It is no secret that globalist, communist-types in various levels of government have been utterly duping the entire world for the last year and a half, roughly, sharing unscientific models that prophesied a doomsday which never came and running contrary to scientific data which demonstrates the inefficacy of mask-wearing and lockdowns.
So it also shouldn’t come as a surprise that the CDC has been misleading people regarding outdoor infections of the Chinese coronavirus (practically all talk of death rates has disappeared seeing as there is such a great survivability rate for basically everyone).
In late April, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said that fewer than 10% of documented Chinese coronavirus transmission cases, as recorded in numerous studies, can be attributed to outdoor transmission. She used this figure to make the point that data suggests “most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors.”
Now, let me say one thing about this: that number is already pretty decent as it is. Even Walensky was using that number to make the point that there is higher transmission indoors as opposed to outdoors. If less than 10% of cases come from being outdoors, that’s already a good argument against lockdowns and “stay-at-home” orders. And while most states have been on the path towards opening back up, and many already have opened up, there are still some semblances of these limitations which, as we can see, end up burdening those states with worse situations than their more opened counterparts.
But even that 10% figure is considerably higher than what reality demonstrates. Even the NYT reported that this 10% figure is “almost certainly misleading” and that it appears to have at least partly been based on misclassified data from Singapore construction sites.
You see, according to the NYT, a study of 10,926 global Chinese coronavirus transmission cases recorded 95 outdoor cases, all of which were in Singapore construction sites. Now, from those numbers alone, one would find that less than 1% of those nearly 11,000 cases came from outdoor cases. And from another study of 103 total cases of transmission, four were found to have been cases of outdoor transmission, all four of which were in Singapore construction sites, and which culminates to 3.8% outdoor transmission.
However, there is a reason I point out that these are from construction sites: Singapore doesn’t classify cases in construction sites according to outdoors or indoors.
According to the NYT: “The Singapore data originally comes from a government database there. That database does not categorize the construction-site cases as outdoor transmission, Yap Wei Qiang, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health, told [the NYT]. ‘We didn’t classify it according to outdoors or indoors,’ Yap said. ‘It could have been workplace transmission where it happens outdoors at the site, or it could also have happened indoors within the construction site.’”
“As [colleague of NYT writer] did further reporting, he discovered reasons to think that many of the infections may have occurred indoors. At some of the individual construction sites where Covid spread – like a complex for the financial firm UBS and a skyscraper project called Project Glory – the concrete shells for the buildings were largely completed before the pandemic began.”
“Because Singapore is hot year-round, the workers would have sought out the shade of enclosed spaces to hold meetings and eat lunch together… Electricians and plumbers would have worked in particularly close contact.”
So basically, what the CDC had done is overreport the number of possible outdoor transmission cases from data sets which include studies which show not only extremely minimal outdoor cases, but which might not even be considered correct, as such cases came from construction sites and Singapore doesn’t classify transmission from such sites as having occurred either indoors or outdoors.
Naturally, since even the NYT called her out on this attempt to mislead the public, Walensky responded to the report, arguing that the figure was taken from a top-line meta-analysis published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases: “All studies that were included in the systematic review said less than 10% of cases were transmitted outdoors.”
Interestingly, the NYT responded to her response, calling out the misleading nature of such a figure: “Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.”
The CDC again responded to the NYT, arguing that the 10% figure is just a “conservative estimate” and that there is “limited data on outdoor transmission,” so they choose to err “on the side of protection when it comes to recommending steps to protect health.”
The obvious problem with this argument is that one could very easily use it for just about any other potential risk in the world. One could argue that, because of the potential for being struck by lightning in a given year, it’s better to err on the side of “caution” and stay indoors throughout the year, as technically speaking, there is a less than 10% chance of someone being struck by lightning. In reality, the chances are 0.00008%. Technically less than 10%, but one wouldn’t rationally argue that someone only has a less than 10% chance of being struck by lightning.
Similarly, one might argue that there is a less than 10% chance of dying by falling off the bed. Technically true, but hardly anyone would argue that we should begin sleeping on the floor instead, as reality shows there is only a 0.0005% chance of dying by falling off the bed.
Even though the CDC director is admittedly pushing for the fact that indoor transmission happens more than outdoor transmission (NY Gov. Cuomo was very surprised, recently, when data collected from 113 hospitals showed that 66% of transmission cases came from people who were staying at home; yet another piece of evidence to show how devastatingly incorrect the approach to the pandemic was by many governments), what Walensky is doing ultimately is using misleading at best and deceiving at worst data which make the risk sound worse than it actually is.
Yes, technically, there is a less than 10% chance of transmitting the virus outdoors, but as we discussed earlier, it’s utterly misleading. What is also technically true is that less than 99% of transmission cases come from outdoors, but that makes it look like it’s a borderline death sentence to be outdoors.
So if the CDC plays this fast and loose with figures relating to just outdoor versus indoor transmission cases, I wonder what other data they half-assed and passed on to the public with little regard to its veracity.
As more time goes on, the people who claim we must “trust the science” show that they themselves are utterly untrustworthy.
“The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.”
The Left, following a series of shootings in March, was really hoping to see increased support for their gun-grabbing desires in the fake news polls, so that they might have a “green light” to go forth with such legislation, but things didn’t exactly go their way with a recent WaPo poll.
Back in 2018, according to the WaPo, by a margin of 57 to 34, people supported the idea of prioritizing “laws to reduce gun violence” over “protecting the right to own guns.”
Before I go further, I want to point out the misleading wording the WaPo and all fake news organizations tend to use in order to rig these polls in their favor. Note how the WaPo didn’t phrase it as prioritizing “laws to increase gun control” or anything like that, but “laws to reduce gun violence.”
I’ve pointed this out in a previous article, but this is how these people “debate”. They don’t argue issues, but they frame issues a certain way so as to make it favorable to them and make it look like their position is reasonable. After all, who wouldn’t want to reduce gun violence, right? Only criminals and sick people would not want to reduce gun violence (a term which is misleading in itself, as it makes it look like guns are sentient beings capable of killing people of their own accord).
This is actually how communists generally tend to phrase things so that they appeared in their favor. Back in early 1918, as the Soviet Union was beginning to form, their secret police (or at least, one of its iterations), the Cheka, had to break a strike by state employees in Petrograd. The Cheka arrested the leaders of the strike, though Isaac Steinberg, a Socialist Revolutionary himself, and a man with the title of “The People’s Commissar for Justice”, objected to that action, attempting to argue the legality of the Cheka. He wrote to Lenin: “What is the point of a ‘People’s Commissariat for Justice’? It would be more honest to have a People’s Commissariat for Social Extermination. People would understand more clearly.” To which Lenin replied: “Excellent idea. That’s exactly how I see it. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t do to call it that!”
Lenin knew precisely what the point of that “legal” position was: to legitimize the soviets’ actions. At the time, some people like Felix Dzerzhinksy frankly cared little for the legality of it all, arguing that it was just “the nitpicking legalism of the old school of the ancient regime,” but others understood that they had to at least make their actions seem relatively legitimate. And so, they named things like a “People’s Commissariat for Justice” that way, despite their intentions being that it would, effectually, be a “People’s Commissariat for Social Extermination.”
Similarly, the modern Left makes their gun-grabbing position seem reasonable and legitimate by painting it as “a measure to reduce gun violence” when, in actuality and evidenced by real life, their position leads to MORE gun violence. Just look at Democrat-run cities with extreme gun control measures to see that this is true. It’s no coincidence that the cities with the heaviest gun control measures are cities with the highest gun-related crime rates.
Chicago, a gun-control heavy city, recently saw 26 people shot over Mother’s Day weekend, which is about par for the course for Chicago weekends.
And in Portland, Oregon, according to The Epoch Times, Portland Police have responded to nearly 360 shootings so far THIS YEAR. Again, it’s no coincidence at all that these things happen in Democrat-run cities.
