Earlier this afternoon President Donald Trump participated in a roundtable discussion with state, federal, and local law enforcement officials on police and community relations. Joining President Trump was Vice-president Mike Pence, chief of staff Mark Meadows and Attorney General Bill Barr.
Traveling to the White House to participate in the discussion was: Chief Steven Casstevens, President, International Association of Chiefs of Police; Pat Yoes, National President, Fraternal Order of Police; Sheriff Tony Childress, Livingston County, IL; Ashley Moody, Attorney General, FL; Daniel Cameron, Attorney General, KY; and Sergeant Rob Pride, Loveland Police Department, CO. [Video Below – Transcript Will Follow]
.
President Trump affirmed:
“There’s a reason for less crime. It’s because we have great law enforcement. I’m very proud of that. There won’t be defunding. There won’t be dismantling of our police. There’s not going to be any disbanding of our police.”
In a carefully orchestrated, timed and planned effort to maximize the political strategy of Joe Biden’s campaign director, James Clyburn, the capitol building was used as a stage.
While simultaneously making cultural appropriation great again House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, gave her political stunt crew Kente cloths to wear while bringing New Black Pander Party (NBPP) together for a cringe-worthy political stunt at Emancipation Hall.
The motives of the effort are transparent. The Democrat party, writ large, has made the calculation they cannot win the 2020 election without racial activism as the driver for votes. South Carolina representative James Clyburn is directing the Joe Biden campaign on the best utility for black pandering, specifically focusing on the AME church network.
The strategy is not without risk. Candidate Joe Biden defined the blackness of black people by saying if they did not support him “you ain’t black.” Obviously the strategy to campaign on this issue was made in the days prior to the South Carolina primary. What we see now is a continuation of that plan. However, the pandering is over-the-top; and there are indications of a backlash from within the black community.
It does not matter what your race, ethnicity or skin color is, no-one likes being talked down to. The nature of the leftist political effort by Pelosi’s white coastal elites is based on expressed superiority in alignment with the ‘you ain’t black enough’ outlook from Biden.
This will backfire, bigly, in part because director James Clyburn himself is detached from current political sentiment by his age and class-structure. It’s 2020 knuckleheads.
The democrats are poll-testing their approach, but the audience responding to the polls are just more leftist elites. The Democrats are defining an Alinsky strategy through their own biased prism; and then asking opinion of that strategy within a cloistered echo-chamber. It is a circle of racist stupidity.
Outside this ideological bubble, where real people live, work, interact and enjoy each-others fellowship, what the Democrats are trying to do is so fraught with cringe that ordinary people are embarrassed to associate with the effort. This is a big part of the reason why their heavily coordinated and scripted effort is not gaining traction.
Black people do not want the police to be defunded, by leftist activists and trust-fund protestors who don’t even live in the neighborhoods where police are needed, any more than any other person does.
Racism at it’s basic U.S. form is defined by economics; limo-liberals have the greatest likelihood of actually being racist. Blue-collar middle-class America doesn’t sit around wasting time thinking about race and class struggles. Each tries to live their best life and do the best they can for their family.
The audiences who most despise this nonsense political effort, are patriotic black people and immigrants who love the country and don’t sit around debating their level of victim-hood. If Democrats really want to face-plant the 2020 election, keep doing this:
Cringe-worthy video.
.
Think in terms or politics and society – the fear behind the modern left is the fear that someone might withhold things (opportunities, money, whatever) from me, fear that if you live your life in a way I dislike that it might affect my life, fear that if you get that job, there will be nothing left for me. Fear that if you make tons of money, it’s means there’s less money out there for me.
So people who believe in leftist ideologies seek control as a means of trying to create guarantees and safeguards against those circumstances they fear. Liberals try to control the world and people to enable their comfort and happiness. Which, as we know, is an endless quest. Trying to control others does nothing in the way of making oneself happy. By extension, voting in this mindset so that government can try to control others will also – shocking – not lead to a happier, more comfortable life.
The conservative (and moderate, independent, but for the sake of expediency, the conservative), on the other hand, relies on himself to meet his own needs. And the trade off of being free to live his life as he wishes is also understanding that he has to make peace with how you live yours. By extension, aware that he wants to be able to hold onto this liberty and freedom forever, the conservative votes accordingly, so that everyone can remain free and in charge of his or her own life.
But here’s the crucial difference, perhaps, particularly where misery on the left stems: The conservative does not worry, so to speak, about you. The conservative knows that you were born with the same access to self-love, self-empowerment, self-determination and self-reliance that we all were, no matter the circumstances into which you were born. (Think about the millions of people this country has allowed to crawl up from poverty into prosperity – the conservative KNOWS this is possible.) And the conservative believes that if you want prosperity, or a good job, or a good education, you can make it happen – but you have to work hard.
