Well, well... How is it a great piece, Kimi? He did not elaborate on why Candace Owens is, as he says, an anti-Semite. He points to some of the nefarious people who have lauded her, and also mentions her friendship with Kanye. He tells Candace to have a private conversation with Kanye and lambasts her that she did not. But, Kimi, how could he possibly know this? How could he know the nature of a possible private conversation?
This is the bane of the Web and social media. We are compelled to share every single opinion we have about everyone and everything. To my knowledge, the feud between Owens and Shapiro came to light because of social media posts Shapiro wrote about her in the third person. Americans now feel it's our right to air everything, to kvetch to the public before we speak to the actual person we're kvetching about. Seriously, just about none of this should be fodder for public debate. It's obscene how we no longer value privacy. Charles types "make it private" while he he builds a brand on public grumbling. Yeah, real clever, Charles.
The truth is. it's badly written. There are bad and non-existent arguments here. He's just piling on and basking in the praise he gets for doing so. You, Kimi, have written and broadcast poignant, evocative presentations. But should we judge you harshly because of one badly-thought out argument? Or one unpopular argument? That wouldn't be very fair, would it? But people who used to proclaim their love for Candace Owens have turned on her faster than a three-day-old avocado. Like a wheezing cheetah lunging for crippled prey. I don't like her because she's a loudmouthed bully, but I'm not about to pile on for the the sake of convenience. The issue is prominent over the person.
So a well-written article, Kimi, would address the issue and not the person. How very, very sad to see that you're not rising above this muck. Perhaps you should get to know some Gazans. Perhaps you should watch some Jon Stewart. Perhaps you should read Ernest Owens' book, "The Case for Cancel Culture." Not that he mentions Jews or Muslims in his work, but I read it and it made an impact on me. I certainly didn't think he was going to convince me that cancel culture is a good thing, but I was willing to hear his argument. It's good to listen and have actual dialogues with everyone, even those with whom you disagree... Here's a thought that just appeared in my clouded mind: perhaps you and Charles should private conversation with Candace Owens.
Thank you, Charles. In a world where it’s getting lonely and alarming being Jewish, you have provided a small candle of hope. That’s kind of a big deal :)
No, it's not. Every single ethnic and cultural group on the planet has been singled out for hatred and discrimination. When we encourage a people to identify themselves as oppressed, misunderstood and downtrodden... or lonely and alarming, that works, too... we help no one. We instead reduce a noble people to a statistic. Dave, if you want to help raise the profile of what a glorious thing it is to be Jewish in this world, lobby for Netanyahu to stop being a murderous ass and thereby casting the entirety of the Jewish people in a bad light. Stand up to him! You won't be the only Jewish person to do so. There are an abundance of Jews marching and advocating to stop the bloodshed in Palestine. Perhaps the only Jew of note is Jon Stewart, while the media ignores and dismisses the rest. I challenge you to stand up for the glory of Israel.
1. I don't recall saying one word about victimhood. There are plenty of victims on this planet, but I sure don't feel like one.
2. Mark, let me ask you a few questions. Do you take it upon yourself to tell Chinese-Americans or Chinese-South Africans that they have the responsibility to take down the CCP for throwing Uyghurs in camps? Do you tell or imply Korean-Canadian or Korean-British people that they are partly at fault for the appaling abuses of the Kim Jun Un regime? We have a lot of people in the US from Nigeria, and we're a better place becasue of them. Do you tell their children who were born and raised in the US as Americans that it's they are responsible for Nigeria's government's often-shocking human rights record? How about Modi over in India? Do you think that the Indian-British or Indian-American or Indian-Ugandan communities should be partly blamed from his government's oppression of the Muslim minority there? No, no you do not. You rightly do not believe any of those things.
So then tell me, Mark, why do you think that I, an American, someone born and raised in the US, should have the responsibility to bring down Netanyahu, the leader of a third country where I have never lived, whose language I do not speak, where I have no family? Is it because I'm Jewish? Yes, it is.
Here's the thing, though, Mark: I'm American. I was born and raised in the US. I'm not Israeli. I can't vote in Israel. I couldn't even read the ballot in Hebrew if I could vote there. So why do you hold me and every other Jew on the planet responsible for this country? You don't do that with other ethnic minorities. In fact, what would even lead you to believe that I have anything to do with Israel. You know my status as an ethnic minority, and nothing else about me. But based on my ethnic status, you believe that I hold some sort of original sin for which I must atone. That's called bigotry.
To top it all off, you tell me how to feel when I go to thank @charlesekokotu for giving me hope when I have every right to feel alone and alarmed - mostly because people like you do not take the time to think about these things.
So do me a favor? Read what I'VE written, not what YOU want to project. Take me for who I am, an individual, one who is American, not Israeli, and who is Jewish. You know Mark, you are not disgusting, but your comment sure is. For reasons that I hope you will one day understand, I wish you well.
