Long week ahead. Here's tonight's news:
Sunday, July 17, 2022
Starbucks CEO Blames Woke Elected Officials For 16 Store Closures In Dangerous Cities
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz blamed woke elected officials
in Democrat-run cities for the abrupt closure of 16 stores.
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz placed blame on woke elected officials in Democrat-run cities for the abrupt closure of 16 stores located primarily on the West Coast.
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal was the first to report that six locations each will shut down in Seattle and Los Angeles, in addition to two in Portland, Ore., one in Philadelphia, and one in Washington, D.C., by August. The company cited repeated safety incidents behind its decision.
Leaked footage of Schultz at an internal meeting, published by The Post Millennial’s Ari Hoffman on Thursday, revealed the coffee-chain executive blaming elected officials for an environment in which it’s too hostile to operate.
“In my view at the local, state, and federal level, these governments across the country and leaders, mayors, and governors and city councils have abdicated their responsibility in fighting crime and addressing mental illness,” said Schultz, who returned to the company as chief executive in April. “We are going to have to refine and transform and modernize many of the things we do to meet the needs of our customers in a very changing operating environment in which customer behavior is changing.”
In a letter to employees on Monday, Debbie Stroud and Denise Nelson, both Starbucks senior vice presidents, outlined reforms to address inner-city safety issues plaguing corporate stores.
“We read every incident report you file — it’s a lot,” they wrote. “We want you to know that creating a safe, welcoming, and kind third place is our top priority. Because simply put, we cannot serve as partners if we don’t first feel safe at work.”
In March, employees began to unionize after being confronted with a spike in homeless and violent people entering cafes after the company changed its bathroom policy. Following a woke controversy, Starbucks opened its restrooms to all members of the public, even people who weren’t buying anything. Schultz said in that June the four-year-old bathroom policy is now on the chopping block.
“We have to harden our stores and provide safety for our people,” Schultz said last month at a forum sponsored by The New York Times. “I don’t know if we can keep our bathrooms open.”
In the effort to unionize, one employee complained to Jacobin that Starbucks baristas are doubling as “untrained social workers.”
Stroud and Nelson said the company will now be offering staff de-escalation, mental health first aid, and active shooter trainings. The pair also highlighted benefits for employees seeking paid parental leave or abortion.
“We hear the challenges facing you in stores, and we all have a lot more to still figure out — but we know we’ll get there because YOU have shown us, time and again, that our stores can be a place of hope, optimism and community for all,” they wrote.
The overwhelming rise in violent crime plaguing urban population centers run by Democrats has led voters in some California cities to recall their prosecutors. Last week, L.A. County officials said they received enough signatures, 715,833 despite only 566,857 needed, to place a referendum for District Attorney George Gascón on the ballot pending signature verification. The process follows voters in San Francisco successfully ousting District Attorney Chesa Boudin by a 10-point margin last month.
Did Nancy Pelosi Slip Husband Paul Pelosi Some Insider Trading Information?
We’ve all wondered – how do people get elected and, within a few years, become millionaires? Joe Biden built a fortune with a bagman handling the “family business.” Others in Congress seem to do it the old fashion way: Insider trading.
Using information gleaned from insider sources has built many a fortune for Congress members. They trade on information that would have sent any private civilian to prison, but before the 2012 STOCK Act, it was common knowledge the Congress members would use information only they were privy to, to trade, buy, and sell stock. And get rich in the process.
The STOCK Act added specific statutory language that was intended to prevent insider trading.
It stated that members of Congress are “not exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under the securities laws…” (§4(a)). It amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, so that members, family and staff [would owe] “a duty” when in possession of “material, nonpublic information” obtained as a result of their public office (§4(b)(2)).
Did that “do” what the legislation intended? Maybe. But before the STOCK Act was passed, even the head enforcement official at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) thought it was a toss-up if the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 applied to the people who passed the law.
