Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Drugs in America: Conspiracy to Complicity

Drugs in America: Conspiracy to Complicity

Part 1 Iran Contra Scandal and the CIA






“To hold a people in oppression you have to convince them first that they are supposed to be oppressed.” John Henrik Clarke

Every since the Viet Nam war created such large spread protest there has been an unspoken agreement in Washington that perception had to be managed for Americans and that it is more important than having an informed constituency. If future wars and policies were going to be supported by the American people, the government was going to have to invest in propaganda on an Orwellian level.

In the 1980's, during his presidency, Ronald Reagan made it his business to eliminate Communism around the world. This became known as the Reagan Doctrine. One of his pet projects was the Contras in Nicaragua. They were fighting against the Sandinistas who were backed by the Cuban government. Because of his policies, the CIA trained and otherwise helped rebels fighting communists all over the world.


"Stay self-funded as long as possible."
Garrett Camp, founder Expa, Uber, and StumbleUpon

In order to aid these insurgencies, the CIA needed funding. But the Democratic Party did not support the policy. The Democrats took the majority of the congressional seats in the November 1982 election. Shortly thereafter, they passed the Boland Amendment that restricted funding for the CIA and the Department of Defense. And this meant their aid to the Contras as well. In 1984 the Boland Amendment(3) was made even more restrictive. The CIA was going to have to come up with funding from somewhere else. In spite of this, President Reagan told his National Security Advisor, Robert McFarlane, to do whatever he had to in order to help the Contras.

The following year in 1985, Iran was at war with Iraq. The Iranians needed weapons and they secretly asked to buy them from the United States. But there was an embargo against selling weapons to them. Reagan's National Security Advisor, McFarlane believed that selling them weapons would help US relations and influence in the Middle East. To complicate things further, Iranian terrorists were holding 7 American hostages in Lebanon and Reagan had been unable to secure their release. He wasn't inclined to negotiate with terrorists. Shipping weapons to Iran would cause him to break his campaign promise not to deal with terrorists as well as violating the embargo.

President Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz, his Secretary of State were both against making a weapons deal with Iran. But McFarland and then CIA director William Casey were all for it and the President agreed. So they went forward with the plan. By the time a halt was put to this secret deal, over 1500 missiles would be sent to the Iranians. Three of the hostages were released but then three more were taken.

In November of 1986, the Lebanese newspaper Al-Shiraa published a story exposing the secret deal. (2) And Reagan responded by denying that there was a deal. He then retracted his statement but still insisted it hadn't been an arms for hostages agreement. (4) He took a huge public relations hit because very few Americans believed he was being completely honest.

An investigation was started into the deal by Attorney General Edwin Meese and he found out that the Iranians had paid $30 million dollars for the weapons but only $12 million of it ended up in the treasury. (5)

This is when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North who was on the National Security Council, came into the picture. He said he had been using this missing money to help the Contras and that the NSA Advisor Admiral John Poindexter was fully aware of it and that he believed the President supported it too.

As a result, Oliver North was fired and Admiral Poindexter resigned. But the press wasn't done with the whole affair, they demanded to know if the President knew about the illegal activities or not. If he didn't how did he allow something this big to happen?

President Reagan appointed the Tower Commission(6) to look into the matter. They found that he had allowed conditions to exist in the White House that made it possible. But there was no evidence that he knew that the money was being diverted to the Contras.

People were still not convinced. Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh(7) continues to investigate the scandal for eight years. During that time fourteen people were charged with covering things up. Oliver North was convicted, but his conviction was eventually overturned. President George Bush, Sr. was elected and he issued six pardons, one of which was McFarlane. Weinberger hadn't even stood trial yet when Bush pardoned him. (8)

Despite all of this Ronald Reagan left office with the highest approval rating of any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Don't find customers for your product, find products for your customers. Seth Godin

But what was the CIA's role in all of this? The former Director of the Covert Action Staff at the CIA, who was also a specialist in propaganda and disinformation helped set up a system of inter-agency committees, among these a working group on Central American Public Diplomacy. The NSC staff had Otto Reich appointed as Director of the Office of Public Diplomacy. This office reported directly to the NSC. The Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean or S/LPD hired public affairs specialists to help carry out Reagan's policy in Latin America. The S/LPD(9) operated out of the State Department. These two men were Richard R. Miller and Francis D. Gomez.

With the support of the State Department and the White House, they were in charge of fundraising and lobbying. They also managed Central American politicians, and leaders of the Nicaraguan opposition i.e. the Contras as well as people who had been victims of the Sandanistas. They helped them meet with the press, members of Congress and others who could help support Reagan's policies so that they could tell their stories and gain support for these policies as well as funding. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North told them to help in transferring the funds they raised to offshore accounts and Swiss bank accounts. They were the major link between the White House, the State Department and these private groups who all shared the common purpose of influencing Congress, the media and thereby the public opinion.

When Donald Greg who was Chief of the Intelligence Directorate left to join Vice President George Bush, Sr.'s staff, he made the recommendation for who his successor should be. This successor proposed and received approval for a plan to set up a public diplomacy program as part of the responsibilities of his job.

Documents were later obtained by the Select Committees show that the Director of the Intelligence Staff of the NSC established an inter-governmental network with the aim of promoting and managing public diplomacy in order to gain support for the Reagan Administration Policies. (1)

George Shultz the Secretary of State tried to prevent the creation of the S/LPD within the State Department. He preferred a more open and direct manner of doing things. He wrote a memorandum in May of 1983 to President Reagan and asked that they use more "simple and straight-forward management procedures." He asked that he be solely responsible for carrying out Reagan's policies through the State Department. But Reagan believed that it would require the cooperation of multiple departments to carry out his Central American policy. And that his Cabinet officers needed to work together. In a memo he sent to Shultz there was a chart with the NSC between the President and the State Department. (1)

After the S/LPD was established, Walter Raymond, Jr. was appointed as Special Assistant to the President and Director of International Communications at the NSC. And the newly created S/LPD reported directly to him and his working group on Central American Public Diplomacy at the NSC. Within this working group were representatives from the USIA, the CIA and the Department of Defense. He also, was in charge of hiring staff from other departments because they were on a limited budget because the Department of State wouldn't give them more money or resources.

Some of the personnel from these other departments were intelligence specialists from the Air Force and the Army. These included personnel from the Psychological Operation Group at Fort Bragg, NC. They even recruited Bill Greener, the public affairs head at Philip Morris to help them treat the Central American agenda like a product that needed to be marketed. (10)

In 1986 a man named Pete Daily became Counselor to the Director of the Central Intelligence. Because he was a CIA employee he was not legally allowed to take part in any activity that had the purpose of influencing US public opinion or policies. The CIA is supposed to only work outside the country. He would also have been prohibited from doing anything to raise funds for the Nicaraguan Resistance.

