Oregon Newspaper: Man Fatally Shot By Police Was White So There’s No Reason To Riot

An Oregon newspaper included the race of a white man who was fatally shot by police in its coverage, then clarified it felt his race was important “in light of social unrest prompted by police shootings of Black people.”

“Recent shootings include Daunte Wright, who was killed by police in a Minneapolis suburb earlier this week, and two killings in Clark County in recent months,” the newspaper explained, nodding to the fact that those fatal shootings sparked rioting, looting, and other destruction.

Hours after it was published, however, The Oregonian deleted the paragraph and the tweet quoting it after the paper claimed the original statement was “poorly worded.”

“We included information in an earlier tweet about why we identified the victim’s race that was poorly worded. It was not intended to minimize what happened, only to provide context. We generally do not identify race in news stories but often do when reporting police shootings,” the newspaper’s clarification tweet stated.

In the original story, The Oregonian reported that Portland police fatally shot a white male in his 30s on Friday morning after they received calls that someone at a public park had a gun. The man’s race, the newspaper claimed, was important because of the current social climate. The new paragraph instead states that “there have been several high profile fatal police shootings of Black men” recently but “the victim in this case was a white man in his 30s.”

Despite The Oregonian’s attempts to frame the story by clarifying the man’s race to avoid “social unrest,” crowds still gathered at the park on Friday to condemn the deadly shooting. Their cries for “justice now,” according to The Oregonian, were met with “a dozen officers who had donned riot gear.”

“Police told protesters over a loudspeaker to leave the area or risk arrest,” The Oregonian reported.

The race characterization by the newspaper also received backlash on social media by people who quickly saw the irony in the statement.

Source

How An Immigrant Who Loves America Fought The Critical Race Mob In Her Kids’ Schools And Won

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Gordana Schifanelli, a lawyer and immigrant, joins Executive Editor Joy Pullmann to explain how she successfully fought off a critical race theory mob from indoctrinating her children in school and threatening her family and career.

“Once I said it is inappropriate to use public schools and children to promote any kind of speech, any kind of viewpoint, it’s a personal viewpoint and you should reserve that viewpoint, after hours, not on kids, and especially not banning parents to supervise it here what the kids are told … the moderator of that group said ‘oh you’re disinvited’ and shut me down,” Schifanelli said.

While Schifanelli was originally shunned by educators, staff members, and even government officials, she bounced back and organized other parents frustrated with the indoctrination to vote out the political activists on the board of education in her area. The problem, she said, however, runs much deeper than just school boards.

“The people who are born here don’t even know how lucky they are,” Schifanelli said. “As an immigrant, I lived in a country that no longer exists. And I can tell you that dividing people based on race or religion or any kind of physical, you know, gender or you know, binary nonbinary or whatever 17 different genders, this is all intended to divide and to destroy.”

Schifanellia said this nightmare is not going away.

“It won’t go away until this country is destroyed,” she said.

Listen here:



Source

What We Can Learn From The Trial Of Derek Chauvin

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Randy Petersen, a senior researcher at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former law enforcement officer, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashisnky to break down the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis officer charged with the death of George Floyd.

“We can’t jump to a conclusion because when we do that, there’s this rush to judgment,” Petersen said. “I’m not even sure how many people are interested in the trial because he’s already been convicted as far as everyone’s concerned.”

Politicians and celebrities have called Chauvin long before the trial even started, Petersen said. “It very may well turn out that he’s convicted and then that would be an apt title but until that time … he’s been almost denied his due process rights.”

No matter the results of the trial, Petersen believes that all people would benefit from reexamining their perceptions about cops, crime, and other groups of people who have come under scrutiny.

“[Police] are, as an internal institution, one of the most colorblind groups that you can find. I think if the public knew that about police officers, they would have a different perception about the idea that they are somehow institutionally racist,” he explained. “They would live or die for each other, regardless of what the color of their skin is.”

“If the general public knew that about the police subculture, about how they view each other, they would reconsider this idea that it’s an institutionally racist program that’s designed to harm minorities. It’s genuinely, genuinely not. It’s there to help,” he said.

