| WELCOME |
|
comments, ephemera, speculation, etc. (protected political speech and personal opinion) - If this is your 1st visit to this page, please start at the bottom - 2021- 2021-11-25 f BE THANKFUL BIDEN AND BILL GATES ALLOW YOU TO EAT "REAL" MEAT THIS THANKSGIVING  2021-11-25 e BE THANKFUL THOUSANDS OF WHITE BOYS ARE GETTING RIFLES FOR CHRISTMAS  2021-11-25 d BE THANKFUL THE ACLU IS IMPLODING The Disintegration of the
ACLU
A new documentary about former Executive Director Ira Glasser explains how the once-storied civil liberties organization came to embrace the ideology it was built to fight Think of the American Civil Liberties Union during the last two decades of the 20th century, and a certain type of person invariably comes to mind: shrewd, thick-skinned, and possessed of an unwavering—some might say irritating—commitment to principle. The men and women of the ACLU were liberals in the most honorable, but increasingly obsolescent, meaning of the term. They understood that the measure of democracy lies in the impartial application of its laws, and were prepared to defend anyone whose constitutional rights were trampled upon, irrespective of their political views or the repercussions that mounting such a defense might entail. The archetypical ACLU figure was also often Jewish, as immortalized in the 2003 Onion story, “ACLU Defends Nazis’ Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters.” That joke was based upon the real-life case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, wherein the organization represented a group of neo-Nazis who were denied a permit to march through a Chicago suburb that was home to a significant number of Jewish Holocaust survivors. The image of Jewish ACLU attorneys defending the free speech rights of American neo-Nazis was a source of shame for some Jews but pride for many others, a testament to Jewish confidence in the institutions and values of American liberalism. No American minority had reaped more from its faith in the country’s professed commitment to pluralism and tolerance than the Jews, a gift they repaid many times over by supporting the institutions—the universities, the Democratic Party, the ACLU—which upheld them. In the same way Lenny Bruce classified Ray Charles and fruit salad as Jewish (while claiming that “Evaporated milk is goyish even if the Jews invented it”), so the ACLU was seen as scrappy, authentic, and emblematic of an underdog quality. As Bruce might have put it: the ACLU, Jewish; the McCarthyite American Jewish League Against Communism, goyish. No one embodied that late-20th-century cultural archetype of the fiercely outspoken, intellectual, principled, and Jewish ACLU activist more than Ira Glasser. From his appointment as national executive director in 1978 until his retirement in 2001, Glasser transformed the ACLU from a mom and pop outfit into a “nationwide civil liberties powerhouse,” broadening its mandate to include issues such as sexual orientation discrimination and abortion rights. Through his ubiquitous and spirited media appearances, Glasser became the face of civil liberties in America. When Vice President George H.W. Bush campaigned to succeed his boss in 1988—and spoke like a Connecticut blueblood’s idea of a Texas hayseed—he derided his opponent Michael Dukakis as a “card-carrying member of the ACLU.” It was guys like Glasser whom Bush was trying to conjure up in the minds of the voting public. Mighty Ira, an admiring new documentary about Glasser’s life and times, opens with a visit by its octogenarian namesake to the site of a Brooklyn sports stadium that no longer exists, where a team that skipped town over six decades ago used to play. Standing on the former grounds of Ebbets Field, atop which a massive housing complex now stands, Glasser speaks of the former baseball grounds as a “shrine,” and the 1947 Brooklyn Dodgers starting lineup with religious awe. His first visit as a 9-year-old fan coincided with the Dodgers signing Jackie Robinson, and rooting for the team that broke baseball’s color barrier, Glasser asserts, signified more than tribal loyalty to a club, but also faith in “civil rights and civil liberties.” Glasser and his friends rarely encountered anybody who wasn’t Jewish, much less Black, within the 12-block neighborhood of East Flatbush that comprised the world of their childhood (New York City, he says in the film, was less the fabled “melting pot” of popular American sentiment than “a collection of insular segregated tribes”). But while listening to play-by-play announcer Red Barber’s report about the Dodgers’ road trip to St. Louis, then the southernmost city in the National League, they understood two important things: that Jackie Robinson was a god, and that the treatment he endured—the racist invective from Cardinals fans, the segregation that kept him from eating in the same restaurants or sleeping in the same hotels as his teammates—constituted a form of blasphemy. A hatred of Jim Crow and a passion for civil rights developed from Glasser’s dedication to the Dodgers, as did a theory of the nature of sports fandom itself: If rooting for the Dodgers situated one on the right side of what was then the country’s central moral struggle, then cheering for the Yankees (the third to last team to hire a Black player) signified a belief in “oil depletion allowances.” Writing a quarter century after his beloved team abandoned Brooklyn for sunnier Los Angeles and Ebbets was razed to the ground, Glasser observed that “Dodger fans became egalitarians who would often be found working at the ACLU.” Viewers may question the relevance of a documentary about a civil liberties veteran who retired over 20 years ago. The contours of contemporary debates surrounding issues of free speech have evolved as a result of technological advances, demographic changes, the presidency of Donald Trump, and other phenomena too numerous to cite, and a man like Glasser reliving the highlights of his storied career may strike some as indistinguishable from an aging Brooklyn Dodgers fan reminiscing about his long-gone team. The decision by directors Nico Perrino, Chris Maltby, and Aaron Reese to start their film with Glasser waxing nostalgic about Ebbets Field surely risks drawing that conclusion, but what makes this particular trip down memory lane meaningful is its illustration of how dramatically institutions like the ACLU have changed. As much as Mighty Ira is intended as a tribute to an individual life, it cannot help but also be a lament for the endangered values to which that life was dedicated. Ebbets Field may not be the only thing we’ve lost. Glasser’s Brooklyn childhood was largely devoid of adult supervision. Raised in cramped apartments, a rubber Spaldeen ball their only source of after-school entertainment, the Jewish youth of Flatbush “learned how to mediate conflict, handle bullies and disagreements” among themselves, he says. This moral and practical education, on the streets and in the stands of Ebbets Field, prepared him well for a career defending the U.S. Constitution. In 1966, equipped with a graduate degree in mathematics from Ohio State University and restless after a few years editing a small, left-wing magazine called Current, Glasser wrote a letter to his senator, Robert Kennedy, urging him to run for president. Kennedy wrote back inviting Glasser to meet with him in Washington. Addressing the aspiring campaign aide from his chair in the senatorial barbershop, the former attorney general and heir to the Kennedy mantle revealed that he had yet to decide whether to mount a bid for the presidency. Instead, he urged Glasser to take a job he had already been offered as associate director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, the state affiliate of the ACLU. Glasser followed Kennedy’s advice, and for 11 years he broadened the NYCLU’s remit to protect the rights of prisoners, wards of mental institutions, welfare recipients, and other marginalized groups. In 1978, fresh off its successful defense of the Illinois Nazis, the national ACLU tapped Glasser to be its executive director. The organization was in serious trouble, facing a $500,000 budget deficit after losing over a quarter of its membership from a 1973 peak of 230,000. Over the course of his tenure, Glasser not only rescued the ACLU from financial ruin but revitalized it as a bright star in the American liberal firmament, overseeing the group’s expansion from a handful of state affiliates, 35 lawyers, and an annual fundraising yield of $4 million—just enough to cover operating expenses—to one with offices in every state, over 100 lawyers, and an endowment of close to $30 million. It’s long been a cliché that people and institutions—whether politicians, rock bands, or nonprofit organizations—are forced to compromise their integrity as they become more popular. But Mighty Ira makes the point that Glasser improved the ACLU’s stature without sacrificing its foundational principles, which are essentially the country’s foundational principles. The ACLU was created during the post-World War I Red Scare to provide a politically neutral defense of constitutional rights at a time when federal and state governments faced little opposition to their repression of unpopular individuals and groups. For Glasser and his generation of civil liberties activists 50 years later, liberty remained precious, government power was “dangerous,” and the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect the former from the latter. To tell the story of how Glasser did well for the ACLU by doing good for the cause of free speech, the filmmakers use footage of their subject making the civil-libertarian case across a range of TV talk shows and public forums throughout the 1980s and ’90s. The most memorable of these appearances was on Firing Line, the legendary public debate program hosted by conservative eminence William F. Buckley Jr. Though their political disagreements were vehement (“Resolved: That the ACLU is Full of Baloney” was the topic of one debate), and they came from radically different socioeconomic backgrounds, Buckley and Glasser managed to find common ground in their shared opposition to the government’s war on drugs. Their unlikely rapport embodied something increasingly rare, another relic from the vanishing world of postwar American liberalism: friendship that transcended political differences, even strongly held ones. When the devout Catholic founder of National Review first invited the secular Jewish liberal to lunch at a fancy Italian restaurant, their initial conversation was like “two boxers trying to figure each other out,” Glasser told me in an interview late last year by phone from New York City. “I think we intrigued each other. I was this street kid from Brooklyn, my father was a construction worker, labor union guy, and I think [Buckley] was sort of surprised and intrigued that somebody with my background could contest with someone like him as successfully as I did.” Not that they ever pulled punches. Debating the constitutionality of flag burning on Firing Line, Buckley told Glasser something to the effect that the “average American” has a visceral reaction to the desecration of the Stars and Stripes, to which Glasser replied, “Bill, what do you know about the average American? The closest you’ve ever come to an average American is me.” To acquaint Buckley with more such average Americans, Glasser treated him to hot dogs at Nathan’s on Coney Island. (The pair arrived in Buckley’s chauffeur-driven limousine.) Adopting a scrupulously content-neutral approach to the defense of free speech is guaranteed to upset people across the political spectrum, but it was a price Glasser and his colleagues were willing to pay. Religious conservatives like Buckley fumed at the ACLU for arguing on behalf of flag-burners and blasphemous artists, while secular liberals were confounded by its insistence that neo-Nazis had the right to goose-step past the homes of Holocaust survivors. But the defense of the First Amendment was far too important to leave to those concerned with winning popularity contests. Many if not most of the people who dropped their ACLU membership in the wake of Skokie, Glasser surmises, were not longtime members but had joined the group at the height of Watergate just a few years earlier. “They saw the ACLU as effective opposition to Nixon,” and signed up “not because of civil liberties positions but because they were anti-Nixon.” For those whose commitment to civil liberties was primarily if not exclusively a function of partisan politics, the rationale for supporting the ACLU began to fade the minute Tricky Dick delivered his final, awkward wave from the steps of Marine One. By the time the group represented a bunch of brownshirts in the hinterlands of Chicago, whatever vague ideals once moved them to support the ACLU—along with the glamour and sense of self-worth conferred by doing so—evaporated. Then as now, Glasser was at pains to remind the ACLU’s critics that it was not “defending Nazis” in the Skokie affair. It was defending the First Amendment, which remains valid independent of whomever exercises it. Let the government abrogate the free speech rights of one group, however odious, and it will do it again, possibly in the case of someone you like. Almost immediately following Glasser’s July 2001 retirement, however, the organization started to slip. In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a flood of concerned citizens joined the ACLU to oppose the counterterrorism and surveillance policies of President George W. Bush. But when Bush’s suave and eloquent successor continued (or, in the case of drone strikes, dramatically intensified) some of the same measures, many of these new members slunk away from the fight. And unlike the 1970s, when the ACLU was run by stubbornly principled people who refused to buckle under the weight of fashionable opinion or donor pressure, the new generation of leaders prioritized conformism over intellectual consistency. “My successor, and the board of directors that have supported him, have basically tried to transform the organization from a politically neutral, nonpartisan civil liberties organization into a progressive liberal organization,” Glasser says about Anthony Romero, an ex-Ford Foundation executive who continues to serve as the ACLU’s executive director. According to former ACLU national board member Wendy Kaminer in her 2009 book Worst Instincts: Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU, Romero and his enablers routinely engaged in the sort of undemocratic and unaccountable behavior practiced by the individuals and institutions the ACLU usually took to court, like withholding information (concerning a breach of ACLU members’ privacy, no less), shredding documents in violation of its own record-preservation and transparency procedures, and attempting to muzzle board members from criticizing the organization publicly. (“You sure that didn’t come out of Dick Cheney’s office?” remarked the late, great former Village Voice columnist and ACLU board member Nat Hentoff of this last gambit). Eerily prescient, Worst Instincts foreshadowed the hypocrisy and fecklessness that has since come to characterize the leadership of so many other, previously liberal institutions confronted by the forces of illiberalism within their own ranks. In 2018, the ACLU spent over$1 million on advertisements likening Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, essentially accusing him of crimes for which he was never tried or convicted. More egregious than their brazen political partisanship was the way in which the ads traduced the presumption of innocence, a bedrock of American jurisprudence and a principle the ACLU was founded to uphold. Asked why his organization was willing to further violate its tradition of political neutrality, Faiz Shakir, a Democratic Party operative then serving as the ACLU’s national political director, was brutally honest. “People have funded us and I think they expect a return,” he said. Glasser also points to the group’s decision to run a television advertisement supporting then-Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as a telling sign of its transformation. “I mean, I love Stacey Abrams,” Glasser told me. “She has become my favorite political character in the country. But the ACLU has always stayed away from that. Nobody attacked Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan on their civil liberties violations more vigorously and strenuously than I did. But we always stayed away from political partisanship, and it was critical for the ACLU, virtually for all its history, to have standards that were as applicable to those most of us