The conservative hopes and intends that the free markets bring you all of the affordable and positive opportunities and resources that you need. The conservative also knows that on the other side of that hard work is great reward – material and, more importantly, emotional, spiritual and mental.
The conservative understands that not only is it a waste of time to try to control you, it’s actually impossible. Humans were born to be free. And if we put a roadblock in front of you, you’ll find another way around it. So we see attempts at control as a waste of resources, energy and time at best, and at worst, creating detrimental results that serve to hinder people’s upward mobility or teach dependence. We see much more efficiency, as well as endless opportunity, in leaving you to your own devices; and we want the same in return.
This is where leftists falsely narrate conservatives as heartless; but really, the conservative believes that there is one and one path only to sustainable success and independence – and that is self-empowerment. All other avenues – welfare, affirmative action, housing loans you can’t actually afford – ultimately risk doing a disservice to people as they teach dependence on special circumstances, the govt, or arbitrary assistance (that can disappear tomorrow). And the real danger – they will ALWAYS backfire, and leave the recipient in equally or more dire circumstances. Any false improvement will always expire.
The conservative believes in abundance. The liberal believes in scarcity.
The conservative believes man is born free and will be who he is, no matter what arbitrary limitations or rules are put on him. The liberal believes man is perfectible, and by extension, believes a society at large is perfectible, and command and control is justified in the quest to a “perfect” utopian society. (Sounds familiar!)
The conservative tends to be more faithful – and not necessarily in God, but in the ability of the individual to find great strength in himself (or from his God) to get what he needs and to be successful. Therefore the conservative has an outlet for his fear and disappointment – trust and faith in something bigger.
The leftist believes the system must be perfected in order to enable success. Therefore disappointment is channeled as anger and blame at the system. Voids are left to be filled by faith in the govt, which they surely then want to come in and “fix” things.
And therein lies the roots of love and fear respectively. For the conservative, when life presents great struggles, she knows she has the power to surmount them. Happiness stems from internal strength and perseverance.
For the leftist, when life presents great struggles, the system failed, therefore they were at the mercy of a faulty system, and they believe that only when the system is fixed can their life improve. Happiness is built on systemic contingencies, which they will then seek to control or expect someone else to.
One blames himself. The other blames anyone and everyone but himself.
And there it is. There’s where the meanness comes from. The leftist ideology causes that person to cast anger at the world when things go wrong or appear “unfair.” She constantly chooses only to see the “injustices” – and that makes for a very miserable, mean, blame-casting existence.
One last point that we have seen over and over and over with many (not all) of our liberal friends: Extreme stinginess and cheapness.
In our conservative community growing up, we were always taught that you give when people are in need – make donations to the Red Cross when there’s an earthquake, donate to charity when you can afford it, etc. Even if it’s just $50 here and there – it’s the right thing to do. Conservatives see this, and are inherently taught this, as the responsibility that comes with gaining from the capitalistic system; if you happen to benefit greatly from the system, it’s your duty to give back…. to create more pies.
The liberal, on the other hand, does not seem to share this same viewpoint, at least not in my experience. And perhaps think this is linked to believing in scarcity, and that your dollar comes at the cost of mine. So it seems that liberals, on some level of consciousness, feel guilty about not being voluntarily charitable.
Therefore, to write off their guilt, they outsource their “generosity” to the government by voting for wealth re-distributive policies. Thus, the liberal cheats himself of the joy and addictiveness of direct generosity. (Not to mention – re distributive policies ALWAYS end up dis-empowering those who they’re meant to help.)
If a politically naive person watched nearly a week’s worth of protests and general mayhem on MSNBC and CNN like I did, they might arrive at a logical conclusion: It’s all Trumps’ fault. Over and over again I heard guest ‘analysts’ as well as host ‘journalists’ say the rioting was due to Trump’s ‘systemic racism.’ They even said the president fanned the flames of violence.
We can expect Maxine Waters to shrilly blame Trump for anything negative including bad weather. Don Lemon blamed Trump so hard that he almost got emotional over it. I actually expect him to cry—that’s how earnest he became while in the throes of his Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The blame actually goes to Soros. He funds Black Lives Matter and the Antifa. Even those on the left complained that 80% of the rioters were ‘imported from out of town’ and incited violence. Palettes of bricks were left in handy locations to be thrown through windows. Protests are legal and to be expected in this instance but rioting, violence and looting are crimes.
President Trump talked about designated Antifa as a terrorist organization by executive order. Antifa individuals who commit acts of violence should be arrested and held accountable. The real terrorist organization includes George Soros, Bill Gates, and the globalist cabal. They all want to destroy America in order to bring about globalism.
