The Baylor Varsity Rape Team

Posted on Comments

Tre’Von Armstead (left) and Shamycheal Chatman (right).

Shocking allegations:

A Baylor University graduate who says she was raped by football players in 2013 sued the university Friday. Her lawsuit includes an allegation that 31 Baylor football players committed at least 52 acts of rape, including five gang rapes, between 2011 and 2014 — an estimate that far exceeds the number previously provided by school officials.
Those figures could not be independently verified Friday, and Baylor officials declined to comment on their accuracy.
The woman, identified in the suit by the pseudonym Elizabeth Doe, reports being gang raped by then-Baylor football players Tre’Von Armstead and Shamycheal Chatman after a party on April 18, 2013.
Those football players were previously named as suspects in a sexual assault police report related to that date but were not charged. They could not be immediately reached for comment Friday.
The woman, a 2014 graduate of Baylor, is now suing the university for Title IX violations and negligence. . . .
The lawsuit describes a culture of sexual violence under former Baylor football coach Art Briles in which the school implemented a “show ’em a good time” policy that “used sex to sell” the football program to recruits. That included escorting underage recruits to strip clubs and arranging women to have sex with prospective players, the suit alleges.
Former assistant coach Kendal Briles — the son of the head coach — once told a Dallas-area student athlete, “Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor and they love football players,” according to the suit.

Well, what shall we say of this? One is tempted to make jokes — Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles, “Hey, where the white women at?” — except for the fact that, if true, these are very serious allegations. And if we were prepared to believe the worst about Baylor’s football program, or about black athletes in particular, then we might nod along in agreement with the feminists who see this case as proof of “rape culture.”

On the other hand (he says, recognizing the problematic nature of the previously asserted hypothetical) we may doubt that the situation at Baylor was as extreme as described in this lawsuit. Was the plaintiff actually raped by Armstead and Chatman? If so, was there any demonstrable link between their actions and the words attributed to Kendal Briles? That is to say, if Armstead and Chatman did what the plaintiff alleges, was their behavior condoned by their coaches?

Sam Ukwuachu (left), Tevin Elliott (center), Coach Art Briles (right).

Baylor definitely had a problem with its football team, as a timeline published by the Waco Tribune makes clear. Two football players — Sam Ukwuachu and Tevin Elliott — were convicted for sexual assaults that occurred in 2012 and 2013. In a May 2016 meeting with Baylor’s board of regents, Coach Art Briles reportedly broke down crying:

The scandal involved 17 Baylor University women who reported sexual or domestic assaults involving 19 football players, Baylor regents told The Wall Street Journal. Those reports, made between 2011 and 2015, included four alleged gang rapes. . . .
“There was a cultural issue there that was putting winning football games above everything else, including our values,” Regent J. Cary Gray said, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. . . .
The Wall Street Journal reported that Briles met with regents in Waco two days before his May 26 firing. Briles was asked what he would have done differently, and he began to weep, according to regents’ account in the story.
“He couldn’t speak he was so upset, and all of us were,” Gray said. “Art said, ‘I delegated down, and I know I shouldn’t have. And I had a system where I was the last to know, and I should have been the first to know.’ ”
In May, the board released a “findings of fact” document, reporting a “fundamental failure” in Baylor’s Title IX implementation and a football program operating “above the rules.”

So, it would appear, Baylor admits that its football players committed numerous sexual assaults during Briles’ tenure as head coach. And we have clear evidence — the names have been named — that it was black football players who were accused of these crimes. Continue reading The Baylor Varsity Rape Team →

Oops!

Posted on

Decimal points matter:

Two British students were nearly killed after they were accidentally given caffeine equivalent to 300 cups of coffee during a science experiment.
Northumbria University has been fined pounds 400,000 ($660,000) for the incident in March 2015 which caused Alex Rossetto and Luke Parkin to be rushed to hospital and put on dialysis. On Wednesday, a judge said the two sports science students probably only survived because they were fit and active young men.
The second-year students had volunteered to take part in a test aimed at measuring the effect of caffeine on exercise, but a basic calculation error meant they were given 100 times the correct dosage. Prosecutor Adam Farrer told Newcastle Crown Court that the pair should have been given 0.01 oz (0.3 g) of caffeine in an orange juice mix, but were in fact given 1.05oz (30 g). There is 0.003 oz (0.1 g) in the average cup of coffee.
The court heard the calculation had been done on a mobile phone, with the decimal point being put in the wrong place, and that no risk assessment had been made for the test.
Farrer said the amount of caffeine consumed “could easily have been fatal” and death has previously been reported after consumption of just 18 g. He added the students were left in a “life-threatening condition”.

