Disgraced San Francisco Official Arrested for Attempted Robbery at Food Bank
Mohammed Nuru resigned last year amid federal corruption investigation
San Francisco police on Wednesday arrested a disgraced former city official who served under successive Democratic administrations for attempting to rob someone at knifepoint at a food bank.
Mohammed Nuru, who served as the city's director of public works under Democratic mayors Willie Brown, Gavin Newsom, Ed Lee, and London Breed, allegedly brandished a kitchen knife and attempted to steal a bag of potato chips from a volunteer at a city food bank, according to ABC 7. The victim fled the scene and called the police, who took Nuru into custody. After the incident, Nuru reportedly said he was just "kidding."
Last year, the FBI arrested Nuru on corruption and bribery charges. Federal prosecutors say Nuru, who resigned from his position after his arrest, oversaw a kickback scheme with city contractors, who exchanged tens of thousands of dollars in gifts for city contracts. The FBI also alleges Nuru attempted to bribe an airport commissioner to secure restaurant space at San Francisco International Airport for an associate. If convicted, Nuru faces up to 20 years in prison.
Nuru served in San Francisco's city government for nearly two decades and earned a reputation as a "guy who can get things done," former Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard told the San Francisco Chronicle. The former city official's loyalty to the Democratic administrations he served under "may have discouraged mayors from looking too closely at how he ran his ship," according to the outlet.
During his tenure as director of the San Francisco Department of Public Works, Nuru oversaw a public sanitation crisis as his department documented tens of thousands of reports of human defecation on city streets and sidewalks. Nuru's department paid a public relations firm more than $400,000 to report that the city's public areas were "near spotless," NBC San Francisco reported in 2018.
Our Government Is Evolving into Something Horrifying
Today's Democratic Party, aligned with certain associated power elites, is actively fighting a second American Revolution dedicated to overturning our original one, with the objective of imposing a Marxism-style political order upon our country. Actively employing a totalitarian political model and methods similar to those utilized by the Chinese Communist Party, a cadre of elites in this country, including many in the business, media, academic, and celebrity worlds as well as many politicians across party lines, are working together in a highly orchestrated movement to achieve the goal of overthrowing our democratic form of government.
Overall, the key objectives of the current Democratic Party and the Biden administration, with the assistance of these elitist groups, is to undermine the foundations of our country as founded. They are actively working to replace our political system with one that imposes upon the American people a government empowered to be involved in our lives to a degree that will eventually include dictating our personal thoughts and daily activities. These groups work vigorously on an ongoing basis and in a coordinated fashion, attacking and devaluing our history, our democratic practices, and our traditions to place us behind a new American version of an Iron Curtain.
Objective political truth is becoming a rare commodity as the members of this increasingly powerful and disconnected elite, also known as the Establishment, attempt to increase their power by deception and distortion as well as by routinely circumventing the rule of law. Our political process has evolved to a point where the concerns and well-being of individual people no longer count or are literally a distraction. Gaining more power, privileges, and riches has become the Establishment's overriding objective.
The Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention formulated a system of government based on the principles of checks and balances. They were wary of the potential for a growth of the concentration and permanence of power in the hands of an elite. They fully understood the destructive nature of a tyranny and how it could develop or be avoided.
Revolutions occur at many different types of inflection points in the histories of various countries. Intolerable oppression experienced by a nation's people, failed leadership, the extreme lack of economic opportunity available for the masses, and extremely unpopular wars are important causes from the past. It can be emphatically stated that none of these conditions existed in the United States as we began 2020.
The truth was that at that time, the outlook for America's political and economic prospects were running extraordinarily high, driven primarily by the success of President Trump's America First policies. It was an election year; Trump was ascendant; China was on the ropes, losing both the tariffs and trade wars — and then America and the world suddenly caught a virus.
