Connect with us

Uncategorized

Jim Carreys bizarre conspiracy theory

Published

on

Jim Carrey. Picture: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images


Jim Carrey floated a conspiracy theory to his Twitter followers warning that Donald Trump may be the first US president to defect to a foreign country.

The 58-year-old Ace Ventura star shared the message along with another politically charged piece of artwork created by him.

His latest painting appears to show Russian President Vladimir Putin gleefully holding a model of what looks like Air Force One in his hands.

“Be wary of diplomatic missions to Moscow prior to the Nov elections,” Carrey tweeted with the painting. “Given the list of possible indictments he faces, Traitor Trump may be the first American President to defect.”

The actor seems to be suggesting that Mr Trump will make preliminary trips to Russia in an effort to defect should Joe Biden win the presidential election in November.

Carrey also seems to suggest that the various investigations conducted into Mr Trump’s alleged ties to the Russians could mean that he will be facing indictments once he’s no longer officially the US leader.

The political post comes months after Carrey publicly stated that he would no longer be sharing such paintings.

“To me, that was like a time, and it’s been a time, where I just wanted to be the lighthouse that was saying, ‘Hey, stay off the rocks, you’re headed for the rocks,'” he told Yahoo Entertainment in January. “We’re still headed for the rocks, but I’ve decided, ‘You understand my message, I don’t need to be steeped in it anymore.’ I think after a while you get stuck in that kind of stuff.”

But it didn’t take long before the Sonic The Hedgehog actor was back to his old ways, lambasting Mr Trump and his cohorts through artwork. In May, he shared an image of the Grim Reaper giving Donald Trump the middle finger, suggesting that the Grim Reaper was jealous of the President’s death toll stemming from his handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

He also shared a painting of Mr Trump dressed as the mayor from the 1975 movie Jaws, originally played by Murray Hamilton, demanding that people get in the water even though it’s unsafe.

“Trump is willing to risk countless lives to save his economic record. He has fully become the mayor from Jaws,” the actor wrote in the tweet accompanying the painting.

This article originally appeared on Fox News and was reproduced with permission

Originally published as Jim Carrey’s bizarre conspiracy theory



Uncategorized

Covid-19 conspiracy theories not among reasons given for test refusal in Victoria

Published

on


No one in Victoria is known to have cited a conspiracy theory for declining to take a Covid-19 test, the states health department has said, despite the health minister, Jenny Mikakos, blaming such beliefs for some of the 10,000 refusals as mass testing is carried out across Melbournes hotspot suburbs.

A spokeswoman from the health department told Guardian Australia on Friday: People have declined a test for reasons such as not wanting to do nasal swabs and showing a preference for saliva testing, and language barriers which our massive team of door-knockers try to overcome.

Guardian Australia had specifically asked the department if conspiracy theories were a reason people had declined the non-compulsory tests.

Door-knockers have been doing either testing, community education or both, the department spokeswoman said.

The response contradicted comments from Mikakos on Friday that belief in conspiracy theories was among the range of reasons for test refusal.

We are analysing that data to see exactly why people are refusing, but it is concerning that some people believe that coronavirus is a conspiracy or that it wont impact on them, so what I want to stress here is that coronavirus is a very contagious virus, she said. It can go through your family very quickly, it can affect your neighbours, your loved ones, and your entire community. So for those individuals in those communities who have not yet been tested, we are urging them to get tested as quickly as possible.

Guardian Australia has contacted Mikakos for comment.

The comments followed 65 new cases being announced in Victoria on Friday and 108 on Saturday after 17 days of double-digit growth, with a continuing and concerning number of new cases associated with transmission in households and families. Public health workers and legal experts have expressed concern that members of the community in hotspot suburbs may be unfairly criticised by people in non-lockdown suburbs, or overly targeted by police who are patrolling areas under lockdown to ensure people only leave for legitimate reasons.

Adding to confusion for residents in hotspot suburbs are mixed messages about who requires a test. While the government has said anyone in a hotspot suburb under lockdown can receive a free test even if they have no symptoms, a video seen by Guardian Australia shows two door-to-door workers who appear to be from the department of health tell a family they do not need to be tested as they are not symptomatic.

The video, taken on 29 June during the blitz, shows the two men, dressed in orange department of health vests and purple lanyards visiting a home in the hotspot suburb of Keilor Downs.