At any rate, the “figures” that the WaPo showed in 2018 were pretty bad for 2A supporters and good for the gun-grabbing Leftists (despite the fact that, even just with that little excerpt from that poll, it’s clear that it was rigged). However, since then, things have been going in the wrong direction for the Left.
While they enjoyed a “23-point” advantage in 2018, that advantage plummeted to just “7.” I put those numbers in quotation marks because it’s reasonable that these are still rigged polls and that the numbers are even worse for the Left.
Not only has support for gun control measures plummeted in the last few years, but it has particularly come down among young people and Hispanics, two demographics which tend to be pretty Leftist.
In April of 2018, 65% of people aged 18-29 said they supported more gun control laws, particularly “red flag” laws and limits on magazine capacity. Fast-forward to 2021, and that number plummeted to 45%, a full 20 points.
According to Newsweek: “The preference for enacting new gun laws aimed at reducing firearm violence has dropped by 7 percent overall since the last corresponding survey was conducted in April 2018. Percentage drops were seen in nearly every demographic divide. In that time period, 20 percent of Hispanics pulled back from supporting new gun laws, falling to 50 percent. An increase in rural Americans also now say they want no new gun restrictions, down 17 points to 30 percent.”
So not only has overall support for gun control measures fallen 16 points (supposedly), but among young Americans and Hispanics, it has fallen even more, by 20 points (supposedly)?
It’s reasonable to ask what exactly has led to this sort of drop, as there has to be a reason for it. But I highly doubt one needs to look very hard for such a reason.
Leftists perpetrated hundreds of riots across numerous cities in the country, ultimately killing around 30 people, and causing billions of dollars in damage for the individual cities, let alone total. Riots which were encouraged by elected officials and the fake news media, so long as the riots didn’t affect them in the least bit. And even when it did, such as the riot which affected CNN’s HQ in Atlanta, they still continued to encourage them, believing it would reflect poorly on TRUMP, until polls came out that showed people, in fact, didn’t appreciate their cities being ransacked by the Bitchygoths.
With such Democrat-approved destruction and violence, we saw massive increases in gun sales for a number of months (coupled with the fact that people were unconstitutionally forced to stay at home and lock things down, which definitely didn’t help) and an increase in first-time gun buyers. It’s no wonder, then, that so many people are less keen on making it harder for LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS to acquire guns.
With Antifa and BLM terrorists running around cities and, sometimes, residential neighborhoods, terrorizing the places where they went, it’s no wonder that people wished to acquire means by which they could be safe and protect the ones they care about.
There are other potential reasons for this as well, as Breitbart News points out, though I myself am not so sure about them. One potential reason John Nolte of Breitbart gives is that young Americans are wired to be rebellious. As they see that the establishment, which includes not only the government but also the fake news media, pop culture, academia, etc., is all skewed toward one political ideology, Nolte argues that young people, being rebellious, will rebel against that.
There is merit to this idea, as American teenagers tend to rebel and are often encouraged to rebel, but seeing as the Left has been indoctrinating American teenagers with Leftist dribble for decades now, I’m not entirely certain that that is the case. If this were the case, young Americans would be more conservative regarding other issues, not just gun control. Yet, they likely will tend to support, even if because of social pressure, things like homosexuality and transgenderism.
Young Americans aged 18-29 usually are leaving the nest or already have, and so recognize that, in a country with increased violence and crime, they have to be able to defend themselves, as they have to be a bit more independent from their parents regarding safety.
Though such an explanation might not necessarily suffice for why so many Hispanics have stopped supporting gun control laws, but my first theory might still be applicable. BLM and Antifa have terrorized whomever they could, and are emboldened by the fact they are so quickly released from jail following their actions. When you have terrorists who are being sponsored by the government to continue their terrorism, it’s only natural that people of all races would want to protect themselves, seeing as the government refuses to do its job.
Let us continue to hope and pray that we see even greater numbers of people, particularly young people, turn away from Leftist bullcrap that runs contrary to God and to nature and which only serves to destroy people.
“It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the righteous of justice.”
Following the end of the Second World War, the world was made fully aware of what had transpired at select concentration camps throughout Europe. Genocide was the only word which could describe it, though it was hardly used before such atrocities were known. Upon finding this out, the world said “never again.” As I have pointed out in previous articles, it is clear that the world lied, because China is doing much the same what Nazi Germany did, though with a different target.
As far as we know, there are roughly one million Uyghurs in concentration camps in China, likely alongside many Christians, seeing as the CCP has no regard for any religion which does not see Xi as their deity. I say “as far as we know” because it wouldn’t be surprising if the actual number is considerably higher, and with different groups of people.
On December 17, 1942, following reports of the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews, the Allies issued a proclamation condemning such plans and declared that they would punish the perpetrators, according to the Jewish Virtual Library. The full extent of the Nazis’ intent on destroying the Jews was not fully known, however, until after the war and the Allies liberated the camps. The world had an excuse for not having prevented or stopped The Holocaust: they largely didn’t know about it. They knew the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews, but didn’t know what they were already doing.
The world, however, has no excuse for not doing something about the genocide that the CCP is perpetrating not only against Uyghurs but also, in all likelihood, Christians and anyone they consider “enemies of the state.” Remember also that it wasn’t just the Jews that the Nazis put into concentration camps, but also people whom they considered to have been “enemies of the Reich.” The parallels between China and Nazi Germany are obvious.
However, it does not appear to be so obvious to some people, as woke professors from Columbia University and Middlesex University in London co-authored an op-ed in Project Syndicate arguing that what’s happening in China’s concentration camps against the Uyghurs should not be called a “genocide.”
They also argue that China is perfectly justified in taking action against Uyghurs, arguing that the CCP views them in the same manner as Americans viewed terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. "We must understand the context of the Chinese crackdown in Xinjiang, which had essentially the same motivation as America's foray into the Middle East and Central Asia after the September 2001 attacks: to stop the terrorism of militant Islamic groups." You can tell how bad these people are at pushing their side with such flimsy argumentation.
Following the 9/11 attacks, radical Islamic terrorists were targeted by the U.S. precisely because they are radical Islamic terrorists. It would be silly to argue that their religious faith had nothing to do with it, as it is such a religious faith that led such people to commit the atrocities that they did, but the United States NEVER waged war against Islam in itself. Make no mistake, the “religion of peace” is a cult of death and nothing more. However, that isn’t to say that all people belonging to that religion are going to commit terrorist acts. What the CCP is doing is outright persecution and execution of Uyghurs because they have been wanting a separate state, or at least independence, from China.
The CCP views Uyghurs as a threat to their country, or at least, that’s the excuse they give, much like how the Nazis would blame the Jews for all things bad, including losing the First World War. The Nazis hated the Jews because, in large part, Jews tended to be capitalists and the Nazis were socialists. Similar to how the KKK hated Republicans and targeted black people because they were Republicans at the time, the Nazis hated capitalists and targeted the Jews as a result. What the CCP is doing is taking a page out of their book, just painting it with a “nicer” brush and claiming it’s for “national security.”
At any rate, getting back to Dumb and Dumber, they recognize that there are “credible charges of human rights abuses” against the Uyghurs, but they don’t believe the U.S. has proven that what’s going on in that country constitutes as genocide.
Ironically, however, the duo does recognize the following, which is a point I was about to make and which utterly decimates their flimsy arguments: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group” is considered an act of genocide under the Geneva Convention.
But it’s not just the Geneva Convention where genocide is defined in this way. A more immediate convention, the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (December 9th, 1948) defines genocide in the following manner: “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Given the nature of the communists, and given the excuse of “national security”, it is easy to imagine that the CCP has killed members of the Uyghurs whom have resisted their “re-education” propaganda attempts. Naturally, since this is ongoing and highly secretive, I can’t say for certain that this has been happening, but it’s not a massive leap in logic to assume that the CCP is killing Uyghurs. But even if the first definition is not applicable, just about all the others are.
There have been numerous reports of escapees where they give accounts as to what happens in those camps, which cause serious bodily and/or mental harm, such as torture, rape, forced labor, etc.
