Biden won the nomination with the write in ballots. On the surface, this would negate Hillary coming in for the rescue. Nevertheless, there are those who still hold out hope that Biden will slip or fall or do something that gives the Democrats the excuse to call him incompetent. Some argue Hillary should take the VP and become the next Dick Cheney because Biden is no more competent than Bush Jr. ever was to hold office. These may be wild dreams now that are vanishing into thin air.
Because the Democrats allowed mail-ins, the rumor is a lot of non-Democrats sent in votes for Biden to make sure he is the candidate. That’s an interesting question for that is what they were doing to make sure Trump was the nominee in 2016 because they thought he would be easy to beat. Perhaps, what goes around comes around.
Still, there is a lot of dissent inside the Democratic Party. The Bernie followers are pitching to write in his name and refuse to vote for Biden. The chaos going into November is not going to be negated by this event of Biden gathering enough votes for a first ballot.
There is clearly a rising anti-government movement on a global scale. The people are not going to settle for another lockdown. Yet the Democrats will still use the Virus as their #1 issue and then the riots as #2. Traditionally, you have 40% who will always vote Democrat and 40% who will vote Republican. There is a growing body of independents who will not vote party-lines. This will make things most interesting for November.
Yesterday the new black panderers organized a million Antifa march with the Black Lives Matter crowd in Washington DC. Unfortunately, they fell approximately 990,000 people short of the million person goal; only about 10,000 marchers present.
The window of exploitation & opportunity is closing even faster than we expected.
Not surprisingly the media hyped the thousands that did attend resulting in a skewed reality that was/is disconnected from the actual result. In media you would think there was a massive alignment of social interests. However, if you look at the reception rate for the message, there’s a big disconnect.
Again, as previously noted, the downstream reception rate, the people who receive the message, take action on the message and/or join in the amplification of the message; much like the protest attendance rate, was very small considering the scale of the push.
We can debate what is creating the disconnect, but the chasm is undeniable. People are just not as organically tuned-in as the media would have you believe they are. The efforts of the social influencers are not yielding results; and you can see this reality in the way the media is increasingly desperate to keep pushing the messaging.
“Defund The Police” is not working outside the most severe leftist woke groups.
Perhaps people are burned-out with the constant demand for outrage; or perhaps people have caught-on to the manipulation. I’m not sure what specifically is driving the lack of engagement; but people are just going on with their lives while the constant drumbeat of shouting voices is being blasted at them. The drumbeat is loud, perhaps one of the loudest ever, but the drumbeat is also astroturf and not organic. This appears to be part of the reason for the disconnect.
You could hold a free pizza party in DC on a weekend day and get more attendance than yesterday’s audience. The Philadelphia march was large but fizzled quick. The New York march fizzled even faster… folks are simply moving on. This has to be very frustrating for the astroturf organizers. They have every corporate and institutional apparatus in alignment right now, but there’s a shortage of people purchasing the program.
If you only looked at mainstream media you probably wouldn’t notice it; but if you dig down beyond the parts that are being forcibly pushed to “trending” status by the social-media engineers you’ll quickly see the facade. It’s a Potemkin narrative.
Here’s where it gets really interesting. The designers of the movement have been clearly following a script and a schedule. After we watched the Ben Crump interview last week the schedule was clear. The national script was supposed to culminate in coordination with the Floyd funeral schedule. However, funeral #2 (Saturday) was a total flop.
Joe Biden is heading to Houston Texas for funeral #3. A viewing on Monday and the final funeral/memorial service on Tuesday. Biden’s attendance was predictable; however, even that is now sketchy and shows evidence of campaign failure:
(Reuters) – Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden will travel to Houston on Monday and meet with the family of George Floyd, two weeks after Floyd’s death in police custody triggered nationwide protests over racial injustice, aides said.
Biden is expected to offer his sympathies to Floyd’s relatives and record a video message for the private funeral service scheduled to take place on Tuesday in Floyd’s hometown of Houston, two aides said. He is not expected to attend the service to avoid any disruption to mourners that could be caused by his Secret Service protective detail. (read more)
Ignore the silly ‘secret service’ justification for not attending the service on Tuesday. The campaign should be embarrassed for even attempting that. If there was political value in the appearance, the campaign would shove his ass in the room. “secret service disruption”? Too funny. Laugh-Out-Loud, child’ please. As if the DNC would care about disrupting funeral services when there are votes to be gained. That’s precious, right there.
James Clyburn is the ringmaster.
Clyburn is working with Sharpton, Crump, 2-J’s and the new black panderers to position Biden for maximum racial grievance and political value. Funeral disrupting? Again, too funny.
So, despite the fact he is literally there, in Houston, meeting the family for the first time at the end of a week-long national tour; Joe Biden is going to “record a video message” Monday to play at the funeral Tuesday? Weird.
Either: (A) Joe’s backsliding on the cognitive issues again and they need to control the optics of speech via editing; or (B), the video is needed because the campaign needs something, anything, to extract from the event that can be used to stir up the AME church network later on; or (C) part of the pre-plan has failed to come through; or (D) All of it.
