Monday, June 29, 2020
Saturday, June 27, 2020
Friday, June 26, 2020
Enemies Within
“Woke corporate America” is “our number one enemy,” declared Ann Coulter, author of Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, offering her remarks on Wednesday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host Dylan Gwinn.
“[Republicans] suck up to the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson [and] woke corporate America, which is our enemy,” Coulter said. “Our number one enemy probably is not even the universities or the social justice morons running around on college campus. It really is corporate America, but Republicans just have it in their heads, ‘Ooo, it’s capitalism. We support corporations.'”
Coulter predicted an acceleration of political censorship on the Internet, including social media deplatforming and domain deregistration, as November’s elections near.
“I have been predicting for years that the Internet is too free,” Coulter said. “We can communicate with one another. We can get information that the New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN simply will not report. They’ve got to shut down the internet to conservatives, and what better time to do it than the year of Trump’s reelection.”
Coulter warned, “As the election gets closer, there are going to be more and more soldiers falling … Where are Republicans on this?”
Internet censorship is a matter of free speech and expression, Coulter held. “That’s what was so great about the internet,” she said. “Even the nutty stuff, it was the Wild West and this is the idea behind free speech, that the truth will rise.”
Coulter added, “They’re not worried about people being misinformed. Nobody gets misinformed except by MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, ABC, CBS. What they’re worrying about is people being persuaded, and their argument is that anything they disagree with is hurtful, is hate speech, and it must be stopped.”
Democrats are courting political forces beyond their control, assessed Coulter, referring to rioters, looters, and vandals operating amid recent unrest following the death of George Floyd.
Coulter said, “You can’t call the mob off, ‘Okay, boys. It’s November 4th. We’ve defeated Trump. Now everybody settle down.’ That doesn’t happen. You’ve unleashed this beast, and there’s no one there to stop it.”
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Obamagate Begins...
Explosive New FBI Notes Confirm Obama Directed Anti-Flynn Operation
Explosive New FBI Notes Confirm Obama Directed Anti-Flynn Operation - Handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok show that Obama himself directed key aspects of the campaign to target Flynn during a Jan. 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office.
Newly released notes confirm President Barack Obama’s key role in surveillance and leak operation against Michael Flynn, the incoming Trump administration national security adviser. The handwritten notes, which were first disclosed in a federal court filing made by the Department of Justice on Tuesday, show President Obama himself personally directed former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to investigate Flynn for having routine phone calls with a Russian counterpart. He also suggests they withhold information from President Trump and his key national security figures.
The handwritten notes from fired former FBI agent Peter Strzok appear to describe a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting between Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Comey, Yates, and then-national security adviser Susan Rice. The meeting and its substance were confirmed in a bizarre Inauguration Day email Rice wrote to herself.
It was at this meeting, which was confirmed by testimony from Comey and Yates, that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.
Yates told the special counsel that Obama broke the news of Flynn’s phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to her during the Jan. 5 meeting. Yates detailed further involvement from Obama. “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia,” she wrote in her email.
The new notes, which record Comey’s accounting to Strzok of the meeting’s substance, constitute definitive evidence that Obama himself was personally directing significant aspects of a criminal investigation into his political enemy’s top foreign policy adviser. An image of the notes is reproduced below. This is a rough transcript of the unredacted portion of the notes:
Direct Link
Peter Strzok's Notes Co... by The Federalist on Scribd
NSA-D-DAG = [Flynn cuts?]. Other countries
D-DAG: lean forward on [unclass?]
VP: “Logan Act”
P: These are unusual times
VP: I’ve been on the intel cmte for ten years and I never
P: Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it
P: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?
D: Flynn –> Kislyak calls but appear legit
[illegible] Happy New Year. Yeah right
“Make sure you look at things and have the right people on it,” Obama is quoted as saying.
Comey’s description that the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls appear “legit,” shorthand for “legitimate,” is also in the notes. Until this week, this exculpatory information was withheld from Flynn and his defense team, multiple congressional committees, and the American public. A lengthy campaign to illegally leak selectively edited defamatory information through media accessories damaged the Trump administration and spurred the appointment of a special counsel to investigate anyone associated with the Trump campaign.
According to Strzok’s notes, Biden explicitly referenced the Logan Act, an 18th-century law that forbids certain political speech from private citizens. The law, even if it were constitutional, would not apply to a national security adviser for the newly elected president of the United States. Biden had previously denied that he knew anything about the investigation into Flynn.
The meeting to strategize against the Trump administration included just a few key law enforcement principals. Their testimony about what transpired is sometimes in conflict. Yates claimed Comey brought up the Logan Act while Comey claims Biden cited it. Rice claimed Obama directed that the anti-Trump operation be run “by the book,” but Comey claimed Obama even directed which personnel to use.
All parties agree, however, on the main substance of the meeting, which was a discussion of how to target Flynn for his “legit” phone calls and withhold vital national security information from the newly elected presidential administration.
Attorney General William Barr has directed an investigation into the spying and leaking operation, led by U.S. Attorney John Durham. Durham, whose investigation is ongoing, has not yet issued any indictments or any reports of his findings thus far. Barr has repeatedly stated that if Durham finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing that can be proved in a court beyond a reasonable doubt, then those responsible for the criminal acts will be held to account.
The handwritten notes from Strzok, which were included in a court filing from the Justice Department, were filed under seal by order of Emmett Sullivan, the judge overseeing Flynn’s criminal trial. The judge has ordered the documents to be hidden and has given no indication that he will ever allow all of the evidence filed by the DOJ to be publicly disclosed. When the DOJ moved to dismiss charges against Flynn, Sullivan refused to grant their request and instead appointed a shadow prosecutor to target Flynn on Sullivan’s behalf.
Following an appeal by Flynn, the top federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday ordered the judge to dismiss all charges against Flynn. That court also vacated his appointment of a shadow prosecutor to target Flynn.
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
The NASCAR Talladega Garage Door Closing "Racist Noose" Hoax
Filed under "nobody thought it was racist" because it wasn't until the race hustlers needed to prove "racism" existed where it didn't exist.
Monday, June 22, 2020
How the Deep State Weaponized FARA to Spy on Trump
Newly released documents reveal the FBI never had even preliminary evidence of a Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia, and instead used a rarely enforced statutory relic – the Foreign Agents Registration Act – as the legal rationale for opening investigations in 2016-2017 and surveilling Trump campaign aides.
On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign’s alleged ties with Russia – nicknamed Crossfire Hurricane – not under espionage conspiracy laws but under FARA.
The next month the FBI opened four separate FARA cases into people associated with the Trump campaign. Two other FARA cases were added the next year. Only one involved an individual with connections to Russia: Carter Page.
