SEAN SPICER'S DEPARTURE MEANS TRUMP IS ROLLING UP HIS SLEEVES TO MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN (WH SHAKE-UP/ WHO IS ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI?)

SEAN SPICER'S DEPARTURE MEANS TRUMP IS ROLLING UP HIS SLEEVES TO MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN (WHITE HOUSE SHAKE - UP):

WHO IS ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI?

TRUMP IS PREPARING TO ACHIEVE ALL HIS AGENDA OBJECTIVES WITH CONGRESS' HELP.

SPICER WILL MOST LIKELY REMAIN ONBOARD BEHIND THE SCENE BECAUSE HE IS STILL VALUABLE TO THE TEAM.

WHO WILL REPLACE SPICER??

IT WILL NEED TO BE SOMEONE TOUGH AS NAILS, SHARP WITH A CALM STEELY DEMEANOR.



Sources: Fox News, Washington Times, Youtube


***** Shake-up underway: Sean Spicer leaving White House podium for behind-the-scenes role


White House press secretary Sean Spicer plans to move out of his role as the president’s daily spokesman, while President Trump is souring on often-hostile televised media briefings and is limiting traditional press access in favor of taking his message to audiences directly.

After only five months on the job, the embattled Mr. Spicer is searching for a replacement to take his place at the podium to conduct press briefings and allow him to shift into a less visible role managing White House communications.

Mr. Spicer, whose combative exchanges with reporters at daily briefings have become legendary, has been easing out of the daily briefing job for a month. He has increasingly shared that duty with White House deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders.

But asked about his reported move, Mr. Spicer said from the press briefing podium Tuesday, “I’m right here.”

“It’s no secret we’ve had a couple vacancies, including our communications director, who’s [been] gone for a while,” Mr. Spicer said, referring to Michael Dubke, who resigned in late May after only three months on the job. “We’ve been meeting with potential people that may be of service to this administration. I don’t think that should come as any surprise.”

“And when we have an announcement of a personnel nature, we’ll let you know,” he said.

It was his first televised press briefing in eight days.

However long Mr. Spicer remains in the high-pressure job, Tuesday was his 152nd day as press secretary.

Only three White House press secretaries since 1960 have worked shorter stints: Jerald terHorst served 31 days under President Gerald Ford, George Stephanopolous served 138 days as de facto press secretary at the start of the Clinton administration, and Jake Siewert held the post for 112 days in the final months of the Clinton presidency.

Mr. Spicer has been carrying out dual roles as communications director and press secretary before Mr. Dubke was hired in February — and again since he quit. He interviewed candidates to replace him at the podium, including conservative radio host Laura Ingraham and Daily Mail editor David Martosko, Politico reported Monday.

Beyond Mr. Spicer’s changing role, there are other signs that Mr. Trump and his aides are fed up with coverage by the White House press corps that is heavy on questions about Russia and the special counsel investigation into possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Mr. Spicer and Ms. Sanders have scaled back the frequency and duration of televised press briefings.

After Mr. Trump openly suggested last month that it would be a “good idea” to stop press briefings altogether, the White House also has shifted its media strategy in recent weeks to include Cabinet secretaries who limit questions to topics such as reform of the Veterans Affairs Department.

“The White House press briefing on-camera has worn out its welcome with the Trump White House,” said a Republican ally familiar with the thinking in the West Wing. “Trump understands that he’s not getting the value out of it.

Because of the crises and the inability of the administration to get their message out through the televised briefings, they decided to change it up in a variety of ways.”

This Republican emphasized that the White House is “not abandoning the on-camera briefings.”

“But they are getting away from the addiction that cable news TV had to feeding its audience with ‘gotcha’ questions,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It’s not working for the Trump folks. Why put his press secretary out there to take the arrows when it’s unnecessary?”

One White House reporter sympathized with the White House’s move to limit televised briefings, saying “there’s some rationale for it on their part” to want to avoid “stumbling or friction in the briefing room.”

The problem for the media, this reporter said, is that journalists get hit with a “double-whammy” when there are fewer briefings and the president also doesn’t take questions from reporters at a given event.

To get his message out, Mr. Trump is continuing to communicate with his millions of followers on Twitter and holding occasional campaign-style rallies in battleground states.

On Wednesday he will travel to Iowa to visit a community college and hold a rally.

Ms. Sanders rejected the suggestion that the White House is restricting press access, saying the White House is making a more concerted effort not to distract from Mr. Trump’s message when he holds public events.

On Monday, when Mr. Spicer chose to give a 32-minute briefing off camera, Mr. Trump had a routine schedule that included an Oval Office meeting with the president of Panama and a session with CEOs of technology companies.

“It’s less about limiting [press access] and more about highlighting these events,” she said. “No one is a better advocate of the president’s policies and agenda than the president himself.”

The curtailed press access is rankling the White House press corps, particularly TV journalists who are chafing at the infrequency of televised briefings. Jim Acosta, a veteran White House reporter for CNN, blasted the Trump communications team on air this week, referring to Mr. Spicer as “getting to a point … where he’s just kind of useless.”

