Archives For September 2020

Darrell B. Harrison and Virgil Walker’s new freestyle podcast is #lit and then some.

The ‘Just Thinking…For Myself’ tag team hit home hard truths about the unbiblical roots of Black Lives Matter, providing reasons for why the BLM movement is a pseudo-church, packed with false doctrines, false priests, and an eschatological (end-of-days messianic utopian) “melanin Messiah”; an alternative Christ, which promises far more than they can deliver.

Takeaway points include:

              • Darrell’s well-read dive into facts about slavery
              • the pagan roots underpinning Black Lives Matter Inc.,
              • their slogans, and hashtags.
              • why genuflecting to BLM is idolatry.

Of special interest is the pagan ritualism associated with “say his name/say her name” invocations that form part of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Don’t let the podcast’s 2hr length deter you.

Walker and Harrison are podcasting veterans, with over 100 in-depth episodes, providing well-researched discussions on social, political and theological issues.

Some of the most noteworthy are black liberation theology, social justice warriorism, white guilt, the African-American context, George Floyd, and why “race” is a myth.

We recommend JT for anyone outside the black American community, who is looking to verse themselves on the all the issues, from all angles, from a trustworthy, primary source within the black American community.

Episode 103 exemplifies this.

Worth a listen on a long commute, or while kicking back in the afternoon.

(Darrell is also a blogger, and Caldron Pool contributor, whose articles can be found here)

LISTEN:


First published on Caldron Pool, 18th September, 2020.

Nine news political editor, Chris Uhlmann has launched an MSM broadside into the self-sabotaged, and slowly sinking, Victorian government.

Uhlmann took aim at the Victorian Premier, labelling the Andrews’ government’s oppressive COVID-19 response as ‘panic-stricken.’

In the piece published by the Sydney Morning Herald, Uhlmann accused Daniel Andrews of ‘destroying the village in order to save it,’ writing

‘nowhere in [Australia’s] often-opaque democracy has a less transparent court system, bureaucracy, police force or government than Victoria.’

Adding,

‘The people there have been badly served, even as some revelled in the servitude. Its systems of power have combined to deliver the wanton destruction of its vibrant society. Its government has condemned its people to a poorer future, to higher unemployment, more poverty and less opportunity.’

He reasoned that since most deaths have occurred in nursing homes, nursing homes should be better protected: ‘If you are going to throw a ring of steel around anything it should be around aged care homes, not Melbourne.’

Uhlmann also predicted a ‘global reckoning of governments,’ arguing that COVID-19 countermeasures were ‘doing more damage than the disease.’

He explained that ‘economic destruction imposed by governments will deliver millions into poverty, driving internal and external conflicts.’

Subsequently, poverty-stricken states ‘turning inward’ will push the world towards ‘more division, anger and polarization.’

Also worthy of note was Uhlmann’s damning, critical assessment of modern Australians,

While the ‘disease has revealed the character of our leaders’, it has ‘hammered home some uncomfortable truths about us as a people. As a nation we seem comfortable with authoritarianism and too many relish the role of prefect.’

Caldron Pool’s editor-in-chief, Ben Davis, applauded Uhlmann, stating,

“The whole situation highlights, not only just how dangerously deaf we can be if the narrative frightens us enough, but how willing we are to part with our freedoms and rights in exchange for the promise of safety, whatever devastating impacts may follow.”

Davis added,

“While it’s great that people are slowly beginning to ask the same questions Caldron Pool’s writers were asking six months ago, the real questions at this point are, how much damage has been inflicted and to what extent can we actually recover? Questions we might not have had to ask if the MSM had the foresight of our writers, and our warnings had been taken seriously.”

Uhlmann’s Sydney Morning Herald piece is a criticism of the bureaucratic caste’s COVID-19 disregard for civil liberties.

It vindicates the concerns of discerning citizens who, from the start of the lockdown craze, raised awareness about the lack of assurances from politicians concerning the preservation of civil liberties.

Caldron Pool have been asking these same questions, and positing the same warnings about the consequences of dubious anti-CV-19 authoritarian measures since March. We were behind the eight-ball from day one, while “fact-checkers,” and Leftists dismissed us as right-wing conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation.

As we’ve said from the beginning, there’s two sides to the coronavirus. The actual crisis, and the crisis manufactured by bureaucrats for the cameras.

Andrews’ COVID-19 response emulates Sisyphus.

The Victorian Premier is determined to keep going in one direction, applying the same damaging, flawed methods over and over again, despite (as Uhlmann pointed out) there being other options, and more information about the virus available than there was in March.

There is also a thin line between governments waging a war against the crisis, and governments waging a war against people caught up in that crisis.

Uhlmann is right. Andrews and other ‘will-to-power premiers’ have crossed that line, and the majority of Australians let them do it.

#Democracydiesindarkness


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th September, 2020.

Image: ABC Australia.

Background image: Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Humanitarian hero of the Rwandan genocide, Paul Rusesabagina’s arrest on the charges of terrorism continues to raise questions.

Rusesabagina, portrayed by Don Cheedle in Hollywood’s ‘Hotel Rwanda’, is an outspoken critic of the current Rwandan Government, making his arrest look more and more like it was politically motivated.

As noted by an anonymous blogger, Rusesabagina is an ‘opposition party president, and [apparently] a member of Rwandan Movement For Democratic Change (MRCD), ’ founded in 2018. It’s argued that the MRCD has sought to ‘topple the current Rwandan Government’ after ‘founding documents were [apparently] leaked’ which indicated that the MRCD had planned a militant lead coup de tat.

While the anonymous blogger condemned Paul Kagame’s (former Tutsi rebel leader) government for a history of abuses of power, acknowledging that Kagame’s rule has ‘caused havoc, pain and suffering.’ The author also accused Ruseabagina of naïveté, and of being too close to the MRCD’s militant wing, which, the article said, ‘has caused its own fair share of bloodshed.’

It appears that Rusesabagina’s association with the MRCD, and pro-Democracy movements in Rwanda, may be the primary reason for why the Kagame government labelling the humanitarian a domestic terrorist.

From what can be pieced together across the news spectrum, it’s likely that Rusesabagina is being set-up as the face of the militant branch of MRCD.

The New York Times said that no evidence has been presented to back the charges, stating that Rwandan authorities have ‘accused Mr. Rusesabagina of helping to carry out attacks in 2018 “against unarmed, innocent Rwandan civilians on Rwandan territory.” They’ve also claimed that Rusesabagina went to Rwanda on his own.

This is despite Rusesabagina having ‘left Rwanda in 1996 for political asylum’ in Belgium. He now lives in Brussels, holds Belgium citizenship, and an American green card. (NYT)

In 2016, he put his name up for President in the Rwandan elections, calling the Kagame Government a ‘dictatorship.’

The BBC, quoting Rusesabagina’s adopted daughter, Carine Kanimba, said that his family “didn’t know how he got to Rwanda, when he was just in Dubai for meetings.” Claiming that Rusesabagina would “never have done that on his own free will because he knows that in Rwanda they [authorities] want him dead.”

As things go with the complex (and far too often corrupt) world of African politics, not all is as it seems.

Hence the fog of concern surrounding Rusesabagina’s mysterious, sudden disappearance from Dubai, and reappearance in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali. Where photos were published of him handcuffed and flanked by police.

Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame has a history of threatening, arresting and intimidating political opponents. Even downplaying Rusesabagina’s role in saving ‘1,200 people from the country’s 1994 ethnic genocide’ (Fox News). Depicted in the 2004 film ‘Hotel Rwanda’, starring Don Cheedle.

It’s seemingly well within the scope of Kagame’s pattern of governance to arbitrarily arrest opponents on dubious charges. Pro-Democracy, Rusesabagina is a big target, and if these questionable charges stick, a huge propaganda win.

This is why it’s probable Rusesabagina is now a political prisoner, kidnapped by a government, doing its best to legitimize suppression of any, and all political opponents.

Ultimately, it’s the fact that the Kagame government’s accusations don’t add up. They’re are out of character for Rusesabagina. Who once told Baptist run Good Faith Media (EthicsDaily) that ‘The best road to reconciliation is through dialogue…I believe in the power of words.’

Rusesabagina, who displayed the heart of a Pastor during the ’94 ethnic genocide, has had ministry and theology training, but describes himself as a ‘failed pastor’; writing that he felt as though God had left Rwanda in 1994, leaving himself and the nation, to face the brutality of ethnic genocide alone.

Rusesabagina struggles with the silence of Christians in Rwanda before and during the bloodshed. Especially the silence of Church leaders, who, as he tells it, either participated in the killing, or were too timid with the Gospel to call out, and counter the rising tide of ethno-political hatred, intolerance and violence.

This silence, and compliance, according to Rusesabagina, was one of the biggest contributors to the Hutu massacre of Tutsis.

Had he become a pastor, Rusesabagina says, he would have ended up with the wounded or dead who sort refuge in Churches (An Autobiography, p.173).

As a side note, the Rwandan Genocide exists as a case study in ethnic division, and racial tension, for both sides of the metaphorical Western political bird.

Rusesabagina’s description of Rwanda’s ‘racial divide’ (ibid, p.40) crushes, “only white people are racist” critical race theory assumptions, that underscore the entirety of the Black Lives Matter sentiment, and fuels the Marxist party that shares its name.

The lessons this “race” war teaches nations hasn’t clearly been heard.

Neither, I would say, has Rusesabagina.

Rwandan victims’ voices appear to have been pushed aside by the hubris of Western privilege.

The deaths of Africans are regarded as an African norm. The continuing bloodshed is ignored, as lessons are quietly dismissed as though we were more mature; placed to one side because we’ve learned all we need to from the horrors of the Jewish holocaust, and therefore, “it could never happen again.”

However, when the torch of ethno-supremacism is raised over against others, whether black or white, there’s a form of blind conformity to political narratives, and the dehumanization of opponents that reflects pre-1994 Rwanda.

From this the abyss could operate a menacing orgy of violence, devouring everything and everyone in its path. As it marches from house to house, city to city, separating the “naughty from the nice”, life from those deemed unworthy of life under another nightmarish manifestation of prideful ideological fanaticism.

And that’s exactly what we see slowly happening in the West.

Angry intersectionality inquisitors march, parading Black vs. White – us vs. them – from largely Leftist echo chambers, filled with red-faced, white leftists whose monologues of hate, are a projection of pre-programed self-hatred.

Many appearing to advocate no real peaceful way forward; advocating nothing more than a violent attempt to derail, and replace, multi-ethnic eye-to-eye relationships, with and eye-for-an-eye one.

We see the former being attacked by proponents of the latter.

The radical left attacking, or trying to destroy the relationship between the white and black community, who instead of entertaining ethnic division, or obsessing over melanin, live out an eye-to-eye dialogue of reconciliation. A dialogue that blooms beyond warring factions, shades of melanin, and the self-interest of opportunistic, eye-for-an-eye race-baiting politicians.

Rusesabagina’s arrest reminds the West of the tragedy of Rwanda, 1994.

Yet there’s silence about massacres in Nigera of Christians at the hands of Islamists. Silence about mass corruption in South Africa, causing huge social, and economic problems.

This conspicuous, selective silence is why we should note well the absence of Black Lives Matter black squares for Rusesabagina, or for Africa in general.

When it comes to good character, whether it be movement, government or individual, consistency matters.