Dave, Hello! I am very grateful for your considered comments. Thank you. I hope you understand why I feel it necessary to respond.
I did not mention victimhood either. I did echo your words of lonley and alarming and added a few of my own, all of which certainly have much in common with victimhood.
I also never would dream that you take down any political leader. I never suggested that. I urged you to stand up to him. You can do that by writing a post telling him to stop murdering people and slurring the Jewish identity. You could even do this in a public reply to me.
And yes, I would and have urged many cultures to embrace pride and agency, but never suggested that anyone should overthrow an unpalatable leader, except through democratic means.
Netenyahu, you may have heard, believes otherwise. He stated that Gazans should have overthrown their terrorist eaders, and smugly noted that they did not.
I do not write this nor did I write my first comment because you are Jewish. That is absurd, and I believe is you unjustifiably taking refuge beyond the shield of bigotry. It's been proven to be an effective way to shut down an argument. And good lord, man, what original sin are you even talking about? I have to question if you know what projection means, considering you are claiming that I've said and meant things I haven’t. Honestly, it feels a little cheap.
I write in reply to what you stated. There is a thrust here on Free Black Thought for Blacks not to identify as caught up in cultural discrimination beyond their control, nor to define themselves by that - and this has attracted me to this site. That same conviction is the right of every man, woman and child on this planet.
I absolutely trust that you know exactly why I wish you well this and every day.
Good morning, Dave. Am I missing something here? You wrote a warm, gracious response to me about 12 hours ago... and then I guess you or Free Black Thought deleted it? Why? I deeply appreciate what you wrote, so I will proceed as if that commentary is still right here on this page.: Dave - no worries, I brook no ill will. We're a couple of warriors, you and I. My life is dedicated toward leading people into embracing their innate strengths. And as for the entirety of the Jews... well as Thomas Cahill incisively noticed, Western civilization would not exist without them. I celebrate that fact every day! Be well and always be good to yourself!
Excellent article, even though I agree with the comments about the meaningless alphabet designation and the use of "problematic." I don't believe Floyd was murdered but I do believe there was a failure to provide first aid when he went unconscious. Afte the public flare-up between Shapiro and Owens, I went back and looked at her previous statements and found she had made antisemitic and misogynistic comments. She seemingly has a good marriage and family, and I wish her well. But I hope she someday is able to see and let go of her irrational prejudices.
"Germany great again involved eliminating.... LGBTQ+ individuals," Can we please PLEASE stop using the f-ing alphabet soup, especially when referring to the time in history when the acronym hasn't even been coined yet? It's "gay people", or "homosexual people" - neither word is a slur. LGBTQ is a meaningless , divisive, politically correct mess.
LGBTQ etc seems strange, but when we the Pride Parade in West Hollywood, one realizes why so many letters. LGBTQ etc accepts everyone's right to self-identification as an inalienable right. That, however, does not mean that the Wokers attempt to take over the LGBTQ's is legitimate. Wokers are hideous power-mongers who only use other people for the Woker agenda, which is a vile one. LGBTQ rights are based 100% on Liberty and 0% percent on Equality, which is not an inalienable or constitutional right. It is an ersatz right used to cause trouble and divide LGBTQ from others.
LGBTQ is based on respect for each person and shuns any concept of quotas or any special privileges. Just do not assign any LGBTQ person into some group and then use that label as a basis for discrimination --- or for more favorable treatment.
Once again, Wokers are troublemakers and not matter how loudly they shout, they do not represent LGBTQ people. Wokers merely use and abuse us.
LGB = Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual are sexual orientations.
TQ = Trans and Queer, is a category of people claiming they have either changed sex, have no sex at all or who refuse being defined as heterosexual. These are self nominated identities dependent on assertions, not behaviours.
When there are "transwomen" (essentially cross dressing men appropriating the stereotypical appearance of women) who use trans identities to claim they are both women and "lesbians" (despite having male bodies and penises) that is not respect. It is not "liberty". It is not an "unalienable right" for TQ to demand that the rest of society is obliged to accept their claims as real and true. It is least of all a human right.
Obviously I do not accept the claims of TQ. I don't believe their innate sexual orientation has changed regardless of their gender identity assertations. I believe their claims are either lies or delusions and must be strenuously refuted and proven as falsehoods.
Where's the proof that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd? The pathologist was bullied into adding neck compression to the mix of factors, including fentynal, that caused death.
You do not understand the law. But for Derek Chauvin's actions would Floyd died at that time and manner? The answer is an undeniable No. Were there any intervening acts after Chauvin's actions which broke the chain of causation. The answer is an undeniable No.
Under the law, each person takes each other person as they find them. That means if someone has a cracked skull and you then hit him with a large stick which when combined with the cracked skull kills him, you are liable for murder. You may not claim that the cracked skull was the cause of death, because a crack skull, like having fentanyl in the system, is a pre-existing conditions to the defendant's wrongful conduct. This aspect of the law is so old that it goes back to English Common Law. There is no excuse for anyone who expresses an opinion about George Floyd's death not to know the applicable law.