“If he can’t come out and answer the questions, and they’re just not going to do this on camera or audio, why are we even having these briefings or these gaggles in the first place?” Mr. Acosta said.

On Twitter Mr. Acosta said, “Make no mistake about what we are all witnessing. This is a WH that is stonewalling the news media.”

The president infamously referred to Mr. Acosta and CNN as “fake news” at a press conference during the transition when Mr. Acosta tried to ask a question about Russia.

In the first weeks of his presidency, Mr. Trump showed an eagerness to engage with the media, sometimes inviting reporters to observe his meetings at the White House for 30 minutes or more, far longer than the usual “photo-ops” held by his predecessor, Barack Obama.

But those lengthy sessions of presidential press access are rare now. And as reporters ask repeated questions about Russia or the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey, the number of televised briefings has dwindled.

Asked again Tuesday whether Mr. Trump believes that Russia interfered in the presidential election last year, Mr. Spicer replied, “I have not sat down and talked to him about that specific thing. Obviously, we’ve been dealing with a lot of other issues today.”

Mr. Acosta, whom Mr. Spicer didn’t call on for a question Tuesday, called out, “Didn’t he say it was ‘fake news,’ Sean?”

White House aides say Mr. Trump has granted the press generous access, conducting many individual interviews with various media outlets.

Mr. Spicer said the daily press briefing is merely “one aspect of what we do.”

“We’re here really early in the morning and really late at night, available to [answer] all of your questions, whether it’s email or in person,” he told reporters.

YOUTUBE & GOOGLE REMOVES CENSORSHIP OF SOME LGBT CONTENT AMID BACKLASH

YOUTUBE & GOOGLE REMOVES CENSORSHIP OF SOME LGBT CONTENT FOLLOWING BACKLASH:

HOWEVER CONTINUES TO CENSOR CONTENT OPPOSING OBAMA & SOROS' AGENDA.

IS OBAMA STILL PRESIDENT OF THE US?


Sources: Endgaget, The Guardian, YouTube


****** YouTube pledges to 'fix' Restricted Mode's LGBTQ+ censorship

The company says that filtering out the videos along with mature content was a 'mistake.'

After a post by Rowan Ellis, many people recently noticed that YouTube's Restricted Mode filter consistently blocked videos containing LGBTQ+ related content. Despite tweeting that it is supposed to only filter mature content, users tracked down selections like this Tegan & Sara video that were blocked despite being incredibly tame.

In a blog post tonight, YouTube VP Johanna Wright stated that "we must and will do a better job."

The exec admitted that "...this feature isn't working the way it should.

We're sorry and we're going to fix it." While claiming that only 1.5 percent of traffic comes with Restricted Mode turned on, Wright also said that as a matter of principle, access to "important content and different points of view" should be allowed. YouTube has already manually unblocked a few videos where the system made "mistakes in understanding context and nuances," but she also writes that it will take time to roll out more changes.

HILLARY'S 2016 DNC SPEECH REVEALS HER AGENDA (COMPETENT LEADERSHIP)

Sources: CNN, Bretibart, Youtube

HILLARY'S 2016 DNC SPEECH REVEALS COMPETENT LEADERSHIP:

HILLARY'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH WASN'T BELLS & WHISTLES BUT IT MADE ME BELIEVE IN HER AGAIN.

***** How Hillary Clinton defined her historic moment

Story highlights

• Clinton offered a stark choice for the nation
• Clinton on Trump: 'A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons'

As Hillary Clinton playfully batted away an avalanche of balloons Thursday night, she appeared proud, happy and reconciled to her historic moment.

She had accepted the Democratic nomination with "humility, determination and boundless confidence in America's promise," taking her place as the first woman to lead a major presidential ticket on a night pulsating with emotion.

Her speech lacked the poetic sweep of the President Barack Obama's address Wednesday, but it was in keeping with someone who presents herself as a practical, dogged, policy-oriented striver who gets knocked down and then gets straight back up. 

The choice she defined for the nation in 2016 is stark: a "moment of reckoning."

The former first lady, senator and secretary of state set her sights on the White House and blasted Republican nominee Donald Trump, portraying him as a small man who got rich by stifling workers, who peddles fear and who lacks the temperament to be commander-in-chief.

She quickly reached out to disappointed Bernie Sanders voters at the end of a convention dedicated to healing the deep rift from their contentious primary race. With the Vermont senator watching from the arena, Clinton told his supporters: "I've heard you. Your cause is our cause."

President Barack Obama congratulated Clinton at the conclusion of her speech.

"Great speech," he tweeted. "She's tested. She's ready. She never quits. That's why Hillary should be our next @POTUS. (She'll get the Twitter handle, too)"

In the audience, Clinton supporters were moved to tears, including 16-year-old Victoria Sanchez.

"This is more than I ever could have imagined," she said. "I know that I have just lived history and I can follow in her footsteps. This changes my entire life." 

After a lifetime in a polarizing political spotlight that has left her with plenty of enemies and dented approval ratings, Clinton set out to prove to voters that she could be trusted. 

Dedicated fighter

She avoided any show of contrition for controversies like the one over the private email server she used for official business while secretary of state that has again provoked questions about her honesty and integrity among many voters. 