But according to memos between Raymond and Poindexter, he was advising on the matter. He told Raymond that they needed to stop using the word Contras and start using the term Democrats in order to get across the idea that they were helping to establish a democratic government in Nicaragua. And that doing so was important to national security. And he suggested that they should start running things like a political campaign. He also recommended recruiting people like Rollins, Nofziger, and co. who worked as campaign advisors. (1)

Another memo from Raymond to Poindexter said:

"There have been several meetings following up on the effort to get a major, bipartisan group formed to help promote an 'educational' program in the US which would help provide understanding (and support)for our Centam policy, particularly vis-a-vis Nicaragua.

"Although Pete Dailey, Bill Casey and Clif White have all been involved in general discussion of what needs to be done, we are going to have to be sure that Pete and Bill are not involved. Pete is getting very nervous on this item...

"The problem with all of this is that to make it work it really has to be one step removed from our office and, as a result, we have to rely on others to get the job done. will keep you posted."

"Tell a story. Make it true. Make it compelling. And make it relevant." ― Rand Fishkin

This all goes to show that people within the NSC and the CIA were making a very concerted effort to circumvent the laws and use whatever resources they could to alter public opinion. In other words to propagandize us while keeping their activity secret from Congress and the American people. This is a violation of the law.

Between 1983 and 1986, the NSC and the William Casey, National Security Advisors, Bill Clark, Bud McFarlane, and John Poindexter, and Oliver North created an operation that was hidden from Congress and the public. Their purpose was to raise money for weapons for the Contras. They lobbied Congress and conducted a media campaign to alter public opinion by using the press.

They used private foundations and organizations to raise money. For instance, the National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty raised $10,000,000 for the Contras. Half of it came from Barbara Newington and Ellen Garwood. (11) Both of them were elderly widows. They were talked into their sizeable donations by Oliver North who convinced them of the Contra's urgent need for money. (12)

Two million dollars was spent on public relations, political advertising, and lobbying. These underhanded methods of changing public opinion eventually resulted in some increase in aid from Congress. But when it came out that arms had been sold to the Iranians, it brought a halt to the operation.

When the whole operation was exposed, Channell and Miller pled guilty to tax charges because they had used the tax-exempt organization to redirect money to the Contras. And part of it was giving donors tax exemptions. They pled guilty to subverting and corrupting the lawful purpose of NEPL by using NEPL to solicit contributions to purchase military and other non-humanitarian aid for the Contras." As part of his plea, Carl R. "Spitz" Channell named Richard R. Miller and Oliver North as his co-conspirators.

Most people when they think about the Iran-Contra scandal think about illegal arms deals. But what slides under the radar is that people working for the NSC and CIA were using a large part of the money they raised for "educating" the public in order to gain support for US aid for the Contras. The main method of educating the public was through television commercials. It cost the NEPL $1,000,000 to pay the Robert Goodman Agency from Baltimore to make these advertisements. (13) There were also polls conducted and newspapers adds ran which supported aid to the Contras.

All of this began because CIA Director Bill Casey wanted to go around the Boland Amendment and affect public opinion so that the U.S. Would resume aiding the Contras. They used the State Department to conduct a propaganda operation on domestic soil. CIA Director Bill Casey used a covert action operator to the NSC to participate and also recruited other intelligence specialists.

The whole operation was conducted in the same manner that the CIA conducts propaganda operations in other countries despite the fact that federal law forbids the CIA from using taxpayers' money on domestic propaganda or grassroots lobbying in order to pressure congressional representatives.







  10. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran/Contra Affair, Lee H. Hamilton, Daniel K. Inouye, DIANE Publishing, 1995





Posted by Wanda Thacker at 7:27 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 5, 2016

WHAT IS THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE: What You Need To Know

“You can live without oil, you can live without money, but you can’t live without water,” Archambault told KFYR TV of Bismarck.


What is the Dakota Access Pipeline? It is a pipeline 1,170 miles long from North Dakota to Illinois. The purpose of it is to deliver 570,000 barrels of oil a day. It is similar to the Keystone XL project, but is shorter and won't deliver as much oil.


The Keystone XL required presidential approval because it crossed the border between Canada and the US. The company Energy Transfer Partners has already been granted most of the permits and begun clearing the ground along the route of the pipeline. Even though the oil from Alberta, Canada that has been so long protested was supposed to have been stopped, it is going to be transferred through this pipeline. 

Energy Transfer Partners is in a political and legal battle with The Standing Rock Sioux and other protestors over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Native Americans are concerned about the environmental impact of the pipeline on their only source of water. They say the US Army Corps of Engineers didn’t give adequate opportunities to assess the pipeline’s impact on cultural sites and potential environmental effects of a spill and collect feedback from the tribe.

Pipeline Threatens Native American Tribe's Water




Will You Stand With The Indigenous People Against The Dakota Pipeline? (w/Guest: Dave Archambault)





The pipeline does not go directly through the Standing Rock tribal land. But it would cross the Missouri River a few hundred feet upstream from the border of the reservation, and less than a mile from Cannon Ball. Beyond that crossing point, the Missouri River serves as the eastern border of the reservation. Because of this, the quality of water in the river is vitally important to the health and well-being and prosperity of the tribe. It is their water supply.

Tribal leaders say that there was originally another proposed crossing for the pipeline and the people in that community were given the opportunity to protest because they had concerns for their drinking water safety and that the Sioux have not been afforded the same opportunities.

There are federal environmental and preservation laws requiring the Corps of Engineers to consult with the tribes, but even though they have held 154 meetings between the Dakota Access company, local elected officials and community organizations in North Dakota since the project was announced last summer, not one of those meetings included Standing Rock.


“This demolition is devastating,” Archambault said. “These grounds are the resting places of our
ancestors. The ancient cairns and stone prayer rings there cannot be replaced. In one day, our



This gives the appearance of being a retaliatory act or psychological warfare, because the company is angry that the Native Americans are resisting them. There is a case pending in federal court and they should have waited on a ruling before they did anything that radical. They took advantage of the Labor Day Weekend holiday to do this. But more importantly, why didn't the federal court grant an injunction to keep them from doing this?

