Reilly was fired.

In a statement, Twenty-First Century Fox said it was not privy to the amount of the settlement and regarded O’Reilly’s January settlement, which was reached with a 15-year Fox News analyst named Lis Wiehl, as a personal issue between the two of them.

LIS WIEHL.

Regarding O’Reilly’s contract extension, the company said Fox News “surely would have wanted to renew” O’Reilly’s contract, noting that “he was the biggest star in cable TV.”

It emphasized that provisions were added to the new contract that allowed for his dismissal if new allegations or other relevant information arose. “The company subsequently acted based on the terms of this contract,” the statement said.

In an interview Wednesday, O’Reilly, at times combative and defiant, said there was no merit to any of the allegations against him. “I never mistreated anyone,” he said, adding that he had resolved matters privately because he wanted to protect his children from the publicity.

“It’s politically and financially motivated,” he said of the public outcry over the allegations against him, “and we can prove it with shocking information, but I’m not going to sit here in a courtroom for a year and a half and let my kids get beaten up every single day of their lives by a tabloid press that would sit there, and you know it.”

He declined to specifically address questions about the settlement with Wiehl or any others.

O’Reilly’s lawyer, Fredric S. Newman, described his client’s relationship with Wiehl as an 18-year friendship in which she at times gave him legal advice.

Asked about the allegation of a nonconsensual sexual relationship, a representative for O’Reilly, Mark Fabiani, said that Twenty-First Century Fox was “well aware” Wiehl had signed a sworn affidavit “renouncing all allegations against him,” adding that after receiving the document Fox News offered O’Reilly “a record breaking contract.”

Wiehl’s $32 million deal dwarfs other previously known sexual harassment settlements at Fox News. The largest of those was the $20 million payout former host Gretchen Carlson received after she sued Ailes in July 2016.

The settlement with Wiehl was more than three times the amount of any of O’Reilly’s previously known deals; in 2004, he had settled a lawsuit with a producer, Andrea Mackris, for about $9 million. Publicly known harassment settlements involving O’Reilly have totaled about $45 million.

Read Bill’s response here.

NY Times Jewish Writer: White Nationalism Is Destroying the West

The writer’s name is Sasha Polakow-Suransky. I’ve selected certain passages to bold. Most of the bolding I’ve done highlights lies. A few places are bolded because they’re merely interesting.

New York Times

On July 14, 2016, as French families strolled along Nice’s seafront promenade, a Tunisian man driving a large truck rammed into a crowd, killing 86 people. A month later, the mayor of nearby Cannes declared that “burkinis” — a catchall term for modest swimwear favored by many religious women — would be banned from the city’s beaches; a municipal official called the bathing suits “ostentatious clothing” expressing an “allegiance to terrorist movements that are at war with us.”

One of the law’s first victims was a third-generation Frenchwoman who was ordered by the police to strip off her veil while onlookers shouted, “Go back to your country.” Still, many French politicians and intellectuals rushed to defend the ban. The former president Nicolas Sarkozy called modest swimwear “a provocation”; Alain Finkielkraut, a prominent philosopher, argued that “the burkini is a flag.” But what they presented as a defense of secular liberal values was in fact an attack on them — a law, masquerading as neutral, had explicitly targeted one religious group.

When rapid immigration and terrorist attacks occur simultaneously — and the terrorists belong to the same ethnic or religious group as the new immigrants — the combination of fear and xenophobia can be dangerous and destructive. In much of Europe, fear of jihadists (who pose a genuine security threat) and animosity toward refugees (who generally do not) have been conflated in a way that allows far-right populists to seize on Islamic State attacks as a pretext to shut the doors to desperate refugees, many of whom are themselves fleeing the Islamic State, and to engage in blatant discrimination against Muslim fellow citizens.

But this isn’t happening only in European countries. In recent years, anti-immigration rhetoric and nativist policies have become the new normal in liberal democracies from Europe to the United States. Legitimate debates about immigration policy and preventing extremism have been eclipsed by an obsessive focus on Muslims that paints them as an immutable civilizational enemy that is fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic values.

Yet despite the breathless warnings of impending Islamic conquest sounded by alarmist writers and pandering politicians, the risk of Islamization of the West has been greatly exaggerated. Islamists are not on the verge of seizing power in any advanced Western democracy or even winning significant political influence at the polls.