The third definition is less clear-cut, but one can interpret it as forcing upon Uyghurs conditions which would bring about their destruction at least in part, which is achieved through the concentration camps.
The fourth definition is definitely the easiest to prove, as forced sterilization has been shown to occur.
The final definition could well also be applicable, in one way or another. According to The Guardian, in 2018, there were nearly 10,000 mostly Uyghur children who were classified as experiencing either “single hardship” or “double hardship”, meaning that one or both parents are held in concentration camps.
Researcher on this atrocity, Adrian Zenz, who was the first to indicate that roughly a million Uyghurs were held in concentration camps, said that “Beijing’s strategy to subdue its restive minorities in Xinjiang is shifting away from internment and towards mechanisms of long-term social control.” In other words, the CCP is looking to control the hearts and minds of the young Uyghurs and have them grow up to be loyal to the Party.
Whether one would wish to classify that as the final definition of genocide is arguable, but also irrelevant at this point. The CCP, according to the Geneva Convention, the UN’s Convention of 1948, the French criminal code, and any human rights convention that followed the discovery and condemnation of the Holocaust, is committing nothing short of genocide against whole groups of people.
For anyone to assert otherwise, they would have to be one of three things: a member of the CCP, a paid associate of the CCP, or a complete and utter moron. Given how many college professors have been found in recent years to have been taking money from China, it wouldn’t be surprising if the professors of that op-ed were taking money from China as well.
Of course, that last option is a possibility, as college professors tend to be morons, too stupid and arrogant to recognize their idiocy. This is particularly possible given that they themselves pointed out that forced sterilization, something which China has been proven to be doing, constitutes genocide under the Geneva Convention. Nothing like undermining your own argument, huh?
“If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them.”
The Left is full of terrible people, liars, deceivers, and hypocrites. They believe themselves to be knights in shining armor for minorities and have massive savior complexes, and then proceed to accuse other people of doing exactly what they routinely do. One such example is of a self-described teacher from Los Angeles who harassed a Hispanic police officer as he was trying to enforce the law regarding driving while using a phone.
An unidentified woman, who is a self-described teacher, and who was driving a white Mercedes-Benz (pretty luxurious for a teacher, a profession which I’m repeatedly told gets paid in peanuts), was stopped by a Hispanic police officer for using her phone while driving.
In the released body-cam footage, one can see and hear the woman talking with the officer before he even fully approached her window, and proceeded to launch into a racist, anti-cop tirade.
The exchange went as follows:
The woman is first heard saying: “… harassed today because I was going under the speed limit, I was going at 38… and the speed limit is 40, and I was going 38, so why are you harassing me?”
The officer tried to explain the reason for the traffic stop, but the woman interrupted him and said: “Because you’re a murderer. Oh, yes, I started to record because you’re a murderer.”
Which is quite the gargantuan leap in logic here. However, it’s not like we don’t know the reason behind her accusing him of such. It’s not because the officer is notorious for having killed someone, but because he is generally a police officer. The Left has brainwashed many people, particularly black people, into seeing cops not as enforcers of the law, but of oppression, and people who have no regard for human life and are at the ready to take any at a moment’s notice with zero remorse.
This is the narrative the Left has promoted for a few years now, but particularly following the death of George Floyd while in police custody.
At any rate, getting back to the exchange:
The deputy said: “You can’t be on your cell phone while you’re driving.”
Woman: “I wasn’t on my phone; I was recording you because you scared me.”
The deputy then asked for the woman’s driver’s license, and funny enough, she claims to have forgotten it at her apartment.
Now, the deputy should be given credit for how well he handled the situation. Here he is, getting called a “murderer” by virtue of his profession and nothing else substantial, and the woman levying such accusations is driving without a license. In California, as in all states in the country, it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle without a license. California considers it a criminal misdemeanor, which can carry strict penalties with it, though a first-time offense will usually only lead to a ticket. The deputy could have pressed on this issue, asking her “so you’re driving without a license?” but he actually gives her an out: he asks if she has a picture of her license on her phone, which she does.
Considering this woman was driving while using her phone (and her son is with her in her car, making it even worse) and was outright and unapologetically calling the guy a murderer, it was rather gracious of the officer to give her an out regarding driving without a license. Is she grateful in any way? Of course not, Leftists never are.
At one point, the woman even asks that the deputy call his supervisor. The deputy said: “I already did. He’s on his way.” To which the woman so graciously replied: “Good. Because you’re a murderer.” Which doesn't make much sense to me, seeing as, if she believes cops are murderers and that she is in danger of being killed by one of them, why would she want a supervisor aka another cop on the scene? Well, not like Leftists are rational people.
More of the exchange:
Woman: “And so you’re giving me a cell phone ticket? Is that why you’re harassing me?”
Deputy: “It’s not harassment. I am enforcing the law.”
Woman: “I have a right to and record the police when they’re harassing me.”
Deputy: “By all means, but you can’t do it while you’re driving.”
Eventually, the woman said the following: “And you scared me and made me think you were going to murder me.”
Deputy: “Okay, well, I’m sorry you feel that way.”
Woman: “Well, that’s not just a feeling. You’re a murderer.”
Deputy: “Okay… Can you zoom in on that for me, dear? (referring to the photo of the license on her phone)”
Deputy: “Thank you.”
Woman: “And I’m perfectly legal and I’m a teacher. So there, murderer,” she said in a braggadocious manner.
Woman: “You’re a murderer.”
And so on and so forth the exchange went, with the deputy just trying to do his job and the liberal privileged woman repeatedly calling him a murderer with zero basis for such an accusation.
She even went on to accuse him that “You’re scaring me. You’re threatening to kill me and my son,” despite the fact that the deputy was perfectly polite and professional and didn’t make anything close to a threat.
And as I mentioned earlier, it’s even worse the fact that her son was there. The body-cam footage blurs the woman and you can’t see her son in the car, so I don’t know how old he is, but if he’s old enough to be paying attention, he is seeing how his mom acts towards an officer and how she treats him, and likely was taught that it is okay to do something so awful.
Not to mention that she said she was a teacher, so if that is true, she also has influence over several other children as well, whom she likely is teaching that all police officers are murderers. Granted, at this point, and in Los Angeles in particular, I highly doubt she is the only one. But she is still, in all likelihood, teaching children horrible things and, frankly, how to be thugs as opposed to productive members of society.
In any case, eventually, the deputy’s supervisor shows up, and interestingly enough, the woman stopped calling the deputy a murderer, but began calling him something else.
The supervisor is heard telling the woman: “All he needs is your signature. He’s only citing you for using your cell phone while you’re driving. That’s it.”
Woman: “For him being a Mexican racist. What is that name?”
“Here you go, Mexican racist. You’re always gonna be a Mexican. You’ll never be white, you know that, right? You’ll never be white, which is what you really want to be. You want to be white,” she continued.
She might know something we don’t, but it’s not immediately clear if the officer is actually Mexican as opposed to another Latin American nationality. However, since the woman made so many baseless assumptions (including calling him a racist despite the fact that he never displayed anything of the sort. It’s almost as if calling someone a racist is a reflex for Leftists, like kicking your leg up when a doctor bangs the knee with a hammer), I will assume that she just guessed he was Mexican, and was referring to the Hispanic man as “Mexican,” thereby showing herself as a racist (not that bringing up racism allegations in this manner didn’t make her one already).
At any rate, while I generally have my problems with police from Leftist areas, namely due to the tyrannical enforcement of unconstitutional mandates which aren’t even law, I reasonably have to at least defend this deputy’s actions in this isolated incident. He did everything right, even was gracious enough not to press her on the fact she was DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE, and he was pretty quickly and baselessly repeatedly called a murderer by this highly privileged woman. Worse still, her son, though of unknown age, was there to witness such horrid behavior, which he will believe to be acceptable later on in life (which could drag him down into a life of crime, just because his mom wanted to be “woke”).