politically supported as to those who most of us politically opposed.” But it is the group’s attitude toward the First Amendment, the ACLU’s bread and butter, that has been most concerning. In 2004, The New York Times revealed that Romero had consented to sign a grant agreement from his former employers at the Ford Foundation, included at the behest of pro-Israel activists, stipulating that any recipient of the foundation’s largesse “agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state,” a vaguely worded contravention of free speech principles. Not only did Romero initially refrain from informing the board about the controversial agreement, but he also neglected to mention that he had helped draft it, allegedly recommending the Patriot Act as a model. That same year, the national ACLU was silent about a case involving a San Diego high school student punished for wearing a T-shirt condemning homosexuality, in contrast to the many students it had defended who donned clothing emblazoned with pro-gay messages (or in the case of one Alaska stoner it proudly represented, the message “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”). Of course, no discussion of the ACLU can ignore Donald Trump, whose role in its degeneration, like that of so many other people and institutions opposed to him, was seismic. It was entirely appropriate that the ACLU would be one of Trump’s loudest antagonists; he made violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution an all but explicit plank of his campaign, and his upset victory subsequently led to a dramatic spike in the ACLU’s membership rolls. Accompanying this influx of new members and money, however, were pressures for the group to become another run-of-the-mill #Resistance outfit. In 2017, the ACLU of Virginia had supported the right of white nationalists to rally in Charlottesville. But once the rally turned violent, the national ACLU circulated an internal document with new “case selection guidelines,” stipulating, “Speech that denigrates such [marginalized] groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality.” Before agreeing to take a free speech case, the document continued, the ACLU would now consider “the potential effect on marginalized communities,” whether the speech advances the goals of speakers whose “views are contrary to our values,” and the “structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.” A manifestation of the ACLU’s new approach can be seen in the decision by one chapter to intervene in a high-profile case at Smith College, where the group amplified bogus claims of racism leveled by a student against some of the school’s custodial and cafeteria staff. Were the ACLU today confronted with a lawsuit similar to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, Glasser doubts the group would take it. (Tellingly, in an essay collection celebrating its most important cases published on the occasion of the group’s 100th anniversary last year, the ACLU neglected to include that seminal litigation). And when other constitutional rights have come into conflict with a First Amendment freedom even more unpopular with progressives than speech—that of religion—the ACLU has made it all but official policy to consider claims of religious conscience as smokescreens for discrimination, arguing that an evangelical Christian baker must make cakes for same-sex weddings against his will (a violation of both expressive and religious freedom), and that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions. The embrace of political partisanship, the dropping of standards, the buckling to donor demands at the expense of long-held principles—Glasser says all of these developments have rendered the ACLU unrecognizable from the group he once led. The roots of the ACLU’s evolution from principled, nonpartisan defender of civil liberties into just another cog in the progressive machine are cultural as much as generational. You might say it’s the difference between devotion to the First Amendment and devotion to oil depletion allowances. For instance, whereas Glasser avoided wooing the wealthy, under Romero the group enthusiastically caters to the whims of ultrarich partisan donors whose support for its traditional mission is tenuous. “Glasser and the other ACLU stalwarts of his generation were scrappy and combative, jumping to take unpopular stances at the mere hint of a threat to principle,” reported the New York Times in a 2005 article about the changing nature of the organization and its leadership. Romero, by contrast, was described as having “the diplomacy and charm of a veteran foundation executive,” useful qualities for a courtier to the wealthy but worse than useless for challenging power. This is tragic, for when it comes to free expression, we desperately need leaders with Glasser’s integrity. Practically everywhere one looks, the culture of free speech and intellectual pluralism is under assault, often at the hands of those supposed to cherish it and in spaces where it’s meant to flourish. “Is the First Amendment Obsolete?” asked Tim Wu, a Columbia University Law School professor tapped by President Joe Biden as his senior adviser on technology and competition policy. Last month, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote a piece criticizing the paper’s abysmal treatment of its veteran reporter Donald McNeil Jr.; the column was censored by Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger, and appeared instead in the rival New York Post as if it was samizdat. Two weeks later, a pair of Democratic congresspeople wrote a threatening letter to cable television providers “asking” why they continued to carry the Fox News Channel. More disturbing for the future are the results from the most extensive survey ever conducted of U.S. college student attitudes toward free speech, which found that 60% have withheld an opinion for fear of how a fellow student, professor, or administrator would respond. Fear of speaking becomes more understandable when one considers the increased fervor in support of censorship. The survey, conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and which canvassed 20,000 students at 55 of the nation’s top colleges and universities, reports that 60% of self-identified “extreme liberal” students believe it’s acceptable to shout down a controversial speaker on campus, a tactic endorsed by only 15% of “extreme conservative” students. Twenty percent of Ivy Leaguers, meanwhile, favor physically blocking their peers from even hearing a speaker they deem unacceptable, twice the figure among students at non-Ivy League schools. FIRE also discovered that female, LGBT, and Black students are less supportive of free speech than male, straight, Hispanic, Asian, and white students, a worrisome indication that the insidious effort to malign the entire concept of “free speech” as a weapon to “harm” minorities is bearing fruit. Rather than learning how the First Amendment has been a precondition for every social, political, legal, and cultural advancement secured by marginalized groups in America, it would tragically appear that indoctrinating the latter-day beneficiaries of these struggles in the belief that they are helpless against “oppressive structures” and “systems” has convinced many that free speech is their enemy. If the public face of the ACLU was Ira Glasser during the latter part of the previous century, today that honor can be claimed by a staff attorney named Chase Strangio. Named one of the 100 most influential people on the planet by Time magazine last year, Strangio is the ACLU’s deputy director for transgender justice. Like many activists consumed by this issue, he is uncompromising in demanding strict adherence to a set of highly contestable orthodoxies, and merciless toward anyone who dares question them. Two women who have—J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, and Abigail Shrier, author of a book about the role of “peer contagion” in the rising rate of teenage girls declaring themselves transgender—are “closely aligned with white supremacists in power,” Strangio declared on Twitter, offering not a shred of evidence for this claim. “Stopping the circulation of [Shrier’s] book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on,” he wrote, a rather bizarre position for an ACLU employee to endorse. Strangio later deleted the tweet, explaining that his intention was not to call for the government to ban Shrier’s book, but rather “to create the information climate for the market to be more supportive of trans self-determination than the alternative.” Strangio is of course perfectly entitled to his views about the fairness of allowing natal males to compete against natal females in high school sports, and to advocate for an “information climate” suppressing books he doesn’t like. What’s puzzling is why someone with such pro-censorship inclinations would want to work, of all places, at the American Civil Liberties Union. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it’s like a carnivore joining the staff of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Puzzling, that is, until you realize that—like so many other institutions whose worthy missions we naively assumed to be inviolable—the ACLU is no longer itself. The organization known as the ACLU is now led by people beholden to an ideology purporting that the essential function of the Constitution has been to serve as a blueprint for white supremacy, and that its broad free-speech protections are not a tool of emancipation for society’s underdogs but rather the handmaiden of their oppression. The capture of elite institutions by those in thrall to this dogma is how the movie industry can simultaneously venerate victims of the Hollywood blacklist while instituting its own content guidelines in the friendly guise of “representation and inclusion standards.” It’s how you get the bizarre phenomenon of journalists braying for censorship, and a newspaper union abandoning one of its members to the tender mercies of a corporate human resources minion out of Kafka. And it’s how a star attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that once prided itself on sending Jewish lawyers to defend the constitutional rights of neo-Nazis, issues a public call for a digital book burning. Another casualty of the new dispensation is the intelligent yet civil debate between ideological adversaries modeled by Buckley and Glasser. For over three decades, Buckley invited the most significant left-wing politicians, activists, poets, intellectuals, comedians, and rabble rousers onto Firing Line. It took confidence to debate a man as well-read and rhetorically ambidextrous as Buckley, but his guests—Glasser prominent among them—gave as good as they got. Watching their spirited conversations, and comparing these with the dreck that fills our television airwaves today, is like an anthropologist discovering a lost tribe. If Buckley were still alive, many of today’s leading progressive heavyweights would not only refuse to debate him; they’d organize a petition to boot him off the air. Some of Glasser’s successors at the ACLU would probably sign it. Much as it tries to inspire hope for the future of free speech and open inquiry, Mighty Ira stands as an elegy to a world that no longer exists—a world in which professional sports teams contributed something actually meaningful to the advancement of racial equality rather than ritualized grandstanding, the most famous conservative in the country was an almost parodically civilized intellectual and not some bloviating demagogue, personal affinity wasn’t contingent upon ideological affinity, and the American Civil Liberties Union stood for principles instead of party. Alas, for the rulers of our brave new world, those principles are as exotic as a Spaldeen ball. (read more) 2021-11-25 c BE THANKFUL AMERICANS KNOW WAUKESHA MASSACRE WAS AN ANTI-WHITE HATE CRIME Breaking: The affidavit against the #Waukesha massacre suspect has been released. We learn new details, including that there were 62 injured, that the driver stopped then accelerated, & that witnesses said driver drove in zigzag to hit as many as possible. https://t.co/7STSzmNzMk pic.twitter.com/jGHWL2vQx2 — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) November 24, 2021 *Black
Lives Matter activist Vaun L Mayes @YungLz at the scene of the
Waukesha parade attack: — Nobody
(@TheNoboddy) November
22, 2021
* The suspect
accused of plowing through a Christmas parade
at high speed in #Waukesha, Wis. and killing
six people, all whites, wrote social media
posts promoting violence towards white people.
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) November 23, 2021 *
2021-11-25 b BE THANKFUL KYLE RITTENHOUSE IS ARTICULATE & AWAKE 2021-11-25 a BE THANKFUL GoFundMe KILLED BAIL FUND GoFundMe Takes Down Bail
Fund Started For [Darrell Brooks,] Alleged Waukesha
Parade Killer
GoFundMe took down a fundraiser attempting to raise bail money for the Waukesha parade suspect. On Sunday, a driver rammed his SUV through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, killing six people and injuring more than 40 — including multiple children. The suspect, who The Daily Wire is not naming due to company policy on not publishing names and photographs of alleged mass murderers, has a lengthy criminal history that spans decades. The suspect — arrested earlier this month for attacking the mother of his child and released on $1,000 bail — was offered $5 million bail following the deadly attack. A GoFundMe user attempted to raise the money before GoFundMe stopped the campaign. “On November 21st, 2021 our dear friend [redacted] was arrested for allegedly driving his car into a parade, as someone who knows [redacted] personally I can tell you that he would NEVER do such a thing and I know he is innocent of what he was charged with,” read the fundraiser before it was removed. “Clearly there is more to the story the media is not telling us and I am seeking to raise the bail so [redacted] can be released and speak his truth to his side of the story in this tragic situation that sees another black man behind bars in a purely political and racist trial.” “There is no excuse for this continued treatment of black Americans by prosecutors around the country, everyone must be presumed innocent until proven guilty and we ask that he be treated equally as anyone else in this country would be treated and he should be released until found guilty,” the fundraiser continued before listing hashtags like “#BLM” and “NoJusticeNoPeace.” A GoFundMe spokesperson told Fox Business that the fundraiser was removed because it violated GoFundMe’s Terms of Service. “Fundraisers with misuse are very rare, and we take all complaints very seriously. Our team works with law enforcement to report issues and assists them in any investigations they deem necessary,” the spokesperson said, adding that the organizer has been banned from the platform. Last year, a Norfolk, Virginia, police officer named William Kelly was fired for donating $25 to a GoFundMe created for Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal defense. A criminal hacker group called Distributed Denial of Secrets obtained the email addresses of anonymous donors to various campaigns on the site GiveSendGo, an alternative to GoFundMe that lets users send prayers or money to others. “God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong,” Kelly wrote. “Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.” GiveSendGo has since created a campaign on Kelly’s behalf. “A lot of it is just trying to wrap our brains around the state of where things are at. What’s happening in our world that someone can give a $25 donation and lose their job for supporting someone?” GiveSendGo cofounder Heather Wilson told The Daily Wire. “Kamala Harris promoted giving to bail people who were arrested for rioting, so why wouldn’t that same freedom be afforded to someone else? We’re going to allow and promote it on this side, but prevent it on the other?” Daily Wire host Candace Owens presented Kelly with a $202,000 check during a recent episode of “Candace.” (read more) See also: Media Calls Waukesha Fatal Car-Ramming A ‘Crash.’ They Called 2017 Charlottesville Car-Ramming An ‘Attack.’ 2021-11-24 g GEORGIA JURY MADE A MISTAKE A jury convicted
three men of murdering Ahmaud Arbery, but only
one — Travis McMichael, who shot Arbery — was
also convicted of "malice murder," meaning
they found that he deliberately intended to
kill Arbery. https://t.co/tPQJoYtiqq
— The New York Times (@nytimes) November 24, 2021 2021-11-24 f THOUGHT POLICE OPERATION II The left doesn’t have a
‘concept’ of the news, just ‘opportunities’ to push
agendas.