The recently disclosed documents, which surfaced thanks to declassification efforts, court filings and FOIA lawsuits, reveal that the initial target of the probe – then-Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos -- was suspected of working for Israel, not Russia. Other FARA cases involved alleged ties to Turkey (Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn), Ukraine (campaign manager Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates) and Egypt (Trump Mideast adviser Walid Phares).
All six sensitive cases were approved through the Justice Department’s counterintelligence and export control section, run at the time by former Justice official David Laufman.
Before the flurry of Trump-related cases, only three people had been found guilty of violating the seldom-enforced law since 1966. Passed in the run-up to World War II to curb Nazi propaganda, FARA mainly requires people to fill out a two-page form disclosing work on behalf of a foreign entity.
Nevertheless, the FBI used FARA as the basis for a wide-ranging probe of a presidential campaign and then a presidency that included the use of confidential sources to secretly record Trump’s advisers, according to a December report by the Justice Department’s watchdog. At the same time, the FBI dispatched agents to tail them, stake out their homes and dig through their trash — none of which is typically ordered in FARA probes, which rarely even result in fines.
As has been widely reported, Obama administration officials also resurrected an even older and less frequently used law, the Logan Act of 1799, to raise questions about Flynn’s contacts with Russia’s ambassador to Washington during the transition to the Trump administration. Only two people have ever been charged under the statute barring unauthorized citizen dealings with foreign governments – both before the Civil War. Neither was convicted.
Investigators for the Republican-led Senate looking into the conduct of the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team told RealClearInvestigations they believe the FBI and, later, Mueller used FARA as pretext to authorize investigations into individuals against whom there was no other significant evidence, raising fresh concerns about the predication for the nearly three-year investigation of Trump. Mueller also used the threat of FARA prosecutions to squeeze individuals for Russia information.
Only one of the six was indicted for FARA-related violations, and none was charged with any espionage or conspiracy crimes related to Russia.
In April 2019, Mueller reported that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in election interference activities.”
Former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe have publicly testified they had sufficient evidence to justify investigating the Trump campaign for coordinating with Moscow to hack Clinton campaign emails and troll social media to influence the 2016 presidential election — a scheme that, if true, would have violated espionage laws and warranted serious felony charges.
But the raft of new documents reveals that the actual basis for the cases was the suspicion that Trump campaign aides failed to file FARA forms with Washington bureaucrats and pay the required $305 in registration fees.
One Senate investigator told RealClearInvestigations that Laufman, then Justice’s top counterintelligence official, was the “mastermind” behind the strategy to dust off and “weaponize” FARA against Trump campaign officials.
Investigators for at least one committee seek to question Laufman under oath. His name appears on a subpoena list of witnesses approved by the GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee.
Laufman signed off on the wiretapping of Trump campaign adviser Page, which the Department of Justice inspector general determined was conducted under false pretenses involving doctored email, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and other malfeasance.
An Obama campaign donor, Laufman helped oversee a wide range of politically charged cases as the DoJ’s counterintelligence section chief – including the department’s investigation of Hillary Clinton concerning her mishandling of classified emails as secretary of state.
He could not be reached for comment. Since leaving the government for private practice in 2018, Laufman has made several appearances on cable TV shows criticizing the Trump administration. Last year he boasted of his “more aggressive approach” to enforcing FARA in a legal white paper.
“There have been nearly as many criminal prosecutions for FARA violations in the last 18 months (five) as during the 40-year period from 1966 to 2015 (seven),” he gloated in the February 2019 paper on “FARA Enforcement."
The FBI and Justice declined comment.
Before advising Mueller, the inspector general’s report revealed that Laufman worked closely with FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok – who was fired from the bureau in 2018 because of anti-Trump text messages sent while he was investigating the candidate and then president.
When the FBI initially launched its Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump camp on July 31, 2016, the opening case memo written by Strzok stated that "this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the government of Russia.”
However, the FBI assigned the investigation a case number used internally by the bureau for possible violations of FARA. That means even the FBI’s larger umbrella case was at its core a regulatory, not a national security, matter.
The revelation is contained in a redacted version of the Electronic Communication obtained last month by Judicial Watch as part of a FOIA lawsuit the Washington watchdog group filed against the FBI.
“It shows there was no serious basis for the Obama administration to launch an unprecedented spy operation on the Trump campaign," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “We now have more proof that Crossfire Hurricane was a scam.”
In August 2016, Laufman began huddling with Strzok about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, according to the IG report, getting regular briefings on all the Trump-related cases that flowed from it.
On Aug. 10, 2016, they opened separate FARA cases on Page, Manafort and Papadopoulos, under code names assigned by the FBI. The Papadopoulos case, for instance, was code-named "Crossfire Typhoon.” Then on Aug. 16, they opened another FARA case on Flynn, under the code name, “Crossfire Razor.”
Documents indicate they strained to convert FARA cases into counterintelligence investigations. Even though the cases were predicated on possible FARA violations, the Electronic Communications stated that there was reason to believe that the Trump targets “may wittingly or unwittingly” be involved in activity on behalf of Russia, which may constitute a federal crime or threat to national security.
The targets are not specifically named as "agents of a foreign power” — the key language in the federal espionage statute (under 50 U.S.C.) making it a crime to knowingly aid or abet any person in sabotage or clandestine intelligence-gathering activities for a foreign power. Rather, the case files cite the “Foreign Agents Registration Act” statute, even though they state that the primary goal of the investigation was to determine whether the targets were “directed and controlled by and/or coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security.”
Mark Wauck, a former FBI attorney who worked counterintelligence cases for the bureau, told RealClearInvestigations that FARA served as a "smokescreen” to justify spying on the Trump campaign and its aides, under the “baseless theory" that they might be clandestine agents of Russia.
Former FBI assistant director of intelligence Kevin Brock is equally skeptical of the motives for opening the cases. He said there was not enough evidence to support the FARA allegations and justify them standing alone as criminal investigations.
“In a normal EC opening a FARA case, we should expect to see a list of reasons why the FBI believes individuals associated with a U.S. presidential campaign had been engaged by the Russian government to represent and advocate that government’s goals,” he said. “Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document.”
Added Brock: “There was no attempt by Strzok to articulate any factors that address the elements of FARA. He couldn’t, because there are none."
While the FBI used FARA to justify the launch of the investigation, Mueller later wielded it to pressure targets. Phares, a Lebanese-born American scholar and commentator who advised the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney in 2012 and Trump in 2016, confirmed in a RealClearInvestigations interview last month that he, too, was targeted under FARA.
Phares said he was interviewed by two Washington agents working for Mueller in 2017. “They were looking for FARA violations,” Phares said. “They couldn’t find anything about Russia, so they started asking me about Egypt,” he told RCI. “It’s laughable.”
Despite rummaging through his bank records, he said, they never filed any charges against him. Phares complained the FBI conducted a fishing expedition. He believes the FBI was also monitoring him during the 2016 campaign.