But yeah, trust universities about “climate change,” because science!

 

In The Mailbox: 01.27.17

Posted on

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
BattleSwarm: Ted Cruz/Deadspin Followup
EBL: Why Twitter Is Failing – #FreeSargonOfAkkad
Twitchy: People Are Noticing What ISN’T Happening At The March For Life
Louder With Crowder: Anti-Cop Protesters Block Traffic, Get Taken Down By Police As Crowd Cheers


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Friday Links And Hawt Chicks Thread
American Power: The National Elite Nervous Breakdown
American Thinker: Trump Playing Rope-A-Dope With The Media
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Citizenship Friday
Bring The HEAT: Soviet Small Arms Training Film
Da Tech Guy: Fausta – It’s March For Life Day, also, Echoing Pius VII On Trump – Et Tu, Erick Erickson?
Don Surber: The Instapresident, also, Democrats Keep Ignoring White Voters
Dustbury: And Then The Cycle Repeats
Hogewash: Democrats Should Support A Scalia-Like SCOTUS Nominee
Jammie Wearing Fools: Black Panthers Planning Armed March In NC – Without A Permit
Joe For America: Crazed Liberal Hits Conservative Reporter In He Face As Cameras Roll
Power Line: Voters Like What Trump Is Doing, And They Can’t Stand The Press
Shark Tank: The Democrat Plan To Counter Trump’s Agenda
Shot In The Dark: We Tried To Warn You
STUMP: Connecticut Pensions – Putting Off Payments Until Later Ain’t Reform
The Geller Report: Finally, It Begins – 90 Somalis, 2 Kenyans Deported After Trump Takes Office
The Jawa Report: Younes Abdullah Mohammed AKA Jesse Morton Headed Back To Federal Prison
The Lonely Conservative: Book Signing Events With Dr. Owens
The Political Hat: Scientists Set Foundation For Genetically Engineered Prehistoric Catgirls
This Ain’t Hell: Don’t Weep For Poor Ol’ Venezuela, also, Army Vet For SecNav
War Is Boring: RAF Fighters Buzz Russia’s Creaky Old Carrier
Weasel Zippers: EPA Employees “Coming To Work In Tears” After Trump Win, also, Pelosi Rips Christian Republicans
Megan McArdle: Both Parties Can Agree On Infrastructure – Sort Of
Mark Steyn: Cry Me A Wetland


Today’s Digital Deals

Steve Bannon, Andrew Breitbart and the ‘Humiliating Defeat’ of the Elite Media

Posted on Comments

 

First, the quotes that are being quoted everywhere:

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said during a telephone call.
“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.” . . .
“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.” . . .
Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”
“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”

My teenage son was somewhat puzzled yesterday by Trump press secretary Sean Spicer’s antagonism toward the White House press corps, and I just laughed: “No, you don’t get it — everybody hates the media. The only people in America who don’t hate the media are the media.”

When I woke up Thursday morning and switched on CNN, the chyron across the bottom of the screen was: “TRUMP’S OBSESSION WITH CROWD SIZE” — nearly a week after the inauguration, CNN was still trying to “win” that argument. But who was “obsessed”? Trump or CNN?

“Turn the camera around” — that was one of Andrew Breitbart’s mantras. Force the people behind the camera to explain themselves and make the media’s own biases the subject of the story. The Trump team, with Breitbart’s buddy Bannon as chief of staff, has made it happen. While the grassroots Left is shrieking in a hysterical mood of rage and fear, unable to understand how Hillary lost or what Trump’s presidency means, the elite media continue trying to pretend that the problem is Trump, when the problem is actually in the executive suites and TV control rooms of CNN and other soi-disant “mainstream” news organizations.