In any event, the STOCK Act was supposed to completely stop the immorality and breach of pubic trust that came with trading on insider information- and doing so with impunity. In one respect, it did staunch the ethical bleeding but Congress members still don’t fully comply. After Stock, Congress members were required to report their stock trades, but even that minor act of contrition is still violated.
Recently, at least 65 members have failed to report trades. Although the majority are Democrats, Republicans are not immune. Do they care? Not really, and why should they? The penalties are slaps on the wrist. A $200 fine, if the fine is actually enforced. Often, it is not. There are members of Congress who want to ban stock trading by members and family while members are “serving.” There is proposed legislation presently tabled that would prevent stock trading by members.
The STOCK Act is supposed to cover spouses of members of Congress too, but it seems that Nancy Pelosi’s husband has had his hand, not only in the liquor cabinet, but potentially gathering information while pillow talking with someone named Nancy.
Paul bought $5 million in stock options (20,000) in Nvidia – a computer-chip company that makes chips used in advanced computer gaming. This was (just by coincidence) ahead of a vote next week in Congress that will provide $52 billion in subsidies to the domestic semi-conductor sector. The trade could (and likely will) yield a substantial windfall for Paul. After all, Mediterranean vacations at private villas don’t pay for themselves. Paul made the purchase three days before he crashed his Porsche into a truck and was subsequently charged with a DUI. Maybe Paul was out celebrating his upcoming big payday with his female mystery “passenger.” I have insider information that she was not named Nancy.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Pope Seeks Prayers for His 'Penitential' Canadian Pilgrimage
Pope Francis on Sunday asked for prayers to accompany him on what he called his “penitential” pilgrimage to Canada to apologize to Indigenous groups for abuses inflicted by the Catholic church.
Greeting the public in St. Peter's Square, Francis noted that on July 24, “God willing,” he will begin a seven-day trip to Canada.
"Dear brothers and sisters of Canada, as you know I will come among you above all in the name of Jesus to meet and embrace the Indigenous populations,'' Francis said.
“Unfortunately, in Canada, many Christians, including some members of religious institutions, contributed to the policies of cultural assimilation, that, in the past, gravely damaged, in various ways, the Native communities,” the pope said, speaking from a studio window of the Apostolic Palace facing the square.
"For this reason, recently, at the Vatican, I received several groups, representatives of Indigenous peoples, to whom I manifested by sorrow and my solidarity for the evil they have suffered,'' Francis said.
“And now I will make a penitential voyage that I hope, with the grace of God, can contribute to the path of healing and reconciliation already undertaken," said Francis, appealing for the faithful to “accompany me with prayers” during the pilgrimage.
When he met with Indigenous representatives in early spring, the pontiff offered an historic apology for the abuses inflicted at church-run residential schools. Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for him to deliver a papal apology on Canadian soil.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/vatican-canada/2022/07/17/id/1079126/
Richard Baris Outlines the Theater of Republican Club Politics
A few people have directed me to this recent podcast by Rich Baris, aka “The People’s Pundit, where he discusses the insufferable theater of republican club politics and how the professionally republican are trying to avoid winning too many seats in the 2022 mid-term election.
Baris accurately notes the battle for candidates inside the club dynamic comes down to people -vs- power. The Republican club, as a professional political system, is more in line with their allies in the Democrat club, than they are with the base of voters who want to see the corrupt DC system challenged and changed. Both wings of the UniParty are aligned to block any voting rebellion, democrat, independent or republican, from Main Street.
In all of these points Baris is correct and he goes into specific races where that dynamic is clear. Baris also notes the republican club generally supports the corrupt candidate who is compromised by some form financial scheme. However, where Baris doesn’t go deep enough, surrounds the issue of the DC apparatus having operational control via their black files on candidates. The perfect candidate, from the perspective of the club, is an insider who is compromised and therefore vulnerable to the influence of the DC system. It’s a long podcast, and he rambles a bit, but the larger message is accurate. {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH (if you have time):
The club dynamic Baris is discussing is accurate, but the origin of the most severe part of the compromise is directly tied to the efforts of Barack Obama. Obama weaponized the surveillance system so that it only targeted one side of the political dynamic. Obama broke with years of prior mutual agreement when he created the modern control mechanisms.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; the institutions were already weaponized by the Patriot Act.