“But on different grounds,” he noted. “Not on the Russians, because I have no contacts [in] or ties to Russia, but on my work with Egypt.” Their real goal, he contended, was to spy on Trump and his campaign. Some legal experts say the predication for opening a probe of Phares appears thin.
“There is no logical basis for such an investigation,” said Wauck, who has been a persistent critic of the Trump/Russia probe.
Still, Mueller ended up bringing a half dozen indictments using the statute in his campaign to link Trump and his advisers to Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign, all of which were approved by Laufman. Laufman helped him build FARA prosecutions against Flynn, Papadopoulos and Manafort, as well as Gates. (It’s not immediately clear if he also was involved in the Phares probe.) The results:•In September 2018, Manafort pleaded guilty to, among other crimes, violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and making false and misleading FARA statements related to consulting work he did in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 43 months in federal prison.Papadopoulos said the piling on of charges convinced him to take a plea deal in which he copped to lying to investigators about what turned out to be an innocuous Russia-related conversation he had in London in exchange for minimal jail time.
•In February 2018, Gates also was indicted for FARA violations unrelated to the 2016 campaign, but the government dropped the FARA charges against him after he agreed to cooperate against Manafort.
•In November 2017, Mueller used the threat of a FARA prosecution against both Flynn and his son to coerce a false statement plea from Flynn regarding phone conversations he had with the Russian ambassador a few weeks before he took office as Trump’s national security adviser. Flynn in the end was never charged with a FARA violation. Still, Laufman listed the FARA accusation — that he'd also allegedly made “false statements” in his FARA registration involving his work with Turkey — in the “statement of offense” against Flynn, even though it was not part of the plea agreement. (Last month, the Justice Department dropped its case against Flynn, though a federal judge has not yet granted its motion to dismiss the charges.)
•In October 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to Mueller’s agents after they put the screws to him over possible FARA violations and came up empty on any Russian funny business involving the campaign. Papadopoulos said Mueller threatened to “lock me up” for violating FARA. To get him on a FARA rap, Mueller obtained multiple warrants to search his residence and electronic devices based not on his ties to Russia but to Israel, one of America’s strongest allies.
“I pled guilty when they came after me with FARA violations,” he told RCI.
As with Flynn, the plea bargain allowed Mueller’s prosecutors to insert the word “Russia” in court filings, making it look like he was hiding Russian-related crimes and keeping the Russia “collusion” narrative alive in the media.
Mueller even used the obscure FARA statute to obtain indictments against three Russian companies — as well as 13 Russian nationals — accused of running an influence operation against the 2016 campaign. In February 2018, they were charged with conspiracy to violate the regulation. (Justice recently dropped charges against one of the Russian companies that was a key defendant in the Mueller case.)
Senate investigators say that the unprecedented practice of resurrecting and applying FARA in the Trump-Russia investigation indicated that Mueller and Justice Department holdovers grasped at any conceivable legal tool they could find to pressure Trump associates to cop to what turned out to be nonexistent Russia “collusion" crimes. They also said they intend to question Laufman, in particular, about whether threatening these dubious charges constituted a new and unequal application of the law.
FARA Cases 'Fabricated' as Part of a Political Operation
Richard T. Higgins, a former National Security Council director and Pentagon official, said he doubts that Laufman and other former administration officials ever believed the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory.
Rather, he contends that the FARA and other sub-cases they opened on Trump aides were “fabricated” as part of a political operation against the Trump campaign and presidency. He argued that even the larger umbrella probe was a “cover story” to hide that alleged operation.
“The operation was consolidated and conducted under the codename ‘Crossfire Hurricane.’ The cover story, if one should be needed (in the event Clinton lost), was that its mission was to expose Russian interference in the American election,” said Higgins, who worked in the Trump White House. “The true mission was not to expose Russian interference, but to disrupt the Trump campaign and ensure the election of Hillary Clinton.”
He pointed out that the top Russiagate investigators — Strzok and FBI lawyers Lisa Page and Kevin Clinesmith — were all caught exchanging anti-Trump, pro-Clinton messages during 2016. Before the election, Strzok even promised Page he would “stop” Trump, whom he called a “fucking idiot” supported by “smell[y]" Wal-Mart shoppers. His concern was not that he was an agent supported by Russians, but by supposed rednecks. After the election, Clinesmith feared the Affordable Care Act and other Obama legacies would be dismantled by Trump and vowed to “fight” him for that reason. The IG report said Clinesmith forged email evidence used in applications to renew FISA warrants to spy on Trump aide Page. The IG referred Clinesmith to U.S. prosecutors for possible criminal investigation.
Higgins also noted that most of Mueller’s prosecutors were exposed as registered Democrats, who had given generously to Clinton’s campaign. His legal “pit bull,” Andrew Weissmann, even attended Clinton’s election night event in New York.
“You’d have to be blind not to see it was their political bias that motivated them,” he said.
Sunday, June 21, 2020
Though They Have Fact-Checked and Denied it, George Soros IS Funding BLM
When George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) was accused last year of funding Black Lives Matter (BLM), Ken Zimmerman, the director of U.S. programs at OSF, flatly denied it and claimed it was a fantastic rumor. “I can’t really speculate on what leads to rumors, but it is wrong,” he said, “I don’t even know where one begins to reconstruct something like that.” Early this week, hackers published documents which show that two months before Zimmerman’s denial, the OSF board approved $650,000 to BLM.
DCLeaks.com — which claims to be run by the same hackers who leaked a trove of e-mails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — has published a 69-page report from OSF in which the Soros organization documents its plans to use the “unrest” following the death of Freddie Gray to “accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement.” The relevant portion of the report says:The killing of Freddie Gray in April helped spawn weeks of peaceful protests by Baltimore residents and allies from the #BlackLivesMatter movement that were temporarily interrupted by a period of unrest that lasted less than 48 hours and resulted in some injuries and millions of dollars in property damage to neighborhood businesses. While many lamented the damage done, the overwhelming sentiment is that the uprising has catalyzed a paradigm shift in Baltimore that offers opportunities for major justice reforms.Let’s set aside for the moment that the report describes the looting, rioting, assaults, and arson which marked the very beginning of the “protests” over the death of Freddie Gray as “peaceful.” Soros and his ilk must live in the world of George Orwell's 1984 where war is peace and peace is war. As disconnected from reality as Soros and company may be, their agenda is clear: avoid the obvious and seize the “opportunity” to foment revolution. Later in that report, the allocation of nearly three-quarters of a million dollars was laid out in clear and plain language:
In particular, recent events offer a unique opportunity to accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement and to engage residents who have historically been disenfranchised in Baltimore City in shaping and monitoring reform. Building on our existing networks and programs, OSI-Baltimore will focus investments on: 1) creating a culture of accountability for policing in Baltimore, recognizing the pervasive racism, disrespect and lawlessness that gave rise to recent events; and 2) building the capacity of activists in Baltimore to demand and achieve immediate and long-term reforms.Recognizing the need for strategic assistance, the U.S. Programs Board approved $650,000 in Opportunities Fund support to invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.The decision to bankroll the subversive and violent anti-police organization was approved “per board consensus” and appears to have had as its goal the shifting of political power. Another leaked document covers a later board meeting and praises the success of the plan:
Leaders of #BlackLivesMatter and The Movement for Black Lives worked to influence candidate platforms during the 2016 primary season. This came alongside the recent acknowledgement by political strategists that African-American voters may be much more pivotal to the 2016 general election than previously forecasted.While BLM could have used that $650,000 to actually improve the lives of black residents of America’s inner cities by initiating job training, educational, and violence prevention programs, the money was used for its intended purpose: the fomenting of more “unrest” in the form of violent “protests” that were little more that staged riots. And it has been successful in shifting political power. It has also, undoubtedly, fomented the war on police, leading to the deaths of police officers and the black citizens they work to protect.
