People Outraged After Nigger Rapper Depicts Lynching A White Child In Music Video



Renegeade Editor’s Note: Black children are being killed all the time by black gang members who spray bullets all over Chicago, Detroit, and pretty much every other city that has been ethnically cleansed of White people, but “social justice warriors” want to pretend like White men are going around stringing up little black boys. This “art” is really just White Genocide propaganda; that’s the message.

By Dawn Luger

People are outraged after well-known rapper, XXXTentacion, showed a young white boy being lynched in his music video. Facing extreme backlash, the rapper is now in hot water for what most are dubbing as inappropriate, at the very least.

In the music video for the song, “Look At Me!” which debuted Tuesday, the 19-year-old Florida-based rapper is shown placing a white child’s head in a noose on stage in front of a crowded theater. He then hoists him up into the air as a young African-American child looks on. The child’s feet are shown dangling and twitching and then they suddenly stop.

According to Fox News, the casting director of the video, LaShawnna Stanley, said that finding parents who would allow their child to be hanged on stage was a challenge. (Imagine that.) “We had to delay the video because the mom that originally agreed and said okay but when she got there she didn’t feel comfortable. We delayed for a week,” said Stanley. “I called a lot of parents. It was a direct booking. No one was okay with their white child getting lynched,” Stanley said. “With all the racial tension in the world right out they were nervous.” No one should be comfortable with any race of a child being lynched for the sake of music video.

XXXTentacion can be seen hanging himself with two other black men on either side of him as well in this highly disturbing video.

*The following is the official Look At Me! music video. It contains scenes of the lynching of a child and police brutality. It may not be suitable for all viewers.

Stanley said the mother who finally agreed to let her child be lynched for the video was serious about acting and the message. “The mother of the son is very serious about acting. She’s a stage mom. She has three sons and takes them to LA to audition. She understood the vision,” Stanley said.

That vision, according to Stanley, is that the “little white boy and black boy show innocence,” and that society has become desensitized seeing black men hung and shot, but the imagery of a white child being hung is shocking.

The video has already been viewed over 5 million times on YouTube, and the majority of commenters disagree with this rapper’s “message.”

XXXTentacion’s real name is Jahseh Onfrey. Earlier this week, he responded to domestic violence allegations in a series of profane-laced videos. He was charged with aggravated battery of a pregnant woman, domestic battery by strangulation, false imprisonment, and witness-tampering.

In the video clips, the rapper denied the charges and accused critics of plotting against his success, and threatened to “f**k ya’ll little sisters in their throats.” He also said, “They wanna crucify me, I ain’t having it, I’m not gonna be your f**king messiah,’ the rapper wrote in follow-up posts. ‘Y’all n****s bored.”

This article originally appeared on The Daily Sheeple.


Outraged in Private, Many C.E.O.s Fear the Wrath of the President

At what point do the C.E.O.s of the largest companies in the United States tell President Trump that enough is enough?

Not yet, apparently.

On Monday morning, President Trump went on a tirade against Kenneth C. Frazier, chief executive of Merck, the pharmaceuticals giant. Mr. Frazier, one of the nation’s most prominent African-American chief executives, had announced through his company’s Twitter account that he was resigning from the president’s American Manufacturing Council in response to Mr. Trump’s refusal over the weekend to immediately and directly condemn the white supremacists and neo-Nazis carrying swastika flags in Charlottesville, Va. Mr. Trump had pinned the blame for the bigotry and violence — which left one anti-bigotry protester dead — on “many sides.”

“America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal,” Mr. Frazier said.

The silence from the larger C.E.O. community about Mr. Trump’s reaction to the situation in Charlottesville has been remarkably conspicuous, even as one of their own has now been attacked online by the president.

By Monday evening, at least two other C.E.O.s had stepped forward. Kevin Plank, the founder of Under Armour, announced on Twitter that he was resigning from the American Manufacturing Council, saying, among other things, that his company “engages in innovation and sports, not politics.” He did not refer to the president, though.

Mr. Plank was followed shortly after by Brian Krzanich, the Intel chief executive, who announced on the company’s website that he would step down from the council as well. “I resigned because I want to make progress, while many in Washington seem more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with them,” he said.

