Your Black Leaders: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Confuses Wikipedia With Wikileaks

Your Black Leaders: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Confuses Wikipedia With Wikileaks
October 28 10:46 2016 Print This Article

The notoriously disgruntled Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee made news last week by mixing up Wikipedia with Wikileaks. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, while Wikileaks is the organization, run by Julian Assange, which has been releasing hacked emails associated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“You know that I’m going to first of all denounce the utilization of this intrusion by Wikipedia through the Russian intrusion,” Jackson Lee said in an interview with MSNBC. “This is what it’s about. Espionage just like what was said over these last couple of days. We need to be concerned about the intrusion of Russia and Putin in these elections.”

Rep. Lee is also one of the Congressional Black Caucus members who supported discriminatory auto lenders, against the recommendation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Watch the interview below:

 

 

view more articles

About Article Author

14 comments
wiyadonimu
wiyadonimu

my best Great aunt Paige have an amazing creme Hyundai Sonata Cross types Car while certain part-time being employed on line by using a computer...




look at more..........>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.ebiz3.com.

Johnw11
Johnw11

I saw a video clip last night on RT that disturbed me greatly. Several young UNINFORMED Blacks were physically attacking people they accused of voting for Trump. They were shown kicking what appeared to be a Black woman as she laid on the street. Next they attacked a white guy as he exited his car. As they attacked these people, they were shouting "You voted for Trump!"

Apparently, they're upset that Clinton, who'd planned to put them in her penitentiary (via Mass Black Incarceration II) had lost the election.

So ignorant are they of politics, they have no clue that their misguided behavior will be used as propaganda against them by the very media that brainwashed them to support the person who'd planned to have them in her prisons by next year this time.

While most Black youngsters are well informed (as the racist Dems and their Black "Help" found out the hard way), we must work hard to informed those who remain uninformed. They must be made to understand that attacking people who voted against their going to the penitentiary is foolish. We must also, IMO, wage a "War on Political Ignorance" in order to take back the minds of all Blacks who've been brainwashed by the media and the Black misleadership cadre: those Blacks who sell-out the collective for personal gain.

Indeed, it is because of those two entities, the media and the misleaders, that some Blacks are upset that the person who considers them to be jungle animals ("super predators") will not get a second chance to finish destroying Black America. 

Instead of locking up Blacks, she'll be spending the next several years trying to stay out of jail herself. 

SteinC
SteinC

This comment is no surprise.  This lady says some ignorant things constanly.  The CBC what a joke, no policies that change the condition of black folks.

Watchful
Watchful

Well, I'm not gonna hold what probably was a so-called 'Freudian slip' against the Congresswoman, but what I will hold against her is her parroting the rhetoric of the Clinton campaign of Russian President Putin's alleged interference in the election process without a shred of any concrete evidence. Just shows that Rep.Lee is just another bought and paid for member of the demoncratic party who is dutifully toeing the line.

Johnw11
Johnw11

@Watchful  It wasn't a "Freudian slip," it was ignorance. I believe she doesn't know any better. We've discussed previously the incompetence of many of these people representing Blacks at the highest level of policy formulation, and, at the executive level, policy implementation. A Freudian slip occurs when a person consciously attempts to suppress or conceal the truth, but while speaking towards that aim, the truth "slips" out.

While the mechanics of Freudian "parapraxes" are rather complex, if valid, a simple example of a Freudian slip would be: a husband stays out all night, gets home in the morning and when asked by his wife his whereabouts, he says "I was with Ja..., with the guys playing cards." The "slip" is his unconsciously almost saying he was with Janice, before catching himself, and telling the conscious lie he'd intended to tell.

I agree with you totally, however, about the lies Ms. Clinton, her mannequins, her media trolls, and others are telling about "Russia hacking the DNC." There is no proof of that. The claim is a propagandistic diversion. As you know, the intent is to divert attention away from the crime, by propagating a lie about who did the leaking.

However, if one really wants to get Freudian about the matter, the issue would be: if she is so concern with being hacked by Russia, then why was she --- as Sec. of State -- using for a half decade an "unsecured" email server in the first place? Discussing information far more sensitive than the political crimes and games at the DNC.

Staying with Freud, if I didn't know better, I'd think the behavior was a "reaction formation,"  publicly "soap boxing" against things that the person his / herself feels anxious about due to their own unconscious involvement.  But it's not a reaction formation, because these people are consciously lying and manipulation credulous people.

Watchful
Watchful

@Johnw11 


LOL, John ... u could be right, of course, but I'm willing to give Congresswoman Lee the benefit of the doubt that she just made an unintentional slip of the tongue in this instance. As to ur other points concerning those unproven allegations by Ms.Lee and the Clinton campaign regarding President Putin I'm in complete agreement with u. Indeed the Clinton campaign has definitely attempted to divert and deflect attention away from the criminal acts that Ms.Clinton is obviously guilty of committing that the leaked emails have clearly revealed.

