Reminders Of Service

I normally have a rule not to talk about personal experiences because one it is not anything anybody needs or wants to know and two, I never try to give opponents more ammunition against me. But occasionally I break that rule for public interest.

This is one of those. I took a trip of about 325 miles. I noticed two markers along the way where a state cop had fallen. Well, there could be more that I either missed or were not officially marked.

It sends a chill inside every time you see one of those. You know there was some incident there, and probably some family that would be impacted the rest of their lives. And someone did it, which is real sinister to consider. The markers serve as a tribute and memorial to what happened in that spot.

You don’t know what the day was like or the time it happened, whether it was fair weather, daytime, or nighttime. Nothing too personal. Just that an officer had fallen on this spot. They have mile markers posted on highways but an officer’s life is just as important to be marked. It’s an honor the killer should never have.

But while even writing this, word broke that 4 Houston police officers were shot in Houston, Texas, during a drug raid. On December 11, 2018, 2 law enforcement officers were shot while serving a warrant. But let us not forget that in 2016 a group of police officers were fired on “in Dallas, Texas, killing five officers and injuring nine others,” while they were protecting demonstrators in a march.

One of the most famous was NJ Trooper Philip Lamonaco, who was killed in 1981 along the interstate on a roadside stop by radical members of the terrorist group United Freedom Front. It captured national attention, public outrage, and kicked off a major manhunt. He was only 32 years old. Last year, 52 officers were shot and killed in the line of duty.

Now it is seeming more common. The president of the Houston Police Officers Union, Joe Gamaldi put the word out on anti-cop rhetoric. (KTRK)

“We are sick and tired of having targets on our back,” Gamaldi said. “We are sick and tired of having dirtbags trying to take our lives when all we’re trying to do is protect this community and protect our families.”

“Enough is enough. If you’re the ones out there spreading the rhetoric that police officers are the enemy, well just know we’ve all got your number now. We’re going to be keeping track on all of y’all, and we’re going to make sure to hold you accountable every time you stir the pot on our police officers.”

Enough…but is it ever enough for the anti-cop crowd?

Right Ring | Bullright

Prof of gun rant goes to Washington, as Obama’s guest

Check out this university professor in Nebraska who apparently is in love with the “F” bomb but hates guns with a similar passion. In case you wonder English is her subject.

Amanda-Gailey-Rant-Edited

The woman, Amanda Gailey, an English professor, is also the director of a group known as Nebraskans Against Gun Violence, according to her Facebook profile.

Source: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/14/fk-police-officers-fk-laws-professor-gets-personal-invite-to-meet-obama-after-this-rant-294264?hvid=2ZZYR4

This is why we need a license and background check on the first amendment. Yet this gets a personal invitation to the WH.

Rahm Emanuel cooked before the Christmas goose

He tried to throw the police superintendent under the bus but it didn’t work.

Rahm has drowned in the political environment he swam in. Adios Rahm, you are now unredeemable even among the left. Can you say toxic?

His brother is part of the Obamacare scandal and Rahm is destroying Chicago. But then he also played political hide and seek about it. Did he not think the people would find out? (‘Hey, I got this…!’)

Rahm -“Never let a crisis go to waste” finally created a crisis that laid waste to him.
Who’s sorry now?” (sorry Connie)

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

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

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