People who live in this area are generally aware of how much regulation goes into environmental studies for Corps projects due to all that went on with the Rt. 52 bypass around Chesapeake, OH. Things in South Dakota have not been conducted properly. The Huffington Post published an article that gives a timeline of the underhandedness.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber/dapl-pipeline-interests-t_b_11861618.html

It is evident that some governmental agencies are not behaving as they should. The North Dakota DHS actually ordered water be taken away from the protestors in the 90-degree weather they have been having. There had been trailers and water tanks there at the protest encampment sent by the North Dakota Department of Health at the tribe's request to support the roughly 2,500 people now gathered along the Standing Rock reservation's border on the Cannonball River. "It is deeply ironic that the Governor would release emergency funds under the guise of public health and safety, but then remove the infrastructure that helps ensure health and safety in the camp," said Tara Houska, national campaigns director for Honor the Earth.

They had to have had this project in the works for much longer than people were aware. The Corps of Engineers granted permits across 60 river crossings just in Iowa. http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2016/07/dakota-access-pipeline-gets-federal-permit-approvals-in-iowa.html

It is evident that they intend to get this project well underway and possibly finished before the legal issues can be decided, making them irrelevant. They have said they hope to have it finished by the end of the year.

Those who are in support of the pipeline say it will, help give Americans energy independence. They have said that the fracked oil will be used only in the US. But that is basically a huge lie. They used the lie to gain public support and to get the project approved by regulators.

They did a presentation in Iowa in which they claimed, the new pipeline would deliver 100% domestically produced crude oil to US refineries, to be used exclusively by Americans. Dakota-Access-Iowa-Information.pdf
(Incidentally, the PDF above also has maps that show where this pipeline is supposed to go.

They also claim that those who protest it are “shameful”. “It’s a shameful act by a group of people trying to disrupt our energy security and independence,” Dakota Access officials told the Associated Press in the response to the protests, which have blocked construction of the pipeline near the city of Cannon Ball, N.D.Pipeline construction equipment damage in suspected arson

But the private security hired by the company is now tear gassing people and attacking them with dogs. To me that is shameful.

Dakota Access Pipeline Company Attacks Native American Protesters with Dogs & Pepper Spray






Last December, a 40-year ban on the export of oil was lifted by Congress. Afterward, the company backtracked on claims that the oil would be used domestically.
“We will not own the oil that is transported through the pipeline. We are like FedEx. We will deliver the oil to the refineries for the producers,” said Vicki Granado, Energy Transfer Partner’s spokesperson.


When I first became aware of this issue, I was looking at it from a purely water oriented point of view. I will readily say, I am not an expert on how the oil industry works inside the US. I thought this pipeline was supposed to start in Canada and go to the gulf. I was thinking of the Keystone XL project, which President Obama decided to halt. To me, that meant that it would be a while before it reached the gulf. I wasn't aware that there are already numerous pipelines in the middle of the country already go to the gulf and this is basically the last leg of it. This is basically just a way to get around the Keystone XL problem and use some of the existing infra-structure. The Dakota Access Pipeline goes through four states, but it will then connect to pipelines already in existence that lead to the Nederland, Texas, terminal on the Gulf Coast, which is owned by Sunoco Logistics, a partner to the Dakota Access project, which is able to export crude oil. Shell Pipeline Deal With Locap Adds Rate Certainty; Sunoco Adds Access



At a conference at CitiBank on August 17-18, 2016, Energy Transfer Partners gave a presentation where they said they were “exceptionally well positioned to capitalize on U.S. energy exports.”

“We are certain that this oil will be sent to the Gulf of Mexico and sold to the highest bidder,” says Jonas Magram, an Iowa resident who lives in a county along the path of the Dakota Access pipeline, who has protested the construction. http://nanonews.org/iowa-pipeline-protesters-plan-civil-disobedience-action/

Some politicians have been heavily involved in this pipeline. Former Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican from Texas, pushed lawmakers to lift the ban on crude oil only one month after joining the board of Energy Transfer Partners, the parent company of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Facing Felony Charges, Rick Perry Joins Board of Energy Transfer Partners, Owner of Proposed Oil Pipeline Across Iowa

There are also people that Energy Transfer Partners used imminent domain laws against. http://www.davisbrownlaw.com/filesimages/legalIssues/PDFs/10%20-%20Post-Hearing%20Brief.pdfhttp://www.davisbrownlaw.com/filesimages/legalIssues/PDFs/10%20-%20Post-Hearing%20Brief.pdf

So, it isn't just a Native American issue.

The following is from the Huffington Post: “Immediately recognizing the need to stop this process, on August 4, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe along with attorneys from Earthjustice filed a motion with supporting documents for a preliminary injunction against the DAPL. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued the initial permitting for the pipeline. Federal Judge James E. Boasberg rejected the motion to ignore the injunction request and ordered a status conference on September 14, leaving room for discussion after his ruling September 9.

That fact that the corps ruled in favor of the DAPL routing, to begin with, is beyond puzzling, since not one, but three Federal agencies opposed it. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have all said that the USACE had not done an adequate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), mainly with regard to drinking water.

Most recently, representatives of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues said the same, and that the Tribe must have a say.” DAPL Pipeline Interests Try Outrageous Fait Accompli and Destroy Ancient Sites

If as the Sioux fear, the pipeline under the river breaks it will contaminate water for millions of people who live downstream. And Missouri feeds into the Mississippi River.




In an article in the Des Moines Register, farmers complain that the company is destroying their farmland. It says that in some places, they excavated 20 feet deep and the result is that the hard clay at the bottom could end up just a couple feet from the ground. The farmers were paid for access to their land, but only after it seemed that imminent domain was going to be used to take it from then one way or another.

Iowa is known for some of the most valuable and fertile land in the country. “In Sioux and O'Brien counties, the average farmland price topped $10,800 per acre in 2015, according to statistics kept by Iowa State University. The statewide average sale price was $7,633 per acre.” dakota-access-pipeline-degrading-soil-farmers-complain

Some of the landowners say that water from the construction sites is running off onto their farmland.

One of the places the pipeline is supposed to go is under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. If there were to be a leak there is would be catastrophic. As of August 30th, Dakota Access didn't have the permit to drill under this area yet, because the Corps of Engineers had not notified Congress. Because the Corps owns land on either side of Lake Oahe, Dakota Access must get an “easement” from the Corps to dig the tunnel for the pipeline underneath federally owned lands. Under the law, the Corps must give Congress notification of its intent to grant such an easement, and then wait 14 days after giving notice before issuing the easement.