—Ben Garrison
PS. Let’s just call it what it is. An insurgency against the government because Orange Man will win in November!
Among the more disturbing images to come out of the recent street violence following the killing of George Floyd are those of police officers and white civilians kneeling “in solidarity” with the protesters.
If any of those Americans, black or white, who are protesting the killing of George Floyd are acting in good faith and not in the furtherance of a Leftist agenda, then they are either uninformed or they are being manipulated. Contrary to the narrative being promoted by the Left, the media, and former president Barack Obama, once the respective rates of violent crimes committed by blacks and whites are taken into account, it is clear that police throughout America simply are not killing disproportionately more black men than white men. In other words, the only reason to take to the streets over the Floyd killing is to exploit it to promote Leftist ends.
“You want to burn down buildings? Burn down this f–ing Constitution.”
Before the 1960s, Marxists divided people into capital and labor and posited an unbridgeable gap between the interests of the one and the other. Since then they have divided people into the oppressed (blacks, women, gays, and a host of others) and the oppressors (primarily whites and men), and they have posited the same unbridgeable gap. The viability of the Democratic Party depends on maintaining, and widening, this gap.
This is the context in which the recent George Floyd “protests” need to be understood. According to the Left’s narrative, one echoed today throughout academia and the media, the members of these oppressed groups have been and continue to be the victims of systemic injustice, to such an extent that the legitimacy of the American enterprise itself, including such bedrock elements of that enterprise as individual rights, private property, and capitalism, now stand discredited. So we hear things like this, from former Saturday Night Live and Ghostbustersstar, Leslie Jones, “You want to burn down buildings? Burn down this f–ing Constitution.”
Essential to the Left’s success in fundamentally changing America, and they have been disturbingly successful to date, has been their code of pseudo-morality. (“Pseudo” because it is a morality designed to serve political ends, rather than vice versa.) They care—for the hurt and the lame and the afflicted, but especially for the members of their coalition of the oppressed. Said California Governor Gavin Newsom this week in comments on the death of George Floyd, “We have a country that predominantly values power, dominance and aggression over care, empathy and collaboration.” In other words, too many of us benighted souls do not yet share the Left’s affinity for “care, empathy and collaboration.”
One of the Left’s most reliable tools is guilt. It is a powerful de-moralizer
It is this solicitude for those in need that affords the Left their overweening sense of moral superiority, and which makes their message so seductive to the naïve and the uncritical among us. It is this which provides them a patina of benevolence, and which entitles them to stigmatize anyone as a “hater” who does not share their self-abnegating brand of compassion. And it is this which entitles them to impose their pseudo-morality on the rest of us, and they do mean to impose it, by force when necessary and with ruthless consistency. Remember transgendered men in women’s locker rooms? Or ask Grant Napear, for the last 30 plus years the play-by-play announcer for the NBA’s Sacramento Kings, who lost his job this week for tweeting, “All lives matter.”
One of the Left’s most reliable tools is guilt. It is a powerful de-moralizer, as the kneeling policemen and white civilians attest. By pleading guilty, in effect, to their (imaginary) white racism, and by acknowledging their (imaginary) “white privilege,” the kneelers are sanctioning, wittingly or not, the protesters’ assault on the Constitution, and they are emboldening them and their violent co-conspirators to press ever harder to topple that Constitution.
If there are any doubts about the ultimate, destructive aims of the “protesters,” those doubts are dispelled by the protesters’ explicit desire to “defund” or otherwise disempower the police. The fundamental purpose of government is not to run day-care centers or libraries or to dispense welfare checks. The fundamental purpose of government is to keep the peace; government, in essence, is the police (and the military). There can be only one reason to advocate weakening or disbanding the police, and that is to unleash anarchy.
We are in the midst of a genuine insurrection
In city after city for over a week now we have been witnessing what happens when the police fail to do their jobs. Can any honest, rational person really believe that our cities would be safer if the police were hamstrung further than they already are, or if they were disbanded altogether? The crippling of the police can serve only one purpose, to allow anarchy to rise to such a level as to destabilize the government altogether.
Consider, in this regard, the degree to which Democratic leaders in office have been complicit, either overtly or by default, in the recent mayhem. The top-ranking Democratic leader in the Federal Government, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has not had one critical word to say about the violence that has been tearing our cities apart. And the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Massachusetts, Attorney General Elizabeth Vaughn, has opined “Yes, America is burning, but that’s how forests grow.”
