Thursday, June 18, 2020

'Snap, Crackle, Pop' Determined to Be Racist

 
Article by Rick Moran in "PJMedia":

Fiona Onasanya, a Black Lives Matter activist and former member of the UK parliament, claims that Kellogg’s Rice Krispies is a racist cereal because it has “three white boys” as mascots.

Now that’s “systemic racism”!

If Ms. Onasanya had stopped there, she would simply be dismissed as a fool and that would have been that. But in her eagerness to prove racism, Onasanya doubled down on her charge and, in the process, proved she is an ignorant fool.


@KelloggsUK, as you are yet to reply to my email - Coco Pops and Rice Krispies have the same compòsition (except for the fact CP's are brown and chocolate flavoured)... so I was wondering why Rice Krispies have three white boys representing the brand and Coco Pops have a monkey?

 It’s an idiotic point, even if it were true. It isn’t.

@KelloggsUK, as you are yet to reply to my email - Coco Pops and Rice Krispies have the same compòsition (except for the fact CP's are brown and chocolate flavoured)... so I was wondering why Rice Krispies have three white boys representing the brand and Coco Pops have a monkey?

You are such an amazing idiot.


View image on Twitter 


Much mirth ensued.

Federalist:

Onasanya’s online attack quickly drew ridicule from users on Twitter who made sure to point out that the beloved characters of Snap, Crackle, and Pop are also the brand champions for Cocoa Krispies, the chocolate flavored Rice Krispies.
Another responded to Onasanya’s attacks with “Elves Lives Matter.
Kellogg’s told the Daily Mail in a statement that it “stands in support of the black community.”
“We do not tolerate discrimination and believe that people of all races, genders, backgrounds, sexual orientation, religions, capabilities and beliefs should be treated with the utmost dignity and respect,” the company said, going on to note that the Coco Pops monkey is also the same character representing the white chocolate cereal. “The monkey mascot that appears on both white and milk chocolate Coco Pops, was created in the 1980s to highlight the playful personality of the brand.”

Anyone who sees their entire existence through the lens of race — including the brand of cereal that children of all colors and hues enjoy — is in serious trouble and desperately needs help. I could say the same about most Black Lives Matter activists whose paranoid rantings about police wanting to kill black people is beyond delusional.

As for Ms. Onasanya, she has a “checkered past,” to put it delicately.

Daily Mail:

Ms Onasanya, who was jailed for three months in January 2019 after she was convicted of lying to police about a speeding ticket, says that there is little difference between Coco Pops and sister brand Rice Krispies beyond their colour and flavour.
The former Peterborough MP revealed she has emailed Kellogg’s UK office for clarification on why Rice Krispies have ‘three white boys’ as a mascot whereas chocolate-flavoured Coco Pops is represented by a monkey.

Sometimes, a monkey is just a monkey. And three little elves flitting over a bowl of Rice Krispies are sometimes just three little elves flitting over a bowl of Rice Krispies. Not everything is a metaphor in life, just like everything isn’t a conspiracy. Only the weak-minded and naive believe otherwise.

 I’ll say this; they will have to pry my Rice Krispies from my cold, dead hands.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/06/17/snap-crackle-pop-determined-to-be-racist-n542693 


Facebook Bans Trump Campaign Ad that Denounces Antifa Violence


Trump is threatening to designate antifa an “organization of ...Mark Zuckerberg's Answer to a World Divided by Facebook Is More ...

Article by Allum Bokhari in "Breitbart":

Facebook removed an ad from the Trump campaign earlier today attacking Antifa, citing its policy on “organized hate.”

The ad, now removed by Facebook, denounced Antifa, the decentralized movement of far-left agitators known for acts of domestic terrorism and political violence.

During the George Floyd riots, Attorney General William Barr described the actions of Antifa as domestic terrorism, and President Trump has also confirmed that he intends to label Antifa a domestic terrorist organization.

The now-deleted Trump ad featured an inverted red-and-black triangle to symbolize the Antifa movement, which uses the red-and-black color scheme in their badges, flags, and propaganda as a form of ideological identification. Red-and-black are the historical colors of the anarcho-communist movement, and red triangles are an Antifa symbol according to products available for purchase.