[I vote “D”]
The Clyburn plan; and please don’t forget James Clyburn is the campaign manager and in total control of every aspect of everything; would likely have Biden meeting up with Obama and Bush in Houston. The optics of ‘national healing’ and ‘political unity’ only made possible by Joe Biden was the goal.
The three panderers seated at the front of the final farewell show is the best optic; and most useful for corporate media to shape and push. Everything was going in that direction until today. Doing something less than optimal politics means something has changed.
Maybe the private polling around four funerals and a national grievance tour has shown signs of backlash. Maybe the lack of organic interest has rung some alarm bells.
Perhaps the American people seeing thousands of people protesting while they cannot hold funerals for their loved-ones, open their businesses. or attend their own churches has found its way to the attention of those who review optics. Dunno, but something’s up.
The earlier racist comment by Joe Biden about if you don’t support him “you ain’t black”, could very well be a much bigger issue than the alliance is willing to admit. That would not surprise me at all…. Combine that with the ridiculous “Defund The Police” nonsense, and there’s two big roadblocks to any organic mass political movement.
Even limo-liberals eventually wonder: if you take away the police, who is Karen going to call when she only gets nine nuggets in her 10-piece happy meal?
What is clear, very clear, is the window of opportunity is closing fast; and so far, other than some very woke symbolism, the crew who coordinated this – has gained very little from it.
.
The internal racism within the “people of color” coalition was always the inherent problem for Obama, Eric Holder and Tom Perez (Team BLM), because the Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party absolutely dislike Latinos.
Latinos lean heavily Christian; while the radical NoI and NBPP elements who agreed to align within the BLM movement are heavily influenced by Islam. This is why there are two internal black coalitions. BLM is influenced by Islam, while the AME coalition is Christian.
The media, especially the political media, are never allowed to talk about the internal ideologies behind the two camps: Team Obama (BLM – Islam) and Team Clyburn (AME – Christian); but the issues are very real and keeping the coalition together is not easy.
Watching Al Sharpton (AME team) deliver his racial narrative to the Minneapolis funeral audience last Thursday, but team BLM removing him before funeral #2 on Saturday in North Carolina, is a reflection of how important and tenuous the dynamic really is.
The BLM foot-soldiers do not like the lack of purity within the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton messaging. Two-J’s and Sharptongue are both old-school AME members where religious worship kneels at the altar of money. The DNC has the same objective, ergo historically the DNC and AME were in alignment. .
Those behind the BLM network are more ideological and they see the AME’s lust for money as a risk. It’s a weird interplay and ultimately that’s why the two factions keep splitting apart.
Floyd family lawyer, Benjamin Crump, is more AME than he is BLM. Al Sharpton was Crump’s mentor going all the way back to the Martin Lee Anderson case in 2006. But at the same time Crump, Clyburn and by extension Joe Biden, needs the BLM foot-soldiers to drum the social justice message in order to achieve maximum impact.
Bottom line – the Minneapolis opportunists, specifically the Muslim community, will benefit from the current anti-police narrative. The Somali Muslim community wants Sharia-enforcement officers instead of traditional law enforcement. Ergo the Ellison/Omar agenda will benefits from recent events.
However, beyond the local benefit, the new BLM/AME alliance does not seem to be moving the national needle. If you look closely it appears more and more people have caught on to the unspoken and divisive agenda.
The long standing issues between Latinos and Blacks is an important angle to watch; especially with 2020 Democrat candidate Joe Biden going down on his knees in favor of the BLM/AME network.
There is a risk 2020 Democrats might lose more Latinos than they will gain amid blacks.
This type of political calculation based on identity politics always carries a risk. We could be seeing -once again- the outcome of what happens when political ideology intersects with a very divided assembly of special interests.
White House trade and manufacturing policy advisor Peter Navarro appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the strong data for jobs amid the effort to reopen all facets of the U.S. economy. Navarro highlights the recent visit to Maine where he accompanied President Trump to celebrate U.S. critical manufacturing.
Within the interview Navarro reminds the audience of the larger strategic confrontation against China that involves multiple geopolitical aspects to the U.S. economy.
.
The media apoplexy over positive economic news is directly related to how much damage a positive economy does to the Antifa/BLM strategy to divide our nation through class warfare. A thriving Main Street economy is antithetical to the objective.
Prior to the Wuhan virus President Trump was positioning the confrontation between the U.S. and China based on economics and trade. Within that dynamic Beijing had a weak hand and President Trump exploited their vulnerabilities with a geopolitical strategy to dismantle China’s one-belt/one-road expansion plan.
President Trump used access to the strong U.S. market to leverage multinational companies away from Chinese manufacturing. Trump’s tariffs against China were extremely effective; and led to Beijing’s initial acquiescence. However, it was soon evident that China would not accept their diminished economic outcome.
