Summarizing the bad news

So it comes down to logic and reading the tea leaves.

Society has gotten to the point we now have discretionary law enforcement, from the top. At the same time society has gotten so structurally fragile police cannot and won’t be able to protect people. Partly, that may be understood. But on top of those challenges, they also made the conscious choice not to try to protect individuals or private property. That decision comes from those in power and elected, not LEOs by themselves. So when push comes to shove, as it often does, they already made the choice.

This is understood by people who understand the law and purposes of government.

Bad enough they feel at a loss to protect a given person in a situation. Then they have made a bureaucratic decision not to protect you. This crystallized in Baltimore as a Fox reporter was covering the protests had a cop tell him that the reporter should know that if he got into trouble out there, the cops could not protect him. The police could not risk starting a riot to try to save or protect the reporter. It was a tell tale sign. There was a rational reason for the cop to say that to a reporter, but it reveals a larger problem.

As the Mayor of Baltimore and whoever else made the decision to stand down, it was equivalent to making a choice not to protect people or property. It swung the pendulum against protecting innocent citizens or victims. The burden was on innocent citizens.

When they made that conscious stand down policy, they reversed the purpose of government, which is to secure the rights and property of people… to ignoring and deliberately not protecting people. Now it is worse than defying their oath and obligation. They made a decision to forfeit your property, as if their name was on the deed.

Yet worse is motivations and who benefits. They made a choice to protect government, themselves, over your property. In fact, they are actively protecting government, while ignoring property and security. So the fundamental purpose of government almost exclusively is protecting itself. The job of LEOs is to preserve and protect itself.

Government has been engaged in this. It’s first and only priority is to itself. We now have government, of the government, by government, for government. Nothing more. This is why so many people question not only the purpose and intent of government, but much of its existence. Is it really just for itself, for the benefit of itself and nothing more?

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s trust deficit and BS surplus

And the trouble with peaceful protests that are not so peaceful

Obama just said that “there is no excuse for the violence and destruction we saw last night,” in his presser.

Well, but there are excuses. The liberals make them all the time. As does Al Sharpton, Malik Shabazz and Louis Farrakhan. So liberals come out all the time to do exactly that, rationalize the behavior of criminal thugs who are in the streets wreaking havoc on communities. It’s partly why we’re at this point. If not directly making excuses, they are welcoming the behavior by the signals they send to would be rioters and looters.

Then we have naive or sympathetic politicians who let them run wild, or even issue stand down orders to police. (but that’s really a larger topic) In Ferguson, they made the decision to back off and allow the destruction, rioting and looting of businesses that have absolutely no part in it. Pacify them with your loot and property. This time in Baltimore we saw the police stand off at a distance, in lockstep, watching as they burned the city.

But before the fact, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake actually said “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” Then claimed she never said it and blamed media for her own statement. The governor was calling the mayor to get her response on sending the resources like the national guard. She evidently did not want to bring them in or she would have been burning the phone line. (something she will also deny — it’s what liberals do) Let’s give credit where due to ilk like Mayor Ray Nagin, Mayor James Knowles, Governor Jay Nixon, Mayor Tom Barrett, and now Mayor Stephanie Blake as strident examples in stellar performances.

One burning building will be looped” on a news broadcast, but thousands of peaceful protestors who have been out there for days are marginalized, Obama said at his press conference. Then they always add that it is a few violent protestors. Since when do you need an army to create chaos? Is that the point the number of them? We’re always told you have a few bad apples. Well, they say bad apples in police departments taint the motives of the whole. Then they completely dismiss the violent protestors as just a few and that maybe they have good reason to be angry.

He referred to “a handful of criminals and thugs who tore up the place.” Again with the: “This is not new. It’s been going on for decades.” There is just a new awareness to these social problems because of technology and social media, Obama contends. Liberals all point back and say but we saw peaceful protests; in itself making excuses for and ignoring the currents of violent rioting. But that damage and cost is hard to ignore. Oh let’s remember long after the protestors and anarchists are gone the expenses are still very real. In fact, even more real than they were at the time because it is a constant reminder that cannot be covered easily. Reports are that Baltimore never really recovered from the 68 riots. Well, history does repeat itself.

The talking points are: there are some policemen who are not doing the right thing, like in every other sector. Then the nation must “do some soul searching,” Obama tells us. What kind of searching are they doing over accompanying violence and destruction to their message? Make excuses? That’s exactly what they’ve done by divert, deflect and deny.

Once again, my BS detector has exploded. The great, or strange, thing about the liberal “social justice” rhetoric is that they want to deny the chief ingredient in the movement is violence and destruction — sort of Darwinesque — along with personal attacks and smearing opponents, but that aside.

Every time one of these all too common episodes explode now, two things happen: People are outraged that this conduct is happening in our towns, on our streets. And Obama comes out to make a statement which ends up lending credence to protestors and the opportunist rioters who follow. Then we play this scientific game of trying to separate the protestors and their grievances from the rioters and their motives. And, in the meantime, some have gotten all too skilled at denial.