– Victor Davis Hanson 2021-11-24 e THOUGHT POLICE OPERATION I The Waukesha parade attack is gone from the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The day after the suspect appeared in court and the death of another child was announced. Sent from a *source pic.twitter.com/cBXIDOxxlA — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 24, 2021 2021-11-24 d LANGUAGE POLICE OPERATION II Multiple mainstream media outlets are now referring to #Waukesha as a “parade crash”. A narrative controller sent them all the same Memo. https://t.co/OWkwJVHhLg — Syrian Girl (@Partisangirl) November 24, 2021 2021-11-24 c LANGUAGE POLICE OPERATION I Experts caution use of
‘looting’ in describing rash of Bay Area smash and
grabs [by black mobs]
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — Bay Area police departments have called what happened at various retail stores this weekend “looting.” We saw similar crimes happen in the wake of the George Floyd protests, but are the past weekend’s crimes truly considered looting? Race and Social Justice Reporter Julian Glover is here to give us some context of looting. “As the Bay Area grapples with a wave of seemingly organized smash and grab robberies [by blacks] this weekend, policing and journalism analysts are cautioning against the use of the term looting,” Julian says. … “We are talking about two incidents, we’re not going to call this looting. This is organized robbery. That’s what it is,” said Sergeant Christian Camarillo, public information officer for San Jose Police. Camarillo was referring to the \$40,000 in merchandise stolen from Lululemon in Santana Row Saturday. Similar crimes hit Hayward and Walnut Creek this weekend with waves of [black] suspects rushing stores leading to major losses. But according to the California Penal Code, what we saw was not looting. The penal code defines looting as “theft or burglary…during a ‘state of emergency’, ‘local emergency’, or ‘evacuation order’ resulting from an earthquake, fire, flood, riot or other natural or manmade disaster.” To some, the distinction may be small, but Lorenzo Boyd, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice & Community Policing at the University of New Haven, and a retired veteran police officer, emphasized that words matter. “Looting is a term that we typically use when people of color or urban dwellers are doing something. We tend not to use that term for other people when they do the exact same thing,” said Boyd. To be clear, we don’t know the identities or races of the majority of the thieves involved in this crime wave. [We do know. Videos show black looters.] But we do know there was no local emergency declared in the Bay Area cities that experienced smash and grabs this weekend. However, the crimes did follow the contentious verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial Friday. (read more) 2021-11-24 b APPROACHING THE TRUTH I What Really Happened at Charlottesville, Part IIThis is Part II of a review of Anne Wilson Smith,
Charlottesville
Untold: Inside the Unite the Right Rally, Part I can be found here. On the evening after police cancelled the rally, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe held a press conference and said:
As Mrs. Smith writes, the Governor’s remarks were outrageous for at least five reasons:
The word “bias” does not begin to capture the character of media reports: They portrayed the victims as aggressors and the aggressors as victims. The general tone can be gathered from headlines: “Charlottesville Reels After a White Supremacist Rally Turns Deadly” – Politico “Shocking Photos from the Violent White Supremacist Rally in Charlottesville” – BuzzFeed News “How A White Power Rally in Charlottesville Turned Deadly” – The Daily Beast “Ted Cruz Condemns Charlottesville Terror: ‘The Nazis, the KKK and White Supremacists are Repulsive and Evil’ “ – PJ Media “Terror in Charlottesville: Woman killed as car rams into anti-racist protesters at White nationalist rally” – Salon “Two Virginia State Troopers Killed in Helicopter Crash Tied to White Supremacist Rally” – Fox News The crash was due to mechanical failure and happened five hours after the rally was stopped. Everywhere, the impression was that Unite the Right attendees were violent fanatics. Many stories did not even mention that the rally was to defend the Lee statue; readers were left to assume that the only purpose was “white supremacy” or “Nazism.” For his own safety, Kessler spent the evening after the rally at a family member’s home, watching the day’s events as reported by Fox news.
Pres. Trump speaks Many of Pres. Trump’s detractors complained that he did not address the public quickly enough once news broke of the “deadly white supremacist rally.” Trump explained: “Before I make a statement, I like to know the facts.” Other politicians in his party had no such scruples. Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted: “Very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #Whitesupremacists . . . . The organizers of events which inspired & led to #charlottesvilleterroristattack are 100% to blame. . . . They are adherents of an evil ideology which argues certain people are inferior because of race, ethnicity or nation of origin.” Senator Cory Gardner tweeted, “Mr. President — we must call evil by its name. These were White supremacists and this was domestic terrorism.” Senator Orrin Hatch said: “We should call evil by its name.” None of these public figures seemed to know or care that the rally had been organized to defend a monument. That evening, the President said “We’re closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides.” As we have seen, most of the displays of hatred and violence originated on the side of the counter-protestors. But relative to other public statements by prominent persons, Pres. Trump’s words were remarkably fair. Two days later, the President gave an interview. He rambled a bit, but made at least four important points left out of most media accounts:
Pres. Trump was denounced by many whose comments on the events were far less truthful or fair. One such denunciation came from Joe Biden, who later claimed he was inspired to run for president by Trump’s supposedly inadequate reaction to the “white supremacist violence” of Charlottesville. Jason Kessler was “ecstatic” when he first heard Trump’s remarks, noting that the President had spoken “simple truths that the American public had not been given.” He briefly imagined it might be possible to win the battle for public opinion. Later, he managed to get interviews on a few alternative news outlets with hosts such as Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes, but even there his reception was hostile. He recalls that “they wanted to slit my throat.” The backlash In the days following the suppression of the rally, as Mr. Kessler explains, “Heyer’s death was used to stoke a moral panic about the boogeyman of ‘White supremacy’ which has led to an unprecedented, un-American wave of political censorship against right-wing political dissidents and immigration patriots.” Even an ADL representative acknowledged: “I cannot think of another incident to which the backlash has been nearly so widespread.” Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, GoFundMe, Uber and the gaming chat app Discord all removed countless accounts associated with the rally and its attendees, as well as some that were not. Mr. Kessler explained the process behind the de-platforming trend: There are groups that:
Companies do not investigate such claims before acting on them. Banning Unite the Right participants and many perceived allies was an important precedent for banning a sitting president from nearly all social media after the Capitol was breached on January 6, 2021. Mrs. Smith writes:
Another aspect of the backlash to Unite the Right was the doxing campaign against participants. Hours of video of the events of August 11 and 12 were uploaded to the internet almost immediately, and Antifa and its sympathizers got to work identifying participants:
One rallygoer estimated that “hundreds of people” lost jobs or became estranged from their families because they were at the rally. Mrs. Smith interviewed some of them for Charlottesville Untold. One man was reported to Child Protective Services by Antifa in an attempt to have his children taken from him. Andrew Dodson, an engineer who develops clean-energy technology, was driven to suicide by his ordeal; the man who doxed him was invited to appear on NBC News! Criminal cases A number of criminal trials resulted from Unite the Right, and the difference in treatment for participants and counter-protesters was stark. Corey Long is a black Charlottesville resident who doused some rally participants with what one described as “some kind of paint thinner” and attacked them with an improvised flame thrower made from a bottle of hairspray. A man on the receiving end testified he had feared becoming a “human torch.” Celebrated by media outlets such as the New Yorker and The Root, Long was sentenced to just 20 days in prison. Richard Preston is a Ku Klux Klan member from Maryland. When he saw Long brandishing his flame thrower at passing demonstrators, he drew his handgun, pointed it at him, and screamed at him to stop. Loading a round into the chamber, he fired a single warning shot into the ground next to Long, hurting no one. He then holstered his gun and walked away. One person assaulted by Long called Preston a hero, suggesting his action saved lives that day. Mr. Preston was sentenced to four years in prison. But perhaps the most egregious example of both media mischaracterization and politicized criminal justice involved a black man named DeAndre Harris and four white men charged with assaulting him. As the author writes:
Carefully omitted from such accounts were the events that led up to the photo. It is common for Antifa militants to entice blacks to participate in violence by giving them simple weapons. DeAndre Harris had been given a “Maglite,” a long, heavy brand of flashlight, by an Antifa activist on the morning of the rally. Just before the viral photo was taken, Harris was following a group of departing attendees back to a parking garage in the company of Corey Long (who used the homemade flamethrower) and another black man. Sneaking up behind the attendees, Mr. Long tried to steal a Confederate flag while DeAndre Harris hit rallygoer Harold Crews over the head with his Maglite. Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent describes what happened next:
A witness to the fight writes: “[Harris] clubbed one of our people and took off running . . . . They didn’t pick him out because he was Black. They picked him out because he ambushed someone from behind.” DeAndre Harris was subsequently able to raise over $166,000 on GoFundMe, supposedly to cover his medical expenses. Soon after, he mysteriously starred in a professionally produced rap video “driving a Mercedes Benz and sporting a $2,000 pair of Nike Air Jordan Retros.” For two months, police failed to arrest him. Finally, the man he had struck from behind, Harold Crews, took the initiative to press charges. Harris was found not guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery by a judge who accepted his claim that he had intended to hit the flagpole, not Crews. The four men who retaliated against Harris received sentences of two, six, six, and eight years’ imprisonment. Brad Griffin compiled a series of videos reconstructing the exact sequence of events surrounding the assault on Harris:
James Fields can hardly be said to have received a fair trial either. Just two days after the event, Pres. Trump treated his guilt as an established fact: “the driver of the car is a murderer.” A month later, the US Senate declared him a domestic terrorist. Potential jurors were inundated for over a year with coverage by a hostile media. More than one courtroom observer noted that his attorney failed to defend him aggressively. Despite considerable grounds for doubt regarding his intentions, he received a sentence of life plus 419 years. Civil suits — offense There were even more civil suits than criminal cases. Jason Kessler was, of course, sued, along with other rally organizers and participants who allegedly conspired to deprive onlookers and bystanders of their civil rights (see below). Mr. Kessler remembers calling every law firm in Charlottesville and not finding a single one willing to defend him. When he tried to do legal research at the law library of his alma mater, the University of Virginia, he was banned from campus. Eventually a sympathetic lawyer contacted him. He has spent most of the last four years trying to defend himself and to hold the city of Charlottesville accountable.