Instead, she presented herself as a dedicated and indefatigable fighter for children, the disabled, blue-collar workers, women and the poor, while promising a backbone of steel as she vowed to take out ISIS.

Throughout a speech punctuated by roars of applause and watched by a misty-eyed former President Bill Clinton, she repeatedly returned to attack Trump -- who laid out a much darker vision of America's future at his own convention last week.

"Don't let anyone tell you we don't have what it takes," Clinton said. "Most of all, don't believe anyone who says: 'I alone can fix it,' " a reference to a part of Trump's acceptance speech last week.

"Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart," she said. "Bonds of trust and respect are fraying. It truly is up to us. We have to decide whether we all will work together so we all can rise together."

Turning to national security, Clinton warned that a president has to make decisions about war and peace, life and death.

"Ask yourself: Do you really think Donald Trump has the temperament to be commander in chief? Donald Trump can't even handle the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign." 

She added: "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons."

Trump hit back -- with a series of tweets.

"No one has worse judgement than Hillary Clinton - corruption and devastation follows her wherever she goes," he wrote. "Hillary's wars in the Middle East have unleashed destruction, terrorism and ISIS across the world."

Stephen Miller, Trump's senior policy adviser, blasted Clinton's speech as an "insulting collection of cliches and recycled rhetoric."

"She spent the evening talking down to the American people she's looked down on her whole life," he said.

Persuading Americans

But Clinton is working to persuade Americans that she understands their frustration and economic anxiety at a time when many of them still do not trust her. Her prime-time televised address is especially crucial because she has not so far generated the kind of passion among her supporters that Trump has garnered from his backers by channeling anger about the direction of the country.

She spoke of her wholesome middle class upbringing and said her family were builders of the American dream and not people "with their name on big buildings" -- another dig at Trump. 

Clinton took pains to reach out to white blue-collar workers, many of whom have been left behind by economic globalization and technological change and have been attracted by Trump's anti-elite message.

"Right now, an awful lot of people feel there is less and less respect for the work they do," she said, and admitted that politicians had not done a good enough job of showing they understand.

One of the major themes of the Democratic convention has been an attempt to reintroduce one of the most famous women in the world to the American people. And she admitted that if many Americans knew little of the woman behind the image, it may be her fault.

"The truth is, through all these years of public service, the 'service' part has always come easier to me than the 'public' part," Clinton said.

Clinton also indicated she understood the need to reassure Americans shaken by a violent summer at home and an epidemic of terror attacks in Europe and the US. While Clinton and Obama have argued that ISIS is on the run, the economy is on the upswing, and Americans are safer than they have been in years, they are struggling to counter the dark image that Trump has painted of a nation in decline, chaos and disorder that resonates with many voters.

National security threats

Amid charges by Republicans that the optimistic mood of the Democratic convention has ignored the threat from ISIS and terrorism, Clinton was specific about the global national security threats that loom -- though she didn't use the term Islamic terrorism as the GOP repeatedly has called for.

"Anyone reading the news can see the threats and turbulence we face," Clinton said. "From Baghdad to Kabul, to Nice to Paris and Brussels. From San Bernardino to Orlando, we're dealing with determined enemies who must be defeated. No wonder people are anxious and looking for reassurance -- looking for steady leadership."

Following a spate of killings by police of African-American youths and massacres of police officers, Clinton laid out a firm stance on gun control, vowing that America should not have a president in the "pocket" of the gun lobby.

"I'm not here to take away your guns," she said. "I just don't want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place."

Ahead of her speech, retired four star General John Allen, the former head of US and international forces in Afghanistan, delivered a powerful address in which he told delegates that Clinton would be "exactly the Commander-in-Chief America needs." 

'America will continue to lead'

"With her as our Commander-in-Chief, America will continue to lead this volatile world. We will oppose and resist tyranny and we will defeat evil. America will defeat ISIS and protect the homeland," said Allen, who was surrounded on stage by 37 military veterans.

Clinton delivered her speech at the end of a largely successful convention, which helped mend the party after her divisive primary against Sanders. The mood on the convention floor Thursday was festive and upbeat — in contrast to the discontent that festered on the opening night Monday when die-hard Sanders fans loudly make their disappointment known.

Samantha Herring of Walton County, Florida, was a Sanders supporter but has decided this week to work hard to elect Clinton.

"Is it hard? Yes. I loved Bernie, but that's why I have to vote for Hillary," said Herring, who made signs reading "He has my heart, but she has my vote."

BREXIT VOTE STOPS THE NEW WORLD ORDER (TEMPORARILY)

BREXIT VOTE STOPS THE NEW WORLD ORDER (TEMPORARILY)

THE ELITE LOSE THEIR GRIP ON COMMON CITIZENS.

IS IT TOO LATE TO RESTORE THE MIDDLE CLASS?

Sources: Alex Jones, The Nation, Breitbart, USA Today, Youtube

Video Highlights:

The European Union was formed February 7, 1992 when 12 European countries signed a Treaty to become one and submit to the Windsor family.

All 12 countries agreed to convert their original Currency to the EURO Monetary system, which places more money into the hands of Elite, already Wealthy citizens.