A few big-name corporate leaders released innocuous statements over the weekend condemning the violence by white supremacists in Charlottesville. But with the exception of Mr. Frazier, none appear to have directly condemned the president’s choice of words, which have been a lightning rod for Americans from many quarters, even among many Republican lawmakers and Trump supporters.

At a news conference on Monday, after a barrage of blistering criticism, the president said that “racism is evil.”

As the day wore on, several executives, including Meg Whitman of Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, made statements in support of Mr. Frazier, while others — including Tim Cook of Apple, and the Business Roundtable, which represents some 200 C.E.O.s — condemned the racism on display in Charlottesville.

But notably, not one executive on any of the president’s various councils said anything directly about the president.

The statements from American chief executives that came closest to criticizing Mr. Trump’s language came from Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Mr. Krzanich of Intel.

Mr. Blankfein tweeted on Monday morning: “Lincoln: ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ Isolate those who try to separate us. No equivalence w/ those who bring us together.” (Mr. Blankfein is not on any of the president’s councils, which may make it easier for him to be critical.)
Mr. Krzanich put it this way: “There should be no hesitation in condemning hate speech or white supremacy by name. #Intel asks all our countries leadership to do the same.”
Marc Benioff of Salesforce aimed at Mr. Trump with a sarcastic post, saying: “Thank you @realDonaldTrump for calling to Love thy neighbor, value equality, & calling evil by name.”
But how can so many other American business leaders and senior executives remain quiet about the president’s reaction? Where is the moral courage to stand up?

After all, most companies these days spend countless hours talking about their culture and values. Just last week, Google publicly fired one of its engineers within days of his writing a memo that questioned whether “personality differences” between men and women led to there being fewer female engineers in the technology industry.
How can people like Adebayo O. Ogunlesi, a lead director of Goldman Sachs and an infrastructure investor, remain a member of Mr. Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum — a role highlighted on Mr. Ogunlesi’s company biography? How could Mr. Ogunlesi, an immigrant from Nigeria who was a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court, stay silent?

As Justice Marshall himself famously said, “Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy.”

Mr. Ogunlesi declined to comment, through a spokesman.

What about Indra Nooyi, the Indian-born chief executive of PepsiCo? She is a member of the president’s business council and has long been a vocal advocate for minorities. The company said this year that it “does not tolerate bigotry or hate in any form.”

When I contacted her about Mr. Trump’s remarks over the weekend, a spokesman directed me to a tweet that clearly didn’t mention the president: “Heartbroken by the violence in #Charlottesville. Hate and intolerance are a betrayal of what we stand for as Americans.”
In truth, it should not fall to C.E.O.s who are members of minority groups to speak up. They face enough pressure already.

Some people who have less at stake are going on the record to support Mr. Frazier’s stance against the president. Tom Glocer, the former chief executive of Thomson Reuters, wrote on Twitter on Monday: “Ken has stood up for true American values. I call on all other members of Trump’s image-burnishing committees to do the same.”

Privately, many chief executives say they are fuming, outraged by the president. (This after many of them campaigned to get on Mr. Trump’s committees.) But many are too scared to say anything publicly that could make them or their company a target of Mr. Trump’s wrath.
Indeed, Mr. Trump’s vitriol against Mr. Frazier and Merck — a company that depends on the government as a buyer for many of its drugs — will perhaps have an even greater chilling effect on other C.E.O.s who may consider speaking out. (The potential for economic retribution against Merck also demonstrates just how brave Mr. Frazier was in taking a stand.)

When I asked one chief executive Monday morning why he had remained publicly silent, he told me: “Just look at what he did to Ken. I’m not sticking my head up.” Which, of course, is the reason he said I could not quote him by name.

The same trepidation may explain why people like Mr. Ogunlesi don’t say anything. He runs an infrastructure fund that will most likely have to do business with the federal government. And Ms. Nooyi’s PepsiCo, for example, was briefly boycotted by Trump supporters when she made some comments that were construed as critical of him.