“Peaceful protests” and the looting must go on. It is far more than one or a handful of persons — a handful couldn’t do that much looting. More than one building was burned. And more than Obama is responsible for the problems as well. But suffice it to say that Obama promised unity in ‘hope and change.’ What he delivered was a nation of irreconcilable differences. That is whether you look at the national political level, or now within our towns and communities. If anyone’s chickens have come home to roost, it is those of progressives and Obama.

RightRing | Bullright

Whatever floats the boat

Or sinks it… whichever the case may be. I don’t know.

I’m going to take a blank sheet of (internet) paper and make a big mess. I don’t know where all this is going to go, or where it will end. It will evolve.

I could make a list of things and characters, then draw lines and arrows connecting them. That would be even a bigger mess. So I’ll try it in writing. It could cover a lot of ground.

Ferguson revealed a political tactic, or was it more of a law enforcement strategy to deal with protestors? It started with the governor. If you read the tea leaves, Gov. Nixon thought the answer to the protestor problem would be to let them riot and cede businesses and property to them, to do as they wish. That might appease protestors immediate needs. Rather than enforcing the rule of law and civility, just react to the results. Cops stand down and businesses and property owners are sacrificed, not to mention entire communities.

But then even that was not enough to satisfy the perpetual protestors. Wouldn’t they only want and demand more? Rational persons would think so. When they can let the public be overwhelmed by hordes of others, then protestors aren’t taking on police or governmental authorities directly. It’s a tradeoff to protect the powers that be from taking the brunt of it. Confrontation could be more controversial and costly, they reason.

And that fits right in line with the protestors’ goals who are all about some forced sense of equality between haves and have nots. Material property is a natural outcropping of their philosophy. So Nixon decides to give them what they want, let them run roughshod over other innocent bystanders. That would seem to divert the clash from being aimed at him and his fellow political class.

Is this becoming the default strategy for dealing with out of control protestors? In other words, to legitimize protestors’ concerns in word and, in deed, to let them have their way. Let them shut down communities and resources.There were early warnings of this with OWS. But can they let this go on and on? Though the public at large eventually gets tired of being sucker punched.

There’s that old saying that “you can’t make all the people happy all the time.” So why even try? But at what cost will they try to make some of the people happy, that’s the question?

Protestors got the message and responded in kind. They unleashed their wrath — over exactly what is debatable — on their fellow citizens and businesses alike. Make it as hard for people to carry out their daily activities as possible. Make their fellow citizens pay. Set up demonstrations in malls and storefront entrances; shut down bridges and travel; take over the streets of entire neighborhoods interrupting services and transportation. Make life a hell for their so-called neighbors who have nothing whatsoever to do with their grievances. That will get their message across, while chanting hate toward cops.

For law enforcement’s part, just let protestors continue in an attempt to avoid a clash between authorities and defiant thugs. Sounds like a plan, doesn’t it? That’s what people like De Blasio are doing under the guise of ‘feeling the pains’ of this movement and appealing to its violent undercurrent.

Try writing a letter to your elected representatives sometime expressing your grievances about something and see what result you get. It sort of feels like you are talking into a tin can and string. Even after a landslide election against political elites, they defiantly interpret the results however they choose. It’s as if they were elected to invent reality.

The left’s method has long been to get pols attention with chaos and temper tantrums, and they have. Their defiance cannot be ignored. So much so that some politicians made the decision that a sacrifice must be made on the part of some people, to try to satisfy others. But in extension, it’s the same thing they’ve always done by playing their class warfare. Have one group opposed to others, long as the infighting suits the objectives of the power-hungry ruling class.

Then look at libs reaction from major media to elected officials, to the Stalingrad leftist minions. Days ago they were talking about the situation on Fox. Juan Willams was schooling his colleagues on how “we love protests”… that we may not agree but “we’ll defend to death your right to protest”. But those are hollow words we’ve come to expect from the Left. Look at Tea Party protests and rallies. Defense was not their response.

After seeing emails about what was going on in the IRS, targeting conservatives and Tea Parties, and down through the ranks of liberal media, they were not at all sympathizing with “protests” — let alone defending them. They were all about shutting them down by any means, and using government to do it. Liberals objected and rejected permitting for them, saying they would be disruptive. Remember all that? Now Juan trots out his boilerplate talking point about the freedom of protests. Liberals’ allies in the media railed against the movement, painting them as bigots and racists. Let’s forget that.

