Ultimately if you peel all the skin off the onion, this is the reason why Democrats are acting with such a control mindset. Control is a reaction to fear, even if the fear is subconscious in the control agent. Democrats, including their leftist and Marxist ideologues, know the JoeBama administration cheated. They know what they did to usurp the federal election.
The fences around the U.S Capitol are essentially a projection of their own self image. If Democrats were the victims of the fraud instead of the benefactors they would have gone violent against the entire federal administration in Washington DC. They built the fence, and manufactured the narrative to support their military guards, because they were projecting their response toward their political opposition.
Rasmussen Reports: By a margin of 51% – 44%, voters said it is “likely” that cheating affected the 2020 election outcome. That includes 74% of Republicans, 30% of Democrats and 51% of independent voters.
Additionally, 47% said it is likely Democrats stole or destroyed ballots for former President Donald Trump. That included 75% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats. An even 50% said that it is unlikely ballots were destroyed.
“Asked which is more important, making it easier for everybody to vote, or making sure there is no cheating in elections, 60% of Likely Voters say it’s more important to prevent cheating, while 37% said it’s more important to make it easier to vote.
Only 22% of voters say it is currently too hard to vote, while 34% said it’s too easy to vote, and 41% say the level of difficulty in voting is about right.
Majorities of all racial groups – 59% of whites, 56% of Blacks and 63% of other minority voters – say it is more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote.
Likewise, majorities of all racial groups – 64% of whites, 59% of Blacks and 58% of other minority voters – reject the claim that voter ID laws discriminate against some voters.” (read full report)
Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) is one of many Republicans opposed to the idea
of a vaccine passport. He and other like minded people have called it a
government overreach and think Americans have the right to decide for
themselves if they want a vaccine.
“For those who have the vaccines, what do they have to worry about?
Why do they care about someone else who does not have a vaccine?” Hice
asked. “If they’re vaccinated they feel safe, that’s their business.”
The credentials would require individuals to show proof of
vaccination in order to access businesses or events. Proponents see it
as one of the ways to beat the coronavirus pandemic.
“I think particularly for some private sector settings, it could be a
really valuable tool,” said New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio (D). “I think
government has a role to play in setting it up and making it work.”
Meanwhile, critics argue it would set a dangerous precedent. Hice,
along with a group of more than two dozen Republicans, are pushing a
bill that would prevent any federal money from going towards the
implementation of vaccine passports at the state and local level.
The legislation is unlikely to move through Congress as no Democrats
support it, but last week the White House maintained its leaving it up
to private businesses and states to decide.
“There will be no federal vaccinations data base and no federal
mandate requiring everyone to obtain a single vaccination credential,”
stated White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
Nonetheless, skepticism remains among GOP members of Congress.
“It is no place of the federal government to come in and force people
to do it with penalty of not being able to exercise their normal
routine life,” Hice argued.
The debate over vaccine passports is just as polarizing among
Americans. A new poll by Morning Consult showed that while more than 60
percent of adults approve of a digital document to show they are
vaccinated, only 40 percent favor it as a requirement.
New York state has a voluntary vaccine passport program while a
growing number of red states like Texas and Florida are barring them all
together.
The challenge facing some states is getting the right information out
to people, so they aren’t discouraged from getting vaccinated. Some
elected officials think that responsibility partly falls on Big Tech and
the media.
“We are going to rely on the science-driven, data-driven,” explained
Florida Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nuñez (R). “And often times, unfortunately,
some in the media choose to ignore what is the science and data-driven
when its not convenient to their narrative.”
Nuñez said their no-mandate approach is working and noted more than
70 percent of the state’s seniors have been vaccinated with an overall
43 percent vaccination rate.
As more vaccine doses become available across the country, it’s a
race to herd immunity either by recovering from the virus or getting a
vaccine.
Jerry ‘the penguin’ Nadler and Senator Ed Markey are planning to introduce legislation tomorrow to add four Supreme Court justices to the current bench. The objective is to bring a liberal bias to the high court by adding four leftist judges.