After the European Union was formed, the Middle Class was basically wiped out and Poor citizens became more financially destitute.

After the European Union was formed, extreme TAXATION disguised as REGULATIONS increased.

Leaders of the European Union were not chosen by common people, instead they were appointed by other Elite leaders from within the European Union.

Only the Elite benefitted from such an Oppressive system.

Soon the true purpose for establishing a European Union became quite apparent, thus the New World Order agenda was revealed.

Despite these facts,  pressure from the common people of Britain (UK) to allow a public vote to exit the European Union became too strong for its Elite leaders to ignore.

Fast forward to June 24, 2016.

The common people of Britain (UK) were finally allowed to visit the Polls to cast a ballot agreeing to remain or leave the European Union.

Via a BREXIT vote of 51-48% the voice of Britain's common people was heard around the world as they regained their INDEPENDENCE.

So did this BREXIT vote cancel out the New World Order agenda?

Only temporarily.

**** Relax! Brexit isn’t the end of new world order: 

There's no denying it: this past week's vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is very big news.

 It reveals huge frustration among British voters with economic globalization, immigration, national self-identity and the whole "European project." And there will be costs. 

Trade between Britain and continental Europe could be notched back a bit as tariffs return; 

London's role as a financial capital of the world may be compromised somewhat.

But after acknowledging such real, if finite, concerns, we should take a deep breath and relax. 

Silly headlines like that appearing in the June 25 NY Times about a looming end to the post-World War II order are not only premature, they are basically wrong.

Start with that order. 

The United States and United Kingdom worked together to win World War II, of course, without the UK being part of any European Union or even a European Community. 

(The European Community or EC was organized for European economic cooperation that began in the 1970s; it did not create open borders within Europe the way the European Union later did.) 

Indeed, we collectively won the Cold War without the European Union, which was not created until 1993. 

Western Europe had already re-established itself as a modern economic powerhouse before the creation of the EU, recovering spectacularly from the unbelievable wartime devastation that occurred in the 1940s. 

The United States helped a great deal with that process through the Marshall Planand other mechanisms—none of which depended on EU bureaucracies or open borders.

Look at it another way. The UK is an important country. But with 1% of world population and 3% of world GDP, it does not drive the modern global economy. The stakes here are real, but again, they are finite.

Moreover, the tanking of shocked stock markets right after the Brexit vote should not confuse us about the state of economic fundamentals. 

To be sure, lots of people will have to work hard to negotiate new terms for Britain's future association with Europe. 

But the UK and the European Union's remaining 27 members will have powerful incentives to keep trade relatively free and financial markets quite integrated. 

Think of the models of Norway and Switzerland—also not EU members, but important and interlocking parts of the continent's economy. 

The UK is likely to wind up with a similar role in Europe's future.

Some people will worry about whether Brexit will weaken the EU's ability to stand up to Vladimir Putin as he causes unrest in eastern Europe. 

That is doubtful. The EU just last week renewed sanctions, with Germany and other continental countries leading the way. 

Britain's voice on such matters is important, but no more so than Germany's or France's, and it can remain important on the outside.

What about the US-UK "special relationship?"

Again, I do not anticipate major problems. 

It is called a special relationship for a reason. 

We have been close allies for a century or more, and much of our best work together has happened bilaterally rather than through any EU, EC, UN, or other such multilateral mechanisms. 

That can continue.

The UK will remain in NATO, moreover — and NATO is, by far, the more important organization for global security, because it includes the United States while the European Union naturally does not.

 It is NATO, for example, that intervened in the Balkans warsin the 1990s and NATO that leads the Afghanistan mission even today.

 It is NATO that is sending battalions into eastern Europe today to stand up militarily to Putin.

On other issues, Britain has maintained its own prerogatives even while in the EU. 

In the Iran nuclear talks that led to last year's accord, for example, Britain had its own, independent role and voice. 

That won't change for similar situations in the future.

Even if, in coming years, Scotland secedes from the UK in order to rejoin the EU, that will cost the United Kingdom only 8% of its population (even if a higher percent of its castles, Loch Ness monsters, and men in skirts). 

Admittedly, the UK's ability to sustain nuclear forces could be challenged without access to Scottish ports—but those nuclear weapons, with all due respect to British friends, aren't really crucial pillars of today's global order in any event. 

Maybe Scottish secession would even persuade Britain to stop maintaining an unnecessary and costly nuclear deterrent.

To be sure, one can always find some hypothetical scenario in which having the UK outside of the European Union complicates life.

 To be sure, pulling out will make life temporarily harder for British and European diplomats and bureaucrats as they fashion a revised European order. 

And most of all, it is true that we need to take seriously the skepticism about globalization that UK voters have just voiced in a powerful and emphatic way. 

But the postwar global order is hardly falling apart.

LGBT'S MOVEMENT BLACK HATEFUL FEMINISTS (CHARLOTTE)

LGBT'S MOVEMENT BLACK HATEFUL FEMINISTS: (CHARLOTTE)

NOT ALL BLACK FEMINISTS USE HATE & RETALIATION TO ADVANCE THEIR AGENDA.

What purpose do BLACK Women serve in the FEMINIST Movement?

