The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    librewolf's picture

    Blacks for Trump?

    By librewolf on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 9:17am |
    Blacks for Trump
    Melbourne, Fl. rally (citation at end of article)

    Trump the narcissist, craving his drug of the adulation of the crowd, headed off for Melbourne, Florida for a rally. Not surprisingly, the rally was kicked off with a prayer - "The Lord's Prayer" in fact. Three strange things here. One, I get the giving of a prayer though there is a major red flag for me at this treating of a political rally as a religious event, and I wonder if this is now typical of Republican political rallies and events. Two, was that it was not Donald Trump praying, but Melania. Three, The Lord's Prayer? Really? This seems oddly off key for the event which was to follow.

    The other thing that was oddly off key was the collection of folks behind Trump on the dais waving "Blacks for Trump 2020.c0m" signs. There seemed to be 5 - 8 of them popping up back there. I thought is was a craven attempt to show the "diversity" of those supporting Trump, and at the same time providing a connection point for the campaign. Campaign? He has just been in office a month (let us pray).

    Thank goodness for Joy Reid. She jumped right on the oddity and got to the bottom, or top, of the display, but that raised even more questions - still unanswered.

     

    So this group is a violent, conspiracy driven black group who seems to be enthusiastically cheering for Donald Trump? The group, if there is a group, seems to be headed by "Michael the Black Man" (aka Maurice Woodside), " fringe political figure in Florida, he is known as “Michael the Black Man”, an anti-gay and anti-liberal preacher" (Chloe Farand, The Independent). Farand continues:

    "He is former member of the murderous Yahweh ben Yahweh cult, which means “The Lord Son of the Lords” in Hebrew and was led by the preacher Hulon Mitchell Jr.

    In 1990, Michael, along with 15 other Yahweh ben Yahweh followers, was accused of conspiring in two murders. His brother also told the court Michael had stabbed a man in the eye with a sharp stick but the jury found him innocent.

    He has since been charged with four other felonies but has never been sentenced and he started his own religious enterprise, the Miami newspaper reported.

    In the 1990s, Mr Mitchell, leader of the black separatist sect, who adopted the name of Yahweh and declared himself the Messiah, was accused of three counts of federal racketeering and extortion charges, including 14 killings, two attempted killings, extortion and arson."

    Quite the rap sheet. Is it really a good idea to have not one, but at least five, members of this group less than 10 feet away from the president and first lady?

    Here is what I suspect happened (which is scary enough). The rally coordinators saw these 5 black men with signs (and printed T-shirts) and and they jumped on an "opportunity." They approached and said "Hey, would you like to be on the dais with the President? We can give you the best seats in the house?" Who would turn down such an "opportunity?"  Apparently not Michael the Black Man (for hire) and crew. It was a win-win situation.

    Of course, this lack of vetting (not a Trump administration strong point) could easily be used to create a very dangerous situation for the leader of the United States.

    This kind of a slip is too odd to make any sense. Where is the Secret Service in the protection of the first family? Has it been supplanted by Trump's private security? It would appear so because I cannot imagine the Secret Service being such rookies, nor security being so lax. It is reported that Trump is still using his personal cell phone. This would clearly not be the case if the Secret Service was being allowed to do their job.

    This type of incompetence in an area so fundamental to the operations of Presidential safety points to what may very well be going on inside the Administration. It is clear that the first criterion for a position in the Administration is not competency, but that one passes the Trump sniff test. Trump appears to be surrounding himself with people who will fluff his ego and not inconvenience him. Of course, a Michael Flynn learned, it is critical that you reflect well on Trump for "his people" are simply extensions of himself.

    One has to ask whether Donald Trump will be able to admit that he needs people with some expertise, and who know the channels that are critical for him to operate legally and within the boundaries of the Constitution. While there may be those who voted for him because he would bust up the status quo in Washington, I seriously doubt that they were voting for him to burn the Constitution in the process. Unfortunately, Trump seems to know so little about how our government works that he cannot differentiate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. Since he seems to refuse to admit there is anything he does not know, he is placing himself, the country, and tens of millions beyond our borders at imminent risk.