There was and is no evidence that if Chauvin and stopped his unlawful action that Floyd would have died from any cause that day. The extra stress and strain placed on Floyd by Chauvin's behavior was enough to warrant a murder conviction.
Maybe I don’t understand the law despite the fact that I’ve been a criminal defense for 35 years. Hey, what do I know?
Actually, I think YOU’RE who’s confused here as you’re confusing civil liability with criminal mens rea. If Chauvin was acting within scope of his duties - there was no assault, no unlawful confinement, no mens rea for murder, not even sufficient for manslaughter.
That’s why they intimidated the pathologist to find neck compression.
This piece grossly mischaracterizes remarks by Charlie Kirk about flying with a black pilot. Kirk's remarks were uttered as part of a discussion of airlines prioritizing diversity over competence in hiring decisions. This is really happening and inappropriate in a position where safety is critical. It isn't that black people in general aren't competent to fly airplanes, but that a hiring policy that is prioritizing meeting a diversity quota rather than hiring strictly on merit is wrong-headed. I am guessing Owens' comments about women pilots were in that same line of reasoning.
Whether Charlie Kirk has racist views I can't tell you (though I don't think so) but it is highly dishonest to frame these remarks as racist as was done by many news sources.
I don't think for that matter Owens "[espouses] unflattering views on black people" in general but rather those among the black community she thinks are in error. I am demographically a conservative and a Christian (and born into the Jewish faith), and there are pretty fair numbers of people in those demographic groups I think are quite misguided. That is not because I am prejudiced against my own demographic group, but because I am opposed to those who are poor representatives of same.
That said, Owens has certainly been on the warpath against Jews since leaving the Daily Wire and her Twitter feeds are populated by open antisemites. I hope that for her sake Candace will come around and self-correct, but no guarantees that will happen.
Do you have proof that standards are being lowered for Black flying candidate? I guess not. Diversity itself does not mean competence is not also taken into consideration, so the point of Charlie Kirk is nonsense.
It is very possible to be prejudiced or even racist against members of your own group. Racism is an ideology and set of actions and beliefs. Candace skirts that border. When she says Black people live in a democrat plantation that's racist because she supposes that they are not their by choice and as far as I can tell Black people have reasons for voting democrat and they have the right in a free society to vote whichever way they want
Until last year, Charlie Kirk used to make an annual post saying Juneteenth wouldn't be possible if not for Republican Abe Lincoln, and that Obama was bad somehow for not making it a holiday. Then Congress passed a law making it an official holiday, and you won't believe what happened next.
Agreed, his 2021 post criticizing Juneteenth is in opposition to his 2020 post. For that matter I don't think it's accurate to equate the Republican party of Lincoln and today's Republican party, an error some of my fellow conservatives make.
But I like Kirk for his work on campuses where he goes out to engage indoctrinated students. He seems to have matured and now instead of being unpleasantly angry he attempts to have a real interaction.
Great article. I think that you did a great job pointing out how she was an attack dog and people at the daily wire overlooked that a bit because she was attacking whom they wanted attacked. When she continued doing her thing but in directions they didn't like, it became a problem. I hadn't thought about it that way (I'm a daily wire subscriber) but now that I have I think you hit the nail on the head.
One comment regarding George Floyd. The post-mortem supports that he died of a drug overdose and not due to the actions of Derek Chauvin, as the levels of drugs in his system were fatal and no major injuries to his body were found.
Pundits can be provocative without being racist -- be it anti-Gay, anti-Jewish, anti-Black, etc. Candace Owens fails to grasp this concept. For example, Israelis supporters call for the destruction of Hamas, a group whose declared goal is the extermination of the Jewish People, but Jews do not call for the mass slaughter of individual Hamas members. Hamas members have two options: (1) surrender or (2) be captured. Calling for the targeted assassination of terrorists who have murdered Jews is not bigotry, but some may say that promoting targeted assassinations by drones is "provocative," as the terrorists have not be tried in a court of law, but it is not mass slaughter based on being Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim, despite the habitual Woker lies to the contrary.
So where do I start? The Republican stance on the Israeli "war" is a betrayal of the basest order. Where genocide through starvation, disease and mass murder are fine because Israel has a right to defend itself. Where identify politics that lionizes every Jew and demonizes every Palestinian is fine because Israel has offered the people they conquered every generous concession they can think of in the past eight decades.
This is a disservice to Jews: their nation, their ethnicity, their culture, their faith, their very connection to the Divine. Jews as a whole are being sold the reprehensible lie that they must support the slaughter of Palestinians if they wish to count themselves among the "good Jews." That they must define themselves as undeserved receptacles of the - what did you write? - "world's oldest hatred?"
There is a covenant in place with Yahweh and His chosen people. With Israel and the great I Am, with God the Father. Israel broke that covenant numerous times throughout the history contained in Hebrew and Christian scriptures., and they are actively doing it again, right now. That covenant is meaningless as long as the world embraces Israel destroying Palestinians.