WASHINGTON DC – The bill, led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), is the first legislation in recent years designed to add seats to the high court, and its introduction comes as progressive organizations are pushing for court expansion, after watching Senate Republicans fill three Supreme Court vacancies in four years under President Donald Trump. (read more)
French
President Emmanuel Macron has visited Notre Dame on the two-year
anniversary of the devastating fire that destroyed much of the
cathedral.
He spoke of the "collective pride" of the
reconstruction efforts, and looked to the future and completion targets
that have been impacted by the pandemic.
Over the past year of COVID, there’s been a recurring news narrative of “experts surprised their predictions were off the mark.” It’s happened on almost every major policy issue – from masks to lockdowns to surface cleaning – and the margins of error are often vast. The CDC or some government body told us with certainty that something was true concerning COVID, and we had to obey.
But then the data comes out, and the people yelling about “the science” were totally wrong…
Yet somehow we’re supposed to ignore the abysmal track record of these experts and listen to whatever their next proclamation of “the science!” may be, even as the end of the pandemic appears to be in sight. This comes from the “Fauciite Consensus” – the absolutist voices that pretend there’s such a thing as “the science” that determines public policy decisions. Until we understand what the consensus is, and what it plans long term, it’s never going away.
Any meaningful public debate about the consensus positions has been forbidden… After all, how can you reasonably argue with a group that claims to represent “the science”? We’ve been led to believe an infallible genius has been making these COVID policy declarations. In reality, it’s been Dr. Anthony Fauci and a chorus of middling fellow bureaucrats insisting that two-year-olds wear masks and “social distancing” circles be drawn on baseball fields in public parks.
No matter how many times they’re wrong or their directives fail, you’re obligated to obey the Fauciites – because they say so, and the State backs them up with force. It’s like they’re America’s anxious helicopter parents who won’t ever let us go to the playground with the other kids because of the risk of a staph infection from a scraped knee.
That anyone can theoretically get a staph infection almost anywhere never occurs to the Fauciite Consensus… Or they simply don’t care. They pretend to offer absolute safety in response to endless obedience. And no matter how many times they’ve failed in this proposition over the course of the pandemic, they demand that this time they’ve got it right.
The latest version of their blatant wrongness comes courtesy of two large states, Texas and Michigan, who’ve taken very different approaches to the pandemic over the last few months. Texas has gotten rid of its mask mandate and completely opened up its businesses. Its cases have plummeted over the past month – the exact opposite of what experts like Fauci said would happen. The not-so-good doctor claimed it was a big mistake and would lead to a surge.
Michigan, on the other hand, is going through a major spike in cases, including having the dubious distinction of nine of the top 10 metro areas for COVID spread in the country. This is all happening in a state with a notoriously extreme lockdown advocate, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, calling the shots. Michigan still has mask mandates (indoor and outdoor) and has had many of these in place since July 10 of last year. It’s all Fauci-approved, and it’s failing.
How do the people spewing constant lockdown propaganda explain this one? Mostly through a series of “Michigan must be letting up on mitigation measures” and “wait two more weeks” doublespeak. Their explanations simply don’t add up, which has been the case all along.
No reasonable person should be surprised by this anymore, but many choose to keep the Fauciite charade going. The corporate media, as always, is there to leap in with analysis like this recent tweet from NBC’s The Today Show:
Some states with stricter rules are now seeing surges in COVID cases, while many others that rushed to reopen are experiencing sizable drops. The numbers have experts scratching their heads.
Ah, yes, it’s all so confusing, especially when the obvious possibility – COVID mitigation measures don’t work as advertised – is automatically dropped from the equation. The Fauciite Consensus will never admit that it was wrong, no matter what the data and actual experience show us.
It has been wrong so often, it’s hard to keep track. Remember how we were all told a year ago to panic over the possibility that COVID could last hours (perhaps days) on all kinds of surfaces? This led to an unprecedented regime of cleaning everything in sight for fear of COVID contamination. There was a nationwide shortage of anti-bacterial wipes, and alcohol distilleries started making hand sanitizer and disinfectant to help the war on fomites (surfaces that transmit viruses).
Turns out, that was all utterly useless pandemic-cleaning theater. A CDC press release from April 5 states that…
The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory droplets carrying infectious virus. It is possible for people to be infected through contact with contaminated surfaces or objects (fomites), but the risk is generally considered to be low.