A highly ruthless and committed movement driven by deception and an organized plan was set in motion to win the November 3, 2020 election by any means necessary, including possibly releasing or at a minimum deliberately spreading the COVID-19 virus around the world, starting either in late 2019 or early 2020. After its introduction, a comprehensive campaign was waged to weaponize and promote the public's fear of COVID-19. As the pandemic raged, the parties opposing President Trump ratcheted up the stakes by demonstrating their willingness to sacrifice people's lives and inflicting all kinds of collateral damage on fundamental American institutions and our economy for the primary purpose of political gain.
An American government seemingly in partnership with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was born, inflicting without any compunction the destruction of the lives, health, welfare, and livelihoods of a great number of fellow Americans. The Democrats and their allies waged an operation turning the COVID health crisis on its head by deliberately acting to make conditions worse in order to gain political advantage. The direct result was to cause numerous unnecessary deaths and much suffering.
Several moves were made to place our citizens in harm's way of the COVID virus and its side-effects with little regard for the loss of innocent people's lives in nursing homes. On the streets of our major cities, crime soared while police forces were defunded. We all witnessed on a daily basis Antifa and BLM deployed and acting with impunity to actively intimidate any potential opposition with the use of violence. Open borders policies in addition to support for sanctuary cities caused additional lawlessness.
Cancel culture tactics were used to destroy any person who spoke out or acted in any fashion to criticize the left's response to the crisis. On the health front, a major fight to discredit and deny the use of potential therapeutics to fight the COVID-19 pandemic in our doctors' offices and hospitals caused unnecessary deaths, suffering, and longer-term side-effects of the virus.
As 2020 unfolded, this movement worked to legitimize the need for mail-in voting by advocating measures to lock down America and continue to keep our country virtually closed as we reached November. Their overall aim was to stuff the ballot boxes with enough mail-in ballots for the purpose of changing the electoral count on and around Election Day to ensure a Biden win.
As the illegitimate winner of the 2020 election, Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20. In January, a totalitarian-style regime with many of its political appointees with past or ongoing connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), complete with a figurehead — Joe Biden — was installed in office. He is also compromised with his history of family associations with the CCP. The new regime moved quickly ahead at an accelerated pace, utilizing multiple executive orders and sending a series of radical proposals for approval by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Their objectives are to subvert the American way of life, impose upon America a Marxist agenda, and move our country rapidly from COVID to communism.
Quite alarming is the emerging unholy alliance of various monopolies in Big Government, Big Business, and the media, wielding increased power and seeking to impose all-embracing cradle-to-grave control over American citizens. They seemingly lack any degree of interest in our welfare; our quality of life; or as they continue to demonstrate with their ongoing response to COVID-19, whether we live, suffer, or die.
The demand for increased obedience to the new emerging Marxist-style political order is on the horizon as this movement presses ahead focused on implementing their extreme left-wing agenda while these elites grow increasingly unaccountable for their evil actions. We are witnessing a rapid metamorphosis away from what was traditionally a civil society based on our Constitution and the rule of law and primacy of the individual in American life to something quite different. The government is indeed metastasizing right before our eyes.
So why is Hunter Biden moving from his $25,000 a month Venice digs?
In a pretty intriguing development, Joe Biden's son, Hunter, is moving from his tony Venice, California, digs.
According to the Daily Mail:
Hunter Biden appears to have moved out of the luxury $5.4million home he was renting in Venice Beach, California amid a crime and homelessness wave that has hit the beach-front Los Angeles city.
The son of President Joe Biden was reportedly paying $25,000 a month to rent the three-story property on the Venice canals - just a block away from the beach.
But on Monday, DailyMail.com spotted a moving truck outside the palatial home with furniture being loaded into it. Father-of-five Hunter, 51, moved into the stylish property with wife Melissa and their son Beau at the end of 2020.
The Daily Mail speculates that it's because of the homeless, who've taken over the rich-hippie enclave, reaching even the gates of Hunter's part, describing scenes like this:
Secret Service officers sitting outside of Hunter's home have had to contend with the stench from a small encampment on the other side of a parking lot.
