“Death to America” is not news

Chilling Video: Muslims Screaming “Death to America” in This US City: Media Silent

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 | Before It’s News

Need proof the mainstream media is controlled by global elites pushing the narrative they want, versus providing the American people with ACTUAL news they need of what is REALLY going on? Here it is. It’s been almost a month since the Trump rally in Chicago, and this is the first I’ve seen of this video of a massive protest in Chicago chanting, “Death to America,” “Free Palestine,” and “Death to Israel!” Just like the armed tensions that erupted over the weekend between Black Panthers and Muslims protesting outside a Mosque, the media buried the story.

In the case of the Trump rally, they didn’t bury the story, they flat out lied. We now know it wasn’t Trump supporters that were out of control, but rather it was a group of PAID infiltrators sent by George Soros specifically to wreak havoc. [see]

More http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2016/04/chilling-video-muslims-screaming-death-to-america-in-this-us-city-media-silent-2792999.html

Good old silent media, always looking for a good story to ignore.
Media is not silent, more like complicit.

Every which way…. but lose

This is probably one of the most painful columns I have had to write. Had to out of a sense of obligation. Someone should say it.

Ferg-us-soon and Baltimo’ have taught us something. They weren’t the first riots and won’t be the last either. No, that isn’t the lesson. Most of us are still alive to remember the 60’s riots. We remember Martin Luther King, too. Even that is not the real lesson in this stuff happening.

Like anything else, the real lesson about catastrophe or disaster is what you do about it that counts. Still not quite the lesson. Have we learned anything after the sixties’ riots? It was that people need to get involved in the political process to affect any change. But those were mostly civil rights issues etc, important stuff. Today it can be over one person being hurt or killed, not that it doesn’t matter but that is all it takes. (in truth it probably won’t even take that in the future)

There is a whole grievance industry built on decades of people having a chip on their shoulder. Sooner or latter it explodes. What do we hear about people who go out and commit mass murder or destruction? It’s that there were problems all along which manifest themselves, ultimately, in committing the acts. That’s what we hear anyway, like it was an unavoidable train wreck bound to happen. Someone should have stopped it somehow, before it was too late. Who can we blame? We’re told all this by psychologists, sociologists and professors in Ivy Towers, and finally by mainstream media.

So the potential is there for it to happen, maybe it’s always been there? You are always going to have a few disgruntled people etc. These are the lines we are fed over and over again, like a Christmas fruitcake.

No, I don’t want to ague that they don’t have a point. Sure there are always going to be crazies. We know that. There are always going to be problems, issues, disasters, “tragedies” — however they define the term. There will be broken people, humans, behind it. We may always have disgruntled people: have nots, you got yours I want mine, or whatever their grievance is. They live out an act of revenge. But this is not about that.

This is bigger, it’s about what is acceptable to do in society or not.

It’s about moral boundaries, decay, wanton destruction. It’s about disgust for our system, be it the political one , capitalism, or government writ large. It’s also about feelings too numerous to mention. It’s about a sense of who cares how much damage it takes? The reasons are no clearer than the violence or its objectives. It is becoming all too common. It goes from one event to the next like wildfires. It looks for an incident to justify itself and finds it with frequency. No, you cannot eliminate the causation because they will find it anywhere, anytime they want. You cannot beat them at that game. Find it — some justification — they will.

But we must look at the whole, too. We now have a political system with a win at any cost mentality, whatever it takes. Sound familiar? They take pride in that philosophy. If Alinsky tactics are bad, those are only the starting point and only a means. The real enchilada is in the ends. They can twist any issue into a banana peel to slide off into massive protests sparking riots and looting. We know there are professionals out there who do that. Whatever the last one was will be nothing compared to the next in their minds, progressing in damage and passion. They can plug in their formula to any issue and come up with the same answer and results — protests, rioting, looting, burning down and destroying neighborhoods, creating chaos.

As much as government or some in it try, they have no concrete answers to it. Oh, they say we need economic development, jobs and mo’ money to combat it. It’s always the same patent answers no matter the issues in question. Spend more is the prescription for everything. Meanwhile, our legislators and politicians continue on their own win at any cost campaign. They are not oblivious to what is going on, but which one is really the priority? It has to be their jobs and winning elections above all else. That’s just the way it has to be.