On the second anniversary of Unite the Right, Messrs. Kessler and Parrot filed suit against the City of Charlottesville and three named officials, charging that stopping the rally was a denial of free speech. Six months later, Federal District Judge Norman K. Moon dismissed the suit, ruling that law enforcement has no obligation to protect people when other parties attempt to suppress their speech. Mr. Kessler called this “a pretty novel ruling. We were floored when we got it.” Within a few days, he appealed, and is waiting for a ruling. The principle at stake is called the “heckler’s veto.” This happens when authorities stop protected speech on the grounds that it might provoke a violent reaction. Mr. Kessler and many civil libertarians believe the government should not be able to appeal to such possible violence as grounds for failing to protect free speech. “The [prohibition of the] heckler’s veto has in some ways been established for a long time, then in some ways the details of it need to be fleshed out,” says Mr. Kessler. He adds:
Mr. Kessler and his legal team are optimistic. They think their case is strong and that even if they lose the current appeal, the Supreme Court could look into the matter because standards on this issue vary in different federal districts. As part of his efforts, Mr. Kessler has also filed a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to get records, some of which authorities claim have been lost or destroyed. He notes allegations by the Heaphy Report that former police chief Al Thomas and the Charlottesville PD command staff deleted text messages relevant to their investigation. He asks:
When Mr. Kessler requested text messages from city manager Maurice Jones, he was told that no such messages existed. This assertion was proven false by former mayor, Mike Signer. In his book about Unite the Right, Cry Havoc, Mr. Signer gave details of his exchange of emails and text messages with Maurice Jones. Mr. Kessler cited Mr. Signer’s book to demand release of the data. A week before a FOIA-related trial was to take place, Mr. Kessler received a letter with a link to 1,200 pages of email, along with an apology claiming that Mr. Jones had misunderstood what was included in the request. The fight continues:
Civil suits – defense The most important civil suit against rally organizers and participants is Sines v. Kessler. The suit alleges that 10 organizations and 14 named individuals:
James Fields is listed among the defendants; the plaintiffs claim that the death and injuries from the ramming were the result of a conspiracy between Fields and the rally organizers. Kessler notes:
Many defendants suspect the suit really amounts to “lawfare,” i.e., a “factually baseless attempt to use bad-faith litigation to cripple them reputationally and financially.” This interpretation finds some support in lead attorney Roberta Kaplan’s response when asked what she hoped to achieve with the suit:
The lawsuit is being financed by Integrity First for America (IFA), an organization that boasts that the case “is the only current legal effort to take on the vast [!] leadership of the violent White nationalist movement.” Among their [mostly Jewish] donors are LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, and actress Natalie Portman. Even though public records list no fewer than 33 lawyers working for the plaintiffs, the money will not run out any time soon. Mr. Kessler says that “in nearly four years, IFA haven’t proved a single thing except that they can mug and beat down defendants who can’t afford attorneys and those who can’t afford researchers, expert witnesses, and evidence collection software to defend themselves on the same footing.” Yet media reports continue to portray the plaintiffs as plucky underdogs standing up to a powerful “white supremacist” movement. As part of discovery, defendants have been required to turn over all email, messages, and social media posts about the rally, an onerous burden for some of the more active organizers. Matt Parrot, also a named defendant, calls this:
In conclusion, the author remarks:
The Heaphy Report The City of Charlottesville paid $350,000 for an independent investigation of what happened at Unite the Right. It was carried out by the law firm Hunton & Williamson under the direction of Timothy Heaphy, and resulted in a 207-page report called Independent Review of the 2017 Protest Events in Charlottesville, VA, known as the “Heaphy Report.” As the author of Charlottesville Untold notes, “In a healthy media environment, the results of this review would have been headline news all over the country.” However, because it did nothing to support the official story about a “violent white supremacist rally,” it got little attention. The report is a damning indictment of many public officials, but especially the leadership of the Charlottesville Police Department (who bore primary legal responsibility) and the Virginia State Police. The author paraphrases the report: “Neither agency deployed available field forces or other units to protect public safety at the locations where violence took place. Command staff prepared to declare an unlawful assembly and disperse the crowd. The City of Charlottesville protected neither free expression nor public safety on August 12 . . . . This represents a failure of one of government’s core functions — the protection of fundamental rights.” The Charlottesville police chief at the time was Al Thomas, the city’s first black chief. Two people told the Heaphy investigators they heard Mr. Thomas say, at the first signs of violence, “Let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.” The report stated that “Chief Thomas’ slow-footed response to violence put the safety of all at risk,” and accused him of deleting text messages relevant to the investigation and trying to limit what subordinates told investigators. In the wake of the report, Chief Thomas resigned. Matt Parrot notes that the Charlottesville police brass bear primary responsibility for failure, not ordinary officers:
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe later published a book about Unite the Right. In it, he had a great deal to say about:
Readers may not be surprised to learn that the New-York-born McAuliffe was worried that when he first decided to run for governor, he “might have a hard time convincing Virginians I was truly one of them.” Charlottesville mayor Mike Signer also wrote a book about Unite the Right filled with contempt for what he called “rebel flag-wearing defenders of ‘southern heritage.’ ” Mrs. Smith writes:
Such are the men who run the Old Dominion. Mrs. Smith notes another aspect of Unite the Right that has not been adequately noted, namely:
The only shot fired by an attendee all day was
Richard Preston’s warning shot intended to keep Corey
Long from using his flamethrower. (read
more)
See also: The
Charlottesville Operation (If you are
busy, just read the final section: The Heather Heyer
Death 2021-11-24 a APPROACHING THE TRUTH I What Really Happened at Charlottesville, Part IAnne Wilson Smith, Charlottesville
Untold: Inside the Unite the Right Rally, Nothing has quite brought home to me the dishonesty of American journalism like watching the major “news” networks tell us what was happening in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 12, 2017. As a thousand or so American citizens tried to gather peacefully to protest the removal of a monument to Robert E. Lee, the press regaled the country and the world with a hair-raising tale of neo-Nazis attacking a peaceful Southern town. This legend persists, a case-study in support of the old adage that a lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Now, over four years later, the first accurate and detailed account of what really happened has finally been offered to the public by a tiny pro-Southern publishing firm in Columbia, South Carolina. The author is the daughter of Clyde Wilson, a distinguished scholar of the American South. Jason Kessler campaigns to save the Lee monument The Charlottesville rally, officially known as “Unite the Right,” was the brainchild of Jason Kessler, a local resident who graduated from the University of Virginia in 2009. Mr. Kessler had little involvement in politics before getting wind of the antics of Charlottesville City Council Vice Mayor Wes Bellamy, who in 2016 began agitating for removing the Lee statue and renaming Lee Park in which it had stood since 1924. As Mrs. Smith writes, “Bellamy presented himself as a champion of equality, but his social media posts revealed an open hatred of White people.” Examples:
Jason Kessler discovered these tweets and wrote about them on his website on November 24, 2016, resulting in Bellamy’s forced resignation from the state Board of Education. Mr. Bellamy issued an apology three days later, claiming the postings were made “many years ago,” although some were too recent to be dismissed as youthful indiscretions. Mr. Kessler was not satisfied, and collected 527 signatures for a petition to have Mr. Bellamy removed as vice mayor. Local anti-white groups such as SURJ (Showing Up for Racial Justice) and the Anarchist People of Color Collective began organizing to defend Mr. Bellamy and oppose Mr. Kessler. In March, 2017, a judge dismissed the petition for Mr. Bellamy’s removal on the grounds that not enough signatures had been collected. The following month, Mr. Kessler met Richard Spencer, a prominent leader of the Alt-Right, which had emerged during Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign. Although the two men never became close, they agreed to cooperate to preserve the statue. Mr. Spencer staged a torchlight march in support of the monument on May 13, 2017, while Mr. Kessler reported on the event for the Daily Caller. Marchers gathered at the monument chanting things such things as “You will not replace us,” and “Blood and soil.” The next night, a group of “anti-racists” gathered in response. Mr. Kessler showed up and was surrounded by Antifa, one of whom reportedly spat on him. Police arrested Mr. Kessler on a charge of disorderly conduct, but the prosecutor declined to pursue the case, saying that Mr. Kessler’s actions were free speech. In the aftermath of this first demonstration, activists began posting “Know your Nazi” flyers around town and encouraging businesses to deny service to Mr. Kessler and his supporters. On one occasion, a mob of about 30 people surrounded Mr. Kessler and his associates at a restaurant. Preparations for Unite the Right The Unite the Right rally was born of a determination to stand up to this kind of intimidation. On May 30, Mr. Kessler applied for a permit for a “free speech rally in support of the Lee monument,” to be held August 12 from noon to 5 pm for an estimated crowd of 400 people. Six days later, he publicly announced his plans at a tense City Council meeting. In the course of his brief speech, a number of counter-protesters began shouting “fuck white supremacy” and showing their middle fingers; they had to be physically removed.  Robert E. Lee monument in Charlottesville, VA, ca. 2006. Altogether unrelated to plans for Unite the Right, a Klan group from North Carolina applied for a permit to hold a rally in Charlottesville on July 8 to gather around a statue of Stonewall Jackson. Mr. Kessler charged that the leader of this group was an FBI informant “paid by left-wing groups to discredit legitimate conservatives.” About 50 Klan members were met by between 1,500 and 2,000 counter-protesters, including members of SURJ, Antifa, [Only] Black Lives Matter, and religious organizations. The following month, some “news” outlets broadcast video of the Klan event as footage of the Unite the Right rally. Police managed to keep the two groups apart, but protestors threw things at the Klansmen as they returned to their cars. The Heaphy Report — an extensive independent review commissioned later by the City of Charlottesville — nevertheless found that local law enforcement’s “training efforts to prepare for the Klan event were fragmented, unfocused and inadequate,” foreshadowing similar failures at Unite the Right. Yet at the time, groups including the ACLU protested what they called a “highly militarized law enforcement presence” and “the outsized and militaristic governmental response” to counter-protesters. There were complaints that the police were there “only to protect the Klan,” as if 50 people were going to attack a huge crowd of counterdemonstrators. Governor Terry McAuliffe later wrote that the ACLU letter “really had city officials nervous,” and that in the run-up to the larger Unite the Right rally “[t]he mindset for the Charlottesville City Council was to be wary of any strong law enforcement presence.” This was a bad mistake. As Mrs. Smith notes: “Clashes between right and left-wing groups had been occurring all over the country over the previous year, so the Charlottesville Police Department was able to draw from the knowledge and experience of other jurisdictions for information about what to expect.” The Heaphy Report adds: “Those contacts suggested that the Alt-Right groups were generally cooperative with law enforcement, but also that the opposing groups needed to be physically separated.” Even so, Charlottesville Police Captain Victor Mitchell later acknowledged that “the input from outside jurisdictions was not a factor in planning for August 12th.” The report further found that “Efforts to train police officers ahead of August 12th were meager if not nonexistent . . . . There was no field training of any kind.” Virginia State Police were somewhat better prepared, but communication between state and city police was poor. As the Heaphy Report found, “No officers were assigned to open areas in which protesters and counter-protesters would interact,” which meant that potentially violent contact was inevitable. Nor were any officers present along the route between the Unite the Right attendees’ shuttle drop-off locations and Lee Park, where most injuries would occur. The report continues:
In other words, Charlottesville Police never had any intention of defending the constitutional rights of Unite the Right attendees to free speech and assembly. They would let Antifa attack and use the ensuing melee as an excuse to declare an unlawful assembly and stop the rally. Police tried to talk with counter-protest organizations about safety. According to the Heaphy Report:
