‘Following Politico’s report of a leaked draft opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization indicating that a majority of justices seem inclined to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, multiple churches and pro-life advocacy organizations have been burned, looted and vandalized by abortion extremists.’https://www.christianpost.com/news/churches-pro-life-offices-burned-vandalized-since-supreme-court-leak-list.html?uid=*%7CUNIQID%7C*&vgo_ee=FHunWZOlcI1UzNC2%2Fz2RaNSYFmrMikCwlKFARSZoYAo%3D
Law and Order
All posts tagged Law and Order
There are a few that continue to stand for truth. Zac Kriegman is ‘…a former Reuters data scientist who was fired after performing a statistical analysis which refuted claims by Black Lives Matter, and spoke out against the company’s culture of “diversity and inclusion” which unquestioningly celebrated the BLM narrative.
As journalist Chris F. Rufo writes in City Journal: “Driven by what he called a “moral obligation” to speak out, Kriegman refused to celebrate unquestioningly the BLM narrative and his company’s “diversity and inclusion” programming; to the contrary, he argued that Reuters was exhibiting significant left-wing bias in the newsroom and that the ongoing BLM protests, riots, and calls to “defund the police” would wreak havoc on minority communities.”
Week after week, Kriegman felt increasingly disillusioned by the Thomson Reuters line. Finally, on the first Tuesday in May 2021, he posted a long, data-intensive critique of BLM’s and his company’s hypocrisy. He was sent to Human Resources and Diversity & Inclusion for the chance to reform his thoughts. –
He refused—so they fired him. -City Journal
Kriegman, who has a bachelors in economics from Michigan, a JD from Harvard, and “years of experience with high-tech startups, a white-shoe law firm, and an econometrics research consultancy,” spent six years at Thomson Reuters, where he rose through the ranks to spearhead the company’s efforts on AI, machine learning, and advanced software engineering. By the time he was fired, he was the Director of Data Science, and lead a team which was in the process of implementing deep learning throughout the corporation.
Following the death of George Floyd, Kriegman described Reuters as a “blue bubble” where “people were constantly celebrating Black Lives Matter, where it was assumed that everyone was on board.”
The company asked employees to participated in a “21-Day Racial Equity Habit-Building Challenge,” which promoted reparations, academic articles on critical race theory (on which Rufo has written extensively), and instructions on “how to be a better white person.”
The materials were both patronizing and ‘outright racist,’ writes Rufo. The Reuters workforce was told that their “black colleagues” are “confused and scared,” and are barely able to show up to work. They allegedly felt pressured to “take the personal trauma we all know to be true and tuck it away to protect white people,” who are unable to grasp the black experience because of their own whiteness. To right the wrongs of slavery and systemic oppression, white Reuters employees were told to let themselves get “called out” by minority colleagues, and then respond with “I believe you”; “I recognize that I have work to do”; “I apologize, I’m going to do better.”
Ultimately, white people are supposed to admit their complicity in systemic racism and repent for their collective guilt, because “White people built this system. White people control this system,” according to a learning module from self-described “wypipologist” Michael Harriot. “It is white people who have tacitly agreed to perpetuate white supremacy throughout America’s history. It is you who must confront your racist friends, coworkers, and relatives. You have to cure your country of this disease. The sickness is not ours.”
Kriegman came to believe that the company’s “blue bubble” had created a significant bias in the company’s news reporting. “Reuters is not having the internal discussions about the facts and the research, and they’re not letting that shape how they present the news to people. I think they’ve adopted a perspective and they’re unwilling to examine that perspective, even internally, and that’s shaping everything that they write,” Kriegman said. Consequently, Reuters adopted a narrative that promotes a naïve, left-wing narrative about Black Lives Matter and fails to provide accurate context—which is particularly egregious because, unlike obviously left-leaning outlets such as the New York Times, Reuters has a reputation as a source of objective news reporting.