Trump Antifa Ad Facebook

In the now-deleted ad, the official Team Trump Facebook account said:

Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups are running through our streets and causing absolute mayhem. They are DESTROYING our cities and rioting – it’s absolute madness.
It’s important that EVERY American comes together at a time like this to send a united message that we will not stand for their radical actions any longer. We’re calling on YOU to make a public statement and add your name to stand with President Trump against ANTIFA.
Please add your name IMMEDIATELY to stand with your President and his decision to declare ANTIFA a Terrorist Organization.

But Facebook, and far-left organizations that regularly run cover for Antifa, said the red-and-black triangle was a “hate” symbol because it is similar to a symbol used by Nazi Germany in concentration camps.

Facebook apparently bought this argument, even though the Trump team’s post was clearly about Antifa.

“We removed these posts and ads for violating our policy against organized hate,” a company spokesman told New York Daily News. “Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group’s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol.”



Facebook let the Trump campaign run 88 ads with inverted red triangle — an infamous Nazi symbol mediamatters.org/facebook/faceb

Image

This is an emoji.

It's also a symbol widely used by Antifa. It was used in an ad about Antifa.

It is not in the ADL's Hate Symbols Database.

View image on Twitter


In a post on Twitter, the Trump team posted an image showing the inverted red-and-black triangle being used by Antifa, in response to a Media Matters post accusing the campaign of using Nazi imagery.

“This is an emoji. It’s also a symbol widely used by Antifa. It was used in an ad about Antifa,” said the Trump team. “It is not in the ADL’s Hate Symbols Database.”

In a comment to the New York Daily News, the Trump team again pointed out the symbol’s links to Antifa.

“The red triangle is an Antifa symbol,” said Trump campaign spokesman Ken Farnaso who linked to the symbol being used in Antifa-branded products.

This is not the first time Facebook has deliberately censored political ads from the Trump team. Ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, Facebook censored a Trump ad about the dangers of mass immigration.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/06/18/facebook-bans-trump-campaign-ad-that-denounces-antifa-violence/ 

The Herd of Sheep in American Schools

The Herd of Sheep in American Schools

740x494

By now you’ve probably heard of Harvard Professor Elizabeth Bartholet, whose name catapulted into the public’s view when she called for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling. Ironically, her call for a homeschooling ban came right when the entire nation was forced to homeschool due to the COVID-19 outbreak.  

Bartholet’s idea spawned so much discussion that the Cato Institute hosted a debate on the issue featuring Bartholet herself, homeschooling mother and author Kerry McDonald, education historian Milton Gaither, and Cato education expert Neal McCluskey.

Throughout the debate, Bartholet made clear that one of her main concerns with homeschooling is its potential to serve as cover for child abuse. But hidden beneath this claim seems to lie another concern. Bartholet drops hints that homeschool regulation is necessary, and that children really must be protected by the state. Having them in state-run schools seems to be her way of making sure all children benefit from this oversight.

Bartholet goes so far as to suggest that all homeschool children should be required to spend some time in public schools:   

“I also think it’s important that there be contact beyond that, that homeschooling families ought to have their children see people other than the parent. So it’s for that reason – or that’s part of the reason – that I propose that all homeschooling families – the children should be required to take a course, to take extra-curricular activities, to go to the public school where they will see mandated reporters, and have other eyes on that child…”

I’ll give Bartholet the benefit of the doubt. She’s likely well-meaning and believes she has the best interests of children at heart. But I wonder if she has ever considered the philosophy of mass conformity at the heart of government schooling, and furthermore, the damage such mass conformity can do to the thought processes of a generation.

