RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/19/who-is-kristen-clarke-and-why-does-she-matter/

Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Department of Justice’s enormously powerful civil rights division has a long and troubling history of pushing a radical, anti-white, and anti-police agenda.

Kristen Clarke has shared “crackpot theories” about black supremacy, defended unrepentant cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, partnered with anti-Semites, pushed Jussie Smollett’s absurd hate crime allegations, and called for defunding the police—and that’s just for starters.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson brought to light the bizarre racist views espoused by Clarke while she attended Harvard as an undergraduate in the 1990s. Her arguments pushing black supremacy were so offensive, even the famously left-leaning Harvard Crimson had to push back.

As the president of the Black Students Association, Clarke wrote a letter to the Crimson in 1994 detailing her unorthodox views on race science. “Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic],” Clarke wrote:

One: Dr. Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the ‘locus coeruleus,’ which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.

Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic]. Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin—that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites.

Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities—something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.

“The above is not an editorial from the Final Call, Louis Farrakhan’s free newspaper,” Carlson noted. “That is a direct quote from the person Joe Biden is about to put in charge of this country’s civil rights laws.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/03/rand_paul_calls_out_a_slippery_evasive_anthony_fauci.html

Ever since getting a big spotlight in the public eye, the National Institutes of Health’s Dr. Anthony Fauci, billed by a fawning press as America’s foremost expert on infectious diseases, has revealed himself a slippery chameleon or magician of sorts, constantly changing his recommendations and positions on public health in a bid to extend the coronavirus crisis as far out as possible.

He’s pretty well burned up all of his credibility with the public as a result, as New York Post columnist and Instapundit-himself Glenn Reynolds notes here, but he doesn’t seem to know it. He continues his role as snake-charmer, or snake-oil salesman, assuming a fawning media will continue to carry him through.

He got called out. By probably the sharpest guy in the Senate, (and my favorite), Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who questioned his ever more elaborate mask mandate recommendations. According to the New York Post:

“You’ve been vaccinated and you parade around in two masks for show,” Paul told Fauci. “You can’t get it again there’s almost zero percent chance you’re going to get it.”

“And you’re telling people that have had the vaccine who have immunity — you’re defying everything we know about immunity by telling people to wear masks who have been vaccinated,” he continued.

“You want to get rid of vaccine hesitancy? Tell people to quit wearing their masks after they get the vaccine,” Paul added.

In response, Fauci quipped, “Here we go again with the theater.”

“Let me just state for the record that masks are not theater, masks are protective,” Fauci said.

Paul snapped back: “If you have immunity they’re theater. If you already have immunity you’re wearing a mask to give comfort to others.”

“I totally disagree with you,” Fauci responded.

What Fauci revealed in that exchange is that he has a stake in continuing the coronavirus lockdowns and maskings forever. That’s his source of power and influence and he’s not ready to leave the spotlight or go back to his former obscurity. Fauci essentially told Paul that the vaccine is a nothingburger, COVID-19 will never end (despite the evidence seen in Texas and Florida) and masks are to be a way of life.

https://www.city-journal.org/mayor-tasks-nypd-to-investigate-noncriminal-hate

Amid a staggering wave of gun violence in New York City, with shootings this year measuring 42 percent higher than the same period in 2020, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that he plans to deploy the NYPD to track down and question people who have expressed “hate,” albeit without committing any crime or violation.

Speaking to reporters about anti-Asian attacks that have occurred around the country, the mayor encouraged people who have “witnessed or experienced any act of hate” to report it. “Even if something is not a criminal case,” the mayor explained, “a perpetrator being confronted by the city, whether it’s NYPD or another agency, and being told that what they’ve done was very hurtful to another person and could if ever repeated, lead to criminal charges, that’s another important piece of the puzzle.”

Asked how the NYPD would confront someone who has done something “hateful” but committed no crime, de Blasio enlarged on his prescription. “One of the things officers are trained to do is to give warnings,” he said. “If someone has done something wrong, but not rising to a criminal level, it’s perfectly appropriate for an NYPD officer to talk to them to say that was not appropriate. . . . I assure you if an NYPD officer calls you or shows up at your door to ask about something that you did, that makes people think twice.”

The mayor did not go into detail about the kind of behavior he was talking about, but we can surmise—since he explicitly stated that it wouldn’t rise to the level of criminality—that it must involve speech. Racial slurs or negative references to racial or ethnic identity, while nasty and rightfully unacceptable in civil society, are generally not prosecutable. Promising to involve the police in pursuing people who make intemperate, obnoxious remarks seems like an odd way to prioritize public-safety concerns.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17189/should-anything-be-off-limits-to-debate

The fact that we even have to ask these questions demonstrates the precarious state of freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas in the cancel culture….

Professors are being fired for private discussions of grades and race. Students are terrified of expressing politically incorrect views, especially about race, sex, sexual orientation and even politics. Even silence is not always an option.

There are several exceptions to this cancel culture rule. You can say almost anything negative about Jews, as evidenced by the recent Grammy awards, during which three overt anti-Semites were honored. These bigots did not even try to disguise their anti-Semitism behind the facade of anti-Zionism.

There has never been a time when respectful and nuanced debate has been more needed, especially about race and other taboo subjects— taboo unless you toe the line of political correctness.

Slate’s decision to suspend Peska strikes a blow against diversity. Yes, diversity! —which includes diversity of views about every issue including how best to deal with racism and how best to achieve equality.

Slate should end Peska’s suspension, apologize to him, and encourage debate about the issue over which he was suspended.

Slate — the online magazine known for its provocative content—has indefinitely suspended one of its star podcasters, Mike Peska, for debating with a colleague, on an inter-office messaging platform, whether it is ever appropriate for a non-Black person to use the N-word in the context of a discussion about race. It is not clear whether in the course of the discussion Peska actually uttered the word itself or just used the term “n-word.”

In defending Slate’s decision, a Black staffer argued that “For Black employees, it’s an extremely small ask to not hear that particular slur and not have debate about whether it’s OK for white employees to use that particular slur.” Not have debate?

Should anything be off limits to debate and discuss? Is this issue not reasonably debatable? Can only Black people debate this issue, as my colleague Randy Kennedy brilliantly did in his book whose title is the actual word—spelled out? Can the issue be discussed in racially mixed classrooms? Should that depend on the race of the teacher? Must a teacher who wants to have such a discussion issue a trigger warning? Is a trigger warning enough? Must he obtain permission from Black students in the class to discuss the use of the word even if the word itself is not uttered? Do these restrictions apply only to this word and only to slurs against Blacks, or do they apply as well to derogatory words against other groups.