This is the kind of behavior the Left PROMOTES and believes to not only be acceptable, but ENCOURAGABLE. They believe more people ought to be this nasty and disgusting with officers.
Now, there are times when one can hardly defend an officer. For example, the officer who killed Daunte Wright because she, somehow, believed she was wielding her non-lethal taser as opposed to her lethal firearm. Another example would be the police force in Calgary, Alberta, Canada whom have acted like the SS in trying to shut down a pastor’s church service. Other such examples exist, which show police officers to be fallible. However, while it is wrong for those officers to do/have done those things, it is equally wrong to paint officers with a wide brush and claim that they are all alike and all exclusively evil.
Not that reason matters to the Left at any rate. Antifa repeatedly exclaims “ACAB” or “All Cops Are Bastards” (ironically, a sexist statement, seeing as there are female officers) and this woman clearly believes that all officers are murderers, if she has no qualms whatsoever about rather quickly levying such an accusation against the deputy.
Like I said, the Left is full of terrible people, liars, deceivers, and every other negative word one could come up with. They care little about the lives of officers, and even believe they ought to be killed if possible. They refuse to see that officers can be fallible, and even when the officers are 100% justified in their actions, such as the one who killed Ma’Khia Bryant, they still attack them and claim that “reform” is necessary.
I have literally seen people claim that, in the case of the Ma’Khia Bryant shooting, they would have shot the knife out of her hand and detain her afterwards. It’s asinine argumentation and derivative of a couch quarterback, whom is certain he would have done everything right in a football game as opposed to the professional athlete.
They have no regard for human life, as evidenced by their promotion of abortion at every stage of the pregnancy (and even more ghoulishly, sometimes promoting AFTER-BIRTH abortion), but also evidenced in how they view and treat police officers.
No, officers aren’t perfect; of course, they aren’t. They are human, after all. But the “solutions” that the Left comes up with are asinine at best and utterly self-destructive at worst for any city and state which tries it (Minneapolis defunded the police, crime immediately skyrocketed, and are now trying to re-fund the police). “Solutions” which are based not on scientific data (which they often claim is crucial in pretty much every other aspect, but even then, they still don’t actually follow the data) but on fake news media narratives which often maliciously spin things for the purposes of an agenda.
For example, 60 Minutes deceptively edited footage from the Ma’Khia Bryant shooting to edit out the knife from her hand, which she was about to use on another (black) woman, in order to make that shooting unjustified and in order to destroy the officer’s life.
The Left, pretty evidently, is the scum of the Earth. No one can really argue with me on this with any sort of actual evidence to the contrary.
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
If you have heard virtually nothing of the current situation in France, you can be forgiven, as the mainstream media is largely keeping quiet about it, and seemingly for good reason. Even I had only really heard about what is going on through news sites on Gab, not even other social media (not that I frequent those anymore). So to shed light on this for those who are unaware, allow me to give you some context.
Recently, 20 retired French generals and around 1,000 servicemembers signed an open letter warning President Emmanuel Macron of “several deadly dangers” threatening the country, including “Islamism and the hordes of the banlieue,” or the fractured suburbs around major cities which are high in both immigrant populations and crime.
They warn that, because of radical Islam and radical movements like the “anti-racism” movement, which seeks to create a “racial war”, according to the signatories (which is 100% true, given their actions and sentiments), French identity is eroding and being actively destroyed by such people. They also warn that, if Macron doesn’t do something to reverse course on this, France will be headed towards “civil war”, which will lead to deaths “in the thousands.”
“The hour is grave, France is in peril,” warned the letter, published on April 21st, which is the 60th anniversary of a failed coup d’état (don’t know if that was intentional or not). The treatment of the “gilet jaunes” or yellow vest protesters is an example, the letter says, of how the government has used the police “as proxy agents and scapegoats” for tyranny and oppression.
“It is no longer the time to procrastinate, otherwise tomorrow civil war will put an end to this growing chaos and deaths – for which you will be responsible – with numbers in the thousands,” the letter concludes.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Macron and his government didn’t take kindly to the letter’s warning, with Defense Minister Florence Parly saying “These are unacceptable actions,” adding that serving military members are required by law to remain politically neutral. “There will be consequences, naturally,” she said, adding that she has instructed the army’s chief of staff to discipline the signatories.
Despite the strong pushback against the letter by the Macron administration, a recent poll, conducted by Harris Interactive, found that 58% of respondents “support the words of the soldiers,” with an overwhelming majority, 84%, saying that violence was increasing in society, and 73% believing that the country was deteriorating. Perhaps worst of all for the French Leftists, nearly 75% believe the “anti-racism” movement is having the opposite intended effect and is making race relations even worse, not improving them.
Frankly, that last one is not all that surprising, as all it takes is someone with even a semi-functioning brain to realize that “anti-racists” are openly racist against whites in narrative and minorities in practice.
In any case, nearly 50% of respondents also think that the military should occupy problematic areas, such as the high-crime, high-immigrant population areas, “which would act on its own to restore order.”
Finally, only one in three respondents believe that the signatories ought to be punished, showing pretty clearly that the people of France strongly support the letter and what it says.
It was predicted that such terrible situations would occur for European countries back when the Syrian “refugee” crisis was happening in the mid-2010s. In reality, what that crisis was wasn’t about families and innocents escaping the destruction and possibilities of death in Syria as it was involved in a civil war, but about sending largely military-age male Islamists into European nations to spread Islam and make Europe part of the Muslim world.
Horrible terrorist acts occurred in Europe at high rates since then, including multiple knife attacks, truck attacks, axe attacks, and who could forget the worst terrorist attack in France’s history, the November 2015 attacks, which resulted in over 130 deaths and 413 injuries?
And terrorist attacks continue to happen, as the latest one occurred literally two days after the publication of that letter, where a policewoman was stabbed to death by a radical Islamic terrorist who shouted “Allahu akbar” as he carried out the attack.
France is being destroyed both by radical Islamic terrorists and “anti-racist” Leftists who hold no love or loyalty to France, because communists are almost never nationalistic, and are only so when their country already has communism. The Soviets were nationalistic because they had communism (at least the communists were willingly nationalistic, the others were forced to be nationalistic). The Chinese are nationalistic because they have communism (ditto for Chinese communists and non-communists).
But in other countries where they don’t have communism, the communists hold no love or loyalty for that country and revere already communist countries. So they see no reason not to hate and destroy the country in which they live.
It’s these ghastly people that the French are in opposition against, and thankfully, a majority of them seem to be actually against them.
And they very well ought to be. The citizens of a country should not actively hate their country. That doesn’t mean ignoring their faults and it doesn’t mean pretending like there can’t be improvement, but to actively hate one’s own country is not only odd to me personally, but also odd historically speaking.
Even for France, which is pretty notorious for revolutions and civil wars, I don’t doubt that the people who live(d) there love(d) their country. The revolutionaries of the 18th century hated the oppression of the king and the fact that the vast majority of the population was poor, hungry, and France’s only “democratic” apparatus, The Estates General, would often serve against the majority of the people of France, since it was divided amongst three sects: the clergy (First Estate), the nobility (Second Estate) and the peasantry (Third Estate) and each estate counted as a single vote, with the clergy and nobility often voting with one another as the elites of France.
Basically, imagine if the Washington Establishment got one collective vote in Congress, Hollywood elites got one collective vote, and the rest of the Americans got one collective vote. It was that lopsided for pre-revolutionary France (not to mention that the king had free reign to call The Estates General into session or not, as before Louis XVI in 1789, the last time they had a session was during the reign of Louis XIII, nearly 200 years earlier).
In any case, while the revolutionaries were fed up with the way things “worked” at that time in feudal France, I cannot say that they hated the country in itself (that isn’t to say the revolutionaries were good or right entirely, as they sought a more secular culture and are one of the biggest reasons for secularism to be dominant in Europe). Patriotism – nationalism – is the rule, not the exception, and French Leftists’ actions regarding “anti-racism” and their insistence of bringing more Muslims into France is the exception to national and world history.