A review of Reuters coverage over the spring and summer of 2020 confirms Kriegman’s interpretation. Though early articles covering the first days of the chaos in Minneapolis were straightforward about the violence—“Protests, looting erupt in Minneapolis over racially charged killing by police,” reads one headline—Reuters’s coverage eventually seemed like it had been processed to add ideology and euphemism. Beginning in the summer and continuing over the course of the year, the newswire’s reporting adopted the BLM narrative in substance and style. The stories framed the unrest as a “a new national reckoning about racial injustice” and described the protests as “mostly peaceful” or “largely peaceful,” despite widespread violence, looting, and crime. “More than 93% of recent demonstrations connected to Black Lives Matter were peaceful,” Reuters insisted, even as rioters caused up to $2 billion in property damage across the country. The company’s news reporters adopted the syntax of BLM activists. A May 8 story opened with the familiar “say their names” recitation, ignoring the fact that the first named individual, for example, had attacked a police officer, who was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing: “Michael Brown. Eric Garner. Freddie Gray. Their names are seared into Americans’ memories, egregious examples of lethal police violence that stirred protests and prompted big payouts to the victims’ families.” Even as Seattle’s infamous “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” descended into lawlessness and saw the brutal murder of two black teenagers, the newswire’s headlines downplayed the destruction, claiming that the Seattle protests were “diminished but not dismantled.” -City Journal
According to Kriegman, Reuters ‘data-based fact checks’ were also biased – and always in favor of BLM interpretations. In one instance, the wire service’s “special report” claimed that “a growing body of research supports the perception that police unfairly target Black Americans. They are more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested than their white compatriots. They also are more likely to be killed by police.” Reuters dedicated just two short paragraphs to refute the viewpoint, which it quickly dismisses to continue advancing the pro-BLM argument.
Reuters made an evidence-free claim that qualified immunity – which is protected by the Supreme Court – is “rooted in racism.” The company also hosted a panel with left-wing pundits to discuss criminal reform, which ended up uncritically promoting such policies as “defund the police,” and who suggested that “hundreds” of unjustified police killings of black men “fail to win victims any redress.” As usual, no facts backed up their claims.
The company’s data reporting consistently re-contextualized accurate information about racial violence and policing in order to align with Black Lives Matter rhetoric. In a “fact check” of a social media post that claimed whites are more likely to be killed by blacks than blacks are to be killed by whites, Reuters concedes that this is factually accurate but labels the post “misleading”—in part because it doesn’t show that police kill black people at a higher rate than their share of the overall population, a completely unrelated claim. Likewise, when President Donald Trump accurately pointed out that police officers kill “more white people” than black people each year, Reuters immediately published a story reframing the narrative. Though the report admitted that “half of people killed by police are white,” the writers pushed the line that “Black Americans are shot at a disproportionate rate” and then used a quotation from the American Civil Liberties Union to paint the president as a “racist.” -City Journal
“I did look through Reuters’s news, and it was concerning to me that a lot of the same issues that I was seeing in other media outlets seemed to be replicated in Reuters’s news, where they were reporting favorably about Black Lives Matter protests without giving any context to the claims that were being made at those protests [and] without giving any context about the ‘Ferguson effect’ and how police pulling back on their proactive policing has been pretty clearly linked to a dramatic increase in murders,” Kriegman told Rufo. “At a certain point, it just feels like a moral obligation to speak out when something that’s having such a devastating impact is being celebrated so widely, especially in a news company where the perspective that’s celebrated is having such a big impact externally.”
Kriegman took two months off from Thomson Reuters to ‘grapple with the statistical and ethical implications’ of how the company was reporting on the BLM movement and related riots. While on leave, he embarked on a careful statistical investigation comparing BLM’s claims on racism, violence and policing with hard evidence.
The result: a 12,000-word essay, titled “BLM is Anti-Black Systemic Racism,” that called into question the entire sequence of claims by the Black Lives Matter movement and echoed by the Reuters news team. “I believe the Black Lives Matter (‘BLM’) movement arose out of a passionate desire to protect black people from racism and to move our whole society towards healing from a legacy of centuries of brutal oppression,” Kriegman wrote in the introduction. “Unfortunately, over the past few years I have grown more and more concerned about the damage that the movement is doing to many low-income black communities. I have avidly followed the research on the movement and its impacts, which has led me, inexorably, to the conclusion that the claim at the heart of the movement, that police more readily shoot black people, is false and likely responsible for thousands of black people being murdered in the most disadvantaged communities in the country.” Thomson Reuters, Kriegman continued, has a special obligation to “resist simplistic narratives that are not based in facts and evidence, especially when those narratives are having such a profoundly negative impact on minority or marginalized groups.” -City Journal
The essay debunks three key claims of BLM activists and their media supporters.