Continue reading

NY Times Compares Trump Campaign to Organized Crime as Manifort Wiretapping and Mueller Terror Tactics Revealed

ROBERT MUELLER. POSTER BOY FOR THE AMERICAN POLICE STATE.

PAUL MANAFORT. DEEP STATE WIRETAPS LASTED FOR YEARS.

No wonder President Trump was so disgusted when Jeff Sessions appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.

Mueller is a (((Deep State))) terrorist, according to what we now know. Mueller’s police state tactics are worthy of the Stalinist Soviet Union.

The news that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was wiretapped since 2014 has broken big in the press, but the real news to any freedom-loving Constitutionalist is the big reveal on how dirtbag Mueller does business.

Zerohedge

With all of the massive hurricanes safely swirling far away from the continental U.S., for a few days at least, the New York Times and CNN has once again returned to their regularly scheduled programming: 24×7 Coverage Of Russian Collusion. Of course, just like their prior coverage, today’s ‘bombshell’ reports, which center around Paul Manafort, are heavy on the sensationalized story telling and light on the facts.

First, the New York Times brings us new, fascinating details of precisely how Robert Mueller raided Paul Manafort’s house earlier this summer using “shock-and-awe tactics to intimidate witnesses and potential targets of the inquiry.”

Paul J. Manafort was in bed early one morning in July when federal agents bearing a search warrant picked the lock on his front door and raided his Virginia home. They took binders stuffed with documents and copied his computer files, looking for evidence that Mr. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, set up secret offshore bank accounts. They even photographed the expensive suits in his closet.

Continue reading

CNN, MSNBC, New York Times Totally Ignore Kansas ‘Kill All White People’ Murder Suspect

Repeat after me: There’s no conspiracy. It’s all in my mind.

Keep repeating it.

It still won’t be true no matter how often it’s repeated.

In economics we call it tacit collusion. The parties involved understand implicitly what they’re supposed to do.

What they try to do is to cover up black on white crime.

And push white on black crime (Dylann Roof) to absurd levels of coverage.

Trump is right. It’s fake news. It’s a mind game.

Daily Caller

A story about an African-American male who allegedly murdered multiple white men after once saying he wanted to “kill all white people” is being completely ignored by the liberal media.

Fredrick Demond Scott, a 22-year-old black male, has been charged this week with the murder of Steven Gibbons and John Palmer, two middle-aged white males. Gibbons was reportedly found dead on August 14 of this year and Gibbons was killed in Aug. 2016.

Scott is also a suspect in three other killings of white men.

This comes after Scott reportedly once said that he wanted to “kill all white people.”

Many media outlets appear to have completely ignored this story.

As of publishing, CNN.com returns no results for “Fredrick Demond Scott,” the name of the alleged anti-white killer:

MSNBC.com does not either:

The New York Times did have one story return in the search of his name, but it was the auto-posted Associated Press story, not an original news report:

Related searches like “Kansas City shooting” did not return any results either.

CNN continues to employ Symone Sanders, a former Bernie Sander spokesperson who blamed President Trump for an incident in Chicago where a mentally disabled man was attacked and had his head slashed open while his assailants screamed “F**k white people” and “Fuck Donald Trump.”

Federal Judge Blocks Texas Ban on Sanctuary Cities

WETBACK PROTESTERS AT SAN ANTONIO’S FEDERAL COURT HOUSE.

A Mexican judge with the good fortune to be born on this side of the border has ruled that reining in sanctuary cities is not allowed. Judge Orlando Garcia has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of Texas new law banning sanctuary cities within the state.

In all honesty, how can a Mexican judge be independent and unbiased in a case like this? He should have recused himself.

He was the judge assigned to my lawsuit, but offered to recuse himself because he teaches part-time at the university. I took him up on his offer and got a 85 year old white man assigned to my lawsuit, not that it did any good.

All of these judges rely heavily on their law clerks to research the law and write up their rulings for them. In South Texas, the law clerks are almost all Hispanic.

New York Times

HOUSTON — A federal judge in San Antonio on Wednesday blocked Texas from enforcing its ban on so-called sanctuary cities, questioning the constitutionality of a law that has pitted Republican state leaders against several Democratic-leaning cities.