Other C.E.O.s, like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, have contended that they consider it part of their patriotic duty to remain on the president’s business council, even when they disagree with things Mr. Trump says or does.

“It is very hard if you say, I’m going to go off an advisory group or not do A-B-C, because you disagree on one issue,” Mr. Dimon said in early June after Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, a move that Mr. Dimon was against. Elon Musk of Tesla and Robert Iger of Disney resigned from the council in protest.

“Honestly, no one is going to agree with every president or prime minister on every issue, so I don’t want to overreact to it,” Mr. Dimon said.

Lawrence Summers, who has served as Treasury secretary and president of Harvard, said in response to Mr. Dimon’s rationale at the time to Bloomberg News: “At what point as a patriot is your allegiance to your country rather to your president? I’ve always thought of my allegiance as a patriot as being to my country.”

On Monday, Mr. Dimon, who is the chairman of the Business Roundtable, put out his own statement about the violence in Charlottesville, but nothing about the president.

C.E.O.s have faced the question of how to address the president when they disagree with him before — over immigration, say, or the Paris climate accord. Each time, the executives have justified their silence by saying it is more valuable to be at the table than not.

That’s a valid argument — to a point. If the president isn’t following your advice or the values you espouse, when should you get up? Of course, big policy decisions like tax reform remain just around the corner, so many executives are desperate to keep a line open to the president even if it is only one-way.

It is a fair critique of the president that he didn’t immediately and directly condemn the bigoted actions over the weekend and call them out for what they were — remarks that tacitly helped normalize such hate.

While C.E.O.s may call out the hate, will they have the fortitude to call out the president?

French-Israeli settlers outraged over ‘Palestinian territories’ classification

French Israelis living beyond the green line were angered recently to receive letters from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs which described them as living in “The Palestinian Territories.”

Hundreds of settlers with French citizenship received official notices ahead of the French presidential elections, which called on them to exercise their right to vote. Settlers’ location was marked as “Territoires Palestiniens,” Channel 2 news reported.

The TV station said some French settlers decided not to vote due to their anger over the letters’ address line.

French Jewish MP Meyer Habib wrote a letter of complaint to President Francois Hollande over the matter, calling the letters’ wording “a demeaning provocation.”

Dites moi votre excellence @HeleneLeGal placer en “territoires palestiniens” c ENCORE un bug informatique ?

“Beyond the political and legal debate, the French Foreign Ministry’s deliberate choice to present Israeli communities under the moniker ‘Palestinian territories’ is a demeaning provocation to French citizens living in Israel,” Habib said.

He called for a “realistic foreign policy” that would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and acknowledge the common foe that is radical Islam.

Jews Outraged over “Hipster Hitler” Comic

A group of Jews have threatened to buy and shred all copies of a comic book, describing the authors’ mocking of Hitler and hipsters as “anti-Semitic” and “sick”. 


Members of London Stands with Israel, a campaign group set up to defend Israel and Jews from attacks, have threatened to boycott and protest outside stores selling the comic Hipster Hitler, and have specifically targeted a Jewish-owned comic store in Camden Town. The book, which contains a series of cartoon strips taking a light-hearted look at both hipster culture and the exploits of the Third Reich, has proved popular.

The New York authors insist it is “not written with the intent of offending people” but provides “a new way of disliking Hitler and laughing at the ‘lazy dictator’ he was [while] taking a few digs at a contemporary subculture of urban, middle-class youth that fetishise the ‘authentic’ and conform to non-conformism”.


The comic depicts the Führer wearing ironic T-shirts with slogans like “Death Camp for Cutie” and “Aryan Microjewery”, and show the tyrant struggling with his advisers as a constantly miffed and sulking hipster.

Shania Angel, 23, of London Stands with Israel, accused the authors of “making Hitler cute” and said they should be “ashamed”. She said: “The book is a disgrace and should be banned.

“T-shirts are now being sold of Hipster Hitler – it’s turning Hitler into a cute and trendy character.

“Anti-Semitism has skyrocketed recently and we shouldn’t be selling books like this.

“We should boycott shops that sell it, we should protest outside their stores and do everything we can to make sure these aren’t being sold.”