- That police officers kill blacks disproportionately
- That law enforcement ‘over-polices’ black neighborhoods
- That policies such as “defund the police” will reduce violence.
Rufo breaks down Kriegman’s arguments:
First, Kriegman writes that the narrative about police officers systematically hunting and killing blacks is not supported by the evidence. “For instance, in 2020 there were 457 whites shot and killed by police, compared to 243 blacks. Of those, 24 of the whites killed were unarmed compared to 18 blacks,” he writes, citing the Washington Post database of police shootings. And though the number of blacks killed might be disproportionate compared with the percentage of blacks in the overall population, it is not disproportionate to the level of violent crime committed by black citizens. “Depending on the type of violent crime, whites either commit a slightly greater (non-fatal crimes) or slightly smaller (fatal, and serious non-fatal crimes) percentage of the total violent crime than blacks, but in all cases roughly in the same ballpark,” Kriegman writes. However, according to the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey data, “there are many more whites killed by police, even though whites account for a similar absolute number of violent offenders. Thus, if the number of potentially violent encounters with police reflects the violent crime rates, then the raw statistics suggest that there is actually a slight anti-white bias in police applications of lethal force.” To round out his case, Kriegman concludes with a study by Harvard’s Roland Fryer, which, according to Fryer, “didn’t find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime.”
Next, Kriegman takes up “over-policing.” Black Lives Matter activists and Reuters reporters had pushed the idea that police officers focus disproportionate attention on black neighborhoods and, because of deep-seated “racial bias,” are more likely to stop, search, and arrest black Americans “than their white compatriots.” While this might be true on its face, Kriegman writes, it misses the appropriate context: black neighborhoods are significantly more violent than white neighborhoods. If police want to reduce violent crime, they must spend more time in the places where violent crime occurs. Kriegman points out to his colleagues in Thomson Reuters’s Boston office that “the reason that police have more confrontations in predominantly black neighborhoods in Boston is because that is where the great bulk of violent crime is occurring,” with nearly all the annual murders happening in predominantly black neighborhoods such as Dorchester and Roxbury—far from the homes and offices of his colleagues in the professional-managerial class at Reuters. And Boston is hardly an outlier. According to Kriegman, the most rigorous statistical analyses demonstrate that violent-crime rates and policing are, in fact, highly correlated and proportionate. He quotes a Justice Department report which “found that for nonfatal violent crimes that victims said were reported to police, whites accounted for 48% of offenders and 46% of arrestees. Blacks accounted for 35% of offenders and 33% of arrestees. Asians accounted for 2% of offenders and 1% of arrestees. None of these differences between the percentage of offenders and the percentage of arrestees of a given race were statistically significant.”
Finally, Kriegman addresses the policy implications of “de-policing.” Contrary to Reuters’s sometimes glowing coverage of the “defund the police” movement, Kriegman makes the case that de-policing, whether it occurs because of the “Ferguson Effect” or because of deliberate policy choices, has led to disaster for black communities. His argument, building on the work of City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald, follows this logic: after high-profile police-involved killings, such as those involving Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Black Lives Matter movement and the media have demonized police departments and caused many officers to reduce proactive policing measures and to pull back from situations out of fear that they might need to use force. The result, according to data from a range of academic literature, is an increase in crime and violence. Kriegman again cites Fryer, who concluded that the Ferguson Effect led to 900 excess murders in five cities he considered, and the University of Utah’s Paul G. Cassell, who found that the “Minneapolis Effect” led to 1,520 excess murders in the United States. Thus, BLM’s signature policy solution—“defund the police”—would likely lead to incredible carnage in black communities. -City Journal
Instead of his essay winning hearts and minds at Reuters, where he hoped it would help his colleagues move beyond “the blue bubble” and see “how devastating Black Lives Matter has been to black communities,” Reuters HR panicked and took down Kriegman’s post.