The tent city itself has its dramas just like any other human settlement. Last month a 30-year-old woman from Virginia gave birth in one of the oceanfront camps, the Venice Current reported.
A homeless man was shot and injured on April 28. The gunman calmly walked away. The victim is not cooperating with police. Earlier the same week a tent was deliberately set on fire. One local woman talks of how she was chased by a man with a sword.
The place has been sporting scenes like this:
And the neighbors had welcomed him, not because they like his politics and celebrity status, but because of the Secret Service agents he brings in tow. Supposedly, the agents' presence helps keep the crime and squalor and panhandling associated with the homeless down.
As I wrote here when he moved in:
Hunter Biden's neighbors are happy to see him there, not because of his politics, which is a nothingburger over there, but because of his security.
They like him there because of the quasi police he has tagging around with him as he makes his rounds.
Here's the buried lede from the Daily Mail, taken from pure street reporting. Here are what three of the locals are saying, emphasis mine:
Ricky Otterstrom, senior vice president of Ryker Flint, a commercial real estate brokerage, has lived in Venice Beach for 15 years, tells DailyMail.com: 'I see Hunter Biden's secret service parked out front of his house every morning when I walk to the beach to surf.
'They are there 24/7 which is a plus for us here on the Venice Canals. We need the extra security considering the amount of crime we have. Interestingly the homeless people who were living up along the street he now lives on are gone.
'It could be a coincidence or the city had them removed because of Hunter. I think his presence will help clean up the area and I hope he gets involved with the community. It's a tight community with great people.'
So if the Daily Mail is right, that didn't work. The Secret Service was nothing compared to the homeless onslaught on Venice. The homeless reportedly are rolling in from Los Angeles's Skid Row, which is 19.9 miles away. And in that "community," there are 40,000 of them, with Google itself defining Skid Row as the "homeless capital of the country."
As for Venice, a small tony enclave of 28,000, they've got 2,000 of them at last count, quite possibly more now:, according to KTLA:
The numbers were already increasing before the pandemic: 2020 data showed a 57% increase in the number of homeless people in Venice over the previous year — far greater than the increase in the city as a whole, which was 16.1%.
“It’s the worst I’ve seen in 20 years,” Venice resident John Betz told KTLA.
The laws being applied are such that the city cannot remove them unless it can offer them housing accommodations. With Hunter himself paying a reported $25,000 a month for his housing, and the average per capita income of Venice residents at $94,000 a pop, rest assured, the housing offering would have to be luxury housing.
Now, the original Daily Mail report is speculative as to the homeless takeover is the actual reason why Hunter is moving. Hunter hasn't said anything. And the reasons he's leaving could be a bit more embarrassing.
Did the man of uncertain income but a taste for luxury skip out on his rent? It's true nobody's being evicted as a result of COVID in California, but who knows what the deal is at Hunter's lofty housing levels. The Mail reports his rent at $25,000 a month. Dirt, a celebrity real estate website, reports it at $17,500 a month. Hunter reportedly got a $2 million payout for a book almost nobody bought about his drug-fueled lifestyle, which kind of looked like a bribe. He also got a tony New York gallery showing of his blowpipe art, which also could be some kind of money-laundering. Did some of the money not come through? One wonders, now that Joe Biden is suddenly getting tough on China, one of Hunter's cash cows. Who knows? Someone will have to investigate.
There are other possibilities, too -- did Hunter violate some term of the lease, such as not using drugs and creating a ruckus? Based on New York Post columnist Maureen Callahan's observations, he seems to be still in denial on his "habit.' Could he have been causing problems for the neighbors? With Hunter, let's just say that he's not too far removed from the same world of social disintegration he's purportedly leaving.
According to Los Angeles magazine:
Biden—who recounts spending time “living in $59-a-night Super 8 motels off I-95 while scaring my family even more than myself” in his new addiction memoir, Beautiful Things—has upgraded his accommodations.