President Trump has been creating a dual position for several years; this is very unique because it is the same strategy used by China. By expressing a panda mask, yet concealing the underlying dragon, President Trump’s policy to China is a mirror of themselves.
Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.
Each time China takes aggressive action (red dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues. The red dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately. The Art of War.
President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides behind the panda mask.
First he got their attention with tariffs. Then… On one hand President Trump has engaged in very public and friendly trade negotiations with China (panda approach); yet on the other hand, long before the Wuhan virus, Trump fractured their global supply chains, influenced the movement of industrial goods to alternate nations, and incentivized an exodus of manufacturing (dragon result).
It is specifically because he understands that Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.
In essence Trump is mirroring the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.
There is no doubt in my mind that President Trump has a very well thought out long-term strategy regarding China. President Trump takes strategic messaging toward the people of china very importantly. President Trump has, very publicly, complimented the friendship he feels toward President Xi Jinping; and praises Chairman Xi for his character, strength and purposeful leadership.
To build upon that projected and strategic message – President Trump seeded the background by appointing Ambassador Terry Branstad, a 30-year personal friend of President Xi Jinping.
To enhance and amplify the message – and broadcast cultural respect – President Trump used Mar-a-Lago as the venue for their first visit, not the White House. And President Trump’s beautiful granddaughter, Arabella, sweetly serenaded the Chinese First Familytwice in Mandarin Chinese song showing the utmost respect for the guests and later for the hosts.
All of this activity mirrors the duplicity of China. From the November 2017 tour of Asia to the January 2020 China phase-1 trade deal, President Trump has been positioning for an economic decoupling and a complete realignment of global trade and manufacturing.
Much of the UniParty opposition, arguably almost all of it, is specifically because the America-First economic agenda wipes out the control elements within Washington DC who are paid to retain the status quo.
Part of the reason why limo-liberal elites have been successful politicians through the years is the outcome of their economic policy inherently creates a wider gap between the haves and have-nots. This divide allows politicians to control apportioning.
Exploiting the gap, essentially exploiting class warfare as a political strategy, is the fuel that drives identity politics. Ergo all progressive economic policies, the offshoring of jobs; the policies that support Wall Street and globalism etc; are designed to weaken the U.S. middle-class while making rich people more affluent, and poor people more dependent.
The ruling elites deny this fundamental truth, but the rust-belt did not create itself. The erosion of the U.S. manufacturing base -and Main Street- was an outcome of policy. Republicans and Democrats participated in this process. Democrats claim, falsely, to be champions of the middle-class; but their narrative is refuted by the actual results of their policy. Both parties are deep in the pockets of Wall St multinationals.
Many people call for a third party in politics without realizing President Trump represents the first second party DC has seen in decades. That’s why he is opposed by both wings of the same legislative bird.
Through dependency the political elites begin their role to decide who gets what part of their limited and controlled economic pie. Economic intervention, supported by both wings, in the spending process is what has allowed political interests to retain control.
Main Street and the freedom within the free market is a problem for command and control economic systems. Wall St global financial systems, controlled by a limited number of large institutional multinationals, are much easier to control.
Remember the catch phrase “too big to fail” in the banking system? The DC ruling class said a small group of banks controlled too much wealth. So they instituted ‘banking reform’. The result was even fewer banks that were even bigger. The outcome was the exact opposite of what they said was the purpose. Their policy made the problem worse.
President Trump’s America First agenda is specifically a benefit to Main Street and the middle class. In the banking sector treasury policy and targeted deregulation focused on creating more community banks and credit unions to benefit Main Street. That’s exactly what happened. By focusing on Main Street, Trump and Mnuchin fixed what the uniparty congress did not. [Arguably, congress purposefully and willfully did not.] Smaller, more nimble, banks are now positioned to assist small and medium Main Street businesses.
President Trump’s domestic and global political opposition recognize that his trade and economic policies have reversed much of their control. There are trillions at stake, that’s the financial motive for the opposition. However, a lack of control over the economic outcome; meaning President Trump creating more pies; means not only do they lose control over the money, they also lose control through diminished political power.
America-First is a program focused on Main Street and it expands the middle class. That is why during President Trump’s first term the wealth gap actually started to narrow for the first time in decades. The wage growth for line-level or blue collar workers was/is rising faster than the supervisory wages. This is a uniquely trumpian effect from a return to economic policies that benefit Main Street USA workers.
More jobs means the value of labor to do those jobs increases. This economic path is against the interests of coastal elites and the politicians they pay to retain the wealth gap.
It is much harder to create outrage over a wealth gap when the workforce is seeing increased wage growth. In that scenario, the voices who live on the fuel of class warfare are ignored.
All of the current U.S. antagonism is dependent on the class struggle. If the police are defunded only the wealthy will have access to police.
The same process is true for healthcare, housing and a host of economic measures. If a person can independently afford to access these sectors, those who construct the system of controlling, dividing and apportioning the benefits become irrelevant.
