A Philadelphia lawmaker wants to ban bulletproof glass at convenience stores in the city.
Philadelphia, PA – Philadelphia councilwoman Cindy Bass has introduced a controversial bill that would require business owners to take down any bulletproof glass they have in their businesses, and not allow future installation.
Let Ray-Ray and Pookie Rob You Fool: Can You Say Thug-Life?
The bill, known as the Stop and Go bill, is moving through city hall, and reads “No establishment shall erect or maintain a physical barrier.”
Broad Deli is a local business on the corner of the 2200 block of North Broad. It has a wall of bulletproof glass separating its employees from customers.
“The most important thing is safety and the public’s safety,” Rich Kim, the owner of Broad Deli, told WTXF. His family has run the deli, which sells soda, snacks, meals, and beer by the can, for 20 years.
Kim said that he had the bulletproof glass installed after a shooting, and that it saved his mother-in-law from a knife attack.
“If the glass comes down, the crime rate will rise and there will be lots of dead bodies,” he said.
Bass was more concerned about customer’s feelings, and said her constituents shouldn’t have to suffer the indignity of shopping through bulletproof glass.
She said that she is trying to put some type of control on these small stores, which she claimed sell booze, very little food, and caused a lot of trouble in her district.
“Right now, the Plexiglas has to come down,” she said.
Kim disagreed with Bass’s characterization of businesses like the one he owns, and said when he called police about people loitering, the response time was usually slow.
He said he believed that he was being targeted as a Korean-American. Business owner Mike Choe agreed with him.
Choe, who runs a non-profit that supports Korean-owned businesses, said that he planned to raise $100,000 to fight the bill.
“I do think it’s a bad bill that will endanger Korean Americans,” he said.
Bass said that she is fighting for her constituents.
Choe responded to Bass, and said the “bill targets Korean Americans.”
Bass denied Choe’s allegation.
“Absolutely not. I find that offensive,” Bass said.
Do you think business owners should have the right to choose whether they want to install bulletproof glass in their businesses to protect employees? Tell us what you think in the comments below!
The student newspaper at Evergreen State College has a section in its opinion pages described as “for people of color by people of color.”
“This should be a place where we can be us without it being overshadowed by the dark cloud that is living under white supremacy and having to see things from a white perspective. This is why when we do cover these issues it will be in the context and from the perspective of POC and POC only,” according to the section’s editors as they reintroduced it to readers in September.
The anonymous column, known as “POC Talk,” debuted in the bi-weekly Cooper Point Journal last year and returned this fall to the newspaper’s pages following racial unrest that erupted at the public university this past spring.
“Dear White people, please take a step back, this isn’t brown-people-answer-white-people’s-questions-hour, we’re asking specifically for submissions from POC,” the section’s editors added in their September intro. “As being told no seems to be a difficult concept for some of y’all I await your emails about the Irish, how the term white fragility is mean (great example of white fragility) and how we need to view people through a color-blind lens (just lol). You will 100% not get a response!!!”
Published in the Journal’s Letters & Opinion section, POC Talk says it provides “no-holds-barred commentary on local happenings.” In the inaugural POC Talk column, it was suggested that a subject touched on in the column could possibly include “how do I rid myself of white-dread [sic] roommate’s numerous micro-agressions.”
Topics the column has discussed include student activism, self care, the local comedy scene as well as the turmoil that upended the college after students in May accused a white biology professor, Bret Weinstein, and the university of perpetuating racism.
The Cooper Point Journal did not respond to multiple requests for comment regarding the column.
In one column, POC Talk points to the “scary national backlash the school faced last year”, referring to the events that rocked Evergreen after students accused Weinstein of racism because he criticized a planned “Day of Absence” in which white people were asked to stay off campus.
The protests on campus garnered national attention and amid the upheaval the college was shut for multiple days in early June because of threats it received. Since the unrest, Evergreen has said it will train students not to discriminate against white people.
Weinstein and his wife, fellow biology professor Heather Heying, sued the college and eventually a reached a $500,000 settlement, a topic POC Talk discussed earlier this semester.
A column complained about the settlement, arguing Weinstein is a poster child of white privilege and that minorities “face harassment on an almost daily basis, it’s horrible and it’s traumatizing but ain’t nobody going to pay us $500,000 to deal with it.”
The column added:
Brett [sic] is the definition of white privilege and fragility—the fear and “danger” he and his wife felt they were exposed to was only the slightest sliver of what POC deal with on an almost daily basis. The fear they were experiencing is not unique or even new to those of us who face backlash by fact of our mere existence. None of this is to deny the legitimacy of their fear, but instead to point out the privilege there is in being able to make the decision to place yourself in a space of vulnerability by publicly expressing opinions and ideas. This authority over the way people will treat you is what makes Brett [sic] and Heather the textbook definition of white fragility and privilege.