Thirty-one different groups sent a letter to President Obama last Thursday. They are asking him to revoke the permits that have already been granted and to block the remaining ones. A similar strategy tied up the Keystone XL pipeline. The White House referred the issue to the Department of Justice.

There have also been protests in other places around the country, including in Houston, TX where Energy Transfer Partners is headquartered. 

Houston Stands Against the Dakota Access Pipeline





Demonstrators in Kansas City protest Dakota Access Pipeline






President Obama actually made a visit a few years back and in his speech he promised the Standing Rock people that he would treat Native Americans better than previous presidents had. He even quoted Sitting Bull saying that we should put our minds together to see what we can build for our children. It remains to be seen whether he will keep his promise, amid so many other broken ones. I don't think that when he was promising to bring them more economic opportunities that they thought he meant to do it by building this pipeline. In the above video, you can see a story about how Native American teenagers ran 2000 miles all the way to the White House begging attention for their cause. Response? Crickets.


Natives & Non-Natives Unite To Stop Oil Pipeline






In case you are thinking that people are worrying too much and an oil spill isn't very likely: I found a video made in 2013 that said in a year's time there were 300 oil spills in North Dakota and 750 oil field incidents. None of them were reported to the public. OR how about the oil spill under the Yellow Stone River in North Dakota earlier this month?

Oil Spills Erupt In North Dakota, Public Kept In Dark


Oil Pipeline Break Is Under Yellowstone River, Protest Arrest N.D.






In the not so distant future, water is going to be an issue for us all. Billionaires and corporations have already begun buying up all of the fresh water around the world and in the US. It is in their interests to contaminate the water for the rest of us. How else will they be able to profit from their investment? But that's an article for another day.  The Privatization of Water: Nestlé Denies that Water is a Fundamental Human Right
Posted by Wanda Thacker at 1:01 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,

Friday, August 12, 2016

Test

Test
Posted by Wanda Thacker at 12:40 AM 0 comments

Saturday, July 23, 2016

NAZI PARTY PLATFORM VS. REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORMS (You Might Be A Nazi)




During this election cycle, people have been throwing the word NAZI around as if it means someone who disagrees with your political views. It is an affront to those in Europe and America who died as a result of the ideology to use that word in that manner. Nazism had it's roots in Marxism and Socialism. And it was totalitarian. People are still alive that lived through WWII and it is an affront to them to call people NAZI. If you do that, you are without conscience. And you need to actually learn what the Nazis stated that they wanted and what they actually did. They were not the same thing.

“The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes”― Adolf Hitler
The truth of the matter is that there are some similarities in what both candidates stated policies are and Nazi Socialism, but there are also many things that are dissimilar. The major difference is in what the Nazis actually did.

On face value, the first several demands on the Nazi Party 25 Point Program give the appearance of being similar to Donald Trump's immigration policies, that is not necessarily to say that it is similar to Republican Party policy on immigration.

Yes, the Nazis wanted to expel anyone who was not Aryan, and deny citizenship to anyone, particularly Jews, who wasn't Aryan.

Donald Trump does not call for the expulsion of non-Americans. He calls for a temporary halt on the immigration of Muslims, and for people from Mexico and South America to follow the Rule of Law when they come to America.

The Republican Party Platform calls for the Rule of Law, and also states: “ The greatest asset of the American economy is the American worker. Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of our national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world.”

“In this country, the rule of law guarantees equal treatment to every individual, including more than one million immigrants to whom we grant permanent residence every year. That is why we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it.”

As far as the wall that Donald Trump calls for, that is nothing new. In fact there was a law enacted by Congress way back in 2006, for a double-layered fencing along the border, called the Secure Fencing Act of 2006. It passed by a vote of 80-19. That means quite a few Democrats voted for it.

The Republican Party Platform does call for it to be built.
Donald Trump's position on immigration can be found here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

But as you can see, there is nothing here to call for any racial mistreatment of anyone. No concentration camps or internment here.

The Founding Fathers were against indiscriminate immigration. That's a fact.
“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”--Alexander Hamilton.

"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."--Alexander Hamilton
If that's not Nationalism, I don't know what is.

George Washington felt that immigration should be limited to “useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.”

“In proportion to their numbers, they will share legislation with us. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent mass.”--Thomas Jefferson.

But as a matter of fact, in places like Colorado, Hispanic Mexican Democrats were in favor of Japanese internment camps because so many of them had died during WWII.
The Japanese Internment Camps and the Secure Fencing Act of 2006 are just a few ways Democrats supported limits on immigrants.

The Nazi Party was against capitalism and free trade. Those are two things that the Republican Party very much supports.

The Republican Party Platform calls for regulatory reform in order to create jobs and reduction of taxes. “The bottom line on regulations is jobs. In listening to America, one constant we have heard is the job-crippling effect of even well-intentioned regulation. That makes it all the more important for federal agencies to be judicious about the impositions they create on businesses, especially small businesses.”

Now here is where things get interesting, since it is most frequently liberal Democrats who throw the word Nazi around.

“Democrats believe we are stronger when we have an economy that works for everyone—an economy that grows incomes for working people, creates good-paying jobs, and puts a middleclass life within reach for more Americans. Democrats believe we can spur more sustainable economic growth, which will create good-paying jobs and raise wages. And we can have more economic fairness, so the rewards are shared broadly, not just with those at the top. We need an economy that prioritizes long-term investment over short-term profit-seeking, rewards the common interest over self-interest, and promotes innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Now here is Nazi Platform on the same subject.
“We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.”

“Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.” Unearned income refers to income from owning property, inheritance and pensions. Pretty much like the Occupy Movement wants to get rid of.

“We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.” Now look back at the Democratic Platform: “rewards are shared broadly, not just with those at the top”.

“We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.” – Nazi 25 Point Program

Again, notice the Democratic Platform's comment about the middleclass, above, and this: “We believe that today’s extreme level of income and wealth inequality—where the majority of the economic gains go to the top one percent and the richest 20 people in our country own more wealth than the bottom 150 million—makes our economy weaker, our communities poorer, and our politics poisonous.” “ Democrats believe we must break down all the barriers holding Americans back and restore the basic bargain that built America’s mighty middle class:”

“The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.”--Nazi 25 Point Plan

“Democrats know that every child, no matter who they are, how much their families earn, or where they live, should have access to a high-quality education, from preschool through high school and beyond.” “Democrats know that every child, no matter who they are, how much their families earn, or where they live, should have access to a high-quality education, from preschool through high school and beyond.”

“ Democrats will invest in early childhood programs like Early Head Start and provide every family in America with access to high-quality childcare and high-quality preschool programs.”

