Black Matriarch Committed for Attempted Murder of Her Son; Released From The Funny Farm; Kills Her Granddaughter

Wig:

 

No Wig:

colton-grandmother

A California woman arrested Tuesday in the stabbing death of her 18-month-old granddaughter had a lengthy history of mental illness and became distraught late last year when she was separated from her young, special needs son, her relatives said.

But why? Who would be so heartless as to separate a loving mother from her “special needs son”?

Nicole Darrington-Clark, 43, was arrested a day after authorities said she stabbed her daughter and two young granddaughters at their home, killing one of them, then fleeing the grisly scene.

Oh, because she’s stabby. Black matriarchs don’t have to be mentally ill to be stabby. They do that when they are allegedly sane.

She was found in nearby San Bernardino and is being held on $1 million bail, police said.

Darrington-Clark has a history of mental health issues and was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the 2005 attempted murder of her own children and sent to a state psychiatric hospital.

Hey, you what would be best for society? Letting the crazy woman who tried to murder multiple people loose on society again.

California Uber Alles.

Her sister, LaShunda Clark, and father, Samuel Clark, said they were concerned about her well-being since her release but said she had seemed to improve before becoming distraught late last year when she was separated from her special needs son, who is now 5.

Since then, she had returned to live with her husband and son in Riverside County and had gone to visit her now-grown daughter and granddaughters Monday in Colton, her sister said, adding she did not know what triggered the attack.

Pause.

This woman is 43, was NGRI’d to the funny farm in 2005 for ATTEMPTED MURDERS, but somehow, somebody found it in them to fuck and impregnate a crazy, 37-year-old woman and pop out a slow kid?

Black men, DO BETTER. Fucking crazy bitches is a bad look all around.

“None of us has slept in the last two days. It has been terrible for our family,” LaShunda Clark said. “It was never anything about her trying to hurt us. I just don’t understand. We don’t know. We’re just asking God to just keep her safe.”

The San Bernardino County coroner’s division identified the girl killed as 18-month old Damani Trouter. The two wounded victims are hospitalized in stable condition.

Investigators do not know the motive for the attack, police Cpl. Ray Mendez said Monday. Police did not return calls seeking additional information.

Social services officials declined to comment in Riverside County, where LaShunda Clark said her sister had recently returned to live with her husband and young son.

I repeat, fucking crazy, stabby bitches is a bad look. Marrying crazy, stabby bitches is a bad look.

It wasn’t immediately clear when or why Darrington-Clark was released from the hospital.

In the earlier case, she pleaded guilty to stabbing her 14-year-old son and throwing her 10-year-old daughter out of a moving minivan in 2005. But a judge found Darrington-Clark not guilty by reason of insanity and sent her to a psychiatric hospital.

Crazy, stabby bitch has AT LEAST three kids and tried to kill two of them.

I repeat, fucking crazy, stabby bitches is a bad look.

Attorney Robert Sheahen, who represented her at that time, said she was diagnosed with schizophrenia and that Los Angeles County prosecutors had agreed with the judge’s decision.

“This is one of the greatest sadnesses I’ve ever encountered in my 40-year career,” he said Tuesday.

After certain point, this ceases to be sad and descends to the farcical. The Black Matriarch can do her level best to try and murder people and the government says “well, you didn’t successfully kill anybody this time, so, we’ll let you go if you promise to be good.”

A spokesman at the California Department of State Hospitals said officials can’t comment on individual cases.

At the apartment complex in Colton, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) east of Los Angeles, neighbor Tim Hill told the Press-Enterprise newspaper the wounded woman ran into his apartment Monday seeking help after the attack.

He said he ran upstairs to her apartment and saw the stabbed child and found her sister in the closet, shaking. Police decided they couldn’t wait for paramedics and took the girl to the hospital, Hill said.

Another neighbor, Patty Williams, told the newspaper that the wounded woman had been “stabbed everywhere.”

“I’m sad,” Williams said. “I feel like my soul left my body because this is disgusting.”

Patty, I’m not sad. The reason I’m not sad is because this stuff is predictable. There is a lot of untreated mental illness among Black people in America and it usually doesn’t get treated until someone commits some heinous crime.

Some people are leery of psychotherapy and I’m one of them. The Soviet Union amply demonstrated that psychiatry/psychology are potent weapons in the hands of tyrants. But some people really do need to be drugged out of their chemical imbalances or talked out whatever defects in their personality are leading them towards a cliff.

But, nobody is actually going to give a shit because when black people kill other black people, that’s just the Welfare-Penal State working the way it’s supposed to.

Source

Archived Source

Advertisements

The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government by Dr. Christina Villegas

Dr. Christina Villegas of the University of California, San Bernardino published a report entitled “The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government” for the Heritage Foundation. It’s a long read, but persuasive in its entirety. I’ve cut out certain parts below for comment and linked to the original document at the end.