The tests are going on in the [nearby] avenue if you have any symptoms or anything? the workers told a resident of the home. When the resident replied that no one in his home had symptoms, the public health worker replied: Oh, thats all right. The other public health worker mentioned a kit that would allow the resident and their family to be tested at home, but the first worker cut him off and said, No, its all right. If you dont have any symptoms, its fine.

The resident replied: We dont have any symptoms but we can get tested, but was still not given a test kit. The first worker told him: Please make sure you maintain inside please, before the pair left. The interaction lasted about 30 seconds. The resident, Dave, who asked Guardian Australia not to include his last name, said he was concerned this interaction would be counted in the test refusal figures.

Theres no clarity right now so we dont know, Dave said. We dont know whats being counted in refusal, whats being miscounted … There is no detail behind what anybodys saying so I cant tell. He said that after the interaction he took his family to be tested despite being told it wasnt necessary.

[The workers] were fairly confused, they didnt understand what I needed to do, what I didnt need to do … I mean I can see why it might be inconsistent for people who dont speak English, as well as elderly folk.

The department of health and the premiers office declined to comment on the video or if the interaction would be counted as a refusal, but a spokeswoman for the premier confirmed that every household visited during the blitz should have been told to get tested.

Anyone living in the restricted postcodes is encouraged to get tested for coronavirus regardless of whether they have symptoms, she said.

All staff working on our suburban testing blitz are briefed ahead of their shift to ensure they can provide advice to residents about symptoms, hygiene and current restrictions, as well as how they can get tested.

Team members are a combination of department of health personnel, trained public health staff, and newly recruited staff. Since the blitz started last Thursday, more than 150,000 samples have been collected across the state and more than 94,900 doors have been knocked on.

While there has been misinformation spread via text messages and on social media, the department of health and premiers office have provided no detail about whether locked-down communities have been more likely to believe these conspiracy theories. This is despite Victorias chief health officer, Prof Brett Sutton, saying on 24 June that conspiracy theories may be partially responsible for the Victorian spike.

A woman named Ann contacted Guardian Australia to say she had received a text message that purported to be a police bulletin. The text warned against answering the door to door-knockers. It read: People are going door to door handing out masks, they say its a new initiative from local government. They will always ask you to please put it on to see if it fits you.

It has been doused with chemicals which knocks you out cold and once youre knocked out they proceed to rob you. Please do not accept masks from strangers. Remember, we are living in critical times and people are desperate to take advantage with the aim of making money. Crime rate has skyrocketed, so please be cautious and play safe!

Please send to all your friends, colleagues and loved ones so as to help them stay vigilant in this adverse situation. A spokesman for Victoria police said the message had also been widely circulating on social media for some months, long before the lockdown.

Meanwhile, Sarah Carter, the mayor of Maribyrnong city council, which contains suburbs among the hotspots, blamed entitlement on people declining to be tested.

It makes me feel incredibly angry, she told Channel Nine on Wednesday. I just think its the height of entitlement, to be honest, not to take the test, and I would urge everyone in our community, when asked, to take that test.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

YRKKH Upcoming Story: Sita Suhasini’s shocking past connection unlock present conspiracy

Published

on

YRKKH Upcoming Story: Sita Suhasini's shocking past connection unlock present conspiracy


Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai Upcoming Story: Sita (Alka Kaushal) and Suhasini’s (Swati Chitins) shocking past connection, unlock present conspiracy 

Star Plus longest running show Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai is gearing up for interesting twist.

The show is returning back for its audiences on 13th July, the makers are bringing in new dhamaka.

Goenka’s are suffering a business loss and are trying to compensate for the same by getting deals.

Here Sita marks her entry and Dadi is eager for Goenka to do business with her and asks Kartik to get the deal.


Sita and Suhasini’s past friendship

While now Naira ends up messing all and thus has to play double role game, while Sita is well aware of it.

Sita and Suhasini very well knows each other and were friends at sometime, Sita is back to seek revenge of past from Suhasini I’m the disguise of friendship.

Will Naira and Kartik be able to learn this shocking fact, stay tuned for more exciting updates only on entertainment news website latestgossipwu.com



Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Slavery, the Declaration of Independence and Frederick Douglass’ “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”

Published

on

Slavery, the Declaration of Independence and Frederick Douglass' "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"


Frederick Douglass.