Listen here:


Source

Wokeness Wrecked ‘The Bachelor’ Only For Matt James To Get Back Together With A ‘Racist’

The latest rumor circulating the Bachelorsphere is that the last “Bachelor” Matt James is back together with his recently-wrapped season’s front-runner Rachael Kirkconnell, whom he dumped in disgrace after internet trolls dug up purportedly racist photos of the sorority girl at an antebellum-themed college party.

“It’s been a while but here’s some news: Matt and Rachael? Yeah, they’re not over. They’re currently in New York together. FYI,” tweeted Reality Steve on Tuesday night after somebody snapped a photo of what is allegedly the pair walking together in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn.

The buzz about Matt and Rachael is truly fascinating as it comes only three weeks after the cringiest episode of “After the Final Rose” in “Bachelor” history, in which romance took a backseat while race issues were front and center. Matt and interim host Emmanuel Acho — who was tapped to host the finale after Chris Harrison got canceled for initially asking for grace for Rachael before folding to the woke bullies — put Rachael through an on-air struggle session. The conversation was egregious, and it ended in Matt telling Rachael that their relationship wouldn’t work because of her “not fully understanding” his “blackness” and Matt refusing to initiate a “final embrace.”

The Matt-Rachael rumor also comes on the heels of news that current casting for another franchise spin-off, “Bachelor in Paradise,” is not going so well, as Bachelor Nation stars are hesitant to jump on board the turbulent train of Hollywood wokeness.

“Casting has begun and some members of Bachelor Nation are apprehensive to sign up,” one “Bachelor” insider told E! News. “Some are wondering what direction the season will take and are curious if it will strictly focus on contestants falling in love.” If the next run of “Bachelor in Paradise” looks anything like the last “Bachelor” season, fans can expect the focus to stray from contestants falling in love to land instead on progressive politics.

“Many people are declining due to the current state of Bachelor Nation. A lot of people are removing themselves from the franchise,” reportedly added another source.

At this point in the franchise’s progressive purge, it seems the options are for the stars to remove themselves or be removed — just ask Chris Harrison, who hosted the show for nearly two decades and then got the boot for saying essentially the same thing as his replacement host before resorting to groveling pathetically to keep his post. It’s hard to blame potential would-be contestants for walking away. Who wants to be the next victim of a rose-strewn struggle session?

Wokeness ruined “The Bachelor.” It watered the franchise down to the worst version of itself and became repulsive even to woke millennials desperate for Instagram fame. Anything the show had going for it in the way of mindless entertainment has now been replaced by insufferable leftist dogma and cancel culture landmines that nobody wants to navigate for fear of blowing up their life and reputation on national television and being remembered as nothing more than the next fill-in-the-blank controversy.

And for what? If the rumors about Matt and Rachael turn out to be true, which many fans of the show have said would not be surprising, the main takeaway will be that the girl at the center of this year’s biggest pop culture racism scandal will ride off into the sunset with her black boyfriend.

You didn’t solve racism, Hollywood. You effectively matchmade the first black bachelor and his prejudiced lover. Was destroying the franchise worth it?

Source

Fired USA Today Editor Deflects From Wrongdoing, Alleges ‘White Supremacy’

A USA Today “race and inclusion” editor was fired this week for using her professional Twitter account to report flagrant disinformation in the wake of a mass shooting. In response, she wrote a lengthy Medium post that briefly admitted “regret” for her “careless error in judgement” but focused mostly on how the corporate press is allegedly “subservient to white authority.”

We’re never going to see real change in newsrooms unless editors allow for their writers, and BIPOC writers specifically, to freely critique white structural relations. The fact that many newsrooms still view that as “bias” is a saddening and dispiriting fact.

Like many places, USA TODAY values “equality and inclusion,” but only as long as it knows its rightful place, which is subservient to white authority.

Here’s the most important sentence, “The fact that many newsrooms still view that as ‘bias’ is a saddening and dispiriting fact,” with “that” referring to writers to “freely critiqu[ing]e white structural relations.”