“I didn’t know what to expect going into it, but I expected the reaction to be intense,” said Kriegman. “And it was.”
He says a “team of HR and communications professionals” were called in to manage the situation, which they told him they were “reviewing.”
When he asked multiple times about the company’s decision to remove his essay, he was told that it was too “antagonistic” and “provocative,” and that he needed to work with their head of diversity and inclusion, Cristina Juvier, if he wanted to pursue the matter further.
Read the rest of the report here.’https://www.zerohedge.com/political/reuters-data-scientist-fired-after-nuking-blm-narrative-exposing-significant-left-wing?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=399
‘In 1611 Good King James was sure one verse in the Bible did not apply to him. Oh he loved Romans 13:1-3 about the God given authority of rulers, but his life showed his feeling that verse 4 held little application to him when it said “For he (King, Authority and Government etc) is the minster of God to thee for good.” The King was sure that he too was Authorised to be God’s divine appointee, so he could rule accordingly and the old battle over the divine right of kings was never far from the surface in his realm. Similar attitudes still plague us even though government by democracies have largely replaced the Monarchy.
So don’t make the mistake of reading Foxes Book of Martyrs (1563), or the lives of William Tyndale (killed 1536), Bonhoffer (killed 1945) or Richard Wurmbrandt (imprisoned by communists 14 yrs), then holding those persecuted saints as heroes of the faith, unless you also admit they were in trouble and many put to death for disobeying the ungodly government and all church institutions that supported the government.
What the governments of the day had demanded that those martyrs do was ‘not good’, and as such the persecuted had every authority to disobey such demands, given by the highest authority – the Creator Lord God! I say this because Romans 13 is bandied about by way too many people as giving government ‘all’ authority – something the Lord Jesus never gives to any human institution, secular or church!
Just as Thomas Jefferson said in 1786 ‘… the Freedom of the Press cannot be limited without being lost.’
Then as Australian Judge Sir John Grieg Latham (1877- 1964) stated so bluntly: “A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody is entitled to disobey it.”
Now I must update this to read; ‘If human authority is NOT limited, then mankind’s freedom is already lost and history shows it is rarely regained without bloodshed and death.’
The good news from Romans chapter 13 is that the government – any government – King, presidency, democracy or whatever, is only authorised to do good. That ‘good’ is defined by God alone through His Word alone and not by Clergy of Government. When any authority ceases to do good it can be opposed. When it does evil, it must be opposed no matter what the price.
For the same reason the apostle Paul writes in Romans 15:4 that “all these things were written for our learning”, so if you want to understand how to react to any ungodly government that is exceeding its authority, then read the records from Genesis to Malachi and ask why so many of the saints were in trouble – a large majority were punished for disobeying the governments of the day. Whether it was Daniel in the lion’s den or even Moses, their doing what was good in the Lord God’s eyes is your example for refusing to do what may be currently mandated as compulsory in man’s view but is repulsive to God in all matters of faith and conduct.
Now can you see why we are instructed to pray for “kings and all in authority” (I Tim 2:1-2). We all benefit when His will is done and His kingdom come. Again a reminder that the real problem here is sin and the only solution is the Gospel from Genesis to Revelation as you share the whole counsel of God.’https://mailchi.mp/creationresearch.net/creation-research-news-email-update-15th-december-2021?e=ce21bf0337
‘God created mankind with an urgent compulsion to defend himself from all threats to his life, which is only sensible if His creation was to survive. That means mankind must have food, water, and shelter. One must add money (or some substitute) to the list since money is required to survive. (Sex is probably the second strongest urge of man, but that’s another article.)
Societies’ laws must reflect the fact of man’s basic urges. That is why it is not wrong to kill in defense of one’s own life or the life of others, especially family. When taking a wife, a man is obligated to be the protector as well as partner, parent, and provider. That’s one reason why every man should own a gun and know how to use it and be willing to use it if necessary.