 

July 4 is an appropriate time to remember Frederick Douglass’ famous 1852 speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” The speech is—for good reason—most famous for its powerful condemnation of slavery, racism, and American hypocrisy. But it also includes passages praising the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers. Both are worth remembering.

Here is, perhaps, the best-known part of the speech:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

And there is much more material of the same kind in the speech, ranging from a denunciation of the internal slave trade, to an attack on the then-recent Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The key point is that slavery and racism made a mockery of America’s professed ideals of liberty and equality. And, sadly, that legacy is far from fully overcome even today.

But Douglass’ speech also includes passages like this one, praising the American Revolution:

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.

They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times….

Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them!

Elsewhere in the speech, he also praises the revolutionaries’ refusal to submit to oppression merely because it was backed by law. This is an obvious reference to the those who, in the 1850s, argued that abolitionists had a duty to submit to the Fugitive Slave Act and other unjust proslavery laws. It is also a rebuke to “just enforce the law” arguments backing submission to deeply unjust laws in our own day.

Douglass recognized that the American Revolution not only espoused high principles, but had actually made important progress in realizing them—even as he also condemned the failure to realize them more fully, and the hypocrisy of Americans for tolerating the massive injustice of slavery, which so blatantly contradicted those principles.

In other writings and speeches, Douglass also praised the antislavery potential of the Constitution(which, I think, he in some respects overstated). His purpose in the Fourth of July Speech, was not to denounce the Founding Fathers, but rather the white Americans of his own time.

This raises the question of how we should think about slavery and the American Revolution today. Elsewhere, I have argued that, on balance, the Revolution gave an important boost to the antislavery cause, in both America and Europe—most notably by inspiring the “First Emancipation”—the abolition of slavery in the northern states, which was an essential prerequisite to eventual nationwide abolition.

I do not, believe, however, that this fact completely exempts the Founders from severe criticism on their record with respect to slavery. Most obviously, they still deserve condemnation for the fact that many of them were slaveowners themselves. People like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and George Mason all owned slaves throughout most of their lives, even though they well knew it was wrong and a violation of their own principles.

Jefferson famously denounced slavery as “a moral depravity” and “the most unremitting despotism.” Yet he kept right on owning slaves. The same goes for the others, though Washington did finally free his upon his death. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they continued to perpetrate a grave injustice because they did not want to suffer the loss of wealth and social status resulting from manumission.

This isn’t even a matter of “judging historical figures by modern standards.” It is a matter of them failing to live up to their own standards.

In addition to failing to free their own slaves, most of the Founders also failed to prioritize the abolition of slavery as an institution. They did take some important steps, such as promoting abolition in the northern states, barring the spread of slavery to the “Old Northwest,” and eventually banning the importation of new slaves from abroad. But they pretty clearly did not give abolishing the greatest moral evil in the new republic the priority it deserved.

Instead, they often prioritized less significant, but politically more advantageous issues. Alexander Hamilton (who was not a slaveowner) is often praised for his antislavery attitudes—in some ways justifiably so. But, throughout his political career, he repeatedly subordinated abolition to other priorities. Much the same can be said of most other political leaders of the day.

With great power, comes great responsibility. When it comes to slavery, most of the people who wielded great power in revolutionary America and the early republic failed to fully live up to theirs.

But the condemnation they deserve for that failure must be balanced against the very real progress they made possible—including on the issue of slavery. In addition, we should remember that we ourselves may not be free of the same types of faults.

It is far from unusual for people to set aside principles when they collide with self-interest. How many of us really prioritize doing what is right when doing so requires us to pay a high price? We like to think that, if we were in Jefferson’s place, we would have freed our slaves and prioritized abolition. But it is far from clear we would actually have the courage and commitment to do so.

Modern politicians, too, rarely prioritize the most morally significant issues ahead of those that are most politically advantageous in the short run. Given that slaves could not vote—and neither could many free blacks—it is actually notable that the Founders did as much to curb slavery as they did, even if it was nowhere near as much as they should have done.

In sum, Frederick Douglass was right to praise the American Revolution, and right also to condemn the gross injustice and hypocrisy of the nation’s failure to live up to its principles. In thinking about the Founders today, we too should praise the great good they did—which ultimately outweighed the harm. But we should also remember their greatest shortcoming. And we should be wary of too readily assuming that we ourselves would do better if faced with the same kinds of choices.

UPDATE: In previous posts, I have written about Douglass’ underappreciated speeches on immigration and how we should remember the Civil War.

 



Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.