Don't believe me ? Read that scripture. Read how God directed them to be kind to the alien, to their neighbors, to the people of the world. Directed them to be the father of all nations. I summarize here, so I urge you to read those scriptural passages where this is made abundantly clear. If you think that a father commits himself to wholesale slaughter, I have to hope and pray that you're not a father.
Bill Maher recently went on a justified diatribe against what he calls "gender apartheid." That many Muslim nations horribly abuse their women. This includes Palestine, and Bill is right. This abuse, this horrific misogyny needs to end. But do we end it by not only killing Palestine men en masse, but the women they abuse as well? And their children?
How dare we look upon this horror and proclaim it virtuous?
I'm familiar with you, Charles. Some months ago you lured me in with the title of your YouTube channel and the title of a particular video you posted, though I forget what that was now. I quickly came to see you have a severe cognitive bias; you believe what you want to believe and Truth be damned. You various videos don't have a logical consistency which I can discern, so I truly don't know what your values and beliefs are.
I wrote that last paragraph because I am unsure what you are saying about Candace other than you don't like her. She was fired because of her stance on Palestine, yet you do not mention this in your article. You did say that she should have spoken to Kanye privately to criticize him. Do you realize if there were a private conversation between them, then you and I would not know about it? Do you realize she may have done exactly what you advised her to do?
Look, I don't like her, either. She has made many, many good, salient points about the many people who define themselves as oppressed and trodden down, and about the far fewer people who exploit the many so that they gain power (and often money) by doing this. She does her research and presents credible arguments. But she's a also a loudmouth bully, which I guess is why she and the Donald like each other. She rarely has discussions, she berates.
And you're doing the same thing. You should be asking why she takes the stance she does, but you don't'. You just call her wrong. You add a paragraph at the very end of your screed (yes, I call it that.; look up the definition) about how "anti-Semite" is used so ridiculously often that it's losing it's meaning, but you don't offer any justification of why she is, as you say, an anti-Semite. You need to examine what she has said and done, but you don't do that. You just say that we should look at the company she keeps - and then say we shouldn't judge her by the company she keeps.
Yours is a very old game. Ancient, in fact. You repeatedly use the most awful words to tear a person down, and then offer a few more conciliatory words to feign self-awareness. In other words, you can't be wrong because you take the time to write how you could be wrong... Towards the end of your essay. Right before you assure your readers that you are, in fact, actually right.
Do you have the slightest idea how many bigots and perpetuators of hate support and praise Free Black Thought? I'm sure you don't; I'm sure Free Black Thought doesn't. But they are out there. And as Free Black Thought raises its profile, they will attract bigots who are more than happy to mischaracterize and misinterpret them. Get a grip, will ya? Candace, to my knowledge, has not cheered these bigots on.
Geeze, what happened to me that I defend Candace Owens?... This only demonstrates my commitment to seeking and proclaiming Truth. Even if it means taking stances that others may vehemently disagree with. Even if it means that I get called all those nasty words you used to describe Candace. I have planted myself along the shore of the River of Truth and insist that you move, not I.
And isn't it telling that your essay denouncing a critic of Israel, labeling her "anti-Semite," earns a publication on Free Black Thought? Though I authored an essay criticizing Israel for its slaughter of Palestinians which was rejected, and my direct emailed question to one of Free Black Thought's founders asking him what he feels about this conflict, went unanswered. Hey, maybe I'm just a bad writer and proffered a chaotic argument. But scroll through Free Black Thought's history: there are many published essays decrying American bigotry toward Jews and not a single one suggesting that Hamas and Gazans are separate entities and that perhaps Israel has gone too far in punishing both.
If any of you who urge the Jews of this world to define themselves as those who are hated and must therefore be bitter and aggressive toward everyone else, and need to find me to discuss this, I'll be right here by the River. If you're just going to show up to yell at me, however, well... I have better things to do with my time than respond to you.
being kind to the cruel and cruel to the kind is what's going on when people like you judge Israel through odd tainted lenses and suck down Hamas statistics semen like a starving horror
People like me.... Hmmm. Hey, I represent! I represent a whole segment of the population. My voice counts!!! I mean... wow. Thanks for that, m'man.
Oh, by the way.... you're dense. I did not mention Hamas statistics once. I have nothing good to say about them because there is nothing good about them. You are rude, crude, dense, and don't belong on a civil platform like this. Hit me up when you can muster something intelligent and decent to say.
Great piece, Charles!
Well, well... How is it a great piece, Kimi? He did not elaborate on why Candace Owens is, as he says, an anti-Semite. He points to some of the nefarious people who have lauded her, and also mentions her friendship with Kanye. He tells Candace to have a private conversation with Kanye and lambasts her that she did not. But, Kimi, how could he possibly know this? How could he know the nature of a possible private conversation?
