Transparency Is Needed

Black Lives Matter (BLM) was formed in 2013. The organization’s stated purpose was to fight racism and anti-Black violence, especially police brutality. I would describe those as noble goals.

Interestingly enough, the Britannica article on Black Lives Matter includes the following statement:

The name Black Lives Matter signals condemnation of the unjust killings of Black people by police (Black people are far more likely to be killed by police in the United States than white people) and the demand that society value the lives and humanity of Black people as much as it values the lives and humanity of white people.

Wow. I am surprised that Britannica is that ill-informed. Here is the chart of the actual numbers of police killings by race (from The Washington Post):

Obviously Britannica does not have the right numbers.

Meanwhile, yesterday The New York Post reported the following:

Dissident members of the original 10 Black Lives Matter chapters are demanding more accountability and transparency from the BLM Global Network in the wake of revelations about co-founder Patrisse Cullors’ lavish spending.

Cullors announced she would resign from her post as executive director of the organization in late May, amid controversy over the group’s finances. She’s been in the spotlight for lavish spending on real estate, as revealed by The Post, including a $1.4 million LA home she encircled with a $35,000 electric fence.

BLM10Plus, comprised of the original 10 Black Lives Matter chapters and some of BLM’s newer chapters, repeated calls Friday for the BLM Global Network’s leadership, to open the books about the structure of the sprawling organization.

In a statement Friday, it said the public should know about how many chapters there are, how the various legal entities under the Global Network are related to each other, the salaries of staff members and the founders, deals with contractors and more.

It’s hard to stay on the same page when there is no truth in the foundation of your organization. The actions of Patrisse Cullors call into question her motives for founding the organization. ALL lives matter. Many of the lives lost at the hands of the police in recent years (black, white, and other races) would not have been lost if the victims had not been resisting arrest. Many lives can be saved by teaching our young people to respect the police and follow orders when given by the police. The current campaign of attacking the police and the work that they do will only result in more deaths of people of all races and more division in our country.

This Will Not Keep Our Country Safe

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about a recent report on domestic violent extremism.

The article reports:

Republican Indiana Sen. Mike Braun suggested to Attorney General Merrick Garland Wednesday that a report on domestic violence extremism placed disproportionate interest on the pro-life movement in a “wild attack” that identified “abortion-related violent extremists” as a principal threat.

Garland testified before a Senate subcommittee Wednesday where Braun brought up a declassified intelligence report on domestic violence extremism released by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in March. That report, Braun said, identified abortion-related violent extremists as a principal threat.

I don’t think the burning and looting of major cities last summer had anything to do with abortion.

The article continues:

“To me this seemed like kind of a wild attack on the pro-life community,” Braun said. “It did not list groups like BLM and Antifa, who have had a clear recent record of violent acts.”

“So can you explain what that was about?” Braun asked. “Why there would have been focus on that, and has there been a rash of incidents related to it?”

Garland said that the report described leading threats that were racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, particularly white supremacists, adding that he doesn’t know where pro-life activists fit on the “threat matrix.”

What we are watching is the criminalization of political thought. It’s okay to burn down cities, destroy businesses and loot if you are on the political left, but if you hold conservative views, you are suspected of being potentially violent. This is a serious threat to our freedom in America.

The article concludes:

The DNI report specifically mentions that abortion-related violent extremists have ideological agendas in support of pro-life or pro-choice beliefs. The declassified report does not make specific mention of Antifa or Black Lives Matter, though it explains the category that Garland mentioned — anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists, a category which includes militia violent extremists, anarchist violent extremists, and sovereign citizen violent extremists.

DNI declined to comment for this story.

I Don’t Think He Is A Right-Wing Extremists

The Epoch Times posted an article today about John Earle Sullivan, a political activist who reportedly attended Black Lives Matter protests last year. Mr. Sullivan was part of the crowd that entered the Capitol Building on January 6th. The Department of Justice (DOJ) seized $90,000 from Mr. Sullivan for selling footage of Ashli Babbitt being shot during the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. He has also been charged with new weapons charges.

The article reports:

According to the court documents, Sullivan portrayed himself as an independent journalist who was reporting on the chaos, but he actually encouraged other participants to “burn” the building and engage in violence.