“In contrast to the defensive and secretive counter-protester organizations,” notes the report, “representatives of Unite the Right were in open communication with law enforcement in the weeks leading up to the event.” This particularly includes Jason Kessler and two designated security agents. According to the Heaphy Report, “Each told [local police] that he expected a peaceful rally and hoped the police would protect Alt-Right groups from violent counter-protesters.” Mrs. Smith quotes several leaders of groups in attendance who, in view of the large police presence, anticipated a peaceful event. The plan was for ten men (including Mr. Kessler and Mr. Spencer) to speak in defense of the Lee monument and then for everyone to go home. A number of private militia groups came to Charlottesville in a neutral peace-keeping capacity, despite discouragement from local law enforcement. This turned out to be fortunate; as Mrs. Smith writes, “the militias provided the only semblance of peace-keeping and law enforcement in Charlottesville that day.” They made clear their intention to protect free speech and discourage violence from both sides, and most witnesses, including some police officers, report that they behaved in a fair and responsible way. Yet the City of Charlottesville later filed suit against them. Because some militia members were wearing military style clothing and patriotic emblems, many counter-protesters assumed they were there to support the rally. Some “news” organizations also called the militias “far-right.” Despite the name Unite the Right, there was a great deal of conflict among the organizers, and a lot of unedifying information came to light during the discovery phase of the many lawsuits that followed. An associate of Mr. Spencer’s named Elliot Kline was maneuvering to commandeer the event by spreading rumors that Mr. Kessler was Jewish and/or insane. Mr. Spencer himself wrote of Mr. Kessler: “After c ville, we need to drop him. He’s just stupid and crazy.” Some parties wanted David Duke to speak and withdrew their support when Mr. Kessler told them no. Almost at the last minute, city officials became concerned the event would be too large for Lee Park, and tried to move it to McIntire Park, a larger venue a mile away. This created confusion, but the day before the rally, a judge granted Mr. Kessler’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the move. Unite the Right rallygoers and their motives One valuable chapter in Charlottesville Untold is based on interviews with a cross-section of 10 rallygoers. As the author writes: “These people have been accused by the most powerful voices in the nation of being ‘Nazis’ and every other despicable name imaginable. None of them have ever been offered a platform to refute these accusations and tell their own version of the story.” Here are some of their stories. Luke is a graduate of Virginia Military Institute who had visited Charlottesville as a child and seen it gradually fill up with non-Virginians and radical liberals who “hate everything about the city, about the state, and about our history.” He learned that Unite the Right had protest permits, and he had faith the Virginia State Police would keep control. He had an old photograph of his grandmother with his great uncle in his WWII uniform in front of the Stonewall Jackson statue in Charlottesville. He kept it in his pocket throughout the rally to remind him why he was there. When things got heated and he thought about leaving, he remembered the photo and resolved to stay. Steve grew up in a typical Republican but not very political family in Charlottesville and was disturbed when he heard about efforts to remove the Lee statue. “I grew up with that statue. I didn’t want them to tear it down . . . . The philosophy behind ‘Unite the Right’ made sense to me – Let’s get all hands on deck. No matter what ideological differences we may have, we all oppose the leftist assault on our identity. I think we all knew it was an assault on White people in general.” Tom grew up in East Tennessee and was active in local government from an early age, where he found that traditional views like his were often ridiculed. Hearing of Unite the Right, he expected “we would picket and get our side heard.” He thought that since the rally was permitted, it would be safe. One friend offered him a shield to take along, and another offered a helmet, but Tom declined both, believing “ain’t nothing gonna happen.” Chris, a young man from Appalachia, considered himself a political moderate and a Trump Republican. Hearing about Unite the Right on Facebook before the page was taken down, he expected the rally to be attended largely by others like himself, with a focus on defending the Lee statue. Nathaniel grew up in Delaware, a conservative who had soured on the Republican Party for its failure to follow up on its promises. Gradually learning more about the Civil War, he came to respect and sympathize with the Southern cause. He thought the rally “seemed like it was going to be a lot of fun,” and he hoped to meet some online acquaintances. He knew the organizers had been working with law enforcement, so he expected both sides of the conflict to be kept apart. On the drive to Charlottesville, he listened to the audio version of a biography of Robert E. Lee. Jim was born in New York to an Irish immigrant family. His political views began to change when he became disgusted with media coverage of the Michael Brown riots, and later by the attack on all things Southern following the Dylan Roof murders. When Jim saw how rioters were celebrated as heroes while Southerners were vilified, “It got my Irish up.” He joined the League of the South and went to Charlottesville expecting to defend the constitution and the monument of the “great man” Robert E. Lee, and then go home. Bill, an oilman who had lived all over the South, had been a yellow-dog Democrat most of his life, but when people in New Orleans began pushing to remove monuments and rename parks, he joined a group dedicated to preserving them. In the course of this fight, Mr. Kessler and some of his associates had supported him. He decided to go to Unite the Right to reciprocate, because “those boys had helped me out.” Gene grew up in a traditional Southern family in Nashville. He had done enough reading to know that the things the television said about the South and the Civil War were biased. Gene knew antifa would be at Unite the Right, and he expected hostility and shouting, but not violence. He hoped to tour Monticello after the rally. Ayla Stewart, known online as Wife with a Purpose, was given the middle name “Lee” at birth in keeping with a family tradition of honoring the Confederate general. Bearing his name brought her derision in some parts of the country, so she often had to defend Lee’s honor. “I felt completely safe rallying behind this,” she explains. “This is erasing our history based on wrong information.” The evening before On August 11, the eve of the publicly announced rally, a group of rallygoers gathered for a torchlight procession from an athletic field on the University of Virginia campus to the UVA statue of Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Kessler explained that the Jefferson statue was chosen to make the point that not only Confederate symbols were under threat. Unlike the next day’s rally, there was no permit for this procession, which was planned in secret so as not to give counter-protesters time to organize. However, word leaked out and about 20 counter-protesters gathered at the Jefferson statue beforehand. Around 5:00 pm, organizers discovered the leak and informed local police. Some groups withdrew from the procession out of safety concerns, but about 300 people marched in orderly fashion, reaching the Jefferson statue around 10:20 PM. Mrs. Smith writes:
After fighting broke out, local police called for support, but by the time it arrived, the fighting was over and marchers were dispersing. Both marchers and counter-protesters spoke with disgust about the passivity of the police. Black celebrity academic Cornell West marveled: “We were there to get arrested. We couldn’t even get arrested, because the police had pulled back, just allowing fellow citizens to go at each other.” Many “news” outlets portrayed the counter-protesters as innocent victims of a “Nazi” attack. The author comments:
As at Mr. Spencer’s torchlit procession in May, participators chanted “you will not replace us,” but on this occasion some changed the words to “Jews will not replace us.” Mr. Kessler recalls:
Many marchers returned to their cars to find windows broken and tires slashed. The hour arrives By 8:45 the next morning, hundreds of attendees had gathered in the parking lot of McIntire Park. Shuttles were to take them to Lee Park about a mile and a half away. However, Charlottesville police ordered drivers to drop off attendees not at Lee Park as planned, but several blocks away. The reason for this decision is not known, but is the subject of a Freedom of Information request. The result was that many demonstrators arrived on the wrong side of the park and had to walk around to the other side through streets full of hostile counter-protesters. Some were blocked by a group of clergymen standing arm-in-arm. These men of the cloth were saying such things as “I hope you get fucked to death” and “God hates you.” Some spat on attendees. By obstructing entry to Lee Park, they left these attendees vulnerable to Antifa attacks; as the author points out, this may have been their intention. A group of 60 attendees eventually pushed through the line of clergy. Police observed without intervening. A group of about 100 attendees decided not to participate in the shuttle plan, fearing that small groups would be more vulnerable to attack. Instead, they marched from the Market St. parking garage to Lee Park. One participant recalls: “Pretty immediately I realized there was no police cover. I realized there was going to be a fight. We were getting attacked from all sides.” Even women were punched, and some elderly attendees were targeted with pepper spray. Counter-protesters threw bricks, bottles of urine, and bags of feces. Fortunately, some attendees in this group, fearing violence, had come equipped with defensive gear such as shields, helmets and eye protection. The League of the South in particular was, in Pres. Michael Hill’s words, “ready to defend ourselves and our property but not to carry out any aggressive/offensive actions.” They headed the procession and, as they approached Lee Park, ran straight into Antifa. As attendee Matt Parrott remarked to the author, “a formation that large cannot just reverse — the people in the front were being pushed ahead by those in the back who could not see what was happening.” So a melee ensued between the generally burly League of the South members and Antifa, after which the procession was able to enter Lee Park. One witness told the folks in the rear:
Once again, local police watched and did nothing. A League of the South shield wall was later of critical importance in protecting attendees inside Lee Park from the mob outside. An attendee remarked: “it was precisely the group most stigmatized by the MSM, the armored Alt-Righters with shields, who created what order existed.” Many of the neutral militia members also did good service protecting the innocent that day. One left-wing organizer confirmed that rally attendees bore the brunt of the violence: “From what I observed from my street, it was mostly Nazis that were getting beaten at that point.” A witness told this reviewer that about 1,000 attendees had gathered in Lee Park by 11:00 am, and estimated final attendance might have been as high as 2,000 if the event had been secured, but strictly speaking, the Unite the Right rally never took place. The scheduled start time was noon, but the gathering was declared an unlawful assembly at 11:31 AM. By 11:49, Virginia State Police in riot gear began moving into the park to push anyone who had not yet dispersed. None of the scheduled speakers ever said a word. Some attendees were pushed by police off the top of a four-foot wall. One was told: “Get the hell out of here. We’re not gonna clear a path for you.” All were forced to exit directly into a mob of hostile counter-protesters armed with mace, bear spray, slingshots and urine-filled balloons. One black counter-protester improvised a flame-thrower with a can of hairspray. Several participants told their story on the Memphis-based Political Cesspool radio show that night. A caller named Darren said: “The police were clearly on the side of the enemy. They attacked us. They were not on the side of law and order. It was planned, obviously, by the city government. The police attacked us with pepper spray.” A guest of the program named Mike told this harrowing story:
One attendee reported it took him 15 minutes to get to Lee Park, but two hours to return to his vehicle. Many got lost in the unfamiliar streets, and some accidentally wandered into the city’s hostile black ghetto. Antifa absurdly imagined they were there to attack residents. A writer for the Daily Caller noted: “The State of Emergency order meant that any public gathering was de facto illegal, but Antifa were still allowed to roam freely bearing weapons and attacking people.” A caller to the Political Cesspool recounted, “After we were driven out of the park, the people who had the permit – guess what? One of our people came back 30 minutes after we were driven out of the park and the Antifa were still there. They were lounging around like having a holiday.” A neutral observer recalls: “I saw a bunch of nasty shit. People fighting each other like they weren’t human. They were going for faces and putting each other in choke holds. I’m surprised there weren’t more deaths and serious injuries.” An emergency medical worker remembers: “People would come in soaked with pepper spray from the tops of their heads to the bottom of their feet. The only way to deal with that was to have them disrobe, fully hose them down, and send them out in a Tyvek suit with their clothes in a plastic bag.” Some remarked on how well the counter-protesters seemed to be prepared. Charlottesville native Hannah Zarski said “The organization for Unite the Right was so far beyond anything that could have been arranged here. It was very well coordinated.” She points out that many Antifa were carrying professionally printed signs mounted on thick wooden dowels. “Those things are not cheap.” There are many unanswered questions about their funding and preparations. An organizer for left-wing groups that day acknowledges that the Alt-Right were not the aggressors: “It was during this dispersal that some of the more violent hand-to-hand clashes happened and as groups of Nazis were leaving the area, and Charlottesville residents alongside Anti-fascists from all over the US demonstrated to them that they were not welcome. They were chased up to the parking lots, they were chased down towards McIntire.” One rallygoer ran into an old schoolmate who was there with the counter-protesters. They:
Among the authorities’ most consequential failings that day was inadequate traffic control in the downtown area. Tammy Shiflett was a “school resource officer” assigned to the corner of Market Street and 4th Street NE. Her only instructions were that she would be “doing traffic.” After the unlawful assembly order was called, Miss Shifflett found herself standing alone, with no protective gear, as Unite the Right attendees streamed past her away from the park. The Heaphy Report explains:
She was allowed to
leave, but, as the Heaphy Report notes, no one
“notified the traffic commander or the Command
Center that she was no longer at her assigned post
at 4th Street NE and Market Street. As a result, all
that remained there was a wooden sawhorse
barricade.” (read
more) BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY X
2021-11-23 b BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY IX "However, ‘scouring’ the social media accounts of Darrell Edward Brooks shows that he was a radicalized BLM activist, self-proclaimed sex trafficker, and black supremacist." Police [Try to] Dismiss
Waukesha Suspect’s Radical BLM Views – Downplay