Note the Nazi “as early as the beginning of understanding”.
“The Democratic Party is committed to eliminating opportunity gaps—particularly those that lead to students from low-income communities arriving on day one of kindergarten several years behind their peers.

“The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.”

Note the Nazi reference to, “We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.”
It's not necessary to quote the exact wording of the Democratic Platform here; Everyone knows that the Democrats supported Obama Care.

“We firmly believe that the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street must be brought to an end. Wall Street must never again be allowed to threaten families and businesses on Main Street.”

“We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.” --Nazi 25 Point Program 
Userers are bankers
.
“Corporate profits are at near-record highs, but workers have not shared through rising wages. Profit-sharing is linked to higher pay and productivity. That is why, working with business, labor, and other stakeholders, we will incentivize companies to share profits with their employees on top of wages and pay increases, while targeting the workers and businesses that need profit-sharing the most.” 

“Democrats will not hesitate to use and expand existing authorities as well as empower regulators to downsize or break apart financial institutions when necessary to protect the public and safeguard financial stability, including new authorities to go after risky shadow-banking activities. Banks should not be able to gamble with taxpayers’ deposits or pose an undue risk to Main Street. Democrats support a variety of ways to stop this from happening, including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall as well as breaking up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that pose a systemic risk to the stability of our economy.”
Democratic Platform

“We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.” --Nazi 25 Point Program
Social Security

The Nazis supported Social Security. “We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.”

“And as the party that created Social Security, we believe in protecting every American’s right to retire with dignity.” Democratic Platform

“Democrats will expand Social Security so that every American can retire with dignity and respect, including women who are widowed or took time out of the workforce to care for their children, aging parents, or ailing family members.” ----Democratic Platform

“While no changes should adversely affect any current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform should address our society’s remarkable medical advances in longevity and allow younger workers the option of creating their own personal investment accounts as supplements to the system. Younger Americans have lost all faith in the Social Security system, which is understandable when they read the non- partisan actuary’s reports about its future funding status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the memory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in the system, Republicans are committed to setting it on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control over, and a sound return on, their investments. The sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers can take responsibility for planning their own retirement decades from now.” --Republican Party Platform
“
Federalized Troops
“We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.” Nazi 25 Point Plan
“.. we believe that military and police forces should support democracy, not subvert it.” “We will work with police chiefs to invest in training for officers.” “the creation of national guidelines"

Despite saying this: “ You’ve got mayors whose police force is outgunned by the criminals and the gang-bangers.” Hillary also said: “ “I think that when you have police violence that terrorizes communities, that doesn’t show the respect that you’re supposed to have from protecting people in your authority, that can feel also terrorizing,” she said.

She’s basically saying police are terrorists.

“ "There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. And that requires a very clear agenda for retraining police officers, looking at ways to end racial profiling, finding more ways to really bring the disparities that stalk our country into high relief."

“The deaths of Alton and Philando drove home how urgently we need to make reforms to policing and criminal justice...how we cannot rest until we root out implicit bias and stop the killings of African Americans."

“ We all need to try as best we can to walk in one another's shoes, to imagine what it would be like to sit our son or daughter down and have the talk about how carefully they need to act around police because the slightest wrong move could get them hurt or even killed. “

“ We need national guidelines about the use of force, particularly lethal force. “

“ That’s why again, I reiterate a call for national guidelines. We have 18,000 police departments, some of them are very small, some of them are not very well trained. Some of them don’t really have the resources that are necessary to keep training and retraining. “
Both parties support the reduction of incarceration.

“In the past, judicial discretion about sentences led to serious mistakes concerning dangerous criminals. Mandatory minimum sentencing became an important tool for keeping them off the streets. Modifications to it should be targeted toward particular categories, especially nonviolent offenders and persons with drug, alcohol, or mental health issues, and should require disclosure by the courts of any judicial departure from the State’s sentencing requirements.” --Republican Party Platform

“Democrats are committed to reforming our criminal justice system and ending mass incarceration.”--Democratic Platform

“Despite improvements as a result of Republican nominations to the judiciary, some judges in the federal courts remain far afield from their constitutional limitations. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Judicial activism which includes reliance on foreign law or unratified treaties undermines American law. The sole solution, apart from impeachment, is the appointment of constitutionalist jurists, who will interpret the law as it was originally intended rather than make it. That is both a presidential responsibility, in selecting judicial candidates, and a senatorial responsibility, in confirming them. We urge Republican Senators to do all in their power to prevent the elevation of additional leftist ideologues to the courts, particularly in the waning days of the current Administration. In addition to appointing activist judges, the current Administration has included an activist and highly partisan Department of Justice. With a Republican Administration, the Department will stop suing States for exercising those powers reserved to the States, will stop abusing its preclearance authority to block photo-ID voting laws, and will fulfill its responsibility to defend all federal laws in court, including the Defense of Marriage Act.”

“While freedom of expression is a fundamental constitutional principle, we must condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate for violence.” --Democratic Platform

In other words,  they want to interpret the Constitution rather than enforce it. That leaves a lot of room for suppressing the press and media and free speech.
“We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.”
"I feel like this is unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second Amendment rights are protected — but they are not absolute, the way the NRA wants them to be,"
There’s that tendency to reinterpret the Constitution rather than enforce and uphold it.

“With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.”--Democratic Platform

The point with this is that like Hitler, they intent to enforce strict gun control and probable confiscation despite sort of saying otherwise. They stop short of saying that you have a constitutional right to bear arms by sayig that “gun ownership is a part of the fabric of many communities.”

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”--Adolf Hitler “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”--Adolf Hitler

“To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens.”--Adolf Hitler

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” --Adolf Hitler, 1935, The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

Some people say Hitler never said that. But the fact remains that the German government, under the Weimar Republic, before him had already enacted gun control laws in an effort to control the Nazi and Communist parties. The Nazis just added to them to control the Jews. They actually loosened the laws so that Nazis and the military could have them, making it easier to control the people. They also enacted gun confiscation in occupied countries.

“As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” --Adolf Hitler

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

I love this quote. “As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.”--Adolf Hitler
In case you don't understand what that means, it means that don't admit that your opponent might be right about anything, because if you do, you might have to admit there are some flaws in your position. That's about as liberal and as leftist as it gets.

The point here is that while there are some similarities to Nazism in both parties, the Republican ones are being misinterpreted, and the Democratic Party has a lot more similarities than the Republicans do, including Donald Trump. Stop being a dumbass and read. Above all stop diluting the evil that Nazism was by calling everyone that disagrees with you a Nazi or a racist. Free your mind and the rest will follow.