While inner-city “black America” continues to slide into the abyss, BLM and its sugar-daddy, George Soros, are continuing to use that social decline to reshape America.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Friday, June 19, 2020
$6m Bribe Attempt in Ukraine to Stop Biden/Burisma Corruption Probe
Top anti-graft officials in Ukraine were offered a $6-million bribe to close a case against ex-official Mykola Zlochevsky, who is also the owner of gas company Burisma Holdings, the company that was at the center of the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Three people have been detained as a part of a criminal investigation opened on June 3 into the bribery attempt, Artem Sytnyk, the head of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau said at a press conference on Saturday. The suspects include two people associated with Zlochevsky, a former minister of environmental protection under then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in February 2014 after mass protests. Zlochevsky’s whereabouts are unknown.
At the press conference, agents from the anti-corruption agency displayed huge plastic bags filled with bundles of U.S. dollars that were used to pay Sytnyk and a colleague who had pretended they had closed the probe. They then ordered the arrest of the suspects who were trying to get the agency to drop a case related to bank fraud, unrelated to Burisma, that involved Zlochevsky, Sytnyk said.
“Tomorrow is Zlochevsky’s birthday. So, the plan was to get the best possible outcome -– to close the criminal proceedings and ensure the return of Mr. Zlochevsky to Ukraine,” Sytnyk said.
In 2014, Ukraine opened criminal cases against Zlochevsky, including cases linked to Burisma, where Joe Biden’s son sat on the board and received substantial compensation. President Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives over his efforts to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Biden’s role in Burisma to try to harm Joe Biden’s chances of victory in the November elections.
Here’s the Story on Impeachment, Trump and Ukraine:
The Bidens “are not mentioned in today’s case,” the head of anti-corruption prosecutors Nazar Kholodnytskyi said at the same press event. A year ago, then Ukrainian prosecutor-general, Yuriy Lutsenko, said there was no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe Biden or his son Hunter.
Zlochevsky’s lawyer Petro Boyko said by phone that his client has no connection to the $6 million bribe or the people who have been detained and added that the case that prosecutors are talking about included many people. Boyko denied any wrongdoing by his client.
Burisma Group said on its website today that neither the company nor its employees are the target of statements by anti-corruption bodies today.
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
On the Passing Scene...
Northam announces support for Juneteenth as official Virginia holiday celebrating the end of slavery
Monday, June 15, 2020
Michael Moore Responds to His Critics...
"If man wants to progress, he must create new forms of energy of greater and greater densities."-Lazare Carnot, "Eloge de Vauban" ("In Praise of Vauban") (1784) and "Memoire sur les Places Fortes" ("Memorandum on Fortifications") (1788).
"Greater densities" = nuclear
Why Masculinity has become Toxic in the Post-Modern Anti-Authoritarian Age
Saturday, June 13, 2020
Environmentalists, the DNC has Sold Your Green New Deal to Exxon-Mobil
or if you don't have a lot of time, here's a quick summary:
De-Cloaking Gyges
...as the Cloakers continue to cover for his majesty, Lord Obama. Meanwhile, the saga continues:
Sundance, "Understanding Likelihood of DC Circuit Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus…."
After listening to oral arguments in the DC Circuit Court for the Flynn petition for a Writ of Mandamus (appeals court intervention); it seems very likely the panel of three judges will deny the Flynn defense and DOJ request, here’s why….
For the past decade CTH has been accurate in predicting these judicial events based on one overarching principle. The issues at hand are political arguments being made in the sphere of legal proceedings. As a consequence, all judicial proceeding continue -regardless of legal merit- until such time as they run into the final barrier of legal standing.
This same principle played out in the George Zimmerman case (Trayvon Martin). This same principle played out in the Baltimore Six case (Freddie Gray). A modified version of this principle played out in the Darren Wilson case (Michael Brown).
In the assembly of each prosecution there was no legal basis for the underlying case to proceed into the judicial branch, and yet those proceedings continued. They continued because the case travel is based on politics, not law. This is the essence of Lawfare.
As soon as the political runway of the case runs-out; then, and only then, does the case itself run into the law, and the case collapses. The Michael Flynn case is still on the political runway; and the DC Circuit will not intervene as long as the runway still exists.
Again, these are political cases being tried in the judiciary. Most lawyers who review these cases, and follow the underlying aspects, continually view the activity through the wrong prism, because they do not accept that politics is the driving force. Not law, politics.
In each example, based on the fortitude of the defendant; which assumes the pressure is withstood and acquiescence to a plea does not happen; there does -eventually- come a time when statutory law and the underlying factual evidence is confronted. When those end-of-runway moments are reached, the cases collapse on their lack of merit because they were built upon false political foundations. Notice it is only at the moment the political runway terminates that we find ourselves witnessing the legal collapse.
Thus we saw George Zimmerman found not-guilty because the underlying case was devoid of merit and built upon political fraud. Thus we saw the Baltimore Six found not-guilty and remaining cases dispatched because the underlying case(s) were devoid of merit and the public evidence was built upon political fraud. Thus we saw a Grand Jury no-true bill finding in the Darren Wilson case because it was devoid of merit and the underlying (public) evidence was built upon political fraud. Same. Same. Same.
In the oral arguments today the DC Circuit panel recognized there was still a great deal of political runway to travel as they questioned why they should intervene prior to a ruling by Judge Emett Sullivan on the unopposed motion to dismiss.
Behind their arguments, unspoken but visible, was a familiar position. There is still distance on the political runway before Sullivan’s July 16, 2020, District Court hearing and ultimately a ruling on the unopposed DOJ and Defense standing motion for dismissal.
Judge Sullivan’s lawyer, Beth A. Wilkinson, argued Judge Sullivan’s request for an amicus briefing is moot to the interests of superior court intervention because the DC Circuit cannot evaluate Judge Sullivan’s intent until after he issues his ruling on the unopposed motion to dismiss. That argument is what the panel wanted; that’s what the panel needed; that’s what the panel received. Thus, there’s plenty of political runway yet to be traveled.