Ilana Katz, also of London Stands with Israel, said while the group would probably not burn the books, it would take drastic action to make sure people don’t read them.

The 23-year-old singer from Northwood told the Ham&High: “If we can’t get shops to stop selling copies we’ll buy and shred them all.

“Since when was it okay to promote Hitler as a cool person?”

The activists say they plan to protest outside Mega City Comics in Inverness Street – a Jewish-owned comic book store and one of Camden Town’s longest running independent shops.

Amazon, Waterstones and other book stores also stock the comic.

Martin Kravetz, owner of Mega City Comics, said: “While it’s perhaps close to the knuckle, I don’t find Hipster Hitler offensive.

“I’m Jewish myself and if it was in any way making light of the Holocaust I would remove it.

“I’m not in the business to cause people offence, but any book shop will carry books that some people may find offensive.

“The book doesn’t contain references to the Holocaust. It’s a satirical piece, making jibes at the expense of both Hitler and hipsters.

“Our customer base is predominantly adult, and I think they can identify a satirical piece for what it is.”

Families outraged as prosecutors pass on charging Chicago cop who fatally shot mentally ill teen and bystander

The families of a mentally ill teen and his neighbor blasted prosecutors’ decision to not charge the Chicago police officer who fatally shot their loved ones.

The state attorney’s office Friday afternoon said no criminal charges would be brought against Officer Robert Rialmo who shot and killed Quitonio LeGrier, 19, and Bettie Jones, 55, the day after Christmas in 2015, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Officials said it couldn’t be proved the officer didn’t believe he or his partner were in “imminent danger” from LeGrier, who was wielding a bat when he was shot.

“There is absolutely not justification for the use of excessive force in that instance,” attorney Larry Rogers Jr., who represents Jones’ family, said. “Bettie Jones was at her home. She was in her house. She was doing everything right that day … To suggest this is a justifiable shooting is to ignore the objective evidence.”

HEAR IT: Quintonio LeGrier dialed 911 three times

Police on Dec. 26, 2015 responded to four 911 calls — three by LeGrier and the other by his father — for a domestic disturbance. LeGrier, a sophomore at Northern Illinois University, was staying with his father during the winter break.

Officer Robert Rialmo shot Bettie Jones and Quintonio LeGrierin Chicago, Illinois on December 26, 2015.

Officer Robert Rialmo shot Bettie Jones and Quintonio LeGrierin Chicago, Illinois on December 26, 2015.


Jones, who lived beneath them, answered the door when officers arrived and pointed them toward the correct apartment, but LeGrier was already coming down the stairs with an aluminum baseball bat.

“As the officers walked backward down the stairs, Rialmo’s partner tapped Rialmo on his back and told him to look out,” according to a report from the attorney’s office cited by the newspaper. “Rialmo drew his service weapon and fired eight shots toward LeGrier while backing down the front staircase.”

Jones was fatally struck once in the chest while LeGrier was shot six times.

Chicago cop who shot teen sues family for $10 million

His mother, Janet Cooksey, said she didn’t understand why the officer wasn’t charged, while his father labeled the decision “totally unacceptable” and “unfair,” the Tribune reported.

Bettie Jones (pictured) and Quintonio LeGrier were fatally shot by police at a West Garfield Park residence Dec. 26, 2015.

Bettie Jones (pictured) and Quintonio LeGrier were fatally shot by police at a West Garfield Park residence Dec. 26, 2015.


“Quitinio did the right thing. He called for help,” Cooksey said. “He called for help not one time, not two, but three (times.) He called for help to get shot… and yet this cop is not going to jail?”

Rialmo both defended his actions and expressed his regret.

“I have always known in my heart that I did not do anything wrong,” the officer said in a statement shared by his attorney. “I wish that Mr. LeGrier would have been able to get help and treatment for his mental illness and that the situation did not escalate to the point where I had no choice but to use deadly force.”

Family of black teen killed by Chicago cop say it was hate crime

He added that he does not expect the loved ones of those he killed to forgive what he did.