“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.”--Adolf Hitler

“The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” ― Adolf Hitler

Posted by Wanda Thacker at 11:18 AM 0 comments

Thursday, July 14, 2016

JANE ELLIOTT, SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR OR QUEEN OF BRAINWASHING?

JANE ELLIOTT, SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR OR QUEEN OF BRAINWASHING?
How One Woman Invented White Privilege

July 14, 2016

You have probably never heard of Jane Elliott. But you've probably been effected by her ideas. You can read some about her here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott But what you need to know is that she did a sadistic and manipulative social experiment in her classroom back in the 1960's. It was filmed several times. But if you have seen any of it, it is most likely the ABC film of it. There are shortened sections of it available on YouTube. But on PBS under Frontline, there is an episode called, A Class Divided. She says you should watch it to see what effect her experiment has on children for the rest of their lives, how as adults they can never go back to being what they were before the exercise. And she's obviously proud of it. She thinks they are better off for having gone through it because they now understand what it's like to be black and how much suffering they have to go through because we as whites force it on them.

She says she came up with the idea the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. She came to the conclusion that he was killed due to our whole society being racist. She believes we are all racist and that the best hope of changing this is with children.

The next day one of her students came into her classroom and asked, "Hey, Mrs. Elliott. They shot that King yesterday. Why'd they shoot that King?" When all of the other students were in the classroom she asked, "How do you think it would feel to be a Negro boy or girl?" "It would be hard to know, wouldn't it, unless we actually experienced discrimination ourselves. Would you like to find out?" The students were enthusiastic about this idea and she had counted on it and planned what she was going to do.

This is how she set up the experiment. She divided her students up according to those with blue eyes and those with brown eyes. The first day those with brown eyes were given power and status. When people are subjected to this experiment, the first group receives rewards and favoritism. They are even allowed to join in on the taunting and insults that the blue eyed group are subjected to. The next day she reversed the roles. Now it was the blue eyed students who were in the favored position. Only there is a difference. They are reluctant to mistreat the brown eyed students because they understand what it feels like. She saw this as proof that black people's underachievement was due to white racism. If you reversed the position of whites and blacks, whites would become underachievers too. "We had one (brown-eyed) girl with a mind like a steel trap who never misspelled a word until we told her that brown eyes were bad," she told a campus audience years later.( "Jane Elliott Attacks Racism in UNCP Address," University Newswire, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, October 10, 2002). This was the beginning of diversity-training as an industry.

But her experiment is based on the supposition that all white people are racist and that they must be reprogrammed to accept their guilt and change because of it. That being fortunate is wrong if everyone is not as fortunate as you.

Jane Elliott says that we should educate people rather than indoctrinate them. The word indoctrination is often used in connection with religion, but not always. Indoctrination--to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs.--Merriam-Webster. Other definitions include the idea of force. Indoctrination is the process of forcibly inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine) by coercion. She says that in this country we don't educate students. And her definition of educate is one who is engaged in leading people out of ignorance. Martin Luther King disagreed with her. “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education.”-- Martin Luther King, Jr. But she is an indoctrinator. She seems to think that what she is doing is teaching empathy.

Her claim to be the benevolent teacher is belied in her manner and shown for the brainwashing that it is. I found this quote on her website, and it's pretty accurate. "It won't help much to be prepared to face Jane Elliott. This elderly woman will tear down any shield. Even we, the spectators in BLUE EYED, can't get rid of this feeling of uneasiness, embarrassment, anxiety and utterly helpless hatred when she starts keeping people down, humiliating them, deriding them, incapacitating them. No doubt about this: for three quarters of the time in this documentation Jane Elliott is the meanest, the lowest, the most detestable, the most hypocritical human being hell has ever spit back on earth. But she should be an example for all of us". - Stuttgarter Zeitung


Apparently, we aren't irredeemable as a race, because we can still be taught. And we do require being taught and she's just the one to do it. We are all in denial about our racism and we tell ourselves that it doesn't exist. She was interviewed by PBS in 2002 and had this to say, "We are constantly being told that we don't have racism in this country anymore, but most of the people who are saying that are white," she said. "White people think it isn't happening because it isn't happening to them."

Her claim to fame began soon after that. Some of her students wrote essays about the experiment that were published in the local paper in her town of Riceville. Iowa. This garnered her a guest appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. People all over the country were angry that she would subject her students to this.

The people in Riceville weren't happy and still aren't. She says she has been threatened with firing by the school board and angry parents. She also said she was Riceville's only “nigger lover”. She says her students were harassed too. And all this anger only served to further convince her that white people needed to be reprogrammed.

ABC television produced the half-hour documentary, in 1970 "Eye of the Storm," in which she is show demonstrating her experiment on her class. During the same year, she did a demonstration of it at a White House Conference on Children and Youth. PBS also did a documentary in 1985 called, "A Class Divided." Progressives quickly accepted her methods as a way to further their own beliefs and agendas.

She retired a few years later, and began teaching her ideas in the corporate world. She said at one time she was making $6000 a day from companies, the government and institutions. Her videos cost $225 a piece. How did she sell the idea to them?

She convinced them that a work force that was free from racism would have higher morale and therefore bring in higher profits. This was also true of government agencies. With affirmative action being instituted, there were more minorities in those sectors of employment.

A Supreme Court ruling in 1986 said that employers could be sued for damages if there was a hostile work environment even if there was no intent to harm the employees. Companies were sued for allowing any racial bias at all. And it was expensive. Lawyers and the Department of Justice cost companies huge amounts of money. If your company lost one of these suits you could be subjected to heavy fines and your company had to put diversity plans into practice, overseen by the DOJ.

In order to avoid the bad publicity, it was easy to convince them that diversity-training was cheaper even if unpleasant. Enter Jane Elliott. Her training films that started with “Eye of the Storm” and “A Class Divided” were followed up by "Blue-Eyed," "The Angry Eye," "The Stolen Eye," and "The Essential Blue-Eyed." “Indecently Exposed,” “Eye Opener,” and “Wide Eyed.” Her videos are promoted on the web by the National MultiCultural Institute in Washington, DC. They are a consulting company for diversity-training. She also has her own website. http://www.janeelliott.com/ Business Training Media, Inc., which sells "The Essential Blue-Eyed" for $299.99.

Government and Universities use her videos too.