Modern feminism, however, has strayed from this narrow mission, embracing instead a far more radical agenda. In the name of promoting “equality,” it has become a movement that seeks to promote women’s full autonomy by eliminating gender distinctions and forcing gender parity (statistical proportionality of males and females) in every area of academic, economic, social, and political life. Achieving these ends requires the vast expansion of centralized government, the redefinition of freedom, and the preferential application of the law to women based on their identity as a specially protected class.

There is no such thing as “full autonomy,” unless you live on an island or mountain, away from everyone else, with no connection to anyone else. If you live somewhere there are other people, you have an inherent duty to not interfere with them, just as they have an inherent duty to not interfere with you, which necessarily limits “full autonomy” (ex: “Kill my neighbor and take his stuff.”).

Feminists often accuse those who defend the U.S. Constitution and limited government of being hostile to the well-being and interests of women.[1] These charges have been so thoroughly imbedded in the public mind that many Americans who do not necessarily support feminist policy prescriptions still presume that the Constitution itself has been an historic impediment to the rights of women.

You mean…the feminists don’t actually deal in history? They’re peddling mythology and metanarrative? (ex.: “#YesAllWomen are the victims of all men since time immemorial because Patriarchy.”)

I need to sit down after taking this truth bomb.

Contemporary feminism, an ideological outgrowth of the second wave, has largely adopted the belief that constitutional forms, which pledge an objective application of the law without regard to sex and limit government power with a view to protecting individual rights, are patriarchal in nature and stunt women’s ability to develop into full and equal citizens. Thus, many prominent contemporary feminists oppose the notion that there are legitimate limits to political authority and that government action should primarily involve restraining individuals from trampling the equal rights of others while otherwise leaving them free to determine the course of their lives.

To oppose limitations on political authority is to oppose constitutional government itself. Until recently in human history, governments did not concern themselves with Constitutions or written limitations on state action.

A constitutional system based on the protection of equal opportunity and individual rights in which males and females alike are able to develop their natural talents and abilities free from artificial legal barriers is problematic for contemporary feminists. They assert that such a system fails to account for the way women are hindered by external discrimination and the internal restrictions that they unknowingly have been socialized to impose on themselves. As Jessica Neuwirth, founder and director of the Equal Rights Amendment Coalition, maintains, “The entrenched historical inequality between the sexes cannot be erased by the creation of a level playing field because the players themselves are at two different levels.

Did this goofy feminist (Newirth) just imply that men are inherently better than women, but that’s bad, so tear down the Constitution and give us freebies and preferential treatment?”

Outstanding.

Several prominent women have written well-researched accounts demonstrating that the feminist vision of what women should want from their lives (financial autonomy and career success) often conflicts with the goals and desires of many real women.[27] Contemporary feminists usually respond to such dissidents by arguing that women who desire to make their career a secondary or partial priority have been socialized by the cultural glorification of femininity and motherhood to participate in their own subordination. In other words, as Betty Friedan lamented, women adopt the values of the system that oppresses them, and because “the chains that bind [women] are often in [their] own mind.”

“Socialization” being the latest repackaging of the old Marxist ad hominem “false consciousness,” in that the opponent of the Feminism/Marxist doesn’t really believe what they are saying, therefore disposing of their argument without actually refuting it.

Modern feminists have further expanded their critique of limited constitutional government by arguing that the Constitution not only fails to grant women the positive rights necessary for self-actualization, but also exacerbates women’s subordination by insulating civil society—including religious and civic organizations, private associations, businesses, and the family—from state involvement or interference. For example, Sally Goldfarb, former NOW senior staff attorney and founder of the National Task Force on the Violence Against Women Act, contends that “[b]y sealing off civil society in general, and the home in particular, as a private sphere where the law may not intrude, the Constitution protects the stronghold of patriarchy.”

This critique of constitutional government has led politically connected feminist groups to support a common agenda of larger and more intrusive government that is more concerned with redistributing wealth and resources and regulating individual liberty than it is with protecting individual freedom, opportunity, and choice. Believing that group achievement for women as a class is more important than the protection of individual rights, feminist organizations rally in support of policies that severely restrict the liberty and property rights of individuals—men and women alike.

Further proving that feminists in general either don’t comprehend or don’t accept the concept of natural rights. They view “rights” as not rights at all, but licenses, to be granted or revoked by Mommy and Daddy Government.

Ultimately, an unfettered state that favors certain individuals based on their membership in a particular class threatens the equality and rights of all men and women. Such a system not only devalues those who are not part of the favored class du jour—whether it be women, racial minorities, homosexuals, transgender individuals, or others—but also deprives those in the protected class of their claim to rights outside of their identity in that class and subjects them to the arbitrary whim of those in power. Only in a regime that limits the scope and character of the law with a view to protecting individuals in the free use of their faculties, regardless of whether their choices lead to different outcomes, can men and women ever come close to enjoying true social, political, and legal equality and freedom.

And we come to the rub: Feminists aren’t interested in freedom; they want privilege. They want an all-powerful state to say “Women may have X, but men may not have X, until at least Y number of women have X.” They want to live in adult kindergarten where a bigger, stronger teacher distributes the juice boxes and toys based on an arbitrary notion of “fairness.”

Feminists are truly the handmaidens of tyranny.

Source