“Being right does not make it any less of a tragedy that two people are dead and I was the cause of their deaths,” Rialmo said. “I will have to live with that for the rest of my life.”

Pallbearers carry the casket of Quintonio LeGrier during his funeral in Chicago, Illinois, January 9, 2016. 

Pallbearers carry the casket of Quintonio LeGrier during his funeral in Chicago, Illinois, January 9, 2016.


The U.S. Department of Justice in a recent report said the deaths of LeGrier and Jones “laid bare the failures in CPD’s crisis response systems,” and noted issues including the dispatcher’s inability to identify LeGrier as mentally ill and Rialmo and his partner’s lack of proper crisis intervention technique, the Tribune reported.

The attorney’s office in its review of the case said a conviction would require proving Rialmo did not believe he and his partner were in danger, even though LeGrier had a bat — which is considered to be a deadly weapon — when the shooting occurred, according to the news paper.

“The uncontrverted evidence from the investigation into the shooting establishes that LeGrier was armed with an aluminum baseball bat when officers encountered him,” the state’s attorney’s office said in a statement, “and LeGrier wielded the bat in a threatening manner while in their close proximity.”

Outraged US Jewish leaders: UN vote tarnishes Obama’s legacy

WASHINGTON — Major US Jewish organizations declared that US President Barack Obama had undermined his legacy on Israel and bitterly criticized the administration’s decision to allow a resolution calling for a halt to all Israeli settlement activity to pass in the United Nations Security Council.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which had tussled in recent weeks with President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, offered a full-throated condemnation of the Security Council resolution and of the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from voting.

ADL CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt stated that the organization was “outraged over the US failure to veto this biased and unconstructive UNSC resolution on Israel.”

Greenblatt bemoaned that the resolution “will only encourage further Palestinian intransigence vis-à-vis direct negotiations with Israel in favor of unilateral, one-sided initiatives.”

Jonathan A. Greenblatt, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, speaking at the ADL Annual Meeting in Los Angeles on November 6, 2014. (Courtesy ADL)

“The Obama Administration repeatedly stated that a solution to the conflict cannot be imposed on the parties but must be achieved directly by the parties themselves,” Greenblatt concluded. “It is deeply troubling that this biased resolution appears to be the final word of the Administration on this issue.”

The ADL was far from the only Jewish organization to assert that Obama’s legacy was changed by this decision conducted in the last month of an eight-year administration.

“It is tragic that the Administration chose to mar its legacy of support for the Jewish State and set back the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace,” wrote the Jewish Federations of North America in a rare critique of a US administration, recalling that in the past “President Obama has consistently supported Israel’s right to self-defense and affirmed that America has an “iron clad commitment to make sure Israel is secure.”

The umbrella organization noted that “Jewish Federations across North America are deeply disappointed that the United States abstained from today’s vote on the one-sided, anti-Israel resolution that was passed by the UN Security Council today,” adding that “the Administration’s decision undermined a core principle of American foreign policy that has been embraced by Democratic and Republican Administrations for decades: that the only route to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is through direct negotiations between the parties.”

The Orthodox Union issued a similar admonishment.

“The Orthodox Union is gravely disappointed with this decision by President Obama,” the organization complained. “Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama repeatedly reassured American Jews, and others who care for the security and welfare of Israel, that his commitment to American support for Israel’s security was “unshakable.””

“By allowing this resolution to pass in the waning weeks of his Administration, President Obama has undermined his legacy in that regard,” the organization added, describing the US action as “an unprecedented and deeply disturbing break from the past.”

Malcolm Hoenlein (right) with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Photo credit: Uri Lenz/FLASH90)

The leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations condemned the administration’s actions. “There is no justification or explanation that validates the United States failure to veto the one-sided, offensive resolution adopted by the Security Council today,” wrote Conference Chairman Stephen Greenberg and CEO Malcolm Hoenlein. “The United States vote will be seen as a betrayal of the fundamentals of the special relationship that will nevertheless continue to mark the close ties between the peoples of the two countries.”

The American Jewish Committee’s CEO David Harris also noted that “the Administration’s decision, for the first time in eight years, not to block an anti-Israel measure at the UN Security Council is profoundly disturbing.”