Recent columns for POC Talk include a series called a “Crash Course in Social Justice Slang,” which has defined terms such as institutional racism, “woke” and intersectionality.
Brown University Will Allow Students to ‘Self-Identify’ as a Person of Color
Brown University has announced a change to their application process that will allow applicants to “self-identify” as a person of color.
According to The College Fix, the policy is the result of complaints made by Asian-American and international students that they aren’t yet categorized as members of historically underrepresented groups. Historically, Brown has restricted minority status to “American Indian, Alaskan Native, African American, Hispanic or Latinx and Native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Islander” students.
“Duncan acknowledged that while the University’s classification system did result in international and Asian American students not receiving these invitations, she said that the graduate school will change its application for the upcoming admissions cycle to allow students to self-identify as a student of color,” an article in the Brown Daily Herald read.
One graduate student told the Herald that Brown’s decision to limit minority status to only a select group made certain students feel invisible.
“The University does not classify international students as students of color and Asian American students as HUGs: These decisions have led to “institutional invisibility,” Kelow-Bennett said, adding that such lapses caused some students to not receive invitations to certain events, such as a multicultural student dinner,” the report read.
Although the program is primarily designed for the purposes of allowing students outside of the groups traditionally designated by Brown to be underrepresented to be included, the College Fix suggests that, under the new system, any student will be able to “self-identify” as a person of color.
When asked, Brown University refused to explain how minority status affects admissions decisions. The College Fix reached out to Marlina Duncan, the dean of diversity initiatives at Brown about the impact of minority status on admission, but she did not respond to the outlet’s inquiry. Several other members of the Brown University administration refused to directly answer questions on the impact of minority status on admission.
Sexual harassment standard different for Congress, SC’s Clyburn suggests
U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn could find himself in hot water.
A flippant response the Columbia Democrat made to reporters while walking in the Capitol is drawing the ire of many.
When asked about sexual harassment allegations against colleague Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Clyburn seemed to suggest elected officials should be held to a different standard than other public figures.
In a video posted on Twitter, the 77-year-old Clyburn is walking to an elevator with Congressional Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.), when asked “Other men in other industries have faced similar accusations … and gotten out of the way, resign, stepped down, far faster than he has, right … Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer?”
That was followed by another question, “So it’s different because he’s elected,” but the elevator doors closed before Clyburn might have responded.
Many comments critical of Clyburn have been posted on social media. Among them, people are questioning his logic, asking him to resign – in delicate and powerful terms – and calling him a poor representative of South Carolina.
A writer for The New York Times Magazine and National Geographic tweeted that Clyburn invoked the name of Susan Smith, South Carolina’s infamous child murderer, in his defense of Conyers.
“James Clyburn compared Conyers’ accusers to the child murderer Susan Smith, who initially claimed a black man had abducted her kids. Clyburn said, these are all white women who’ve made these charges against Conyers,” Robert Draper tweeted.
When asked if that comment was true, Draper said he verified it through two sources, adding “Clyburn has used the Susan Smith parallel more than once, to members & staffers.”
This isn’t the first time Clyburn has opened himself up to criticism on the issue of Conyers.
On Nov. 21, the assistant Democratic leader, the third-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House told The New York Times he was unsure whether the claims against Conyers “have any real substance.”
“You can’t jump to conclusions with these type of things,” Clyburn told The New York Times. “For all I know, all of this could be made up.”
The following day, Nov. 22, Clyburn had a somewhat different on Twitter.
Clyburn tweeted that any claims of sexual harassment are very serious and can’t be tolerated.
“The allegations against Congressman John Conyers are very disturbing, and I am aware he has emphatically denied them,” Clyburn wrote. “The House Ethics Committee should conduct a prompt, deliberate and thorough investigation.”
Should Clyburn’s followers on social media expect another response, differing from his curt comment at the elevator, on Thursday?
Clyburn might not be in the minority among his peers on this issue.
The Democratic caucus held a meeting Wednesday morning, and according to a post on Twitter, Rep. Linda Sanchez complained that elected members of Congress shouldn’t “be held to a higher standard” than others when it comes to sexual harassment.
Conyers, the longest serving member of the U.S. House, is currently being investigated by the U.S. House Ethics Committee after BuzzFeed News first reported the 88-year-oldrepresentative settled a wrongful termination complaint in 2015 by a staffer who accused him of sexual harassment.