This is the bane of the Web and social media. We are compelled to share every single opinion we have about everyone and everything. To my knowledge, the feud between Owens and Shapiro came to light because of social media posts Shapiro wrote about her in the third person. Americans now feel it's our right to air everything, to kvetch to the public before we speak to the actual person we're kvetching about. Seriously, just about none of this should be fodder for public debate. It's obscene how we no longer value privacy. Charles types "make it private" while he he builds a brand on public grumbling. Yeah, real clever, Charles.
The truth is. it's badly written. There are bad and non-existent arguments here. He's just piling on and basking in the praise he gets for doing so. You, Kimi, have written and broadcast poignant, evocative presentations. But should we judge you harshly because of one badly-thought out argument? Or one unpopular argument? That wouldn't be very fair, would it? But people who used to proclaim their love for Candace Owens have turned on her faster than a three-day-old avocado. Like a wheezing cheetah lunging for crippled prey. I don't like her because she's a loudmouthed bully, but I'm not about to pile on for the the sake of convenience. The issue is prominent over the person.
So a well-written article, Kimi, would address the issue and not the person. How very, very sad to see that you're not rising above this muck. Perhaps you should get to know some Gazans. Perhaps you should watch some Jon Stewart. Perhaps you should read Ernest Owens' book, "The Case for Cancel Culture." Not that he mentions Jews or Muslims in his work, but I read it and it made an impact on me. I certainly didn't think he was going to convince me that cancel culture is a good thing, but I was willing to hear his argument. It's good to listen and have actual dialogues with everyone, even those with whom you disagree... Here's a thought that just appeared in my clouded mind: perhaps you and Charles should private conversation with Candace Owens.
The problem I see here is comprehension, that's certainly not the fault of my article
Hmmm.... deft dodge. Too bad you're denying conversation.
Great read, well written
Thank you, Charles. In a world where it’s getting lonely and alarming being Jewish, you have provided a small candle of hope. That’s kind of a big deal :)
No, it's not. Every single ethnic and cultural group on the planet has been singled out for hatred and discrimination. When we encourage a people to identify themselves as oppressed, misunderstood and downtrodden... or lonely and alarming, that works, too... we help no one. We instead reduce a noble people to a statistic. Dave, if you want to help raise the profile of what a glorious thing it is to be Jewish in this world, lobby for Netanyahu to stop being a murderous ass and thereby casting the entirety of the Jewish people in a bad light. Stand up to him! You won't be the only Jewish person to do so. There are an abundance of Jews marching and advocating to stop the bloodshed in Palestine. Perhaps the only Jew of note is Jon Stewart, while the media ignores and dismisses the rest. I challenge you to stand up for the glory of Israel.
1. I don't recall saying one word about victimhood. There are plenty of victims on this planet, but I sure don't feel like one.
2. Mark, let me ask you a few questions. Do you take it upon yourself to tell Chinese-Americans or Chinese-South Africans that they have the responsibility to take down the CCP for throwing Uyghurs in camps? Do you tell or imply Korean-Canadian or Korean-British people that they are partly at fault for the appaling abuses of the Kim Jun Un regime? We have a lot of people in the US from Nigeria, and we're a better place becasue of them. Do you tell their children who were born and raised in the US as Americans that it's they are responsible for Nigeria's government's often-shocking human rights record? How about Modi over in India? Do you think that the Indian-British or Indian-American or Indian-Ugandan communities should be partly blamed from his government's oppression of the Muslim minority there? No, no you do not. You rightly do not believe any of those things.
So then tell me, Mark, why do you think that I, an American, someone born and raised in the US, should have the responsibility to bring down Netanyahu, the leader of a third country where I have never lived, whose language I do not speak, where I have no family? Is it because I'm Jewish? Yes, it is.
Here's the thing, though, Mark: I'm American. I was born and raised in the US. I'm not Israeli. I can't vote in Israel. I couldn't even read the ballot in Hebrew if I could vote there. So why do you hold me and every other Jew on the planet responsible for this country? You don't do that with other ethnic minorities. In fact, what would even lead you to believe that I have anything to do with Israel. You know my status as an ethnic minority, and nothing else about me. But based on my ethnic status, you believe that I hold some sort of original sin for which I must atone. That's called bigotry.
To top it all off, you tell me how to feel when I go to thank @charlesekokotu for giving me hope when I have every right to feel alone and alarmed - mostly because people like you do not take the time to think about these things.
So do me a favor? Read what I'VE written, not what YOU want to project. Take me for who I am, an individual, one who is American, not Israeli, and who is Jewish. You know Mark, you are not disgusting, but your comment sure is. For reasons that I hope you will one day understand, I wish you well.
Dave, Hello! I am very grateful for your considered comments. Thank you. I hope you understand why I feel it necessary to respond.
I did not mention victimhood either. I did echo your words of lonley and alarming and added a few of my own, all of which certainly have much in common with victimhood.
