‘Centuries of structural and systematic racism and social injustice won’t go away by itself. We need a global structural change….’
Al Gore and Greta Thunberg / IMAGE: @algore via Twitter
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) Climate activist Al Gore said he supports “the peaceful demonstrations across America calling for equal justice now” because environmental activism and racial justice are part of the same movement, GreenBiz reported.
“We are way overdue in America for a reckoning that addresses the long-standing injustices borne by black, brown and indigenous people,” he said.
Gore’s statement clarifies that the true purpose of the unrest sweeping through the nation is to enact a progressive economic, social and political agenda, not to protest the George Floyd‘s alleged murder.
“Entrenched, systemic racism in our country has led to disproportionate impacts of pollution on communities of color, along with disparities in income, education, healthcare and more,” he said in a statement. “The need for climate action is bound together with the struggle for racial equality and liberation.”
Gore then raised the stakes with a panic-mongering hat-trick, saying that there is a common thread among climate change, COVID-19 and systemic racism.
“Today, African Americans are suffering from COVID-19 more than any other race, in part because their much higher exposure to air pollution increases the mortality rate from the virus,” he said.
He said in March that climate change science and coronavirus science are “exactly the same thing.”
Climate activist Greta Thunberg also said she supports the protests.
Devastating to see the development taking place in the USA.
Centuries of structural and systematic racism and social injustice won’t go away by itself.
We need a global structural change.
The injustices must come to an end. #BlackLivesMatterpic.twitter.com/V5NWJFm0Qh
‘Are you asking for concurrence in something the Governor has already announced?’
Roy Cooper / IMAGE: MSNBC via YouTube
(Michael Barnes, Liberty Headlines) North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper gave statewide elected leaders only 30 minutes to agree to his Wuhan virus shutdown plans for bars and restaurants. Then, without debate or discussion, he closed them anyway.
The heavy-handed tactic was revealed in a series of emails obtained by WBTV through the North Carolina Public Records Act. But it took a lawsuit and the support of 26 other media outlets to pry the email records from Cooper and the state Department of Health and Human Services.
North Carolina has 10 statewide leaders known as the Council of State. It consists of six Republicans and four Democrats, including the governor.
The Council of State meets about once a month and rarely votes on controversial issues. But on March 17, that changed when a lawyer for the Department of Public Safety emailed Council of State members about a new executive order. The email came at 11:25 a.m.
At 12:42 p.m., a second email from the same government lawyer requested agreement on two items: expanded unemployment benefits and closing bars and restaurants to indoor dining.
Council members had just 33 minutes to decide the fate of thousands of businesses, employees and families in the restaurant and bar industry.
“The Governor respectfully requests your concurrence on these matters by 1:15 p.m. on March 17, 2020,” the DPS lawyer concluded.
According to the newly obtained email records, the council’s three other Democrat members sided with Cooper on both items.
None of the Republicans agreed to close bars and restaurants, though the email records that were produced are either incomplete or do not show the final vote count of all members. Regardless, the Cooper administration continues to hide the answer.
Four Republicans—Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry, Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler and Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey—agreed to expand unemployment benefits.
Forest is currently challenging Cooper’s re-election campaign in the state’s November gubernatorial race.
Republican State Treasurer Dale Folwell doesn’t appear to have rejected the unemployment proposal, but he explicitly questioned Cooper’s shameless handling of his soon-to-be executive order.
“To repeat: The Governor himself needs to address compliance of #1 with the Council of State for there to be a motion,” Folwell wrote in one of several responding emails.
“The Governor needs to set up a process to discuss and amend Item #2 in order to potentially UNIFY the NC Council of State against COVID 19,” Folwell added.
The state failed to produce any records about how Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Mark Johnson voted. Nor did it produce any responses to Folwell’s repeated requests for a vote count.
But every Republican on the council expressed concern about the magnitude of Cooper’s plans and the absurd amount of time to reach an agreement.
“I feel this needs further discussion,” said Causey.
“In #2 are you asking for concurrence in something the Governor has already announced?” Forest asked.
“On Item #2, Commissioner Berry would like to have been afforded the courtesy of commenting on this item before it was made public,” wrote Berry’s chief of staff.