According to celebrity real estate news site Dirt, Biden’s 3,800-square-foot rental was purchased by Sweetgreen co-founder Jonathan Neman and Leora Kadisha, daughter of Omninet Capital billionaire Neil Kadisha, for $4.85 million in 2017 and they’ve been trying to rent or sell it for the last few years.
Listed by Halton Pardee + Partners as a “bespoke atelier,” Biden’s villa is a long way from the fly-specked plasterboard and sticky linoleum hideouts of his literary debut, with its marble floors beneath 25-foot acoustic ceilings, combined kitchen and dining space—where the utilitarian elements are hidden behind fine wooden cabinets—and canal views from an attached balcony.
Another clue is where he's taking his gypsy camp next. Is it to fancier digs, onward and upward, as his Venice move from the Hollywood Hills (rent there only $12,000 a month) late last year, or else is it a red-state haven from leftist crime and taxes, as normal Californians are doing? Is it a gated community for the superrich where tabloid reporters can't shout questions to him and bums can't spare change him or wave knives? It probably makes a difference. With old pop president, it's quite possible his "earnings" have gone up, so where he goes will probably tell us the most about why he's doing it.
In any case, Hunter's gone, the Secret Service detail is gone, and now the residents of Venice have one less measure of protection as the homeless continue to roll in. If the homeless were what drove Hunter out, it signals that the rich have their privileges and don't put up with leftist squalor the way ordinary rich leftists do. Bidens know how to take care of their own, so Venice is out.
Image: Screen shot from video by Peter Santenello, posted on shareable YouTube.
Is Kamala the best feminism can do?
One hundred years after women attained suffrage, the current political female zenith is someone who nervously cackles when she speaks on any topic, and is reticent to visit the very border she is charged with overseeing as a result of Biden's deliberate illegal immigration open arms policy. There were only two criteria for a Democrat vice presidential candidate in 2020: female and a minority. Of all the potential options, Democrats decided on an unpopular failed presidential candidate, whose time as a California attorney general was marked with abject racism against Black men who committed the "heinous" crime of smoking marijuana. No matter — she fit the identity politics the left now regards as qualifications for every possible position.
Prior to Kamala, the darling of the left was, and in many ways still is, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her greatest contribution to the political landscape was convincing the Democrat establishment to take seriously a nonsensical, prohibitively expensive "Green New Deal." The fact that the least accomplished member of Congress had that much pull on the left's platform speaks to the party's detachment from actual Americans' priorities. AOC's insistent socialist ideology helped cost Speaker Pelosi a sizable advantage in the congressional races this past election cycle. But who can forget Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's Oscar-worthy performance at the southern border, when she shed crocodile tears for the detained migrant children? She is now absent at the same border, where even more migrant children are held now that Biden is in the White House.
Joining the likes of AOC are a few other members of the "Squad": Reps. Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Omar (D-Minn.). The former just made ripping headlines by deriding and emphatically calling to defund all police officers. The latter committed immigration fraud to enter the U.S. and made fervent anti-Semitic quips. Both women have been caught palling around with members of terrorist groups: Rashida Tlaib with Hezb'allah affiliates and Ilhan Omar with Muslim Brotherhood representatives. If the entry bar for Democrat leadership is this low, that is a sad state of affairs for a political party that promotes "progressive" ideals. Since when are anti-Semitism and attacking law enforcement proud accomplishments?
Where is the future of Democrat female leadership headed? Hillary Clinton was not vastly likeable by the American people. Instead of building a platform for future female leadership in her party after her 2016 presidential loss, Mrs. Clinton spent four years on a whining and blame tour. During the 2020 Democrat primaries, Former rep. Tulsi Gabbard shone bright during the debates, but as a moderate, she was pushed aside by the DNC. The Arizona senior senator, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), has been in office only since 2019, but she has made major waves by presenting herself as a moderate and thus attracting independents. Sadly, Sen. Sinema is not "woke" enough and not the correct skin color for her now socialist-leaning political party.