Look at the real problems with the protests and riots. They breed on themselves. And there is always some debate through it, in all the media attention, as to what the answers are. Even after, the debate goes on and maybe hearings or an investigation into the problems. How many grueling studies or whatever have been done? How many columns are written on the dynamics? How many “passions are flared” comments will come out of it all? Still the same thing happens over and over. Then there are the political racketeers who say the answer is voter registration to give people a voice, to affect a change. Yep, we’ve heard it all before. It’s as predictable as the taste of that fruitcake. That airbrushes a sense of legitimacy over the whole thing. “Now if you will only vote we can work this thing, or problems, out.” We just need their involvement in the system. Right?

We seem to forget.

We had the riots in the 60’s and they were told the same thing in the aftermath. Where did Bobby Rush come from, the only one who managed to beat Barack Obama? So they did get involved. Let’s call them activists now. They went into the influence game and made a difference. We’re seeing the results of it play out before our eyes. They have made an impact. And today the very same radicals from the sixties hold higher offices around the country. Look at Chicago, look at Baltimore, Elijah Cummings, Eric Holder, and countless others like Maxine Waters. And they also went into academia to influence society and culture. Then they got control and look what happened? We even got Obama in the White House. He set up a network administration of radicals. They got involved, no? Now we see the fruits — and that fruitcake is tasting worse and worse. (apologies if you like fruitcake — just a metaphor)

Flash forward to what we see now. Even before the riots ended they had the registration drive. Sign up, we need people like you in our process. I understand their ploy to make everything about voting and the process. Has it worked? Has it stopped the problems? Along the way, progressives and liberals have actually politicized every possible thing within reach. They complain about the process being so politicized or that the problems are so politicized. But that is what they have done with every stinking issue, politicized it.

Of course there is going to be hypocrisy, they assert. So what? Well, remember when there were all those Tea Party rallies around the country. They were not burning down buildings, rioting or looting. Let’s not forget the answer in that case was not to register people to vote, or tell them to get involved in the system. No, in fact, it was the exact opposite. They called them racists and mocked anything they did. The last thing they wanted was them to get involved in the process. In fact, they resented them for doing just that. Of course then we had government’s jihad against them, whether they were business owners, running for office, or starting non-profits to make a difference. Remember it was all out war against them.

The very same people and government who now goes out to plead the case for these rioters and looters. We see an organized pattern of backing off the police and allowing rioters and looters to have their way. Then there is an attempt from mainstream media to refer to them as “mostly peaceful protests,” even while it is going on right in front of cameras. But police being stood down sends a sharp, disturbing message to protestors et al. The officials come right out to say let them riot and loot, it’s only property. Yea, who cares about that? The message is even worse and more profound than that.

If there is to be a fringe benefit or quid pro quo to the protestors, it this rioting and looting aspect. Someone gains and someone loses. I’ve said this is all part of Obama’s economic recovery program. It really is, it is redistribution in the most basic form. Sure it is a bit more crude than the the methods politicians and Washington uses. But hey, same effects.

Over the last few years we’ve heard an awful lot of talk about how communities have been militarized to the point of having the same equipment right here on our streets as they have in heavy combat war zones. Yes there is some undeniable truth to that. What do they use it on? Then there are countless no-knock raids carried out all over the country everyday.They incorporate some of the same military-style tactics. Whether it is federal agencies or local communities, the same rules or tactics seem to apply: explain later. And they use them on a multitude of issues. Swat teams practice their maneuvers for use on schools and public buildings. All communities have swat teams with much of the same military-type hardware.

Even so far back as the nineties military tactics were used to scoop up little Elian Gonzalez to ship him back to Cuba, authorized right from the justice department. They had military style deployments at Ruby Ridge and Waco run by Janet Reno’s Justice Department. Lest you blame this too on George Bush, this was alive and thriving long before he took office. Sure there were hearings over it, but so what? They also had hearings over baseball and steroids.

What’s the point?

Well, there are many points. It is an evolving landscape of militarized action on people when government deems it necessary. (subjectively and selectively) Now it has evolved again to the point of making a calculated decision, in the case of riots — racial et al — to hold back the police presence. There has been a calculation to let the looters loot, and let the rioters riot. They’ll stop eventually.

In the meantime, in the heat of the situation, the calculation has been made to let them have the private property — loot. So private property of people is now the bargaining chip for communities and federal government. Let them steal or destroy property to pacify the thugs. Let them have at your property if it can calm things down. It doesn’t buy that doesn’t matter, they’ve already made that calculation. “Why get involved and inflame the situation further? It’s only property.”