H. L. Mencken raises this point in an essay featured in Smart Set Criticism, saying:

“Think of what the average American schoolboy is taught today, say of history or economics. Examine the specific orders to teachers issued from time to time by the School Board of New York City—a body fairly representative of the forces that must always control education at the cost of the state. Surely no sane man would argue that the assimilation of such a mess of evasions and mendacities will make the boy of today a well-informed and quick-minded citizen tomorrow, alert to error and wary of propaganda.“

Mencken notes the problems of mass schooling even more bluntly:

“The plain fact is that such an education is itself a form of propaganda—a deliberate scheme to outfit the pupil, not with the capacity to weigh ideas, but with a simple appetite for gulping ideas ready-made. The aim is to make ‘good’ citizens, which is to say, docile and uninquisitive citizens. Let a teacher let fall the slightest hint to his pupils that there is a body of doctrine opposed to the doctrine he is officially ordered to teach, and at once he is robbed of his livelihood and exposed to slander and persecution. The tendency grows wider as the field of education is widened.“

Mencken concludes by saying that once upon a time American education was simple but solid, producing a “self-reliant, cynical, liberty-loving and extremely rambunctious people.” That changed, and Mencken noted of schools in his time, “Today, with pedagogy standardized and a school-house in every third block, they are the herd of sheep….”

Mencken wrote these words in 1921. Could he have imagined how much truer those words would be today?

The fact is, generations have aimlessly marched through the halls of our government schools. As low test scores seem to indicate, students aren’t learning much of anything – except, perhaps, “the appetite for gulping ideas ready-made.”

One wonders if such a scenario laid the groundwork for where we are today: a nation whose citizens seem to have forgotten history, have difficulty making a logical argument ­– much less being able to consider two sides of an argument – and are fixated on chanting a few social-justice-minded slogans.

If we want to continue on this path, then perhaps we should go with Bartholet’s recommendation and send every child to government schools. But if we’re not happy with the situation we’ve gotten ourselves into, then perhaps it’s time that more families gave homeschooling a try. It’s at least worth a shot and just might turn us into a thinking country once again.
--
[Image Credit: Piqsels]

Fear in Politics

Fear in Politics

The unspoken motive.


For all of their (ultimately irreconcilable) differences, the world’s wisdom traditions are of one mind in their insistence that most people prefer UnReality to Reality, the Lie to the Truth.

They also concur that it is, at bottom, fear that motivates the masses that have been exposed to the worldview embodied in their traditions to repudiate those worldviews.

Things haven’t changed. Today, it is fear—raw, primal, fear—that is the engine powering the capitulation of Americans, white and black, to the Big Lie, this whopper of a lie, that black Americans are perpetually murdered by a “White Supremacist” society via the police.

Such is the magnitude of this lie that it is no exaggeration to say that it is a parallel universe.

I have no interest at this juncture in elaborating upon the facts, long documented by scholars black, white, and other, regarding the social dysfunction endemic in the black community (that 50 or so years on since the Moynihan Report made its “call” for “National Action” has only increased exponentially); the staggering amount of black criminality; the astronomical rates of black-on-blackblack-on-whiteblack-on-Hispanic, and black-on-Asian crime and violence; the infinitesimal likelihood of any random person, of any racial background, being brutalized by police in America; the higher likelihood of black suspects being shot by black police officers than by white officers; and the higher likelihood of white unarmed criminal suspects being shot by police than black unarmed criminal suspects being so shot.

These realities, the grisly details of which no one who is remotely familiar with them, least of all law-abiding black citizens of little means who are essentially held hostage by the criminals who run their inner city neighborhoods, frighten people of all races, including blacks, some 80% of whom flee from the ghetto as quickly as they can once they obtain the resources to do so.

The role of fear in our politics, particularly our racial politics, is seldom mentioned by commentators. I suspect that this is in large measure because it is exceedingly difficult for people, especially men, to reckon with their own fears. At no time is this more challenging for a man than when it is physical violence, specifically, the fear of being physically dominated by other men that possesses him. 

And when the object of the fear of the Racially Correct—men and women, black and white (and other)—is the underclass or lower class black, it is all but impossible to come to terms with it.

This denial, though, doesn’t obviate the fear.  It only exacerbates it while miring the fearful ever deeper in his (or her) self-delusion. In and of itself, this is a private matter for folks to address on their own. But since the refusal of these fearful people to address their fears has resulted in disaster for American society as a whole, the fearful, and their fears, need to be called out and exposed for who and what they are. 

To be clear, the fear to which I’m referring here is ultimately a fear of violence of the kind that has been on display in cities throughout the country over the last couple of weeks and that, despite an undoubted role played by white Antifa members, has been perpetrated predominantly by black criminals.