Johnw11
Johnw11

@Watchful  "An unintentional slip of the tongue," as you insist on calling it, is a so-called "Freudian slip" by definition. Therefore, by definition, a "slip" has to have a basis for occurring within the model I've already explained. What do you suggest would be an unconscious psychological reason for her to confuse "Wikipedia" with "Wikileaks"?

While it certainly would not meet the criteria of a "slip," because there's no theoretical basis for a "slip," the only other reason for her behavior -- barring ignorance -- would be that "Wikileaks" has so terrified her boss that the minions, sycophants, mannequins, etc., have been forbidden to say the word "Wikileaks." So, to avoid being scolded, and threatened with lost of her $175, 000 annual sinecure, she said "Wikipedia" in fear of saying "Wikileaks."

I promise you, they regularly receive the most demeaning scolding imaginable, and are told "Go get my damn votes," i.e., get those jungle animals ("super predators") to the polls (of course, their boss now uses the term "African Americans," it being election time and all). If you've noticed, they never fail to talk about the importance of "turn-out," because that's their only usefulness to their boss.

I don't watch TV often, and never MSNBC, who is the guy interviewing her; calling himself a "progressive"? It's looks like Harold Ford, the right-wing neo-liberal flunky. If that's who it is, then I'm sure those who know what the guy represents are probably sick to the stomach from hearing him claim to be a "progressive." No one on MSNBC is a "progressive."

As far as Russia goes, what I find disturbing, as any sane person would, is all this war mongering talk. The matter is serious. This would be a war that ends life on the planet.  In fact, the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists," the group that monitors the matter, has set the "Dooms Day Clock" at 3 minutes to midnight (mid night being the time of doom for the planet) largely due to her expected taking office.

Yet few people are aware of it. Of course, TV doesn't inform them. So, brainwashed completely by Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew) style of media propaganda, and lured by Black mannequins like Rep. Jackson-Lee, John Lewis, et al. many uniformed Blacks can't wait to vote for nuclear war. Some have even voted for it early -- they couldn't wait until Nov. 8th. They call it "early voting," but they left out the nuclear war part.  That's understandable: even those who control their minds would know better than tell them that's what they're voting for.

That's why during the last debate, when asked by the moderator would her "no fly zone" mean shooting down Russian plans, she meandered and decided on the most ridiculous answer possible. She said that she would "negotiate" a "no fly zone." The problem with that answer is its incompatibility with the definition of a "no fly zone." According to experts, a "no fly zone" by definition means war.

That's why "definitions" are important.

hgosborne
hgosborne

The parroting of the Russia talking point reminds me a lot of the "mushroom clouds" rhetoric that was a mere prelude to the invasion of Iraq. I suspect we're traveling down familiar roads...Why her sensible supporters seldom (if at all) call her to task over this language is beyond me...they couldn't all be shareholders within the military industrail complex...or maybe they really are!

Johnw11
Johnw11

@Watchful Actually, I agree that whether she misidentified "Wikileaks" as "Wikipedia" intentionally or not is unimportant to some people. But it's important to me because it gives clues specific to her competence level. This is important because she functions in a role that affects the lives of millions of people. So, when you "assessed" her statement as a "slip," I simply wanted to know on what criteria had you based your "assessment." I simply thought you might be helpful with your observation in helping me reach an "assessment." No harm meant.

On the matter of her towing the party line, everyone should be interested in knowing how far she's willing to tow that line. Will she and her ilk vote for nuclear war because it would be the wish and request of "Miz Hillary"?

What I saw and heard in the above video is very troubling. Here we have about two thirds of Black communities in ruins, and all she can do is go on TV and repeat scripts derived from Edward Bernays principles of propaganda: "control the means of interpretation, and therefore the interpretation itself. It's not the truth that matters, but the context." So, she goes on TV and consciously repeats the false narrative (context) that the Russians hacked the DNC and that's what's important, not what the leaks revealed regarding the wrong the DNC did. 

And to cap it all off, she did it with no regards for the fact that the person she did it for, has no plans to address the ruinous state of two thirds of African Americans. Just vote (turn-out), or the boogieman will get you.

You are absolutely correct: her towing the party line is an important problem. However, in that regard, she's no different than all the others posing as "elected officials," "Black leaders," and get this one "political analysts."

I heard one the other day on radio, posing as a "political analyst," say the  email and other leaks are "unimportant" and are a "manufactured" big to do about nothing.

Here these people have been caught red-handed plotting to "play" Black voters by using Black human mannequins to lure them to the polls, and plotting to ignore Blacks' socioeconomic needs by hiding behind the mannequins, and this is no big deal to the "Black political analyst" as he fraudently calls himself.



Ella Lingard
Ella Lingard

Wow! Easy mistake I guess, I hope that someone there corrected her.

Tim Williams
Tim Williams

She doesn't confuse 100's to 20's I bet u that! Bought and paid for negro.