The media outrage over the positive economic data today is indicative of their concern the economy will quickly rebound; and that means diminished influence for the politicians the media are in position to support.
The current protest movement is reliant upon the class struggle as the primary narrative underpinning the need for protest leadership. Abundance is against their interests.
When the economy was shut-down by the COVID virus, it was an unnatural economic event. Everything inside the U.S. economy including: the number of workers; the growth in wage rates; the availability of jobs; the lack of inflation; the expansion of investment, was the strongest in our history. However, when everything was stalled all of that positive architecture, the policy that created the outcome, did not go away.
U.S. economic conditions were being driven by internal economic activity that was no longer as dependent on global drivers. When the underlying economic strength is domestic, it makes sense the economy can restart much faster because the activity is not dependent on outside global stimulus. In essence, the USA can rebound much faster because we are NOT dependent on the restart of other global economies. Again, another uniquely positive attribute that is enhanced by ‘America-First’ policies.
China, Obama, Pelosi and Schumer can, and did, attempt to throw a COVID wrench in the expanding U.S. economy. However, they cannot undo the foundation President Trump had already established. Those America-First policies will again work in our favor; and yes, when President Trump says he “can do it again” his confidence is based on that underlying foundation.
Trump may not articulate it, but he knows the U.S. economic independence he has already achieved through three years of advanced policy to benefit Main Street. He knows the trade agreements, the cutting of regulation, the unleashing of energy development and the weight of tariffs on imports all mean the best place for investment is inside the U.S.A.
That fundamental structure did not change, and is not going to change.
A recent example – Remember the previously mentioned policy focus on deregulated community banks and credit unions to assist Main Street? The success and efficiency of the Paycheck Protection Program for small and medium business was a direct result of that earlier policy. Even in crisis the America-First foresight pays dividends.
The far left is hoping to curtail the strength of the economy; that’s why the blue state governors are fighting against reopening. However, the organized protests of thousands of people gathering together have made their best COVID shutdown arguments moot.
The professional grievance operators have a very narrow window to achieve their objective, and that desperation is starting to show in how severe they are pushing to create division before the economy restarts. Every social justice protest movement has been activated and Antifa footsoldiers are attempting to sow chaos.
The next funeral for George Floyd is being held in Texas with a full day viewing on Monday, and final funeral on Tuesday. With the COVID nonsense collapsing at the same time the currency of the race-card is exhausting, what are they going to do after that?
A classic Alinsky agitator, President Obama and his global allies have a goal to exploit the current economic conditions to once again push divisive class warfare. However, the economic conditions are rebounding faster than he/they are able to exploit…
…There is a collective desperation showing amid their 2020 alliance.
Senator Lindsey Graham appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss last weeks testimony by former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. It remains clear that part of Graham’s purpose for discussing the FISA fraud and the Spygate operation is to enhance his reelection bid.
However, all of that said, the key point of this video is buried deep at 05:47: “I made a request to interview the case agent and the intel analyst, and there were two other people, who interviewed the [primary] sub-source for three days in January, again in March and again in May, they’re denying me the ability to do that, I’m going to keep working the system”…
Unfortunately Ms. Bartiromo did not catch the phrase “they are denying me the ability to do that”, and she never asked who “they” are. The impression is the FBI is blocking Graham from interviewing the FBI investigators. You decide. WATCH:
Who is blocking the FBI from testifying?
Why hasn’t Agent Joe Pientka been made available by the FBI?
Who is “they” in the phrase: “they’re denying me the ability to do that”?
Senator Lindsey Graham appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss last weeks testimony by former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. It remains clear that part of Graham’s purpose for discussing the FISA fraud and the Spygate operation is to enhance his reelection bid.
However, all of that said, the key point of this video is buried deep at 05:47: “I made a request to interview the case agent and the intel analyst, and there were two other people, who interviewed the [primary] sub-source for three days in January, again in March and again in May, they’re denying me the ability to do that, I’m going to keep working the system”…
Unfortunately Ms. Bartiromo did not catch the phrase “they are denying me the ability to do that”, and she never asked who “they” are. The impression is the FBI is blocking Graham from interviewing the FBI investigators. You decide. WATCH:
Who is blocking the FBI from testifying?
Why hasn’t Agent Joe Pientka been made available by the FBI?
Who is “they” in the phrase: “they’re denying me the ability to do that”?
U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr appears on CBS Face The Nation earlier today to discuss recent events. CBS’s primary narrative engineer Margaret Brennan was determined to advance several false media reports as the attorney general slapped them down.
Ms. Brennan was determined to stay argumentative and combative and was not happy that AG Bill Barr deconstructed her false talking points. The overall agenda for the media this weekend is to enhance a divisive narrative; and Ms. Brennan has her role to play.
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Earlier this morning I went to the Justice Department to speak with Attorney General Bill Barr. In his role as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, he used the full force of the federal government, including agents from the FBI, ATF, Border Patrol, Bureau of Prisons and the Drug Enforcement Administration to assist the National Guard and local police in an effort to end the violence and looting that happened earlier in the week in Washington. Sixteen hundred active-duty troops were also put on standby.
