Applied for a White House visit, which the building is currently under renovations, obtained a Capitol Hill pass, and making arrangements for touring!
Have been working on a presentation titled "Healing After Domestic Terrorism" that serves as a public guide for anyone effected from the Dallas 5 Fallen Officers Ambush/ Dallas Shooting event that took place on July 7th 2016.
This message was originally posted prior to the incident involving Charlottesville, where a protest apparently turned into a riot, that was interrupted by another act of domestic terrorism where a car was plunged into the crowd who had formed from two opposing sides that led into rioting, escalated from peaceful protesting that occurred the night before- however tensions between the two groups were, there was no evidence of physical violence until August 12th, 2017.
Some of the rhetoric that I took out of my original presentation was slides on giving the right for the shooter on July 7th, the right to base his actions on racism, because of historical accounts, (which is why I stated that I withdrew forensic notions of identifying with the killer) of extremist views from Whites/Caucasians against Blacks/African-Americans, and such thinking, would give the same rights to the acts of the killer on August 12th.
Removing history and pretending it never happened, is not the same as coming up with a solution where you are able to preserve history, without idolizing atrocities, and preventing extremism for superiority of any ideological group, to dehumanize everyone else outside thereof.
Had I never seen a book that proved lynching occurred, as horrible an act as it was to witness in a historical context, I would have not believed anyone, whites or blacks, who gave a historical account over the attitudes that predominately was held with those attributes.
In Politics, if you do not chose a side, you have to be careful for being the oppressor when it involves things like starvation of one's citizens through communistic means. In journalism, you must present both sides for an audience to make an informed decision, while catering to your audience, viewers, and follower base.
We have to condemn extremism in all of it's forms, whether it is a superiority of race, ethnic cleansing, religion absolute solutions- where your religion is the ultimate (to me that is a form of communism i.e. if your religion needs to have a quota for the entire world to have the same values and belief system), I can only attest the next to myself having gone through a period of understanding certain gender identity- misandrists instead of feminist- regarding countering misogyny (the concept of having to "counter" misogyny with misandrist is basically the same concept as countering supremacy of racial lines to achieve equality- neither party becomes equal when both ideologies are founded in hatred. Sort of like the concept of the first lady stating you can have different views without expressing them with hate in your heart- and I want to be very careful here when I quote her saying that because protecting free speech is often blame and misguided for siding with bigotry, when it is constitutional protection of civil rights. I do not think any member of the first family meant to choose rhetoric that has been widely interpreted as "many sides" equating to choosing the actions of one to represent the actions of all, & then classifying guilt upon all parties for showing up to engage in a peaceful protest, that turning into a riot, that later became domestic terrorism. I have at least seen the first family engage in television appearances where their leader DJT has addressed audiences to condemn forms of bigotry, racism, with words that include "Do you want me to say it to the camera? will that help? fine I will say it- STOP IT" as if that is going to make a difference over the issue, when his level of popularity among his fan, voter, and support base, has consequences different from any other president depending on the interpretation of the audience members, and his general inexperience in politics, is being shaped by the people after he makes what is considered a mistake. Here being grave undertones of whether or not his meanings were equivocation.
The delayed response for clarification for me means that not only was he listening to the response of the people, he was allowing others to have their share of interpretation through all forms of media, because on some level he recognizes that he is not the only person who deserves the spotlight for healing the nation. Also, since he held his second press conference, he is giving credit to addressing the severity of the issue, regardless of how un-eloquent he was.
You cannot really deny there is no such thing as the alt-right anymore than the alt-left, regardless of whom blame ends up consuming, including the groups who were initially protesting that blamed the police for not keeping the peace. The police were not there to take away your friend of speech, to tell you how to protest, and any method they would have done with crowd control to prevent the escalation of rioting, would have probably been interpreted as an infringement of the crowds constitutional right to organize.
I do not hear anyone saying that DJT was wrong or being unpresidential for saying that an investigating needed to occur to determine what was wrong with our country having these violate outbursts, or that he is not a President for giving the mainstream media, businessmen the democratic right to their own interpretation of calling him out in their own opinion and freedom to choose their own voice, firing Scaramucci and replacing him with Hope Hicks, standing firm against North Korea, etc, or even praising how the protests against him were considered a compliment to him for the people exercising their rights of free speech.
I do not see anyone stopping him in the middle of his boy scouts speech to begin with when the rhetoric is politicized. It is not heckling to redirect topics without silencing campaigning, if that was an issue. His tone changed for American Legion.
Anger and outrage over any of his rhetoric has never been silenced when there are disagreements.
The display of leadership for those who associate with him or do not, has a greater importance that everyone is on the same page in condemning violence (concerning domestic relations escalating into violence, not defending the national interest with combat when needed because violence against the United States of Americans is threatened first by a foreign country) by members of every branch of the military, business leaders who may or may not partake in associating condemning bigotry, hatred, and violence with the "many sides" fiasco- when you have such unity in uniting against him by a clear majority in an instance that everyone needs to have press coverage pertaining to the issue itself of how to balance civil rights freedoms without escalation for catastrophe.
