The Chicago Tribune suggests the Gospel Choir is the source of the rejection of H&M. Again, I am spot-on with my many posts about the Shembe Zulu Nazarites who became my church – after my minister did not want Eugene’s Inspirational Gospel Choir singing in his church. I have been covering the BIG STORY – for years – while claiming I am a prophet, which shocked some citizens of Springfield – all to hell!
Anybody who got up early to watch Prince Harry and Meghan Markle tie the knot should have known that the fairy tale wasn’t going to last. That gospel choir was a dead giveaway.
The couple’s decision to step back from their duties as senior members of the British royal family and go out on their own sent shock waves through the world last week. But signs of family discord were always there, even at the wedding.
It was easy to miss this during the live television broadcast, but a look back at the YouTube video shows how clueless some of the guests at the wedding were. During most of the song, Prince Charles kept his head buried in the program resting on his knee. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, openly flipped through hers, occasionally glancing up from behind her pink feathered brim with a look of total dismay.
By the end of the ceremony, which included a rousing 14-minute sermon by a black Episcopal bishop, some of the royals and other guests stopped trying to pretend as though they understood — or appreciated — anything that was going on.
fantasies eventually lose out to reality.
Americans like to think that the British are more tolerant of race than we are. Our country, after all, has the legacy of slavery to deal with. It’s not that Britain didn’t play a role in the slave trade, they just did a better job of covering theirs up.
That doesn’t mean the vestiges of slavery, racist attitudes and discrimination, in particular, don’t exist there, either. Racial and ethnic intolerance has no geographical boundaries. It’s a state of mind. And the minds of many people in England unfortunately are no different than the minds of many Americans.
Sometimes it just seems like it’s worse at home because we see it up close so often.
Regardless of what the British tabloids say, we will never really know what happened to force Harry and Meghan to essentially divorce the royal family. Most of us in the U.S. had no idea that royals could even resign from their positions.
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II looks on during the wedding ceremony of Britain’s Prince Harry and actress Meghan Markle in St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. (Jonathan Brady/Getty-AFP)
At various points, Harry’s cousin Zara Tindall’s mouth hung open, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice snickered, Prince William seemed as though he was trying not to laugh, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip were stone-faced and many of the other guests were simply stunned.
Clearly, they couldn’t wait for it to be over. But those of us watching from afar were focused on something more remarkable. We reveled in the fairy tale of a handsome prince sweeping an American commoner, a black woman, off her feet and carrying her away to live happily ever after.
We were awed by Harry and Meagan’s obvious adoration for each other. Our hearts melted when he looked at her and uttered, “You look amazing,” as she joined him at the altar. We marveled at them seated together, gently holding hands and gushing at each other as the bishop spoke.
Hard to understand why anyone would want to give up such a cushy job that involved little more than smiling, waving and holding babies while visiting exotic places like Fiji, Tonga and Morocco. But something obviously got in the way.
If you consider the wedding, it seems obvious that there would be cultural misunderstandings down the road. In order for any blended family to work, there must be some teaching going on but most importantly, there has to be openness to learning.
As we know from life in our own country, people aren’t always willing to go the extra step to understand others’ culture. People aren’t always open to walking in someone else’s shoes, especially when theirs are so comfortable.
It’s much easier to believe the worst about someone we don’t really know, especially when it fits the narrative we’re predisposed to believing. The sensational British tabloids gave Britons plenty of material to work with when it came to Markle. It got so bad that even Prince Harry noted the “racial undertones” of the coverage.
Why isn’t Giuliani and Jeff sessions demanding Putin hand over the twelve Russian Army offers who issued warrants. Instead Mr. 911 threatens Americans with a revolt from armed Nazi-like Militias for the Killer Jesus. Giuliani is a TERRORIST.
At the same time, his Mafia-like Boss Man directs attention away from himself and his real legal problems, to South Africa, in order to stir up his Christian Nazi base, and offer them fresh targets to go into their deluded and murderous minds.
Here are members of the church I belong to too. I declared myself a Nazarite in 1987 after I was driven from a Christian church for asking good questions. These are South Africans. I have been mocked and abandoned by friends and family because I chose this church. Today, they are in the news.
John and Jesus were Nazarites. They launched a war against Rome and burned down the debt archives. When the Mob is out of power I offer my services as arbitrator and ambassador.
John Presco 007
On Monday, Aug. 20, news broke that Melania Trump would be taking her first big solo trip as first lady to Africa. But controversial comments about South Africa from her husband on Twitter Wednesday night could affect Melania Trump’s visit to Africa.