Instead, what Obama and Holder did was to take the preexisting system and retool it so the weapons of government only targeted one side of the political continuum. This point is where many people understandably get confused.
In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.
What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their ideological opposition became the target of the new national security system. This is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.
Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002, and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition.
The preexisting Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Dept of Justice (DOJ) were then repurposed to become two of the four pillars of the domestic national security apparatus. However, this new construct would have a targeting mechanism based on political ideology. The DHS, ODNI, DOJ and FBI became the four pillars of this new institution. Atop these pillars is where you will find the Fourth Branch of Government.
We were not sleeping when this happened, we were wide awake. However, we were stunningly distracted by the economic collapse that was taking place in 2006 and 2007 when the engineers behind Obama started to assemble the design. By the time Obama took office in 2009, we sensed something profound was shifting, but we can only see exactly what shifted in the aftermath. The four pillars were put into place, and a new Fourth Branch of Government was quietly created.
As time passed, and the system operators became familiar with their new tools, technology allowed the tentacles of the system to reach out and touch us. That is when we first started to notice that something very disconcerting was happening. Those four pillars are the root of it, and if we take the time to understand how the Fourth Branch originated, questions about this current state of perpetual angst will start to make sense.
Grab a cup of your favorite beverage, and take a walk with me as we outline how this was put together. You might find many of the questions about our current state of political affairs beginning to make a lot more sense.
Remember, it is not my intent to outline the entire history of how we got to this place where the intelligence community now acts as the superseding Fourth Branch of Government. Such an effort would be exhausting and likely take our discussion away from understanding the current dynamic.
History provided enough warnings from Dwight D. Eisenhower (military), to John F. Kennedy (CIA), to Richard Nixon (FBI), to all modern versions of warnings and frustrations from HPSCI Devin Nunes and ODNI Ric Grenell. None of those prior reference points are invalid, and all documented outlines of historic reference are likely true and accurate. However, a generational review is not useful, as the reference impacting us ‘right now‘ gets lost.
Instead, we pick up the expansive and weaponized intelligence system as it manifests after 9/11/01, and my goal is to highlight how the modern version of the total intelligence apparatus has now metastasized into a Fourth Branch of Government. It is this superseding branch that now touches and influences every facet of our life.
If we take the modern construct, originating at the speed of technological change, we can also see how the oversight or “check/balance” in our system of government became functionally obsolescent.
After many years of granular research about the intelligence apparatus inside our government, in the summer of 2020 I visited Washington DC to ask specific questions. My goal was to go where the influence agents within government actually operate, and to discover the people deep inside the institutions no one elected, and few people pay attention to.
It was during this process when I discovered how information is purposefully put into containment silos; essentially a formal process to block the flow of information between agencies and between the original branches. While frustrating to discover, the silo effect was important because understanding the communication between networks leads to our ability to reconcile conflict between what we perceive and what’s actually taking place.
After days of research and meetings in DC during 2020; amid a town that was serendipitously shut down due to COVID-19; I found a letter slid under the door of my room in a nearly empty hotel with an introduction of sorts. The subsequent discussions were perhaps the most important. After many hours of specific questions and answers on specific examples, I realized why our nation is in this mess. That is when I discovered the fourth and superseding branch of government, the Intelligence Branch.
I am going to explain how the Intelligence Branch works: (1) to control every other branch of government; (2) how it functions as an entirely independent branch of government with no oversight; (3) how and why it was created to be independent from oversight; (4) what is the current mission of the IC Branch, and most importantly (5) who operates it.