Al Jazeera has an editorial that made a similar conclusion to mine but by comparing these protestors to the original Boston Tea Party. (more of a disservice to them and history but that is another matter) After making that analogy, it said we are a nation that has not experienced revolt and revolution — at least in modern times — that we tend to put faith in our constitutional system to avert such. So far it has worked, it continued, and we have solved problems through the rule of law. It characterized the current situation as so out of control, by people so distrusting of the very system, that it begs the question: what it will take to put Humpty Dumpty back together again? It theorizes this might be the storm that does us in, after pointing out popular revolutions frequently happened elsewhere. It was not hard to see where they were going, or how their readers might interpret their hypothesis. So the implication is this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

What to say about such an extravagant theory… only it’s not so extravagant in the scheme of things. We have people dead set on getting their way, despite cost or means, who will call it justice if successful. I resent the comparison to the Tea Party though, but it was throughout the piece. Many of these Leftists have been hankering for a righteous revolution for decades. There are rent-a-protestors and communist sympathizers, who latch on to any popular protest movement. (not so much to Tea Parties…)

It even acknowledges the shortfall of Wall Street Occupiers to capture this much fervor. I had to think a little about that one. But it’s amazing what some good old racism can do for you. Two questions spring to mind: 1) was the tradeoff worth it; 2) do the protestors win and replicate this formula on all grievances? Precedent anyone? Are we in uncharted waters? Can their discontent do irreparable harm?

I tend to agree with some of Al Jezeera’s piece. For the most part, because of the mixed reactions and messages protestors have been getting. It’s something academia has aligned itself with. Race-baiters and racists have found a niche. Marxists found another vehicle. Why would any of its factions want to let go when it seems they are getting something in return? Do cops being executed bother them? Not in the least.

But many of these organizers always accused the Right or Tea Partiers of stirring up contempt and anti-government sentiments, holding them responsible for things like Gabby Gifford’s shooting. How quickly the Left and racists have come full circle to endorsing an anything goes, by any means strategy. I do mean anything goes.

The race and all the other interests are becoming mere factors of the whole, or turning into a means within a means. Is it life boat time?

Ref: The spirit of the Boston Tea Party returns – Al Jazeera America

RightRing | Bullright

Protestors, take a deep breath

Maybe put on a little Floyd, like this classic from Dark Side of the Moon: “Breathe“.

Instead of “I can’t breathe,” how about you just breathe and “choose your own ground”.

Then get a life, because you are screwing up everyone else’s. Enough is enough, you made your point. Well, not really but you did make a mess.

That’s right, in the name of making your grievance, much of the country is outraged by your grief. Your roadblocks and your “peaceful” riots don’t quench your thirst for action. But this you call social justice.

Others are collateral damage to your demands, hostages to your civil rights mantra. Your right is to inconvenience everyone else. Your right is hijacking anyone else’s. Protestors of abuse creating victims everywhere you go, while claiming to be victims.

So sit down, take another breath and listen to “Us and Them“:

Down and out
It can’t be helped but there’s a lot of it about.
With, without.
And who’ll deny it’s what the fighting’s all about?

Still other people will say:

“Out of the way, it’s a busy day
I’ve got things on my mind.”

But we have rights, too, though they must be second to yours. Ours are contingent on your rights to grievance, deeming us all victims of your relevance.

It’s just another brick in the wall, isn’t it? Just another march of scorn to warn us of your pending doom. The rest of us have to pay for your say, it must be the social justice way.

RightRing | Bullright

Ivy Leagues: Activism is US

All about feelings: Ivy League law students now too ‘traumatized’ over Ferguson to take exams

By Jennifer Harper – The Washington Times – Wednesday, December 10, 2014

It is a new educational phenomenon: Ivy League law students at three major universities – Columbia, Harvard and Georgetown University – are now exempt from taking final exams if they feel “traumatized” by the grand jury decisions made in Ferguson and New York City. The students are also being offered counseling if they need it.

A few professors with impressive credentials now have a few questions.

“The decision to allow students selectively to postpone exams as a result of emotional upset over the Ferguson and Garner grand jury decisions shows, once again, how far law schools have strayed from their mission. Few if any of the students complaining talk about the evidence, the forensics, the law that might have justified the grand jury rulings. Instead, it’s all about them and their emotions. Are we training students to think and act as lawyers, or emotional activists?” asks William Jacobson, professor of law, Cornell University Law School and a Harvard Law alumnus himself. [Read more>]

Original Harvard seal

 

Okay the facts are in and survey says, let’s cut them a break for protest-grand jury-anxiety. Maybe this can be a new disease? Though the disease is actually in the Ivy Leagues, and seems to be highly contagious.

Here is my conclusion I have been dying to get off my chest. There has been a lot of hand wringing and outrage about this phenomena. But why, why should it surprise anyone? People wonder why?

The reason or motive is likely the key. They do it to encourage student participation in protests. Doubt that? Well, we’ve already seen public school students participating, with their teachers. Even school districts’ buses have been used to shuttle the protestors to protests. (the first time one of these is in an “accident” there will be big trouble)

Field trips to protests and rallies are now almost a staple.(Move over ‘pep rallies’– its the Democracy, stupid.) Remember Wisconsin? It’s better than a museum visit, and kids just love them. How good does it look to have children/youth in on the protest action? It lends academic legitimacy.