We are in the midst of a genuine insurrection. The mainstream media are openly and unabashedly on the side of the insurrectionists, as are many leaders of the Democratic Party. One of Mr. Trump’s strengths is that he has been steadfastly and unreservedly on the side of the Constitution. To his great credit he has refused to sanction the insurrectionists in any way, not even by crediting them with good intentions, as political correctness would require of him. It is clear that he understands this is a struggle between good and evil, and that there no longer exists a middle ground on which the two sides can meet. We are long past that.
If all mourners attending George Floyd’s funeral are truly there to pay him their last respects, they should forgo all self-aggrandizing publicity allowing his loved ones to give him the dignified Christian burial he deserves
Publicity seekers will use the sad occasion of the George Floyd funeral for self-aggrandizing publicity—and his bereaved family should not allow it.
Publicity hounds of every color, every ideology should be forced to respect the Floyd funeral.
George Floyd funeral should be all about him and not them
George Floyd’s funeral, intended by his loved ones as his an earnest last farewell, is an occasion where all attendees should only be there to pay their last respects to the man whose death sparked worldwide protests, and to pray sincerely that he Rest in Peace.
In other words, the George Floyd funeral should be all about him and not them.
All potential Scene Stealers like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, shown in viral videos “sobbing uncontrollably” over the coffin of the man tragically killed while in Minneapolis police custody, should be held at bay.
All egos should be left outside the church door before stepping inside
All egos—including those of election-bound Democrats like Joe Biden—should be left outside the church door before stepping inside.
Past experience has taught us how far political publicity hounds will go in calling attention back to themselves rather than allowing it to focus on the one being mourned.
At the Dec. 10, 2013 Nelson Mandela Memorial, a ‘selfie’ of then President Barack Obama, with then British Prime Minister David Cameron and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, which went viral over the Internet, was the big takeaway.
The Memorial, held at the 95,000-seat FNB Stadium was only two-thirds full “because of the cold, rain and transport challenges “ (Wikipedia)
Obama selfie that travelled the globe
“Only crass, publicity seeking politicians show their grief with selfies.” (Canada Free Press, Dec. 11, 2013)
“In the Obama selfie that travelled the globe, a sour-pussed Michelle Obama can be seen in the backdrop.
“Another photo depicts Michelle, who changed seats separating her husband from his “new friend” having her hand kissed by Barack Obama.”
All of this during a Nelson Mandela’s official Memorial!
‘Obama Behind Bars in Robben Island Prison’
“A photo of Obama tweeted by the White House on Dec. 5 in response to Nelson Mandela’s death had been taken six months earlier at the Robben Island prison where Mandela spent 18 of his 27 years imprisoned. (CFP)
“You can call ‘Obama Behind Bars in Robben Island Prison’ Obama’s prepper picture.
“While America is being held in an ObamaCare stranglehold, blood pressure shot up when a photo of Obama shaking Cuban President Raul Castro’s hand went viral on the Net yesterday. As that photo was still burning its way through public resentment, came the selfie of Obama with Cameron and Thorning-Schmidt.
“The Obama-Castro handshake photo made room for morons like CNN’s Chris Cuomo to cash in on publicity by declaring that the handshake was really “the spirit of reconciliation”:
“The handshake was obviously a huge moment,” Cuomo said. “But not to be misunderstood, the handshake with Raul Castro, the president of Cuba, we believe was President Obama showing respect to Nelson Mandela and the occasion of today—the spirit of reconciliation”.
There is still time for the family of George Floyd to keep publicity hounds in check at his Tuesday funeral
There is still time for the family of George Floyd to keep publicity hounds in check at his Tuesday funeral.
‘George Floyd will be laid to rest in Houston, Texas. (ABC News, June 2, 2020.)
“Family, friends and supporters of George Floyd will honor his memory in three cities starting on Thursday.
“The first memorial service will be on June 4 in Minneapolis at North Central University’s Frank J. Lindquist Sanctuary, where Rev. Al Sharpton will deliver a “national eulogy” and one of the Floyd family attorneys, Ben Crump, will give a “national criminal justice address.”
“Another memorial service will be held on June 6 in Raeford, North Carolina, the state where Floyd was born, at Cape Fear Conference B Headquarters.
“The celebration of life services will head to Houston, Texas, where Floyd had previously lived, on June 8. A public visitation will occur at The Fountain of Praise on Hillcroft Avenue from noon to 6 p.m. local time.
“A private funeral service will be held at the same location on June 9 at 11 a.m. local time, which former Vice President Joe Biden is expected to attend.”
Meanwhile, If all mourners attending George Floyd’s funeral are truly there to pay him their last respects, they should forgo all self-aggrandizing publicity allowing his loved ones to give him the dignified Christian burial he deserves.
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.
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 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!
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 