This truth goes back to ancient Jewish law that gives a homeowner the right, even the duty, to kill a person during a night home invasion since he can expect the most dangerous intent. At night, a homeowner has limited knowledge of the threat to the family, while he can make a fair assessment of the threat in the daylight. However, if it is the daytime, a homeowner must try not to kill an intruder.
Moses instructed in Exodus 22:2-3, “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”
So, a homeowner can kill any night intruder since he does not know how dangerous the thief is. For sure, he is in the home for nefarious reasons, so he can be shot, and the shooter goes free. The thief got what he deserved. If he were not in another’s home, he would be alive. He did not exercise common sense and paid with his life.
Unbelievers and nonthinkers always quote Christ’s command about turning the other cheek. That seems to be their favorite verse after, “Judge not.” It’s one thing to turn your other cheek to de-escalate a situation but another when a brute is swinging a ball bat at the head of your wife or child.
Many laws come from this principle: stand your ground, citizens’ arrest, involuntary manslaughter, etc. This principle has numerous ramifications, such as vigilante committees, bounty hunters, posses, Guardian Angels, paladins, Robin Hood, Superman, etc.
The need for law and order is seen in a ship’s captain since sailors were often on the sea for months or years at a time. In the event of any problem, the captain’s word was law.
In recent years self-defense has been much in the news, especially with the Kyle Rittenhouse and the Ahmaud Arbery cases. People or groups that don’t care for or believe in self-defense or personal accountability have often used the word vigilante, especially if a minority person is the culprit. According to Merriam-Webster, a vigilante is “a self-appointed doer of justice.” The true vigilante was a rough, sometimes crude, but fair-minded man who stood ready in the night to visit violence and judgment on those who would do harm to the young, helpless, and innocent.
It seems most far-leftists believe minorities can do no wrong, and if perchance they should, it was Whitey’s fault. It is racist to hold a minority to the same standard Whites are held to! Wait a minute, isn’t that racism? All sane and honest people would agree.
However, vigilantes go back to ancient times. The first recorded case seems to be when Abraham’s nephew Lot and his family and their food supply were taken by rogue kings. Abraham and his trained militia of 318 servants chased the thieves almost to the city limits of Damascus, Syria. Lot and his family and all their goods were recovered.
During the 12th century, the Knights Templars protected travelers to the holy land. It wasa Catholic military order founded in 1118, headquartered on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It became a wealthy, powerful Catholic order famous for its financial acumen, military prowess, and protection of pilgrims. After Muslims lost control of Jerusalem and the Holy Land, many Europeans were determined to visit the Holy Land but traveled through Muslim-controlled parts of Europe. The Knights Templars provided them safe travel.
There were great swaths of territory in America’s earliest days without any kind of law and order. Each family was on its own. That’s why every family had a musket over their fireplace or in the corner. People had to keep the peace whenever men gathered to start a community. When one man or group of men took advantage of others, the good guys often formed a vigilante committee to handle the bad guys until an official could be hired for that purpose.
Settlers from eastern cities in the late 1800s needed protection. One of the essential needs was law and order on wagon trains during their long trek from St. Louis westward through vast territories of dangerous savages and organized evil men. Wagonmasters had enormous authority since there was no established law for vast stretches of land. As travelers settled in areas along the way, they created vigilante committees since there was no authority for hundreds of miles. Additionally, many private groups such as bounty hunters, private guards, Indian scouts filled the gap until the law came to the towns and cavalry forts were built.
Historian Carl Coke Rister declared, “[T]he vigilantes unquestionably served the frontier well in ridding it of desperado control. They bridged the gap between the lawless frontier and the orderly communities, which came later.”
The vigilantes consisted of noble good guys, ne’er-do-wells, misfits, average individuals, etc.; and through it all, much good, as well as some harm, was done.
One vigilante was Doc Holliday, made famous in movies and television. During an interview in The Daily Denver Times, June 15, 1886, Holliday said, “The claim that I make is that a few of us pioneers are entitled to credit for what we have done. We have been forerunners of government. As soon as law and order [were] established anywhere, we never had any trouble. If it hadn’t been for me and men like me, there never would have been any government in some of these towns. When I have done any shooting, it has always been with this in mind.”