Allahpundit at Hot Air:

When I read [Bannon’s quotes to the New York Times], in my mind I hear the quotes in Andrew Breitbart’s voice, not Bannon’s. Conservatives who dislike Breitbart.com’s Trump cheerleading like to complain that the site would have looked different last year if Andrew were in charge, but I’ve always thought that was overstated. Bannon is giving you pure #WAR here. Their goals may be different — Bannon is a nationalist while Breitbart, as I understood him, was more of a libertarian — but the idea of the media as the archenemy of the right is the thread that tied them together, and tied both to the rest of conservative media. The line between Breitbart and Bannon is thinner than anti-Trump righties would like to believe. If you don’t like the #WAR attitude from a Republican White House, at least don’t pretend that it’s all Bannon’s doing.

While a lot of Breitbart’s friends and admirers might share this belief that the difference between the late Breitbart and Bannon is a matter of ideology (i.e., nationalist vs. libertarian), I think that might be overstated. What Bannon brought to the Breitbart operation was the mentality of a guy from a blue-collar Irish-Catholic background with a seven-year Navy career and a Harvard MBA — a natural-born ass-kicker, a populist with a Reaganesque kind of Cold War patriotism. The first time I met Bannon, at RightOnline in 2011, he was promoting a documentary about Sarah Palin, the populist darling of the Tea Party movement. The  “nationalist” label has been invoked by the Left as a smear to imply that Trump has an affinity to Hitler and, seeing it applied to Bannon, I must ask: “How can a patriotic American populist avoid this insulting comparison?” Wouldn’t today’s elite media also make such claims against Democrats like Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman? Can anyone oppose the Soros-funded progressive Left and escape being smeared as a Nazi?

Yes, Breitbart was arguably more “libertarian” than Bannon, but that’s not the real distinction between them. Breitbart was Hollywood, and Bannon is Norfolk, Virginia. That is to say, Breitbart’s political attitudes were formed in opposition to the decadent snobbery of the show-business elite, and his playful sense of mischief — his gifts as a prankster and entertainer — reflected that background. Steve Bannon came from an earlier era (born in 1953, whereas Breitbart was born in 1969) and his attitude is of a guy from a working-class background who succeeded in highly competitive environments — Virginia Tech, the U.S. Navy, Georgetown, Harvard, Wall Street.

A lot of people who worked with Breitbart resented Bannon’s old-school Vince Lombardi/George Patton kick-ass-and-take-names approach. Steve Bannon is not a guy who gives a damn about your hurt feelings, OK? No, ma’am, Steve Bannon is about winning,  He’s the guy that Mitch and Murray send to tell you that first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado, second prize is a set of steak knives, and third prize is you’re fired.

“Put that coffee down. Coffee’s for closers only.”

 

 

Winning is about teamwork, and every team needs a Steve Bannon — someone who’s willing to be Blake from downtown, or Andy Sipowicz, the angry Bad Cop in the interrogation room. You may not like that guy, but his job is not about being liked, it’s about getting results. The addition of Steve Bannon to the Breitbart team freed Andrew Breitbart of the onerous responsibility of being the Bad Cop, the guy who said, “No.” The question of what Andrew would have thought of everything that went on at Breitbart.com the past five years, or what Andrew would say about Trump, must be forever moot. Many people have claimed to speak as the rightful inheritors of Andrew’s vision, but that’s above my pay-grade. My understanding of Bannon’s role at Breitbart.com, and his subsequent ascent to power in the Trump White House, is constructed from inferences based on evidence in the public record, secondhand anecdotes and my own direct observation. The first time I met Andrew Breitbart nearly 10 years ago, at CPAC 2007, I hung out with him in his hotel room at the Omni Shoreham, listening to him talk until 4 a.m., while his roommates Evan Sayet and Joel Mowbray were trying to sleep. Andrew was an inspirational genius whose untimely death was an irreparable loss to the conservative movement, and all any of us have done the past five years is what little we could to keep burning the flame that he ignited.

