-11 votes

Louis Farrakhan: The Liberty Movement's Missing Speaker?

Louis Farrakhan endorsed Ron Paul

http://youtu.be/X5QAbVcFojE

Farrakhan is a speaker of Liberty, and he's got much more to say than Alex Jones IMO. http://www.youtube.com/wa...

I'd like to invite a Louis Farrakhan thread and how we can achieve Liberty together.

http://youtu.be/GSazUpgBuuQ

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here here

I am with you 100%

Ammunition -- 9mm - 40s&w - 45acp - .223/5.56x45 -- www.ammopit.com
Bulk Components starting this month also with 223 bullets!

Cyril's picture

Unconvincing, hazardous Farrakhan's rhetoric

Well, yes Dr. Ron Paul has been crying in the wild against the Federal Reserve SCAM for a while now, Mr. Farrakhan.

Thank you for noticing, eventually.

HOWEVER.

Well, I am also sorry about something else, people...

... I may not have been a contemporary of the first two, but I did do some homework for myself with the records I found on Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, and today's Farrakhan.

And here's what struck me and continues to speak the loudest to me, anyway:

the first, ONLY, Martin Luther King Jr., HAS vastly elaborated - thoroughly, very patiently, quietly, rationally, compassionately - on defending the rights FOR ANY AND ALL INDIVIDUALS, while the other two, Malcom X and Farrakhan, by the past and still in the present, have vastly focused - almost exclusively, soon or late - in opposing groups - the white man vs. the black man, the muslim vs. the zionists, the rich vs. the poor, you name it.

As long as we're stuck in this infinite loop of recognizing our supposed "allies" or debunking our supposed "foes" by seeing them in these or those groups... we won't have the cause of liberty progress a lot, if at all.

I DO NOT care - and I DO NOT condone, and even less endorse - that this or that group of people is being defended or opposed to, EVEN IF some groups arguably can or cannot be identified precisely. For this is only SUBJECTIVE AND MORAL ABSTRACTION BIAS.

What I DO CARE about is WHOEVER CLEARLY FOCUSES AND DEFENDS THE RIGHTS of the INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS - and EXCLUSIVELY those individuals'.

"Groups" are useful to classify THINGS. Or animals and other living things, maybe.

But they are not only mostly useless BUT ALSO ACTUALLY ESSENTIALLY HARMFUL as soon as it is about speaking on behalf of people's past or present "rights" or "martyr" - EITHER WAY.

And even for living thing which isn't human, consider this:

You can touch a living tree. You cannot touch the forest.

You CANNOT defend and protect EVERY SINGLE TREE unless YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT EVERY SINGLE TREE ONLY, and refrain from diverging towards speaking of the forest's "rights" or "interests".

You REALLY DON'T WANT to continue do the same error with people.

This is the ERROR AND INFAMY that we are ALREADY LIVING - every single freaking day OF OUR LIVES - for decades, if not more than a century, now.

Let us now try the true defense of liberty for the people's INDIVIDUALS. For good.

Just IMO.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Well (((((((Lysiandad))))))

I'm new to Farrakhan as far as actually listening for myself. I can not tell enough at this point to argue, but liste4ning to him, he talks about his race being supressed, still. And he talks about Israel's MIC not Jews.. he claims he has been attacked for speaking openly. He made it clear in one video that catholics perform blaspheme when they talk of Mary Mother of God, of course I don't agree being Catholic.. but this isn't about religion and many here do not support Israel's MIC, so there appears to be an agreement. Rich vs poor is an argument here, where many feel suppressed by government to earn a good living. I don't understand why he would not support the rights on the individual, and then go further within the bounds of his Church, not mine.

Cyril's picture

Granger, I do not reject him definitely yet...

Granger, I do not reject him definitely yet... he may be on a path towards liberty... "Allah knows."

But let me break it to you even simpler:

I consider the Bill of Rights IS THE ONLY THING we ought to defend for the values I have recalled.