Racial Motive with Excuse for Parade Massacre
2021-11-23
aIn Waukesha, Wisconsin on an otherwise pleasant Sunday afternoon just 23 miles away from riot-torn Kenosha, a small town parade filled with smiling children marching through the streets to mark the holiday season. Then horror struck. A red SUV drove through the crowd, killing 5 people and injuring at least 40 others, including numerous small children. The graphic videos of the terrifying event spread across social media. [...] As noted by film director Mike Cernovich, Brooks had been released from jail earlier in the week on $1,000 bond. The District Attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is a Soros-affiliated D.A. named John Chisholm. The authorities, however, are now claiming that Brooks was merely fleeing the scene from another crime, and that there are no signs of a ‘radicalized’ background. “Officials said … that preliminary investigation showed the driver was not aiming at the marching band or any other parade participant but was speeding through the route to flee an earlier crime, multiple law enforcement sources told ABC News.” “Authorities spent the overnight hours scouring social media and other digital platforms associated with the person of interest who is now in custody. They have, at least so far, no reason to believe there is any connection to radicalization…” ABC reported However, ‘scouring’ the social media accounts of
Darrell Edward Brooks shows that he was a
radicalized BLM activist, self-proclaimed sex
trafficker, and black supremacist. Most
would say that a radical BLM supporter with a
black supremacist worldview is relevant
background, particularly given the suspect
drove through a parade of white children. (read
more) BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY VIII * *
2021-11-22 g BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY VII UPDATE: Cultural Marxist Propaganda Will
Be Massive – Waukesha Officials and Feds Press
Conference
2021-11-22
fWell, the presser is over and everything unfolded exactly as expected. The “federal peacekeepers” are fully in control, and the playbook was once again fully displayed. Howie used to call the CRS the “tamp down committee,” and he’s right. If you doubt the playbook, look at the predictions last night {GO DEEP} and this morning, and compare them to the outcome. CRS activates the faith network. √ CRS hands out the scripts. √ Officials read the CRS talking points √… and the tamp down is executed. Daniel Thompson was used exactly as predicted, and even the local officials said at the conclusion of the presser there would be “no further press conferences” to outline the ongoing investigation. Everything is now in full ‘move along, move along… nothing to see here, folks,… move along‘ mode. They need this to disappear fast, and so it will. The decades-old peacekeeper playbook is entirely predictable. The only good thing is that this event will open up more eyes to the federal control effort and the existence of the DOJ-CRS as a progressive federal agency to control public opinion. WATCH. [...]The mass killing of white people in Wisconsin motivated by a black suspect -retaliating based on a false information created by federal officials, politicians and national corporate media- is the apex of predictable outcome from a national program of cultural Marxism. They need this story to go away FAST. The DOJ-CRS is our American social fabric abuser. In this Wisconsin scenario, the progressive CRS has a major role to play in shaping the perspectives of victims away from the consequences of their activity. Every
resulting action is under the CRS control, and
every word follows their script. Everything,
including the excuses, justifications, tone and
requests from the officials under the guidance of
CRS, is purposeful propaganda. The
CRS assigns the public face of local response (it
will likely be Daniel Thompson), and the CRS hands
out the script that all local, state and media
allies are required to follow. The emergency response scripts are pre-written talking points for generic use when needed. The emergency scripts are managed by officials within the Dept of Justice Community Relations Service and generally do not change over time. Those initial talking points are deployed quickly once the attack occurs. That initial emergency response took place last night and into this morning. However, now the CRS will get down to the business of granular control with people on the ground in Waukesha, Wisconsin. What I have just described sounds like something weird and conspiratorial, but it’s not. It is really just another manifestation of what we witness from many of our political and justice institutions. The DC system operators have used racial division for their own benefit for decades; however, the peacekeeper deployment has been refined, updated and refreshed with the advent of technology and social media. The CRS primarily focuses on clouding, obfuscating and hiding motives from violent race-based attacks. They will take a small innocuous possibility and expand it into the larger talking points if that helps to deflect attention away from the real racial motive of a violent attack. Remember, the CRS primarily activates when the controlled minority group attacks the majority group. The CRS stands aside when national media and politicians push a false narrative that benefits their objectives. When a NASCAR garage pull down rope is falsely promoted as a noose, the CRS just watch and do not refute the claim. When Kyle Rittenhouse is wrongfully accused of being a white supremacist the CRS do not get involved, they just watch and do not refute the claim. These examples advance the objective of the cultural Marxists and are therefore not impeded. However, when a supported minority group attack the majority group with a motive based on race, the CRS quickly jump into action. That is the specificity of what they do, and the CRS have broad power and authority to carry out their operations because they are aligned with one side of the political continuum. The CRS use allied media to shape their control over their defensive justifications and narratives. The CRS also have a massive network within the faith-based community that act as partners for their mission. The African Methodist Episcopal church (AME) is a major partner for the CRS in their objectives. Their relationship goes back to the civil rights era, before the CRS was corrupted for unilateral political benefit. There is also a large network of nationwide community activist groups who are part of the CRS rolodex. The federal peacekeeper reach is massive and, because of the cultural sensitivity they use as a weapon, it is virtually unchallenged. What we will witness today in Waukesha, Wisconsin, is entirely scripted by the DOJ Community Relations Service. The CRS will want national attention on this attack to disappear quickly. They will coordinate this effort by focusing any response to media on a local level. The CRS do not want detailed national media coverage, so they shut out national media from the local pressers and shape the national coverage through specifically targeted distribution of controlled information. Watch with new eyes and you will see it all very clearly. Once you see the
strings on the Marionettes, you can never go back to
that time before when you did not see them…. (read
more) BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY VI Desperate
Feds Want to Control the Narrative
Darrell Brooks Initial Court Appearance
Scheduled for 2pm CT Tuesday, DOJ-CRS Outlines
Waukesha Judiciary Media Rules
See also:
https://national-justice.com/waukesha-alleged-attacker-convicted-pedophile-repeat-felon-and-self-described-black-terrorist-whoThe self-proclaimed black supremacist, who used his vehicle as a weapon to kill five people and injure 40 more, has his first court appearance scheduled for 2:00pm CT tomorrow (Tuesday November 23, 2021) [Details Here]. Suspect Darrell E. Brooks will have his preliminary hearing under the careful control of the U.S. Dept of Justice Community Relations Service (DOJ-CRS) who oversee all U.S. criminal cases when race is identified as the underlying motive for an attack. Due to the high visibility of the case; and specifically because the DOJ-CRS are the primary stakeholder in the judicial proceedings {Go Deep}; the Community Relations Service has provided a court order instructing the Waukesha judiciary how they must engage/control media access. [Media Instructions Here] The CRS provides the template and Chief Judge Jennifer Dorow signs the order. The
primary concern for the CRS, aka ‘federal
peacekeepers‘ is control over the
national media narrative. The techniques
behind the court order are familiar. Long term CTH readers have familiarity with how the peacekeepers work to tamp down issues and control criminal cases that are adverse to the interests of the federal government. Ironically, and
purposefully, the claimed need for national racial
cohesiveness is the statutory justification for
federal control. Ironic, because the DOJ-CRS
support the use of race for political benefit, then
the CRS claims to protect national unity against the
outcome from using race for political benefit.
The propaganda is thick. I digress… (read
more) 2021-11-22 e BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY V Cultural Marxism, Are We
Supposed to Ignore What All the San Francisco
Looters Have in Common?
Perhaps there is a rule book somewhere that says you must not point out that all of the San Francisco looters who hit Nordstrom and Louis Vuitton are black. There are hundreds of media reports talking about the brazen nature of the ongoing mob and rob situations, but no one seems to point out what they all have in common. All of the people doing the robbing are black. Here’s an example of CBS outlining a massive mob-n-rob of Nordstroms just outside San Francisco. WATCH. Look at how this media report shared the news: …”Just before 9 p.m. dozens of cars pulled up to 1200 Broadway Plaza to block off the street and rush into store.” (link)The cars did it! Dozens of random cars just pulled up to the store and began robbing the place. It might sound crazy, but that’s exactly how NBC reporter and eyewitness Jodi Hernandez, described the incident when she initially tweeted out the alarm as she watched. Look: “About 25 cars just blocked the street and rushed into the Walnut Creek Nordstrom making off with goods before getting in cars and speeding away,” Hernandez said on Twitter.25 cars blocked the street, rushed the store, stole stuff and then got into cars? So the cars were in cahoots with more cars.
This is silly . “Walnut Creek Police investigators are
in the process of reviewing surveillance footage
to attempt to identify other suspects responsible
for this brazen act,” the department said in
Sunday’s statement. Nordstrom reopened as
usual on Sunday. (more) This must be “economic justice” or something. The video from the Louis Vuitton mob-n-rob is here. (read more)See also: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-shoplifting-spike-devastating-small-businesses See also: https://www.hoover.org/research/why-shoplifting-now-de-facto-legal-california 2021-11-22 d BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY IV (Disproportionate black criminality is not new. This is from Time magazine over 60 years ago.) THEY are afraid to say so in public, but many of the North’s big-city mayors groan
in private that their biggest and most worrisome
problem is the crime rate among Negroes.
In 1,551 U.S. cities, according to the FBI tally for 1956, Negroes, making up 10% of the U.S. population, accounted for about 30% of all arrests, and 60% of the arrests for crimes involving violence or threat of bodily harm—murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. In one city after another, the figures—where they are not hidden or suppressed by politicians—reveal a shocking pattern. Items: New York (14% Negro). Of the prisoners confined in houses of detention last year to await court disposition of their cases, 44% of the males and 65% of the females were Negroes. Chicago (15% Negro). In 1956 twice as many Negroes as whites—1,366 to 679—were arrested on charges of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape and robbery. Detroit (25% Negro). Two out of three prisoners held in the Wayne County jail are Negroes. Last month 62% of. the defendants presented for trial in Recorder’s Court were Negroes. Of last year’s 25,216 arrests resulting in prosecution, excluding traffic cases, Negroes accounted for 12,919. Los Angeles (13% Negro). In 1956 Negroes accounted for 28% of all arrests, and 48% of the arrests for homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny and auto theft. San Francisco (7% Negro). The victims in 896 of last year’s 1,564 recorded robbery cases reported that the assailants were Negroes. Negro leaders sometimes argue passionately that arrest statistics wildly distort the comparative incidence of crime among Negroes and whites because cops are more likely to arrest Negroes for petty crimes or on mere suspicion. Protests Executive Editor Charles Wartman of Detroit’s Michigan Chronicle, a Negro weekly: “The number of Negroes booked is at least partially indicative of subconscious if not conscious racial persecution on the part of police officers.” But inequality of treatment by the police may actually tend to shrink rather than inflate the statistics of Negro crime. Says Newsman Wartman in the next breath: “When Negroes violate social morals—sex, drinking, gambling—white cops bypass this as ‘typically Negro.’ ” Many Negro leaders protest that the police are far from diligent enough in dealing with crimes committed against Negroes—and Negroes are the victims in the great majority of Negro crimes of violence. Since Negroes, even when they are victims or innocent bystanders, are often wary of calling the police, many offenses of disorder and assault go unreported when committed by Negroes in the depths of a ghetto. Whether the statistics of Negro crime overstate or understate the reality, they are shrouded from public attention by what a Chicago judge last week called a “conspiracy of concealment.” In many cities, Negro leaders and organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People put pressure on politicians, city officials and newspapers to play down the subject. Fearing loss of Negro votes, few elected officials dare to resist the pressures. (source) 2021-11-22 c BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY III hate crime committed by a black
supremacist
Darrell Brooks Jr.: 5 Fast
Facts You Need to Know
See also: Waukesha
tragedy: Ex-FBI agent points out why vehicle's
movements were 'very strange'Darrell Brooks Jr. is a Milwaukee man who was taken into custody in connection with the Waukesha Christmas parade tragedy in Wisconsin on November 21, 2021, according to police. At least five people were killed and 48 were injured. The 39-year-old
Brooks was identified by Waukesha Police Chief
Daniel Thompson at a press conference on November
22, 2021, as the suspect in the tragedy. Thompson
said Brooks was driving the SUV and had been
involved in a domestic disturbance not long before
he is accused of driving into the holiday parade
route and had left that scene before police arrived.