So now Steve Bannon gets on the phone from the White House and tells the New York Times they’ve suffered a “humiliating defeat,” and the reporters are obliged to quote Bannon’s words verbatim, and you ask me what Andrew would think? Oh, I can hear Andrew laughing loudly.

“Put that coffee down.” The media is losing, and America is winning.



 

 

F–k You, @CAwkward

Posted on Comments

Jennifer Peepas, a/k/a “Captain Awkward.”

Captain Awkward (@CAwkward on Twitter) is a feminist blog run by Jennifer Peepas, “a woman whose plan for paying back $100K in grad school debt is ‘be an indie filmmaker.’” It would be uncouth for me to sling personal putdowns at Ms. Peepas, and also unnecessary, as I’m sure the commenters will find plenty of rude things to say about her.

Anyway, today Captain Awkward decided to share some advice:

 

Excuse me for omitting some of the tweets in her enumerated rant, but do I really need to explain what’s wrong with this advice?

Here’s a hint, guys: If a woman likes you — I mean, if she is totally into you — she’s not thinking about contraception. No, if she’s totally into you, she’s gonna be like, “Inseminate me, please! I want to have your babies!”

 

The kind of spontaneous female reaction inspired by her recognition of a man’s reproductive fitness, where she’s hearing wedding bells and thinking about how she’s going to decorate the nursery the first time you offer to buy her a cup of coffee, has nothing to do with mere politics.

What is commonly called “love” operates at the level of natural instinct, involving autonomous reflexes beyond rational control. However, as it is proverbially said, it takes two to tango. Philosophers have spent years pondering the question, “What do women want?” And I believe the only possible answer is, women want to be wanted, like the song says:

I want you to want me.
I need you to need me.
I’d love you to love me.
I’m beggin’ you to beg me.

A woman wants to feel that she is indispensible and irreplaceable, uniquely cherished by a man worthy of her admiration. This is why women want to see evidence of male romantic ardour. When a man starts doing the peacock strut of male ostentation, going out of his way to impress her, his willingness to put some effort into the courtship process communicates to her that he is willing to risk a real commitment.

Too many guys misunderstand this. The pickup artist (PUA) community is always telling guys to act contemptuous toward women (“negging”) as a way of conveying superiority and exploiting her insecurity. However, if a guy is genuinely superior, why bother playing silly mind games like that? This is kind of like the often misunderstood idea that women like confidence. So just act confident, right? No, what women really like is competence — savoir-faire — a guy who really knows what he’s doing, and if you don’t know what you’re doing, your attempt to fake it will make you seem pompous and phony. Better to let her underestimate you at first, and then be impressed later, than to have it the other way around. And always remember, the object of the game is not to score, but to win. That is to say, it’s not about how many times the cowboy rides the rodeo circuit, but whether he takes home that big championship buckle. Some guys are lucky enough to marry their high-school sweetheart and live happily ever after, and that’s winning, whereas other guys screw around with dozens of women and end up as lonely losers.

Well, that’s just my advice and what do I know, besides having been married 27 years and raising six kids, three of whom are already married? Whereas, by contrast, what has Jennifer Peepas accomplished that would inspire anyone to have confidence in her advice? That’s why I keep saying never take advice from feminists — where’s the evidence that we should trust feminism as a roadmap to happiness? If a girl wants to grow up to live in an apartment in Brooklyn with her cat, OK, be a feminist. However, if she hopes for a life that includes a husband and babies, she probably shouldn’t take advice from Marxist lesbian man-haters. And certainly no guy should ever take advice from feminists. That’s like a Jew seeking advice from Hezbollah. Feminists are women who hate men, and who therefore are never going to offer a man any advice that would actually help him be happy and successful, because the whole point of feminism is to prevent male success and abolish male happiness.