I recognize "my allies" among THOSE WHO DEFEND THIS BEAUTIFUL GEM FOR LIBERTY among the People that the Bill of Rights is, and what it means LITERALLY ... EVEN MORE ARDENTLY AS I DO.

This is IN TRUTH as simple as that, on my end.

Indeed, this is MY SINGLE ONE, EXCLUSIVE LIBERTY RADAR:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I think you're spot on Lysiandad

That's part of the beauty of Ron Paul's Liberty message, RESTORE THE REPUBLIC. Being our grounds are constitutional law, they responded with an endorsement.

To them, it's a white man's world and they have tons of injustice, frustration, apathy, way more than I dare imagine, and so maybe we are a ray of hope, that the white world is waking up and waging peace?

I have not read anything where Farrakhan is against the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. He is against the corruption which to him, has never included the black population. He wants freedom and liberty, not hand outs.

Just in case everyone has forgot....

Farrakhan, accomplice to the murder of Malcom X.

Malcom X, Dr. King and Kennedy had found there way to the truth, started to speak truth, were killed for it.

Natural Order

Kennedy and King?

Really?

Well, I call massive bull. Kennedy was no friend of liberty, and neither was King. Don't pretend they were.

Just because someone got assassinated does not mean they were good people. King was an advocate of affirmative action and, in his own words, "democratic socialism." Kennedy was a mafia-funded statist.

I guess you think Lincoln was somehow a friend of liberty as well?

Kennedy & King: Sure they were not perfect but...

Right before he died, Kennedy had money printed without federal reserve on it. He had plans to eliminate the control of the federal reserve and also made speeches about secret societies controlling governments.

Right before King died, ironically standing right next to Jesse Jackson, he said the USA should not be the policeman of the world. He was also against "separate laws" for any human. He did not seek the permission or approval or help from the state.

Natural Order

Kennedy wasn't that bad

He was one of the few presidents who wouldn't let the military run the show since World War II.

Chuck Hagel is rumored to have said to Obama that the military industrial complex has been running the country since the early 90s. While George Bush senior ran the show, he actually WAS the military industrial complex, so that doesn't really count.

Kennedy, Eisenhower and Reagan are probably the only 3 presidents to stay independent of the military industrial complex.

Kennedy wasn't a perfect president by far, but compared to anything we've had in the last 70 years he wasn't half bad.

Farrakhan is not any friend of liberty.

I find it strange that anyone would suggest Farrakhan as a potential ally. The man is a hateful, raving lunatic.

Granger, do more research on Farrakhan, and once you've realized his nature, move on.

Yes and...

...he believes that Amendment II and the right to keep and bear arms is unnecessary because we now have an organized milita consisting of armed federal troops, armed national guard, armed state & local police and armed sheriff's departments.

What an utter collectivist-moron.

Yep, he is a real spokesman for the liberty-movement and a real liberty-lover.....not!

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/organization/federal-reserve-...

Leave him to his nature

surely there are those within the Nation of Islam who have more respectable natures that better represent the message of Liberty without being a threat to more than the statis quo? How does the Liberty Movement reach them?

I don't think so

No. The Nation of Islam is a group of bitter, hateful blacks, hoping for the west to fall. They want this country done with, and they want all the free goodies they can get from it while it's still going.

That's what I heard, or read

And I agree that some of what he has to say is offensive, but I also see it as a form of blowback and resentment for being oppressed and suppressed, which Liberty Movement can relate. I don't know yet if he wants this country done with. It seems to me he wants the lies and false charades to be done with. And I also don't see him talking about getting free goodies. It seems that's where some of the resentment comes from, because they are not looking for a free ride, but a fair ride as Americans. He's wearing a suit. Who would wear a kaftan with all due respect. They are Americans.

All that said, I do not think they are for everyone, but I do believe Liberty is.

He's Don King, without the

He's Don King, without the hair. He knows how to promote a rigged fight...

Farrakhan comes with about 500 strings attached, no thanks.

Associating ourselves with the, "Nation of Islam," in any way, shape, or form is political suicide - like it or not, that is the reality of the situation.