Further doubt the incorporated, shall we say indoctrinated, activism on campuses available on demand? I’ve already chronicled the anti-Semitism activity encouraged on campuses. They have summer camps teaching the finer trade to ambitious academics — on organizing BDS movements and protests — for export to college campuses across the country. You too can be a radical. They are sponsored by the usual cast. Maybe they can get pre-schools and Head Starts in on the action by next year? Sky’s the limit.

So I ask why should this pattern surprise anyone? It is not-so-subtle encouragement.

Feel the love….or in their case, feel the hate.

RightRing | Bullright

The steady drip, drip, drip

It’s Ferguson, it’s NYC, no it’s everywhere. In fact, it isn’t black, native American, or other, it’s everyone. And it’s law enforcement across the board.

So that is Obama’s latest on the police acting stupidly, in Obama’s narrative. Only there is no summit in sight on the problem.

Remember last year under the sequester when Obama wanted America to feel the pain of budget restrictions? He threatened us with cuts to fire and police departments. He used those threats as fodder against any opposition to his unilateral agenda.

Now he critiques the cops for their treatment of people. And he broadens it to their treatment of, well, everyone.

His latest statements come on the heels of the NYC grand jury decision not to prosecute police for “murder” or death of Garner, in their arrest of him for selling cigarettes. A case where, once again, Al Sharpton is front and center in the case and reaction to the decision. It’s amazing he can still have time to have a show on MSNBC. But this is probably considered being “on assignment.”

Obama on NY grand jury decision: ‘This is an American problem’

December 03, 2014 | The Hill

President Obama vowed Wednesday that he would not “let up” in his push to address law enforcement issues after a grand jury in New York opted not to bring criminal charges in the case of Eric Garner, a black man killed when a white police officer placed him in a chokehold.

“It is incumbent upon all of us as Americans, regardless of race, region, faith, that we recognize this is an American problem and not just a black problem or a brown problem or a Native American problem; this is an American problem.

“When anybody in this country is not being treated equally under the law, that’s a problem. And it’s my job as president to help solve it,” he said.

Obama said the Garner case speaks “to the larger issues we’ve been talking about now for the last week, the last month, the last year and sadly for decades.”

“Unfortunately, we are seeing too many incidences where people just do not have confidence that folks are being treated fairly,” Obama said.

The president said he had spoken to Attorney General Eric Holder on the phone, and that the Justice Department would have additional information about the federal response to the grand jury finding.

Okay, people are not being treated fairly, and people across the country do not have confidence in the system. That might have some merit in the broader context.

Either people are not being treated fairly, or there is some wide perception in the public that they are not. But when we the people took issue with the border, we were told everything was fine and that we just had a perception problem.

Now based on a few individual instances, he tells us people are not being treated fairly. And that he supposedly stands on the side of the mistreated people. In other words, like an Al Sharpton in the Oval Office. He rolls all this out as if it were just a matter of fact that everyone knows. (contrary to his reaction to what most people think of the border)

Furthermore, if he wants to talk fairness, how about the way he treated this last flood of illegals over the border? Now he wants to lecture us about fairness? Or how about the way the IRS treated conservatives for years? Remember his get to the bottom of this…before his “not a smidgen of corruption” line. But he is a one-man crusader for fairness.

The real dirty truth about Obama is it very much matters who you are, what color you are, what demographic you are, what political party you belong to, or how much money you have, or what job you have, or who your employer is in the way you are treated. This is just how he and his Democrat colleagues see things. Now he once again comes out pushing his old canard about equality, fairness, and victimhood. And if you trust either he or Holder as the guardians for fairness, then you really need your head examined.

Just what we need, Obama vowing a campaign for fairness. He didn’t even demonstrate fairness in his presidential campaigns. And he didn’t push his Obamacare fairly.

Now, he is Obama, Captain fairness. Captain Hypocrite is more accurate. Any time Obama lectures about fairness, look out. These days lies travel faster than the speed of airwaves, especially from the bully pulpit.

RightRing | Bullright

It’s all politics, all the time

Bad enough that we have one ideologue politician in the White House, but we also have a politico, Attorney General running the DoJ.Why does that matter? Whenever credibility or trust is a factor, then it becomes an issue.

A week since the Grand Jury decision was released and we found out the details. No hands in the air, he assaulted the cop in the car and tried to get his gun. Then he bum-rushed the cop. Even the blood trail showed the direction he was traveling. So all that they had been saying was wrong. And race had noting to do with it. Those results are the backdrop.

Then we had the nasty riots and fallout of the decision. That night DeAndre Joshua was shot, who may have been a witness to the Brown shooting, and also friend to Dorian Johnson, is hardly getting covered. It’s being dismissed as is Louis Head’s incitement.

A week later Obama has a WH meeting with his race-bating buds. All the facts are out now and a lot of people have egg on their face. So that evening Holder travels to give a speech in Atlanta. Holder said the events in Ferguson were not unique to Ferguson but nationwide. Then he mentioned he was going to write policies on profiling.