But thankfully, it appears as though such people are more on the fringe side of things. And if that is the case in France, I can imagine it can be similar in other countries, like America. While we are not quite faced with the same problems as France (give Biden enough time and terrorism will skyrocket like during the Obama years, I assure you), we are faced with an apathetic, at best, administration that holds no love for our respective countries.
Americans love America, which is why we voted to elect Trump TWICE. Likewise, the French love France, which shouldn’t come as a surprise to people.
The globalist elites will be defeated, of that I am certain, in no small part because of that poll.
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.”
It is always delightful to see the Left going after people on their own side for one asinine reason or another.
In a piece titled “Justin Fields And The Double Standard Of Black Quarterback Prospects”, ESPN’s Martenzie Johnson alleges that the main reason as to why Justin Fields’ draft stock is falling is because of his race.
“When it comes to black quarterbacks in particular,” Johnson writes, “the NFL has long gone out of its way to keep the position as white as the painted yard lines on the field.”
Now, this might be the point where one would expect me to defend the NFL from this nonsensical “racism” attack, but I won’t do that.
The simple reason is that I have no reason or intention to defend the NFL, which invests heavily in the woke kneeling crap and the blatant disrespecting of the United States. It does everything it can to appeal to the Left, submitting to people who either couldn’t care less about football or only want to see the league be destroyed because it’s “barbaric” or because, at one point at least, it appealed to conservatives. That is the reason I even titled this article the way that I did: ESPN, a blue, Leftist sports “news” organization is attacking the NFL, a now-blue, Leftist sports league that cares more about “social justice” that never pans out over delivering a good on-the-field product.
At any rate, Johnson continued with his racism allegations, writing: “We can leave the draft evaluating to the experts, but with zero explanation, two white quarterbacks with comparable or lesser resumes than Fields were suddenly can’t-miss picks. Whether that is true is irrelevant; it’s more about what happened to Fields since he declared for the draft that exposes the draft process – and the entire football-industrial complex – for the, let’s say, racial institution that it is.”
“Quarterbacks are expected to be smart, rational decision-makers who command a team and act as the de facto coach on the field. Accuracy and strong arms are a plus, but it mostly comes down to what’s between your ears rather than any other physical attribute. As the authors of The Bell Curve would have you believe, few Black men possess those attributes.”
While I have zero intention of defending the NFL, I will at least point out why the racism allegation is baseless in this case and give a possible explanation as to why Fields’ draft stock is dropping (not that it’s all that relevant for the purposes of this article, but I feel like I should cover this).
First of all, there are plenty of black quarterbacks in the NFL who are superstars. The highest paid QB in league history is Patrick Mahomes, a black quarterback for the Kansas City Chiefs. The second-highest paid QB in league history is Dak Prescott, a black quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys. Apart from them, a number of black quarterbacks are starters in the NFL: Cam Newton, Teddy Bridgewater, Russel Wilson, Lamar Jackson, Deshaun Watson, Kyler Murray, and others.
A lot of those QBs were taken later in the draft, but for a number of reasons.
Mahomes and Deshaun Watson were taken with the 10th and 12th picks respectively, not because people thought they were bad (people generally don’t think a first-round pick is bad), but because there were few relative QBs of this caliber in this draft. The only other QB taken ahead of them, at the second spot, was Mitch Trubisky, who is white but also pretty good (not as good as Mahomes, but still good, outside of injuries).
Furthermore, the NFL draft has 7 rounds, naturally with a lot of players being taken in those rounds. Sometimes, good QBs, like Russell Wilson, fly under the radar and get drafted in later rounds, and then turn out to be great prospects. This is the case not just for black QBs but also for white QBs, as is the case for one of the best QBs of all time, Tom Brady, who was drafted in the 6th round at the 199th spot. 198 people were taken ahead of Brady, though only six were QBs, which brings me to another reason for talented QBs to be taken later:
Teams often draft based on need, as opposed to talent. If a team has a good or great QB, they have less reason to draft one, even a great one (unless they believe the young QB would be better for them) and would look to fill a different position.
As far as Fields goes, one reason for his stock to fall is that teams are looking deeper at what he does on the field, and they notice that he tends to hold the ball for a little too long because his offensive line is very good and allows him time and room to breathe, which not all NFL teams are capable of doing. The bad teams tend to be the ones who draft higher, and they tend to have turnstile offensive lines, incapable of protecting their QB. Andrew Luck was a prime example of what can happen to a great QB who is left unprotected by their line.
But outside of the on-the-field reasons as to why Fields might be taken lower or why other, white QBs might be taken higher, my overall concern here is not to defend the NFL or even the teams in and of themselves. I delight in the fact that ESPN is attacking people on its own side, or at least, people who submit to the Leftist, woke mob rule.
It demonstrates that there is absolutely zero reason to capitulate to such people, because in their eyes, one can never be woke enough. Like the devil, they point to mistakes and stains in people’s past, and accentuate them and pretend as though that is still the case in the present.
Much like their insistence that this country is “racist” because of its tainted past regarding segregation and slavery (as if this is the only country in the world which practiced that vile thing and as though their Leftist ancestors weren’t the ones DEFENDING those very things), they insist that the NFL itself is racist because it has few black quarterbacks overall. Further, they insist that the reason for that is the league attempting some sort of miniature slave-owning practice, whereby the leader of a team, the QB, is the white master of the mostly black people that make up the rest of the team.
The Left is so fixated on the slave plantations they were forced to give up that they attack the NFL as having a slave owners’ mentality because that is the very mentality they still possess.
They project their own desires onto other people and claim them to be putrid, but it is precisely what they want for themselves.
They accuse others of racism to masquerade their own racist behaviors, both past and present, and to exculpate any future racist behaviors. For example, that very ESPN article. By claiming that the only reason Justin Fields’ draft stock is going down is because of his skin color, the author alludes to the idea that white QBs slated to go ahead of Fields are only up there because of their own skin color and not because of their skill and talent. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Johnson were to admit this himself, as they tend to not care about anti-white racism at best and seek to perpetrate it at worst.
In the 2021 draft, there are three QBs who are slated to go ahead of Fields: Trevor Lawrence, one of the best prospects in the draft and shown to likely go 1st overall, Zach Wilson, and Trey Lance. Of these, only Lawrence and Wilson are white, with Lance being black, and apart from Lawrence, Fields is close to the other QB prospects.
Where he actually goes will be up to the team that drafts him, of course, but to allude to the idea that Fields’ stock is going down because of nothing other than his race, when there is ANOTHER BLACK QB SHOWN TO BE AHEAD OF HIM, is utter nonsense.
Again, don’t really care as far as the NFL is concerned because I refuse to defend them. Sure, they are racist, what does it matter to me whether or not that’s true? They have been trying, for years, to capitulate to a woke Leftist mob that seeks to destroy them no matter what they do. A smart league would recognize that it shouldn’t be trying to submit to a mob that seeks to devour them whole and would begin to fight back against it, but I can’t expect the NFL, at this point, to be all that intelligent.
ESPN can write all the allegations and accusations that they want, baseless or not, against the league and I wouldn’t really care one wit, not just because I never really cared for football to begin with, either. The NFL is bleeding when it comes to audience, both in TV ratings and in stadium attendance (the latter having been a big problem even BEFORE the lockdowns).
If the Left wants the NFL to crash and burn, so be it. A league unwilling to defend itself against its aggressors hardly deserves to be afloat to begin with.
2 Corinthians 2:11
“So that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.”
It is no secret that the Left is filled with absolute morons at best and horrible tyrants at worst who prioritize wielding their punitive power over others above people’s safety, as evidenced by their hysterical demand that people wear masks basically everywhere (sometimes, two masks) and get multiple shots (Pfizer’s CEO recommends three shots, no points for guessing why). Insanity is the law of the land and this story perfectly exemplifies that.