Farrakhan is political kryptonite!

Louis Farrakhan and David Duke have one thing in common - "Mainstream," politicians don't want to touch either of them with a 500 foot pole.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

ecorob's picture

Keep yourself divided...

with people who are just as American as you but with different beliefs.

Let me know how that works out for you.

I see lame street media lies in your reflections. Perhaps, you don't even listen to his words as you spew your learned vitriole.

Divided and conquered, have fun as a slave.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

I feel covered in vitriol

The words I have just read sounds like someone is spewing vitriol upon me.

I do not reject anyone as being less American than I am. I do not reject anyone based upon their beliefs.

What I reject is the premise that Farrakhan is the missing spokesperson for the Liberty Movement.

As far as I can tell I have the Liberty to question the words that I have heard come from Mr. Farrakhan's own mouth. I have gone straight to You Tube to watch him myself because I too am very interested that the Liberty Movement succeeds. I would love to have a nationally known speaker who has a lot of followers. I just want to know that the message is true. Is that a wrong thing for me to do?

What I have read in your comment sounds as if I have been divided out of the Liberty Movement because I have questioned someone that I consider a Friend in Liberty. From what I understand, that is how the divide and conquer routine works.

...

News to me

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ov67_farrakhan-on-malcolm...

That sounds a lot like this:

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm

That sounds like this:

"The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community.” --- 1 Hume, Appendix, 1."

That is from here: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/35

In my own words: The problem is aggressive violence and all the lies that are necessary to cover it up, and each potential self governor must know this, or we as a species are doomed by that individual error each time it is made over, and over, and over, again, and again, and again, like some manic Business Psycho.

I have never heard Ron Paul make that mistake, and I prefer not to make it either.

Joe

Josf,

Thank you. Your words are gold! Hmmm I've found a gold mine! A gold rush in California lol. Have to insert a little humer after my last comment after being a swimming head hysterical.

"In my own words: The problem is aggressive violence and all the lies that are necessary to cover it up, and each potential self governor must know this, or we as a species are doomed by that individual error each time it is made over, and over, and over, again, and again, and again, like some manic Business Psycho.

I have never heard Ron Paul make that mistake, and I prefer not to make it either."

This happened here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara

"Although there are varying accounts, it is estimated that several hundred people were executed nationwide during this time, with Guevara's jurisdictional death total at La Cabaña ranging from 55 to 105 (see reference).[111] Conflicting views exist of Guevara's attitude towards the executions at La Cabaña. Some exiled opposition biographers report that he relished the rituals of the firing squad, and organized them with gusto, while others relate that Guevara pardoned as many prisoners as he could.[109] What is acknowledged by all sides is that Guevara had become a "hardened" man, who had no qualms about the death penalty or summary and collective trials. If the only way to "defend the revolution was to execute its enemies, he would not be swayed by humanitarian or political arguments".[109] This is further confirmed by a February 5, 1959, letter to Luis Paredes López in Buenos Aires where Guevara states unequivocally "The executions by firing squads are not only a necessity for the people of Cuba, but also an imposition of the people."[112]"

It seems like people become what they abhor? That is what I am afraid of. Do you have words for me?

...

I prefer to expose the princple lies.

"It seems like people become what they abhor? That is what I am afraid of. Do you have words for me?"

The Machiavellian Lie (Noble Lie?) goes like this:

Men are bad, so I have to whip them into shape.

So, I've been working on this, and I now have your welcome spiritual teaching (you being the messenger and a very good one at that) to add to my tools used in critical thinking.

So God is not the enemy of mankind. God does not destroy us, in my opinion, for if he did, then God would be our enemy: The enemy of mankind. No, to me, God does not save us from ourselves if we don't save ourselves, and that is big difference to me.

The King, on the other hand, may or may not turn bad, real bad, no different, other than being much worse, than a Mad Dog.

What to do?

A.
Gather up enough goodies, Gold, Silver, or pieces of papers that are broken promises, and pay the bounty on the Kings head, in other words: murder the King.