There has been much ink spilt over the decades on “white guilt.”  Little, if any, has been spent on the subject of white fear—which, I’m contending here, is what lies beneath the veneer of whatever guilt may or may not exist.

The moral posturing of whites, particularly white liberals, that extends back decades and which has sunk to heretofore unplumbed depths in recent weeks is not, as conservatives are wont to label it, “virtue-signaling.” It is vice-signaling. The repulsive spectacle of whites kneeling before blacks and “atoning” for their “white privilege” highlights the most toxic of character defects on the part of the white penitents: obsequiousness, folly, impiety, idolatry, and, most fundamentally, cowardice.

These whites and a good number of others, in their heart of hearts, fear the black thugs that, long before anyone ever heard of the name of George Floyd, have reduced their neighborhoods and cities to hellholes. Such is their horror over those who have preyed upon people of all racial backgrounds, including and especially the law-abiding black citizens of modest means who are forced to live among them, whites who are now genuflecting at the altar of Blackism are, essentially, pleading to be spared from this violence.

I am not like those other, evil whites.

Don’t hurt me. 

It is to this, and nothing more or less, to which the public confessions and acts of contrition on the part of whites boils down. They are veiled expressions of fear of, and subtle pleas to be spared from, the sort of violence and mayhem that largely black mobs have been raining down upon cities across the land.

The black middle and upper classes, specifically black celebrities and other elites who engage in their own share of vice-signaling, sparing no occasion to prove their “racial authenticity” by expressing “solidarity” with the Cause, are as well motivated, in the final analysis, by the same fear that animates their white counterparts.

Jesse Jackson, in an unguarded moment of candor that the Racism-Industrial-Complex pretends never happened after its attempts to explain it away proved unconvincing, expressed this fear shared by both blacks and whites when, way back in 1993, he said:

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then [I] look around and see someone white and feel relieved.”

That it is, fundamentally, fear of the black underclass that lay behind the vice-signaling of the Racially-Correct of all races is a thesis that is far simpler, and more easily provable, than any and all competitors. Consider only this:

White and black apologists for black criminality and thuggery reveal through the choices they make virtually all day and everyday exactly what it is that they truly value. And, since these choices as to where they live, work, educate themselves, date, marry, raise their children, seek entertainment, and spend their money invariably seem designed to steer them as far away from black ghettos as possible, the honest observer has no option but to conclude that these choices are made from fear. 

As the black scholar Thomas Sowell was quick to remind readers, people vote with their feet. 

To put it another way, you know a person by what he or she does. Actions speak louder than words.

There is another consideration that strengthens my thesis further:

For all of their outrage over “white racism,” neither their apologists nor for that matter black thugs themselves have ever showed the slightest inclination to lead a Black Lives Matter, Antifa, or any other kind of “anti-racism” demonstration, much less a riot, through certain Hispanic neighborhoods.

Even the Southern Poverty Law Center has conceded that Hispanic or “Latino” gang members have been waging a campaign of, in their words, “ethnic cleansing” vis-à-vis blacks in places like Los Angeles from at least the 1990s.  The many beatings, shootings, and killings to which blacks—and not black gangbangers or criminals, but law-abiding black residents—have been victim at the hands of Hispanic criminals have all been explicitly, unabashedly racial.

No BLM rallies or demonstrations, much less looting, arson, and vandalism courtesy of “anti-racists” have occurred in these parts of LA. 

And just recently, as black crusaders for Social Justice and their white Antifa accomplices caused who knows how many millions of dollars of damage in Chicago, what few black looters dared to enter the Little Village neighborhood were soon chased out of it.  

The gangbangers organized “checkpoints.” They would stop black motorists and demand that they identify themselves. If they were feeling merciful, the Hispanics would order these blacks, even if they lived in the neighborhood, to go into their homes and stay inside. More often, they would chase them or attempt to pull them out of their automobiles. Hispanic gang members would chase down blacks fleeing in their cars, smashing their trucks into them so that they couldn’t escape. 

And they would shoot at them (herehereherehereherehere).

One video posted subsequently features a meeting between black and Hispanic Chicago gang members. Apparently, they arrived at a resolution of some sort, but the Hispanics could be heard saying things like, “If you do it, why can’t we?” and then chanting, “All lives matter!”