Each of these political cases has a similar, perhaps identical, trajectory. Each case seems to use the same airport; albeit with different lengths of runway; and each case travels that runway regardless of merit or legal standing for the underlying case.
Standing on the sidelines, viewing cases through the prism of the rule-of-law, while watching cases traveling on the runway of politics is frustrating. Accepting the political motives of each case will lower blood pressure and save energy for the moment that really does matter, when the political runway is exhausted and legal statutes and principles do indeed apply.
Until the moment the value of politics expires, all judicial activity is an exercise in futility…. unless a target happens to come across a judge who will not support the politics of it (ie. Judge Andrew Hanen), but that is increasingly rare.
As long as a superior court judge, or panel of judges, can find a scintilla of legal space to justify political continuance, they will.
After two decades of this political metastasis, and despite the efforts of some lower courts trying to block it, even the U.S. supreme court is now infected.
If you find yourself as a target for one of these political cases, don’t hire a lawyer well versed in the legal aspects of your case; start first with a lawyer well versed in politics. One that is not afraid to take your case loud and public.
Friday, June 12, 2020
Politics Don't Have to be Divisive....
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Guardians of the Trump-Russia USIC Coup
Remember in the "early" days of the Trump Administration all those "generals" in the White House in Staff positions? It all begins to come together...
Award-winning journalist and war correspondent Lara Logan discussed how retired generals who are speaking out against President Trump are either “complicit” with or waging an information warfare campaign against him, in an interview with Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Daily on Wednesday.
Logan reminded listeners of the Russian collusion narrative, and how many officials from the Justice Department, Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and other agencies worked together to push the idea that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.
“Think about how many people it took who had to be complicit to push that narrative. Think about the secretaries of defense and the national security advisers that served at that time, who all had access to the intelligence. They all knew it wasn’t true,” Logan told show host Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow.
“General [Jim] Mattis, he knew. General [H.R.] McMaster, he knew. General [John] Kelly, he knew. One after another, after another. You can name them, and strangely enough, it’s the same people standing up now taking shots at the president. The same people, so they were silent then, but they sure as hell have got a lot to say now, don’t they?” she added.
Logan said many of those waging the information warfare campaign are doing so from liberal think tanks such as the Brookings Institute. She noted that retired Marine Gen. John Allen, who worked in the Obama administration as a special envoy and endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016, is heading one.
“He’s head of a think tank now that is constantly taking shots and waging information warfare against the president for the election, and you can map it out. New America is one of the organizations, the Lincoln Project — that’s a whole bunch of Republicans who are running attack ads and pushing out a constant, constant stream of anti-Trump propaganda,” she said.
Logan said many of those waging the campaign are connected with Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s McChrystal Group, which has partnered with a Democrat political action committee.
“And all of these people, and many of them connected with the McChrystal Group and Gen. Stanley McChrystal — who has made no secret of the fact that he’s partnered with an organization called Defeat Disinfo, which is a Democratic superPAC, and they want you to think they are defeating disinformation, but actually what they’re doing is propagating it, and they don’t even hide it,” she said.
Logan also said journalists were either “stupid” or “complicit.”
“They’re acting as political operatives that they don’t even bother to find out what they’re talking about, they don’t even know what these weapons of information warfare are. They don’t even talk to people who have an opposing view,” she said.
Logan painted the bottom line of what she thinks the reason is behind the information warfare campaign against Trump — November 2020.
She said intelligence agents she has talked to have told her that the information campaign resembles an attempt to overturn a government.
“It’s the equivalent of taking tanks and firing them on your own people, or dropping a JDAM on an American city. That’s literally what you’re doing. What were these weapons used for? They were used to overturn foreign governments, to create civil disturbance and overturn foreign governments to disrupt their support of terrorism. Well is that what they’re doing now? They’re trying to overturn this government,” she said.
She concluded:What does that say about where we’re headed for the election? Because when you consider how many powerful people have so much invested in making sure that this president is not reelected. I have two questions for you — number one, what are you hiding? Why are you so desperate that this man not be reelected? Is it the march to justice and accountability? Is that what you are determined to stop?She concluded, “What [intelligence sources] see is an information warfare campaign that is designed to set the stage to ensure that the election delivers the results that they want, if they wait that long…what they’re doing is creating the problem, civil unrest, civil disturbance, in which they can be the solution.”
The second question — does anyone out there really think that they’re going to leave it to chance? They’re going to trust in the democratic process, and they’re going to see if voters do the right thing in their words? They’re really going to leave it up to voters and take a roll of the dice and they’re going to see if it turns out in their favor? I mean, that to me…do you really think they’re going to let that happen?
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Minneapolis Defunds the Police Department, Forms a Volunteer Citizens Watch to Replace it
Now is the Winter of Our Discontent Made Glorious Summer by this Duke of York...
- A BLM Activist...And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smooth’d his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp’d, and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail’d of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish’d, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew’d up,
About a prophecy, which says that ‘G’
Of Edward’s heirs the murderer shall be.
Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here
Clarence comes.
Monday, June 8, 2020
Behind the "Black Lives Matter" Movement
Black Lives Matter emerged as a national presence in the years 2014 and 2015 by declaring war on America’s law enforcement agencies. Black Lives Matter activists made headlines occupying America’s streets, targeting racially integrated and even majority minority police forces whom they accused of killing blacks at random merely because they were black. The Black Lives Matter activists fomented riots, burned and looted cities, and incited their followers with chants that ranged from “What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want them? Now!” to “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”[1]
The latter slogan was designed to highlight the movement’s baseless claim that a 19-year-old resident of Ferguson Missouri Michael Brown was singled out because he was black and shot by a police officer while he was surrendering with his hands up.[2] The protesters demanded that the officer be convicted of murder in advance of any trial - in other words, lynched. However, the facts as revealed in Grand Jury testimony and subsequent investigations by the Obama Justice Department, were quite different. The officer singled out the 300-pound Brown because he had just committed a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store owned by a much smaller Asian shopkeeper, whom he brutalized.