B.
Stop sending the King any more power and then the King may walk into the wrong Bar on the wrong night and a crime of passion, or merely a defensive act, will be the fate of that Mad Dog, or the King may have to put in an application at McDonalds after his purse empties AND don't abandon the victims, let them know about that Mad Dog: "Don't feed the lion?"

Aggressive violence (involuntary taxation), one human upon another human (or many upon many), for fun and profit, is not the answer, it is the problem, it is in scripture and many other forms of common sense.

Violence begets violence, like lies beget lies.

Don't do it, unless human nature, instinct, "in the moment" there is no other option, and even Mad Dogs can be seen from a safe perspective in most cases, so what is up with all the excuses for aggressive violence for fun and profit?

Liars don't confess except by their actions.

Does this make any sense?

Joe

Yes,

I think so. So then was Che Guevara a Mad Dog? He seemed like he wanted to help the people because of the injustices that he saw.

Please excuse this picture. But do you understand what it means? I understand the meaning of shooting the bird, but the t-shirt and the sign and is that the guy Alex Jones is interviewing here: http://www.dailypaul.com/275750/immortal-technique-on-fire-w...

I feel like ia turnip or someone who has been under a rock or maybe a mushroom grown in the dark. I am laughing as I say those things because I seem to need you to explain the simplist things to me.

...

Control

"So then was Che Guevara a Mad Dog?"

Something had to be done, too much crime everywhere, no one doing anything effective to stop it, so what:

1.
Be even worse than those criminals.
2.
Find some other solution

Narrative: "If only I were in charge, then I'd be a more benevolent dictator, and so step, by grueling step, I will become the benevolent dictator, so as to stop all the crime."

Does that sound like a good idea?

How many people go through all that and end up being nice people who you trust to baby sit the kids?

I don't know the Che Guevara story well enough to comment in detail. When the Mad Dog is in your house, working on a few more victims, and you are next, what will you do, and once you are done, are you fit for baby sitting? The cause aught to be inspected, and I call the cause Legal Crime, and Legal Criminals do what they do best, because their hearts are into their work, they reproduce, in an odd sort of way: violence begets violence, so they are teachers.

It may be a good idea to figure out a better way than to volunteer to be a student.

"Please excuse this picture. But do you understand what it means?"

Please relink the picture. I don't know which picture is in view.

"I feel like ia turnip or someone who has been under a rock or maybe a mushroom grown in the dark. I am laughing as I say those things because I seem to need you to explain the simplist things to me."

Again, so much is covered very well in the John Taylor Gatto History lessons, where there are vital questions and a desire to settle for no less than accurate answers. In time, and who cares (not me) how long it takes, you may grow powerful enough to refuse to wait for my confused answers, since at that time you will be forging ahead independently. If I am helping, fine, where I do help, and this is a two way street, teacher is student, student is teacher.

Joe

Missing Link

Picture: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z475Iw2ZMDQ/SLCjUiT3JRI/AAAAAAAACi...

I failed to include the link. Sorry about that.

Also, I realize I am soaking up your words and not commenting on some words (a one way conversation on my part)

"So God is not the enemy of mankind."

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

"God is love."

If we (for lack of a better word) were a Christian Nation, we would have been spreading love, not democracy, not capitalism, but love. Love does not force. Love doesn't pull up in ships and point guns and say Open up or else. Love says, how can I help you, with no strings attached. Oh, you don't want any help. OK. Well if you do, then let me know. I am available to help, no strings attached. And if help is wanted and given, it is help, not crime, with no strings attached.

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might livethrough him. 10 Herein i slove, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

Do you know if Malcolm X was a good guy?

...

I don't know.

"Do you know if Malcolm X was a good guy?"

The funny thing about good guys is that they have a habit of being assassinated by mysterious lone gunman and there isn't ever a trial by jury or any other trial other than a show trial which is just another false advertizement campaign put upon the crime like a wolf wearing a sheep suit.