When locals in Chicago media and on social media referred to their “racism,” they merely replied that they were simply protecting their neighborhood. And that was the end of that. Why? The answer should be obvious: any more badgering would fall on deaf ears. It would not only carry zero weight; it could be of negative value—to the accuser. These Hispanic gangbangers, any zealot “anti-racists” already know, could be sure to respond to these taunts with the same brutality that they already demonstrated.  

Meanwhile, the bands of armed white citizens in cities and suburbs around the country who managed to deter the domestic terrorists while actually harming no one are smeared by leftists online and in Big Media as “vigilantes” or “white supremacists.”

There is much more that can and will be said in the future on the woefully neglected role of fear in our nation’s politics.
* * *

Justice Dept Announces Recommendations for Reform of Big Tech Platform Immunity, Section 230

Timing is everything…

When NBC published their background conversation with Google yesterday the media outlet made a big legal mistake.  NBC not only outlined the mechanics of a racketeering and antitrust violation, via Google’s power to control on-line ad revenue as a weapon to target NBC’s competition, but NBC outlined the actual collaborative communication.

NBC did the worst thing possible, they published the quotes from Google’s response to them where Google willingly accepted the request from NBC without pause.  The collusion was not only clear, it was self admitted.  What made the issue more explosive was the NBC article explained the motives of both organizations; the targeting was intentional and specific.  The goal was to take-down The Federalist news outlet by removing their revenue. There was no ambiguity of purpose, and Google knowingly agreed with the intent.


Within hours of realizing the consequences of the publication, the legal offices of NBC and Google both activated and attempted damage control.  The NBC article was completely rewritten and the communication between them and Google –as quoted– was removed.  For its part Google published a statement saying no action had been taken, and later they professed no action would be taken.  However, the damage was already done.
NBC’s hubris put both Google and NBC in the sunlight of their own admissions.

Google’s monopoly control of internet ad revenue made their agreement with NBC to target a competitor a transparent, and admitted, antitrust violation.  Without question, that stark admission is what triggered the timing of the DOJ public statement today.

The DOJ needs congress to take action, modify the law, and update the outdated immunity for online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

There are many aspects to the 230 immunity section regarding the responsibility of a platform provider to ensure no criminal activity (child exploitation, sex trafficking, terrorism organization etc.) is taking place; while 230 simultaneously gives the provider immunity from liability if they do not successfully intercept the action.  That was the bulk of intent and purpose of the original law.

Additionally, platform providers have been using the Section 230 immunity to engage in targeted censorship and control over political viewpoints on their services.  That’s the part that gets most of our/user attention…. and if the immunity was removed, people could challenge the platform provider, sue them and force them to justify their action in court.

Both of those prior points are important; the first is really important to the DOJ; but they are not the real epicenter of the issue from the perspective of the provider(s).

Big Tech cares about not being held criminally liable, yes; and Big Tech cares about being able to control ideology, yes. However, neither of those two factors are as important to Big Tech as MONEY.  Without financial control over the internet, Big Tech collapses.
The heart of the Big Tech’s financial issue for Section 230 immunity surrounds this:

(DOJ) …”A third reform proposal is to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.”…

As we expected the DOJ wants to target Big Tech for antitrust violations.  The issue surrounds commerce, not speech.  Demonetization of digital platform content providers, in combination with Google’s control of almost all ad revenue in the digital space, is what has opened the door for DOJ intervention based on antitrust laws.

Antitrust intervention is warranted because the content being generated on these on-line, digital platforms, is being arbitrarily valued by the platform agency GoogleAds and not the free market.  When Google devalues content they are ideologically opposed to creates consumer distortions.

The methods, practices and purposeful control of value; through collusion of corporate interest specific to a planned and organized effort to control monetary benefit; is the part of their activity that is quantifiable, discoverable, easily provable, and ultimately unlawful.

The financial distortion of internet commerce is the crack in the Big Tech stranglehold that should afford the DOJ the opportunity to step in.

Democrats in congress will fight to help Big Tech retain the monopoly.  It is doubtful any legislative action will take place prior to the November 2020 election.   However, if President Trump can win reelection and if Democrats can be defeated in the House and Senate, it’s possible this might finally be addressed…

But remember…. Big Tech will go to the mattresses this year to try and help Democrats. There are trillions at stake.