When the officer attempted to arrest Brown, he responded by attacking the officer and attempting to seize his gun, which was discharged in the scuffle wounding the attacker. According to the sworn testimony of six black eye-witnesses, Brown was fatally shot while charging the officer, who fired another five rounds in self-defense. Yet, so disregardful of the facts were the protesters’ claims that they demanded the officer be convicted of a racial homicide, and the chant “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” continued to live on as a battle cry.[3]
Black Lives Matter was formed in 2013 by three self-styled “Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries,” who selected as their movement icon convicted cop-killer and Black Liberation Army member Assata Shakur.[4] Shakur had fled to Cuba after being convicted of the homicide she committed when her car was stopped for a broken tail-light by two New Jersey state troopers. Without any warning, Shakur shot trooper Werner Foerster. The 34-year- old Vietnam veteran was lying wounded on the ground pleading for his life, when Shakur walked over and executed him. Officer Foerster left a widow and a three-year-old son.[5] Black Lives Matter activists refer to the murderer as “our beloved Assata Shakur” and chant her words as a ritual, “at every meeting, every event, every action, every freeway we’ve shut down, every mall we’ve shut down.” [6] The chant is this: “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love and support one another. We have nothing to lose but our chains.” The last line is lifted directly from the conclusion to the Communist Manifesto, a document and war cry that has led to the murders of millions.[7]
The Black Lives Matter movement is not about particular injustices but about the alleged injustice of the American system, of capitalism, and of “white supremacy.” Its mission is not to save black lives. The thousands of deaths from black-on-black homicides draw no attention and inspire no protests, nor do the deaths of black police officers on the integrated police forces they attack. Their ferocious denunciations of slogans like “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” as “racist” reveal the racist impetus behind their own agenda.[8]
This agenda was on display in November 2015, when a group of 150 Black Lives Matter activists stormed the library at Dartmouth College and screamed at the bewildered students studying for exams: “F--k you, you filthy white f--ks!,” “F--k you and your comfort!” The activists ordered students who supported them to stand up, and verbally attacked those who refused, screaming at one of them: “You filthy white racist piece of sh-t!” When a female student burst into tears, a Black Lives Matter activist shouted “F—k your white tears.” Then: “If we can’t have it, shut it down.”[9] The only thing missing were black hoods and black sheets to complete the perverse parallel to the KKK racists of the past.
At the July 2015 Netroots Nation convention, a major gathering of the left, activists shouting “Black Lives Matter” blocked two leftist presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Kevin O’Malley from speaking because they were white. Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors seized the microphone and said by way of explanation, “Every single day folks are dying. Not being able to take another breath. We are in a state of emergency. If you don’t feel that emergency, you are not human.”[10] O’Malley responded to this: “I know, I know, Let me talk a little bit... Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.”
As the words left O’Malley’s mouth, the crowd erupted in boos and catcalls. Then they chanted:If I die in police custody, don't believe the hype. I was murdered!“Burn everything down!” is a slogan that mimic’s Marx’s claim that “Everything that exists deserves to perish.” The nihilistic racism of the Black Lives Matter message is based on a demonstrably false premise – that police have declared open season on black men. The premise is false not only because America’s police forces have long been racially integrated. But as black talk show host Larry Elder and many conservative writers have observed, the proportion of blacks killed by police is directly related to the number of violent crimes committed by black males and thus likely proportional to the number of blacks involved in violent encounters with the law.
Protect my family! Indict the system! Shut that sh*t down!
If I die in police custody, avenge my death!
By any means necessary!
If I die in police custody, burn everything down!
No building is worth more than my life!
And that's the only way motherf***ers like you listen!
If I die in police custody, make sure I'm the last person to die in police custody.
By any means necessary!
If I die in police custody, do not hold a moment of silence for me!
Rise the f*** up!
Because your silence is killing us![11]
Despite being almost 65 percent of the population, whites commit disproportionately fewer of the nation’s violent crimes – 10 percent - and therefore are less likely to have encounters with police. Blacks are only 13 percent of the population, and black males, who commit the lion’s share of the violent crimes only 6 percent. Yet Black males account for nearly half the nation’s homicides.
Despite this disparity, whites are still 50 percent of the victims of cop shootings. Criminology professor Peter Moskos looked at the numbers of people killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 and found that 49 percent were white, while 30 percent were Black. In other words, if the statistics are adjusted for the homicide rate (as opposed to population numbers) whites [pursued by police] are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”[12] And even this statistic doesn’t factor in the number of blacks killed not by white law enforcement officers but by black and minority ones.
Despite Black Lives Matter’s racist agendas, incitements to violence against police, and disregard for the facts, President Obama invited its leaders to the White House in February 2015 at the height of their protests, riots and incitements. When the Black Lives Matters leaders arrived in the White House, Obama put his arms around them figuratively. and pandered to them saying, “They are much better organizers than I was when I was at their age, and I am confident that they are going to take America to new heights.”[13] Think about that statement for a moment.
In August 2015, the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution endorsing the Black Lives Matter movement and its false narratives: “[T]he DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming black lives matter and the ‘say her name’ efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow and sister Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children.”[14] This shameful resolution went on to claim that the American Dream “is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy,” and to demand the “demilitarization of police, ending racial profiling, criminal justice reform, and investments in young people, families, and communities;” and asserted that “without systemic reform this state of [black] unrest jeopardizes the well-being of our democracy and our nation.”
The following month Black Lives Matter activists Brittany Packnett, DeRay McKesson, Johnetta Elzie, Phillip Agnew, and Jamye Wooten were invited to the White House to meet again with President Obama as well as senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and other administration officials. For Packnett, it was her seventh visit to the Obama White House. Afterward, Packnett told reporters that the president personally supported the Black Lives Matter movement. “He offered us a lot of encouragement with his background as a community organizer, and told us that even incremental changes were progress,” she stated. ““He didn’t want us to get discouraged. He said, ‘Keep speaking truth to power.’”[15] Evidently it was the police forces in Dallas, Chicago, Baltimore and other cities, headed by blacks and under siege from the left, that was the “power” needing to be confronted.
In October, Obama made a public announcement in support of Black Lives Matter, saying: “I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was not because they were suggesting nobody else’s lives matter. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that’s happening in the African-American community that’s not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”[16]
The president’s support for a racist and violent vigilante group, his validation of its false version of reality and hostile attitude towards law enforcement, led predictably to more criminal violence. On July 7, 2016, Black Lives Matter activists staged rallies in numerous cities across the United States, to protest the recent shootings of two African American men by police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana. As was their practice, the demonstrators illegally occupied public thoroughfares and threatened violence chanting “No justice, no peace,” – a transparent threat to create mayhem if their demands were not satisfied. The Minnesota shooting by a Hispanic policeman was triggered by panic and should have been prosecuted as manslaughter; the other was the justifiable killing of a career criminal who was reaching for the officer’s gun. But like the lynch mobs they despised, Black Live Matters protesters were not interested in seeking remedies through the law. They had persuaded themselves there was no such remedy, and had been encouraged by the American president to take the battle to the enemy camp, which consisted of America’s integrated law enforcement agencies.