This sentiment is representative of the cultural left’s insistence that everything outside its own radical worldview is necessarily bigoted and necessarily wrong. Thus, to Jhaveri, it isn’t bias, it’s as a clear a moral position as opposing murder. That’s also why people like Jhaveri operate on much broader definitions of bigotry and “white supremacy” than the general public. In their rigid progressive-or-bigot binary formulation, all disagreement embodies and perpetuates bigotry and must have no voice.

Fish don’t know they’re wet and media leftists don’t know they’re biased. They swim in the waters of ideological consensus to the point where they don’t realize certain aspects of their worldview represent ideological bias. Jhaveri’s contention in that Medium post is Exhibit A.

Sadly, however, by inflating these definitions beyond the point of public recognition and consensus, media leftists leave readers feeling implicated in KKK-level bigotry. That’s not only confusing, it’s wrong and enormously divisive. Jhaveri is doubling down. No doubt most of her ideological travelers with powerful media jobs will do the same.

Source

Ilhan Omar Decries Whiteness Of Atlanta Shooter, Then Vilifies Focus On Race Of Boulder Shooter

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar complained Tuesday after the identity of the Boulder, Colorado shooting suspect was revealed to be a 21-year-old Middle Eastern Muslim that people only raise focus on race when the accused is not white.

“The shooter’s race or ethnicity seems front and center when they aren’t white,” Omar wrote on Twitter. “Otherwise, it’s just a mentally ill young man having a bad day. Narratives drive our responses to awful crimes committed against innocent people, pay attention to these responses and who is targeted.”

On March 17, however, when Atlanta police held a press conference cautioning their investigation into an area shooting spree on massage parlors was still early but did not appear racially motivated, Omar focused on the charged culprit’s race, who is white.

“It isn’t hard to understand why it’s so normalized for law enforcement to protect the humanity of white mass murderers and their willingness to continually make excuses for them,” Omar wrote on Twitter.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s niece also fixated on the alleged Boulder shooter’s race presuming the assailant was white in a since-deleted tweet.

“The Atlanta shooting was not even a week ago,” Meena Harris wrote, according to Fox News. “Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country.”

Harris later tweeted a racist apology Tuesday morning.

Source

Democrats Ban White Farmers From Federal COVID Relief Program

Last week, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act into law. The bill, comprised of $1.9 trillion in the name of “COVID relief,” received no support from Republicans in the House or Senate, and it’s not hard to see why.

The legislation includes carveouts for dozens of leftist priorities, including a bridge in Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s New York and a tunnel in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Silicon Valley. These items clearly have nothing to do with pandemic relief for the millions of Americans out of work or the businesses shuttered by blue state governors’ harsh public health regulations. To the hardworking Americans everywhere, this bill should reek of the far-left’s desire to shove their ill-conceived policy priorities wherever they can stash them.

What most don’t know about this bill, however, is the small provision known as “Section 1005” that authorizes the secretary of agriculture to make payments of 100 to 120 percent of the “outstanding indebtedness of socially disadvantaged farmers.” Under this provision, those included in the socially disadvantaged category are American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, Blacks, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics.

Putting aside all of the Washington jargon that makes little sense outside of a committee hearing room, this provision—specifically written into the American Rescue Plan by Democrats—pushes a blurred vision of so-called “social equity” by providing relief for farmers based on the color of their skin. Rather than offering much needed relief to all farmers, Sec. 1005 prioritizes race, just as it would ethnicity, sex, or any other factor.

It bears repeating: Sec. 1005 focuses debt relief on farmers based on their race, not based on how harshly the pandemic has affected them—the very reason for relief in the first place. Ironically, this racial discrimination is the very focus of what officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have worked so hard to combat.

The 1999 Supreme Court case Pigford v. Glickman handled this very issue when a class-action discrimination suit against the USDA by black farmers found true discrimination on the basis of race that subsequently resulted in cash relief, debt relief, and tax payments. In the years since, the case has provided billions to claimants due to proven discrimination within the department.

With Section 1005, Democrats are playing the ultimate social justice warrior with needed relief, weaving their flawed narrative into legislation as a naked attempt to balance the scales in the name of racial justice. The American Rescue Plan should have been designed to help all of those affected by the pandemic, but this provision specifically avoids focused aid toward all farmers.