Conyers has denied the allegations and resisted calls for his resignation, but stepped down from his role as the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
On Monday, Clyburn asserted he isn’t planning on retiring after 25 years on the job. He said he will seek re-election next year as the incumbent in the South Carolina’s 6th District congressional seat.
“My health is good. I feel fine,” Clyburn said, adding, “I don’t think I’ve detected any angst with the voting public about my service.”
Shaun King, a leftist political activist and writer for The Intercept, asserted Monday in response to a Trump tweet that “ungrateful is the new nigger.”
DUDE YOU ARE WHITE
Trump accused LaVar Ball of being “ungrateful” that he was able to get Ball’s son and two other UCLA basketball players out of a Chinese prison after the players were accused of shoplifting.
King wrote that “ungrateful is the new nigger,” catching the ire of Twitter users.
REVEALED: La David Johnson Betrayed Fellow Soldiers in Niger Ambush
Washington, DC – The attack by Islamic militants in the central African country of Niger that left four American military members dead and triggered a public fight between President Donald Trump and Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, of Florida, is hiding a far more dark episode in our nation’s military. New evidence has emerged that reveals that Sgt. La David T. Johnson, the center of the fracas between President Trump and Rep. Wilson, had betrayed his own squad by helping to set up the ambush in Niger by Islamic militants that would ultimately lead to the death of three American soldiers as well as his own.
Where is Niger anyway?
Niger is a landlocked, west African country bordered by Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad. Since its independence from France in 1960, it has experienced military rule, countless coups and now a democratically elected government. The current president of Niger is Issoufou Mahamadou.
A map of Niger showing the precise location Niamey where the ambush of the American soldiers took place.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world. Food production isn’t keeping up with the population growth due to the arid climate, the lack of arable land and the high fertility rate.
Niger however is rich in natural resources and Islamic terrorists have targeted Niger in order to hurt its economy. Uranium mines, which are abundant in Niger, have been the target of recent terrorist attacks aimed at undermining the democratically elected government.
Why were U.S. troops in Niger and when did they get there?
U.S. troops started arriving in Niger in 2013. During this time, extremists were on the rise in northwest Africa. The French had intervened in Mali in 2012 when an al-Qaeda affiliated group and other tribal groups took control of the northern part of the country. In addition, Boko Haram continued its assault on Nigeria through bombings and killings.
Members of the Islamic militant group Boko Haram.
Former president Barack Obama deployed 40 U.S. military personnel to provide support to the French forces. This brought the total number of troops in Niger to 100 in 2013. However, the small troop numbers were grossly insufficient to deal with the complexity of the insurgency and Islamic terrorist activities. The number of U.S. troops in Niger has since ballooned to 800. In a letter to the House speaker at the time, Obama claimed,
“This deployment will provide support for intelligence collection and will also facilitate intelligence sharing with French forces conducting operations in Mali, and with other partners in the region.”
Currently, troops are assisting the U.S. Embassy in Niger’s capital of Niamey, while others are working on construction efforts at Air Base 201 in Agadez, according to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
What does the White House want to say happened on October 4 in Niger?
On October 4, four soldiers died in Niger “as a result of hostile fire while on a reconnaissance patrol,” according to the Defense Department. According to the Pentagon, twelve American soldiers were attending a routine patrol in the area when they were ambushed by up to 100 Islamic militants who engaged in a fierce firefight with the patrol. Four American soldiers died that day and the first three identified were Army Staff Sgt. Bryan C. Black, 35, Army Staff Sgt. Jeremiah W. Johnson, 39 and Army Staff Sgt. Dustin M. Wright, 29.
The fourth soldier identified was Sgt. La David T. Johnson, 25 – the soldier whose widow President Donald Trump called and the source of the controversy between President Trump and Representative Frederica Wilson.
Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., has stood by her claim that President Donald Trump made insensitive remarks to Myeshia Johnson, the widow of a slain soldier.
Although Johnson is said to have died on October 4, his body was found over a mile away from the site of the Islamic militant’s ambush and it took a whole 48 hours to retrieve his body, according to the Defense Department.
According to a New York Times report, the Pentagon has been trying to determine whether American forces involved in the deadly ambush in Niger diverted from their routine patrol to embark on an unapproved mission, according to military officials.
American and Nigerien soldiers on the patrol have given conflicting accounts about whether they were simply ambushed or were attacked after trying to chase Islamic insurgents, according to military officials from both countries.
One of the main problems with the timeline in Niger is that the area which was alleged to have been patrolled by U.S. forces was familiar to the soldiers and had not been deemed to have required additional security. The area had been patrolled numerous times with no incident.