     

    ------

    Photo: Screen capture of USA Today video of Trump rally in Melbourne, Fl. Feb. 19, 2017

    AttachmentSize
    Image icon Donals & Melania at Melobourne rally with Blacks for Trump signs 810.94 KB

    Comments

    Trump has the keys to the nukes. Sleep well tonight.

    Since Donald is from New York, perhaps he can seek support from the homophobic Atlanta World Missionary Church in Harlem. The church used to post signs claiming that Obama was a Muslim and close to Satan. The pastor and parishioners might just be Trump's cup of tea.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/nyregion/avoiding-foreclosure-for-now...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 10:29am

    I don't like attacking anyone in general, but black men in particular: There's enough anti-black sentiment without me adding to it, but this was one of the saddest sights of the weekend. I can assure you "blacks" or "the blacks" don't usually address ourselves as blacks!


    by Danny Cardwell on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 12:03pm

    I think the anti-black sentiment comes from Ben Carson, Omarosa, Dennard Paris, etc. In order to curry favor with Trump and the Republicans they go along with the idea that blacks are criminals by nature. 


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 2:39pm

    How about the All Blacks?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 6:15am

    The jury found him innocent

    i.e. he was innocent.

                He has since been charged with four other felonies but has never been sentenced and he started his own religious enterprise, the Miami newspaper reported.

     "never been sentenced"  is  one way of putting it. In fact,  according to the link you provided (thanks) 

    Indeed there's no direct evidence tying (him) to any of the crimes

    Even people we don't like are innocent until proven guilty.

     

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 6:42am

    "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal construction, not a real-life assessment of guilt. As a simple example, there is evidence inadmissible in court but quite admissable in public opinion.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 7:13am

    The question was whether the men were cleared by the Secret Service.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 7:27am

    Flavius, I appreciate the point(s) you are arguing, but I would like to make a couple of insertions.

    1. I saw these guys jumping up regularly waving their "Blacks for Trump 2020.com" signs on the dais with the Trumps. It seemed very strange and frankly out ot place. I would have thought it weird even if it had been President Obama and Michelle. Letting an organized group such as this in prime camera view with a President indicates to me that this is a group that has the President's approval and backing. If this had been Obama, and Michael the Black Man, regardless his criminal associations or not, was not alone back there and the group is tied to a group that may be violent.

    2. I never said anything about "liking" or not liking anyone there, though I do have "not like" feelings about Trump.

    3. I did not "include" those three words exactly as they were not mine. I quoted directly from the Herald (and I always give source where I am able). To delete those words would have been a direct effort on my part to shape this material in a highly unethical way. It would be equivalent to lying. So those words, part of the quotation of Chloe Farand's article, stayed - as they should. Had I selectively quoted, made a specific word sculpture to shape opinion in a specific way that was counter to the "evidence" would merit me a "thrashing" by you esteemed readers, with subsequent lessening of whatever credibility I might have. So damn right I included "never been sentenced."

    4. I am definitely NOT trying to paint all African Americans, not even those who support Trump, with the same brush. Nor am I even remotely trying to make the statement that all "blacks" are violent nor criminal. I am saying that the placement of these particular people looked totally out of place, not simply for their race, but because they were advertising. It would have been no less weird to have folks waving signs "Nordstrom employees for Trump 2020.com." The placement of the group made a clear impression that SOMEONE was attempting to create a specific impression related to Trump.

    5. This is of no real significance to this post, but I am a woman and not a man.

     


    by librewolf on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 9:24am

    Far and away my chief concern is that we rigorously distinguish between being "charged" and being

    "guilty". Particularly when dealing with those who are themselves unappealing, are accused of seriously 

    bad sounding crimes (like the Central Park 5), or just with whom we are politically at odds like Trump's cabinet choices. 

    It's going to be a long 4 years and we're going to need whatever protection the laws give us. 


    by Flavius on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 10:45am

    Sorry, my question is :why are we conning ourselves ?

     Librewolf:

    He has since been charged with four other felonies but has never been sentenced

    The Miami newspaper to which he usefully provided a link.

     never been convicted

     

    We could more intelligently discuss Librewolf's position if he included those last 3 words..