She teaches or lectures things that are false and she will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with her. She has a very forceful, overbearing and rude manner about her. After you read some of her arguments, watch some of her videos and you will see what I mean. In a 1998 interview with an Australian Internet magazine, Webfronds, she said: “You're all sitting here writing in a language [English] that white people didn't come up with. You're all sitting here writing on paper that white people didn't invent. Most of you are wearing clothes made out of cloth that white people didn't come up with. We stole these ideas from other people. If you're a Christian, you're believing in a philosophy that came to us from people of color.”

English developed from Germanic dialects spoken along the coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, Jutland, and Southern Sweden by Germanic tribes known as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. In the fifth century, the Anglo-Saxons settled Britain and the Romans withdrew from Britain. I will agree with her on paper. The Egyptians had papyrus, but the Chinese invented paper. Nålebinding is Danish in origin. It means literally "binding with a needle" or "needle-binding". We call it felt. There are examples of it that date from 6500 BC. But nobody knows for sure who invented cloth because cloth deteriorates. We didn't steal ideas from other people. It's called cultural exchange and it is as old as mankind. It goes back to the time when humans were nomadic and would encounter peoples from other areas who did things differently. There are a few things that we have invented that minorities benefit from too. Classical music, parliamentary government. There are too many literary contributions to name.

She says white people invented racism too. It's a fact that the ancient Mesopotamians had slaves. One would imagine they justified this with racism.

It would be hard to estimate the damage done by programs she is associated with. With her morally superior attitude she accuses us all of being morally complicit. If we are complicit in anything, it is in allowing liberals to take control of our government and society.


I am going to tell you some of the things she says and address the ones I can.

She says that the curriculum taught white superiority and that she refused to teach that and that she also refused to teach that there were different races. I don't know how to disprove this. But I know that I was not taught that I was superior to other races in public school.

She says that the idea of different races originated about 500 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition. And that we have to wipe that idea out of our students heads. She says we are all members of the same race whether we like it or not. The Bible explains where all of the races came from and it a lot older than 500 years old. The ancient Hebrew people were prohibited from mixing races. (Deuteronomy 7:3-4 “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
Biologically, we are very similar. But to say that biologically there is only one race, denies DNA evidence. A scientist can tell you the racial heritage of a person by looking at their DNA. A lot of scientists will tell you that you can't do this because everyone's DNA is so similar. But mitochondrial DNA does have differences that can be used to determine when an individual's ancestors left Africa. In 2003, Tony Frudakis developed a test called DNAWitness and he used it to help the FBI determine the race of a serial killer. But it's not used much because, it's expensive and because it's not politically correct. The theory is that it could be expanded. "Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it's not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test," says Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological Association. A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect’s Race, But Police Won’t Touch It

I'm not saying that people should be discriminated against because of those differences. But a teacher should know better than to say something that isn't strictly true.

She says that the reason white people don't want people of color to have power is because we are afraid they will do to us what we have done to them. How then does she explain Barach Obama?

She says that we still have slavery in the form of all of the young black men who are in prison for victim-less crimes. And she says that it is due to the Three Strikes law. According to her, Bill Clinton instituted it because he needed somewhere to put all the young men of color to get rid of them. The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. How is a violent crime victim-less? There may be more blacks sent to prison under this law, but they are also the ones committing the majority of the violent crimes. Blacks commit about 52% of violent crimes but they only make up 13% of the population.

She says we should have offered them the choice to go to school and get an education instead of sending them to prison. Why should the American people pay to educate them as a reward for crime? I completely agree with the idea that paying for education is cheaper than supporting uneducated people in the long run. But that needs to happen before they become criminals.

She said that prisons make money for a community by employing about 300 people. But what about the costs to the community to house and take care of the inmates? The Vera Institute of Justice released a study in 2012 that found the aggregate cost of prisons in 2010 in the 40 states that participated was $39 billion. The annual average taxpayer cost in these states was $31,286 per inmate. New York State was the most expensive, with an average cost of $60,000 per prison inmate.

She says that white people take it as a personal insult that black people have survived and that many of them have been successful . That's kinda funny because in saying that, she acknowledges that not all black people have been unable to succeed because of the supposed institutional racism. Some of them are able to do the same thing as everyone else, rise to their own personal challenges. Black people did not create affirmative action by themselves. They did not free themselves from slavery. Some white people are actually proactive in their survival and success.

She says that we are afraid because we know that within 30 years, at the current rate of population growth, we will be a minority; and we are afraid that we will be treated the way we are treating other people now. She says we should fix this by treating people better so that we can have a better future.
She attempted to speak on white people's perception of Christianity in America, saying basically, that we think Mary was pale and blonde and that Jesus was too. She then proceeded to tell another lie. She said that the Bible says that Jesus had feet of bronze and kinky woolly hair. The feet of bronze thing comes from the Bible saying that his feet shined like bronze. John was describing a vision he saw of Christ in heaven, no longer in his earthly form. Revelation 1:14- 15 New Living Translation: His head and his hair were white like wool, as white as snow. And his eyes were like flames of fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his voice thundered like mighty ocean waves. The reference to wool was to the white color. There is nothing there saying kinky, woolly hair, as in texture. And the bronze meant the metal bronze. Not dark colored skin. Jesus was a Jew. In (Leviticus 19:27) they were commanded not to cut their beards or the hair on the sides of their head, like right in front of their ears. This is why Orthodox Jews today wear those long curls in front of their ears. Other than that, we can only speculate on what he looked like according to what other Jews in his community looked like. Because the other descriptions of him in the Bible say, “(Isaiah 53:2)He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” (Psalm 45:2) Thou art fairer than the children of men.That likely means he beautiful as opposed to fair complected. But it isn't due to physical appearance but inner beauty. (Lamentations 4:7) "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more swarthy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: Their visage is blacker than coal;" as referring to eye color.” That would indicate that he was fair complected, possibly relative to the color of other people around him. He had dark eyes as well. Not that I would give it any credence, but the Koran says that Jesus had curly hair and a ruddy complexion. And other writers say his hair was lank, indicating straight hair.

It really doesn't matter that Medieval depictions of Christ were European. Because there were also contradictory opinions of learned writers. Some of them describing him as short and ugly. And others saying that from a theological point of view he had to be beautiful. The point she was trying to make was that we think we have a straight line to God because we think he looks like us. Some people probably do, because they are just like her, they never read the Bible before passing on incorrect information. She and the black people who agree with her misquote the Bible because they want Jesus to look like them too so they can relate to him better. If you buy into the Black Christ theory, it is possibly that some of his ancestry was black. Some of the men in the Old Testament married women of other nationalities and races. Whatever he looked like, it probably wasn't either black or white. For someone who is supposed to be an educator as opposed to an indoctrinator, she certainly says a lot of things that are false and easily disputed.