Well, not always. Holliday was joined at the hip with Wyatt Earp. The latter was a saloonkeeper, gambler, horse thief, consorter with prostitutes, gunslinger, confidence man, and town marshal in Dodge City, Deadwood, and Tombstone.
Credit goes to the likes of Holliday, but he and his girlfriend, Big Nose Kate, were not exemplary citizens or role models for the youth of Tombstone. With the total absence of law, such people were necessary until a town or territory “grew up.”
Some villages eventually hired a sheriff, but that was later in their development. Many of the sheriffs were former gunmen with an unsavory reputation. The Pinkerton Detective Agency and Wells Fargo special agents were helpful to the cities and cattle companies in ferreting out crime inside the towns.
The bounty hunter found a necessary niche for himself until cities and counties were more settled, and like many sheriffs, he was often a reformed gunslinger. The same was true with the western paladin who was alleged to be “a leading champion and defender of a cause.”
In the mining camps in Alaska, California, and Nevada, the miners were the law since civilization was many days away.
In May of 1863, Henry Plummer was elected sheriff of Bannack City, Montana, a thriving gold area. Plummer was born in Maine and came west to make his fortune in the goldfields. With his unique position as an elected official, he is said to have organized a notorious outlaw gang known as the Innocents, more commonly known today as the Plummer Gang. The 100-member gang was headquartered at the Rattlesnake Ranch located twelve miles from Virginia City.
The Plummer Gang was blamed for the deaths of over a hundred people and the theft of a huge amount of gold from transporters between Bannack and Virginia City. The crime rate in 1863 was more than double that in the region, and citizens formed a vigilante committee to help curtail the crime.
In December 1863, the vigilantes arrested three men in Nevada City, near Virginia City. The men were suspected of being members of the gang, and one was hanged, and the other two were banished. More than a hundred men were arrested as being gang members, and most were hanged, and the others were run out of town.
At an execution, one gang member identified Sheriff Plummer as the gang leader, followed by his arrest and execution along with two deputies in January of 1864. Plummer had constructed the gallows as sheriff of the town.
Historians are divided on Plummer’s guilt. Some say he was not an outlaw, but a dedicated public official rushed to the gallows by irresponsible men. On May 7, 1993, a posthumous trial was held in Virginia City to settle the doubt. The jury split six to six, and a mistrial was declared. Henry Plummer would have gone free if the trial had been held in real-time.
True vigilantes always enforced the law but never for profit; they never wore masks and were not secretive. If the bad guys were caught killing, stealing cattle, etc., they were hanged on the spot, although sometimes they had a trial of sorts with the jury sitting in their saddles. No doubt there were mistakes, but that was the price to pay for law and order where people could walk in the parks and on the streets in safety. You know, the safety we have today in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Washington, DC, and New York City.
In 1981, Ken Rex McElroy was the town bully that none dared to confront in rural Skidmore, Missouri (population 284). He had been accused of assault, child molestation, statutory rape, arson, animal cruelty, hog and cattle rustling, and burglary. He had been indicted 21 times but always escaped justice using witness intimidation. Finally, a resident fatally shot McElroy in broad daylight after years of crimes without any punishment. Forty-five people witnessed the shooting, but everybody kept quiet when it came time to identify the shooter. The case is still open.
Like anything else, vigilantes can be misused, and innocent people are hurt or killed. Some uninformed people identify the KKK (formed by frustrated Democrats at the end of the Civil War) as an example of vigilantes gone wrong, but they don’t qualify. Vigilantes did not wear masks or belong to a secret society. According to Tuskegee University, using the Klan as a cover, angry bigots lynched 4,743 Blacks between 1882 and 1968 in the United States.
Some confuse a vigilante committee with a militia, but the militias maintain order like the National Guard. Vigilante committees were focused on criminal activity in the absence of official authority.
With all the violence, looting, and killing in American cities, fearful, angry, and disgusted citizens will feel forced to “take the law into their own hands” as local and federal officials refuse to provide law and order, often excusing the violence.