MARGARET BRENNAN: A senior administration official told our CBS’ David Martin, that in a meeting at the White House on Monday morning, the President demanded that ten thousand active-duty troops be ordered into American streets. Is that accurate?
WILLIAM BARR (U.S. Attorney General): No, that’s completely false. That’s completely false. Sunday night–
MARGARET BRENNAN: The President did not demand that?
WILLIAM BARR: No, he did not demand that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What happened?
WILLIAM BARR: I came over on– on Monday morning for a meeting. The night before had been the most violent, as one of the police officials told us, the DC police, it was the most violent day in Washington in thirty years, something that the media has not done a very good job of covering. And there had been a– a riot right along Lafayette Park. I was called over and asked if I would coordinate federal civil agencies and that the Defense Department would provide whatever support I needed or we needed to protect federal property federal– at the White House, federal personnel. The decision was made to have at the ready and on hand in the vicinity some regular troops. But everyone agreed that the use of regular troops as a last resort and that as long as matters can be controlled with other resources, they should be. I felt, and the Secretary of Defense felt, we had adequate resources and wouldn’t need to use federal troops. But in case we did we wanted them nearby.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So what–
WILLIAM BARR: There was never– the President never asked or suggested that we needed to deploy regular troops at that point. It’s been done from time to time in our history. We try to avoid it and I’m happy that we were able to avoid it on this occasion.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So there were active duty troops put on standby. They were not deployed. The 82nd Airborne was put on standby–
WILLIAM BARR: So the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –but not sent into the streets.
WILLIAM BARR: Some 82nd Airborne military police were brought into the area. But they were not brought into DC.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. So what part– I just want to make sure that we’re precise here, what part of that conversation, as it’s been relayed to CBS and to other news organizations, is false? Did the President not demand active duty troops? Did–
WILLIAM BARR: Well, your question to me just a moment ago was, did he demand them on the streets, did he demand them in DC? No, we had them on standby in case they were needed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. Which they were put on standby. They were not deployed.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So in our reporting, we were also told that you, the Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and General Milley, all opposed the idea of actually deploying these active-duty troops onto the streets. Is that accurate?
WILLIAM BARR: I think our position was common, which was that they should only be– be deployed if– as a last resort and that we didn’t think we would need them. Every– I think everyone was on the same page.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that the President has the authority to unilaterally send in active-duty troops if the governors oppose it?
WILLIAM BARR: Oh, absolutely. The– under the anti-Insurrection Act, the– the President can use regular troops to suppress rioting. The Confederate– the Confederacy in our country opposed the use of federal troops to restore order and suppress an insurrection. So the federal government sometimes doesn’t listen to governors in certain circumstances.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The last time that this has happened was the L.A. riots in 1992 when the governor of California asked for active-duty troops.
WILLIAM BARR: That’s correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re saying your understanding and the law, as you interpret it and would support is that the President has the ability to put active-duty troops on American streets, even if governors object?
WILLIAM BARR: It’s happened numerous times. And the answer to that is yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You would support that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, it depends on the circumstances. I was involved in the L.A. riots and the Rodney King matter. We tried to use non-military forces. I sent two thousand federal law enforcement officers out there in one day, but it was overwhelming. And the National Guard couldn’t handle it and Governor Pete Wilson asked for federal troops.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And he asked for them.
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s a key distinction.
WILLIAM BARR: Or he approved the use of federal troops, but those troops were on standby as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because I think a number of people would be surprised to hear and it’s been reported that you opposed sending in active duty troops on principle. You’re saying you would support it?
WILLIAM BARR: As a last resort.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So in this Monday meeting with the President, when the Defense Secretary, who has now publicly said that he opposed using the Insurrection Act, you said what to the President?
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t think the Secretary of Defense said he opposed it. I think he said that it was a last resort; he didn’t think it was necessary. I think we all agree that it’s a last resort, but it’s, ultimately, the President’s decision. The– the reporting is completely false on this.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe there is systemic racism in law enforcement?
WILLIAM BARR: I think there’s racism in the United States still but I don’t think that the law enforcement system is systemically racist. I understand the– the distrust, however, of the African-American community given the history in this country. I think we have to recognize that for most of our history, our institutions were explicitly racist. Since the 1960s, I think we’ve been in a phase of reforming our institutions and making sure that they’re in sync with our laws and aren’t fighting a rearguard action to impose inequities.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you think that’s working?
WILLIAM BARR: I think– I think the reform is a difficult task, but I think it is working and progress has been made. I think one of the best examples is the military. The military used to be explicitly racist institution. And now I think it’s in the vanguard of– of bringing the races together and providing equal opportunity. I think law enforcement has been going through the same process.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think there should be some tweaking of the rules, reduced immunity to go after some of the bad cops?