Republican women lead not with color or creed, but with actual accomplishments: from Ronna McDaniel, who, as head of the RNC, ushered in a win for President Trump in 2016 to Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has successfully pivoted from the Republican party of yore to today's mostly Patriot base. And who can forget the Trump women? Ivanka Trump spearheaded women in the workforce initiatives, lobbied for expanded parental leave, and was heavily involved in investing in underserved female-led small businesses abroad. Lara Trump's campaign trajectory spanned from general assistance in 2016 to campaign communications manager in 2020. Lara is now being mentioned as a potential North Carolina gubernatorial candidate.
A daughter of two immigrants from communist countries, Rep. Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), a former N.Y. State Assembly member, handily won her seat against Rep. Max Rose and is now a powerful voice in Congress representing New York interests while pushing back against socialism. A record number of Republican women were elected in the previous election, all thanks to Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). As one of the youngest members of Congress, Ms. Stefanik not only was an integral part of former President Trump's unconstitutional impeachment trial attempt, but also, through her E-PAC, spearheaded recruiting Republican women to run for congressional seats. Thanks to her powerful efforts, Rep. Stefanik is currently the House GOP Conference chair.
The list of impressive Republican female leaders is not complete without mentioning Candace Owens, a former Democrat, who revolutionized the conversation around Black America and the Republican Party. Americans of all colors look at her as an inspiration and with her quick wit and passion; many would welcome her on a future presidential ticket.
Democrats may have the numbers — a great many more women in their ranks, but only the most extreme are being elevated to the national stage. With all the "progress," an old, cognitively challenged man was deemed more acceptable than any Democrat woman. The Republican Party will produce the first U.S. female president. She will be elected based on merit, and not due to the color of her skin or to fill any other woke-oriented boxes.
Laureen Lipsky is the Co-founder & CEO of Taking Back the Narrative, a Zionist education initiative, and is also a Republican strategist. Her political writing has been featured in The Federalist, American Thinker, Israel Hayom, Washington Examiner, and JNS. She recently wrote an exclusive piece, "The semantics of anti-Semitism," for The Center for Security Policy.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
BLM Founder Patrisse Cullors, Marxist Abolitionist
She doesn’t want to just defund the police — she wants to abolish them.
Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors has been in the news a lot lately because of controversy over her income and financial dealings, including recent purchases of several new homes. Cullors lashed out at these criticisms by protesting, “The fact that the right-wing media is trying to create hysteria around my spending is, frankly, racist and sexist.”
The fact is that Cullors’ own organization has demanded answers. Hawk Newsome, head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, called for “an independent investigation” of Cullors. “If you go around calling yourself a socialist, you have to ask how much of her own personal money is going to charitable causes,” says Newsome. “It’s really sad because it makes people doubt the validity of the movement and overlook the fact that it’s the people that carry this movement.… We need black firms and black accountants to go in there and find out where the money is going.”
But another particularly striking Cullors revelation of late has gotten almost no publicity. It was flagged for me by Mike Gonzalez, author of an upcoming major new book on BLM. It’s a video by Cullors titled, “What Is Abolition And Am I An Abolitionist?” Posted on her personal YouTube channel, it needs to be widely watched.
In that video, Cullors repeatedly calls herself an “abolitionist.” She talks about her “abolitionist journey” and the “abolitionist future we deserve.” She announces that she’s writing a book titled An Abolitionist Handbook.
Cullors applies her abolitionist goals to police — and not just police but even prisons and jails. She states flatly, “Abolition is the getting rid of police, prisons and jails, surveillance, and courts.”
Yes, the abolition of police, prisons, jails, surveillance, and courts — all part of what Cullors calls the “prison industrial complex.” As many of us have noted, she emphasizes that BLM’s “defund” movement is about literal abolition. That is, not just defunding the police, but abolishing the police. Plus prisons and jails, and now surveillance and courts, too.