The judge’s ruling was only temporary, and prevents the law from taking effect on Friday while a suit against it goes forward. But the decision, which Texas said it would appeal, served as a legal blow to one of the toughest state-issued immigration laws in the country and puts the brakes on a measure backed by the Trump administration that critics had called anti-Latino. The law has become so divisive that it served as the backdrop of a shoving match at the Texas Capitol between Hispanic Democratic lawmakers and their white Republican colleagues.

The law, known as Senate Bill 4 or S.B. 4, prohibits cities and counties from adopting policies that limit immigration enforcement, allows police officers to question the immigration status of anyone they detain or arrest and threatens officials who violate the law with fines, jail time and removal from office. It also directs local officials to cooperate with so-called immigration detainer requests, which allow foreign-born detainees to be transferred to federal custody after they are released from state or local custody.

A number of the state’s biggest cities, including Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas, all of which are run by Democrats, joined a lawsuit against Texas seeking to strike down the law, which was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, in May.

JUDGE ORLANDO GARCIA AND HIS COURTHOUSE. IT’S ROUND.

Continue reading

Bannon Speaks: “I’m Going To War For Trump”

I stand with Bannon. Get the war going ASAP. Drain the swamp. Name the traitors.

Scroll down past the story to read a comment written by Paul Kersey, whom I assume is the publisher of SBPDL.

In other related news, Trump’s friend (((Carl Icahn))) has thrown Trump under the bus after exiting the Trump train over Charlottesville and Confederate monuments.

Zerohedge

While Breitbart has warned of war ‘against’ Trump [4] – should he break from the policies upon which he was elected – former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has spoken for the first time since being fired today.

In an interview with Bloomberg, Bannon said he was “going to war” for Trump…

“If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up.

I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents… on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,”

So, war it is!

Presumably, being outside The White House allows him more freedom to pursue his tactics. The question is – given the narrative being spun is he resigned by mutual agreement – does Bannon stil have Trump’s ear? And if so, will Cohn, Kelly, and Kushner stand for it? We already know his agenda is anything but in line with theirs. [6]

Notably The White House formally launched a probe of China’s intellectual property practices tonight – invoking Section 301 just as Bannon had said.

With regard his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing’s aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don’t want to mess with the trading system, Bannon was ever harsher…

“Oh, they’re wetting themselves,” he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.

“That’s a fight I fight every day here,” he said. “We’re still fighting. There’s Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying.”

“We gotta do this. The president’s default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don’t get me wrong. It’s like, every day.”

Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant:

“Ethno-nationalism—it’s losers. It’s a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.”

“These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.

And finally, Bannon scoffed at The Democrats…

“…the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”

* * *

Kurt Bardella, a Republican communications specialist who worked for Bannon at Breitbart but later denounced him, predicts the strategist would “feel liberated” by his departure.

“Now, he will be able to operate openly and freely to inflict as much damage as he possibly can on the ‘globalists’ that remain in the Trump Administration.”

Paul Kersey wrote in reply:

It’s looking more and more like it’s Kushner’s Presidency to lose.

Kushner and Bannon have battled for the position of Trump’s Rasputin since before the election. One week Kushner might be on top, and the next week it could be Bannon.

Then came Trump’s comments supporting the alt-right in Charlottesville. Bannon is blamed for putting those ideas in Trump’s ear.

Then there was the “off the record” Bannon interview, in which Bannon denies Trump’s potential military solution to North Korea, and in which Bannon talks about whom he is going to fire.

Then there’s the Bannon rental house in Miami interview. A tub filled with acid, porn movies and a meth lab are all in the story. It’s as if Bannon said, “Give me liberty, or give me meth”.

We hear that Trump’s cabinet members and advisors, former Goldman Sach Prez Cohn, former Soros partner Mnuchin, former Rothschild leader Ross, LBO king Ichan (who left Trump Town today) and goldmanite son-in-law Kushner, are highly offended by the Nazis chanting “Jews will not replace us”.

Well, Steve Bannon will not be chanting, “Jews will not replace us”, because he will be replaced. If one works in the Trump Administration, one shouldn’t get close enough to a moving bus, because one never knows when one will be thrown under said bus.

PRESIDENT KUSHNER AND FRIENDS.