The Intelligence Branch is an independent functioning branch of government, it is no longer a subsidiary set of agencies within the Executive Branch as most would think. To understand the Intelligence Branch, we need to drop the elementary school civics class lessons about three coequal branches of government and replace that outlook with the modern system that created itself.
The Intelligence Branch functions much like the State Dept, through a unique set of public-private partnerships that support it. Big Tech industry collaboration with intelligence operatives is part of that functioning; almost like an NGO. However, the process is much more important than most think. In this problematic perspective of a corrupt system of government, the process is the flaw – not the outcome.
There are people making decisions inside this little known, unregulated and out-of-control branch of government that impact every facet of our lives.
None of the people operating deep inside the Intelligence Branch were elected; and our elected representative House members genuinely do not know how the system works. I assert this position affirmatively because I have talked to House and Senate staffers, including the chiefs of staff for multiple House & Senate committee seats. They are not malicious people; however, they are genuinely clueless of things that happen outside their silo. That is part of the purpose of me explaining it, with examples, in full detail with sunlight.
Neil Oliver Outlines the Foolish Pantomime of U.K. Politics as the Candidates for Prime Minister Keep Pretending
While Neil Oliver is describing the insufferable lack of political leadership amid the conservative party in the U.K, almost every point of his weekly monologue could just as easily apply to the United States or any other “western democracy.” The current candidates to replace Boris Johnson are just an extension of the high-minded political class who are pretending to be different, yet they are identical in their globalist outlooks.
….”always the same lines from one leader after another – great reset, build back better, rules based liberal order. The theatrical parallels just keep coming – soap opera, pantomime, now a chorus line of high kicking dancers in perfect time.”…
Oliver asks simple, albeit frustratingly and brutally obvious, questions about what is missing in the candidates who are asking to become the next British Prime Minister. Where is the candidate who represents the issues that matter, the one who isn’t playing a role in a never-ending soap opera that generates nothing except more drama to keep everyone distracted.
Neil Oliver’s points could just as easily be talking about the United States republican party, where almost every elected official is quite happily playing their acting role in the political soap opera, yet no one is doing anything to stop the insane policies that are destroying the foundation of life, liberty and the free pursuit of happiness. WATCH:
Another One Bites the Dust
and another one gone, another one gone, another one bites the dust 🎵
Boom. Boom. Boom. Another one bites the dust.
And another one gone, another one gone, another Veeper bites the dust.
Politico reported on Friday that another Veep staffer is heading for the exits after only four months on the job.
Meghan Groob was hired in April as Kamala’s chief speechwriter after another one of Kamala’s chief speechwriters bit the dust in February.
I imagine being Veep’s chief speechwriter warrants hazard pay. It isn’t easy making Kamala Harris sound even more vapid and nonsensical than she does when speaking off the cuff. And from the looks of it, Meghan Groob was able to match Kamala’s word salad style almost perfectly.
At the same time, when a clip from one of Kamala’s speeches goes viral on Twitter for all the wrong reasons, I’m guessing the humiliated Veep directs her wrath at her speechwriter.
I’d quit after four months too. Who wants to put up with that?
Given the timing, Meghan Groob was probably responsible for that embarrassing electric school bus speech in May, videos of which were roundly mocked on social media, and on the Tucker Carlson show.
After Kamala delivered these prepared remarks in mid-May, I asked the timeless question “Do Kamala’s speechwriters secretly hate her?”
Great work, Meghan!
Another one Meghan may have cobbled together was Kamala’s speech to Space Force cadets on April 18, where she spoke to US service members like they were toddlers:
I presume Meghan was the brains behind this gem from Kamala’s speech earlier this week:
“Together, we are expanding access to transportation. It seems like maybe it’s a small issue; it’s a big issue. You need to get to go and need to be able to get where you need to go to do the work and get home.”
Is it a prerequisite for the job of Veep Chief Speechwriter to mimic Kamala’s trademark word salad style?
Or does Vice President Vapid read through the speech and say, “This doesn’t sound anything like me, in terms of how I speak, in terms of my personality. Do it again, and this time, make it sound more like me!”