I also never would dream that you take down any political leader. I never suggested that. I urged you to stand up to him. You can do that by writing a post telling him to stop murdering people and slurring the Jewish identity. You could even do this in a public reply to me.
And yes, I would and have urged many cultures to embrace pride and agency, but never suggested that anyone should overthrow an unpalatable leader, except through democratic means.
Netenyahu, you may have heard, believes otherwise. He stated that Gazans should have overthrown their terrorist eaders, and smugly noted that they did not.
I do not write this nor did I write my first comment because you are Jewish. That is absurd, and I believe is you unjustifiably taking refuge beyond the shield of bigotry. It's been proven to be an effective way to shut down an argument. And good lord, man, what original sin are you even talking about? I have to question if you know what projection means, considering you are claiming that I've said and meant things I haven’t. Honestly, it feels a little cheap.
I write in reply to what you stated. There is a thrust here on Free Black Thought for Blacks not to identify as caught up in cultural discrimination beyond their control, nor to define themselves by that - and this has attracted me to this site. That same conviction is the right of every man, woman and child on this planet.
I absolutely trust that you know exactly why I wish you well this and every day.
Good morning, Dave. Am I missing something here? You wrote a warm, gracious response to me about 12 hours ago... and then I guess you or Free Black Thought deleted it? Why? I deeply appreciate what you wrote, so I will proceed as if that commentary is still right here on this page.: Dave - no worries, I brook no ill will. We're a couple of warriors, you and I. My life is dedicated toward leading people into embracing their innate strengths. And as for the entirety of the Jews... well as Thomas Cahill incisively noticed, Western civilization would not exist without them. I celebrate that fact every day! Be well and always be good to yourself!
🚫🤡
Yeesh, some of the commenters here are awful.
Threaded the needle nicely here.
The batshit, it is strong in her.
The bussiness of Candace Owens and Matt Walsh is outrage. Everyone should treat it as such and don't fall for provocations and rage bait.
Excellent article, even though I agree with the comments about the meaningless alphabet designation and the use of "problematic." I don't believe Floyd was murdered but I do believe there was a failure to provide first aid when he went unconscious. Afte the public flare-up between Shapiro and Owens, I went back and looked at her previous statements and found she had made antisemitic and misogynistic comments. She seemingly has a good marriage and family, and I wish her well. But I hope she someday is able to see and let go of her irrational prejudices.
"Germany great again involved eliminating.... LGBTQ+ individuals," Can we please PLEASE stop using the f-ing alphabet soup, especially when referring to the time in history when the acronym hasn't even been coined yet? It's "gay people", or "homosexual people" - neither word is a slur. LGBTQ is a meaningless , divisive, politically correct mess.
LGBTQ etc seems strange, but when we the Pride Parade in West Hollywood, one realizes why so many letters. LGBTQ etc accepts everyone's right to self-identification as an inalienable right. That, however, does not mean that the Wokers attempt to take over the LGBTQ's is legitimate. Wokers are hideous power-mongers who only use other people for the Woker agenda, which is a vile one. LGBTQ rights are based 100% on Liberty and 0% percent on Equality, which is not an inalienable or constitutional right. It is an ersatz right used to cause trouble and divide LGBTQ from others.
LGBTQ is based on respect for each person and shuns any concept of quotas or any special privileges. Just do not assign any LGBTQ person into some group and then use that label as a basis for discrimination --- or for more favorable treatment.
Once again, Wokers are troublemakers and not matter how loudly they shout, they do not represent LGBTQ people. Wokers merely use and abuse us.
LGB = Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual are sexual orientations.
TQ = Trans and Queer, is a category of people claiming they have either changed sex, have no sex at all or who refuse being defined as heterosexual. These are self nominated identities dependent on assertions, not behaviours.
When there are "transwomen" (essentially cross dressing men appropriating the stereotypical appearance of women) who use trans identities to claim they are both women and "lesbians" (despite having male bodies and penises) that is not respect. It is not "liberty". It is not an "unalienable right" for TQ to demand that the rest of society is obliged to accept their claims as real and true. It is least of all a human right.
Obviously I do not accept the claims of TQ. I don't believe their innate sexual orientation has changed regardless of their gender identity assertations. I believe their claims are either lies or delusions and must be strenuously refuted and proven as falsehoods.
that's one way to show that one's understanding of LGBTQ+++ movement is lacking.
I've been there since 1977. How long have you been active? Have you read Lawrence v Texas (2003)? yo creo que no
Candace should have stayed in her lane when it came to the controversies currently involving Jews. She did NOT need to go there.
Where's the proof that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd? The pathologist was bullied into adding neck compression to the mix of factors, including fentynal, that caused death.
You do not understand the law. But for Derek Chauvin's actions would Floyd died at that time and manner? The answer is an undeniable No. Were there any intervening acts after Chauvin's actions which broke the chain of causation. The answer is an undeniable No.