Sullivan is accused of having a conversation with others who breached the building and allegedly told them: “We gotta get this [expletive] burned,” according to court documents in his case.

“There are so many people. Let’s go. This [expletive] is ours! [Expletive] yeah,” he allegedly cheered after he and protesters entered the Capitol, the DOJ documents said. “We accomplished this [expletive]. We did this together. [Expletive] yeah! We are all a part of this history,” and “let’s burn this [expletive] down.” The documents accused him of calling on others to burn the Capitol down multiple times.

At one point, he’s also heard saying, “I am ready bro. I’ve been to too many riots. I’ve been in so many riots,” the documents said. “It would be fire if someone had revolutionary music and [expletive],” prosecutors said Sullivan told others on Jan. 6.

…After leaving the Capitol later on Jan. 6, Sullivan was seen, according to prosecutors, telling another individual that he “brought my megaphone to instigate [expletives]” and wanted to “make these Trump supporters [expletive] all this [expletive] up.”

Sullivan recorded a video of the confrontation between rioters and police near the House chamber that included the shooting of Air Force veteran Babbitt and, according to court filings, bragged to a witness that “my footage is worth like a million of dollars, millions of dollars.”

Sullivan sold that footage to several news outlets for a total of $90,000, according to a seizure warrant. The news outlets were redacted from the warrant.

The article concludes:

Black Lives Matter leaders in Utah earlier this year disavowed Sullivan, calling him a “loose cannon.”

And on Jan. 2, just days before the breach, Sullivan’s account wrote: “[Expletive] The System – Time To Burn It All Down. #blm #antifa #burn #[expletive]thesystem #abolishcapitalism #abolishthepolice #acab #[expletive]trump.”

Sullivan’s lawyer had no comment on the case when he was contacted on Sunday.

The man’s lawyer, Steven Kiersh, wrote in court documents that the government should not sieze his money, arguing, “The proceeds of the seized bank account are not the product of criminal activity alleged in the indictment” and that his client was being deprived of the money “in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Mr. Sullivan simply does not appear to be a Trump supporter. The information about him adds to my suspicion that the assault on the Capitol was a ‘false flag’ operation. It may not have actually been a ‘false flag’ operation, but that is the way Democrats in Congress are using it.

When The Actual Facts Don’t Match The Current Spin

Yesterday One America News posted an article about John Earle Sullivan, who is a supporter of Antifa, BLM and the leader of Insurgence USA..

The article reports:

John Earle Sullivan — who is a supporter of Antifa, BLM and the leader of Insurgence USA — is arrested and indicted in Utah.

…His arrest came after he was caught on video instigating violence on Capitol Hill and admitting that he posed as a Trump supporter during the demonstration on January 6.

“I’m gonna wear a Trump hat, I’m gonna wear a Trump hat,” Sullivan said. “I bought one today, I was wearing a Trump hat at the last rally during the day time.”

…Resurfaced videos — filmed by Sullivan himself — show that he was an active participant in clashes at the U.S. Capitol. The far-left activist even broke a window during the protest and admits it’s not the first time he’s posed as someone else.

…“Oh yeah I was just ‘a journalist,’” Sullivan stated in a video he recorded of himself. “But I use that all the time: ‘Yeah I’m just a journalist, I’m here recording, I got my camera on my shoulder.’”

…On Thursday, Sullivan was arrested in Provo, Utah. He faces several charges including ‘civil disorder’ and ‘violent entry’ or ‘disorderly conduct.’ He was previously arrested on July 13 for ‘rioting’ and ‘criminal mischief’ based on his activities at the June 30 protest, in which a civilian was shot and injured.

Everyone who puts on a MAGA hat is not a Trump supporter. I wonder if the House of Representatives, who gave no evidence to back up their charges against the President, will apologize for their now-proven false accusation.

Please follow the link above to the article to see the videos included in the article.

 

Some Helpful Suggestions

Yesterday The City Journal posted an article with the title:

False Prophets

If you really want to help black America, don’t look to Black Lives Matter.