How EFFECTIVE is the role of BLACK FEMINISTS if they are spreading HATE?

How EFFECTIVE can BLACK FEMINISTS be as LEADERS if they are using their Authority and Power to inflict RETALIATION upon people who disagree with their agenda?

~ As a Black Feminist, I see how the wider movement fails women like my mother

I call myself a Black Feminist and hold that label dearly, but the naming happened after the fact. I was a black feminist from the moment, as a child, I recognized the domestic violence was gendered and somehow seen as acceptable because of this.

When neighbours called the police to our back-to-back terrace in what is now the red light district of Bradford, I would feel anger that my mother's fear of the police and what they stood for took precedence over her own safety.

As a Nigerian immigrant whose abuser had full control of her documentation and the processes through which she had managed to remain in the country, my mother believed that speaking truthfully to the police was not a choice she could make.

As I grew, my childish anger gave way to a recognition that my mother was a Black woman caught in her own particular understanding of what it meant during the 80s and 90s to be Black and a woman in Britain: a place where over half the population agreed that we lived in a racist society; a place where immigration was (and continues to be) seen as a damaging factor in British life; a place so hostile to her presence that a walk home from work resulted in racist abuse so regular that it wasn't worth mentioning.

Through the work of feminists looking at race, class, disability, sexuality and nationality, I came to understand my mother as a person who was, as we all are, constructed by social and cultural forces beyond her control.

My jumbled-up feelings and ideas found full voice in the work of literary and academic black feminists: women like Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, bell hooks, and Kimberlé Crenshaw showed the meaningless of separating sexuality, class, race and gender oppression when they simultaneously affect the lives of Black women.

What a relief it was to discover that in "feminism" you could find a place that collated all the experiences of women like my mother – women who were, and continue to be, routinely ignored by the dominant feminist movement.

Within the media, and indeed the movement, there has been much celebration of our feminist resurgence. Yet our success is being marred by infighting. White, middle-class and young women are often seen as the ones spearheading this new wave of activity.

Their high-profile campaigns – to have women on banknotes, challenge online misogyny and banish Page 3, for example – though necessary and praiseworthy, do not reflect the most pressing needs of the majority of women, black and minority-ethnic women included. The problem is not that these campaigns exist, but that they are given a focus and attention that overshadows other work feminists are engaged with.

Organisations such as Women Asylum Seekers Together, which has groups in London, Liverpool, Leeds, Cardiff and Manchester, are not only meeting to support and empower themselves through their shared experience.

They are also working on challenging gender discrimination within the UK immigration system – a system that can still ask whether a rape victim had adequately resisted her rapist, or whether a trafficked woman had enjoyed her work as a prostitute.

Women from countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo – which the UN calls "the rape capital of the world" – are met by a culture of disbelief that sees them as asylum claimants to be interrogated and caught out rather than as vulnerable and in need of support. This is a feminist issue, too, but the movement is largely silent on the plight of such women.

Or organisations such as Manchester's Lesbian Immigration Support Group, which offers practical help to members with asylum applications based on sexuality. Or the London-based black feminist organisation Imkaan, which is working in partnership with Women's Aid to support and maintain specialist services dealing with violence against women for black and refugee women. In these times of austerity, the ability to save refuges from closure is no small feat and should be celebrated. 

Yet such groups do not make the headlines or gain enough support despite the profound change in lives that they enable.

The majority of women both in the UK and across the globe do not live lives that are negatively impacted by sexism alone. Because of this reality, the black feminist concept of intersectionality, the idea that oppressions criss-cross and compound each other, has been seismic.

Through it black feminists have been able to point out the failures of the wider feminist movement – which lie in its continual failure to capture and reflect the extreme differences in how women live their lives. That we sometimes point this out with a lack of patience has garnered more column inches than the critiques we are making. 

This is saddening but predictable. It is a type of quibbling that enables procrastination in the matter of the difficult work of turning feminism into feminisms – something more representative of our wonderful variety.

It is ironic that even some within the feminist movement, when engaging with criticism from black feminist quarters, use the stereotype of the angry and humourless black woman. At the black feminist meetings I attend we are angry with a lot of things, because – shock horror – we live in a world where racism, sexism and economic inequality abound.

Our meetings are, however, also filled with laughter and a deep love for having a space in which much that is said is empathised with, not minimised, questioned and treated defensively.

I call myself a black feminist because I am unwilling to be silent and complicit.

The Black feminist academic Sara Ahmed puts it well when she writes that "sometimes you can only stand up by standing firm. Sometimes you can only hold on by becoming stubborn".

Emotionally, Black feminism reminds black women that the racism and sexism they experience on a daily basis are not a figment of their individual imaginations but are real and structural.

Critically, black feminism is championing a more nuanced understanding of how oppression and privilege operate.

We, all of us, must understand that at the level of the individual, we can at differing points occupy positions of privilege. I am a black woman from a working-class background. I also have qualifications from elite universities that mean I am able to access a career, friendships and a lifestyle my 18-year-old self would never have imagined. When and where I experience privilege or oppression changes from day to day, hour to hour.