President Barack Obama joins a toast with Technology Business Leaders at a dinner in Woodside, California, Feb. 17, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Takeover of America by Dark Powers

Takeover of America by Dark Powers

- Kevin Shipp

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 

Former CIA Officer and counter-terrorism expert Kevin Shipp says the riots, looting and arson you are seeing around the country has little to do with so-called social justice and everything to do with the takeover of America by dark powers.  Kevin Shipp explains, “We have to understand the roots of these organizations, and Antifa is a Marxist organization.  Black Lives Matter was founded by two Marxists.  Black Lives Matter is connected to the Nation of Islam.  So, these two organizations are essentially anti-traditional America.  There is no question about it.  This is a Marxist movement.  What is Marxism?  That’s communism, and that is the same thing and essentially the foundation of progressivism.  We are seeing a last gasp from the extreme Left to stop Donald Trump.  The soft coup failed.  The false impeachment failed.  Blaming Covid 19 on Trump failed, and now they are doing one last gasp.  This is a group of Marxists trying to stop Trump and his movement from being elected.”

Shipp has identified three areas the Marxist/communist Democrats are targeting.  Shipp contends, “I call it ‘C 3.’  They are after the Constitution.  The want to change the First and Second Amendments for starters.  That’s the first ‘C.’  The second ‘C’ is our culture.  They want to change and eliminate traditional American values and U.S. sovereignty.  And the third ‘C’ they pick out to attack is Christianity.  Why?  Because all three of them stand in the way of Marxism, and all three of them stand in the way of radical Islam and the Nation of Islam that is connected to Black Lives Matter.  All three of those are the enemy. That is why you see Progressives and radical Islam joining together because they have the common enemy and a common target:  our Constitution, Culture and Christianity.

How do you combat all of this?  Shipp says, “First of all, we pray.  America was started with prayer.  It was continued with prayer, and we need to keep praying.  Second, we as Christians need to stand up and stop allowing them to do this to our government.  We are supposed to support our government as long as government is good, but when government starts doing things like abortion up to the ninth month, we, in the church, and pastors may need to think twice about their tax exempt status.  We have to start standing up and decrying ‘not my Constitution,’ and traditional values of America we need to stand up and fight for.  We, as Christians, have got to start doing that.”

Where does this end?  Shipp says, “They are pushing for a civil war, and we are in a soft civil war right now.  It just hasn’t broken out into the streets.  This will result in a civil war, and we have to remember that we are not the minority. . . . . Your average American who loves the Constitution and traditional values is the majority.  They are making it look they are the majority because they have the media, but they are not the majority.  Sadly, I think we are in a soft civil war right now, and there is going to be one.”

Shipp also updates us with his analysis on other subjects such as the investigation into the Russia-Gate hoax, the economy and the overreaction of Covid.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with former CIA Officer Kevin Shipp.

Devin Nunes Discusses Big Tech Targeting of On-Line Conservative Content: “There is Not a More Important Issue Than This Issue”


Representative Devin Nunes appears on FOX Business’ with Elizabeth MacDonald to discuss how conservative voices are being censored and targeted by the ideology of Big Tech, against the backdrop of latest examples of Google targeting websites.




Singer Vera Lynn, voice of hope in wartime Britain, dies at 103

June 18, 2020
LONDON (Reuters) – Singer Vera Lynn, who became a symbol of hope in Britain during World War Two and more recently during the coronavirus pandemic with her song “We’ll Meet Again”, has died at the age of 103, British media reported on Thursday.
Known as the Forces’ Sweetheart, Lynn struck a chord with soldiers fighting overseas and with the public back in Britain with songs such as “The White Cliffs of Dover” that gave voice to the hopes and fears about the conflict with Nazi Germany.
To mark her 100th birthday in 2017, a giant image of Lynn as a young woman was projected on to the White Cliffs and a new album was released.
Lynn, who had continued to make public appearances in later life, was back in the news earlier this year when Queen Elizabeth used words from her famous song to tell the country “We will meet again” during a very rare broadcast to the nation to address the coronavirus outbreak






https://www.oann.com/british-singer-vera-lynn-dies-at-103-pa-media/

Jerry Nadler / Lawfare Planning to Impeach AG Bill Barr?