I myself stated publicly that I broke up with DJT 45 President, over the comments from the video release during his campaign that he apologized for when his daughter urged him to make a public apology, where he stated he never claimed to be a perfect person, and that he was wrong for galvanizing women. This was not just something I did because I was heartbroken idolizing him, up until that point I was willing to consider seeing him in a service role, as I also voted for his opponent and considered listening to his new role defending conservatism budget wise if nothing else without it spilling over into the debate about entrepreneurial capitalism replacing federal dependency of welfare with liberalism being targeted as appropriation.
You are not brainwashed citizens that have no accountability for your acts of hate crimes- just as it was so important for members of professional organizations to curb the violence rhetoric of whether or not police have the right to use force more so on bad dudes, should you look at your own rhetoric for responsibility on keeping each other safe, biased-free, and independent from grouping when it suits you for national spotlight.
Teach your kids to be proud of their heritage and country without needing to side with bigotry, fascism, hatred, violence, and targeting immigrants that are here legally as minorities without citizenship the same way your ancestors came into this country, & preserve the sanctuary of diversity within your cities with a plan that compromises over federal funding or get your own funding through capitalism without cutting services to integration for their transition.
The dramatic nature of revolting everything that goes wrong with actions of those who commit crimes with blame on each other shows no accountability of your participation in establishing yourselves as having any authority and control of your own actions.
Learn to distinguish yourself from authoritative gossip getting played by groups of mainstream viral youtube stars, and associate yourself with divulging in more than one point of view from members of the press and coverage.
Myself, I am the first to admit when I have been wrong being played by researchers who are out to create a profile for narcissism more so within their own self-reflection and power control over the need to being the leader and authority over the subject matter- so much so, that I allowed the delusion of a researcher being intimate in his actions with flirtation. When he was just doing his job collectively with other staff to show how feeble-minded and impressionable I was to cognitive dissonance setting myself up to be bait, trampled, humiliated, dehumanized, and drugged for experimentation for which I will never again trust these individuals who found it comical to use me in a manner for politics more so than the scientific exploration of development of my career that I enrolled in to save lives through medicine. I believed someone who was there for me during a turbulent time where I was sexually assaulted, was not using it as his gain to further his career in convincing myself that I had any equality for authority over education as a researcher, or that there was romantic feelings involved between us, when his ultimate goals was to deflect the emotions he engaged in mutually appearing to exchange, by requesting the ordering of those thereof; to initiate in a population they wanted to study of abnormalities within the brain.
I made the mistake of including statements to affiliation with someone I have not had a real relationship with, against someone that I had, such as Michael Chen from Taiwan, to members of authority, when I myself was being ordered to include someone I did not have a real relationship with, into my financial planning for marriage. I can say the experience of surviving being targeted does not leave room for coming back after retirement. Just as I refuse to have my reputation solely based on sexual exploits of favors, am I obligated to report the power-trip abnormalities, of those who have repeatedly attempted to use me in such regard, up until the change in leadership.
What I did was write down- would I allow this to happen to someone else? No? Then it is not self-fulfilling to identify with protecting others than protecting yourself.
Would you say that your only friends are associates from one particular group? Does your entire world revolve around one person where they can break you and do whatever they want with you at the expense of your own voice and identity? You can look up to leaders and qualities they possess within leadership without being a replica right? Doesn't everyone who is a leader of a company have their own values within their mission of their organization have the obligation and duty within their executive leadership to put the value of their relationships with their employees and customers over politics? Policy is meant to enhance the establishment of free-enterprise, not be leaned upon for direction through idolization of "wealth disparity" by relying on politicians to set the outcomes of capitalism through their demands when you yourself are dictating the interpretation of media controversy for your own bottom-line.
I have had to retract my own behavior under orders within my own department where I have yet to take of the name of the researcher off of my affiliation books, but I have at least started the process. Y'all are not employees of the federal government (some of you might be) but industry leaders are surely not, so don't act like you are not writing letters condemning the popular view over the interpretation of many sides when you are smoozing with one-sided views of loyalty to your political party behind closed doors. It is great to have your TV time in the spotlight being the face of America with a President until all the drama you bank on with controversy of media involvement turns on you, and your affiliation of loyalty is challenged to your definition of America First including every citizens of the United States of America with those "many sides" while having to reject obvious means of propaganda by hate-groups. When you would not reject the investigation of what happened in Charlottesville with rejecting that everyone believes in the same God statements- why are you not rejecting the notion that it is acknowledged something is wrong with America when you have already linked your blame to verbiage after an event preemptive in causation?
You are not out defending climate change with the heat index being a proponent of escalation of violence in the heat index with a crowd of protesting turned rioting.
What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. Get your own mind.