Ultimately, Cooper’s executive order was issued with the appearance of Council of State knowledge and consent. And now that the ruthless tactic has been exposed, Cooper says he never had to consult the council in the first place.
“As a reminder, for the March 17 order limiting sale of food and beverages to take out, drive-through and delivery, the order did not require concurrence as the Governor and the Secretary of DHHS have the authority to do this under state public health and emergency powers law,” an attorney for the Department of Public Safety told WBTV.
‘As someone who has done many late night live shots, the lights at the White House go off every night around 11 p.m….’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Democrats have been circulating an old, edited image of the White House in an attempt to criticize the Trump administration.
The picture shows the White House with all of its interior and exterior lights turned off. Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shared the image and suggested that Trump turned these lights off during the protests in Washington, D.C., posting it alongside a similar image of the White House illuminated in rainbow colors.
David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, also shared the image, calling it the “perfect symbolism.”
Perfect symbolism. If ever the country needed the occupant of the White House to shed light, and not heat, now is the time. Sadly, the lights are out. pic.twitter.com/5i8e60Ipcv
The picture, however, was not taken during the Trump administration. It’s an iStock image dated back to 2015, according to the Associated Press, though it’s unclear whether the picture was taken during the Obama administration or some time prior. The image was also altered to make the White House look darker than it actually is, the Associated Press explained in a fact check.
Furthermore, several reporters have confirmed that the White House normally turns its lights off. Even CNN’s Kaitlin Collins decided to set the record straight:
As someone who has done many late night live shots, the lights at the White House go off every night around 11 p.m.
‘I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we’re showing up. The majority of coworkers I’ve spoken to feel the same way…’
Mark Zuckerberg (screen shot: The Times of India/Youtube)
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly defended the company’s decision to leave President Donald Trump’s posts online after employees demanded that he censor the president.
During a virtual question-and-answer with staff, Zuckerberg said that leaving Trump’s posts about the death of George Floyd and the ensuing riots was “the right action,” according to the New York Times.
“I knew that I would have to separate out my personal opinion,” Zuckerberg said. “Knowing that when we made this decision we made, it was going to lead to a lot of people upset inside the company, and the media criticism we were going to get.”
Much of the criticism stems from Facebook’s decision to leave Trump’s posts alone instead of labeling them with fact checks or removing them entirely.
Despite the claim, Facebook has faced repeated criticism for its past censorship, including recent fact-checks that it implemented on the coronavirus and other hot-button issues that arbitrarily suppressed or contextualized valid points of view.
Nonetheless, Zuckerberg’s remarks came amid growing backlash inside the company over Trump’s rhetoric and a concerted effort by left-wing Trump-haters outside the company to silence and deplatform the president with less than half a year until the presidential election.
Several hundred employees participated in a “virtual” walkout on Monday to protest Facebook’s “inaction.”
“Our position is that we should enable as much expression as possible unless it will cause imminent risk of specific harms or dangers spelled out in clear policies,” Zuckerberg said.
Two other major social media companies—Twitter and Snapchat—have recently boosted their efforts. Twitter has controversially begun to assign “fact check” labels to tweets from Trump with which the company disagrees.
This defense was still met by criticism from disgruntled employees, including Jason Toff, director of product management, who said he is “not proud” of Facebook and its position.
I work at Facebook and I am not proud of how we’re showing up. The majority of coworkers I’ve spoken to feel the same way. We are making our voice heard.
Zuckerberg’s policy could be an attempt to ease tensions between his company and the Trump administration in light of the president’s recent executive order, which seeks to target certain protections social media platforms currently enjoy.
‘This police officer unholstered his weapon only after his supervisor was nearly killed with a brick…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was quick to condemn a New York Police Department officer after a 12-second video clip surfaced in which the officer pulled his service piston on protesters.
The full video, however, shows that the officer had good reason to defend himself against violent looters who were attempting to beat him and his fellow officers in the streets.
The video de Blasio cited shows a brief scuffle between protesters and NYPD officers. At the end, an officer pulls out his pistol and points it at protesters.
A source shared this video, which he says he took at around 10 pm near near 12th and Broadway. It appears to show an NYPD officer pointing a gun at protesters outside the Strand pic.twitter.com/pCTNIYL7op
De Blasio slammed the officer and demanded that he turn in his gun and badge immediately.