He was not being chased by officers before entering
the parade route, Thompson said. Thompson said Brooks was alone in the SUV and the incident is not believed to have been an act of terrorism. Brooks will be charged with five counts of first-degree intentional homicide, along with other charges, Thompson said. He identified the victims as Virginia Sorenson, 79; Leanna Owens, 71; Tamara Durand, 52; James Coolidge, 52; and Wilhelm Hospel, 82. Brooks’ social
media accounts and online court records show that he
is an aspiring rap singer with a lengthy criminal
history and two open felony cases in which he was
released on $500 and $1,000 bail, the latter just
days before the parade deaths. Before Thompson’s press conference officially identifying Brooks, NBC News reported that five law enforcement sources told the outlet Brooks was “the individual in custody as a person of interest and is being questioned by law enforcement in connection with the vehicle incident in Waukesha.” When Brooks was detained, police found a Ford key on him, according to scanner audio obtained by Heavy. Police squad cars
were at a Milwaukee address used by Brooks after his
name was mentioned on the scanner in connection with
the Waukesha parade incident in which at least 48
people, including many children, were injured when a
red Ford Escape plowed through the crowd. He
complained of shoulder pain when taken into custody. Heavy confirmed that two Milwaukee police squads were outside the home listed to Brooks on N. 19th St. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Heavy also obtained audio from the scanner indicating Waukesha police obtained an ID in the name Darrell Brooks Jr. inside the red Ford Escape they recovered in connection with the Waukesha parade investigation. Brooks had prolific social media accounts, but some have already been deleted. According to an announcement by the City of Waukesha late on November 21, five people had died and more than 40 were injured in the incident. “However, these numbers may change as we collect additional information. Many people have self-transported to area hospitals,” the city shared. The dead included members of the Dancing Grannies, an iconic group of senior citizens who dance in parades, the group confirmed on Facebook. Here’s what you
need to know: (read
more) See also: Waukesha tragedy: Harrowing videos show moment SUV driver ran over dancing young girls See also: Waukesha: Darrell Brooks aka Mathboi Fly's videos allegedly show SAME red Ford Escape SUV See also: Milwaukee County DA admits it was a mistake to grant $1,000 bail to SUV-driving felon days before he smashed into Xmas parade: Darrell Brooks was freed after running over mother of his child and is now charged with homicide after killing five 2021-11-22 b BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY II hate crime committed by a black
supremacist
 THREAD:
#Waukesha #BLM Darrell Edward Brooks Jr. He is an admitted child sex trafficker. — The Cocaína (@MrNukemCocaine) November 21, 2021 2021-11-22 a BLACKS BEHAVING BADLY I hate crime committed by a black
supremacist
Driver of SUV In Waukesha
Christmas Parade Attack Identified – Darrell
E Brooks, Black Male (39), From Milwaukee
Wisconsin
2021-11-21 mWith three independent eye witnesses {link}, and now confirmation from New York Post journalist Karol Markowicz {LINK}, we can confirm the suspect who was driving the maroon Ford Escape was a black male named: Darrell Edward Brooks Jr, 39 year-old [black nationalist rapper], from Milwaukee Wisconsin. Darrell Edward Brooks of 4014 North 19th Street, Milwaukee, WI 53209 [aka Darrell Eugene Brooks, aka Quinton Feilcein] was seen driving the SUV into the crowd. Twenty individuals were hit by the vehicle, some of them children. There are [currently 5 reported] fatalities. Darrell Brooks was just released on a $1,000 cash bond November 19th, two days before his rampage. [Criminal Record Here] Darrell Brooks was facing six charges related to domestic abuse, battery, disorderly conduct, bail jumping and resisting arrest. Due to the race of the suspect and the likely motive, this was a race-based attack against white citizens in Waukesha, Wisconsin, in retaliation for the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. It is almost certain the DOJ Community Relations Service (DOJ-CRS) is now taking the lead on the case [SEE HERE]. Controlling information from local officials and media is what the CRS does with criminal cases that have a racial component. CRS is the only federal agency dedicated to working with community groups to resolve community conflicts and prevent and respond to alleged hate crimes arising from differences of race. {link} Hence, Waukesha Police Chief Daniel Thompson told the media there would be no further comment until 1:00pm CT today. Obviously, a black male suspect intentionally targeting a group of white victims is the worst case scenario for government and media who use race as a weapon to advance political ideology. Additionally, the media’s racist fabrications around the Kyle Rittenhouse case are a key reason why there is so much racial animosity. Government officials, politicians and media allies all used the Rittenhouse case to provoke racial strife. The attack by Brooks is a direct consequence of their conduct. The delay in further press releases provides the DOJ-CRS crisis response unit time to take full operational control over the messaging related to the Christmas parade attack. Local law enforcement will be “guided” by federal officers from the DOJ-CRS and FBI. Due to the sensitivity of the issues, the messaging will come directly from the DOJ-CRS through the local officials and public information officers. The Waukesha police chief is black, the CRS will make him the face of their words. The CRS, also known as the “Federal Peacekeepers”, will bring faith-based leaders to the forefront now; it’s their pattern. The next appearance by investigative officials will contain preachers, ministers, and members of the faith community to try and blunt the racial motive. The media will demand healing and forgiveness for the attack. Obviously the media and political hypocrisy will be thick. If the races were reversed, it would be a full frontal assault on white males. However, in this instance the narrative will be a demand to understand the mental frustration of a black male who has been victimized by the system and had no choice except to let out his anger. The DOJ-CRS will
also shape the information presented to media
stakeholders who are also exposed by the motive of
the attack. The DOJ,
DOJ-CRS, FBI, special interest groups and Big Tech
allies will all work together to protect the media
and politicians who manufactured the crisis that
led to the racial attack. (read
more) THE STATE OF THE DISUNION XIII In deepest, darkest
Waukesha, Wisconsin:
Mass Casualty Event as SUV Intentionally
Driven [by Black Male with Dreadlocks] into Crowd
During Christmas Parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin –
Person of Interest Identified
A maroon Ford Escape intentionally plowed through a [mostly white] crowd in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Dozens of people are injured and reports of fatalities. Horrific video is emerging of the SUV deliberately driving into the crowd. Initial reporting of several people in the vehicle at the time. Media reporting a [black] person of interest has been identified. Details are sketchy as the incident is recent. However, given the recent controversy surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin, many are speculating this was a revenge attack targeting a white audience. UPDATE 8:27pm ET – One eyewitness describes the driver as a “black guy with dreadlocks, by himself.” (read more and see videos) 2021-11-21 l THE STATE OF THE DISUNION XII They Fear YOU.* The Regime is losing
its grip. People are waking up. They want their
country back.
— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2021 2021-11-21 k THE STATE OF THE DISUNION XI Sunday Talks, Virginia Lt
Governor-Elect Winsome Sears Swings Atomic
Sledgehammer of Truth Crushing CNN Propaganda Effort
Holy smokes this lady is impressive. Virginia Lt. Governor-Elect Winsome Sears appears on CNN’s State of the Union show hosted by Dana Bash. Dana Bash, throws out several DNC leftist talking points in an effort to corner Winsome Sears, but the incoming Lieutenant Governor was having none of the nonsense. From the infrastructure bill, to Critical Race Theory, to COVID and vaccine propaganda Ms. Winsome Sears just pummels the talking points of the political left. When questioned about Virginia receiving benefits from the Biden infrastructure bill for broadband expansion, Sears points out the leftist infrastructure bill only permits money for broadband in Virginia regions with expanding immigrant populations, vis-avis illegal aliens. The illegal alien residency is a requirement for the money, so how does that benefit Southwest Virginians? Dana Bash is speechless. When questioned about CRT in schools, Bash attempts the parseltongue framework that CRT is not “officially” in the curriculum. Mrs Sears points out the specifics of where CRT does actually exist in the Democrat curriculum. Dana Bash is uncomfortable, visibly uncomfortable, and speechless. When questioned about COVID vaccinations for children, and the private personal vaccination status of Mrs. Sears herself, well, Winsome Sears just pummels the premise with facts, reason, science and the foundational block of liberty. John King’s ex wife shrinks. Then comes the Rittenhouse mic drop at the end… WATCH Plain talk…. heart talk…. strong talk…. Virginia has done very well with Winsome Sears. Mrs. Sears is a communist democrat’s worst nightmare. The political left must be extremely fearful of this woman. (read more) 2021-11-21 j THE STATE OF THE DISUNION X  2021-11-21 i THE STATE OF THE DISUNION IX (Vote with your feet.) BREAKING
REPORT: Tennessee Governor invites nation’s
unvaccinated officers to JOIN THEIR HIGHWAY
PATROL, will assist with relocation Expenses..
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) November 19, 2021 * I have a message for
law enforcement officers from New York to Los
Angeles: If you're looking for a state that stands
with you & will protect your freedoms, come to
Tennessee.
Apply with the @TNHighwayPatrol at JoinTHP.com — Gov. Bill Lee (@GovBillLee) November 17, 2021 2021-11-21 h THE STATE OF THE DISUNION VIII Sen. Ron Johnson says Build
Back Better bill will hurt middle class
2021-11-21 gSen. Ron Johnson said Democrats are putting the burden of paying for President Biden’s $1.75 trillion “Build Back Better” [Green New Deal] spending package on the middle class, because that’s “where the money is.” “The only place Democrats can get the money to fund all of their giveaway programs is from the middle class, because that’s where the money is,” the Wisconsin Republican told John Catsimatidis in an interview aired Sunday on WABC 770 AM. Even though the massive spending plan targets corporations with a higher tax rate, the hidden costs will eventually trickle down to middle-class families. “They don’t really bear the brunt of the tax increase,” Johnson said about corporations. “They just pass it along to consumers and to their employees in lower wages and benefits. So yeah, it’s the middle class that always pays.” The House passed the Build Back Better [boondoggle] legislation on Friday by a 220-213 vote, but it faces an uncertain future in the Senate where Democrats cannot afford to have one defection in the narrowly divided 50-50 chamber. Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have raised questions about the bill’s provisions and how it will be paid for. Johnson and other Republicans have warned that the Build Back Better bill, which extends child tax credits, allocates billions for clean energy programs and expands the IRS’ enforcement power, will also exacerbate the effects of inflation and lead to the higher gas prices that are already hitting Americans in their wallets. “Gasoline prices
[and] home heating prices are up because Democrats
have a war on fossil fuels. What was the first thing
that President Biden did when he came into office?
He canceled construction of the Keystone pipeline.
He’s threatening shutting down pipeline No.
5 which
supplies gas into Michigan and the upper Midwest.
They are intentionally driving up the cost of
energy,” Johnson said. “Who bears the
brunt of that? Not Bill Gates. Not Jeff Bezos. Not
President Biden. Not Vice President Harris. It’s the
middle class. And particularly people at the lower
spectrum of the middle class. They are the ones who
are hurting most by Democrat governance. Those
individuals the Democrat party is always purporting
to help, they are the ones who are hurt most by
Democrat governance,” the senator said. He pointed out that the president, because of skyrocketing fuel prices, had to plead with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase its oil production to help alleviate the pain at the pump. The cartel turned Biden down. “Ever
since the formation of OPEC, it has been … US
policy to become energy independent. … Under
President Trump we became energy independent. And
then President Biden comes into office and makes
sure that we are not energy independent.
And then, when prices start spiking, he goes
crawling to Saudi Arabia and Putin saying, ‘Can you
please pump some more oil?’ … This is beyond
absurd,” Johnson said, referring to the Russian
president. (read
more) THE STATE OF THE DISUNION VII (The lament of a statist.) The Last Progressive: Biden
and Illusions of “Normalcy”
2021-11-21 fIn a provocative recent essay in the New York Times, the political historian Jon Grinspan places the distemper currently afflicting American politics in a broader context. In essence, he contends that we’ve been here before. Grinspan describes the period from the 1860s to 1900 as an “age of acrimony,” with the nation as a whole “embroiled in a generation-long, culturewide war over democracy.” Today, we find ourselves well into round two of that very war. But Grinspan urges his fellow citizens not to give up hope. A return to normalcy — boring perhaps, but tolerable — might well be right around the corner. Mark me down as skeptical. Party politics during the decades following the Civil War were notably raucous and contentious, Grinspan writes, with Election Day turnout “higher than in any other period in American history.” Yet, despite all the commotion, not a lot got done. “The more demands Americans put on their democracy, the less they got.” Then sometime around the turn of the twentieth century, “Americans decided to simmer down.” Popular interest in national politics declined. So, too, did voter turnout. Rather than a participatory sport, politics became something like an insiders’ game. Yet “American lives improved more in this period than in any other,” he contends. What many today remember, fondly or not, as “normal politics,” dominated by once prominent but now forgotten white male pols, prevailed. Making this possible, according to Grinspan, was “the unusually calmed twentieth century.” By what standard does the twentieth century qualify as unusually calm? Grinspan doesn’t say. Given that it encompassed two horrific world wars, the Great Depression, a Cold War, at least one brush with Armageddon, multiple genocides, the collapse of several empires, and the rise and fall of various revolutionary ideologies, calm hardly seems an appropriate description. Even so, Grinspan finds in that century reason for optimism. “We’re not the first generation to worry about the death of our democracy,” he observes.