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t think you need to reduce immunity to– to go after the bad cops, because that would result certainly in– in police pulling back. It’s, you know, policing is the toughest job in the country. And I– and I, frankly, think that we have generally the vast, overwhelming majority of police are good people. They’re civic-minded people who believe in serving the public. They do so bravely. They do so righteously.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But the bad cops.
WILLIAM BARR: I– I think that there are instances of bad cops. And I think we have to be careful about automatically assuming that the actions of an individual necessarily mean that their organization is rotten. All organizations have people who engage in misconduct, and you sometimes have to be careful as to when you ascribe that to the whole organization and when it really is some errant member who isn’t following the rules.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But doesn’t the opening the pattern-or-practice investigation into a place like Minneapolis where there are questions about the broader issues with policing, it wasn’t just the one officer, wouldn’t that answer that question?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, that’s exactly the reaction that I think has been a problem in the past, which is it just, again, just reacting to this incident by immediately putting the department under investigation doesn’t necessarily result in– in improving the situation. But I would say that in the first instance, the governor has announced an investigation of the police department. The governor, Governor Walz, a Democratic governor, is investigating the police department. The attorney general of– of Minnesota is looking into the police department. We stand ready to act if we think it’s necessary. But I don’t think necessarily starting a– a pattern-or-practice investigation at this stage is warranted. Another thing is we have to look at some of the evidence. I mean, people, you know, the fact is that the criminal justice system at both the state and the federal level moved instantaneously on this. And we moved quickly with our investigation. But we still have to look into what kind of use of force policies are used in that department, what the training has been and things like that. That’s not something we can do overnight.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Coming up after our break, the attorney general tells us about the forcible clearing of Lafayette Park ahead of the President’s visit there on Monday. Also, I want to make sure to note that CBS News stands by our David Martin’s reporting. And we want to clarify here that the Secretary of Defense Esper does oppose the Insurrection Act. You can hear for yourself.
MARK ESPER: I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in one minute.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re back now with more from Attorney General William Barr.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about some of the events of the week. On Monday, Lafayette Park was cleared of protesters. You’ve spoken about this. The federal agents who were there report up to you. Did you think it was appropriate for them to use smoke bombs, tear gas, pepper balls, projectiles at what appeared to be peaceful protesters?
WILLIAM BARR: They were not peaceful protesters. And that’s one of the big lies that the– the media is– seems to be perpetuating at this point.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Three of my CBS colleagues were there. We talked to them.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not hear warnings. They did not see protesters–
WILLIAM BARR: There were three warnings.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –throwing anything.
WILLIAM BARR: There were three warnings given. But– but let’s get back to why we took that action. On Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, okay, there were violent riots in– at Lafayette Park where the park police were under constant attack at the– behind their bike rack fences. On Sunday, things reached a crescendo. The officers were pummeled with bricks. Crowbars were used to pry up the pavers at the park and they were hurled at police. There were fires set in not only St. John’s Church, but a historic building at Lafayette was burned down.
MARGARET BRENNAN: These were things that looters did.
WILLIAM BARR: Not looters, these were– these were the– the violent rioters who were dominated Lafayette Park.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But what I’m asking about–
WILLIAM BARR: They broke into the Treasury Department–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –on Monday when it was a peaceful protest.
WILLIAM BARR: I’m going to– let me– let me get to this, because this has been totally obscured by the media. They broke into the Treasury Department, and they were injuring police. That night–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sunday night?
WILLIAM BARR: Sunday night, the park police prepared a plan to clear H Street and put a– a larger perimeter around the White House so they could build a more permanent fence on Lafayette.
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is something you approved on Sunday night?
WILLIAM BARR: No. The Park Police on their own on– on Sunday night determined this was the proper approach. When I came in Monday, it was clear to me that we did have to increase the perimeter on that side of Lafayette Park and push it out one block. That decision was made by me in the morning. It was communicated to all the police agencies, including the Metropolitan Police at 2:00 PM that day. The– the effort was to move the perimeter one block and it had to be done when we had enough people in place to achieve that. And that decision, as I say, was communicated to the police at 2:00 PM. The operation was run by the Park Police.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-Hm.
WILLIAM BARR: The Park Police was facing what they considered to be a very rowdy and a non-compliant crowd. And there were projectiles being hurled at the police. And at that point, it was not to respond–
MARGARET BRENNAN: On Monday, you’re saying there were projectiles–
WILLIAM BARR: On Monday, yes, there were.
MARGARET BRENNAN: As I’m saying, three of my colleagues were there.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They did not see projectiles being thrown–
WILLIAM BARR: I was there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –when that happened.
WILLIAM BARR: I was there. They were thrown. I saw them thrown.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you believe that what the Park Police did using tear gas and projectiles was appropriate?
WILLIAM BARR: Here’s– here’s what the media is missing. This was not an operation to respond to that particular crowd. It was an operation to move the perimeter one block.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And the methods they used you think were appropriate, is that what you’re saying?