But we scream that profiling did not have anything to do with Ferguson. Well, precisely the point. The issue of profiling is another poll-tested issue. They know it is a popular whipping post, with many people. So the subject and narrative on Ferguson is now bad. What to do? Change the subject almost as if Ferguson was about profiling.

Obama has a pow wow with his race-baiters. He decided lets change the subject to something that is popular, we can rally people to support. And it gets away from the losing, declining narrative about the Ferguson details. Face it, after the second round of riots and destroying much of the city, it has been stained. The narrative is now about the violence and the riots, and the lies flowing from there since August.

Time to change the subject.

Anything Holder does will be an attempt to start an argument about profiling and steer the attention right into that, as if it were the central issue. We’ll see how fast both media and race-baiters pick up on the narrative. It was already reported MSNBC was posing provocative questions on profiling.

“Like you, I understand that the need for this trust was made clear in the wake of the intense public reaction to last week’s grand jury announcement. But the problems we must confront are not only found in Ferguson. The issues raised in Missouri are not unique to that state or that small city. We are dealing with concerns that are truly national in scope and that threaten the entire nation.”

“Third: in the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement, which will institute rigorous new standards – and robust safeguards – to help end racial profiling, once and for all. This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing.”

This is a straight from the top, race power-brokers, an attempt to commandeer the Ferguson issue into a wider grievance issue. Holder stressed these were national issues. It was Ferguson, it was a local matter. But, as is typical, when controversy and trouble arise they broaden the issue.

Holder said: “Our police officers cannot be seen as an occupying force disconnected from the communities they serve.” Well, where does that come from?

He also said: “But the issue is larger than just the police and the community. Our overall system of justice must be strengthened and made more fair. In this way, we can ensure faith in the justice system. Without that deserved faith, without that reasoned belief, there can be no justice.”

Really? Most people have no trust in Obama or Holder, their cred on anything is MIA.

Holder told them: “As this critical effort unfolds, we will remain firmly resolved to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in driving this work into the future. And this commitment will also fuel our broader efforts to bring change – and meaningful reform – to urgent challenges far beyond the realm of community policing.”

Can you say politics?

RightRing | Bullright

Faux step-dad being investigated

Michael Brown’s stepdad investigated for comments

AP  By JIM SALTER — 12/2/14  | Yahoo News

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Police are investigating Michael Brown’s stepfather for angry comments on the streets of Ferguson after a grand jury decided not to indict the police officer who fatally shot his stepson, a spokesman said Tuesday.

Officials want to talk to Louis Head about his comments as part of a broader investigation into the arson, vandalism and looting that followed the Nov. 24 grand jury announcement, St. Louis County Police spokesman Brian Schellman said. Twelve commercial buildings were destroyed by fire. …/

Video widely circulated after last week’s grand jury announcement shows Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, on top of a car and breaking down as the decision blares over a stereo. Head, her husband, comforts her then yells angry comments, including “Burn this bitch down!”

Family attorney Benjamin Crump has called the reaction “raw emotion,” but “completely inappropriate.” He did not immediately return messages seeking comment Tuesday.

Head has not yet been interviewed by police, and there is no timetable for when the investigation will be complete, Schellman said. He declined to discuss what specific charges Head could face. A message left with a spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch was not immediately returned. …/

Ferguson Police spokesman Jeff Small said that department is not conducting a separate investigation of Head. …/

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that teachers joined the students and the Ferguson-Florissant School District provided buses to pick them up and return them to classes by mid-afternoon. It was their first day back in class after Thanksgiving break was extended a day due to bad weather Monday, when similar walkouts were staged across the country.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/michael-browns-stepdad-investigated-comments-204459408.html

Well, that took some time. They keep reporting him as the Step-dad. Crump made media appearances calling it an emotional statement. Oh, it was filled with emotion all right.

Because he was emotional does not negate his words or what he said. He repeated it enough times. You’d have to prove temporary insanity to say he didn’t know what he was saying. Most likely a planned response, IMHO.

I wonder if someone screaming fire in a theater can be excused because he was emotional? It was probably that emotion which lent even more credibility to his statements. We had a president elected largely on emotions. But when someone incites a riot, emotion is somehow supposed to be an excuse? Go figure.

PS: district school buses shuttle students and teachers from protest?

RightRing | Bullright

White people: get with the program

I’m starting a new thing and going to roll it out soon. This is a combination of things I have already seen done. It’s a proven formula. (slightly satire)

I want to find a select few people that speak for all whites. Now I know plenty will want to but you can only have a very few. It defeats the purpose if there are a lot of them. They will operate as the spokesmen and be entitled to raise money, promote, extort, or speak on behalf of the “white community”.

I know there may be some objections. Some may resent a few single individuals vested with the responsibility for white people at large. But I see it done with blacks and there is no problem. In fact, I think every race et al should do the same. Like Asians for instance. Look at the poo-bah of the Islamic State (ISIS) that speaks for Muslims.