Or is it as I said in May, that Kamala’s speechwriters hate her so much that they deliberately make her sound like an absolute nitwit?
Speaking of “in terms of.”
Usually, Kamala’s prepared speeches aren’t peppered with her favorite phrase. That’s more of a “Kamala off-the-cuff” feature. But hat’s off to Meghan. She managed to shoehorn five “in terms ofs” into Kamala’s Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority’s 70th Boule speech in Orlando this week.
Of course, it is always possible that Meghan, knowing full well she was leaving, decided to screw Kamala over by liberally tossing her favorite phrase into that speech like a lot of confetti at a wedding.
But Meghan isn’t the only one whose departure is imminent.
Another one of Kamala’s staff is also packing up a banker’s box and beating a path to the door.
It was also reported on Friday that Kamala’s longest-serving aide, Rohini Kosoglu will be leaving the Veep’s office to “spend more time with her family,” which is code for “get me the hell out of here before my soul is sucked from me like an olive pit.”
So far, the Veep has lost 15 staffers in her brief tenure in office.
Kamala goes through staffers the way Henry VIII went through wives.
At least Meghan and Rohini are leaving with their heads intact.
Proving the Anti-liberty Left is Fascist
"Antifa" Fascist
Article by D. Parker in The American Thinker
Proving the Anti-liberty Left is Fascist
With the word ' fascist' tossed around promiscuously, it’s extremely important to understand the term and where fascism belongs on the political spectrum.
Anti-liberty leftists generally apply this pejorative to whatever the pro-freedom right is doing at the moment, whether it makes sense or not, as in these recent examples:
A ‘climate activist’ recently stated on MSNBC that the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is ‘a judicial coup’ and ‘a clear descent into fascism’, never mind that the ruling was the exact opposite of that. Then there is the recent example of a woke Guardian US news reporter claiming that anyone who questions transgender ideology is a FASCIST.
As is the case with most of their weaponized words, their assertions are a kilometer wide and a tenth of a millimeter thick. It only works if you don’t look at it too closely and notice that it’s rife with contradictions, the prime indicator of a big lie. They have nothing beyond a few tired talking points, and as usual, they have to supplement their lack of facts with childish insults or mob techniques to shout down their opponents. Thus, you’ll find that their main tactic is to try to bluff their way through the subject with illogical intimidation.
We will prove our case with a two-prong approach. Starting with a mountain of evidence with the listing of the common elements between socialism and fascism. Then we will point out the major disparities between fascism and the pro-freedom right side of the political spectrum. But first, it’s important to establish a baseline in what exactly we’re talking about with the political spectrum.
The National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS) has one of the best and most straightforward explanations of the political spectrum we’ve seen:
Government is defined in the dictionary as "a system of ruling or controlling," and therefore the American Founders measured political systems in terms of the amount of coercive power or systematic control which a particular system of government exercises over its people. In other words, the yardstick is not political parties, but political power. Using this type of yardstick, the American Founders considered the two extremes to be anarchy on the one hand, and tyranny on the other. At the one extreme of anarchy, there is no government, no law, no systematic control, and no governmental power, while at the other extreme there is too much control, too much political oppression, and too much government.
A right triangle is the best way to visualize the political spectrum, with the horizontal base leg indicating the scale between the two sides and the angular hypotenuse as an indication of governmental control or power. The vertical leg indicates maximum governmental control or power on one side. With the point of the triangle indicating minimum government or anarchy on the other.
The collectivist ideologies of communism and socialism are generally associated with unlimited or maximum governmental control or power, since this is required to administer a centrally planned and controlled economy. As well as take ‘From each according to his abilities’. These actions can only be undertaken with an authoritarian regime with close to 100% government control. As in the totalitarian regimes of the USSR, Communist China, North Korea. With this being indicated by the vertical leg of the triangle.
Since socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology, we placed the triangle with the vertical leg to the left.