Last week, Summit High School in Bend, Oregon, held its first track and field meet in two years. However, the Oregon Health Authority mandates that athletes must wear masks while competing, a proposal which is asinine and insane by normal people’s standards but is par for the course for the insane radical Left.
Naturally, because of the fact she was forced to wear a mask while competing, runner Maggie Williams began to collapse as she was approaching the finish line.
“I was pushing so hard and everything went blurry and I just fell,” Williams told the Bend Bulletin. “But luckily I fell at the right spot and crossed the line with my head.” The girl was running in the girls’ 800 meters competition while on her way to breaking a school record.
Her coach, Dave Turnbull, correctly points out that the cause of her collapse was the asinine mask-wearing rule.
“I am concerned with the mask rule,” Turnbull told the Bulletin. “This is what I am worried about, and I said this at the beginning of the season. You get a kid running the 800 with a mask on, it is actually dangerous. They don’t get the oxygen that they need. This rule needs to change.”
He continued: “I’ve been doing this for 31 years, I’ve never seen anybody basically lose consciousness. I’ve never seen that in the way it happened with Maggie.”
John Canzano of The Oregonian depicted his disgust at the state’s inability to see reason with the implementation of that mandate in an article he titled: “State leadership fails to see finish line with high school running mask rule.”
He wrote: “Distance runners are being required to wear masks while competing. Most of them are fine wearing them while warming up. But once they’re on the track, outdoors, competing in open air, the science just doesn’t support the necessity. In fact, the mandate is now raising questions about athlete safety and oxygen depletion.”
“Maggie Williams was cruising toward that school record on Thursday. Her first lap was a thing of beauty,” continued Canzano. “The second one should have ended with her breaking the finish line on her feet, gasping but with a smile. Instead, she ran out of oxygen. Her brain shut down. Her lungs quit. She landed on her forehead. Couldn’t hear. Couldn’t see. Her body crashed across the finish line. I wonder if state leaders will notice.”
And there is absolutely no reason at all for this mandate to exist to begin with. First of all, according to Canzano, Oregon is the ONLY state that requires high school runners wear masks. If even far-Left California, New York, Washington, etc. don’t require this, what is the scientific basis for Oregon to be doing it? Am I to believe that only Oregon is “following the science” while the other far-Left states, which also demand people “follow the science”, do not actually “follow the science”?
So even by Leftists states’ own standards, this is ridiculous and asinine. But here is another reason as to why that mandate is absolutely stupid: Professional athletes are not required to wear masks while competing in their respective sports.
For example, here is tennis player Novak Djokovic at the 2021 ATP cup taking a selfie with a bunch of people. Granted, the competition seems to be over by this point, as one of them is holding what appears to be a trophy, but note how NONE of them is wearing a mask in this picture:
Another example, here is an NBA bubble game from last season, when the league was attempting to continue with the 2019/20 NBA season. Note how NONE of the players on the court currently playing, or COMPETING, as one could put it, is wearing a mask:
Yet another example, here is a picture of two NFL players in a game during the pandemic. You can’t see the face of the Seahawks player, the man with the name “Wright” on his back, but you can see the Patriots player, Cam Newton, visibly without a mask, leading one to believe Wright is also not wearing a mask here. They are in the middle of a game, or competition, and neither of them is wearing a mask, in almost all certainty:
And for my final example, here are some NHL players in the middle of a game, three of them to be exact, and not one of them is wearing a mask:
So if tennis players don’t have to wear a mask, basketball players don’t have to wear a mask, football players don’t have to wear a mask and hockey players don’t have to wear a mask while competing, why in the HELL does a high school girl have to wear a mask while RUNNING TRACK?!
Am I to believe that a high school girl has better lung capacity to withstand wearing a mask during a competition than PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES? Not only that, am I expected to believe that a high school girl has better lung capacity than MALE PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES?
Does a high school girl running in a track, largely by herself, pose more of a risk of spreading the Chinese coronavirus than basketball, football and hockey players who often have to make physical contact with one another to play their respective sports properly and have to travel not only across the country but also, sometimes, to Canada (at least for NBA and NHL teams)? Or than tennis players who have to travel around the world for their competitions?
What, then, is the scientific basis for mandating high school girls running track and field wear masks WHILE COMPETING, when no professional athlete is forced to wear masks and when no other state, even the far-Left ones, make such a mandate?
That’s the thing about all this: it’s not about science. It never was about science. “Science” is what the Left claims is factual and true. “Science” says that man created climate change. “Science” says that there is systemic racism and people have unconscious biases. “Science” says that men can be women and women can be men, or even a third option such as a lizard, a dragon, a tow truck, an alien, a pop corn kernel or whatever else. “Science” to the Left is merely a deity whom all must obey, not unlike the pagans and zealots of the past thousands of years.
There is simply no actual scientific basis for such a mandate, but no such scientific basis is even required. This pandemic has allowed already tyrant-like people to basically go over the edge and go full-Stalin on their constituents. A Polish preacher in Alberta, Canada keeps being harassed by Canadian police and he RIGHTLY compares them to the Gestapo and communists.
This mandate even existing at all, despite the scientific uselessness of it and even despite the fact that other far-Left states don’t have this mandate, is just further proof of at least SOME people being a little too happy to play Stalin.
I can only hope and pray that one day, some modicum of sanity will return soon.
“Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!”
Ironically, on the day of Derek Chauvin’s “trial” (it was not a fair trial given all the intervention and threats by Maxine Waters, Joe Biden, etc.), a black 16-year-old was killed by a police officer because she was visibly trying to stab another black girl following a police call.
Released body-cam footage depicted what happened, and clearly shows Ma’Khia Bryant wielding a knife and in the process of beginning to stab another girl on the scene. However, before she was able to do so, she was shot by a police officer at the scene and later pronounced dead.
Because the officer was white and the girl was black, initially, Leftists around the country raised the same bullcrap hell they tend to do with these situations, assuming that this was the result of racism (the officer visibly saved the life of one or more black people at the scene) and just “another” example of police brutality in America.
NBA star LeBron James even tweeted “YOU’RE NEXT #ACCOUNTABILITY” with a picture of the officer of this case, before he received serious backlash and took it down (he has yet to apologize and has tried to play the victim, like the little b-word that he is).
And with the release of the body-cam footage, ABC’s “60 Minutes”, which is infamous for editing and distorting videos to fit their narrative, did exactly that and tried to edit out the knife from Bryant’s hand, attempting to make it look like a totally unjustified police killing.
However, others were less quick to judge the situation. CNN’s Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo surprisingly admitted that the killing, while tragic (which it is), was justified.
“We have to be fair about what happens when police arrive at scenes. It is tragic that it’s a 16-year-old girl. Just as it is tragic that it’s a 13-year-old in Chicago (referencing Adam Toledo, who was an armed individual shot by police). When police are chasing people, they don’t know how old they are. And they don’t run and say, ‘How old are you?’ ‘Oh, I’m 13.’ You don’t know that. Or, ‘I’m 16’.”
“When they roll up on the scene, they see people tussling around. Someone has a knife. And their job is to protect and serve. Every life on that scene. And if they see someone who is in the process of taking a life, what is that decision, what decision do they have to make?”
They even went so far as to defend the use of a lethal weapon as opposed to a taser: “Tasers, they don’t always connect. So, you’ve got to get two prongs or what have you, and it has to connect to whatever. I see it, if the woman in the pink (the potential victim of stabbing) was my sister, niece, wife, whatever, you have to make a decision. Is one life on that scene more valuable than another? And if someone is trying to take a life, on that scene, do you protect the life of the person trying to take the life, or do you protect the life of the person whose life is in imminent danger at that point?”
Cuomo said: “I feel for the officer. You can hear it in his voice. When he said – the man on the side was saying, ‘You shot my baby, you shot my baby.’ And he said, ‘She had a knife. She went right at her.’ You know, this is something that he’s going to have to live with also… The analysis is only of the instant circumstances. I’m saying, if you want to have this contextual conversation that people seem to want to have about ‘what else we can do, people fight with knives all the time, do we really need cops? The answer is no, learn how to control your kids, and don’t be so violent and we won’t need cops.’ But that’s not our reality. And cops get called to our lives all the time for the worst situations.”