In the video, Cullors points to (as she often does) her mentor Angela Davis, whom she hails as a fellow abolitionist, including of prisons. Davis, of course, is America’s best-known female Marxist. In Moscow in 1979, the Soviets (in a hall of entirely white folks) awarded her their prestigious Lenin Prize. Cullors’ memoir opens with a foreword by Davis.
It’s important to pause here to understand something crucial that helps make sense of where Cullors is coming from on this “abolition” theme.
Cullors, of course, is a proud Marxist (see my American Spectator piece “The Politics of Patrisse Cullors”). She describes her “ideological frame” as that of a “trained Marxist organizer” who is “super-versed on ideological theories.” In interviews and in her memoirs, she speaks of her intensive study reading Marx, Lenin, Mao, and other leading Marxists. “We spent the year reading, anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao, learning all types of global critical theory,” she said in an April 2018 interview.
Those of us who have repeatedly underscored these significant facts have done so for good reason, namely that when Cullors tells us this about herself, she’s telling us something very instructive. This is her philosophy and her worldview. And utterly essential to the Marxist philosophy and worldview is the notion of abolition.
Karl Marx (and Marxism) was all about abolition. The word is omnipresent throughout his writings. As noted by Marx biographer Robert Payne, the word “abolition” seems to practically jump off every page of the Communist Manifesto. “And after he has ‘abolished’ property, family, and nations, and all existing societies, Marx shows little interest in creating a new society on the ruins of the old,” observed Payne. “The Communist Manifesto was the gauntlet he threw at the world.”
It was indeed. Go online to various writings of Marx and do a search on words like “abolish” and “abolition,” as well as “criticize” and “criticism.” You’ll be struck immediately.
The goal of the Marxist project was one of fundamental transformation, of pursuing permanent revolution and unrestrained criticism of everything — nothing less than what Karl Marx called “the ruthless criticism of all that exists.” Marx in his essay declaring religion “the opium of the people” said that “the criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism.” In that infamous essay, he used the word “criticism” 29 times.
Marx’s ideas were utterly radical, or (as Marx openly conceded) “contrary to the nature of things.” Above all, Marx in the Manifesto acknowledged that communism seeks to “abolish the present state of things.”
Think about that one: “abolish the present state of things.” Read it again. Say it out loud. What could be more radical, more revolutionary?
For those think that Marxism was about mere markets and wealth, chew that one over.
Marx in the Manifesto stated that communists “openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” Note these words: “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” “All” meant “all.” He and Friedrich Engels closed the Manifesto with this: “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.”
Quite chillingly, Marx, who wrote about the devil, had a favorite quote from the Mephistopheles (i.e., devil/demon) character in Goethe’s Faust, “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”
Again, chew that over: “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”
That is reckless and irresponsible — as reckless and irresponsible as calling for the abolition of police, prisons, jails, surveillance, and courts.
Above all, Karl Marx, like Patrisse Cullors, was an abolitionist.
Marx and Engels in the Manifesto targeted everything from property to the family to faith. “Abolition of the family!” they wrote with an exclamation. “Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the communists.” They noted that “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.”
God has long been a special target for these revolutionaries. To quote Marx’s socialist buddy Mikhail Bakunin from his signature book God and the State: “If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.”
Yes, you read that right: “If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.”
Marx envisioned an apocalyptic revolution leading to the abolition of capitalism, classes, and the state itself. In the process, even democracy (temporary exploited) would be abolished.
Reading all of this closely, of course, was Vladimir Lenin, the totalitarian despot and mass killer that Patrisse Cullors read closely. In his most revealing work, The State and Revolution, Lenin, in his chapter “The Transition from Capitalism to Communism,” quoted Marx and Engels: “the bourgeois state does not ‘wither away,’ but is ‘abolished’ by the proletariat in the course of the revolution.”
