Jasmine Crockett, a lawyer and U.S. representative for Texas's 30th congressional district, was supposedly quoted in 2025 as saying the following.
"A city with no crime is racist because a city with no crime is a white-dominant city."
I can't verify this quote, but just thinking about the convoluted logic involved, I had an epiphany.
First, my breakdown of the basic logic.
Therefore . . .
So, the following must be true.
Final Conclusion.
Evil Whites are law-abiding citizens, and Good Blacks are lawless criminals.
My epiphany. This can only make sense when white laws are entirely racist, making black criminals Robin Hood-like heroes.
I actually remember the 70s and the Black Power movement. It was true up through the 60s and 70s about racist laws on the books, especially down south. The blacks in the movement at that time believed that the entire system was created by and for the whites, and was designed to hold the black man down.
That was a righteous fight for that time, but they have gained a lot of ground since then. Now, Jasmine Crockett, being a lawyer, must realize that such a stance is pure lawlessness. If this is true, she seems more like an anti-lawyer. I wonder if she would honor laws drafted by black people, or would they be unworthy as "legal Uncle Toms" in her eyes? Are the blacks in the system like house negroes sucking up to their white masters? Would obscure African tribal traditions hold more weight as law here in the States than the U.S Constitution?
A factual quote or not, this seems to get down to the brass tacks discovered by the movement since emancipation. They were freed slaves, but that didn't integrate them into the white world until much later. Nowadays, they must be integrated enough for the democrats to leave them for far more marginalized illegals and transsexuals.
"A city with no crime is racist because a city with no crime is a white-dominant city."
I can't verify this quote, but just thinking about the convoluted logic involved, I had an epiphany.
First, my breakdown of the basic logic.
- City with No Crime = White-Dominant City
- White-Dominated City = Racist City
Therefore . . .
- City with Crime = Non-White Dominated City
- Black-Dominated City = Non-Racist City
So, the following must be true.
- White = Evil Racist, and Black = Good Non-Racist
- No Crime = White = Evil, and Crime = Black = Good
Final Conclusion.
Evil Whites are law-abiding citizens, and Good Blacks are lawless criminals.
My epiphany. This can only make sense when white laws are entirely racist, making black criminals Robin Hood-like heroes.
I actually remember the 70s and the Black Power movement. It was true up through the 60s and 70s about racist laws on the books, especially down south. The blacks in the movement at that time believed that the entire system was created by and for the whites, and was designed to hold the black man down.
That was a righteous fight for that time, but they have gained a lot of ground since then. Now, Jasmine Crockett, being a lawyer, must realize that such a stance is pure lawlessness. If this is true, she seems more like an anti-lawyer. I wonder if she would honor laws drafted by black people, or would they be unworthy as "legal Uncle Toms" in her eyes? Are the blacks in the system like house negroes sucking up to their white masters? Would obscure African tribal traditions hold more weight as law here in the States than the U.S Constitution?
A factual quote or not, this seems to get down to the brass tacks discovered by the movement since emancipation. They were freed slaves, but that didn't integrate them into the white world until much later. Nowadays, they must be integrated enough for the democrats to leave them for far more marginalized illegals and transsexuals.
A trail goes two ways and looks different in each direction - There is no such thing as a timid woodland creature - Whatever does not kill you leaves you a survivor - Jesus is NOT a bad word - MSB