How low, you might ask? According to the report, less than one in 10,000. That’s right, any time you touch a surface highly contaminated with active COVID virus, you have fewer than a 0.0001% chance of getting COVID. This comes after a year of absurd hygiene extremes, such as people washing their grocery bags down or touching every elevator button and door handle with their elbows. In New York City, they were shutting the subway down nightly for a “deep clean.”
Fauci in deed, word, and attitude supported all of this… It was all a giant waste of time and resources.
Now the focus is shifting to when do we get to go back to normal? As with everything else the Fauci Consensus has dictated, we can expect constantly shifting goalposts and a desire to maintain control at all costs.
Here’s what the lockdown leprechaun, Dr. Fauci, said during a COVID briefing on behalf of President Joe Biden’s administration on April 7:
I think what we’re going to see is that, as we get more and more people vaccinated, you’re going to see a concomitant diminution in the number of cases that we see every day and, with that, you know, the cascading domino effect of less hospitalizations and less deaths.
I don’t think it’s going to be a precise number. I don’t know what that number is. I can’t say it’s going to be “this” percent. But we’ll know it when we see it. It’ll be obvious as the numbers come down rather dramatically.
Oh, we will “know it when we see it!” What a highly scientific proclamation. And it’s worth noticing how America’s favorite lab coat tyrant uses words like “concomitant diminution” in interviews when he could just say “drop.” But if Dr. Thesaurus wasn’t showing up on television what seems like every five minutes, people might start to feel normal again, and the Fauciite Consensus exists to fight that urge.
And if you think Fauci and his minions will all just go away in time, think again. There’s already talk about booster shots for COVID vaccines every six months. The apparatus of health policy tyranny isn’t going to just fade out. That’s why you will see more articles like this one from February in the months ahead, telling you to be ready for forever COVID:
Experts believe the coronavirus pandemic is likely to become endemic, meaning the virus will stick around in populations, potentially requiring booster shots to beef up immunity. “We need to plan that this is something we may need to maintain control over chronically,” Fauci said in November. “It may be something that becomes endemic, that we have to just be careful about.”
The COVID lockdown and mitigation measures madness only ends when we make it end. Sadly, far too many Americans prefer to live in a society of absolute control and pseudo-safety. They’ve been brainwashed into believing they are saving lives in exchange for giving up their basic freedoms, and there are a lot of people in power benefiting from their mass hysteria.
In truth, almost all of what we’ve been forced to do this past year is about as smart as spraying Lysol all over your groceries to protect against infinitesimal risk. COVID was never hitchhiking inside your house in a bag of chicken nuggets, and the “experts” who made us think otherwise are hysterical buffoons.
This is the world the Fauciites hath wrought… Whether it stays that way is up to us.
On Easter Sunday, a massive explosion ripped through the top-secret Iranian nuclear weapons research facility at Natanz. There were some interesting aspects to the explosion. In a way, this was deja vu because, in July 2020, the same facility was hit by a cyberattack that damaged the centrifuge production plant inside the Natanz facility. Just days before this current event, Iran brought online new centrifuges that violated provisions of the corrupt Iran nuclear deal that Biden is trying to bring back from the dead. The day before, Iran had brought some state-of-the-art centrifuges to accelerate their illegal enrichment program. The notable thing about the explosion was that it took place some 50-meters underground in an electrical substation designed to be impervious to conventional air attacks.
A power failure that appeared to have been caused by a deliberately planned explosion struck Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment site on Sunday, in what Iranian officials called an act of sabotage that they suggested had been carried out by Israel.
The blackout injected new uncertainty into diplomatic efforts that began last week to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal repudiated by the Trump administration.
Iran did not say precisely what had caused the blackout at the heavily fortified site, which has been a target of previous sabotage, and Israel publicly declined to confirm or deny any responsibility. But American and Israeli intelligence officials said there had been an Israeli role.
Two intelligence officials briefed on the damage said it had been caused by a large explosion that completely destroyed the independent — and heavily protected — internal power system that supplies the underground centrifuges that enrich uranium.
There were initial claims that this was an accident, but it soon became apparent that this was either the most unfortunate accident ever or it had a helping hand. Naturally, all eyes turned to the usual suspects.
