53percenter's Blog

It looks like big scandal is brewing in the Chicago Police Department, an agency already deeply troubled. This time, it is not a street cop shooting someone, but the top cop’s shenanigans that got him fired by Mayor Lori Lightfoot, and signs that a cover-up was underway. Fran Spielman, Frank Main, and Sam Charles of the Chicago Sun-Times explain:

Multiple Chicago police employees are under investigation for allegedly engaging in a widespread cover-up to protect then-Supt. Eddie Johnson and conceal the circumstances surrounding an Oct. 17 drinking and driving incident that Mayor Lori Lightfoot says Johnson lied about, prompting her to fire him weeks before his retirement.

Johnson was found slumped over in his police SUV at around 12:30 a.m. that day, near the 3400 block of South Aberdeen — after dismissing his driver and trying to drive himself home.

The alleged cover-up took place “that night and the next day” and could end up being “even worse than” the incident itself, said a source familiar with Inspector General Joseph Ferguson’s ongoing investigation.

Those are the lies.

Here’s the sex and videotape:

Rather than having “a couple of drinks” during a “dinner with friends,” as Johnson told the mayor, sources said the now-former superintendent spent three hours drinking at Ceres Cafe — a restaurant known for pouring large drinks to patrons from the nearby Chicago Board of Trade — with a woman whom he had promoted to his security detail shortly after becoming the city’s top cop.

Sources said Johnson and the woman, who has since been reassigned to another job in the police department, are seen on restaurant video kissing repeatedly.

Ex-Superintendant Eddie Johnson (photo credit: Daveakmc)

Readers may recall that ex-Superintendent Johnson refused to attend President Trump’s speech to the  nation’s assembled police chiefs at the International Association of Chiefs of Police in late October, even though they were meeting in his own town of Chicago.  Don Surber this added hm to his Trumpenfreude list of people who have gone against Trump and encountered disaster.

As scandals go, this is almost as juicy as Jussie.

It looks like big scandal is brewing in the Chicago Police Department, an agency already deeply troubled. This time, it is not a street cop shooting someone, but the top cop’s shenanigans that got him fired by Mayor Lori Lightfoot, and signs that a cover-up was underway. Fran Spielman, Frank Main, and Sam Charles of the Chicago Sun-Times explain:

Multiple Chicago police employees are under investigation for allegedly engaging in a widespread cover-up to protect then-Supt. Eddie Johnson and conceal the circumstances surrounding an Oct. 17 drinking and driving incident that Mayor Lori Lightfoot says Johnson lied about, prompting her to fire him weeks before his retirement.

Johnson was found slumped over in his police SUV at around 12:30 a.m. that day, near the 3400 block of South Aberdeen — after dismissing his driver and trying to drive himself home.

The alleged cover-up took place “that night and the next day” and could end up being “even worse than” the incident itself, said a source familiar with Inspector General Joseph Ferguson’s ongoing investigation.

Those are the lies.

Here’s the sex and videotape:

Rather than having “a couple of drinks” during a “dinner with friends,” as Johnson told the mayor, sources said the now-former superintendent spent three hours drinking at Ceres Cafe — a restaurant known for pouring large drinks to patrons from the nearby Chicago Board of Trade — with a woman whom he had promoted to his security detail shortly after becoming the city’s top cop.

Sources said Johnson and the woman, who has since been reassigned to another job in the police department, are seen on restaurant video kissing repeatedly.

Ex-Superintendant Eddie Johnson (photo credit: Daveakmc)

Readers may recall that ex-Superintendent Johnson refused to attend President Trump’s speech to the  nation’s assembled police chiefs at the International Association of Chiefs of Police in late October, even though they were meeting in his own town of Chicago.  Don Surber this added hm to his Trumpenfreude list of people who have gone against Trump and encountered disaster.

As scandals go, this is almost as juicy as Jussie.

The cash-strapped United Nations has issued an unprecedented global appeal for funds, claiming Wednesday it needs an immediate injection of $29 billion of global taxpayer money as “climate change” and global conflicts pressure existing budgets.