In 2018/2019 the roadmap to impeach President Trump was clear; many denied its visibility until it was almost too late.  In the past week several moves within DC present a roadmap to impeach AG Bill Barr.  Could this be the DC defense against USAO John Durham’s findings surrounding the DC soft-coup effort?  You decide.


♦ On Monday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced that two former Special Counsel Robert Mueller attorneys, John W. Elias and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky  would be designated as “whistleblowers” to give testimony against AG Bill Barr. (LINK)

♦ On Tuesday, the last remaining DOJ advisor to Jeff Sessions, Jody Hunt, announced his intent to leave the justice dept. (LINK) Hunt was Jeff Session’s chief-of-staff, and one of the key advisors responsible for the decision to recuse from the Mueller probe. (LINK)

♦ And now today the DOJ is announcing that Solicitor General Noel Francisco will be  departing: “Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco announces his departure from the Department of Justice, effective as of July 3, 2020.” (LINK)

With those final two departures there’s no longer any Main Justice leadership in position from the era of Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein.  Seems like quite a coincidence.

Racial annulment

 Political Cartoons by AF Branco
Article by David Harris in "The American Thinker":

 Condemning a person because of race is the height of racism… indeed its very definition.  Annulling a race or group – annihilating its culture – is one step further.  
 
Through history, annulling a despised group – making them dispossessed – has been a central task of totalitarians and authoritarians in their push to consolidate and maintain power.  During China’s “Cultural Revolution” of the ‘60s, Maoists blamed capitalists for their oppression and hoped to elevate the state by substituting Mao’s “Little Red Book” for traditional ways of thinking, such as a reverence for elders and ancestors.  Nazis made sure to acquire the property and possessions of Jews in a display of their omnipotence and as a further form of humiliation: those possessions are still being discovered today.  Slave-owners in the South often separated the families of slaves, which had the effects of reinforcing their power, unsettling the slaves and fracturing alliances that could lead to an uprising.  Pol Pot and Jim Jones worked to nullify the beliefs and culture of the groups that they controlled.

No race or group should be annulled: it’s inhumane.  Annulling a race or group has generally been advanced by totalitarians but, perhaps for the first time in known history, we’re observing people willingly nullifying themselves, voluntarily genuflecting to those invalidating their race or group, and accepting idiosyncratic and power-consolidating speech rules and interpretations of historical and current events. 

Of course the lives of black people matter, but the (often voluntary) prohibition of phrases like “all lives matter” is reprehensible… and the meaning is never lost on the subconscious mind: that non-black lives don’t matter as much as black lives.  The howling of self-appointed arbiters of speech that their idiosyncratic interpretation of “black lives matter” precludes the use of “all lives matter” or its ilk does nothing to shift the underlying meaning that, if you’re not black, you must self-annul: your life doesn’t matter as much as a black life.

There are many other power-consolidating phrases with idiosyncratic, ahistorical, even bizarre meanings that people willingly accept: “white privilege”; “institutional racism”; “curb your privilege”; “Uncle Tom”; “Oreo”; etc.  All of these phrases evoke ideas worthy of critical thought and discussion, but it’s the absolutist, power-reinforcing element on one side, coupled with obeisance and culture-annulling behavior on the other that is damaging to society.  It’s reminiscent of the stance of the Maoists during the Cultural Revolution: the question of capitalism’s effects on China was worthy of discussion… but the Maoists insisted that “Capitalist Roaders” – including the relatives and friends of proper Maoist believers – be eliminated or “reeducated”.  Black Lives Matter is the Maoist “Red Guard” of today, but while indignant Chinese college professors were dragged out of their classrooms for browbeating and torture, we willingly submit.

The acceptance of self-annulment is a sad and, in the end, culture-annihilating spectacle.  One wonders about its genesis.  I suppose the leading cause would be the nearly ubiquitous “white guilt” that has been vigorously advanced and almost universally, if subconsciously, accepted.
 