The alleged Israeli attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility targeted an electrical substation located 40 to 50 meters underground and damaged “thousands of centrifuges,” Iranian officials revealed in recent days.
Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, told Iranian media on Monday that the attack hit an electrical substation located deep underground and managed to damage both the power distribution system and the cable leading to the centrifuges in order to cut power to them.
The Iranian official stressed that such an operation takes years, saying “the design of the enemy was very beautiful.”
Davani added that the substation was built underground in order to protect it from air and missile strikes, and that the attack was carried out either via cyber, sabotaged equipment or sabotage committed by agents.
The Jerusalem Post has learned that the attack was carried out through an explosive device that was smuggled into the facility and detonated remotely. An intelligence official told The New York Times on Tuesday that the attack took out both the primary and backup electrical systems.
Davani confirmed on Monday that the attack last July was also carried out with explosives that were smuggled into a centrifuge assembly facility at the site, with the explosives embedded in a heavy table that was brought into the facility.
The attack at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, which destroyed a number of centrifuges and caused an electricity blackout, occurred as U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was visiting Israel and was preparing to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Top Biden administration officials apparently were given no advance notice of the attack against the Iranian uranium-enrichment facility, according to people familiar with the situation.
Of all the days available to carry out this attack, Israel chose one that coincided with a visit by the Diversity and Inclusion Commissar for the Department of Defense. And he found out about the attack at the same time as the rest of the world. The irony that one of his visit’s purposes was to ensure there was a “no surprises” policy in place concerning Iran was not lost on anyone.
How did we get to the point where our major ally in a critical and dangerous region feels it is necessary to humiliate the US Secretary of Defense (I mean other than by reading his own Critical Race Theory bullsh** to him)? We got there because of Joe Biden and his record of duplicity, both individually and collectively, in dealing with Israel when he was vice president. Matthew Brodsky, who is at some think tank I’ve never heard of, produced an epic thread on the background.
To put the entire picture in context, Biden’s bunch is attempting to achieve another Iran nuclear deal using the same methods the Obama gang used in 2012-2015 (see Joe Biden’s Iran Policy Is Focused on Returning the Power, Prestige, and Nuclear Weapons Iran Has Lost Since 2016). They have canceled arms deals with the UAE; they are cutting off the ability of the Saudis to combat the Iranian proxies in Yemen, they have tried to criminalize the Saudi Crown prince over the killing of a Qatari intelligence operative who peddled ghost-written opinion pieces to the Washington Post (see Washington Post Hints What Others Have Known: Jamal Khashoggi Was a Paid Qatari Intelligence Asset). What has changed, though, is everything. Biden is not Obama, so his policies can be directly challenged without being labeled a racist. Iran has demonstrated to the American public that it can’t be trusted. Most importantly, President Trump has reordered the Middle East’s strategic landscape, creating an Arab-Israel security partnership to confront Iran. This means that Israel will have allies in its fight to prevent the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons, and Biden will face a mostly unified opposition to his lunacy.
Police are part of a system of oppression that is very systemic and oppressive. It's true-- our rich white sociology professor told us so. Some politicians are calling for us to "reimagine policing," but we think that's not far enough! It's time to imagine a world with no police.
Here are 7 reasons the world would be better without police.
1. There would be more doughnuts available for the rest of us - We're sick of showing up at the doughnut shop to find the police already came in and took all the best ones. Oppression at its finest.
2. Vigilante justice is way more fun - At least, according to the movies, it is. Why call the police when you can form your own posse and hunt down the evildoers yourself?
3. With speed limits not enforced, you can finally test the limits of your 2013 Honda Odyssey - Always wanted to see what this puppy could do!
4. There would be much more liberation of TVs from Walmart - Think about it: there are thousands of TVs, tennis shoes, and top-shelf liquor being held in captivity all across the nation. It's time to liberate these high-priced goods from their shelves!
5. Unlimited loitering outside 7-Eleven - You can stand out there for hours and no one will bother you. Heaven on earth!
6. You can yell in the library now - Not only that, but you can check out unlimited books and never bring them back with complete impunity.