The world body’s Global Humanitarian Overview estimated some 168 million people worldwide will need emergency assistance in 2020, with demand a direct product of “more extreme weather events, notably drought and flooding, which trigger humanitarian emergencies,” U.N. emergency relief coordinator Mark Lowcock said.

What’s the carbon footprint of a military invasion? And where’s the army that the UN would use to invade a country that emits the CO2 that makes the world greener and greener?

This guy makes me even happier that I ditched academia after getting my PhD and teaching at Harvard.  Simon Kent reports for Breitbart:

The United Nations may resort to military action against states that defy its mandates on global climate action, according to Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen.

In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

The totalitarian impulse lurking behind the warmist agenda is clearly visible:

“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

Global dictatorship, justified by a climate hoax. Does it get any more sinister?

Rounding up SUV drivers?

Photo credit: US Army

Ever wonder why so many powerful institutions adhere to the hoax?

What’s the carbon footprint of a military invasion? And where’s the army that the UN would use to invade a country that emits the CO2 that makes the world greener and greener?

This guy makes me even happier that I ditched academia after getting my PhD and teaching at Harvard.  Simon Kent reports for Breitbart:

The United Nations may resort to military action against states that defy its mandates on global climate action, according to Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen.

In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

The totalitarian impulse lurking behind the warmist agenda is clearly visible:

“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

Global dictatorship, justified by a climate hoax. Does it get any more sinister?

Rounding up SUV drivers?

Photo credit: US Army

Ever wonder why so many powerful institutions adhere to the hoax?

A survey finds one in five left-leaning bosses “will not hire” job candidates who are supporters of President Donald Trump.

In addition, significant majorities of bosses want to know prospective employees’ views on racial equality, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, and immigration.

Results of the survey, conducted by Airtasker, were obtained by Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner and were based on a survey of 204 people whose job description includes hiring and 805 employees.

Airtasker noted employers typically review job candidates’ social media accounts to glean information about their political views prior to interviews.

“Workplace discrimination is a real and pressing issue, and candidates get their applications sidelined or overlooked due to these factors all the time,” Airtasker observed, according to the Examiner. “And even when they do make it past the hiring filter, employees can also be the victims of prejudice and biased behavior when interacting with their bosses and colleagues.”

Asked if they would hire a job candidate who expresses views that are supportive of the president, 20 percent of left-leaning bosses responded, “No,” while 24 percent responded, “Yes,” and 56 percent said, “It doesn’t matter who they support.”

Among right-leaning bosses, 9 percent said they would not hire a candidate who expressed views supportive of Trump, while 57 percent responded, “Yes,” and 35 percent said the candidate’s views on Trump did not matter:

                                                                    Airtasker Screenshot

According to the survey results, significant consequences may exist in the workplace for employees who speak positively about Trump.

Regarding behaviors witnessed by fellow employees toward Trump supporters, 28 percent of coworkers said they have seen Trump supporters serving as the target of jokes; 23 percent said bosses were “overly critical” of the president’s supporters; 23 percent said others made assumptions about the character of Trump supporters; 21 percent said others were “dismissive” of Trump supporters; 14 percent said they witnessed the president’s supporters being the victims of gossip or rumors; 13 percent said Trump supporters were excluded from social situations; and 11 percent said they witnessed Trump supporters being victims of “name-calling.”

Behind the actual assessment of a job candidate’s skills, 65 percent of those with hiring responsibilities said it is “important to know a job candidate’s stance” on racial equity; 59 percent said the candidate’s views on gender equality is important, while 54 percent said his or her views on LGBTQ rights is important.

Regarding immigration and politics in general, 38 percent and 32 percent of bosses, respectively, said it is important to know the candidate’s positions on these issues.

Among the bosses surveyed, 29 percent would not hire a candidate based on his or her views on racial equality; 27 percent would not hire over a position on gender equality; 22 percent would not hire someone over views on LGBTQ rights; 18 percent would not hire based upon politics in general; and 16 percent would not hire a candidate over views on immigration.