Under the law, each person takes each other person as they find them. That means if someone has a cracked skull and you then hit him with a large stick which when combined with the cracked skull kills him, you are liable for murder. You may not claim that the cracked skull was the cause of death, because a crack skull, like having fentanyl in the system, is a pre-existing conditions to the defendant's wrongful conduct. This aspect of the law is so old that it goes back to English Common Law. There is no excuse for anyone who expresses an opinion about George Floyd's death not to know the applicable law.
There was and is no evidence that if Chauvin and stopped his unlawful action that Floyd would have died from any cause that day. The extra stress and strain placed on Floyd by Chauvin's behavior was enough to warrant a murder conviction.
Maybe I don’t understand the law despite the fact that I’ve been a criminal defense for 35 years. Hey, what do I know?
Actually, I think YOU’RE who’s confused here as you’re confusing civil liability with criminal mens rea. If Chauvin was acting within scope of his duties - there was no assault, no unlawful confinement, no mens rea for murder, not even sufficient for manslaughter.
That’s why they intimidated the pathologist to find neck compression.
This piece grossly mischaracterizes remarks by Charlie Kirk about flying with a black pilot. Kirk's remarks were uttered as part of a discussion of airlines prioritizing diversity over competence in hiring decisions. This is really happening and inappropriate in a position where safety is critical. It isn't that black people in general aren't competent to fly airplanes, but that a hiring policy that is prioritizing meeting a diversity quota rather than hiring strictly on merit is wrong-headed. I am guessing Owens' comments about women pilots were in that same line of reasoning.
Whether Charlie Kirk has racist views I can't tell you (though I don't think so) but it is highly dishonest to frame these remarks as racist as was done by many news sources.
I don't think for that matter Owens "[espouses] unflattering views on black people" in general but rather those among the black community she thinks are in error. I am demographically a conservative and a Christian (and born into the Jewish faith), and there are pretty fair numbers of people in those demographic groups I think are quite misguided. That is not because I am prejudiced against my own demographic group, but because I am opposed to those who are poor representatives of same.
That said, Owens has certainly been on the warpath against Jews since leaving the Daily Wire and her Twitter feeds are populated by open antisemites. I hope that for her sake Candace will come around and self-correct, but no guarantees that will happen.
Do you have proof that standards are being lowered for Black flying candidate? I guess not. Diversity itself does not mean competence is not also taken into consideration, so the point of Charlie Kirk is nonsense.
It is very possible to be prejudiced or even racist against members of your own group. Racism is an ideology and set of actions and beliefs. Candace skirts that border. When she says Black people live in a democrat plantation that's racist because she supposes that they are not their by choice and as far as I can tell Black people have reasons for voting democrat and they have the right in a free society to vote whichever way they want
Until last year, Charlie Kirk used to make an annual post saying Juneteenth wouldn't be possible if not for Republican Abe Lincoln, and that Obama was bad somehow for not making it a holiday. Then Congress passed a law making it an official holiday, and you won't believe what happened next.
https://x.com/justinamash/status/1405610781471825921
Agreed, his 2021 post criticizing Juneteenth is in opposition to his 2020 post. For that matter I don't think it's accurate to equate the Republican party of Lincoln and today's Republican party, an error some of my fellow conservatives make.
But I like Kirk for his work on campuses where he goes out to engage indoctrinated students. He seems to have matured and now instead of being unpleasantly angry he attempts to have a real interaction.
Great article. I think that you did a great job pointing out how she was an attack dog and people at the daily wire overlooked that a bit because she was attacking whom they wanted attacked. When she continued doing her thing but in directions they didn't like, it became a problem. I hadn't thought about it that way (I'm a daily wire subscriber) but now that I have I think you hit the nail on the head.
One comment regarding George Floyd. The post-mortem supports that he died of a drug overdose and not due to the actions of Derek Chauvin, as the levels of drugs in his system were fatal and no major injuries to his body were found.
Pundits can be provocative without being racist -- be it anti-Gay, anti-Jewish, anti-Black, etc. Candace Owens fails to grasp this concept. For example, Israelis supporters call for the destruction of Hamas, a group whose declared goal is the extermination of the Jewish People, but Jews do not call for the mass slaughter of individual Hamas members. Hamas members have two options: (1) surrender or (2) be captured. Calling for the targeted assassination of terrorists who have murdered Jews is not bigotry, but some may say that promoting targeted assassinations by drones is "provocative," as the terrorists have not be tried in a court of law, but it is not mass slaughter based on being Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim, despite the habitual Woker lies to the contrary.
So where do I start? The Republican stance on the Israeli "war" is a betrayal of the basest order. Where genocide through starvation, disease and mass murder are fine because Israel has a right to defend itself. Where identify politics that lionizes every Jew and demonizes every Palestinian is fine because Israel has offered the people they conquered every generous concession they can think of in the past eight decades.