So, fretting about the possible death of democracy turns out to be a recurring phenomenon. Our impoverished political imagination misleads us into thinking that our own version of those worries is particularly daunting. If we were to peer a bit further into our own past, we’d recognize that lowering the political temperature might once more enable us to get things done. So Grinspan would have us believe. Kissing Normalcy Goodbye A century ago, in 1920, Americans did indeed elect a president who vowed to lower the political temperature. Warren G. Harding promised a “return to normalcy.” Alas, the congenial Harding didn’t manage to live out his term and his promise, along with his presidency, was soon forgotten. Precisely 100 years later, American[ electoral cheat]s terrified at the prospect of Donald Trump remaining in the White House for another four years turned to a Harding-like professional pol in hopes that he might simmer things down. As the New York Times recently put it, voters vaguely expected that electing Joe Biden and removing “former President Donald J. Trump from their television screens” would “make American life ordinary again.” In fact, that was never going to happen. Like Harding, Joe Biden appears to be a most amiable fellow. Thus far, however, he’s demonstrated negligible aptitude for restoring even an approximation of ordinariness to American life. Hysterical rightwing critics denounce the [illegitimate] president as a socialist or even a Marxist. He is neither, of course. No evidence exists to suggest that the White House intends to collectivize American agriculture, nationalize the means of production, or convert the FBI into a homegrown version of the KGB or the Stasi. Instead, Biden has merely offered anodyne promises to “Build Back Better.” A more accurate slogan might be “Spend More and Hope for the Best.” Ten months into Biden’s term, his achievements remain few in number, even given the recent passage of a long-awaited infrastructure bill. To say that his administration is still finding its feet is no longer persuasive. An obituary of his presidency written today would highlight supply-chain problems, rising gas prices, a spike in inflation, a fumbling response to the southern border crisis, and a humiliating conclusion to the Afghanistan War. Meanwhile, Covid-19 continues to claim a disturbingly large number of American lives. On the global stage, despite various highly publicized overseas trips, the president has yet to score a notable success. As a party leader, his struggles to impose discipline on the fractious rank-and-file of the Democrats elicit from the chattering classes continuous chatter. And while Biden obviously relishes the opportunity to preach from behind the White House bully pulpit, he has failed to rally the nation, as the never-ending controversies over vaccinations and vaccine mandates amply demonstrate. What are we to make of this disappointing record? Biden cut his eyeteeth on the conviction that government activism can solve fundamental problems affecting the lives of ordinary Americans. In that regard, he is indeed the heir to the progressive tradition pioneered by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson. Yet Joe Biden may well be fated to bring down the curtain on progressivism as a force in national politics. With American conservatism substantively defunct, Donald Trump having drained it of any lingering pretense of principle, the stage behind that curtain will then be left bare. That a mediocre Democratic senator from West Virginia and an even more obscure one from Arizona will have collaborated in sucking the last vestiges of substance from our political system should rank as one of the larger ironies of our age. Progressivism Runs Out of Gas The dizzying pace of contemporary history finds many Americans out of breath, angry, disgusted, or verging on despair. The magnitude of the catastrophe that befell the United States in Afghanistan and the staggering toll Americans have endured throughout the Covid pandemic [of lies] await an honest examination. So, too, does last January’s assault on the Capitol [by the Federal Bureau of Insurrection and their paid henchmen],which exposed the fragility of the Constitutional order in a new way. Meanwhile, with the Lord of Mar-a-Lago and his lieutenants continuing to conspire, the possibility of the United States falling into a potentially terminal tailspin can hardly be excluded. So what is to be done? Don’t look to the Biden White House for answers to that question. Depending on what news network you choose to watch, you’ll hear partisans describing the progressive tradition as either imperiling the Republic or offering the prospect of salvation. Neither judgment is correct. It’s more accurate to say that progressivism is now increasingly beside the point. So, if Professor Grinspan counts on Americans to follow Biden’s lead and simmer down, he’s headed for a disappointment. The likelihood of the president easing our present distress, embodied by Trumpism but including a panoply of complaints, appears remote. The normalcy to which he hopefully alludes lurks nowhere over the horizon. If anything, the opposite is true: for the foreseeable future, normalcy will be defined mainly by its absence. And that just might turn out to be a good thing. To understand why this might be the case, you have to begin by acknowledging the exhaustion of the reformist heritage to which Biden adheres. That tradition emerged from an identifiable historical context, simultaneously deriving from and expressing an identifiable cultural consensus. True, in the heyday of progressivism, the voices heard tended to be mostly white and mostly male. Yet the narrow basis of American democratic practice in that era made agreement on certain fundamentals possible. However flawed and subject to recurring challenge, the resulting consensus persisted through the twentieth century, imparting not only a measure of predictability but also a modicum of cohesion to American politics. Even today, progressives tout the altruistic component of their tradition, with its emphasis on equality, justice, and sympathy for the downtrodden. Yet high ideals rarely suffice to win elections. In practice, the progressive agenda has centered less on admirable intangibles than on concrete deliverables. On that score, progressives have sought to satisfy an all but insatiable American appetite for consumption, convenience, and mobility. Here we come to the beating heart of contemporary American politics. As that system evolved toward its mature state — a mammoth enterprise that annually burns through trillions of dollars — uninhibited consumption and convenience, along with unbridled mobility came to define what citizens expected it to deliver. Hence, the outrage when store shelves are even momentarily empty and gas prices temporarily shoot up. At root, the ultimate purpose of American politics in the modern era, seldom acknowledged but universally understood, has been to provide for more and better, quicker and easier, and faster and further. The very pursuit proved endless — the American political lexicon in those years did not include the word enough — and therefore, in the end, proved inherently disruptive. Properly understood, in other words, the progressive project was never especially high-minded. Yet it was never anything other than deadly realistic. Two cherished but spurious claims have helped camouflage its essential tawdriness. According to the first, what the American people really care about is not getting and going but a conception of freedom worth fighting for. As my neighbors in nearby New Hampshire like to put it, “Live Free or Die.” According to the second, along with this love of freedom, what distinguishes Americans is their pronounced religiosity. “In God,” Americans insist, “We Trust.” A profound love of freedom and a conviction that the American experiment expresses the workings of divine (implicitly Christian) providence have ostensibly elevated the United States above other nations. Together, they imbued American crassness with a visible sheen of idealism. Of course, in the century of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, neither of these claims withstand even casual scrutiny. In the present United States, freedom has become indistinguishable from the casting off of constraints. If advancing the cause of freedom entails sacrifice, citizens spare themselves the slightest inconvenience by hiring out fighting to specialists known collectively as “the troops.” As for God, an increasingly secular society consigns him to the margins of public life. To an extent that a century ago would have been unfathomable, religion has become more or less a matter of personal taste, of no more significance than one’s preferences for movies or cuisine. In the New York Times and the Washington Post, race, gender, and sexuality command continuous attention. For the latest in theological insights, however, the curious should look elsewhere. As a believer, a conservative [in name only], and a long-ago soldier, I may not personally endorse such trends, but it makes no sense to deny their existence. So, however much I might want to agree with Grinspan’s contention that “reform is possible” — full-out despondency being the sole alternative — more-is-better American progressivism is unlikely to provide a meaningful template for change. Sharpening the Contradictions The imperative of the present moment requires not reverting to some mythic normalcy, but facing the actual contradictions afflicting the American way of life. Any such reckoning will necessarily entail political risk. For proof, recall the price that President Jimmy Carter paid when he called for just such a reckoning in his famously derided “Malaise” speech of 1979. Americans responded the following year by revoking his lease on the White House. Even so, what Carter proposed then may well be what we need now. With the nation mired in what he termed a “crisis of confidence,” Carter declared that “we are at a turning point in our history,” obliged to choose between one of “two paths.” One path, he said, pointed toward “a mistaken idea of freedom” centered on “constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility.” The other, based on “common purpose and the restoration of American values,” pointed toward what he called “true freedom.” No one has ever accused the Georgia peanut-farmer-turned-politician of being a deep thinker, so Carter was vague on what actually constituted true freedom. But his instincts were sound and his analysis prescient. Indeed, others since have rounded out his critique, even if with little more success than Carter had in persuading Americans to contemplate the true meaning of freedom more than four decades ago. Perhaps our innate ability to “see further into the future,” as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright so unforgettably put it in 1998, renders any such second thoughts unnecessary. Of course, when Albright made her own stab at deep thinking, the future seemed all too clear. The end of the Cold War had left the United States in a position of political, economic, technological, cultural, and above all, military primacy. What could possibly go wrong? By now, we know the answer: just about everything. To allow the promises contained within Biden-esque progressivism to conceal the extent of the debacle we have suffered would, in my view, be a profound mistake. [Illegitimate]
President Biden contends that as a nation and a
species we have today arrived at an “inflection
point”
— a favorite phrase of his. Yet even if fully
implemented (a doubtful prospect), the Biden program
has no chance of curing our present disorders. A
warmed over, if pricier, version of FDR’s New Deal
and LBJ’s Great Society, it’s too timid and too
derivative. Progressivism once
looked to the future; today, it’s stuck in the
past. (read
more) THE STATE OF THE DISUNION VI The Big Lie
 2021-11-21 e THE STATE OF THE DISUNION V Biden's 2020 Big Lie and Libel
 * Let's Sue Brandon. https://t.co/jCBtlKK3so — Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) November 20, 2021 2021-11-21 d THE STATE OF THE DISUNION IV Please,
Defend Yourself in a Classy Manner
The greatest crime here is a serious lack of firearms esthetics. Black trash offing each other with horrid plastic 9mm pistols. White trash toting around common stamped metal milsim .22 cal replicas. One yearns to see street crime committed with a wonderful broomhandle Mauser or early Luger, or even a junkie Tokarev in .30 caliber. Or parading yahoos in Boise toting Model 94 lever actions and Sharps single shot octagonal barreled artifacts. Any perp would be proud to be offed by one of those .455 Webleys that fails to fire half the time, or even an original 1911 Browning designed .45 auto that definitely does go off every time. Instead, this terrible display of trashy plastic or stamped metal mil wannabee firearms and truly disgusting 9mm plastic trash pistols. Even Bernie Goetz showed more style, using a wonderful little stainless 5 shot .38 special S&W Model 60 with actual stock rosewood grips. (source) 2021-11-21 c THE STATE OF THE DISUNION III (Rittenhouse performed a public service.) Joseph Rosenbaum, also known as "JoJo" by Mark Ruffalo, molested and raped five separate boys between the ages of 9 and 11. But considering that he works in Hollywood, I'm actually not surprised Ruffalo is willing to give JoJo a pass for sodomizing little boys. https://t.co/gtCuD1Ohdg pic.twitter.com/ol0dxTa2Vt — Pedro L. Gonzalez (@emeriticus) November 21, 2021 2021-11-21 b THE STATE OF THE DISUNION II "Even the Smallest Person
Can Change the Course of the Future": Nick Sandmann,
Kyle Rittenhouse and the Reality of Being White at
the Wrong Place at the Right Time to Change History
2021-11-21 a“Even the smallest person can change the course of the future,” wrote J.R.R. Tolkien in his seminal Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. The extremely hostile and anti-white climate fostered and fomented by the regime media after the election of Donald Trump in 2016 meant any moment a white person engaged publicly with a non-white person, an opportunity was at hand to demonstrate this individual encounter – if sufficiently showing white ‘supremacy’ – was enough to collectively punish all white people across America as racist. Our regime media tried it in 2019 with Nicholas Sandmann (failing spectacularly) and since the Kenosha riots coming to a resounding end courtesy of the supreme marksmanship of Kyle Rittenhouse, the young white male brandishing an AR-15 to protect private has been deemed the second coming of white supremacy and a stalwart defender of systemic racism. It’s only a matter of time before Rittenhouse is acquitted by a jury of his peers, and then it’s only a matter of time before he takes the advice of Sandmann and sues the regime media for defamation. [‘Covington kid’ Nick Sandmann thinks Kyle Rittenhouse should sue for defamation: ‘Hold the media accountable’, Fox News, November 17, 2021]:
When Sandmann and Rittenhouse woke up on the mornings of their respectful fateful encounters, they had no idea how much their courage under extreme derision – and the intense hatred they’d subsequently receive for not folding in the face of a chanting Amerindian or gun-toting Bolsheviks – would help change the world. For so many people, the mistreatment of Sandmann and Rittenhouse by the regime media offer a moment revealing the anti-white animus motivating the regime media. Though
they had never met before fate brought them
together, Sandmann and Rittenhouse are the Frodo
and Sam we needed to stand up and remind us all
even the smallest among us can change the course
of events. (read
more) THE STATE OF THE DISUNION I OSHA Backs
Down
https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2 On November 12, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion to stay OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, published on November 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61402) ("ETS"). The court ordered that OSHA "take no steps to implement or enforce" the ETS "until further court order." While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation. The ETS on Vaccination and Testing was officially filed in the Office of the Federal Register on November 4, 2021, and it became effective when it was published on November 5, 2021. Written comments on any aspect of the ETS must be submitted by December 6, 2021 in Docket number OSHA-2021-0007. Written comments on the information collection determination as described in V.K. of the ETS preamble [2021-23643] must be submitted by January 4, 2022 in Docket number OSHA-2021-0008. (read more) See also: Unbelievable but apparently true - there’s been a complete news blackout on the OSHA decision to suspend mandate implementation ______________________ Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL, http://www.usaapay.com/comm.html ______________________ 2021 ARCHIVE
2020 ARCHIVE
-0-
|
...
News and facts for
those sick and tired of the National Propaganda Radio
version of reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| THE ARCHIVE PAGE |
| If
you let them redefine words, they will control
language. If you let them control language, they will control thoughts. If you let them control thoughts, they will control you. They will own you. |
| © 2020 - 2021 - thenotimes.com - All Rights Reserved |