I just think whites are way behind in this. So I want to start a National Association for the Advancement of White People. (NAAWP)

The idea is whenever there is an event like a crime involving a white person, the spokesmen will be dispatched. They will also have carte blanche to organize white people for protests or demonstrations, or fundraising. They will speak for the White victim or his/her family in all public events.You can’t expect dumb families or “victims” to speak for themselves. They also can inject themselves between families and the attorneys. Look, this is how it works. I’m not making this up, you know.

See it is much simpler if a couple Whites are designated to speak for all. Don’t make it complicated, so people can understand it, keep it simple. Press will be glad to deal with and speak only to those people. See how simple that is?

Now it is a lifetime appointment. No one can revoke that authority and you cannot lose it by, ah, misbehaving. Everyone must bestow their faith and trust in them, no questions asked. Again, this just how it works. Members of the NAAWP will have the ability to choose their president and spokesman, who will speak for the organization. But the speakers’, let’s call them “organizers”, authority trumps all.

In a rare conflict, the NAAWP shall line up to stand behind the spokesperson. Whites cannot speak for themselves, you know. That only creates chaos and division, and white people do not need that! Trust me. Well, there should be “consequences” if they do not line up behind the leaders. Let’s call them “leaders of the White community.”

Even if a leader does something underhanded or illegal, they remain a de facto “leader”. Actually that is considered a good thing. (ha ha — fringe benefits) Obviously, they will be designated — but not by a democratic process. We’ll let everyone know who they are.

You get the idea. Anytime something happens, call in the pros to handle the details. If there is any negotiation, call them. When he puts out the word, just fall in line and repeat what he says. No, it doesn’t have to be true. No one cares about that, just repeat it — loudly and often. Don’t think outside the box.

Along those lines, we push the narrative: blame black privilege for all the problems. Talk about “fair” or “unfairness” of the system a lot. Say you are being discriminated against for living while white. From now on, everything is the Black man’s fault. (Or others, if need be. Defer to the leader’s script) Say you want a fair dialogue then turn it into an argument. Claim you want fairness and blame them for discriminating.

In Congress we need a “White Caucus,” which all whites will be obligated to support and stand with. One message, in lockstep, don’t confuse the system. It would defeat the purpose if we all stand up individually. This is the way it works. Get with the program.

There are still a few minor wrinkles to iron out, like what names to call those who don’t fall in line. There has to be a punishment for that. The Spokesmen can single them out, too.

I would ask for your opinions, suggestions, and approval except it is not necessary. Once this system is in place, your opinions are irrelevant anyway. Disagreement will earn you the label of traitor and a disgrace to your race. You have no veto power, that’s part of the genius. I hope you will like it, just don’t get in the way if you don’t.

RightRing | Bullright

MLK alive and living in Ferguson…not

So Fergson protestors and race baiters want to build on the MLK legacy. There have been plenty of references in recent weeks by protest leaders and in the mainstream media. They suggest this is a continuation and that if Dr. King were alive he would be aligned with their actions in Ferguson protests. That is a distortion of reality. But it is nothing new.

A couple years ago, I posted on that mentality. MLK explained in an interview:

“I would … say that it is a method which seeks to secure a moral end through moral means,” King said. “And it grows out of the whole concept of love, because if one is truly nonviolent that person has a loving spirit, he refuses to inflict injury upon the opponent because he loves the opponent.” – Source

A moral end through moral means.(that’s key) And I said that:

“You can contrast that with today’s leftists and see a message. The modern Left, in its evolution, has defined and perfected its own system of protest — unlike King’s philosophy. It may get some results; but not only do you have to question the results, but the motivation and means as well.

King said his was driven by love, as opposed to what we see today. Actually it is based mostly on hate, resentment, or some animosity toward their “enemy”. I mean their political enemy. See, politics is everything, with ideology, today. It trumps all. Their activism is not based on love, as in for one another, and it doesn’t contain a moral component. That part was replaced by the religion of politics. With love and morality out of the equation, what is left? A bitter political activism.”

Now that we have Ferguson in full bloom, they want to bring in Dr. King anyway they can. It’s like “Weekend at Bernies”. This is not a movement driven by love but by hate. And race-baiters like Sharpton are no MLK’s either. They are smearing Dr. King’s legacy and what he stood for.

Could you picture King doing marches while everyone is looting stores and lighting the town on fire? “Burn this bitch down!” This is what he stood against. He did not believe that furthered their cause. He claimed they got the results they did because of love. It is Biblically consistent.

If you can say anything about these protestors today, it would be immoral ends through immoral means. (or any means to the end) If King were in Ferguson, I imagine he’d have some strong words for them. How could you hijack King’s legacy by a violent movement?

MLK said: “Violence creates many more social problems than it solves.” And that is being proved abundantly true in Ferguson.

Excerpts from “Loving Your Enemies” — November 17, 1957; Montgomery, Alabama.
Reverend Martin Luther King

In the fifth chapter of the gospel as recorded by Saint Matthew, we read these very arresting words flowing from the lips of our Lord and Master: “Ye have heard that it has been said, ‘Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.’ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” […/]

“That is why I say, begin with yourself. There might be something within you that arouses the tragic hate response in the other individual.