Defense Secretary James Mattis answers reporters’ questions about the American soldiers who were killed in Niger before a lunch meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and other officials at the Pentagon on October 19, 2017 in Arlington, Virginia.
However, according to the survivors of the ambush, Johnson’s body was found a good mile away from the point at which Islamic militants launched their ambush. In response to media queries why it took so long to recover Johnson’s body, an irate Secretary of Defense, James Mattis said to the media,
“The U.S. military does not leave its troops behind, and I would just ask that you not question the actions of the troops who were caught in the firefight and question whether or not they did everything they could in order to bring everyone out at once.”.
John Kelly, President Trump’s chief of staff, said on October 19 that more was known about events than has been reported in the press but that he would not disclose it. That “more” is precisely what led to the controversy when President Trump called the widow of Johnson and said “he knew what he signed up for.”
What can’t the White House say?
According to a senior White House official who was privy to the discussions between the Pentagon and the Oval Office regarding the Niger ambush and requested anonymity, part of the reason that President Trump took four days before he could publicly comment on the death of the American soldiers is that Johnson was the one who had leaked the position of the patrol to Islamic militants who then launched the ambush, which killed three of Johnson’s fellow soldiers.
President Donald Trump speaks on the phone in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington., DC.
The White House was incredulous that a betrayal from an exemplary soldier was possible and they spent four long days trying to confirm what the Pentagon was claiming happened. The bigger question was whether to admit that Johnson had betrayed his squad – no matter how you spun this information – there would be no winners, only losers. Ultimately, the decision was taken to cover up the fact that Johnson had betrayed the position of his squad to Islamic terrorists. Understanding why Johnson, who was highly regarded by his military peers, would do such a thing was far more complex.
Who is La David Johnson?
La David T. Johnson was a husband and father to a 2-year-old son and a 6-year-old-daughter and was set to welcome his third child in January. According to MilitaryTimes.com, Johnson joined the Army in January 2014 and was assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) at the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina.
A screengrab of La David Johnson’s Facebook page showing a photo of him before he shipped out.
Highly regarded by his military peers, Staff Sgt. Dennis Bohler, a close friend of Johnson’s who was also Johnson’s supervisor at Fort Bragg, said Johnson rose through the ranks rapidly – from a private to a sergeant in less than three years. According to Bohler,
“He caught on quickly. You tell him once, and it’s complete, any task.”
“He was just that one soldier that always wanted to better himself every day. Every day, he wanted to do better than he did yesterday.”
Lt. Col. David Painter, commander of 2nd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), said in a statement that,
“The Bush Hog formation (the Battalion nickname) was made better because of Johnson’s faithful service and we are focused on caring for the Johnson family during this difficult period.”
Bohler added,
“(Johnson) had some pretty good upbringing. He didn’t do any drinking. He didn’t do any smoking. He was a family-oriented soldier.”
However something changed for Johnson when Donald Trump was elected as President in November 2016. Fellow soldiers who were deployed with him in Niger and who spoke on condition of anonymity claim that Johnson went through a period of introspection shortly after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election to Donald Trump in 2016. According to one soldier,
“There was a sense that Johnson didn’t feel like he knew what he was fighting for anymore.”
Johnson hated Donald Trump and thought that he was a white supremacist and a racist and made that clear in conversations with other soldiers. Whereas before, Johnson was more than happy to serve under former president Barrack Obama, the thought of serving under President Donald Trump was something that he had not prepared for.
Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem to protest police treatment of black suspects. Kaepernick has been found to have donated significant sums to a group which glorifies violence against police officers and celebrates the life of convicted cop-killer Assanta Shakur.
Then came Charlottesville and the Colin Kaepernick controversy flared up. According to another soldier deployed in Niger with Johnson and who also requested anonymity,
“There was Charlottesville and then there was the whole Colin Kaepernick thing and that really set David off.”
“He was furious that the president would speak in defense of white supremacists and he questioned what he was still doing out here instead of being with his family.”
However, there was no way for Johnson to request to return back to the U.S. As a special forces soldier, he was torn between his duty to fight alongside his squad and his desire to give up the fight. Which is when he decided to commit the ultimate betrayal, leak the position of his squad to Islamic terrorists in the hopes they would set up an ambush and use the opportunity to flee, and cite psychological trauma as a grounds to return back to the U.S.
What really happened on October 4 in Niger?