WILLIAM BARR: When they met resistance, yes. They announced three times. They didn’t move. By the way, there was no tear gas used. The tear gas was used Sunday when they had to clear H Street to allow the fire department to come in to save St. John’s Church. That’s when tear gas was used.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There were chemical irritants the Park Police has said–
WILLIAM BARR: No, they were not chemical irritants. Pepper spray is not a chemical irritant. It’s not chemical.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Pepper spray, you’re saying is what was used–
WILLIAM BARR: Pepper balls. Pepper balls.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, and you believe that was appropriate. What I want to show you is what a lot of people at home who were watching this on television saw and their perception of events. I want you to see what the public at home saw.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I am your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters. But In recent days, our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa and others. A number of state and local governments–
MARGARET BRENNAN: So while the President is saying that he appreciates peaceful protest, around the same time, this crowd–
WILLIAM BARR: Well, six minutes– six minutes difference there I would say.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, around the same time the area is being cleared of what appear to be peaceful protesters using some force. And after the speech is finished, the President then walked out of the White House to the same area where the protesters had been and stands for photo op in front of the church where the protesters had been. These events look very connected to people at home. In an environment where the broader debate is about heavy-handed use of force and law enforcement, was that the right message for Americans to be receiving?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, the message is sometimes communicated by the media. I didn’t see any video being played on the media of what was happening Friday, Saturday, and Sunday–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But– but this confluence of events–
WILLIAM BARR: All I heard– all I heard was comments about how peaceful protesters were. I didn’t hear about the fact that there were hundred and fifty law enforcement officers injured and many taken to the hospital with concussions. So it wasn’t a peaceful protest. We had to get control over Lafayette Park, and we had to do it as soon as we were able to do that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you understand how these events appear connected? The timing of this–
WILLIAM BARR: Well, it’s the job of the media to tell the truth. They were not connected.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, this is what I’m asking you. Did you know when you gave the green light for these actions to be taken that the President was going to be going in that very same area for a photo op?
WILLIAM BARR: I gave the green light at two o’clock. Obviously, I didn’t know that the President was going to be speaking later that day.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You had no idea?
WILLIAM BARR: No. No, I did not.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you see–
WILLIAM BARR: The go ahead was given at two o’clock. And to do it as soon as we were able to do it, to move the perimeter from– from H Street to I Street.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re both Catholic. I know you’re observant. You’re a devout Catholic. Archbishop Gregory of Washington condemned what happened by gassing peaceful protesters.
WILLIAM BARR: There– there was no gas.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is– is doing– is what we saw there doing what you meant when you were on that call with governors and you said to dominate the streets?
WILLIAM BARR: Mm-Hm.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what law enforcement is supposed to be taking away from this?
WILLIAM BARR: No, on the contrary. My point to the governors and what I was saying was that it’s important when you’re dealing with civil disturbances to have adequate forces at hand and out.
A really good interview as Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Richard “Ric” Grenell (Former Acting Director of National Intelligence & Former US Ambassador to Germany) about the Deep State, President Trump, how tech is disrupting diplomacy with international partners and gives an insider’s look at how Antifa could be affected by President Trump.
Richard first gives an insider’s take on what exactly the “deep state” is. He shares how the DC elites make decisions for the rest of America while bearing little to no consequences for them. Richard discusses how Donald Trump has functioned as a disrupter to the way that Washington DC operates. Richard also discusses what Donald Trump refers to as Obamagate.
Richard gives an insider’s look at how Barack Obama and his administration weaponized intelligence agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA to investigate Michael Flynn using James Comey and how this led to Russiagate hysteria. Finally he discusses what tactics could be used to deal Antifa for their connection to the violent riots across the country.
Obama, Soros, Brennan, James Comey, Rosenstein, Democrat Party, McCabe, Peter Strzok, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, Lisa Page, Schumer,Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Cohen, Eric Swalwell, Zuckerberg, Google, Don Lemon, Dianne Feinstein, Rachel Maddow.
Reminder, the Swamp is trying to distract you with the scamdemic and planned riots…
Lost amid the ongoing protests and riots was former assistant attorney general Rod Rosenstein’s testimony. He signed off on the FISA warrant that led to Mueller’s Russia witch hunt, but he never bothered to read the warrant—he merely rubber stamped it! This is typical of the politicization of our security agencies and justice system under Obama. He used his partisan operatives to help him illegally spy on Trump before and after Trump’s election.
This is treason and there should be consequences.
The lying fake news media did not and will not report on this. They remain focused on taking down Trump, whom they constantly smear as a ‘racist’ while extolling the (non existent) virtues of Obama.
Obama’s shadow government remains in place. The swamp fights to remain deep and powerful. It’s time to drain the swamp. LOCK THEM UP!
A dozen years ago or there about, Bill Gates became worried about Climate Change and gave a TED talk on what the world had to do to save us from extinction. In that presentation Gates stated that one of the variables in his equation had to go to zero to stop Carbon Dioxide from killing all of us. Now keep in mind that Gates does not have any degrees and knows little about anything but making money with software. We do however recognize that he was very good at that but we must also understand that he had no formal training or studies in anything else.