Though women who live in the "real world" – ie outside academia – may not bandy the word intersectionality, it nevertheless speaks to our lives within it. This is not to deny that power can be invested in language and that for some the term is perhaps alienating. It would be great if we had a word already in existence that conveys the complex and complicated nature of oppression. 

We do not.

The language that we currently use serves to compartmentalise inequalities. It won't do. I am less interested in whether feminists choose to use the word or replace it with (no less academic) phrases such as multiple oppressions. What is of greater concern is how we work to empower women whose lives are impacted by a number of inequalities.

Despite prevailing misconceptions, intersectionality is not merely concerned with the academic; it is and always has been about tangible positive change for those who so easily slip through the gaps of popular thinking and attention.

Organisations such as Southall Black Sisters, which are committed to meeting the needs of black and minority-ethnic women, did not exist in my hometown. My mother remained locked in an abusive relationship, living in shame and fear, isolated and helpless. I cannot dare to imagine what difference such a group might have made to her as a young black woman. It is too painful to think of what could have been.

For the feminist movement, it is also best to not repeat the mistakes of the past. It would demonstrate an inexcusable carelessness for the lives of women like my mother who are too often silenced and unheard.

• This article was amended for legal reasons on 9 December

Sources: The Guardian, YouTube

RAHM EMANUEL WHERE WAS YOUR APOLOGY WHEN LAQUAN MCDONALD WAS FIRST MURDERED?

RAHM EMANUEL WHERE WAS YOUR APOLOGY WHEN LAQUAN MCDONALD WAS FIRST MURDERED?

AN APOLOGY IN 2014 WOULD HAVE DERAILED RAHM'S RE-ELECTION CHANCES.

So why didn't Mayor Rahm Emanuel apologize when 17- yr old LAQUAN MCDONALD was first Murdered in 2014 after he was Shot by Chicago Police sixteen times?

If he had apologized back in 2014, Rahm Emanuel would Not have been re-elected.

If Rahm Emanuel RESIGNS as Mayor will his resignation improve the quality of life for Chicago's BLACK voters, or bring Laquan McDonald back from the dead?

NO.

~ Emanuel apologizes for Laquan McDonald police shooting, repeats call for change

Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday apologized to aldermen for the police shooting of Laquan McDonald "that happened on my watch."

"If we're going to fix it, I want you to understand it's my responsibility with you," Emanuel said in a rare speech to the full Chicago City Council. "But if we're also going to begin the healing process, the first step in that journey is my step, and I'm sorry."

Emanuel — who has dismissed his police superintendent, parted ways with the head of the police shooting review agency and dropped opposition to the release of the McDonald shooting video during the last two weeks — framed up the situation as "a defining moment on the issues of crime and policing — and the even larger issues of truth, justice and race."

The address of about 40 minutes, coming during a crucial time of Emanuel's tenure, was more of a political speech designed to assuage Chicagoans than one filled with specific plans that several aldermen called for this week to deal with entrenched problems in the Chicago Police Department.

Those problems were highlighted nationally by the fatal shooting of 17-year-old McDonald, an African-American, by a white police officer, the 13 months it took for video of the incident to be made public by court order and for a murder charge to be brought only shortly before the video's release.

And so the mayor on Wednesday talked about many Chicagoans' lack of trust in police officers, and returned to his oft-discussed argument that there are too many guns on Chicago streets. He reiterated his frequent argument that elected officials and community leaders have a responsibility "to earn back that trust and to change that narrative," and said there's a need for police to build trust with young African-Americans.
Emanuel spoke of the larger challenges as ones shared by people throughout Chicago.

"This time must be different. It will be a bumpy road, make no mistake about it," Emanuel said. "It is a painful process, and it is a long journey because of the issues we need to confront. But we as a city will not hesitate in the pursuit of what is right. We cannot shrink from the challenge any more than we can ignore the wrenching video of a troubled young man, a ward of the state of Illinois, failed by the system, surrounded by the police and gunned down on the streets of Chicago."

Ald. Roderick Sawyer, 6th, said the mayor still has a lot of work to do to regain the city's trust.

"That's the challenge he has, quite honestly, and it's going to be judged by his actions, not his words," Sawyer said moments after the mayor's speech. "So, we hope the ensuing actions will be substantive and will show real meaning to make that connection back with the community so we can establish that trust."

The Rev. Jesse Jackson sat in the front row of the gallery in the City Council chamber to watch Emanuel deliver his speech, which he called "an impassioned address on the extreme duress" of the city.

"The word must become flesh, and we'll know the value of it then," Jackson said of Emanuel's speech. "It must become a practice, and it must happen immediately. We now know police saw the killing of Laquan McDonald and filed a false report. They should be addressed immediately."

Jackson called on the federal government not to limit its Justice Department probe to the Police Department, but also investigate Emanuel's office and Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez's office.

 He said many questions remain about what Emanuel and Alvarez knew and when they knew it.

"Who saw the tape when and delayed the tape for 13 months?" Jackson asked. "When subpoenas are issued to testify under oath, then we'll know who knew what when."

The real test, Jackson said, will be how Emanuel deals with the stringent Fraternal Order of Police contract that limits police discipline.