This is true in our international struggle. We look at the struggle, the ideological struggle between communism on the one hand and democracy on the other, and we see the struggle between America and Russia. Now certainly, we can never give our allegiance to the Russian way of life, to the communistic way of life, because communism is based on an ethical relativism and a metaphysical materialism that no Christian can accept. When we look at the methods of communism, a philosophy where somehow the end justifies the means, we cannot accept that because we believe as Christians that the end is pre-existent in the means.”

The movement today, and the Left, is the antithesis to that. It demands for itself what it will not respect in others. It threatens with violence anything in its way. It is building on Dr King’s legacy with violence and hatred. This is not about a seat on the bus. This is running out in front of the bus and hijacking it by the whims of radicals.

RightRing | Bullright

You can just shoot them

“When a person is intimidated by a black person, in this country, you can just pull out your gun and shoot them.”

What is very disconcerting is his hyperactive imagination.
How about that “license” to loot, not shoot, over anything you don’t like?

Or how about Planned Parenthood’s and abortion clinics’ license to kill? Silence.
They don’t even light a candle over that.

New terms for old protest

I saw an article today with the headline:

“Ferguson riots span 100 cities on second day” (splash page)

Protests against Ferguson decision grow across US
Though mostly peaceful, demonstrations grew coast to coast Tuesday, a day after the country learned Wilson won’t face charges.–AOL

Are we now calling riots mostly peaceful? Or, if these others were peaceful there is no reason to call them riots. Sound confusing? I’ll have to put that in my lexicon, ‘mostly peaceful riots’.

This from a protestor in Cleveland:

“The system wasn’t made to protect us,” said one of the protesters, 17-year-old Naesha Pierce. “To get justice, the people themselves have to be justice.”

Bad designing? I’m trying to dissect the last part. But If she is referring to the concept of self-government, it clearly has failed on them. Anarchy is sort of like that.

Talking about evolving terminology, maybe someone will think of a new term for looting, too? That sounds so last century.

In another report, two FBI agents were shot 5 miles from Ferguson. Though instantly they said that it was not “directly related” to the protests. How do they know that? How about this: a car is in the ditch off the highway, though it was not directly related to the 10 inches of snow on the road? No apparent connection. (don’t go conspiracy theorist now)

We’ve already heard reports that they found pipe bombs in a raid. But I guess we are too quick to jump to conclusions, that’s why they have to make those disclaimers all the time. Though media is quick to project spreading riots, aka demonstrations. Meanwhile, property owners are sacrificed to the expense of protestors. Fair tradeoff. Hmmm.

Also the demonstrators want to make rules for police officers. And they want them to wear name tags. So demonstrators wearing masks and those Guy Fawkes’ get-ups want name tags on cops. Maybe I should go slower, so not to jump to conclusions?

How about a pre-Thanksgiving laugh….for the road?

RightRing | Bullright

Ferguson store with revolving door

Ferguson Market and Liquor then – August after looting

Ferguson Market & Liquor — 9:55 pm on 11/24 after announcement:

Ferguson Market and Liquor

The store Brown robbed the day of his death, robbed in August rioting, and among first to be looted on 11/24. The store that keeps on giving. Despite being partly boarded up with ‘hands-up’ signs, they lined up to have a go at the loot. Didn’t burn that one down.

See CNN video Breitbart.

The store that keeps on giving..and giving. Mike Brown protestors keep on taking.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama tells Ferguson “stay on course”

Gateway Pundit has the story:

President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”

What does that mean?

And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?

The New York Times hid this in the 21st paragraph of their report:

But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”

At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.

Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.

According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”

http://www.thegartewaypundit.com/2014/11/obama-meets-with-ferguson-activists-says-hes-concerned-they-stay-on-course/

Tough to stay on course with looting and burning down the city. I’m glad he could encourage them.The NYT found a creative way to describe violent protests as “less passive” Interesting how Obama knew what they are advocating.

But wasn’t it the same with the Occupy movement: not a single leader, social media etc?

Trouble in Ferguson’s Brown-ville – NYT style

Never, well almost never, will you see the Left get on the NYT for something. It’s almost taboo. But you have a freak instance where they criticize one of the left’s darling, heroes-in-the- making. Such is this case.

The New York Times did a mild article about Brown, compassionate yet confronting. What did they say that was so bad? Well, you can read the whole thing here. I’ll give a few select quotes. It is worth reading.

However, the real story now is in Leftville, where they have taken on and stopped just short of crucifying John Eligon, the author. So now there are scores of pieces written in opposition to what he wrote. What’s the Leftinistas’ old expression that they just want an honest debate? Nonsense. They claim to appreciate open discussion? No, they don’t.

The terrible story now of Brown’s death seems to be the postmortem one. Enter the wrath of the Left. Remember the name because, as Obama says, they have long memories. Whether John Eligon is aware or not, he walked through a door to an alternate universe.