Bad guys are often bumped off too, but on those cases there are things like discovery, and evidence, and judgment, and something remotely resembling equal justice, as if to say, for example, anyone who murders someone will be murdered by law. It may have no moral standing but it is consistent. Not like the often repeated claim that President X can open the phone book, pick out a name, and then say, well, how about sending one of our drones to that one?

When?

Today.

That is only OK if President X does it, anyone else doing it, well, we have many drones, an abundance of drones, drones flowing like sunlight on a nice summer day.

I had a thought about a script for my daughter, who is way too busy for my ideas. But the concept is to play out a scene with President X and Mrs. X whereby Mrs. X asks, or axes, how the Drones are going?

Oh, dear, they are droning along on schedule, why do you ask, he, he, he, if I tell you, you know, I'll have to kill you.

What fun can it be?

He is one of ours, I suppose, in the sense that all matter is subject to the laws of gravity, on Earth, everything is accelerated at a rate of 9.8 meters per second.

Is that all?

Per second.

Give or take a few millimeters per second per second depending upon the distance from this Earth Mass.

Actually, and I am too often wrong, I think there is a measurable deviation in "equality" having to do with the mass in question.

Mass creates its own attraction, or so I think the general understanding is, more or less.

So consistency in prejudice is something that can be trusted, they will always find a way to get their targets to bleed for them, scream for them, and why is that news?

They are in the Business Psycho Business; who is buying?

How much does it cost when the sellers dictate the price?

Where is my drone?

Have I not worked hard enough yet?

"Please excuse this picture. But do you understand what it means?"

Someone is not very happy about something? I am lost on that one.

Joe

Getting ready to report for duty. A couple of lingering ?'s

Did you ever tell me what that picture that I sent the missing link was all about?

What should be the punishment of a man who rapes his daughter?

What do you think this means: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2970719 ? It was directed at me.

Late edit?

"Please excuse this picture. But do you understand what it means?"

Someone is not very happy about something? I am lost on that one

I put that in my last response as a late addition, so you may have missed it.

"Did you ever tell me what that picture that I sent the missing link was all about?"

Venezuela is where Hugo Chavez has somehow become The Benevolent Dictator. The person in the picture may be mad at Alex Jones? Alex does not have many (or any) nice things to say about Hugo Chavez.

"What should be the punishment of a man who rapes his daughter?"

If I were on a Jury and I had the power to discover all the discoveries I demanded, then I'd be especially keen to know the mother and daughters viewpoints on that crime. Jury duty is not easy.

Funny you should ask this question since I had another skit all played for my daughter and her boyfriend. The idea struck me as there was another visitor in the house and for some reason I thought about that person scoping out our house for things to steal later on. Not a big deal, not much to steal.

So I had this theater idea with my daughter catching a burglar in the house and her part in the play goes something like this:

D (daughter)
"Hey, you had better get out of here."

B (bad guy) Startled by my daughter as the bad guy is now caught red handed.
"You and what army (expletive) are going to do anything about it (expletive)?"

D
"I'm trying to be generous. Take whatever you want but get out now."

B
"Did you call the police?"

D
"You better hope the police catch you. When my my mom finds out she will tell her brother and about 20 guys are going to find you, and you are not going to like about 4 hours of your life after that point. So get along, and enjoy what you stole, take anything."

B
"I said did you call the police (expletive)?"

D
"The movie file I just took is now on the internet, for all to see."

B
"What if I just take you (expletive)?"

D
"Well then my best advice to you is to kill me and then yourself when you are done because my dad will step in then and you will live as long as I have lived and you won't like each second of that remaining part of your life, so you better kill me, and if you are then too much of a coward to kill yourself, then you will live 18 more years, my dad will make sure you live that much longer. If you don't kill me, then you live longer than 18 years after you are done with me, and he finds you, after my uncle is done with you."

B
"Big talker (expletive) is that all you got?"

D
"No, not at all, my mom is worse than my uncle and my dad, and there is more."

B
"What is that (expletive)?"

D
"After you are dead."