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 8:00am

    I think we can intelligently discuss whether the Secret Service screened the men without your three words. They have been at many rallies. Are they paid by the GOP or Trump, or are they self-supporting?

    Edit to add:

    Given his current controversy, Trump might want to avoid a group that has ties to anti-Semtism.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 8:44am

    You're interested in the Secret Service screening. Fine . Go for it. And that can certainly be discussed without

    the three words I emphasized.

    I'm interested in having someone who provides me information in Dagblog not misinform me. I might discuss your blog with someone and also misinform them.

    If you use Dagblog to tell its readers that  someone was charged with an  an offence ,  fairness to that person  and to the readers of Dagblog you should also report he was not convicted.


    by Flavius on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 9:03am

    But he belonged to a cult whose leader *was* convicted - usually a personal indictment of the personal members of some power in the org - with his nephew testifying he stabbed a guy in the eye with a sharp stick and the prosecutor sure he was involved and saying it was an "acquittal of pity". Along the lines of "Al Capone never committed any crime except tax evasion""

    7 members of the cult were convicted, 7 acquitted. (slightly different accounting here, but 1 of the charges was trying to hack a woman's head off with a machete - she survived to testify) . Woodside likely avoided conviction by bizarrely jumping up and hollering "``You going to lie on me, your brother?`` Maurice Woodside said, beginning to weep. ``You going to lie on me? You are going to kill me, your own brother.``" at which the judge had to clear the courtroom & let jury members take a breather.

    "Mildred Banks testified with a scarf hiding the scar where his thugs had slit her throat. Robert Rozier, released from prison for the occasion, recounted his six murders for Yahweh in cold detail."


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 9:56am

    A link was provided. There was no attempt at deception. 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 10:19am

    As you I'm sure have read, the Miami paper's sentence said  " he was charged- but not convicted"  .Librewolf stopped at the hyphen. That's not good enough. I agree he met the minimum test of responsible comment by including the link. But only the minimum..

    When I read him in the future- as I will- I'll wonder if need to read a link to get a fair story.

    Probably seems  old fashioned but if we don't hang on to "innocent until proven guilty" Trump will have

    won.

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 12:12pm

    Flavius, your issue is with Chloe Farand's article in The Independent, not with librewolf.  The wording to which you object is in the blockquoted text - as is the link to the Miami paper.


    by barefooted on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 12:58pm

    Thanks. I'm happy to accept your correction. I'm not sorry I have pressed the issue.

    This week's announcement from the Department of Homeland Security is that it is hiring 10,000 agents to implement Trump's plan to step up deportation of "illegal" immigrants focusing on those convicted or charged with a crime.

    This casual abandonment of "innocent until proven guilty" should be at the top of our list of targets. And we should observe that rule ourselves in opposing the Trumpets . Believe me , if we don't,it will be used against us.

    The more odious the "charged" person  the more important that we protect the principle since obviously  the forces of darkness certainly spearhead  their attack by selecting particularly unattractive cases . 

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 6:25pm

    You made a good point about the man not being convicted of anything.   Then you missed the rules being followed in these deportations. These illegal aliens are being deported for being in the country illegally and their criminal history is used in prioritizing their detention and there is no reason to waste taxpayer money or the courts time going to trial for those not yet convicted. They are already deportable so why waste the money and fill the prisons? Even if they were found innocent of the crime they  would still be subject to deportation. The guilty ones actually receive a get out of jail free card but must celebrate in Mexico.


    by Peter (not verified) on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 1:10am

    Jesus, 7 of his cult-mates were convicted, and his own brother testified he was involved. This is like saying "he was high up in the Manson gang, but we couldn't prove he held the knife to LaBianca, unlike 4 others". 

    Linda Kasabian at least had the shame and rightful guilt to still be sorry she wasn't prosecuted as well (but her turning state's witness made sure they were convicted - her not facing charges was Bugliosi's idea). I guess we should just assume all of Bobby Beausoleil's Aryan Brotherhood were otherwise peaceful easy feeling hippies as well, just because he carved a woman up and spelled out Piggies doesn't mean the whole gang is like that.