So, let’s go point-by-point here:

  1. Never seek advice from a loser like Jennifer Peepas.
  2. Don’t bother to “immerse yourself” in books by women, unless you enjoy hanging around women who write books for a living. Most guys would probably be more interested in women who work in the food-service industry. Show of hands, guys, would you marry (a) a novelist, or (b) that friendly waitress at IHOP? I rest my case.
  3. If a woman is too “distracted” by the outcome an election to be interested in dating, you don’t want to date her anyway.
  4. Don’t wear hats, period. The only guys who wear hats are (a) bald guys, (b) guys who are too lazy to style their hair fashionably, and (c) middle-aged guys whose wide-brimmed fedoras make them look distinguished. Back when I was a young bachelor, my hair was always stylish. Go and do thou likewise.
  5. Anytime you hear a woman use the phrase “reproductive rights,” you’re obviously hanging around the wrong women;
    and
  6. Only evil women support Planned Parenthood. Avoid them.

That should pretty much cover it. Now the comments are open, if you want to make rude comments about Jennifer Peepas, as I’m sure you do.

 

In The Mailbox: 01.26.17

Posted on

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: President Trump Promises His Wall Will Be Way Greater Than Matt Damon’s
Twitchy: GayPatriot Destroys The Left’s Fearmongering In The LGBT Community Regarding Trump #DeportDramaQueens
Louder With Crowder: Congress To Reverse Obama’s Awful Social Security Gun Restrictions


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #33 – The Holiday Episode
American Power: Unindicted Council On Islamic-American Relations Furious After Trump Bans Muslim Immigration
American Thinker: The DC Empire Strikes Back
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Special Relationship News
Bring The HEAT: World Of Warships – Rusty’s Best Montana, And Mine Too!
Da Tech Guy: Trump Takes Two DaTechGuy Ideas And Runs With Them – Time To Panic, MSM
Don Surber: Drop #theresistance Crap, Media
Dustbury: The Petries Of New Rochelle
Fred On Everything: New York Times Replaced By Black Box, World Relieved
Hogewash: What Presidential Honeymoon?
Jammie Wearing Fools: That Was Fast – Trump Surges To 59% Approval, Angry Left Hardest Hit
Joe For America: Twitter Goes Nuts Over What Melania Trump Did After Blind Singer Finished Hymn
JustOneMinute: Here We Go Again
Power Line: Meltdown On The Left – Where To Begin?, also, Did Donald Trump Carry Minnesota?
Shark Tank: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Banned In Miami, For Now
Shot In The Dark: Yelling And Breaking Things
STUMP: Kentucky Pension Liabilities – Trends In ERS, County, And Teachers Plans
The Geller Report: Mexican President Vows To Protect Illegals Living In U.S. From Trump
The Jawa Report: Meanwhile In Austria
The Political Hat: School Indoctrination, School Stupefaction, School Neurosis
This Ain’t Hell: The Army Is Looking For A Few Good Cyberpeeps
War Is Boring: Singapore’s YouTubers Take On PRC Over Seized Armored Vehicles
Weasel Zippers: President Trump To Sign Executive Order Dramatically Slashing UN Funding, also, Surprise! Bay Area Restaurants Vanishing After Minimum Wage Hike
Megan McArdle: In Defense Of Trump’s “Day of Patriotic Devotion”
Mark Steyn: Fighting Fire With Fire


Today’s Digital Deals

Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt Continues His Descent into Madness

Posted on

Bill Schmalfeldt, ranting on YouTube, circa 2011.

Years of working in “file-it-and-forget-it” mode — today’s newspaper is tomorrow’s fishwrapper — means that stories I once covered on an almost daily basis are routinely consigned to the archives. For a few months in 2013, for example, I covered the Kate Hunt saga in a thorough and relentless manner until she was finally sentenced to jail, at which point I dusted off my hands and moved on to other stories.

Likewise, I spent nearly two years covering every angle of the Brett Kimberlin saga until, in August 2014, the Pro Se Perjurer was defeated in the $1 million Maryland defamation lawsuit, Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.

Most unwisely, the Pipsqueak Pipe Bomber decided to turn that case into the Brett Kimberlin Pedophile Trial and when he lost . . . Well, what more could any Neutral Objective Journalist say? “Case closed.”

My erstwhile co-defendant John Hoge, however, has not been so forgiving of the Notorious Nuisance Litigator. Kimberlin has continued picking fights with Mr. Hoge, who has repeatedly defeated Kimberlin in court, much to the embarrassment of a certain obese Kimberlin fanboy.