Some obvious problems with racial/cultural annulment – whether forced by the powerful on the powerless or, in this case, willingly accepted – include: general loss of contribution to the culture; a unification and eventual congruence of speech and thought patterns in the culture, aggressively modulated by the dominant; generation of ancillary rules and related consequences by the predominant group that are separate from written law; quiet rage of the annulled at being suppressed (even when that person is voluntarily suppressing himself); and the loss of a functional complement or foil to the dominant group, with consequent loss of the dialogues that might advance us all.

I heard a black person succinctly summarize the issue: “Your white guilt is going to kill my race!”

It’s A Political Trap – Outgoing Atlanta DA Sets-Up Successor For Problems

Outgoing Atlanta DA Sets-Up Successor For Problems – Charges Police Officer With 11 Counts Including Felony Murder in Shooting Death of Rayshard Brooks cth

Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Paul Howard Jr., held a press conference earlier this afternoon to announce eleven charges against police officer Garrett Wolfe for the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks.  The shooting took place at a local Atlanta Wendys.

In what appears to be a decision heavily influenced by local politics, DA Howard is charging officer Garrett Wolfe with felony murder; an unlawful killing with malice, forethought and specific intent.  It looks like Howard is purposefully making a mess.


During his press remarks the district attorney stated Mr. Rayshard Brooks was “calm, cordial and really displayed a cooperative nature – he was almost jovial” after he was found “peacefully sleeping” in his car outside the Wendy’s Friday night and subjected to a sobriety test.  According to the DA “for 41 minutes and 17 seconds, [Brooks] followed their instructions, he answered the questions,” Howard said. “Mr. Brooks was never informed that he was under arrest for driving under the influence.”

There is something rather unusual about the way DA Paul Howard framed the encounter between the police and Rayshard Brooks, because CCTV video and body-cam footage do not support the district attorney’s version of events.  Obviously in a courtroom the defense is going to replay the DA statements while they run simultaneous footage of Mr. Rayshard Brooks resisting arrest, fighting with police and ultimately taking one of the officers’ tasers to use as a weapon.


The highly coordinated press conference narrative, as outlined by what seems like a not very astute district attorney, is very much at odds with what most people have already seen in the videos of the encounter.  The purposeful disconnect gives the impression that DA Brooks is intentionally trying to throw the court case in advance.

There’s something very sketchy going on in the political background…. and I cannot help but wonder if Paul Howard Jr. is planning to be defeated in the next election (he seems in trouble) and is, as an intentional and self-centered plan, trying to set-up his political successor with a lose/lose scenario.

The eleven charges which include felony murder seem positioned from a district attorney who knows he won’t be around to deal with the case details.  Howard can present himself as the community hero today and force his successor into the role of legal villain. That scenario is exactly what this looks like. Recently:

ATLANTA — Fulton County’s long-time district attorney faces two separate state investigations, but it could be voters who remove him from office.
District Attorney Paul Howard came in second in the primary election for his seat on Tuesday, the worst election showing he’s had since taking office in 1997. He now advances to a runoff with Democratic challenger Fani Willis.
“What you will overwhelmingly see, is that the people of Fulton County, Georgia, they desperately want a change,” Willis said on Wednesday. (June 10, 2020)

The lead investigative agency, The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), didn’t even know the press conference was going to be held today [LINK] and they have not completed their investigation.  They had no idea the DA was going to file charges:

It is brutally obvious DA Paul Howard Jr. is setting a political trap for the next Fulton County District Attorney.   The weird press conference and charges are ridiculous.

Regardless of internal Atlanta politics, the message to police is chilling.  I would not want to be living anywhere around Fulton county, Georgia; because I suspect there is going to be a massive drop in law enforcement.  Crime will likely rise, violence will likely escalate, and the suffering community will be the same black neighborhoods who might currently be thanking DA Howard without realizing what consequences are looming.

Here’s the press conference.  It is cognitively disjointed all the way through; and seemingly run by people who have no clue what they are doing as they put a seemingly rushed media presentation together on the fly.

The representative image of Atlanta, Georgia, is really quite bad.  WATCH:


Also, here’s the Body-Cam footage (incident takes place at 41:00).


Also here’s the CCTV video from Wendy’s (shooting at 28:30


Eye Witness video of the fight with police: