Marianne Williamson and the ‘Dark Psychic Forces’ of the Media

Democratic presidential candidate and self-proclaimed “spiritual leader” Marianne Williamson made headlines in the first of the recent Democratic debates in Detroit by saying this of the water crisis that has plagued nearby Flint, Michigan. Said she, as reported here by USA Today:  WASHINGTON – Candidates at the second Democratic debate in Detroit were asked about the water crisis in Flint, Mich. and what they would do to solve it. Author and activist Marianne Williamson, who has made racial reconciliation a cornerstone of her campaign, said the problem was ‘deeper than Flint.’ Flint's water crisis began in 2014 after a change in water supply and treatment resulted in the lead contamination of the city's water. Flint is a majority African-American city.  ‘Flint is just the tip of the iceberg,’ Williamson said, turning to the broader issue of racial inequalities in American society. She said the problem in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Pointe, an affluent, majority-white suburb of Detroit where Williamson raised her daughter.  ‘If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I'm afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days,’she continued.  Williamson argued the Democrats needed to start talking about deeper issues of race. ‘If the Democrats don't start saying it, why would those people vote for us,’ she said, referring to African American voters.” The media —  all too predictably —  swooned. Here’s but one example from the Daily Beast, which headlined:  Marianne Williamson Takes on Racism—and Warns of ‘Dark Psychic Force’ She wasn’t given much time to talk, but when she did she made it count. Well, no. What Williamson did was pick up the media’s favorite trope of the moment - “Trump is a RACIST!!!!!!” —  and then blithely make an utterly false connection between Trump and Flint while simultaneously studiously ignoring the hard facts of racism in America and exactly who has profited from it —  and continues to profit from it. For the first, note that Flint’s troubles can easily be pinpointed. Way back there in the mists of long-ago pre-Trumpian time, Flint woke up in 2002 to the fact that it was $30 million in the hole. Surely not by coincidence. Beginning in 1975 —  a full 27 years earlier —  Flint had been run by one Democrat mayor after another. The Republican Governor of Michigan, John Engler, declared a financial emergency and appointed an emergency financial manager to try and straighten out the mess. The problem was resolved by 2004. And “normal” resumed. In 2011 there was another financial emergency. And the start of the water crisis? That is considered to be April 25, 2014 when a water switch from a Detroit contract that used water from Lake Huron is made, this time using water from the Flint River. The switch was made to save $5 million dollars — a need prompted by the financial crisis. By August of 2014 the city was already announcing a boil water advisory. Note: In 2014 Donald Trump was a private citizen, a developer and reality TV star. He had nothing - zero - to do with the decisions made by Flint officials. But hey. Why let facts stand in the way when you’re a Democrat running for president? The real “dark psychic force” here is the long and horrendous history of the Democrats and race. Whether it was the party of slavery and those six platforms supporting what was genteelly called the “peculiar institution” or those 20 platforms staunchly supporting segregation or today’s worship of identity politics, the elephant in the Democrats’ living room is the repeated use of race to win elections.  Now comes Marianne Williamson ever so spiritually ignoring all of this real history and its effect on the culture and politics of her party. In a normal world, an aggressive media would have zeroed in on this latest play of the race card. But no. Instead, the media was busy playing the race card itself. There was my old CNN colleague Don Lemon unsurprisingly attacking the President as a racist.In fact, right here at NewsBusters — before the debate — there was note taken of what could be expected from Don as a serious man of the extreme Left.  I myself have had this conversation on race with Don. It didn’t go well. I was standing up for a colorblind America, as was the legendary call of Dr. Martin Luther King. Don insisted that I was “crazy” if I didn’t judge people by race. I do believe I said that he sounded like the old segregationist and Birmingham, Alabama police commissioner Bull Connor. As I recall Don cut me off the air with a short:“We’re done.” End of segment. Which is in its own way a small yet perfect illustration of how the Left needs and depends on race to win elections - and how the media is aiding and abetting them.  The ‘dark psychic force” that really is out there is the way the media has adopted the Left’s innate need to judge anyone and everyone by race. And manipulate their coverage accordingly. Playing the race card can now get you tons of favorable coverage  from a media that is itself all too willing to play the race card. And you can be sure of one thing. No one of any prominence in the Leftist State Media will confront any of this race card playing by Williamson and other Democrats, much less will they stop playing it themselves.  Because, of course, they would quickly be called racist. Ya can’t make it up. Dark psychic forces are indeed at work.  In the media. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jeffrey-lord/2019/08/03/marianne-williamson-and-dark-psychic-forces-media
Disqus.com

Ellen Pompeo told her critics, 'Stop looking for s**t to get mad about' "Grey's Anatomy" star Ellen Pompeo was hit with accusations of racism this week, after she said Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris was "overconfident" during the primary debate Wednesday night. What are the details? Pompeo was reacting to a Twitter post from Bloomberg's live blog, which said, "An emerging trend in this debate: Kamala Harris very clearly only wants to debate Joe Biden." The liberal actress responded, "Because she's overconfident and believes he is her only competition." The backlash was quick and fierce. Numerous followers accused Pompeo of suggesting Harris was being "uppity," with one saying, "Is overconfident the acceptable way of saying uppity? Every single person on the stage was confident but somehow the black woman...White women need to do better, be the change we need." Several called the comment flat-out racist, and others accused the actress of being "misogynistic." Others went further, and took the opportunity to mention that Pompeo is married to a black man and has biracial children. One person said because of that, "you might want to watch how you frame your language about the only Black woman candidate." How did Pompeo react to the tweets? Pompeo took the hits in stride, engaging with critics throughout the night while wondering what all the fuss was about, saying, "Not sure why my comment is now a racial comment...so weak..two people on a stage with a bunch of others they all came off a certain way and they are up there for intreptation [sic]...stop looking for s**t to get mad about." The "Grey's Anatomy" star did have some defenders who pointed out that the word "overconfident" has nothing to do with race. In the end, Pompeo signed off the evening with the message, "Goodnight everybody...I love you all no matter what..you can feel anyway [sic] you want...but so can I...and have love for everyone." https://www.theblaze.com/news/liberal-actress-accused-of-racism-for-saying-kamala-harris-was-overconfident-during-debateDisqus.com

FBI is implicated in destroying evidence to benefit Clinton.

The American Center for Law and Justice or ACLJ (Jay Sekulow's organization, not related to his role as the President's attorney), has obtained actual copies of the immunity agreements pertaining to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in the Hillary email scandal. This was a stunning litigation win, hard-fought after years of litigation by the ACLJ attorneys, who were unable to extract the documents through the normal FOIA processes, due to a lack of cooperation by the government.   In reviewing what the agreements uncovered, keep in mind that Cheryl Mills was Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff at the State Department and then bizarrely, she subsequently served as Clinton’s attorney, representing her in the email scandal.  Heather Samuelson worked on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, and then became a Senior Advisor to her at the State Department, as well as the White House liaison. Somehow, she also became one of Clinton's personal attorneys during the email scandal. The immunity agreements issued by the government, were crafted so that the agencies could extract information from the parties, despite the fact that this is not necessary because DOJ has the power to require that the information be turned over.  Clinton kept classified emails on a private server in violation of Federal law, and the immunity agreements reveal that both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were actively involved in the cover-up of these emails as well as in the destruction of evidence. According to Jordon Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ, it is extremely unusual for someone involved in a criminal cover up, who needs an immunity deal to ensure the evasion of jail time, later becomes the attorney representing the other potential criminal or co-conspirator. The agreements issued were with DOJ and the FBI. They asserted that Mills and Samuelson would turn over the computers to them, but stipulated that they weren't turning over "custody and control". This critical point is a legal and factual bunch of bunk. The FOIA statute applies to information in the agencies' "custody and control". Anything not in their custody or control cannot be FOIA'd. It is impossible to have an agency physically have a computer and not have it in their "custody or control." Custody and control is not something that suspects have to expressly give over or agree to give over. When they give over the evidence, then obviously, as a matter of fact, they are also giving the agency "custody and control" over that evidence. Suspects cannot withhold "custody and control" by mere words or lack of consent, as consent is not required. In other words, these agreements are extremely flawed and whomever signed off on them should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted.  It is clear that the purpose of this clause was to make the arguably illegal activities of Mills and Samuelson out of the reach of FOIA --- in other words, it would be withheld from the public. This is the very definition of corruption. Additionally, the immunity agreements were broad in scope. There were numerous charges that the agreements gave them immunity from including potential violations of the Federal Records Act, the Classified Information Act and the Espionage Act. According to the ACLJ, nobody has ever gotten immunity from the Espionage Act before. Normally, immunity is for lesser crimes like obstruction of justice, but not espionage. If Mills and Samuelson were charged and convicted of every crime from which they received immunity, they would be potentially subject to twenty-eight years in jail each. After Clinton illegally sent classified emails on a private server and cell phones (and by the way, people have gone to jail for this even when they did so accidentally because it's that serious), and after Mills and Samuelson purposely worked to cover up and conceal both the emails and the destruction of evidence, and after they were given a sweetheart deal that nobody in history has ever gotten, they became the attorneys for Clinton, representing her in the email case. This shouldn't be allowed because it is a conflict of interests, and not only gives the appearance of impropriety, but indeed, constitutes actual impropriety. Subsequently, Mills and Samuelson finally gave the computers over to the FBI, which per their agreements, limited the FBI’s investigation. The FBI agreed to limit a) the method by which the emails investigated would be obtained; b) the scope of files which would be investigated, and c) the timeframe parameters for investigated emails. In other words, the FBI agreed in the immunity contracts not to do a full investigation on the Clinton emails. To make matters worse, again, per the immunity agreements, the FBI agreed to destroy the computers that had the back-up emails.  As Congressman Jim Jordan referenced during the Mueller hearings recently, the FBI used bleachBit to purge the server so the information could never be accessed in the future and used hammers to smash the cell phones involved. In other words, the FBI and DOJ participated in the destruction of the evidence.  In effect, this constitutes is a conspiracy between the Obama DOJ (under Loretta Lynch) and the Comey-led FBI to cover up Clinton’s crimes.   Shortly thereafter, Comey came out publicly and held a press conference exonerating Clinton from any criminal activity, knowing full well that she was never thoroughly investigated, and that his own agency had participated in the destruction of evidence. To reiterate Comey’s assertions, he stated that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified and sensitive information, but not "grossly negligent", even though the definition of grossly negligent is extremely careless. Gross negligence is the language in the statute necessary to prosecute someone who does this and Comey inaccurately professed that no prosecutor would pursue a case based on these facts, even though those with lesser evidence have indeed been charged. Currently, there are investigations taking place pertaining to the Clinton email scandal cover-up, as well as the origins of the Trump investigation by the Mueller team, including the roots of the FISA applications. All of the documents uncovered by the ACLJ’s legal win will constitute valuable evidence for AG Bill Barr, the IG and others. Many who follow what is really going on, on a day to day basis have been repeatedly disappointed in the biased and one-sided investigations and the cover-up or blatant disregard of critical facts implicating the pro-Clinton, anti-Trump teams.  But Bill Barr and his team are fairly new to the process. He and others, including John Durham, will finally have the opportunity to get to the bottom of all this --- and finally disclose the real collusion, corruption, and obstruction. There’s still hope. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274484/new-evidence-unveils-disturbing-facts-about-deborah-weiss