Google “deranged cyberstalker” and Bill Schmalfeldt‘s name comes up for some reason, perhaps because in November 2012, the neckless lunatic decided that it would be a clever idea to target my wife for harassment.

Because there are many other more interesting stories my readers care about, I’ve more or less ignored the otherwise obscure Schmalfeldt the past couple of years. Probably the last time I mentioned him was in October (“Deranged Cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt Is Still Deranged and, Yes, Cyberstalking”) when the fat fool recycled a particularly wretched falsehood. However, we must ask, what does it say about Bill Schmalfeldt that he has continued his obsessive attacks against John Hoge?

Here is the thing that Bill Schmalfeldt can’t seem to understand: Whereas I am a Neutral Objective Journalist who is only interested in reporting and commenting on newsworthy events and personalities, John Hoge is a private citizen who just happened to take offense at Brett Kimberlin’s cruel vendetta against the lawyer Aaron Walker. My gonzo approach to the Kimberlin saga led to some personal involvement on my part, but I nevertheless kept reminding myself that I was a journalist covering a story, which is why I never sued anybody or filed for any restraining orders, etc. By contrast, the private citizen John Hoge is not constrained by any such consideration — unfortunately for Bill Schmalfeldt.

Judging from what my friend John Hoge has written lately on this subject, it would seem that Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t comprehend the meaning of the word “plagiarism” and, by incorrectly applying this word to Mr. Hoge’s work, Schmalfeldt has committed torts against Mr. Hoge — allegedly, I hasten to add, because far be it from me to claim any specific knowledge of all the legal matters involved in this dispute. Knowing the character of the participants, however, I can safely say:

  1. If Bill Schmalfeldt were wise, he would leave Mr. Hoge alone;
    but
  2. Bill Schmalfeldt is a fool, and will be unable to restrain himself from further inciting Mr. Hoge’s ire;
    and therefore
  3. Mr. Hoge will continue to inflict humiliating defeats on Schmalfeldt.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

By the way, it probably isn’t Neutral Objective Journalism to encourage readers to hit the tip jar at Hogewash. But really, you should.

 

‘Our Political Opponents’: Notorious Traitor Declares ‘Progressive’ Loyalty

Posted on

 

The headline on today’s Guardian column:

Chelsea Manning: Compromise does not work
with our political opponents. When will we learn?

In case you forgot, Bradley “Chelsea” Manning is the mentally ill coward and traitor who deserved to be shot by a firing squad, but was instead sentenced to serve 35 years in Fort Leavenworth, a sentence that was commuted last week by The Worst President in History.

 

There are no words strong enough to convey the contempt that every patriotic American must feel toward Bradley “Chelsea” Manning. If one of his/“her” fellow inmates at Leavenworth had murdered Manning in cold blood, I would advocate a presidential pardon for that inmate. And so, I think, we may draw our own conclusions about Manning’s use of first-person plural pronouns in this column:

Barack Obama left behind hints of a progressive legacy. Unfortunately, despite his faith in our system and his positive track record on many issues over the last eight years, there have been very few permanent accomplishments.
This vulnerable legacy should remind us that what we really need is a strong and unapologetic progressive to lead us. What we need as well is a relentless grassroots movement to hold that leadership accountable. . . .
The one simple lesson to draw from President Obama’s legacy: do not start off with a compromise. They won’t meet you in the middle. Instead, what we need is an unapologetic progressive leader.
We need someone who is unafraid to be criticized, since you will inevitably be criticized. We need someone willing to face all of the vitriol, hatred and dogged determination of those opposed to us. Our opponents will not support us nor will they stop thwarting the march toward a just system that gives people a fighting chance to live. Our lives are at risk — especially for immigrants, Muslim people and black people.
We need to stop asking them to give us our rights. We need to stop hoping that our systems will right themselves. We need to actually take the reins of government and fix our institutions. We need to save lives by making change at every level.

Who is this “we”/“us”/“our” for whom Manning speaks? Democrats.

Just keep it up, Democrats. The American people are watching you.