When the guy who said that “God doesn’t judge gay people” and the guy that pretended to have the Chinese coronavirus for sympathy while he went out partying in New York come to the agreement that the officer did the RIGHT thing, you know that there is really little reason for Leftists to be attacking the officer.
Because, as one can see from the footage, Bryant tried to stab someone. She tried to stab, and in all likelihood kill, another person.
It is a bit more understandable to be irritated before the facts come out about what happened in this case, but it is an absolute moron and degenerate who would still defend the girl knowing what we know about this case.
Bryant was a would-be murderer. Everyone trying to defend her, which at this point is LeBron James and the Biden administration, is trying to defend Bryant’s attempt to kill another person.
Which, unfortunately, is not all that surprising, to be honest. These people, who pretend to care so, so much about black lives, NEVER bring up black-on-black crime. When talking about someone like Secoriea Turner, who was killed by BLM terrorists who took over a burned down Wendy’s, she is only talked about in reference to gun crime as a whole to attempt to disarm Americans, not as a victim of THE LEFT’S OWN CHAOS AND DISCORD.
And this is without even mentioning someone like Robert Howard, who was kidnapped and executed by a police officer, but his story was not told and his name was not encouraged to be remembered because the cop that killed him was black himself.
And even recently, a 7-year-old black girl was killed in a McDonald’s drive-thru in Chicago, and her father was in critical condition as well. Jaslyn Adams was killed in gun-control heavy Chicago, likely by black shooters (admittedly, the identities of the shooters are unknown, but a 7-year-old girl killed in Chicago ought to spark the same sort of outrage from people like LeBron as the justified shooting of a would-be killer, at least. It’s still a black life that was lost). Yet, her name is largely unknown and no one is attempting to make it known, at least on the Left.
The only kind of situation that gives way for a Leftist narrative is when a white police officer is involved with the death of a black person. It doesn’t matter if that person is visibly and clearly a threat to the life of either the officer or another person (even if that other person was black themselves). Apparently, if it’s a white officer pulling the trigger against a white would-be killer, it’s unjust and a sign of racism.
To their credit, Lemon and Cuomo recognized that this was a justified shooting and that the officer did the right thing in prioritizing the life of the would-be victim over the life of Bryant, so I have nothing bad to say about them in this instance (a rare occurrence), but other Leftists like ABC News’ “60 Minutes” and celebrities like LeBron James are being stupid at best and degenerates at worst.
Because, like I said earlier, they are attempting to defend and justify the stabbing of one black person by another black person. “Let the teenager stab the other one” is what they are basically saying.
I have asked this before in prior articles, but it bears repeating: Does it sound like these people think that black lives actually matter? Or does it sound like they only matter when they are taken, justifiably or not, by a white officer? And if that’s the case, one can hardly say that they believe their life mattered.
George Floyd’s life didn’t matter to BLM. His death did. Ma’Khia Bryant’s life didn’t matter to BLM. Her death did. Michael Brown’s life didn’t matter to the Left. His death did. Freddy Gray’s life didn’t matter to the Left. His death did.
And by contrast, Robert Howard’s life, which was taken by a ghoulish cop, didn’t matter to BLM and even his death didn’t matter because his life was taken by a black cop. The wrong kind of cop, in their minds. Secoriea Turner’s life didn’t matter to BLM (evidenced by the fact it was taken by BLM), and her death didn’t matter to them either, only insofar as the Left could try and use it to attack legal gun ownership. Jaslyn Adams’ life didn’t matter to BLM and her death doesn’t matter to them either because it’s not a white cop that took her life, but likely, fellow black people. Even if it was white people who killed her, it won’t matter as much as if it had been white officers.
But in any case, this episode goes to show why waiting on the facts of a case is crucial. Facts matter, and the facts of this case are clear enough for even DON LEMON AND CHRIS CUOMO to agree that the officer did the right thing. For those who jump the gun and make assumptions, or even stupefyingly double-down, they get egg on their face about the assumptions they had made. Even if LeBron is acting like a b-word, the facts of the matter still got him to take down the original tweet which, frankly, painted a target on the officer’s back.
He won’t apologize because entitled people believe they are infallible or are above apologizing when they genuinely messed up (he demands accountability for this case, but makes no similar demand to the CCP which is keeping millions of Uyghurs and Christians in concentration camps), but he at least had enough wherewithal to recognize that he should at least take that original post down (after suffering enough backlash, at least).
Waiting for the facts is infinitely more important than initial emotional reactions to things.
“A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention.”
I’ve already detailed many instances of Leftists breaking their own Chinese coronavirus rules and guidelines in a previous article, but that article is already a few months old and obviously, the hypocrisy of the Left has only continued since then.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (henceforth known as “Whitler” for her Nazi style of governance) has often broken her own Chinese coronavirus rules and guidelines (and her husband is also guilty of this), but this instance in particular is especially juicy to me.
You see, Whitler’s spokesman confirmed on Monday that the governor had flown to Florida about a month ago. “In the past six months, she has left the state three times, once for the inauguration, once to assist her elderly father who is battling a chronic illness, and once to visit with Michigan’s National Guard troops,” said Bobby Leddy, Whitler’s press secretary. “All trips were very brief, two full days or less, closely followed public health guidelines, and were made when Michigan’s daily positivity rate was in the low single digits.”
“Closely followed public health guidelines”? Are you kidding me? She long ago instituted travel guidelines to keep people from leaving the state as much as possible and she broke those guidelines for her own reasons. I can understand wanting to be close to her father when he was sick and maybe traveling to visit the National Guard (which I imagine was sent to D.C. following the Capitol riot), but she generally did not have to attend Biden’s inauguration, especially as D.C. was put into lockdown and no regular civilian was allowed to attend it. She willingly broke her own guidelines, Leddy.
At any rate, Breitbart News also reported that a top Whitler aide had traveled to Florida for spring break and her trip was extensively documented on her Facebook. And like I said, Whitler also went to the sunshine state recently, though the reasons were not specified due to “ongoing security concerns” aka she went there to party for spring break.
Well, I can’t say that for certain, as I have no proof of that, but hey, the Left has no issue with accusing people with zero evidence, so they shouldn’t be surprised when their own tactics are used against them. Until proven wrong, I will allege that she went to Florida for spring break, after telling people not to leave Michigan.
But do you want to know what makes this particularly funny to me? Back on April 3rd, presumably after she herself had gone to Florida, Whitler instructed Michiganders to not travel to Florida, blaming it for a rise in MICHIGAN’S cases. Whitler told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd: “Michigan and Florida are not next to each other. But this is the time of the year that snowbirds come home from Florida, where people are going on spring break, and all of these things can contribute to spread.”
This is a similar argument to the one Leftists make to “argue” why their gun-control heavy cities are so riddled by gun violence: “It’s the other cities and states, with less gun control restrictions, that bring in the guns and allow people to kill each other.” It’s an idiotic argument because it begs the question: “If that’s the case, why aren’t those neighboring cities and states riddled by more gun violence than the gun-control heavy city?” If anything, that’s an argument that showcases how ineffective gun control is, if the neighboring cities and states, with fewer gun control measures, are less violent than the gun-control heavy cities and states.
Likewise, this kind of argument showcases how ineffective lockdowns are. If Florida is the reason MICHIGAN’S Chinese coronavirus cases are going up, why isn’t Florida a hotspot of the virus? Why isn’t the open state absolutely riddled by the virus? And if Florida is to blame for Michigan’s cases going up, then why did Whitler go to Florida for any given reason?
I mean, if the sunshine state is THIS bad for the state of Michigan, and those who go to Florida and return to Michigan are risking their fellow Michiganders, then why did Whitler go to Florida? Why is she willing to risk the health and safety of her own citizens and constituents by traveling to the, apparently, virus-riddled state?