    Yes, Librewolf's framing is correct - the dude wasn't convicted, but he very very likely is guilty of heinous shit. Let's not be naive liberal dupes over this.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 3:36am

    Liberal dupes of the Dagblog unite! We have nothing to lose but the argument.


    by Flavius on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 10:53am

    The only dupes were those who suggested that Ivanka would convince Trump not to place an anti-environmentalist in charge of the EPA, not to dump mining waste in waterways, and restart the Dakota pipeline. Those who held such beliefs might stop and reflect before providing advice on how to move forward. Their instincts seems off-kilter.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 3:31pm

    Clearly ,  I'm a slow learner since I still believe  Ivanka and her husband are too smart  and too concerned  about their own children not to have a plan to maneuver Ivanka's father away from his no-nothing stance on global warming.

    Apart from GW , haven't a clue what the handsome pair think about mining waste and the Dakota pipeline.

    Unless Ivanka is a  21st century  Goneril chances are  that the more her father is attacked the more likely she'll support him. 

     

     

    l 


    by Flavius on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 9:46pm

    A business education, even from Wharton, doesn't give me much faith in Ivanka's ability to think or the extent of her knowledge outside her career as a model and manager of a fashion line. Aside from what Ivanka believes or plans you believe that she has the ability to manipulate or control her father. I've seen no evidence of that. She's always seem pretty sycophantic to him, which is what he seems to want from everyone.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 02/24/2017 - 12:20am

    Trump attended Fordham University and transferred to University of Pennsylvania as a senior. He got an undergraduate degree from Wharton, not an MBA. 

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wharton-donald-trump_us_57b2371be4b0...


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/24/2017 - 10:16am

    As a junior, I believe, but same thing - an undergrad degree with unremarkable grades doesn't make you a genius, whatever school, and getting through only 2 years of a tougher school less impressive than 4 years. It's the graduate degrees where you really have to perform, period. Or almost period - I think MIT and CalTech and such have some bizarre weird & challenging engineering creation requirements at undergrad level, etc. But still, more self-serving pat-himself-on-the-back stuff from the burnt squash man.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/24/2017 - 2:21pm

    It's the graduate degrees where you really have to perform, period.

    I so agree with this, it's one of my favorite points. Partly because I myself was a perfect example: a hard working undergrad (and high school) student with excellent grades and I didn't have a clue until challenged in grad school. After hiring quite a few college students as temp workers over the last couple years, nothing changed my opinion on this front. If anything, undergrads at Ivy League and other more prestigious schools are more clueless than those from lesser schools.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 02/24/2017 - 2:47pm

    Since you have no evidence to support your hopes, you might fail back on advising what Democrats need to do. Trump supporters are willing to stand by while Trump attacks minorities, LGBTQ,, and women, Trump voters may be expressing frustrations about the economy, but minorities, LGBTQ, and women suffer economically. For the most- part people who did not vote for Trump speak out when minorities, and others are attacked. Trump voters say nothing. Nicholas Kristof tells us that Trump voters are not the enemy. He identifies with the plight of Trump voters, but at least in his op-ed glosses over the harm felt by minorities and others. Cornell Belcher points out that pit will be hard to convert the Trump supporter. 

    Kristof ( as noted in the "In The News" section 

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/opinion/even-if-trump-is-the-enemy-hi...

    Cornell Belcher

    http://www.salon.com/2017/02/20/obama-pollster-cornell-belcher-on-the-fa...


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/24/2017 - 10:27am

    The way Trump wins is by Progressives arguing with each other over nonsense. Trump has people holding up signs "Blacks for Trump". When you take a deeper look at them, you find some dubious connections Take deeper look and you find anti-Semitism. Donald Trump has to have the words "Jew" or "Jewish" dragged out of him. Trump has a problem. Trump is actively deporting people. Trump has to be directly challenged. Diverting focus from Trump is how Trump wins.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 10:24pm

    We don't have time for diversion. Democrats will elect a new DNC chair. We have to unite behind the new chair, We cannot divide because of purity tests.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 11:24pm

    Yes, 100 times.


    by Peter M Schwartz (not verified) on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 8:55pm