7. All problems in the black community will go away - Everything wrong in the inner city is the cops' fault. If the cops go, everything will be solved. It's just that simple!
Isn't it fun to imagine? Now, all we have to do is vote in politicians who will promise to make all the cool things in our imagination come true. Get on it, people!
If
you have watched the news for the past ten months, you know that the
Democrats have done everything in their power to put police in the
crosshairs. Whether physically attacking police, prosecuting them in
ways unrelated to the facts, or defunding them, Democrat-run communities
are making it extraordinarily difficult for police, not just to do
their job, but to stay alive and out of prison. So, one has to ask those
in the force or contemplating joining the force: Why take that risk in
2021?
No
matter what your political persuasion, I think that the sheer logic
behind this question would force anyone to admit that it’s a risk not
worth taking. If you are a Caucasian (or Hispanic – think George
Zimmerman), why would you ever take the personal risk of becoming a
police officer in one of our major cities?
If
you are in a situation where it appears a suspect of color might be
about to shoot you (and that determination may necessitate a less than
1.5 second decision) you have two interesting choices: 1) take the
bullet and provide a nice pension for your spouse and kids; 2) fire
first, possibly thereby saving your or your partner’s life, but possibly
ending your career, facing interminable legal actions that will
impoverish your family, making your family a target for our benighted
woke warriors in black masks, and possibly going to prison.
It’s
a tough choice. And we routinely see in videos of police interactions
with those resisting arrest or directly attacking them, you may have
less than 2 seconds to make it.
So why exactly would any Caucasian or Hispanic wish to put on a badge in any U.S. city? To protect and serve? To borrow a famous phrase of an NFL player of some years back, “For who, for what?”
In
a moral philosophy sense, do you have a greater responsibility to your
community and your oath, than to your own family? Or if you’re just in
it for the income/pension, aren’t there a slew of other civil service
jobs that would suffice? Even garbage collector seems preferable, given
the risks here.
One of our recent presidents was a strong advocate of a national police force. Most Western countries have local police
forces -- which sometimes can or can’t be pushed aside by a national
agency like the FBI. That past president’s wish was to essentially have all policing run out of Washington (for clarity, Hitler did so out of Berlin, Stalin out of Moscow). Since he quite recently held that we need to “reimagine” policing in the US, it seems the thought still crosses his mind.
But
back to the strongly dissuasive environment that the national media and
other Leftism has created for police recruitment. If I wanted to create
a national -- almost paramilitary -- police force, I would first
thoroughly demoralize the existing police forces throughout America to
the point where they simply quit. And that is the likely end game. Then
you simply call up your local BLM chapter or Antifa affiliate and report
that there are a good many vacancies to fill.
At
that point, you have one of the final lynchpins that the Left has been
missing here -- control of policing and enforcement. After all, you
can’t have a police state without the police. And you most definitely
can’t have the police opposing your goals! For example, when churches or
unfriendly media offices are being attacked at your behest, you can’t
have the police interfering! The same is true when unenlightened
(unwoke) people’s homes are being attacked, their cars vandalized, or
their businesses looted!
So
it was that in Minnesota the other day when a Black city manager came
out and said that a White (female) cop deserved due process, and was promptly fired for his efforts, the chill that firing sent out across police forces and local jurisdictions across the US was quite real. And intentional.
And
with that, folks, we now begin the 8th inning of the takedown
(transformation) of the United States. Wish your children and
grandchildren good luck. They will desperately need it.
Article by Larry Alexander in The American Thinker
The Misguided Call for Reparations
The city of Asheville, North Carolina approved a measure
giving its black residents certain benefits as reparations for slavery.
Councilman Keith Young, who is black, referred to the “hundreds of
years of black blood” that built the city. The mayor of Providence,
Rhode Island issued an executive order to explore reparations for slavery. Governor Newsom of California has pledged to create a commission to consider reparations. And the Democrats’ bill in the House, H.R. 40,
would establish a commission to study reparations, including
“compensation” for slavery for “living African-Americans.” Indeed, many
politicians are urging serious consideration of reparations for
slavery. But really serious consideration would reveal both the flaws in
its premise and the harm that it would produce.