The article notes:

Over the past two weeks, we have seen peaceful protests, but also looting, businesses torched, attacks on police, and the desecration of some of the nation’s most revered memorials. All of this is numbing. Recently, I thought that I had finally turned the corner on my anger over the Floyd killing. (I’m African-American myself.) “Where do we go from here?” I wondered. “How do we get something positive out of this?”

But then the demands shifted. Cries for justice morphed into “Defund the police.” We started hearing calls from white Americans to do something to help ease the difficulties blacks are facing. On the surface, this seems good; the intentions definitely are good. The problem is that, with no context or reference to what is needed in the black community, and often with few black friends or colleagues to consult, many Americans—from those in corporate America to vocal social media consumers—are throwing support and resources behind Black Lives Matter, without considering carefully what the group actually stands for.

Black Lives Matter was started in 2013 to shed light on mistreatment of and brutality against blacks by police, but it has become a radical leftist organization. The “Herstory” section of its website, for example, reads: “Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” This proclamation is demonstrably untrue: there is no evidence that anyone—including the police and white supremacists—is killing black people in a targeted campaign, nor are the numbers of such deaths significant compared with the number of blacks killed by other blacks. But beyond BLM’s inflammatory and false rhetoric, there are important reasons to avoid the group.

The article notes that defunding the police would hurt the people that BLM claims to want to help. It would create chaos in already dangerous neighborhoods. This would probably result in businesses and commercial enterprises leaving these neighborhoods.

The article continues:

BLM was started by three black women, but their stated goal—to achieve equality for blacks—masks a different agenda. In the “What We Believe” section of the BLM site, they highlight the work they do to “dismantle cisgender privilege” and their desire to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure”—a structure that many, including myself and Kanye West, believe is key to rebuilding black communities. The mission statement mires a message that should be about black lives in a slew of buzzwords and Marxist psychobabble. Not all the sentiments are bad, but none will create positive change in the black community.

I’ve never known of a nonprofit organization more than two years old and with national name recognition that posts no financial report on its site and no glowing list of “wins.” Most charities get donations by pulling at your heartstrings, highlighting all the lives they have touched. The only thing remotely resembling action on the Black Lives Matter website is a timeline under “Global Actions,” listing activism on behalf of illegal immigrants. Even this consists mostly of petitions and demonstrations.

Many well-intentioned people want to support the black community, especially now. We need to point them in the right direction. The most vulnerable blacks, and the ones most adversely affected by racism, are struggling financially. The best thing that we can do for them is lift them out of poverty. Defunding the police, dismantling the nuclear family, or focusing on immigration will not accomplish that goal.

The two most important things we can do to help the black community are to encourage the formation of nuclear family and encourage better educational opportunities. Part of the problem in the black community is the culture, and the community itself needs to begin to change the culture. Those of us outside the community can help and encourage, but we can’t do it for them.

How Far Do States’ Rights Go?

KWKT,com posted a story yesterday (updated today) about the federal government’s latest land grab. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has written a letter to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Neil Kornze about a BLM potential seizure of land that rightfully belongs to Texas landowners.

This is the letter:

April 22, 2014
The Honorable Neil Kornze
Director
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Kornze:
Respect for property rights and the rule of law are fundamental principles in the State of Texas and the United States. When governments simply ignore those principles, it threatens the foundation of our free and prosperous society. That is why I am deeply concerned about reports that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering taking property in the State of Texas and that it now claims belongs to the federal government. Given the seriousness of this situation, I feel compelled to seek answers regarding the BLM’s intentions and legal authority with respect to Texas territory adjacent to the Red River.

I understand that your office is in the early stages of developing a plan—known as a Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS)—to regulate the use of federal lands along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply troubled by reports from BLM field hearings that the federal government may claim—for the first time—that 90,000 acres of territory along the Red River now belong to the federal government.

Private landowners in Texas have owned, maintained, and cultivated this land for generations. Despite the long-settled expectations of these hard-working Texans along the Red River, the BLM appears to be threatening their private property rights by claiming ownership over this territory. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.

Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that “[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.” Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the “south geologic cut bank as the boundary,” which could have resulted “in up to 90,000 acres” of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.