References:

[i] Rusesabagina, P. 2006. An Ordinary Man: An Autobiography

First published on Caldron Pool, 10th September, 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Society doesn’t need to ingest poison to know that poison kills.

It’s established fact. This knowledge is tested, true; and disaster is unavoidable for anyone, who, in defiance of these truths, ingests said poison, while confidently proclaiming: “there is no such thing as an absolute truth, so ingest the poison anyway!”

The same goes for allowing children to play on a freeway, or allowing them to provoke venomous reptiles and insects.

As does exposing, or introducing children to material which solely benefits the voyeuristic entertainment of adults, and the lustful appetite of an “anything goes” unhinged, eros obsessed zeitgeist.

Society should be disgusted by it. Not just disgusted by the standard of compromise involved, nor the #metoo double standard it exposes, but also the defense masking applause for it.

Discounting concerns about actual child abuse protects offenders. Thoughtless defenders become enablers, creating a culture of silence that silences child abuse victims.

All this is painstakingly well known, with many organizations (including most churches) implementing strict child protection procedures, checks and balances.

Yet, as was witnessed last week, given the “approved” context by the current “love is love” ideological paradigm, child abuse must be tolerated, not called out.

Netflix’s foray into the area of ersatz child porn is now the most prominent example of this “truth is relative” era of arbitrarily guided “tolerance and inclusion”. The Marxist “Safe Schools” program being implemented through “anti-bullying” channels in Australia, is another.

Variety reported Netflix’s watery defense of the film, saying it went along the lines of ‘Cuties’ is great because it challenges the patriarchy, by ‘making a statement about pressures young girls face in conforming to societal role models of female sexuality.’

As Forbes tells it, Netflix has called the film a ‘social commentary against the sexualization of children.’ Quoting Director, Maïmouna Doucouré as arguing that once critics watch the film, “they’ll see that we have the same fight and we are all together about that issue of hyper-sexualization of our children and protect our children.”

Acknowledging the ‘tricky line between marketing and exploitation’ The Telegraph ran its defense of the film under the headline: ‘Cuties, Netflix review: a provocative powder-keg for an age terrified of child sexuality.’

Defending ‘Cuties’, The Telegraph told its audience to ‘forget the [right wing] moral panic’, ‘Cuties’ is disturbing and risqué, [but that’s okay] because that’s what it’s supposed to be.’

One would have to be tone deaf to the cultural milieu ‘Cuties’ has popped up in, not to hear those defending ‘Cuties’ as saying that “child abuse is okay, as long as it’s done in the name of fighting child abuse.’

I wonder if these defenders would allow their own daughter to ‘twerk’, on camera, or at a party for adult entertainment. Claiming it’s just a bit of innocent fun?

I wonder if their “innocent fun” because “sex education” defense works to explain my late-father bathing with my sister and I, as children, while playing what he called “submarines”, as he got an erection. Or that one-time game of strip poker, my mother walked in on, and shutdown.

It’s doesn’t. Neither does it justify being put in compromising situations with strangers. Being exposed to material as children, I’d never let my kids watch now; or the polished exterior of my dysfunctional childhood family home.

I wonder if their “innocent defense” explains my father chasing my sister and I around, scarring the daylights out of us, with a witch’s mask on, for a bit of “educational fun.”

I wonder if their defense works to explain the abuse he’d experienced as a child; watching people act like spectators outside the dysfunctional mess he was raised in. His motherlessness. The complex relationship with his seven siblings, step-mother and father.

Just like Netflix, I’m sure he had his rationalizing and self-justifications too.

Where adults abdicate responsibility tolerance and freedom becomes child abuse.

There’s a distinct line between educating children and indoctrinating them. There’s also a distinct line between helping children, and harming them.

It’s obvious that Netflix and other video streaming services know this, yet that persist on defending the indefensible. Why? because sex sells, and identity politics is a hot commodity in the fickle, confused, and disorienting realm of “wokeness”.