A Flawed Premise
First,
the flawed premise. The basic model for reparations is A wrongfully
harms B, so A must compensate B and restore B to where B would have been
had the wrong not been committed. So if Al recklessly crashes his car
into Bob’s car and damages it, Al should have to pay what it costs to
restore Bob’s car to the condition it was in before the accident. There
are some tricky issues whenever we must ask counterfactuals, such as
what would the condition of Bob’s car be had Al not crashed into it.
Would another car have wrecked Bob’s if Al’s hadn’t done so? But we deal
the best we can with answering these counterfactuals in ordinary cases
in which A wrongfully harms B.
If
this is our basic model of reparations, then we should ask, with
respect to slavery, who are the As and Bs today? After all, both the
slaveholders -- the As -- and their slaves -- the Bs -- are long dead.
So the As and Bs today must be those who stand in the shoes of the
slaveholders and slaves and inherit their obligations and rights.
So
who, then, are the As today who owe the reparations for slavery? Do
they include the millions of whites who emigrated to the U.S. in the
last 150 years? The descendants of whites who opposed slavery? The
descendants of blacks who owned slaves (there were many who did)? The
descendants of Native Americans who owned slaves (ditto)? The
descendants of those who fought and often died to end slavery?
The
assumption of H. R. 40 seems to be that the U. S. government is the A
for purposes of reparations for slavery. But the U.S. government did not
itself legalize slavery, which was a matter left to the states. It is
true that the U.S. Constitution did not outlaw slavery. Had it attempted
to do so, however, there would have been no United States, as the
states that endorsed slavery would not have joined the union. And it was
the U.S. government, in the Civil War, that finally put an end to
slavery, and at great cost in blood and treasure.
But
let us put aside the problem of the As and assume the U.S. government,
and thus all taxpayers (black and white), will pay the reparations. The
question then is, who are the recipients of these payments, the Bs? Do
they include blacks who have emigrated to the U.S. from Africa and the
West Indies? Blacks whose ancestors owned slaves, which include not
only black slaveholders, but also white slaveholders with black
descendants.? Wealthy blacks?
There
are more basic problems on the B side of the model. Had there been no
slavery, the ancestors of today’s U.S. blacks would have remained in
Africa, most often as the slaves of other African tribes. And even more
basically, in the absence of slavery, today’s individual blacks would
not exist. That is, although blacks might exist in the U.S., the ones
who actually exist here would not exist at all. For each of us is the
product of a particular sperm and egg. Change the circumstances of
conception ever so slightly, and a different individual is created. And
slavery caused more than slight changes in the circumstances of
conception that would have existed in its absence. Each of us in
reality owes our very existence to past horrendous events, and that is
as true of today’s blacks as it is of the rest of us. So none today can
say, but for slavery, I would have been better off. People might be
better off today had there been no slavery, but none of us, blacks
included, would be.
So,
the premise on which reparations is modeled is flawed. Reparations to
victims’ descendants make sense only if those descendants existed at the
time the wrong was committed, such as the reparations paid by Germany
after World War II, or those paid by the U.S. government for the
internment of the Japanese during that war.
AnUnwise Policy
Not
only is reparations for slavery based on an erroneous assumption that
today’s blacks have been harmed by slavery, it is also unwise as a
policy prescription. For one thing, it might spawn other demands for
reparations. After all, if one looks far enough into the past, and casts
a wide enough geographical net, we are probably all descendants of
persons who suffered grave injustices in the past.
And
more important, reparations are definitely not a cure for problems
faced by blacks today. In general, blacks as a group are doing better
than ever before materially. And for those who are not doing well, the
cause is not the effects of slavery. Nor is the cause racist bigotry,
which, though some undoubtedly exists, is not a significant obstacle in
blacks’ lives. Nor is it the vague culprit of “structural racism,” which
refers, not to the acts of bigots but rather to societal institutions
that supposedly harm blacks and retard their progress. But which
institutions are they? Private property? Free exchange of goods and
services? The welfare state? Policing, prosecution, and punishment of
crimes? Whenever the claim of “structural racism” is made, the claimants
inevitably fail to specify which “structures” are the culprits, why
they are, and which structures should replace them.