This is a disservice to Jews: their nation, their ethnicity, their culture, their faith, their very connection to the Divine. Jews as a whole are being sold the reprehensible lie that they must support the slaughter of Palestinians if they wish to count themselves among the "good Jews." That they must define themselves as undeserved receptacles of the - what did you write? - "world's oldest hatred?"
There is a covenant in place with Yahweh and His chosen people. With Israel and the great I Am, with God the Father. Israel broke that covenant numerous times throughout the history contained in Hebrew and Christian scriptures., and they are actively doing it again, right now. That covenant is meaningless as long as the world embraces Israel destroying Palestinians.
Don't believe me ? Read that scripture. Read how God directed them to be kind to the alien, to their neighbors, to the people of the world. Directed them to be the father of all nations. I summarize here, so I urge you to read those scriptural passages where this is made abundantly clear. If you think that a father commits himself to wholesale slaughter, I have to hope and pray that you're not a father.
Bill Maher recently went on a justified diatribe against what he calls "gender apartheid." That many Muslim nations horribly abuse their women. This includes Palestine, and Bill is right. This abuse, this horrific misogyny needs to end. But do we end it by not only killing Palestine men en masse, but the women they abuse as well? And their children?
How dare we look upon this horror and proclaim it virtuous?
I'm familiar with you, Charles. Some months ago you lured me in with the title of your YouTube channel and the title of a particular video you posted, though I forget what that was now. I quickly came to see you have a severe cognitive bias; you believe what you want to believe and Truth be damned. You various videos don't have a logical consistency which I can discern, so I truly don't know what your values and beliefs are.
I wrote that last paragraph because I am unsure what you are saying about Candace other than you don't like her. She was fired because of her stance on Palestine, yet you do not mention this in your article. You did say that she should have spoken to Kanye privately to criticize him. Do you realize if there were a private conversation between them, then you and I would not know about it? Do you realize she may have done exactly what you advised her to do?
Look, I don't like her, either. She has made many, many good, salient points about the many people who define themselves as oppressed and trodden down, and about the far fewer people who exploit the many so that they gain power (and often money) by doing this. She does her research and presents credible arguments. But she's a also a loudmouth bully, which I guess is why she and the Donald like each other. She rarely has discussions, she berates.
And you're doing the same thing. You should be asking why she takes the stance she does, but you don't'. You just call her wrong. You add a paragraph at the very end of your screed (yes, I call it that.; look up the definition) about how "anti-Semite" is used so ridiculously often that it's losing it's meaning, but you don't offer any justification of why she is, as you say, an anti-Semite. You need to examine what she has said and done, but you don't do that. You just say that we should look at the company she keeps - and then say we shouldn't judge her by the company she keeps.
Yours is a very old game. Ancient, in fact. You repeatedly use the most awful words to tear a person down, and then offer a few more conciliatory words to feign self-awareness. In other words, you can't be wrong because you take the time to write how you could be wrong... Towards the end of your essay. Right before you assure your readers that you are, in fact, actually right.
Do you have the slightest idea how many bigots and perpetuators of hate support and praise Free Black Thought? I'm sure you don't; I'm sure Free Black Thought doesn't. But they are out there. And as Free Black Thought raises its profile, they will attract bigots who are more than happy to mischaracterize and misinterpret them. Get a grip, will ya? Candace, to my knowledge, has not cheered these bigots on.
Geeze, what happened to me that I defend Candace Owens?... This only demonstrates my commitment to seeking and proclaiming Truth. Even if it means taking stances that others may vehemently disagree with. Even if it means that I get called all those nasty words you used to describe Candace. I have planted myself along the shore of the River of Truth and insist that you move, not I.
And isn't it telling that your essay denouncing a critic of Israel, labeling her "anti-Semite," earns a publication on Free Black Thought? Though I authored an essay criticizing Israel for its slaughter of Palestinians which was rejected, and my direct emailed question to one of Free Black Thought's founders asking him what he feels about this conflict, went unanswered. Hey, maybe I'm just a bad writer and proffered a chaotic argument. But scroll through Free Black Thought's history: there are many published essays decrying American bigotry toward Jews and not a single one suggesting that Hamas and Gazans are separate entities and that perhaps Israel has gone too far in punishing both.
If any of you who urge the Jews of this world to define themselves as those who are hated and must therefore be bitter and aggressive toward everyone else, and need to find me to discuss this, I'll be right here by the River. If you're just going to show up to yell at me, however, well... I have better things to do with my time than respond to you.
being kind to the cruel and cruel to the kind is what's going on when people like you judge Israel through odd tainted lenses and suck down Hamas statistics semen like a starving horror
People like me.... Hmmm. Hey, I represent! I represent a whole segment of the population. My voice counts!!! I mean... wow. Thanks for that, m'man.
Oh, by the way.... you're dense. I did not mention Hamas statistics once. I have nothing good to say about them because there is nothing good about them. You are rude, crude, dense, and don't belong on a civil platform like this. Hit me up when you can muster something intelligent and decent to say.