Conversely, the pro-freedom ideologies favor liberty and limited government, so the point of the triangle belongs on the right indicating minimal government. Thus, it follows that the apex of the triangle indicating 0% government control belongs on the right.
So, where do we place the fascist ideologies?
This is just a matter of comparing fascist ideologies to those on the political left and the political right to see how they are similar.
Have you ever wondered why communist, socialist and fascist regimes have so much in common even though they are supposed to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum? Conversely, why is it that countries considered ‘right-wing’ and imbued in liberty and limited government are completely at odds with socialist and fascist regimes?
Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., then-Associate Professor of History at Harvard observed this in an article in New York Times Magazine, Sunday, April 4, 1948:
In certain basic respects - a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom - fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between.
But we’re going to expand the examination to make the point, sort of like using a sledgehammer to drive a finishing nail. These are just some of the obvious commonalities between the observed behavior of socialist and fascist regimes:
They were both allies and rivals.
They are authoritarian at heart.
They are anti-Semitic and anti-religious.
They ban and burn books.
They censor the press.
They have a centrally controlled economy.
They are based on collectivism.
They call for the common good over the individual.
They dehumanize certain groups.
They deify their leaders.
They use snitches to suppress dissent.
They use force to gain political power.
They confiscate guns.
They obsess over guillotines.
They use intimidation tactics.
They have secret police KGB/Gestapo.
They lie with language.
They were creating a ‘new man’.
They decree their opposition as ‘mentally ill’.
They control freedom of movement.
They lock up their political opposition in camps.
They murdered millions in those same camps.
They have national propaganda organs.
They suppress free speech to keep the people quiet.
They repeat lies over and over until they become the truth.
They have one-party rule.
They venerate socialism.
They steal other people’s money to buy votes.
They use terror to control people.
They have unlimited government.
They exploit violence.
They weaponize words.
They indoctrinate youth - Hitler Youth, Young Pioneers.
Some of them even goosestep the same and have silly mustaches.
So, consider all those similarities, and they are legion. Is it just a historical long shot those regimes of those ideologies just happen to be almost the same? Is that what we’re supposed to believe from the anti-liberty left? On an ideological issue that they have a vested interest in everyone accepting, hook line, and sinker? Or is it a case where this is the biggest load of BS in history?
Please consider what we previously pointed out, that governmental control is the only viable metric for the political spectrum. With it at maximum at the far-left, exemplified by all those commonalties and at a minimum at the far right.
Now ponder what might seem to be a tangential issue: Where does the ideology of no government anarchy (from anarkhos, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler’) belong on the spectrum? It is beyond minimal government so it doesn’t have any place on the left with maximum government. Leaving the only other choice on the minimum government far right.
Raise your hand if you see a gaping hole the size of Mount Everest in the ‘logic’ of the anti-liberty left that fascism or Nazism is somehow way over on the “Far-Right”? Are we supposed to believe that zero government anarchy sits in the same place as unlimited government fascism? This is just another point that blows their ridiculous lie clean out of the water.
But wait, there’s more.
Then there is the fact that the ideologies on the pro-freedom side of the political spectrum are generally based on liberty and limited government. When was the last time someone described those as the hallmarks of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong? The word never seems to come to mind. Again, that alone should eviscerate the pathetically absurd theories of the anti-liberty left.
With governmental power the only viable metric for a political spectrum and it at minimum on the far right, fascists and Nazis clearly belong on the anti-liberty left, QED.
Do we need to even go on from here? Anti-liberty leftists love to lie and cherry-pick the assertions made by the pro-freedom side. Combining their ever-present ad hominem attacks with outright lies. Did you know that “Hitler didn’t ban guns”? Along with many other liberticidal leftists? That’s just one item in our case that puts the lie to the biggest liberty grabber talking point.
If they’re going to incessantly lie about something fundamental like this, why should we trust them on anything else?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/proving_the_antiliberty_left_is_fascist.html