The result was, inevitably, tragedy. At a rally in Dallas, Texas, demonstrators shouted “Enough is enough!” while they held signs bearing slogans like: “If all lives matter, why are black ones taken so easily?”[17] During the demonstration, a black racist army veteran, named Micah Johnson, assassinated five police officers trying to protect the protesters, and wounded 9 others. Dallas police chief David Brown, who is black, explained: “The suspect wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”[18]
The anger generated by the lies of Black Lives Matter reached such a fever point in the wake of the Dallas massacre that, to justify the atrocity one Black Lives Matter activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: “The less white babies on this planet, the less of you we got! I hope they kill all the white babies! Kill ’em all right now! Kill ’em! Kill your grandkids! Kill yourself! Coffin, bitch! Go lay in a coffin! Kill yourself!”[19]
In the face of this racist hatred, the Obama White House stepped forward to provide still more support for the movement that had provided the tinder and lit the fuse. At the funeral for the slain Dallas policemen, the president lectured the surviving officers rather than the rioters, schooling them and the grieving family members about the racism of America’s police departments: “We also know that centuries of racial discrimination, of slavery, and subjugation, and Jim Crow; they didn’t simply vanish with the law against segregation … we know that bias remains.”[20]
Exactly whose bias? White Americans played a large and historic role in the civil rights struggles that ended segregation, and established the Civil Rights Acts. There is no evidence that the shooter, Micah Johnson was harassed by, or suffered at the hands of white people. But there was evidence that he was influenced by Black Lives Matter and similar organizations at war with the police. And he was deeply affected by the series of false, racist narratives promulgated by these organizations and their allies in the press about the police shootings that had occurred over the previous two years.
The police were also profoundly affected by officer shootings and, even more so, officer assassinations, anti-cop demonstrations, riots, and threats. According to a Pew Foundation study published in 2017, “More than three-quarters of U.S. law enforcement officers say they are reluctant to use force when necessary, and nearly as many — 72% — say they or their colleagues are more reluctant to stop and question people who seem suspicious as a result of increased scrutiny of police, …”[21] This attitude on the part of police in areas which had become the focus of the protest-assaults – Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas, Chicago – was accompanied by a dramatic spike in homicides with the perpetrators and victims being overwhelmingly black.[22] As former Baltimore cop and now university criminologist Peter Moskos commented: “Murders and shooting increased literally overnight, and dramatically so. Of course, this took the police-are-the-problem crowd by surprise. By their calculations, police doing less, particularly in black neighborhoods, would result in less harm to blacks. And indeed, arrests went way down. So did stops. So did complaints against policing. Even police-involved shootings are down. Everything is down! Shame about the murders and robberies, though.”[23]
The entire syndrome of police withdrawal leading to spikes in crime rates was termed “The Ferguson Effect” after the city that was looted and burned following the shooting of Michael Brown, and the creation of the myth that he was killed with his hands up. It summed up the unintended – but not surprising – consequences of having an extremist organization like Black Lives Matter take over the nation’s streets, and – with the help of an American president - shape the national narrative on race.
The power of Black Lives Matter stemmed from its exploitation of the ideology of oppression – Identity Politics – a ready-made indictment looking for a crime. Black Lives Matter was at the center of a very large network, including hundreds of leftist organizations sharing the same vision. Among them: The Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Dream Defenders, Hands Up United, Black Left Unity Network, Black Workers for Justice, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Right to the City Alliance, School of Unity and Liberation, Dignity and Power Now, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, Causa Justa/Just Cause, Organization for Black Struggle, Communist Party USA, Showing Up for Racial Justice, and others.
Many of these organizations are funded by America’s largest corporations and philanthropies, including the Ben & Jerry Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Margaret Casey Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute.
In the summer of 2016, the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund, a six-year pooled donor campaign whose goal was to raise $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition. This coalition embodies the extremist views and agendas of the Black Lives Matter radicals. In the official words of the Ford Foundation: “The Movement for Black Lives has forged a new national conversation about the intractable legacy of racism, state violence, and state neglect of black communities in the United States.” (Emphasis added) According to Borealis, “The Black Led Movement Fund provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working to advance the leadership and vision of young, black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America.”
In a joint statement, Ford and Borealis said that their Fund would “complement the important work” of charities including the Hill-Snowden Foundation, Solidaire, the NoVo Foundation, the Association of Black Foundation Executives, the Neighborhood Funders Group, anonymous donors, and others. In addition to raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives, the Black-Led Movement Fund planned to collaborate with Benedict Consulting on “the organizational capacity building needs of a rapidly growing movement.”[24]
The fact that Black Lives Matter was now a major national movement funded by America’s establishment elites did not prompt its communist founders to reconsider their political infatuation with totalitarians or their anti-American agendas. When Cuba’s sadistic dictator Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016, the Black Lives Matter leadership published an article titled, “Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante.”[25] It began, “We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel.”[26]
The eulogy then turned to Black Lives Matters’ own icon, cop-killer Assata Shakur, who fled to Cuba to avoid paying for her crime: “As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, [cop-killers and airplane hijackers-DH], asylum to [Black Panther leader, rapist and murderer] Brother Huey P. Newton,[27] and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era.”[28]
The eulogy expressed gratitude to Castro for “attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters.” This was another Black Lives Matter lie obvious to anyone who watched the rescue efforts on TV, where virtually all the rescuers were white and all the rescued black. Responsibility for the failure to evacuate residents rested squarely on the Democrat mayor of New Orleans who was black and was eventually sent to prison for his crimes. The eulogy lauded a dictator who put AIDS sufferers, many of whom were black, in concentration camps for having “provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish.” In a religious language suited to their adoration, the tribute closed by saying: “As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!”
As delusional and repellent as these sentiments should be to any American, and as troubling coming from an organization endorsed by the Democrat Party and supported by American philanthropy and the Obama White House, they are matched if not exceeded by Black Lives Matter’s endorsement and embrace of Islamic terrorists who have sworn the destruction of Jews, Christians and the United States. In January 2015, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors joined representatives from Dream Defenders on a 10-day trip to the Palestinian Territories in the West Bank. Their objective was to publicly draw a parallel between what they portrayed as Israeli oppression of Palestinians and police violence against blacks in the United States.[29] The following August, Cullors was one of more than 1,000 black activists, artists, scholars, politicians, students, and “political prisoners,” to sign a statement of alliance with the Hamas terrorists who ruled the Gaza strip.
Proclaiming their “solidarity with the Palestinian struggle and commitment to the liberation of Palestine’s land and people,” the Black Lives Matter group demanded an end to Israel’s “occupation” of “Palestine,” condemned “Israel’s brutal war on Gaza and chokehold on the West Bank,” and urged the U.S. government to end all aid to Israel. They also exhorted black institutions to support the terrorist-sponsored Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions movement designed to strangle the Jewish state.[30] On their return to the states, the repulsive call for liberation “From Ferguson to Palestine” quickly became a slogan of the movement.[31]
Black Lives Matter had in fact achieved a kind of transformation, although it was more the climax of a trend that had begun with the death of Martin Luther King, than something original. President Obama had touched on it in his attempts to conflate what he called the “messy” aspects of the Black Lives Matter “protests” with what he regarded as similar rough edges he detected in the civil rights and suffragette movements of the past.[32] But those movements and their leaders were clearly part of the American tradition and their allegiances and beliefs could be traced back to the Founders who had created a Republic based on democracy and individual rights. By contrast, Black Lives Matter leaders identified with alien, totalitarian forces, with Islamic imperialists and terrorists who were conducting a 70-year genocidal aggression against the Jewish state. They had joined declared enemies of the United States and its democratic ally. This was a foretaste of the insurrection they are now leading, setting fire to the country that made them the freest, richest and most privileged black community in the world.