The White House has declined to rule out accepting a Russian proposal to question on US soil American people – including the former ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul – sought by the Kremlin for “illegal activities”.
The proposal arose at Monday’s summit between the US president Donald Trump and the Russian president Vladimir Putin, and any decision by Washington to assist with an adversary’s prosecution of former government employees overseas would be a stunning shift in US policy, especially as it could violate the international legal principle of diplomatic immunity.
“The president is going to meet with his team and we’ll let you know when we have an announcement on that,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told a news briefing. Sanders added that Trump “said it was an interesting idea … He wants to work with his team and determine if there is any validity that would be helpful to the process”.
Sanders’s comments prompted outrage in the US, including from McFaul, a vocal Putin critic.
“When Trump says Russia is no longer targeting America, that’s not how this American feels,” McFaul wrote on Twitter.
“Putin is most certainly targeting and intimidating me. And I’m an American.”
Or, so the president of the United States appears to believe. Amid an avalanche of damaging headlines (and serious legal challenges), Donald Trump announced Wednesday night that he had asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to “closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers.”
By all accounts, the president’s statement was not prompted by any intelligence briefing, or appeal from international human rights organizations, but rather, by a segment on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. Which makes sense: Although empirical evidence shows there is no “large-scale killing” of white farmers in South Africa, white nationalists have been promoting that idea for years — and Tucker Carlson has been promoting white nationalist ideas for most of the Trump presidency.
Here’s a quick explanation of what is actually happening in South Africa, and how our president came to echo neo-Nazi lies about what is happening there.
It is true that the South African government is trying to expropriate some white farmers’ land.
In the 19th century, a minority of white colonists (known as Afrikaners) dominated South Africa’s black majority through terror and violence. In the second half of the 20th, it did so through a formal system of legal discrimination known as apartheid (and through terror and violence).
Under apartheid, black South Africans were barred from owning virtually all of their country’s agricultural land. Thus, by the time South Africa became a democracy in 1994, whites accounted for 10 percent of its population, but owned roughly 90 percent of its land. The question of how to redress this immense inequality in the distribution of South Africa’s natural wealth has loomed over the country ever since. Only marginal progress has been made on this front in the past 24 years: Today, the 8 percent of South Africans who have light skin own 73 percent of all agricultural land, according to the farmers association Agri SA.
In 2016, the South African parliament passed a law empowering the government to force white land owners to forfeit their real estate — in exchange for market-price compensation — and to then redistribute said land to black South Africans. But the law did more to raise the expectations of the nation’s racial majority than it did to meet them. With redistribution proceeding at snail’s pace, a growing number of black South Africans began warming to the far-left, Economic Freedom Fighters party, and its proposal for nationalizing all of the country’s land. In response, the incumbent party, the African National Congress (ANC), amended the Constitution to allow the government to expropriate white landowners’ property without compensation.
Although the moral case for reparations in South Africa is bulletproof, one hardly needs to be a white nationalist to question the wisdom of executing such reparations through forced land redistribution (rather than through taxes and cash payments, more generous social welfare programs, etc.). After all, South Africa’s economy is heavily reliant on foreign capital. And if mass, uncompensated expropriation scares investors, South Africans of all skin tones could end up worse off. As Vox’s Jennifer Williams explains:
That move is being welcomed by many in the country, but not everyone is convinced it’s a good idea. Some, including investors, worry that it could trigger a catastrophic economic crisis like the one that occurred in neighboring Zimbabwe when it enacted similar reforms in 2000. There, rapid land seizures panicked investors, causing them to flee the market in droves. That led to massive hyperinflation and food shortages that effectively collapsed the country’s economy: Experts put the cost to Zimbabwe’s economy at around $20 billion.
It is not true that there has been “large-scale killing” of white farmers.
There is a lot of violent crime in South Africa. And sometimes, the victims of such crime are light-skinned farmers. In some cases, white farmers have been killed in such brutal fashion by dark-skinned assailants that it is reasonable to suspect that resentments rooted in the nation’s historic caste system played some part in the attacks.
But there is no “large -scale killing” farmers in South Africa, let alone of white farmers. The number of attacks and murders on South African farms has actually been sharply declining since the turn of this century. In the late 1990s, about 150 South African farmers were murdered each year; now, that number is below 50. Meanwhile, murder rates in white rural areas remain far lower than those in predominantly black townships — a pattern that is not perfectly consistent with the narrative that black South Africans have begun expropriating white land through mass murder.