“It is not the place of an officer to pull a gun in the middle of a crowd, knowing that there are peaceful protesters in that crowd. That is unacceptable, that is dangerous,” he said, according to WLNY-TV.
“That officer should have his gun and badge taken away today. There will be an investigation immediately to determine the larger consequences,” he added.
As it turns out, the video de Blasio relied upon was deceptively edited. The 27-second video, released by the Police Benevolent Association of New York City, shows the moments leading up to the officer in question pulling out his service weapon.
The video shows protesters throwing bricks at the line of officers and hitting his supervisor in the head so hard that the supervising officer fell to the ground.
Now we have the full story: this police officer unholstered his weapon only after his supervisor was nearly killed with a brick. #FactsMatterpic.twitter.com/6PzqgI991I
‘The point is, the whole concept that the campaign was colluding with the Russians—there was no there there in August 2017…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The top Justice Department official who launched and oversaw the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion admitted under oath Wednesday that it was a mistake, but he continued to duck responsibility, insisting that the FBI deliberately withheld important details from him.
In the first day of what promises to be a lengthy investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee into the motives behind the FBI’s Russiagate hoax against President Donald Trump, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein agreed that in hindsight his appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was improperly predicated.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, the committee chairman, grilled Rosenstein in a sometimes tense exchange as to why he had included several Trump campaign advisers in his scope memorandum authorizing Mueller to investigate them.
Using perjury traps and tangential charges, Mueller ultimately indicted two of them—Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos—despite the presence of exculpatory information, which the FBI was fully aware of months before.
The bureau willfully overlooked and suppressed contradictory facts, and in at least one instance, FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith purposely altered a CIA email that would have undermined the efforts to spy on campaign adviser Carter Page.
Graham noted that none of those investigated by Mueller had ultimately been charged with any crimes related to working with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign.
“The point is the whole concept that the campaign was colluding with the Russians—there was no there there in August 2017,” Graham said.
Rosenstein maintained, however, that there was “reasonable suspicion” at the time to warrant the appointment of a special counsel.
He put the blame on FBI officials for misleading him, including notoriously partisan ex-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who became the acting director after Trump fired James Comey in May 2017.
“As a result of events that followed the departure of the FBI director, I was concerned that the public would not have confidence in the investigation and that the acting FBI director was not the right person to lead it,” Rosenstein said in his opening statement.
Rod Rosenstein / IMAGE: Fox Business News via YouTube
Rosenstein claimed that he did not know of any instances in which McCabe lied to him, but neither did he provide the whole truth.
“I believed, senator, that Mr. McCabe was not fully candid with me,” Rosenstein said. “He certainly wasn’t forthcoming.”
Specifically, McCabe omitted information about Comey’s having conducted a counterintelligence investigation on the president-elect in what was supposed to be a debriefing session while trying to get Trump to acknowledge the salacious details of the now-debunked Steele Dossier.
“[I]n regard to the FBI’s suspicious about the president, Mr. McCabe did not reveal those to me for at least a week after he became acting director, despite the fact that we had repeated conversations focusing on this investigation,” Rosenstein said. “For whatever reasons, Mr. McCabe was not forthcoming with me about that.”
Even though Comey failed to procure the goods on Trump, he drafted memos of the private meetings and later allowed them to be leaked to the media, which helped bolster the push for Mueller’s appointment under false pretenses.
The two-year probe, costing an estimated $30 million, hobbled much of Trump’s early presidency and likely helped rival Democrats, who campaigned on impeachment, to reclaim the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm election.
Graham charged that Rosenstein’s lack of oversight gave free rein to corrupt and biased FBI officials, including agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page, two adulterous lovebirds whose private texts exposed their seditious intent to undermine Trump.
Even though Strzok had led the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and Page had been integral in the “7th floor” scheme, both were initially included on Mueller’s team of investigative prosecutors until their public outing forced them to resign.
Other left-wing operatives, such as DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, remained on the Mueller staff for its duration.
Shockingly, before departing in disgrace, the lying FBI officials responsible for the hoax were allowed by Rosenstein to define the terms of Mueller’s authority.
After Graham pressed Rosenstein over what knowledge had informed his scope memorandum to Mueller, the latter conceded that the misleading information he received from his own DOJ liaisons likely had come directly from Strzok and Page.