I just love the racist generality of her saying that white people all have the same beliefs when it comes to religion. People would jump up and down if I said that about blacks. The truth is neither blacks or whites as a group behave in a very Christian manner. But many individuals live exemplary lives.

She says that when you talk to people you are less likely to be prejudiced toward them. And yet she says all of these things that are prejudiced. And she doesn't talk to people she brow beats, shames and berates them.

She says the Bible talks about the family of men and doesn't talk about people of all these different colors, that we are all members of the same race. She said this right after going out of her way to lie and indicate that Jesus was black, which is a race. I've already addressed the inaccuracy of this statement.

The host who is interviewing her says a lot of racist things too. Between the two of them, they say that the reason white people point out Martin Luther King as a role model for black people is because he is dead, that we don't get to tell them who they should look to for a leader, and that white people in power killed him. She says that we weren't smart enough to know that he would become a martyr if we killed him. And that he stood not for equality but treating people equitably. Then goes on to say that the Constitution doesn't guarantee equal rights, but equitable treatment under the law. I don't think she's read it. It doesn't say either. I don't know whether she is saying EQUATABLE or EQUITABLE. The first means two things that are similar or comparable. The second means fair, impartial, or proportionate. Since she says the Constitution doesn't guarantee things to be equal, I will assume she was saying EQUITABLE. Because equal does mean the same amount.

As I said, she must not have read the Constitution. The second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal. Although it isn't part of the Constitution, it is still part of the basis it was written on. The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word equal in section 1. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. We almost had an amendment called the Equal Rights Amendment. She is free to interpret the Constitution however she wants to. But the fact remains, neither equitability or equality are guaranteed in the Constitution in any other area than treatment under the law. So if there were to laws enacted to insure equality, we would have been free to treat people unequally according to the Constitution. But any laws enacted have to be applied equally to everyone. Anywhere there isn't a law to constrain us or give us guidelines, we are free to treat people unequally. I guess Constitutional Law doesn't play much into being a 3rd grade teacher, but it is something that every American should be familiar with so that when someone says something incorrect like she did, you will know it.

She says that white people are scared to death that if one black man was able to gain enough political power to become POTUS that others can get organized and do the same thing. But at least 49% of white people voted for him in 2008 and 39% of white people voted for him in 2012. So not all white people are scared of him.

She says that Donald Trump means to take America back to the way it was before civil rights and equal rights, back to the 1950's. But he wrote a book about it and it seems to be a feasible idea to stick to what he says it means. “We need a government that is committed to winning and has experience in winning,” Trump writes in “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again.” “This book is about how we do that.” “We will have the strongest military in our history, and our people will be trained with the best weaponry and protection available,” he writes. “We’ve dumbed down the curriculum to the lowest common denominator,” Trump argues. “In many schools, we’ve eliminated grading entirely and diplomas have been practically devalued into certificates of attendance.”

He rails against the federal programs Common Core, No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, which “allow progressives in the Department of Education to indoctrinate, not educate, our kids.”

Trump consistently argues the competitive advantage remains with private enterprise.

“In Washington, D.C., I’m converting the Old Post Office Building on Pennsylvania Avenue into one of the world’s greatest hotels,” he points out.

“My home in Palm Beach, Mar-a-Lago, was once the greatest mansion in the country, but its previous owner, the United States government had let it deteriorate,” he writes. “Nobody had the vision to see what it could be. I restored it, rebuilt it, and now – go online and see what I’ve accomplished there. We brought the property back to the greatness it once was – and then made it better!”

Trump believes in restoring law and order,“both on the street and in our courtrooms,”. And he believes that we should do that by supporting law enforcement and providing them with the equipment and training needed “to protect themselves and our honest, hardworking citizens”. He also believes we should put judges on the bench who understand the Constitution and leave lawmaking up to the legislators.

“Crippled America” reminds citizens that the strongest middle class in the history of the world has been built not by relying on government handouts but by unleashing the creative intelligence and determined ingenuity of the people.

“Making America Great Again begins at home,” Trump concludes. “It means restoring a sense of dignity to the White House, and to our country in general.

“The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the world,” he writes. “The president is the spokesperson for democracy and liberty. Isn’t it time we brought back the pomp and circumstance, and the sense of awe for that office that we all once held?”

It really isn't relevant whether you support that or not. The point is this woman says so many inaccurate things and assumes so much prejudiced nonsense it is difficult to take her seriously when she sets out to educate others on the injustice of racial prejudice.

A lot of the inequality she rails against come down to money if you really think about it. At one point during her interview, she jokes about the fact that she gets paid large amounts of money to give speeches. She's been on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" at least five times. She's personally led diversity-training sessions for General Electric, Exxon, AT&T, IBM, and other major corporations, plus federal agencies such as the Department of Education and the U.S. Navy. She's lectured at more than 350 colleges and universities. She's been the subject of television documentaries. A Disney made-for-TV movie about her life reportedly has been in the works since 2003. Textbook publisher McGraw-Hill has listed her on a timeline of key educators of history, right up there with Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Horace Mann, Booker T. Washington, Maria Montessori and nearly two dozen others. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1019. I've pointed out how she makes $6000 per lecture she gives and that she makes A LOT of money marketing her videos.

She doesn't seem too ashamed of her white privilege.

Not everything written about her is very flattering. Alan Charles Kors, a distinguished historian at the University of Pennsylvania who has written a thorough and perceptive analysis of the movement Elliott embodies, describes her as the “Torquemada of thought reform.” And he’s not alone. Linda Seebach, a former columnist for the former Rocky Mountain News (perhaps it couldn’t survive her retirement) wrote in 2004, quoted in a Smithsonian article, that Elliott was a “disgrace” and described her exercise as “sadistic,” adding, “You would think that any normal person would realize that she had done an evil thing. But not Elliott. She repeated the abuse with subsequent classes, and finally turned it into a fully commercial enterprise.” The BBC said that her training style is “uncompromising, brusque and authoritative. She tells her captive audience, she is their “resident BITCH for the day – Being In Total Control Honey.” Strong critics of Elliott, such as Carl F. Horowitz call her the “Dominatrix of Diversity” who wages “…psychological warfare against employees – more specifically, white employees….”.


If she lies about so many things or is just wrong about them, how in the world is it a good idea to allow her to teach people about how we are all racist?







Posted by Wanda Thacker at 12:16 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)