________________________________________________
"the neocons, the dems, or Farrakhan and his followers.

Choose wisely.
________________________________________________

That is what I like: choices. I'm pretty sure that you can invent a few better ones.

Joe

The person in the picture is supposedly being interviewed by

Alex Jones on a different occasion: http://www.dailypaul.com/275750/immortal-technique-on-fire-w...

If you go to that link, you will see where I am asking about who the person in the picture is. But you will see the OP has the interview of Alex Jones with this "Tech" guy. His name is Tech. I don't know anything about him.

I am seeing red. First there is a big todo about David Duke. Now here is Farrakhan in this post being promoted, or not.

And supposedly on the front of the DP was AJ interviewing Tech who the person commenting to me truefictions says is not on the same page as Friends of Liberty.

The only reason I found this is because of your comment to truefictions: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2971134 where he put up a post in competition with the AJ post regarding this Tech guy.

So, this Tech guy is for some reason holding a placard about Venezuala and shooting the finger and while wearing a shirt with Che Guaverra pasted over an upsidedown American flag.

I am trying to connect dots. I am trying to make sense out of all of this. Why David Duke, why Farrakhan, why Che Guevera and why did you post a Hugo Chavez link? Nosey aren't I? You know how bears are. I hear the stick their noses in the garbage dump all the time.

I want to know better.

...

Monopoly competes

The Money Monopoly Power is the highest on the Legal Crime food chain.

Those who do not offer up their wives and children too it, are destroyed.

Hugo Chavez may not be a good guy, but he does not (as far as I know) offer up his wives or children to the Money Monopoly Power. He may, as it may turn out, be a money monopoly competitor.

The ONE Money Monopoly Power does not appreciate competition.

I don't know if you can understand what I mean, but we can work on it.

It helps me to work on things; in so many ways.

Alex Jones appears to be focusing on the wrong of Hugo Chavez and not seeing any good in fighting the one Monopoly Power.

The good may be individual, not collective, if you can understand what I mean, then you can see how one life is worth saving, by some accurate measure.

Joe

"Hugo Chavez may not be a

"Hugo Chavez may not be a good guy, but he does not (as far as I know) offer up his wives or children to the Money Monopoly Power. He may, as it may turn out, be a money monopoly competitor. "

But did he offer up the lives of someone else's wife and children to get into power himself?

---------------

"The good may be individual, not collective, if you can understand what I mean, then you can see how one life is worth saving, by some accurate measure."

Is one life worth saving at the expense of other lives?

--------------

Do you understand what the "Tech" guy is all about in that picture? Is he a friend or an enemy of Liberty?

...

Typicallly connected with CIA

"But did he offer up the lives of someone else's wife and children to get into power himself?"

I don't know the answer, I posted a link that documented the process by which Chavez got into power, and it appeared to me to be credible, or authoritative in an accurate sense.

Compare Chavez to The Shah of Iran, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, George Washington, George Bushes, and Obama Osama whatever his name is in power by way of The Dollar Hegemony, which in modern times is often connected with CIA.

I don't think that Hugo Chavez is financed by U.S. Dollars or "The Fund" that has been the source of the Dictators in the other list offered.

List B Dollar Employees
George I
Hitler
Stalin
Pol Pot
Shah of Iran
Saddam Hussein
Barack Hussein Osama Obama whatever = Barry Soetoro
Osama Bin Laden
George II
George III

List B Money Monopoly competitors
Castro
Mosaddegh
Chavez

"Is one life worth saving at the expense of other lives?'

Is that a question for someone who has their hand on the power to save one person at the expense of other lives? I have no such power. If I find myself in that situation, crossing that bridge if it is on my path, then it may be a good idea to look ahead for that bridge, and find an inventive way to cross that bridge without passing on costs to those who do not earn those costs?

"Do you understand what the "Tech" guy is all about in that picture? Is he a friend or an enemy of Liberty?"

A picture may be worth a thousand words but I have no clue on the accurate answer to the question asked. Innocent until proven guilty, the guy is guilty of looking mad at someone. So the answer is yes, a friend, potentially?

Joe