Lindsey Graham / IMAGE: Fox Business News via YouTube
“They gave you a document to sign, and here’s my belief: that they prepared the document—that they defined the scope of their own investigation,” Graham said.
“Is that fair to say, that you were just a conduit for it,” he asked Rosenstein, who reluctantly agreed.
Much of Rosenstein’s early testimony redirected the blame onto the FBI. However, GOP committee members continued to pass the buck back on him as the person at the top of the chain.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, blasted Rosenstein as being either “complicit” or “grossly negligent” in his failure to ask more questions, even after congressional inquiries had shed light on the FBI misconduct, reported Fox News.
Rosenstein, himself, was pressured to resign following the Mueller probe’s conclusion in March 2019 after it was revealed that he had discussed with McCabe the possibility of wearing a wire to ensnare Trump or using the 25th Amendment as basis to declare the president unfit for office.
Emails obtained via the Freedom of Information Act also appeared to reveal that he felt driven by a sense of patriotic duty at the time to relent to left-wing pressure from Obama officials in authorizing the Mueller probe.
However, Rosenstein told Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that they had been taken out of context.
‘The New York Times headline writers are going to Both Sides the country to death…’
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) The New York Times caved once again to radical left-wing activists and politicians on Monday, opting to change its front-page headline after it was deemed too pro-Trump.
The Times‘s original headline was about President Donald Trump’s statement that he may invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would give the executive branch broad authority to restore peace inside the United States, The New York Post reported.
“As Chaos Spreads, Trump Vows to ‘End It Now,'” the headline said.
Former presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted about the headline.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted, “You’ve got to be kidding me.”
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said that “The New York Times headline writers are going to Both Sides the country to death.”
In addition to suggesting, contrary to evidence, that the far-left paper was going out of its way to avoid bias and maintain objectivity, “Both Sides” was a reference to Trump’s comments following the Charlottesville riots.
Schatz claimed that the Times should reserve its criticism for the police and the government and withhold criticism from rioters, looters, and arsonists.
After the mob descended on the Times, and the liberal propaganda outlet decided to instead cover the story about Trump visiting St. John’s Episcopal Church, which is near the White House.
The Times changed the headline to read, “Trump Threatens to Send Troops into States.”
Critics of the headline were much happier with the Times’ online version of the story, which ran with the headline, “Police Clear Protesters With Tear Gas So Trump Can Pose by Church.”
“If the New York Times thinks this accurately describes what happened today, I have no idea what country they’ve been living in — they should just let Trump write their headlines,” said former deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.
Rhodes, an adviser to President Barack Obama and the brother of former CBS News president David Rhodes, previously boasted about his ability to manipulate the media narrative in scandals like Benghazi and the controversial Iran nuclear deal.
‘The use of the R-word as the name and mascot … causes direct, harmful effects on the physical and mental health and academic achievement of the American Indian…’
Editor’s note: Article contains profanity
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) The social media accounts of the Washington Redskins shared in the #BlackOutTuesday protest but their participation did not appease race-obsessed Leftists.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said the Washington Redskins should change the team’s name if they want “to really stand for racial justice,” Newsweek reported.
For #BlackOutTuesday, leftists encouraged social media accounts to post nothing but completely black images. The stated purpose was to show support for George Floyd.
Twitter users said the team’s name harms American Indians, but they did not explain how it harms them.
How many of those thrashing @Redskins for #BlackOutTuesday tweet know that a 2016 Wash Post poll found 90% of Native Americans aren’t offended by #Redskins name? Or that a 2019 Post survey of Native Americans found “proud” as word that best reflects their feelings about the name?
A recent study by the University of California, Berkeley found that about half of Native Americans feel offended by the Washington Redskins’ name, Berkeley News reported.
The National Congress of American Indians of the United States said the team should not be allowed to play football at their stadium until they change their name, WUSA9 reported.
“The use of the R-word as the name and mascot of the Washington National Football League team is offensive and hurtful to American Indian and Alaska Native people and causes direct, harmful effects on the physical and mental health and academic achievement of the American Indian and Alaska Native populations, particularly youth,” said the NCAI in a statement.
In a profane tweet, Twitter user @jilly_tilley said more NFL teams than the Washington Redskins are racist.
The Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Edmonton Eskimos, Chicago Blackhawks, and Kansas City Chiefs can all fuck right off with their performative blackouts unless they’re going to change their names and racist imagery. #BlackOutTuesday
‘The main criteria should be for the VP who can step in and become president. And now it may be, who can bring to the ticket less damage…’
Joe Biden/IMAGE: ABC News via YouTube
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden‘s VP options seem to be narrowing as the media switches the official narrative from coronavirus to racism, white supremacy, and police brutality.
Following the hyped, high-profile deaths of Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd, politicians who were on the short-list for the vice presidential slot may have fallen out of favor due to their gaffes and past positions as government prosecutors, Politico reported.
“Because of social media and the explosion of information available, the scrutiny has quadrupled from when I was being vetted,” said former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
Biden’s declining health has made his vice presidential choice perhaps the most consequential for a presidential candidate in American history. He has said that he may not complete his first term in office.
“The main criteria should be for the VP who can step in and become president,” Richardson said. “And now it may be, who can bring to the ticket less damage.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, has faced criticism since Floyd’s death because she failed to prosecute Derek Chauvin when she served as County Attorney for Hennepin County. Klobuchar’s office said she had no choice in the matter.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who imposed harsh and arbitrary coronavirus lockdown measures in an attempt to garner favor with the anti-Trump establishment, has fallen into a series of unfavorable stories.
She paid a Democratic consulting firm with taxpayer dollars to conduct coronavirus contract tracing.
Her husband asked for preferential treatment over Memorial Day weekend, and then she downplayed it as a “failed attempt at humor.”
Then she lifted the state-at-home order earlier than expected because she could not criticize the rioters in the state, even though she criticized peaceful protesters for assembling at the Capitol.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has a history of prosecuting marijuana smokers at the same time that she admitted to smoking pot.
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) During an exchange with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sought to put to rest one of the many episodes that had raised suspicious about his motives in the Russian collusion probe he oversaw.
In October 2019, Judicial Watch revealed it had obtained via Freedom of Information Act request several emails between Rosenstein and former Justice Department officials that appeared to reveal an anti-Trump bias.
The emails, including one to former FBI Director Robert Mueller—only days before Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel to lead the Russia investigation—also suggested a secret conspiracy to go behind the back of President Donald Trump.
“I assume you realize [that] the boss and his staff do not know about our discussions,” Rosenstein wrote to Mueller.
But Rosenstein, who oversaw the investigation following the recusal of then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, said the email was not about the appointment of a special counsel, nor even about Trump.
“It’s actually a very innocent email,” he told Grassley.
“… I certainly understand out of context how it looks nefarious, but I can assure you … I wouldn’t be putting anything nefarious in emails.”
Rather, he said, the email had been taken out of context and was actually referring to Sessions as “the boss” after he had approached Mueller to apply for the job of FBI director, which had been vacated recently by James Comey.
Rosenstein acknowledged that he had approached Mueller about his availability to lead a possible special-counsel probe but had not made a decision at the time.
Because of Sessions’s recusal in the matter, he was unaware of their conversation when approaching Mueller about the conflicting job opportunity, Rosenstein said.
“What happened there was that General Sessions had reached out independently to Director Mueller to ask him to come in for advice about a new FBI director,” he explained.
“… And so, that hasty email, which I know some in the media have misconstrued, I was simply alerting Director Mueller, when you talk to ‘the boss’ … keep in mind he doesn’t know anything about the Russia investigation,” Rosenstein continued. “It’s an example, senator, of how these things can be misconstrued.”
Rosenstein also addressed a separate email, in which he had corresponded with Mark Filip, a former deputy attorney general under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and stated that he was “with Mueller.”
While the appearance of it suggested that Rosenstein had made up his mind to forge ahead with an investigation of Trump, Rosenstein maintained that he was actually in the room with Mueller when he composed the email.
“I believe when I sent that email I was actually in the White House counsel’s office,” he clarified. “…[W]hen I said I was with Mueller, I meant that literally, that Mueller was with me.”
Rosenstein said that the context also related to the search to fill the FBI director spot and that when he wrote “Duty calls. Sometimes the moment chooses us,” he was referring not to his decision to appoint Mueller as special counsel, but rather was making an appeal to the reluctant Filip’s sense of duty.