Furthermore, the provision does not require any proof of discrimination to receive debt relief, simply designating a certain group of farmers as “socially disadvantaged” based solely on skin color. Despite this being a marked change from what was required in earlier relief to minority farmers in Pigford, Democrats are intent on ensuring all pieces of legislation are somehow tied to race, even when it makes no sense at all.

What’s more, Section 1005 excludes women from the list of socially disadvantaged farmers. For a party that claims to care so much about women’s empowerment, the “socially disadvantaged” category seems to be nothing more than a misnomer, including only the individual groups tied to race instead. This although there are fewer women farmers than men and many have been disproportionately harmed by lockdowns over the last several months.

While the American Rescue Plan received no support from conservatives because of all the pork it contains, the Democrats will continue to rail against House Republicans for our lack of support for this ridiculous bill, knowing all the while all it did was show how the left wants to push its radical agenda that hurts the American people rather than fight for real relief.

In my district and across the state of Florida, farmers have been forced to disk crops that can’t be sold due to the pandemic. Real relief isn’t including social equity provisions when all farmers have been affected by COVID-19. While the Democrats continue to push leftist policies in the U.S. House, I’ll continue to fight for all farmers—just as Democrats should fight for all Americans.

Source

Emmanuel Acho’s Struggle Session With ‘Bachelor’ Contestant Rachael Kirkconnell Was Not A Sign Of Progress

My jaw dropped. Not in the excited kind of way. My mouth was dangling open ridiculously because I could not believe the profoundly absurd question I had just heard come out of the mouth of Emmanuel Acho, who took over hosting duties for Chris Harrison on the final episode of “The Bachelor,” termed “After the Final Rose.”

Talking to Rachael Kirkconnell, whom the media and cancel mob torched after digging up purportedly racist college photos of her attending an antebellum era-themed party and whose relationship with Matt James went up in flames for the same reason, Acho asked her the following question:

Now, you knew Matt, a black man, was going to be the bachelor. You also knew these photos existed. How often did you lay awake at night, worried that eventually these photos might come out and could ruin your life?

It’s a shocking question, and it reveals so much about our cultural temperature and descent into online vigilante justice — because it’s not normal. It isn’t normal for human beings to lie awake at night combing through every past action for something that might have been inappropriate or offensive. It’s not normal for people to live in constant fear of vindictive actors scrutinizing their pasts, looking for anything they can use to tear them down.

Here’s a question to consider: If it’s really progress we want, why do we spend so much time looking back instead of looking forward? Why do we insist on expending so much energy beating ourselves up over past mistakes — or even just being ill-informed — rather than on letting go of what we can’t change and doing our best to move forward?

Of course, the photos of Rachael weren’t something the contestant was harboring, terrified they would see the light of day. Had Rachael had the forethought that maybe wearing a costume and attending that party or taking a selfie could be considered racially insensitive or racist, she likely never would have done it and she certainly wouldn’t have advertised it on social media. So if you aren’t a racist, why would you lie awake at night scared that someone will cancel you for being a racist?

But I guess that’s where we are now. Brett Kavanaugh isn’t a gang rapist, but that didn’t stop a mob from coming after him. J.K. Rowling doesn’t want to erase transgender people, but the thought police came for her too, pitchforks drawn. And here’s Acho, reinforcing the idea that this is normal.

It’s also worth mentioning that Acho’s question was wrong. It was never the photos that ruined Kirkconnell’s life. Those were securely in her past where they belonged. It was the cancel mob, which Harrison was right to classify as the “woke police.” Digging up those photos didn’t solve racism. It didn’t achieve reconciliation whatsoever.

The only thing the social justice mob accomplished in drudging up Rachael’s past was breaking a young girl’s spirit, destroying her relationship, and forcing her to apologize ad nauseum in a humiliating on-stage “Bachelor” struggle session in front of the world. There was nothing normal about it, and nobody should pretend there was.

