Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 12, 2021 | Sundance | 136 Comments
Michael Brown Sr, the father of Mike Brown from Ferguson Missouri, has joined a group of activists demanding to know where all the millions of donations to Black Lives Matter have gone. The BLM group has long been known to be a political assembly of Marxist organizers from various activist groups who use race as their method and manner to achieve political objectives. [pictured below (L-R) Mike Brown Sr, Ben Crump, Snoop Dog]
The Obama-era DOJ civil rights division headed by Tom Perez, now the DNC Chairman, originally worked on merging the “Dream Defenders” group with the more radical Black Panther movement right after Trayvon Martin in Orlando, Florida.
The regional organizers for the effort stemmed from the Chicago network of revolutionary communists (RevCom), the original political group who created the Obama movement in 2005 to 2007.
Black Lives Matter, RevCom, Democrat Socialists of America, NoI, The New Black Panther movement, the AME church network and the congressional black caucus all benefit from the larger network. However, the BLM group is the current cause which used their political influence to capture millions in donations from corporations and funneled massive amounts of money into the DNC coffers for 2020 (Tom Perez as chair).
As the original organizers are highlighted for spending on their own lavish lifestyles, the “victim families” are now recognizing the intent behind their usefulness and also how easily they can be dispatched once the money has been assembled.
Via FOX – […] “The BLM 10 Plus continues the call for transparency and most importantly, for principled accountability in movement infrastructures. The issues we’ve highlighted within the Black Lives Matter movement are not unique to this group or to people of color. Grassroots movements have been co-opted across the globe and it is our intention to be a part of the collective creating processes based on integrity so that we, nor any other activist or advocate, encounters these avoidable issues in the future,” the statement continues.
Among the most notable names joining forces with the BLM 10 Plus is Michael Brown Sr., the Ferguson, Missouri father of 18-year-old Michael Brown who was fatally shot by a White police officer in 2014. (read more)
The long-standing Achilles heel within the BLM objective has still not been overcome.
The internal racism within the “people of color” coalition was always the inherent problem for Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Tom Perez (Team BLM), because the Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party absolutely dislike Latinos.
When Barack Obama attempted outreach to the Latino community he even changed the language. Gaining Latino support was the reason the DNC sent out guidance to use the phrase “people of color” instead of “black” during media coverage. Additionally, Obama’s attempted outreach to the Latino community was always through the illegal alien angle, the “dreamers”; but Obama never delivered on his fake promises and the PoC lingo could not help.
Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam do not like Latinos and/or Hispanics. The New Black Panthers do not like Latinos and/or Hispanics. These groups are always in constant conflict. The friendly political relationship between La Raza and the radical Democrats doesn’t compensate for this massive divide amid Blacks and Latinos.
In one way it is still a generational problem. 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. Modern BLM is influenced by Islam, while the traditional AME coalition is Christian.
Through the religious prism the AME network could gain support from the Latino community; “people of color” could work. However, the AME network is not the center of activist energy. The BLM network is the center of activist operations and that means Islam is favored. [Keep your “people of color”, because the BLM prefers “black”.] Hence, Minneapolis was a good fit for BLM activation (George Floyd) because Minneapolis leans Muslim thanks to the decades long influx of Somali refugees imported by Bush and Obama.
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. 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 foremost in front of the altar of money.
Those behind the original 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. An example surfaces with George Floyd family lawyer, Benjamin Crump, who 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 needs the BLM foot-soldiers to drum the social justice message in order to achieve maximum impact.
Bottom line is that Minneapolis opportunists within BLM, specifically the Muslim community, benefitted from the current anti-police narrative. The Somali Muslim community wants Sharia-enforcement officers instead of traditional law enforcement. Ergo the Keith Ellison/Omar agenda within recent BLM 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 Joe Biden going down on his knees in favor of the BLM/AME network. There is a risk that Democrats might lose more Latinos than they will gain amid blacks (check out the latest polling support for Republicans amid Latinos). This type of political calculation always carries a risk. This is what happens when ideology intersects with the assembly of special interests.