Sometimes with the left you have to follow the evolution of the argument. That is exactly what we have here, all because NYT took a peek into what the Brown “tragedy” was about, the man at the center, and came up with a story that did not fit the Left’s narrative. Two things you have to remember about the left: 1) politics rules; 2) the narrative is everything – defer to #1. The author stumbled upon fractures in the second. NYT’s chief offense was being honest, for once.

It started with this interesting bit which set the stage.

FERGUSON, Mo. — It was 1 a.m. and Michael Brown Jr. called his father, his voice trembling. He had seen something overpowering. In the thick gray clouds that lingered from a passing storm this past June, he made out an angel. And he saw Satan chasing the angel and the angel running into the face of God. Mr. Brown was a prankster, so his father and stepmother chuckled at first.

“No, no, Dad! No!” the elder Mr. Brown remembered his son protesting. “I’m serious.”

And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,” he told them. (NYT)

Well, I wondered if it was some sort of a premonition? I do take it seriously. But whatever, this was not what angered the Left. No, it was that he said Brown was “no angel”. The famous quote all the left is concentrating on — again, you do know the pack mentality.

Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor.

Now that did it. It gave the Left something they must attack, which forces the NYT to defend its article (or sell out Eligon) But this article created a whole subtext of dialogue – a firestorm. To a person, even in MSM media, they are attacking the article and author as insensitive and whacky, calling it a hit piece on Brown. Huffington Post declared: “NYT incites backlash after saying Michael Brown was no Angel.” See that? Blame NYT, at the same time the Left uses it to stir up defense of Brown, as a victim of the press. Then the NYT will also be blamed for the predictable reaction it will cause. Get it?

You didn’t think it was a political case? Wrong. It is now, that’s no secret on the Left. It has become a voter registration drive, straight up. But it is not one of those left vs right things. Yea, sure. Every time the left gets on board it is automatically a political issue. What don’t they politicize?

Here are a few objections to the article, and/or John Eligon. You know how the left treats anyone going against their narrative.

Daily Kos “I wonder how many obituaries for dead teenagers get the explicit “he was no angel” treatment from the sodding New York Times.”

Huffington Post, headline: “WATCH: New York Times Incites Backlash After Saying Michael Brown Was ‘No Angel'”

Salon called it an “outrageously skewed” article.

However, the generally respectful article has unwittingly demonstrated the media’s unconscious bias.

In an article that purports to be about the spiritual curiosity of a doomed teen, why is it necessary to hedge the writer’s argument with harmless details of his allegedly fraught youth? Because certain media outlets have aggressively spread certain details of Brown’s life, it seems that every news outlet needs to include details of Brown’s drug use and petty theft (which are normal teenage offenses) in order to remain “objective.”

Why talk about his actual life? Well, you see where the Salon piece is headed. Dare you mention anything untoward about “Big Mike” then you are biased with an agenda because this line of reasoning(facts) is agenda driven. They claim NYT leads the reader to conclude maybe his fate was sealed. Leftists do not like that. Rather they assert he was a good kid from a good family ready to head off to college. So its alright if they intentionally color the picture of “Big Mike”, damn anyone reporting details about Mike. Wait till they all go after this cop’s life, in lockstep. That will be “fair game”.

Remember in the OJ case when they broadcasted “innocent until proven guilty” mantra? Remember the lectures on reserving judgement? Some call for the cop’s execution. They should have dragged him behind the police station and shot him. Now listen to their hollow chants about justice.

Back to this article. Couldn’t they just as easily say ‘those details about “Big Mike”only serve to humanize the man?’ No. This is just planting a flag on Michael Brown’s hill to the next soul even considering any revelations about Brown or his past. So that is it folks, if they went to war with the NYT over this, you can be sure anyone else is cannon fodder.

RightRing | Bullright

Ferguson: the ideo-mindset

A couple things strike me as odd about the Ferguson matter.

The disdain for police is only part of it. Then the mistrust of the police is probably the bigger part. They all expressed it, which seems to be at the heart of the discontent. The rally was a rail-a-thon against the police.

But as the solution, they want the federal government to take over the entire investigation. So do you not have trust in local police and prosecutors, local government et al, but you have complete faith in the federal government — especially this DoJ under Eric Holder? The answer of course is yes, yes.

Sort of leaves me scratching my head how they complain about the militarization of police. That is a very real problem, I can understand that. It is one thing many of us are concerned about. Then they are upset at the national guard being brought in. On the other hand, they are begging the feds to take full control over everything.

So feds don’t abuse their authority, don’t screw up, and don’t deserve our distrust? Right, I have a bridge for them. The federal government that has politicized and scandalized almost every department, and can’t manage our border, is the infallible super-hero.

Am I missing some dots or not connecting them? I just find that strange. I know their desire is to make it a civil rights case, but the exuberant trust seems very questionable.

RightRing | Bullright