Poison cannot be called by any other name. Peeling back the label and renaming it doesn’t change its toxicity.

There is, and never will be, anything cute about child abuse.


First published on Caldron Pool, 14th September 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020

Joe Rogan’s $100 million dollar switch from YouTube to Spotify, has been met with controversy over concerns Spotify have censored the ‘Joe Rogan Experience podcast.

According to PodNews there are ‘46 episodes missing’.

Variety Magazine stated that most are ‘[“]far-right[”]  commentators’ such as Stefan Molyneux. Others include personalities such as Tommy Chong (Cheech & Chong fame), Alex Jones (Info Wars) and Mikhailia Peterson (daughter of Jordan Peterson) – among others.

Variety’s overall report was smug. Todd Spangler pointed out that YouTube and Twitter had ‘kicked Stefan Molyneux for alleged hate-speech violations.’ Then passive aggressively accused Rogan, and Spotify of being a ‘willing platform for the far-right fringe.’

(It’s no surprise ‘Spotify and Rogan didn’t respond to requests from Variety to comment.’)’

Variety did, however, clarify that ‘Spotify will become the exclusive distributor of “JRE,” Rogan will maintain full creative control over the show under the agreement. [Additionally,] some content won’t be available until later in the year’

Mikhailia Peterson voiced her own concerns about potential censorship, in a Twitter thread that challenged Spotify to explain why it hadn’t released the full catalogue, when that was what had been advertised.

Cancel Culture, and its new Spanish Inquisitors running off (toxic) Intersectionality rubrics, give good reason for the concern.

Does Spotify not releasing the full catalogue, imply future censorship?

The Rogan Experience isn’t for everyone, but as Bari Weiss wrote in May (before her protest resignation from the NYT), Rogan is filling a gap left by the skittish mainstream media.

A media too scared to tell the truth, unless it supports an organize myth, is safe-space friendly, and blue check verified.

A media which demonizes masculinity, equates melanin (particularly the lighter shades) with sin, hates Israel, kowtows to cancel culture – often surrenders truth to falsehood; and chains life to false doctrines, that promote double standards, division, blame, bitterness and unforgiveness.

False doctrines which sit at the core of new cultural laws, pushed onto Western society by the radical left.

New cultural laws that are enforced by the silencing of any opposing viewpoints that may function as a correction in the struggle to replace lies with the truth, and half-truths with the facts.

As Bari Weiss noted, Rogan likes Bernie Sanders, sees the legalization of Marijuana, evolutionary theory, and faith as open questions. Yet he’s refused to interview Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren.

Rogan isn’t afraid to question the narrative – or more to the point – he isn’t afraid to ask questions of those who are questioning the narrative.

To quote Weiss:

‘while GQ puts Pharrell gowned in a yellow sleeping bag on the cover of its “new masculinity” issue, Joe Rogan swings kettlebells and bow-hunts elk…The prestige press has become too delicate, worried about backlash on Twitter and thus is shying away from an ever-increasing number of perceived third rails.’

Think of Tara Reade. Anyone with eyes could see that her accusation against Joe Biden was treated differently by the press than the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh…You can rely on Rogan to talk about that double standard. Indeed, you can rely on Rogan to talk about just about anything at all.’

With the eventual ‘exclusive’ move from YouTube to Spotify, and the censorship concerns, Rogan has denied that he’s sold out, or that the deal would limit his ability to maintain the show’s straight-talking, raw, free exchange of ideas.

While mocking Alex Jones, and expressing contempt for Stefan Molyneux, Forbes, senior contributor, Dani Di Placido criticized Rogan for associating with ‘pseudoscience and bigotry.’ Claiming that Rogan was ‘amplifying destructive voices’, then lecturing him on how allowing those voices a platform ‘isn’t the same as platforming quirky outsiders.’

Placido, joined some leftists in all but applauding the idea of censoring Rogan, saying that it ‘made sense’, and that this new deal might be Rogan ‘moving away from the baggage of his past.’