That has happened since the beginning of time. Count on it happening in America.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/vigilantes-do-men-have-a-right-to-take-the-law-into-their-own-hands
If the USA can survive as a nation another ten years I would be surprised. Why, would I say that? Well, ‘After Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges from the Kenosha shooting, Best Buy and Levi Strauss reportedly offered their employees counseling to those distressed over the verdict. Levi’s offered a session with a “racial trauma specialist” for workers distraught over the acquittal of Rittenhouse — who is white — shooting three white men who assailed him.
Elizabeth Morrison — Levi’s chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer — sent an email to employees of the San Francisco-based clothing company following the Rittenhouse verdict in Wisconsin.
“With the news that Kyle Rittenhouse was not convicted in the shooting of three individuals — two of whom lost their lives — during racial justice protests last year, this is a difficult day for many,” the email read.
“The pain and trauma of race, identity and belief-based tragedies is a reality that many of us are struggling with on an ongoing basis,” Morrison stated. “It can feel physically, mentally and emotionally draining to continue to relive these moments, and I want you to know, it’s okay to not be okay.”‘https://www.theblaze.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-levi-strauss?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New-Trending-Story_WEEKEND%202021-11-28&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Breaking%20News
This is a MUST read and the videos are a MUST to watch so follow the link https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/adorable-black-lab-k9-officer-with-amazing-nose-goes-viral-after-partner-posts-their-adventures-on-tiktok_4009176.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-10-12-1&mktids=fd60480f1620e5a50391174f10ffa4a5&est=zBxTpQW2GX9Q0jttv94d0p5wPfxo%2Bbn%2FtBGVP7W%2BMOHqUNCstMS1bK7dSiaQx8ofbw%3D%3D
‘Raider may be an adorable black Lab, but her uncanny hunt instinct made her the perfect K-9 sniffer dog.
The cute pup went viral on TikTok after her fun-loving owner and work partner, Officer Ritchey, of the Alpharetta Police Department, started recording their adventures together.
Officer Ritchey first met Raider on a small farm, where he would intentionally toss a tennis ball into thick, tall grass for her to fetch. Raider wouldn’t come out of that grass without the ball—no matter how long it took.’
If the police in this story were all white then it must be racist!
‘Four MS-13 gang members are accused of killing a woman and placing her body in a car in Queens, New York.
According to WLNY-TV, officers with the New York Police Department “saw the four suspects carry a large object out of a building on Foam Place and place it in the trunk of a car before driving away” just before 2 a.m. on Wednesday.
Officers discovered the body of 31-year-old Nazareth Claure in the trunk after following the suspects’ vehicle and conducting a traffic stop near the Nassau Expressway in Far Rockaway.
The body was wrapped in a blanket, confirming the officers’ suspicions from earlier that night, the report said.
“Police say one of the suspects, who was also the victim’s boyfriend, strangled her,” WCBS-TV reported.
Officers arrested Allan Lopez, Jose Sarmiento, Rigel Yohairo and Rodolfo Lopez on charges of murder and said each is affiliated with the notorious criminal gang MS-13.’https://www.westernjournal.com/police-find-womans-body-trunk-car-4-suspected-ms-13-gang-members-charged/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=AE&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2021-04-17
So much for the justice system! “If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced, just know that all hell is gonna break loose,” Echols said. “Don’t be surprised when buildings are on fire. Just sayin’.” https://twitter.com/i/status/1379061061286944773
Boy, am I glad I am old! This cancel culture thing is beyond belief but is a true REALITY in today’s society. How is it that the supposed Religion of Peace has obtained a place of such authority and prominence not only in Islamic nations but the Western world as well? Here’s another unbelievable story of one who has suffered greatly under the CANCEL CULTURE!
‘We’re all aware of the cancel culture. Its strength is visible on college campuses throughout the country, especially in liberal strongholds. But in a politically conservative state such as Tennessee? Surely it wouldn’t have any foothold in state employment, right?
Wrong.