Aldermen — many of whom have approved hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements for victims of police brutality while demanding little change in how the department operates — had mixed reactions to the mayor's talk.

Ald. Howard Brookins, 21st, a congressional candidate who has long spoken out about police abuse, said he thought Emanuel's speech was "genuine and heartfelt," but that many in the public will be skeptical and he'll have to follow up his words with actions.

"Everybody will be cynical that we're just doing this, or it was just said to get past this particular crisis at this time," Brookins said. "I'm saying that the public will hold us to the standard that 'talk is cheap, let's see what your actions will be.' "
Ald. Will Burns, 4th, a mayoral ally, said Emanuel will have to take real action. "I think that in order for our city to function, for our city not to tear itself apart, the reforms have to happen," Burns said.

Ald. Pat Dowell, 3rd, said "it's going to be a tall order" to make the type of real improvements in policing that Emanuel called for Wednesday. "It's going to take a lot of funding, and given the state of the city, we're going to have to find the resources to do this," she said.
Ald. Leslie Hairston, 5th, a frequent Emanuel critic, said the mayor surprised her by not delivering "just the regular speech" she expected.

"It seemed to be real. It hit me. It hit me. It went straight to the core, and that's what I appreciated about it," Hairston said. "This is something we haven't heard before. It was not window dressing. It talked about some of the core and key things that are problems here in the city of Chicago, and I think that's a very big step."

Emanuel has appointed his own five-person task force to recommend Police Department reforms in response to the McDonald shooting fallout, and the task force is set to announce its findings by the end of March.

In his speech, Emanuel said the panel has already recommended the hiring of a "senior officer for civil rights" at the Police Department to implement the panel's recommendations and those of federal investigators.
As he has in recent days, Emanuel focused much of his talk on the broader implications of McDonald's death after being shot 16 times by police Officer Jason Van Dyke in October 2014.

Nothing, nothing can excuse what happened to Laquan McDonald," Emanuel said. "Our city has been down this road before. We have seen fatal police shootings and other forms of abuse and corruption. We took corrective measures, but those measures never measured up to the challenge."

The mayor was at his most emotional when he discussed the need for respect between officers and young black men, and when he mentioned parents who have lost children to violence and people who get out of jail with few options.

He talked about a recent lunch with young men who had been in trouble with the law.

"So I asked them, tell me the one thing I need to know," Emanuel said. "And rather than tell me something, one young man asked me a simple question that gets to the core of what we're talking about. He said, 'Do you think the police would ever treat you the way they treat me?' And the answer is no, and that's wrong," Emanuel said, his voice rising before he began to pound the lectern. "And that has to change in this city. That has to come to an end and end now. No citizen is a second-class citizen in the city of Chicago. If my children are treated one way, every child is treated the same way."

Aldermen applauded the mayor when he noted that double standard.
As he often does when talking about the parents of gunshot victims, the mayor choked up as he recounted "their extraordinary grace."

And without giving specifics, he called for residents to have a forum to talk about their problems with the police. "We have to have better oversight of our police officers to make sure they are living up to the high standards we expect of them, and we also have to create a place for the community to vent their understandable feelings and fears about the police without it devolving into acrimony and finger-pointing," he said.

Emanuel said the next police superintendent who will replace the recently fired Garry McCarthy will need "to address the problems at the very heart of the policing profession."

"This problem is sometimes referred to as the Thin Blue Line," Emanuel said. "Other times it is referred to as the code of silence. It is the tendency to ignore, deny or in some cases cover up the bad actions of a colleague or colleagues.

No officer should be allowed to behave as if they are above the law just because they are responsible for upholding the law. Permitting and protecting even the smallest acts of abuse by a tiny fraction of our officers leads to a culture where extreme acts of abuse are more likely, just like what happened to Laquan McDonald."

Emanuel, who once tried to settle a police brutality lawsuit that found a code of silence existed in the Police Department, said Tuesday evening on "Chicago Tonight" that such a code exists. "The short answer is yes," Emanuel said.

Access to City Council chambers was limited Wednesday. The administration said there was a list of those who were to be allowed in but later said some members of the public were admitted.

Protesters chanted outside council chambers after the speech, and more protests were unfolding against Emanuel later Wednesday.

Sources: Chicago Tribune, YouTube

ALEX JONES PERSONALLY INTERVIEWS DONALD TRUMP (HIS 2016 PLATFORM)

#‎DonaldTrump‬

ALEX JONES PERSONALLY INTERVIEWS DONALD TRUMP:

TRUMP IS THE PRESUMPTIVE 2016 GOP PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.

This is an Amazing interview!

And no I don't believe Donald Trump is Racist.

Nor do I believe that Mr Trump hates Women or Muslims.

Post Sources: Alex Jones, Infowars, YouTube

Obama vs. Democrats: His "American JOBS Act"! They Need To Stick With Him!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

White House seeks to reassure Senate Democrats on jobs plan

The White House sought to reassure nervous Democrats about President Obama’s $447 billion jobs package Thursday, sending senior officials to brief the party’s Senate caucus about the proposal.