Harris bemoaned that “encouraging the misguided Palestinian strategy of doing everything possible to avoid Israel, while accumulating hostile statements against Israel at the UN and other international organizations, has been counterproductive to achieving a sustainable peace that will benefit both Israelis and Palestinians.”

US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power speaks to the UN Security Council after abstaining on an anti-settlement resolution, December 23, 2016 (UN Screenshot)

Left-wing organizations, however, offered strong support for the administration’s move.

Americans for Peace Now described the resolution as “pro-Israel in the deepest sense of the term, supporting Israel’s existence and security, and standing against those who would sacrifice both at the altar of settlements, for an ideological, expansionist agenda,” and said that it “commends the Obama Administration’s decision to stand with all past US presidents since 1967 in maintaining US opposition to settlements, and to reaffirm longstanding US positioning and language in the Security Council on this issue.”

J Street also issued a statement welcoming the US decision.

The resolution, the organization said, “is consistent with longstanding bipartisan American policy, which includes strong support for the two-state solution, and clear opposition to irresponsible and damaging actions, including Palestinian incitement and terror and Israeli settlement expansion and home demolitions.”

US President Barack Obama shakes hands as he meets with Republican President-elect Donald Trump (L) on transition planning in the Oval Office at the White House on November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Jim Watson/AFP)

J Street responded to threats made by president-elect Donald Trump following the vote suggesting that he would change the US stance toward its UN commitments.

“We urge all actors, including the incoming US administration, to recognize that this resolution is now the benchmark set by the international community and must be respected as such,” J Street warned. “Steps to abrogate or ignore it would not only damage Israel’s future and the prospects for a two-state solution, but undermine American interests and standing in the world.”


Updated | As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Scott Pruitt joined several other states in suing the Environmental Protection Agency over its Clean Power Plan, an Obama administration policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and factories. Pruitt has also sued the EPA, along with officials from other states, over its plan to regulate the fossil fuel industry’s methane emissions. On his LinkedIn page, Pruitt says he is “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.”

And he’s now President-elect Donald Trump’s expected pick to head the EPA, according to The New York Times and The Washington Post (which have a good run-down of Pruitt’s record).

Environmentalists are largely outraged over the move, which signals that Trump is serious about dismantling Obama’s environmental and climate legacy.

The appointment is “like putting an arsonist in charge of fighting fires,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.

The head of the EPA has to be confirmed by the Senate, so there’s a chance that lawmakers reject Trump’s nomination.

Here’s a list of reactions from environmental organizations and prominent environmentalists to Pruitt’s appointment.

Scott-PruittDonald Trump is expected to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. BRENDAN MCDERMID / REUTERS 

The Sierra Club [in full]:

“Having Scott Pruitt in charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is like putting an arsonist in charge of fighting fires. He is a climate science denier who, as Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma, regularly conspired with the fossil fuel industry to attack EPA p rotections.

“Nothing less than our children’s health is at stake. Scott Pruitt, whose own bio describes him as ‘ a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda ’ cannot be trusted to head the EPA, an agency charged with protecting all Americans from threats to their water, air, and health. We strongly urge Senators, who are elected to represent and protect the American people, to stand up for families across the nation and oppose this nomination.”

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund:

“Scott Pruitt has built his political career by trying to undermine EPA’s mission of environmental protection. He is a deeply troubling choice to head the agency that protects the clean air all Americans breathe and the clean water we drink. Our country needs—and deserves—an EPA Administrator who is guided by science, who respects America’s environmental laws, and who values protecting the health and safety of all Americans ahead of the lobbying agenda of special interests.”

Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (via WaPo):

“Over the past five years, Pruitt has used his position as Oklahoma’s top prosecutor to sue the EPA in a series of attempts to deny Americans the benefits of reducing mercury, arsenic, and other toxins from the air we breathe; cutting smog that can cause asthma attacks; and protecting our wetlands and streams.”

Michael Oppenheimer, climate scientist, Princeton University: “EPA is a science-based agency.  Pruitt gives the impression of disbelieving the scientific consensus on climate change.  If that is the case, appointing him as administrator would be highly inappropriate.  I hope the Senate examines his views on this issue closely.”

Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science, Harvard University: “Carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and that has been acknowledged by policy-makers since the 1960s.  Climate change caused by carbon dioxide is now causing measurable harms. Mr Pruitt, in defiance of science, economics, and the Supreme Court, proposes to place the interests of the oil and gas industry over the interests of the American people. We all believe in freedom, but, as the philosopher Isaiah Berlin noted, freedom for wolves means death for lambs.  Right now it looks like a lot of lambs are about to be slaughtered.”

David Levine, CEO and co-founder of the American Sustainable Business Council (an organization of “more than 250,000 business owners, executives and investors from a wide range of industries”):

“With Scott Pruitt’s selection as administrator, Trump lays out the welcome mat for polluters at EPA. It also proves that the president-elect is more concerned about the fossil fuel industry and other polluters than with growing the economy and creating U.S. jobs through investments in clean energy. We will give other countries major competitive advantages over us if we fail to lead in building a clean energy industry here at home.

“This nomination also demonstrates a critical disregard for the impacts on businesses and the economy from climate change and extreme weather events… Mr. Pruitt has been a consistent critic of regulations that require industries to account for the costs they impose on the environment, often justifying his position based on flawed science. Climate scientists nearly unanimously find the opposite is true. Mr. Pruitt’s selection signals a roll back  of policies that have stimulated innovation and progress.”

Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Scott Pruitt is the wrong choice to run the EPA. The [agency] plays an absolutely vital role in enforcing long-standing policies that protect the health and safety of Americans, based on the best available science. Pruitt has a clear record of hostility to the EPA’s mission, and he is a completely inappropriate choice to lead it… the U.S. Senate has the responsibility of approving the EPA administrator. It’s this simple: if Senators take seriously their job of protecting the public, they must vote no on Pruitt.”

Benjamin Schreiber, Friends of the Earth‘s climate and energy program director:

“By appointing Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Donald Trump has made it clear that he intends to wage war on clean air and clean water. Trump has also put our climate in peril and shown he is out of step with the American people.

“As the Attorney General, Scott Pruitt did the bidding of the oil and gas industry and fought many of the laws he will now be tasked to enforce. He helped Big Oil turn Oklahoma into an Earthquake zone. 

Bill McKibben, environmentalist and author:


Kerry Emanuel, atmospheric scientist, MIT: “This appointment is consistent with Mr. Trump’s plan to roll back efforts to confront a clear and present danger to our children [e.g. climate change] in favor of more profit for the one percent today.”

James Rubin, environmental lawyer and a partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney:

“The nomination of [Pruitt] will certainly raise alarms for environmental advocates and please foes of federal carbon regulation, given the positions he has taken his state on recent EPA regulations of power plants and oil and gas development. But these positions are rooted in issues of federalism—the limits of federal authority over matters some consider more appropriate for state regulation. It remains to be seen what his policies and perspectives are on the myriad of issues related to human health and the environment that Congress has tasked EPA with handling.”

Sam Adams, director of the World Resources Institute (via Reason):

“The selection of Attorney General Pruitt, who has consistently questioned climate science and actively fought EPA’s ability to reduce emissions, raises deeply troubling questions. The critical issue is whether EPA will continue to play its vital role in protecting people’s health and safety in communities across the country.”

David Arkush, managing director of the climate program at Public Citizen, a consumer rights group (via Reason):

“Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a terrible choice to run the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is cozy with the oil and gas industry and treats the EPA like an enemy. Both of those positions put him at odds with what the American people want and what’s best for the country.”

Shaughnessy Naughton, board president of 314 Action (a group that champions Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, education): “Putting Attorney General Pruitt in charge of the EPA is like giving the keys to the henhouse to a self-proclaimed wolf… Pruitt’s actions as Oklahoma’s Attorney General already show that he is not interested in transparency when it comes to protecting the energy lobby. The people informing Mr. Trump’s decisions on the pressing issue of climate change should be those who have studied the issue.”

Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice:

“Every American should be appalled that President-elect Trump just picked someone who has made a career of being a vocal defender for polluters to head our Environmental Protection Agency…

“He’s been so cozy with polluter lobbyists that he let them draft comments about federal pollution limits, changed a few words, then copied it onto his official Oklahoma Attorney General stationery and submitted it as the comments of the people of Oklahoma. He has fought Environmental Protection Agency pollution limits on toxic substances like soot and mercury that put us all at risk for increased cancer, childhood asthma and other health problems. He falsely claims that fracking doesn’t contaminate drinking water supplies…

“Earthjustice strongly believes that President-elect Trump should retract this announcement or the Senate should reject this nomination. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency should be making sure that our air is clean to breathe and our water is safe to drink, not working to make sure polluters make more money.”

Dutch Jews ‘outraged’ by anti-gay fliers citing the Torah

AMSTERDAM (JTA) — Dutch police are considering whether to indict for incitement to hatred three men who passed out fliers in Amsterdam condemning homosexuality, citing it “being forbidden by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”

The men, aged 29 to 39, surrendered themselves to police after officers questioned a man whose car the suspects said they borrowed to distribute the fliers, the NOS broadcaster reported last week. The officers reached the car owner after reviewing footage from security cameras of cars parked in the area near the time that the fliers began showing up in mailboxes.

NOS said police did not release any details about the suspects, except that they do not appear to belong to any radical Muslim groups. The men said during investigation that they wanted to “start a discussion” on homosexuality.

The Central Jewish Board of the Netherlands, the umbrella group of the country’s Jewish organizations, said in a statement several days after the discovery of the fliers that it disagrees with their anti-gay message and regrets the citing of Judaism by the people responsible for distributing them.

The text of the fliers quotes a passage from the Christian Bible and another from the Torah condemning homosexuality. The latter, from Leviticus, reads: “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

According to the fliers, children raised by homosexuals are likelier to be sexually abused and homosexuals are likelier to commit suicide. They feature a picture of a rabbi wearing a prayer shawl, an imam and a priest.

Central Jewish Board Chairman Ron van der Wieken said his organization was “outraged” by the “discriminatory fliers,” which he said the community “strongly rejects,” adding it is “full of glaring lies.”

UK veterans outraged Churchill’s home converted to Nazi HQ for new movie (GOOD!!!)


The late, great former prime minister of Britain Winston Churchill, a man known as much for his love of good whisky as his disdain for the Third Reich, is ironically having his ancestral home converted into Adolf Hitler’s command center for a new Hollywood film, The Telegraph reported Friday.

Huge swastika flags and banners can be seen draped all across Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, according to The Telegraph, which will be used as Nazi headquarters in the newest Transformers film The Last Knight.

But the news is not going over so smoothly with veterans in the UK, who are expressing outrage at Tinseltown’s use of the historic property, calling it appalling and “disrespectful.”

“I know it’s a film, but it’s symbolically disrespectful to Churchill,” ex-commander of British forces in Afghanistan Colonel Richard Kemp told London based tabloid newspaper The Sun earlier this week.

“He will be turning in his grave,” added Kemp.

Member of Veteran’s Association UK Tony Hayes said that remaining World War Two veterans “will be appalled by this.”

Social media also reacted contentiously to the development, with one Twitter user saying: “Quite appalled, hear Blenheim Palace has been turned into a HQ for Hitler for a film, sorry, Sir Winston Churchill’s home, isn’t the place.”

Churchill himself is buried on the grounds of Blenheim Palace, which is currently occupied by the 12th Duke of Marlborough Jamie Spencer-Churchill, 60, who reportedly rented out the property to keep up with the estate’s high maintenance expenditures.

Black Woman Outraged White Salon Refused To Do Her Hair




Nomalanga Mhlauli-Moses & Shaquita Graham of marriedwomensbusiness.com discuss this hot topic.

Read the story: http://naturallymoi.com/2016/06/black…

The Dr Boyce Watkins Channel is an all-black news and commentary channel that features a number of African American thinkers, commentators and speakers. The views of each video are not necessarily representative of those of Dr Boyce Watkins himself.