Gates’ vision is a world with less than a billion people and probably closer to 500 million. This world will be very clean and use only solar PV or Wind to power this Utopian Dream. Everything will be perfect and safe for those that reside in that world. Dreams of that kind are neither practical nor doable but that never stops those that have these visions: like Karl Marx who also had a vision of a perfect world Marxism. Unfortunately that vision brought us WW I, WW II and the cold war and hundreds of millions of dead people, and Marxism has still not been eliminate as an evil system.
Gates has managed to merge Marxism, Environmentalism, Climate change and World health into one Political system using technology, which he is very good at, that makes George Orwell’s “1984” look like it was done by a rank amateur. If Gates even comes close to achieving his objectives we will be living in Hell!
President Trump was slammed by two US Defense Secretaries over threats to use Fed intervention against George Floyd riots. Current Sec. Defense Esper and former Sec. Defense Gen. Jim Mattis both hit Trump for referencing the Insurrection Act. Mattis, in midst of widespread looting, violence and murder, still blithely supports “protests” with Obama. The sly retired general even cited Nazis. Is Mattis a fair and unbiased warrior-king? Actually, Trump notedhis Dem Party leanings, before parting ways over the Iran Treaty. But the goal here is to humiliate Trump to cripple him during the Floyd riots so American Social Justice triumphs and Joe Biden prevails.
Defense Sec Esper: More Woke Than Rip Van Winkle?
By televised speech, obtuse Defense Sec. Esper rejected Trump’s threat of the Insurrection Act against urban rioting. Criticizing Floyd’s death, Esper stated the military opposed racism. But what of violence and deaths across America? Why publicly air opposition to Trump? Finally, don’t threats work better without stating they are unavailable? It’s unseemly for Esper to oppose Trump publicly. Amazingly, Esper claims the US Military exists to wipe out all hatred. Really?!!
…expressing our outrage at what happened, expressing our commitment to the Constitution, expressing our commitment as an institution to—to end racism and hatred in all its forms, and just a general expression with regard to what the department is about.”
GEN MATTIS: LEFTWING CHARACTER ASSASSIN
Gen ‘Cheapshot’ Mattis
Meanwhile, crusty military fossil Gen. Mattis gutshot Trump, claiming constitutional dangers of stateside military action. Yet, his essay is not persuasive. Does Mattis really oppose the US military saving women, children and men from assaults, arson and murder? Why is “allowing protests” the “right” choice when tens of thousands are in danger? Yet despite Mattis’ blase’ attitude, riots are causing “‘the most costly civil disorder in United States history.” With 10,000 arrests, violent attacks and murders, and economic loss in the billions. Mattis calls these a “small number of lawbreakers.”
Riots Continue
Yet, mobs still rage unimpeded across America as looting spirals amidst cityscapes bathed in flames. Frankly, in every liberal led city, the failure to deploy the National Guard has multiplied chaos and damage. But Mattis is dead wrong since the Insurrection Act was used in the Rodney King riots without harm. So if Mattis cares so much about America—Why doesn’t he mention all the national victims, some beaten or shot to death?
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the US in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Mattis Simply Delivers Political Hit
Instead of constitutional crisis, Mattis highlights a policy disagreement, over Trump’s pro- American-safety standard versus Mattis’ Social Justice mirage. In fact, Republicans previously complained of “warrior” Mattis’ real liberalism. He abandons riot victims simply to score points with leftist buddies, like former Chief of Staff John Kelly, who backstabs Trump claiming we must “choose better candidates”—like Obama? Here are Mattis’ words:
I watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand — one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values — our values as people and our values as a nation.
HISTORY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
Roots of Woke Culture
So, what are the roots of “Social Justice”? Michael Rectenwald claims in “Springtime for Snowflakes: “Social Justice” and Its Postmodern Parentage”—“Social justice gestated within the university as postmodern theory ruled the roost. It was nursed during the Occupy movement and the Obama era.” And, “Contemporary social justice embodies postmodern theoretical notions as well as the latter’s adoption of Maoist and Stalinist disciplinary methods.”
““Social justice” has been mainly a religious conception, in the sense that it originated in religious circles, underwent a large part of its conceptual development in official statements of religious authorities, and has been adopted most enthusiastically by the members of religious organizations. Since 1931 it has been part of the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.”
Hayek: Social Justice is a Meaningless Conception
F. A. wrote The Mirage of Social Justice, arguing Social Justice is an empty phrase. He states, “Everybody talks about social justice, but if you ask people exactly what they mean by social justice, what they accept as justice, nobody knows. I’ve been trying for the last twenty years, asking people ‘What exactly are your principles?’”
Likewise, when America’s highest ranking soldiers attempt to adopt Social Justice, they make a mockery of logic and become asinine public pests demanding all officials adopt their convictions. The US Military would be better served to adopt the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—except when killing our enemies.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 