Afterward, lawmakers, administration officials and others present said the huddle went better than expected, given the resistance some Democrats have shown to the plan, and Tuesday’s losses in House special elections after GOP candidates won with anti-Obama campaigns.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the member of the Democratic leadership who has most frequently jousted with the White House, complimented senior Obama officials for taking 100 minutes of questions from the Senate Democrats.

“It was informative, we’re on the same page, we’re on the same team,” Schumer said. He acknowledged that senators “brought up their concerns” with the proposal but said they exited the meeting “unified.”

Senators heard presentations at a closed door briefing from Gene Sperling and senior advisor David Plouffe, who outlined the key points of the package of targeted tax cuts and infrastructure spending, members said.

“I think the key thing is we’re off to a great start in terms of getting excitement for the American Jobs Act,” Plouffe told reporters afterward. “The vast majority of our party is committed to showing that we’re going to act on jobs.”

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) called the meeting “very positive.”

“It was going through the package and the need for the package,” he said.

Even as Obama has been delivering a series of campaign-style speeches in support of his proposal, calling on the public to pressure Congress to pass the bill, some Democrats in Washington have been expressing reservations with the package.

Liberal members have fretted over the president’s proposal to cut the payroll tax, fearful of diverting money from the Social Security Trust fund. They say more direct government spending on infrastructure and salaries is needed to get the economy moving.

“I have been very unequivocal,” Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) told reporters Wednesday. “No more tax cuts. We have the economy that tax cuts gave us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it?”

Some conservative Democrats have said they support the tax cuts, but oppose spending billions on teacher salaries and to build schools and roads, as the president has proposed, when Congress is working to reduce the deficit.

“If spending money could fix our jobs problem, it would have been solved long ago — because we’ve sure done our share of spending,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a frequent critic of the president.

Obama’s suggestions for how to pay for the package have not been universally popular with Democrats either.

Democrats have previously rejected proposals from the White House to limit tax deductions to those making more than $250,000 a year. Opposition has not faded now that Obama has advanced the idea again to pay for the bulk of jobs plan.

“We’ve had mixed signals from the White House about the willingness to break apart the package. But I think for sure the pay-for has to be considered separately from the merits of the bill itself,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connnolly (D-Va.), who represents a wealthy Northern Virginia district and has long opposed such proposals.

Republicans spent Thursday gleefully pointing to the voices of Democratic dissent as a sign that the president’s bill does not have support of even his own party.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) insisted Thursday that the criticism is minor. She noted that Democrats joined on the steps of the Capitol on Wednesday to rally in support of the measure.

“There may be somebody that’s told you or spoken out about this, but our caucus is very unified in support of the American Jobs Act and the fact that it is paid for,” she said. “They may differ with some of provisions within it or the paid fors, but they do not differ in the fact that we must get behind it, we must pass it.”


View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Washington Post, Google Maps

Tea Party's Anti-American Agenda Revealed (Videos) Decision 2012

Treason! Secret Video Reveals Tea Party's Anti-American Agenda


I've never been to a tea party. Really. Not even as a little girl. Was never my thing. So when I decided I was going to infiltrate the Tri-State Liberty Summit of Tea Party activists, my first question was: What do I wear? Unfortunately, my frilly cocktail dress was at the cleaners so I had to go with my usual "Is she a boy or a girl?" attire. Good news is, the Tea Party activists were unfazed by my gender-bending sweater vest. All they seemed to care about was that I was white.

Because in the flurry of red, white and blue sentiment that filled the Italian American Center of Stamford, Connecticut, on May 23, 2010, the most prominent color was definitely white. White people with ghostly white faces fearing that our new black President is only one sooner-than-expected sign of the approaching end of white racial dominance in America.

Now, if you're a well-to-do, older white person (as all the recent polls suggest most Tea Party activists are, compared with the rest of the population), there are only two possible reactions to the growing reality of racial diversity in America.

Option 1: You can accept that white supremacy (and the disproportionate economic, political and cultural power that has come with it) is and has always been an unjust but convenient excuse for why a few elites hold all the cards and the rest of us -- including most white people -- are left empty-handed. But I guess that would require actually accepting that you will never be one of those supreme elites under the current system and that the only way for you to get ahead is to join with everyone else who, like you, has ultimately been left behind.

That's a lot of self-awareness for a class of folks who have generally thrived on denial.



This leaves us with Option 2: Reject the United States of America, a nation that -- though formed in the spirit of racial purity and the subjugation of others -- is somehow now trying to live up to words that the Founding Fathers never actually meant but wrote down for good measure. The idea of many people joining to form one nation was fine when all those folks were white -- or even white-ish -- but Mexican immigrants and a black President is just too much to swallow. We "patriots" are starting over.

In case you're reading this and thinking, "Forming a separate nation? That's not what the Tea Party stands for!" Well, think again.



I think most Americans are suffering with economic insecurity and many white Americans are genuinely struggling with a sense of cultural displacement as well. That's real. The Tea Party, and all political movements, should be helping Americans adapt to the changing world around them -- not inciting them to hateful separation. After all, inclusion, unity, moving forward together -- these have always been core American values. Secession, on the other hand, is treason.

Follow Sally Kohn on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sally kohn


View Larger Map

Sources: Fox News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps