🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Asian, Bad, and Clothes: lein-wahliik: appropriately-inappropriate: someoneintheshadow446: rainbownova: otakusapien: shrineart: joyfulldreams: senpaibowie: etirabys: skull-bearer: lolatsjw: ifonlyfor: nouveau-brut: humansofnewyork: “Two other people took my picture before you, so I was already popular.” I know that some people said in the comments that this outfit was culturally appropriative, but just remember that you don’t know that someone isn’t a POC or biracial just by looking at them. Don’t assume other people’s races.  ^ My immediate reaction was to be upset by this photo because, I’m sorry, I’m just so fucking sick of people stealing Asian outfits and making them cool or trendy. But then I thought that maybe she’s a mixed kid. If not, there’s a problem here, though. Hi. I’m actually Japanese. Most of us LIKE when people find beauty in our culture. As long as nobody is disrespecting us or making a mockery of us, then there isn’t a problem, and if you think there is, then it seems that you are in favor of cultural segregation and that is causing more harm than good. When I was in Japan, there were a lot of places where you could get done up in a kimono or the male equivalent and have your picture taken. No one cares. Most Korean people I know are pretty delighted when foreigners wear hanbok, in a “oh, you are appreciating our culture! you look good in that” way. I have never actually heard or heard of people reacting negatively to non-Korean people wearing traditional Korean clothes, unless they were racist to begin with and would have objected to foreigners regardless of what they were wearing. ‘Appropriation’ is, I think, only appropriation when either it is done in a blatantly disrespectful way, or if the group whose clothes (etc) are being adopted is culturally marginalized to the degree where they themselves face discrimination when they wear those things. Korean people, afaik, don’t give a fuck. When foreigners visit and wear our clothes, it’s in good fun by people who are usually appreciative of the aesthetic qualities of what they’re donning, and also because we ourselves have never faced discrimination for our nationality or traditional dress. uhhh, basically, intent matters, context matters, people within the same community often have radically different ideas of what’s okay. But you know, I think the only Koreans I know who’d potentially care are the American-raised ones on liberal, activisty college campuses who are extremely well versed in the liberal, activisty language and rulebook. Thank you!! I also think it makes a difference in that the clothing is, you know, the actual thing and not some vaguely exotic knock-off like most people do with native american clothing. Like this is a legit, actual Kimono. There’s nothing really in the culture OF kimono that has rules about who wears this sort of thing when. Like…kimono literally means “thing you wear”. -shrug- Bolded some of the things that stood out the most to me. # it’s not like wearing inaccurate and sacred native american clothing or wearing a bindi or a burqa wear you’re doing it disrespectfully and the people of that group is marginalized and made fun of for those things and there is meaning behind them that people ignore or take for granted kimonos are jusr robes and there isn’t really a stigma about people who wear them  (gifs from here) When foreign women come to India we give them pottus and sarees and teach them how to wear them.  Please stop speaking for us, SJWs.  There is a huge difference between wearing an item known for its religious or social significance (for example–a Plains headdress), and wearing something that is just a general item of clothing (like kimono). If you’re wearing it to sexualize it (ie: “sexy kimono” in the fetish scene) or to mock its origin (ie: “sexy geisha Halloween costume!”), then that’s inappropriate. But wearing a kimono in good faith–say to a cherry blossom festival–isn’t in any way cultural appropriation, it’s cultural appreciation. Like, I’m Dominican, and when people want to buy Mascaras de Carnaval, or learn to dance merengue or bachata, it’s not a bad thing. person: hey I find this culture interesting and I would like to learn more about it rather than impose my own culture on them.SJWs: how dare you.
Asian, Bad, and Clothes: lein-wahliik:

appropriately-inappropriate:
someoneintheshadow446:

rainbownova:

otakusapien:

shrineart:

joyfulldreams:

senpaibowie:

etirabys:

skull-bearer:

lolatsjw:

ifonlyfor:

nouveau-brut:

humansofnewyork:

“Two other people took my picture before you, so I was already popular.”

I know that some people said in the comments that this outfit was culturally appropriative, but just remember that you don’t know that someone isn’t a POC or biracial just by looking at them. Don’t assume other people’s races. 

^ My immediate reaction was to be upset by this photo because, I’m sorry, I’m just so fucking sick of people stealing Asian outfits and making them cool or trendy. But then I thought that maybe she’s a mixed kid. If not, there’s a problem here, though.

Hi. I’m actually Japanese. Most of us LIKE when people find beauty in our culture. As long as nobody is disrespecting us or making a mockery of us, then there isn’t a problem, and if you think there is, then it seems that you are in favor of cultural segregation and that is causing more harm than good.


When I was in Japan, there were a lot of places where you could get done up in a kimono or the male equivalent and have your picture taken. No one cares.

Most Korean people I know are pretty delighted when foreigners wear hanbok, in a “oh, you are appreciating our culture! you look good in that” way. I have never actually heard or heard of people reacting negatively to non-Korean people wearing traditional Korean clothes, unless they were racist to begin with and would have objected to foreigners regardless of what they were wearing.
‘Appropriation’ is, I think, only appropriation when either it is done in a blatantly disrespectful way, or if the group whose clothes (etc) are being adopted is culturally marginalized to the degree where they themselves face discrimination when they wear those things.
Korean people, afaik, don’t give a fuck. When foreigners visit and wear our clothes, it’s in good fun by people who are usually appreciative of the aesthetic qualities of what they’re donning, and also because we ourselves have never faced discrimination for our nationality or traditional dress.
uhhh, basically, intent matters, context matters, people within the same community often have radically different ideas of what’s okay. But you know, I think the only Koreans I know who’d potentially care are the American-raised ones on liberal, activisty college campuses who are extremely well versed in the liberal, activisty language and rulebook.

Thank you!!

I also think it makes a difference in that the clothing is, you know, the actual thing and not some vaguely exotic knock-off like most people do with native american clothing. Like this is a legit, actual Kimono. There’s nothing really in the culture OF kimono that has rules about who wears this sort of thing when. Like…kimono literally means “thing you wear”. -shrug-

Bolded some of the things that stood out the most to me.

# it’s not like wearing inaccurate and sacred native american clothing or wearing a bindi or a burqa wear you’re doing it disrespectfully and the people of that group is marginalized and made fun of for those things and there is meaning behind them that people ignore or take for granted kimonos are jusr robes and there isn’t really a stigma about people who wear them 




(gifs from here)

When foreign women come to India we give them pottus and sarees and teach them how to wear them. 
Please stop speaking for us, SJWs. 


There is a huge difference between wearing an item known for its religious or social significance (for example–a Plains headdress), and wearing something that is just a general item of clothing (like kimono). 
If you’re wearing it to sexualize it (ie: “sexy kimono” in the fetish scene) or to mock its origin (ie: “sexy geisha Halloween costume!”), then that’s inappropriate. But wearing a kimono in good faith–say to a cherry blossom festival–isn’t in any way cultural appropriation, it’s cultural appreciation. 
Like, I’m Dominican, and when people want to buy Mascaras de Carnaval, or learn to dance merengue or bachata, it’s not a bad thing.

person: hey I find this culture interesting and I would like to learn more about it rather than impose my own culture on them.SJWs: how dare you.

lein-wahliik: appropriately-inappropriate: someoneintheshadow446: rainbownova: otakusapien: shrineart: joyfulldreams: senpaibowie: et...

Click, Crime, and Definitely: 50 $hadesOfRae @ThugLifeRae She Set Her Husband On Fire For Raping Her 7 Year Old Daughter. aeonwoman: ironfoxe: littleblackmanifesto: yungblkfeminist: crime-she-typed: pinkcookiedimples: gtf-o-m-d: ivanabrehas: angerylesbian: hypnictwitch: “[Vanessa Jackson] admitted to police that she intentionally set him on fire because shooting him would have been ‘too nice’.” a true american hero Her name is not Vanessa Jackson, it’s Tatanysha Hedman.  This is also not her mugshot. This is the mugshot of a Tulsa woman who was driving without a license. Lots of websites have replaced this fake mugshot with yet another fake mugshot… I have no clue why this is a thing, but this is what Tatanysha actually looks like: Here’s a link to a news article about her. http://www.news.com.au/world/wife-tatanysha-hedman-set-husband-vincent-phillips-on-fire-after-he-allegedly-molested-his-stepdaughter/news-story/40fe90869e273c68d24d9dd053482e48 She is a true American hero, I just don’t understand why her picture and name were changed. (Not the fault of the people posting it, I’m sure they didn’t know either.) FREE HER They wanted to portray that “Crazy Black Woman” character I’m sure. Why do they punish women for protecting their own?!?!!!??? Damn I didn’t know Finally the version with the correct info. Does anyone know if she has a go fund me or a way to support her/her daughter? Her GoFundMe page is here. she only has $30 raised so far. i’m so glad the correct information was posted. the website that posted the fake info is definitely a racist click-bait “satire” site. the site also has articles about blm members dismembering white women on it, so this picture was not made in good faith.
Click, Crime, and Definitely: 50 $hadesOfRae
 @ThugLifeRae
 She Set Her Husband On Fire For
 Raping Her 7 Year Old Daughter.

aeonwoman:
ironfoxe:

littleblackmanifesto:

yungblkfeminist:

crime-she-typed:

pinkcookiedimples:

gtf-o-m-d:

ivanabrehas:

angerylesbian:

hypnictwitch:

“[Vanessa Jackson] admitted to police that she intentionally set him on fire because shooting him would have been ‘too nice’.”

a true american hero

Her name is not Vanessa Jackson, it’s Tatanysha Hedman. 
This is also not her mugshot. This is the mugshot of a Tulsa woman who was driving without a license. Lots of websites have replaced this fake mugshot with yet another fake mugshot… I have no clue why this is a thing, but this is what Tatanysha actually looks like:
Here’s a link to a news article about her.
http://www.news.com.au/world/wife-tatanysha-hedman-set-husband-vincent-phillips-on-fire-after-he-allegedly-molested-his-stepdaughter/news-story/40fe90869e273c68d24d9dd053482e48
She is a true American hero, I just don’t understand why her picture and name were changed. (Not the fault of the people posting it, I’m sure they didn’t know either.)

FREE HER

They wanted to portray that “Crazy Black Woman” character I’m sure.

Why do they punish women for protecting their own?!?!!!???

Damn I didn’t know

Finally the version with the correct info. Does anyone know if she has a go fund me or a way to support her/her daughter?

Her GoFundMe page is here.

she only has $30 raised so far. i’m so glad the correct information was posted. the website that posted the fake info is definitely a racist click-bait “satire” site. the site also has articles about blm members dismembering white women on it, so this picture was not made in good faith.

aeonwoman: ironfoxe: littleblackmanifesto: yungblkfeminist: crime-she-typed: pinkcookiedimples: gtf-o-m-d: ivanabrehas: angerylesbian...