That wasn’t the only thing that Lenin and the Bolsheviks sought to abolish. Consider Lenin’s landmark October 2, 1920, speech to the Russian Young Communist League, in which Lenin instructed the 600 assembled delegates in how to “accomplish the task of destroying the foundations of the old.” Lenin said of Marx: “He critically reshaped everything that had been created by human society, without ignoring a single detail. He reconsidered, subjected to criticism, and verified on the working-class movement everything that human thinking had created.” Everything, everything. Among them, the “old schools” would need to be abolished. “The old schools produced servants needed by the capitalists,” sniffed Lenin. “We must therefore abolish them.”
The new “aim,” Lenin told young communists, was simple: “learn communism.” He told the youth, “You have to build up a communist society,” and “every young man and woman” must proceed in that task without exception. “You must train yourselves to be communists.” As for “the old society,” said Lenin, “We had to destroy all that, and overthrow them.” This meant “overthrowing the tsar, overthrowing the capitalists, and abolishing the capitalist class.”
Abolish, abolish, abolish. Lenin, too, was an abolitionist. Communism required a constant process of abolition.
In short, the notion of abolition dominates Marxist thoughts and writings. Marxists are abolitionists. And, not surprisingly, so is Patrisse Cullors, as she tells us in this new video and upcoming book.
So, when you hear Patrisse Cullors, founder of BLM, talking about “abolishing the police” — and, more so, “getting rid of” prisons and jails and surveillance and courts—and when you hear her calling herself a trained and studied and committed Marxist, you need to understand that the Marxism is not unrelated. For those liberals who shrug off the fact that Cullors is a Marxist, well, you have a lot to learn.
And above all, most disturbing is what this says about the destructive roots of the “abolish the police” movement that Patrisse Cullors and BLM have inspired. The Marxism matters.
* * *
Google Diversity Chief Offers Private Apology for Anti-Semitic Remarks As Company Remains Silent
Google flack: 'I am not offering this as an official statement from Google, nor am I speaking as an authorized Google spokesperson'
Google’s global diversity leader apologized privately on Tuesday night to the company's Jewish employees for a blog post in which he argued that Jews have an "insatiable appetite for war," but the tech company remains mum on the controversy.
Kamau Bobb, Google’s global lead for diversity strategy and research, sent an email apology to a listserv of Jewish Google employees—known within the company as the "Jewglers"—and said his "hurtful" statements about Jews were part of a ham-handed attempt to criticize Israel’s military action.
A consultant for Google passed along the note to the Free Beacon with a set of strict instructions regarding its use: "Please also note that while I work with Google, I am not offering this as an official statement from Google, nor am I speaking as an authorized Google spokesperson," the consultant said in an email. Google itself has yet to offer any official comment on the dust-up, nor has the tech giant, whose CEO Sundar Pinchai issued a lengthy note last summer detailing his commitment to "racial equity," made any public remarks on the recent spate of anti-Semitic attacks.
Bobb told Google's Jewish employees that his anti-Semitic tirade was "intended as a critique of particular military action" and apologized for "crudely" characterizing all Jews.
"[T]he world is leaving us all feeling unsafe and unsettled right now. i certainly don't want to contribute to that," he added. "[N]one of this changes or excuses the words i wrote – but i am deeply sorry for them."
Bobb's 2007 blog post, titled "If I were a Jew," was reported by the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday. In the post, Bobb offered his thoughts on how Jews should view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself," he wrote in the Nov. 30, 2007, post on his personal blog, where he was still actively publishing as recently as April 2021. "Self defense is undoubtedly an instinct, but I would be afraid of my increasing insensitivity to the suffering [of] others."
Jewish organizations have slammed the post as anti-Semitic and called on Google to address the controversy.
".@Google must fire this #antisemite #KamauBobb," wrote the Simon Wiesenthal Center, one of the most prominent anti-Semitism watchdog groups, on Twitter.
Michael Dickson, executive director of Stand With Us, a group that fights anti-Semitism, wrote on Twitter: "Did @Google Google [Bobb]? He’s not fit for this post."
In Bobb’s email to Google employees on Tuesday night, he said his blog "is a place for my personal reflection on a number of complex issues spanning years."
No comments:
Post a Comment