In February 2019, I joined the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (“the Board”), the agency in Tennessee handling attorney discipline. I handled my own litigation caseload, and all appeals were assigned to me, including appearances before the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The Supreme Court is the “ultimate arbiter” of attorney discipline in the state, and thus every disciplinary appeal is taken by the Court. I presented six oral arguments to the Court in one and a half years, likely more than any other attorney in the state during that time period. I loved oral argument days, and in my opinion, the judges on Tennessee’s Supreme Court are some of the finest in the country.
Some attorneys facing potential discipline will go to great lengths to excuse their misconduct, including lashing out at Board counsel. Unfortunately, that happened to me. The Board has been dealing with a Nashville-based attorney for several years. His alleged misconduct is really secondary to what happened to me. The Board conducted a trial against him, and the Hearing Panel (comprised of three volunteer attorneys) issued its judgment that the attorney should be suspended for two years. The attorney appealed, and the appeal was assigned to me.
That attorney filed a motion to put a hold on the appeal, claiming that the Board attorney handling the trial was dishonest with him in discussing certain procedural matters. I filed a memorandum opposing the motion, and attended the oral argument by Zoom. That was the full extent of my participation in his appeal.
I have never met this attorney. I have never spoken to him. In fact, he had independent counsel file his motion and make the argument, so I did not even see him then. Nonetheless, the day after his motion to stay was denied, he – through his counsel – filed a motion to disqualify me as an “anti-Muslim bigot.” He claimed that his wife (who I also have never met) is Muslim, and therefore I could not be an objective attorney handling the appeal. Moreover, he claimed that I was not even fit to be employed by the state of Tennessee.
What was his basis for such an outrageous claim? He apparently did a deep dive into my Twitter account and found tweets from 2015 and 2016 – four years before I was even a state employee – in which I apparently supported then-candidate Trump’s position that the country should not continue to allow people in from Islamic terrorist hot spots if we could not verify them. In that vein, I allegedly tweeted several articles discussing this issue, and emphasized that we should be diligent and aware of Islamic terrorism.
In one of the tweets, it appears that I referenced a Muslim being removed from one of Trump’s campaign events. That particular individual claimed that he was mistreated and that it was “scary.” In response, I allegedly indicated that bombs were scary, making the point that people exercising their free speech at a political rally paled in comparison to bombs being set by Islamic terrorists.
I could not find the tweets when I searched for them. I could only go back in my history to 2018. So I could never actually confirm that the tweets from 2015 or 2016 were mine.
The attorney claimed that I also posted numerous tweets ridiculing liberals and Democrat lawyers, and that I was clearly a conservative bigot. In support, he included more recent tweets which were nothing more than political commentary.
But it didn’t matter. As a result of his ridiculous motion, the Board and state HR conducted an investigation and ultimately determined that I could not continue as a Board attorney because I was in a position of “public trust.” Apparently, this means that I should not have expressed a political viewpoint (which millions of Americans share) years before I even became a state employee.
I have never treated anyone unfairly or with a religious bias, whether on the Board or otherwise. In fact, I have worked with Muslim immigrants in Romania, while on trips to visit my wife’s family. Nor do I believe that all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, I believe that the number of Islamic terrorists is incredibly small when compared to the overall number of Muslims.
Nor did my religious or political viewpoint have anything at all to do with this attorney’s case. I have no idea who his wife is, or her religion, beyond what he claims in his motion. Even had I known, it would have had no impact on me handling his appeal, as there was absolutely nothing in the underlying case that touched on religion. The attorney did not claim that I had actually done anything wrong to him or violated his rights in any way. Instead, his claim was that because of my political (conservative) viewpoint, I could not possibly be objective.
In the end, I was given the Hobson’s choice to resign or be terminated. This was not based on any actual conduct while I was a state employee. Nor was it based on any interactions with this attorney or my handling of his case. Instead, it was based on nothing more than his own allegations that I could not be objective. The attorney sent a copy of his motion to the Nashville Tennessean, which reported on the motion without even bothering to give me the opportunity to respond. The bad publicity which resulted was surely a primary reason for the decision. Instead of fighting the motion on its merits, it appears that getting rid of me was the easiest solution.
The cancel culture was victorious once again.’https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/tennessee-lawyer-fired-for-opposing-islamic-terrorism-tells-his-story?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_12_31_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-12-31
whatyareckon 