Instead, in 2000, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation ratifying an interstate boundary compact agreed to by the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma. With Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, federal law now provides that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma is “the vegetation on the south bank of the Red River . . .”—not the “south geologic cut bank.” Given this significant legal development, it is not at all clear what legal basis supports the BLM’s claim of federal ownership over private property that abuts the Red River in the State of Texas.

This issue is of significant importance to the State of Texas and its private property owners. As Attorney General of Texas, I am deeply concerned about the notion that the BLM believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations. Accordingly, I hereby request that you or your staff respond in writing to this letter by providing the following information as soon as possible:
1. Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.

2. Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.

3. Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.

4. Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.

5. Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.
In short, the BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. It is incumbent on BLM to promptly disclose both the process it intends to follow and the legal justification for its position.
Sincerely,
Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas

At least Texas has an Attorney General that is willing to stand up for the rights of its citizens.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Government Bullying Takes A New Turn

Yesterday the Las Vegas Sun posted an article about some recent events in the Nevada desert. Cliven Bundy, a 68-year-old Nevada native, has been in a battle with the Bureau of Land Managment (BLM) over land that his cattle has been grazing on for decades.

The article reports:

A renegade when it comes to any sort of government control, Bundy — the father of 14 children — has refused to pay BLM a dime of required grazing fees for his 900 cattle, a tab that has since reached $300,000. Bundy has fought the fee, he says, because his Mormon ancestors set up shop on the land long before the BLM formed.

The problem? The land where Bundy’s cattle graze is federally owned, and the BLM now says the livestock aren’t supposed to be there. Federal agents this week cordoned off sections of land and sparked a monthlong operation to seize the cattle.

Tensions boiled over this week when a scuffle between the BLM and Bundy’s supporters ended in violence: Agents reportedly used a stun gun to subdue Bundy’s son and knocked his daughter to the ground. Though called “brutal” by some, the brawl did not land anyone in a hospital or jail.

But the incident did prompt Operation Mutual Aid — a national militia with members from California to Missouri — to visit Bundy’s ranch and set up a camp just in case things got out of hand again. Before their arrival Thursday, dozens of Bundy’s friends and relatives gathered at a protest camp in solidarity for the recent woes that have colored his rustic ranch.

The Blaze has also reported on this story:

But the presence of what appear to be heavily armed agents isn’t the only thing that has the Bundys on edge: Their son, Dave, was arrested and allegedly roughed up Sunday for filming federal agents while outside an area designated for First Amendment activity on the restricted property. He was held overnight.

The 37-year-old Bundy was arrested “following failure to comply with multiple requests by BLM law enforcement to leave the temporary closure area on public lands,” Cannon said. She declined to comment on the claim that he was brutally treated.

Dave Bundy was released from custody Monday and cited for refusing to disperse and resisting issuance of a citation or arrest, she added. Cannon could not explain why Dave was held overnight.

There are a few questions I have here. At what point did the government take over the land? Did the government pay for the land? Why was David Bundy arrested for taking filming federal agents? This does not sound like America–it sounds like a government of bullies with nothing better to do than harass American citizens. Among other things, the government is stealing this man’s cattle!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Whoops!

On Friday Hot Air reported that the auction for leases for the development of wind and solar farms in the western United States did not go as planned.

The article reports:

The nation’s first federally run auction for a chance to develop solar power projects on public lands was a bust.

No bidders showed up for the auction by the federal Bureau of Land Management, which was held Thursday in Lakewood.

“We did not have any bidders come to the sale and we did not receive any sealed bids on the sale,” BLM spokeswoman Vanessa Lacayo said. …

“The BLM had received interest in developing the sites, that’s why we moved forward,” she said. “It’s hard to say why we didn’t have any bidders.” …

“We will evaluate today’s auction as we look at future opportunities to offer lands in Solar Energy Zones for development, both in Colorado and other Western states,” the statement said.

Maybe there were no bidders because at the present time the technology for both wind and solar has not proven to be economically profitable. The sad part of this is that at the same time the government is holding these auctions with no takers they are blocking oil leases on government land. The oil boom in the west is almost entirely on private land–the government is not allowing the leases on government land. So what we have is the government selling leases of questionable value on government land while blocking the leases that might actually help the economy and lower unemployment. In what universe does that make sense?

Enhanced by Zemanta