Source

‘Bachelor’ Finale Host Emmanuel Acho Said The Same Thing Chris Harrison Got Canceled For

By now, everyone should be up to speed on what’s been described as the Chris Harrison controversy. The only host in the history of “The Bachelor” franchise talked back to cancel culture when it came for one of this season’s contestants over purportedly racist college photos, and he was defamed as a racist himself and canceled. What’s happening now, however, is interesting.

Harrison’s gotten the boot, and former NFL player Emmanuel Acho is here to host in his place for the finale. Obviously, “The Bachelor” producers decided they needed a black man to host, regardless of whether he had any relationship with the franchise. One question nags, however: Why is it that he is allowed to host but Harrison isn’t? — because as it turns out, Acho’s remarks on the Rachael Kirkconnell racial controversy were basically the same as Harrison’s.

“What is the main thing you wanted to get across?” Rachel Lindsay, the former Bachelorette and “Extra TV” host whose infamous interview with Harrison sparked the whole cancel fiasco, asked Acho in a different interview about his upcoming hosting duties and his relationship with Harrison.

Now pay attention to his answer:

Number one is to reconcile. There is so much tension between the photos that have surfaced around Rachael Kirkconnell that’s like, wait a second — let’s try to seek understanding first before we seek tension.

[embedded content]

Hold the phone. You might have missed Acho’s answer because instead of harping on it, erupting the internet over it, and hanging this new host out to dry, as she did with Harrison, Lindsay just breezed right past his answer — an answer that was perfectly fine, by the way. But “wait a second — let’s try to seek understanding first before we seek tension,” sounds an awful lot like, “I’m not defending it. … [But] this is again where we all need to have a little grace, a little understanding, a little compassion.”

While it might be hard to remember what exactly Harrison’s fireable sin was because the entire situation has been reduced to the “Chris Harrison racism controversy” (a complete misnomer), it was that sentiment. Harrison’s interview segment was much longer than Acho’s one-liner, but the takeaway was the same on that point. Harrison pumped the brakes on what he called the “judge, jury, and executioner thing,” and suddenly he was a racist sympathizer. So when Acho pumps the brakes over the Kirkconnell photo tension — what does that make him?

The whole Harrison debacle has been ridiculous from the outset, but the rules are now clear. It isn’t the message that matters; it’s the messenger, and it seems identity politics decides which messengers are safe and which must burn.

Many critics will tell you “The Bachelor” has a bad track record of racial diversity. Now, however, the franchise has a new racism problem on its hands: ABC now seems to be making its firing decisions solely based on race, as the lack of uproar over Acho’s comments make clear. At “The Bachelor,” job security is a coin flip: heads, black man stays; tails, white man goes. That’s equity, baby.

Source

Public Opinion Of Prince Harry And Meghan Markle Nosedives After Oprah Interview

Dislike for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle grew following the ex-royal couple’s controversial interview with Oprah Winfrey last week, a new poll shows.

According to the YouGov survey of approximately 1,664 people in the United Kingdom, only three in every 10 respondents claimed to hold a positive view of the American actress who married into the royal family. At least 58 percent of those surveyed said that they viewed Meghan in a mostly negative light, bringing her net rating down to -27, a jump from the -14 that was found just a week before the interview.

Britons’ optimistic view of the prince declined by 15 points since the beginning of March before the interview aired. While polling shows that 45 percent of Britons currently hold a positive opinion about Harry, 48 percent of them see him in a negative light, marking the first time that public opinion of the prince is more negative than positive.

While the survey results suggested that Harry and Meghan were found to be more favorable with younger people aged 18 to 24, people 65 and older appear to have “overwhelmingly having negative feelings towards them.”

[embedded content]

During their interview, Harry and Meghan both raised allegations about the royal family that received backlash and fact checks from people all across the world. They accused an unnamed person in Buckingham Palace of raising “concerns” about the color of their son Archie’s skin and alleged that when Meghan felt suicidal during her pregnancy, she received no help from the “institution.”

Days after the interview aired, the Queen released a statement saying the family was “saddened” to learn of Harry and Meghan’s challenges.

“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately,” the statement said. “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”

Source