Racism,
whether individual or structural, is not the cause of black poverty to
the extent it exists. (If it were, African and West Indian blacks would
not be doing as well as they are, or emigrating to the U.S. in great
numbers.) Although racism, unlike slavery, could be a problem for blacks
today, the reality, thankfully, is that it isn’t.
The
real impediments to the advancement of poor blacks -- and everyone
knows this, regardless whether they admit it -- are the cultural factors
that have produced family disintegration, which in turn portends poor
educational achievement, crime, and poverty. And this problem will only
be worsened by reparations, which sends the message that the
predicament of poor blacks is others’ fault, that blacks are victims,
and that they have no control over their fate. That is precisely the
wrong message to send, a message that denies blacks’ agency.
Reparations will not atone for chattel slavery but will instead foster
the insidious psychological slavery of victimhood.
Larry Alexander is the Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego.
CTH will continue pointing out the merge of Government and Multinationals while Conservative Inc and Republicans run from criticism of their K-Street masters.
Let us start by taking a look at this specific point about COVID vaccination passports:
The people behind the JoeBama administration do not need to step on the hot-button issue of ‘vaccine passports’ because they already have ideological allies working on the issue. Remember that phone call with 100 multinational corporations a few days ago? Why would a Marxist government need to engage in an issue highly charged with politics, when they can just farm-out the same outcome to their Marxist corporate allies?
Hopefully people can see what is happening here.
There are trillions at stake. Those trillions need to engage in control mechanisms to retain their position. The multinational corporations know how financially lucrative COVID compliance is. Those same multinationals are setting up the parameters for control in the exact same manner the U.S. government would. The ideological multinationals and the ideological JoeBama administration are working in concert.
Multinationals do not like capitalism because within the process of capitalism they do not have control over the financial outcomes. Capitalism breeds competition; multinationals abhor competition, they are totalitarian in ideology and want the entire pie under their control. Multinational corporations do not like capitalism; underline it, emphasize it, do not forget it.
Capitalism is based on the principles of a free market. Multinationals do not want a free market, they want a controlled market. Their efforts toward a vaccine passport are an example of yet another control they can manipulate for maximum financial benefit. It really is that simple…..
…. Meanwhile the crew of totalitarians behind JoeBama know they can benefit from their corporate allies. The multinationals will pay the politicians for control and the politicians will construct defensive legislative outcomes that protect the multinationals. That is what is happening in exponentially increasing sunlight.
Unfortunately the multinationals are also the funding mechanism for the UniParty. Democrats and Republicans both benefit from the financial process of payments by the multinationals for control of legislative outcomes. This is the entire purpose of K-Street. In third-world countries we call bribery of elected officials “corruption”; however, in the United States we call bribery of elected officials “lobbying”, the process is exactly the same.
In a slightly nuanced outline of the same type of Government and Multinational merging, Glenn Greenwald has a solid article explaining why and how the corporate world is using “false wokeness” as a tool for expanded financial benefit.
Greenwald – […] Large corporations have obviously witnessed the success of this tactic — to prettify the face of militarism and imperialism with the costumes of social justice — and are now weaponizing it for themselves. As a result, they are becoming increasingly aggressive in their involvement in partisan and highly politicized debates, always on the side of the same causes of social justice which entities of imperialism and militarism have so effectively co-opted.
Corporations have always sought to control the legislative process and executive branch, usually with much success. They purchase politicians and their powerful aides by hiring them as lobbyists and consultants when they leave government, and those bought-and-paid-for influence-peddlers then proceed to exploit their connections in Washington or state capitals to ensure that laws are written and regulations enforced (or not enforced) to benefit the corporations’ profit interests. These large corporations achieve the same goal by filling the campaign coffers of politicians from both parties. This is standard, age-old K Street sleaze that allows large corporations to control American democracy at the expense of those who cannot afford to buy this influence.
But they are now going far beyond clandestine corporatist control of the government for their own interests. They are now becoming increasingly powerful participants in highly polarizing and democratic debates. (read more)
Jerry ‘the penguin’ Nadler and Senator Ed Markey are planning to introduce legislation tomorrow to add four Supreme Court justices to the current bench. The objective is to bring a liberal bias to the high court by adding four leftist judges.