Answering the controversy over censorship, Rogan said that, “[Spotify] want me to just continue doing it the way I’m doing it right now,” It’s just a licensing deal, so Spotify won’t have any creative control over the show. It will be the exact same show.” (Forbes)

While cancel culture’s vultures circle the deal, posturing elation at the thought of converting Rogan through fear of cancelation, and/or muzzling yet another alternative media personality, the biggest concern for Rogan could be distribution.

BNN Bloomberg said that being exclusive to Spotify, ‘Rogan was taking a risk. There’s a chance he will lose the majority of his audience, since Apple accounts for more than 60 per cent of listeners for most podcasts.’

From Peterson’s caution about censorship to Placido’s jubilation at the prospect, there’s general agreement across the board.

It remains to be seen whether the formidable, freedom-loving Rogan can stop cancel culture from getting its cold, boney death grip around the Joe Rogan Experience, and ripping its heart out on altars built by our would-be leftist overlords, in worship to their prevailing anti-liberty ideological hegemony.

I’m not a huge fan, but I’m optimistic. The reason why is worked out in what is, in my opinion, one of Rogan’s best anti-cancel culture discussions on the net: #1006: Jordan Peterson & Brett Weinstein.

The other side of this is that Rogan didn’t just arrive on Spotify. His unique podcast, and hard work got him there.

Cancel culture vultures won’t be feeding on their prey anytime soon.


First published on Caldron Pool, 7th September, 2020.

Photo by Austin Distel on Unsplash

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

At a recent meet and greet with Democrat Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, Kenosha resident, Porsche Bennett, refused to read from a script, opting instead to speak what was on her heart.

Bennett told Biden and others present at the Kenosha, Grace Lutheran Church, “I’m just going to be honest, Mr. Biden. I was told to go off this paper, but I can’t.”

Her five-minute testimonial, published by C-SPAN, voiced the need for people to recognize the difference between “peaceful protests” and “violent rioters”.

Bennett addressing Biden, called for less words, more action.

Speaking to the Leftist riots which hurt the black community in Kenosha, she upheld the important distinction between protesting injustice, and unjust mayhem.

“We are heavily angry. There is a difference between a protester and a rioter. Blacks are tired of what’s going on. We came together to help get this community together.”

Her repeated calls for “action”, inadvertently condemn decades long weak Democrat governance, and keep-the-status-quo career politician Republicans. Such as failing – dead horse – programs and poor government policies, in Democrat cities and states where (controversially named) black-on-black crime is high (see Chicago and Detroit).

As Bennett said,

“We have heard so many people say, we will give you this and we will give you that. We have yet to see action.”

She noted the high presence of law enforcement in black communities, but failed to make any connection between police force presence and higher crime rates, asking,

“Why are there more police officers in black neighborhoods? Why are we more targeted than anyone else? We want action. We want to be treated just like everyone else. This didn’t start with Jacob [Blake].”

Bennett then hit out a point which, in context, lands squarely at the feet of Democrats, and the bureaucratic caste, declaring:

“For so many decades we have been shown we don’t matter.”

Racism was the implied cause, but not specifically mentioned.

Bennett’s decision not to read, verbatim, a list of demands written for her by ‘Black Lives Activists Kenosha’, appears to have been a refusal to blame her community’s problems solely on the us vs. them, white against black, ethnic division, and obsession with melanin, which fuels the momentum of the Marxist BLM party-line.

The takeaway message from Porsche is that discrimination remains a primary concern for the black community. Her refusal to read out BLAK’s list of demands also acknowledges that injustice crosses ethnic lines, and melanin – abuse of power by authorities is a community problem. (Even though some are more impacted by this than others.)

As the issue of corrupt law enforcement officers abusing their powers show.