This is the kind of logical trouble these Leftists often get into when they are utterly hypocritical about what they say and do. Either they show that they aren’t nearly as afraid of the virus as they pretend to be or as they want their constituents to be (as a scared populace is easy to control) or they are subject to the very kind of punishment they wish to deliver upon deviants, with all the accusations of “endangering their fellow Americans” and whatever else.
The only unfortunate aspect is that hypocrisy doesn’t tend to stick with them, as the fake news media runs cover for them and will always either support them in what they do or outright ignore them and their hypocrisy, as they are doing with this and many other cases. Even the most notorious of these cases, Nancy Pelosi’s insistence of getting a hair-cut, was largely run to the ground because she knows how to order the media around to get them to not cover her blatantly hypocritical (and, frankly, elitist) actions.
But regardless of the media’s actions, people still take notice. For example, Lisa Hanlin, a Polish restaurant owner in Milford, Michigan, has taken note of the tyrannical and hypocritical actions of Whitler. Being a restaurant owner, she was obviously ordered to close down due to the lockdown. She told The Federalist that people are “tired of the lies and manipulation” from Whitler.
Whether or not this, and her other actions, will lead to anything substantial and meaningful like her impeachment or a defeat at the polls is uncertain. However, one can hope and pray that these evil bastards (let’s not forget that Whitler joins Cuomo and other Leftist governors in killing their elderly populations in nursing homes) will face the justice that they deserve within their and our lifetimes.
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
The only thing I would add to that idea in the title is that BLM, apart from being a fraud organization that doesn’t care even a little bit about black people, is also a terrorist organization, given how often they incite riots which often lead to someone’s death. Blacks lives do not matter to the organization which calls itself “Black Lives Matter”. This has been obvious for a long time, but now, even a victim’s mother is acknowledging this in no unclear terms.
Breonna Taylor is a relatively well-known name, as she was the victim of her ex-boyfriend’s idiotic firefight with Louisville Police, and was made a martyr for opportunistic Leftists who wish to exploit her death for political gain.
BLM was seemingly supposed to have raised money for Taylor’s family, but Taylor’s mother, Tamika Palmer, has called them out for having “never done a damn thing for us,” calling the organization a fraud and money-grabbers.
“I have never personally dealt with BLM Louisville and personally have found them to be fraud, Attica Scott another fraud,” Palmer wrote in a now-removed Facebook post. “I could walk in a room full of people who claim to be here for Breonna’s family who don’t even know who I am, I’ve watched y’all raise money on behalf of Breonna’s family who has never done a damn thing for us nor have we needed it or asked so talk about fraud.” She also continued, claiming that BLM has “lost focus” of what they are trying to accomplish.
I personally have to disagree with that last sentiment, as BLM has not “lost focus” of what they are trying to accomplish. What they are trying to accomplish is simply something different than what they advertise. Supposedly, they want to end police brutality, help black people, etc., etc., but that’s just a front. As I have pointed out multiple times in the past, their “About Us” page used to contain nothing but far-Left Marxist garbage that had NOTHING to do with keeping black people safe or creating a more equal and just culture. It was just pushing LGBT crap down people’s throats, particularly transgender crap, which the VAST majority of black people are generally against, and overall pushing Marxist class-warfare crap as well.
BLM is a self-admittedly (given many of its leaders) Marxist organization which seeks to profit off of discourse.
One example of this is Patrisse Khan-Cullors, one of BLM’s co-founders, who recently bought four luxurious homes for $3.2 million, which are in predominantly white neighborhoods.
This, rightly, leads people to question the validity of the entire movement, as the actions of its leaders often reflect the attitude and culture of the entire organization. Cullors bought FOUR luxury homes, likely from the money she has raised through her organization. She is a self-described Marxist and it shows: Marxists tend to demand others make sacrifices that they themselves would be unwilling to make.
As I have said many times in the past, under communism, the 1% FLOURISHES. It is under communism that the gap between the rich and the poor is the widest. Those who are either in the government (specifically, high places in the government) or in high places in companies under the government or allied with the government are the ONLY ones who get to enjoy comfort and wealth.
There are only two kinds of communists out there: Those who are in it to profit (which is considerably ironic), such as Cullors, Kaepernick, etc., and those who are too stupid to profit from it and genuinely believe in the edicts, teachings, beliefs, etc.
The former are always the ones who take advantage of the latter, because the latter are so easy to take advantage of. They are the “useful idiots” of the Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Obama, Cullors-types, who go out and create chaos, pushing for the crap that is nothing but fake and idiotic, and help raise funds for those who are controlling them.
They are little more than those trained monkeys who dance on the street, and even that is arguable, as the dancing monkeys don’t go around causing billions of dollars-worth of damage to private and public property.
So for Palmer to be calling them out as frauds is entirely correct. They ARE frauds. At least, if you believe they are trying to do what they claim they are trying to do. If you believe BLM cares about black lives and is doing whatever it can to help black people, then yes, you would believe they are frauds, because they do not accomplish what you believe they set out to do.
The charge that they are a money-grabbing organization is true, no matter how you look at it. If you believe BLM is genuinely trying to improve black lives and protect black lives, you still see them being money-grabbers and the leaders profiting off of the anguish and anger of people who believe(d) in them. If you understand that BLM is nothing but a Marxist terrorist organization that seeks to exploit situations and outright lie about them (much like the rest of the Left does), you still see them as a money-grabbing organization exploiting the people who support them for their own personal gain.
Now, I feel it’s necessary to point out that not everyone in BLM-related organizations is seeking to make a profit from this. Those would, of course, be the latter kind of communists – those who are too stupid to profit from the grift that is communism and actually believe in what it claims.
One such person is Hawk Newsome, whom I have previously talked about when he went on Martha MacCallum’s show and presented himself as a faux-Christian, arguing that Jesus was a “black radical revolutionary”, and who recently called for an internal investigation of Cullors for her real estate purchases.
He said: “If you go around calling yourself a socialist, you have to ask how much of her own personal money is going to charitable causes. It’s really sad because it makes people doubt the validity of the movement and overlook the fact that it’s the people that carry this movement.”
First, socialists aren’t charitable. Like, at all. They claim they do this and that to help this person or these people, but they always give a MINISCULE amount of their income to charity. For example, there is Bernie Sanders, who, as I wrote in a 2019 article, only gave LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of his income to charity. He had made over a million dollars in 2018, and reportedly gave just a little over $10k to charity, or less than one percent of his income. For a self-avowed socialist, he sure cares pathetically little about charity, so no one tell me that socialists and charity go hand-in-hand.
Second, this is not the only thing that leads people to doubt the validity of the movement. The fact that BLM terrorists (alongside ANTIFA, another Marxist terrorist organization) destroyed largely black-owned businesses in black neighborhoods throughout last year’s riots showcases how little they care about the lives of black people.
Black business owners saw their businesses, which were already struggling mightily because of the idiotic lockdowns, being physically looted, burned, or generally destroyed. How, exactly, does this demonstrate that black lives matter to BLM?
Matter of fact, it’s precisely BECAUSE OF THIS CRAP that I began to call them simply by their initials “BLM” because they don’t even deserve to call themselves “Black Lives Matter”. They don’t care about black lives, so to call them that only spreads falsehoods and lies.
Third, and finally, it might be “the people” who carry the movement, but those people are the useful idiots I talked about earlier, and the second type of communist: those who are too stupid to profit from the grift and who genuinely believe in what they are calling for. That doesn’t make the movement any better, because it’s simply the exploitation of the ignorant and misinformed. It’s what all communist organizations have done since the ideology was created.
Tamika Palmer is 100% correct in her assessment that BLM is fraudulent. Again, they certainly are to those who believe or have believed that they in any way cared about black people. They are profiteers and exploiters. They are everything they claim capitalist companies and organizations are: for-profit, selfish, and oppressors of the lower classes.
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...