Notes:
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqQXmnMr_w8
[2] For an extensive analysis of these events see Heather MacDonald, The War Against Cops, 2017
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_up,_don%27t_shoot
[4] For details on the organization and its founders, see www.discoverthenetworks.org
[5] https://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/05/trooper_werner_foerster_was_killed_42_years_ago_to.html
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNayoOysBLY
[7] Ibid.
[8] For other examples, cf. https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/black-lives-matter-blm/
[9] https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/college-blacklivesmatter-protests-turning-aggressive-f-you-filthy-whites
[10] https://www.truthrevolt.org/news/democrat-protesters-shout-democrat-candidates-stage
[11] Ibid.
[12] https://www.wnd.com/2016/07/the-truth-about-cops-killing-blacks/#LWc1WAI0IYWi4UVq.99. Cf. also MacDonald, The War On Cops, Chapter 13 “Black and Unarmed,” for a further breakdown of the statistics.
[13] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/black-lives-matter-meet-president-obama-white-house-justice-system
[14] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dnc-passes-resolution-supporting-black-lives-matter
[15] https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/black-lives-matter-blm/
[16] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/obama-defends-black-lives-matter-movement
[17] https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-shooting-20160707-snap-story.html
[18]Carlson, Ship of Fools, op. cit., loc 2005
[19] https://www.weaselzippers.us/284283-video-black-lives-matter-activist-shouts-kill-all-white-babies/
[20] Carlson, op. cit. Cf also Heather MacDonald, The War on Cops, on the support for Black Lives Matter in the mainstream media.
[21] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/01/11/behind-the-badge/; https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/11/ferguson-effect-study-72-us-cops-reluctant-make-stops/96446504/
[22] https://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482123552/murder-rate-spike-attributed-to-ferguson-effect-doj-study-says
[23] https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/01/the-fbis-latest-report-suggests-the-ferguson-effect-is-real/
[24] Cf. www.discoverthenetworks.org, op. cit.
[25] Nat Hentoff, “The Revolutionary as Sadist,” Village Voice. Hentoff was a well-known libertarian leftist.
[26] https://medium.com/@BlackLivesMatterNetwork/lessons-from-fidel-black-lives-matter-and-the-transition-of-el-comandante-c11ee5e51fb0
[27] https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/huey-newton/
[28] https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/americas/us-cuba-fugitive-charlie-hill/
[29] https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/2015-black-lives-matter-visits-palestine-links-jihad-against-israel-to-race-war-in-us
[30] http://www.blackforpalestine.com/read-the-statement.html; http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/19/black-activists-endorse-bds-movement.html; https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/My-word-BDSs-binding-ties-with-terrorists-580068
[31] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandra-tamari/from-ferguson-to-palestine_b_8307832.html
[32] https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/07/11/obama-longstanding-tradition-of-contentious-and-messy-protest-needed-in-america/
Sunday, June 7, 2020
Saturday, June 6, 2020
Friday, June 5, 2020
The "Racist" Arrest and "Murder" of George Floyd
On May 25, 2020, someone called 911 and reported that a man bought merchandise from Cup Foods at 3759 Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota with a counterfeit $20 bill.
At 8:08 p.m., Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) Officers Thomas Lane and J.A. Kueng arrived with their body worn cameras (BWCs) activated and running. The officers learned from store personnel that the man who passed the counterfeit $20 was parked in a car around the corner from the store on 38th Street.
BWC video obtained by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shows that the officers approached the car, Lane on the driver’s side and Kueng on the passenger side. Three people were in the car. George Floyd was in the driver’s seat, a known adult male was in the passenger seat and a known adult female was sitting in the backseat. As Officer Lane began speaking with Mr. Floyd, he pulled his gun out and pointed it at Mr. Floyd’s open window and directed Mr. Floyd to show his hands. When Mr. Floyd put his hands in the steering wheel, Lane put his gun back in its holster.
While Officer Kueng was speaking with the front seat passenger, Officer Lane ordered Mr. Floyd out of the car, put his hands on Mr. Floyd, and pulled him out of the car. Officer Lane handcuffed Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd actively resisted being handcuffed.
Once handcuffed, Mr. Floyd became compliant and walked with Officer Lane to the sidewalk and sat on the ground at Officer Lane’s direction. In a conversation that lasted just under two minutes, Officer Lang asked Mr. Floyd for his name and identification. Officer Lane asked Mr. Lloyd if he was “on anything” and explained that he was arresting Mr. Lloyd for passing counterfeit currency.
Officers Kueng and Lane stood Mr. Floyd up and attempted to walk Mr. Floyd to their squad car (MPD 320) at 8:14 p.m. Mr. Floyd stiffened up, fell to the ground, and told the officers he was claustrophobic.
MPD Officers Derek Chauvin (the defendant) and Tou Thoa then arrived in a separate squad car. The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad 320 from the driver’s side.
Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers by intentionally falling down, saying he was not going in the car, and refusing to stand still. Mr. Floyd is over six feet tall and weighs more than 200 pounds.
While standing outside the car, Mr. Floyd began saying and repeating that he could not breathe. The defendant went to the passenger side and tried to get Mr. Floyd into the car from that side and Lane and Kueng assisted.
The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed. Kueng held Mr. Floyd’s back and Lane held his legs. The defendant placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd’s head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, “I can’t breathe” multiple times and repeatedly said, “Mama” and “please,” as well. The defendant and the other two officers stayed in their positions.
The officers said, “You are talking fine” to Mr. Floyd as he continued to move back and forth. Lane asked, “should we roll him on his side?” and the defendant said, “No, staying put where we got him.” Officer Lane said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” The defendant said, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.” None of the three officers moved from their positions.
BWC video shows Mr. Floyd continue to move and breathe.
At 8:24:24, Mr. Floyd stopped moving.
At 8:25:31 the video appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak. Lane said, “want to roll him on his side.” Kueng checked Mr. Floyd’s right wrist for a pulse and said, “I couldn’t find one.” None of the officers moved from their positions.
At 8:27:24, the defendant removed his knee from Mr. Floyd’s neck. An ambulance and emergency medical personnel arrived, the officers placed Mr. Floyd on a gurney, and the ambulance left the scene. Mr. Floyd was pronounced dead at Hennepin County Medical Center.