On October 4, Johnson’s squad had heard reports that a leader of a militant group had been coming from Mali to resupply on fuel and food at Tongo Tongo, whose villagers are seen as sympathetic to the extremists. The Americans were keen to follow up with the Tongo Tongo village chief when they saw motorbikes in the horizon – a sign of likely terrorist activity. Motorbikes are the vehicle of choice of insurgent groups operating in the area, allowing them to easily navigate the harsh terrain, especially now, the end of the muddy rainy season.
Sgt. La David T. Johnson was an exemplary soldier who lost focus on his mission and his loyalty to the flag, the country and the President.
Eventually, after talking to the village chief, the troops got into their vehicles to return to their base, a two-hour drive. But less than five minutes after they drove out of the village, the convoy was ambushed by a group that outnumbered them two to one.
According to a Nigerian official, about 100 armed insurgents, many of whom were on motorbikes – two or three people a bike – as well as others in about 10 sport utility vehicles, surrounded the Americans. They were armed with heavy weapons, including anti-aircraft weaponry as well as rocket-propelled grenades, and a firefight lasting about two to three hours ensued.
During this time, two or three vehicles in Johnson’s convoy were destroyed and part of the convoy became separated when at least one of the Land Cruisers became stuck in the mud. According to the New York Times, Johnson was in the vehicle that had gotten stuck, along with Nigerian soldiers who also died.
However, American forces who survived the fight described one Land Cruiser driving away from the ambush at high speed in the opposite direction of the convoy. That Land Cruiser was driven by Johnson and was the only Land Cruiser that contained Nigerian soldiers and no other French or American soldiers. According to one survivor who spoke on condition of anonymity as investigations are still ongoing,
“As we came under heavy fire, I looked up and saw Johnson jump into one of the Land Cruisers and speed off in the other direction. That Land Cruiser was manned by the Nigerian soldiers who were with us, so I thought it was weird that he would do that instead of providing covering fire.”
Nigerian officials shared intelligence with the American forces in Niger that the meeting with the Tongo Tongo village chief had been arranged by Johnson and that he had leaked the information of the size of the squad and the convoy that would be at the village that day. This gave the Tongo Tongo village chief ample opportunity to stall for time as the Islamic militants brought down overwhelming firepower on the unsuspecting American soldiers. Johnson, who had intended to flee all along would have succeeded if not for the fact that he was shot and killed by a member of his own convoy.
Islamic militants in Niger are heavily armed and fanatical, making them an enormous threat to American forces on the ground.
Which is why the American forces in Niger were extremely reluctant to return to pick up Johnson’s body. The bodies of the Nigerian soldiers in the Land Cruiser with Johnson were picked up on the day of the deadly firefight, but it took the Americans a whole 48 hours to reconcile Johnson’s betrayal before they decided to return and pick up his body.
When Johnson’s personal effects were gathered, a letter was found to Johnson’s wife, which spoke at length about how he no longer felt that it was justifiable to put himself in harm’s way for a “racist president” and that he would “find a way out, no matter what.”
President Trump’s phone call with Johnson’s widow
President Trump was well aware of Johnson’s betrayal, but decided ultimately that in the interest of keeping the nation united, it would be best to let Johnson’s betrayal go unmentioned, after all, his death was punishment enough – no need to go any further. However, true patriot that President Trump is, he struggled in the phone call to Myeshia Johnson – La David T. Johnson’s widow.
Myeshia Johnson at the funeral of her husband Sgt. La David T. Johnson, who will be remembered as a hero, despite evidence to the contrary.
During the call, President Trump told Myeshia Johnson that her husband “must have known what he signed up for,” according to an account from Wilson, who was riding in a limousine with the soldier’s family when the President called. What Representative Wilson did not know, was that President Trump was struggling with speaking kind words for a soldier who had committed the ultimate sin, betraying his fellow soldiers. According to a senior White House communications aide who asked not to be named and was standing next to the President during the phone call,
“The President really struggled.”
“He wanted to provide comfort to Johnson’s widow, but at the same time, the knowledge that he was saying kind words about a traitor, that was too much for the President, which is why he said Johnson ‘must have known what he signed up for’.”
Ultimately, Johnson’s betrayal and death are a mere reflection of the division that is tearing up this country. An unsettling trend is sweeping across the country, where vows are no longer sacred and symbols are no longer respected and it has reached such a point where it’s even undermining the integrity of our military. Johnson may have been a deserter, but he did not need to be a traitor and it was his traitorous act which resulted in the loss of three other loyal American soldiers who were in country to do their job – defend our freedoms.
As Johnson is buried today as a hero, the true heroes are the ones who chose to let him be remembered that way, because it is better he died as a symbol of unity, then that he expose the truth about the division which plagues our democracy.