During his visit, Biden talked up education, social development, and local issues. He followed Donald Trump’s lead in visiting the 100k strong small city that was trammeled by radical leftwing riots, in response to the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

The riots were triggered by online footage of an attempt by police to carry out an arrest warrant on Jacob Blake that went horribly wrong. Blake, who was carrying a knife at the time, was shot multiple times from behind after he resisted arrest, and repeatedly refused requests to stand down. Police administered first aid, and Blake survived the incident, but suffered serious injuries.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel essentially described the key difference between Trump and Biden’s visits to Kenosha was the focus on law and order. ‘Law enforcement was a central presence and theme of Trump’s visit, but not Biden’s.’

Porsche Bennett’s free speech address to a leading Democrat, is a stand against special treatment, as much as it is a stand against treating a community group unfairly because of their shade of melanin.

It’s an indictment on poor governance, specifically, that of Democrats, who are elected time and time again in these states and cities. With the hope that promises made about building the community through empowering individuals with opportunity will be kept.

Injustice in response to injustice, escalates injustice.

The essence of Porsche’s testimony is lost if it’s read solely through the white-oppressing-black, Black Lives Matter (the movement) lens.


First published on Caldron Pool, 4th September 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Democrats in California have reopened salons a day after video of Democrat speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi sucker-punched voters, in lockdown since March.

On Tuesday, Democrat speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi broke with COVID countermeasures, and was seen wearing a mask under her chin, not on her face, while visiting a San Francisco salon to get her hair done.

By Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times was reporting that, ‘County officials had announced an updated reopening plan, keeping shopping malls shuttered while allowing barbershops, and hair salons to operate indoors again under certain restrictions.’

Defenders of Pelosi argued that ‘she did not realize she was breaking her home city’s rules’ (The BBC). Nancy Pelosi took “responsibility for her actions”, but did so by trying to throw Salon owner, and single mum, Erica Kious under the bus, with Pelosi accusing Kious of “setting her up”.

Kious told Tucker Colson that Pelosi’s visit was planned well in advance, “cameras have been installed for five years”, and that she wasn’t looking to make a political statement by releasing the footage.

Kious said that she only did so because she was taken aback by ‘Pelosi’s cavalier appearance’ which Kious told Colson was

 ‘more hurtful. She’s been coming in there … it’s the fact that she actually came in, didn’t have a mask on, and I just thought about my staff and people not being able to work and make money and provide for their families, and if she is in there comfortably without a mask and feeling safe, then why are we shut down? Why am I not able to have clients come in?” (ibid)

Outrage over Pelosi’s blazon hypocrisy also stems from her mandate back in July, making it compulsory for all lawmakers in D.C to wear masks. (WaPo)

The Democrat speaker of the house has also repeatedly berated Donald Trump for not wearing a mask, and criticized Republicans for ‘not listening to the science’, up to and including calling the Wuhan Coranavirus, “The Trump Virus.”

Pelosi exhibited the Covid double standard. With politicians reserving one code of conduct for themselves, and demanding another from those they are elected to represent.

Just to show how tone-deaf Pelosi appears to be about the disconnect between what she preaches, and what she does, the Democrat speaker of the house tweeted yesterday,

‘Just when frontline workers nationwide most need Washington to work for them, Republicans are still refusing to accept the gravity of this [COVID-19] crisis. The White House and Republican Senate need to get serious and work with Democrats to #FundTheFrontLines.’

Nancy can flout rules, which she herself puts in place. Then throw small businesses under the bus to save political face, but it’s Republicans who are refusing to help workers, and accept the seriousness of the COVID-19 crisis.

Paul Murray summed it up well, “Again, it’s this jedi mind trick! I keep saying this. That these lefties think you can’t see what you just saw.”

Recall an article of mine from March. There are two sides to the Coronavirus crisis: the actual crisis, and the one manufactured by bureaucrats for the cameras.

File under: one rule for those who wish to rule us, another for those they wish to rule.

 


First published on Caldron Pool, 5th September, 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.