Yea, and it’s only private property.Your loss, but then who cares about that? If they are determined to loot, then let them loot. That business or home you worked all your life for, scrimping and saving, is now just a bargaining chip for government and communities. Criminals, thugs and looters know this. The principle is very simple and basic though, sacrifice private property for the greater good. Socialism has no better tenant. Your private property is on the chopping block, whether it is by eminent domain abuse, taxes, “civil disobedience protests” or riots. It is there for the purpose of sacrificing it to criminals and thugs to appease a situation. When we all just start realizing that we will be a long way closer to the truth. Just that they have finally codified that process.

To politicians and government it is every which way but lose. To private citizens and property owners, it is every which way at your loss. They win, you lose — fairly simple.

RightRing | Bullright

ESP and Liberal minds (2)

Once again the subject is language and liberals. The Baltimore Mayor did a stunning reversal, or whatever you call it, on what she clearly stated in a press conference.

“We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” – Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

She later challenged the reporter who challenged what she said. Then she said the problem was the media twisting her words that she never said. Well, she did and we all heard it, but therein is the problem.

Fox’s Megyn Kelley took on the Mayor’s denial. Go to the video tape. Yep, that’s what she said, we heard her. Then it came to pundit commentary, so the token leftist was all bent out of shape that we actually applied her words to her. How dare you! He said what she really meant by those words, and that no mayor or official in the country would allow or want destruction taking place in their city. But she said it.

He went on to interpret what she intended or “meant to say”.(which requires revision) But that the mayor’s heart and concerns were in exactly the right place. It wasn’t just one Democrat pundit, many of the left said the same thing. So they could reinterpret her words into a harmless intent of goodwill, which she really meant. (we all know what she meant) Except for one thing, what the mayor actually said — in her own press conference, not behind doors in private. Though it makes one wonder what she says behind closed doors?

She also used the word thug to describe criminals, but then later revised her words to “misguided young people who need our support.” Apparently that revision satisfied the perpetually-peeved protestors because I haven’t heard any more rev interpretations.

It turns out that Liberals have the gift of telepathy on demand. Yes, they can read minds and intentions. They are good at it, too, because their powers are limitless. Then it’s treated as an official translation and reported that way. For example, if someone says “the sky is blue”, liberals can go out to translate what he meant was it is some color other than white or red, never mind clearly calling it blue. Media would report his intentions. Leftists say if Mayor Blake had it to do over again, she would have said something else. So they can just go ahead and fill in all those blanks for her.

Like Hillary goes out to say they were dead broke leaving the WH and people come out to translate what she really meant by that. So actually dead broke can mean a whole lot of things, I just thought it meant dead broke. Hillary has a village of interpreters.

What about when Obama goes out of his way to make some sort of racial or stereotypical slur? That is fine, the problem was your ears. Libs will rush out to say what he really meant. They say he was right to say those who “cling to guns and religion” with “antipathy” toward others, and it needed to be said. Since he is right, they say he should not apologize but be congratulated. But when you are correct about the term thugs — when even Obama used it — you should be shamed, scolded and forced to apologize… for being right and using the correct term. (no ESP interpretations allowed)

And it turns out the media that can do telepathic interpretations, and police language the rest of us use, runs prison TV on a loop on weekends. We should be shamed and cast as racists for using the word “thug,” while Baltimore’s Mayor Chaos must be given wide birth to telepathic interpretations on whatever she says. Having MSNBC’s #1 race-baiting anchor for a spokesperson, and running the translation efforts for the Mayor, should settle any outrage or dispute over what she says. I’m glad for their ESP expertise. Without their telepathic translators we would never know what looney leftists really say. And often the translations are worse than their actual statements.

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

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

“Occupy” ignorance

Report: White House Told GSA to ‘Stand Down’ on Occupy Protesters

Wednesday, 08 Aug 2012 01:01 PM

By Patrick Hobin


Documents show that the Obama administration advised authorities to not enforce local laws on Occupy Wall Street protesters, Fox News reported.

The watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained emails via a Freedom of Information Act request that show the General Services Administration telling federal law enforcement authorities to ease up on Occupy protestors camped out at the federally-owned Terry Schrunk Plaza in Portland, Ore., in 2011, according to Fox News. […]

Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: White House Told GSA to ‘Stand Down’ on Occupy Protesters

http://www.newsmax.com/US/white-house-occupy-protests/2012/08/08/id/447963

Oops, looks like direct connection to the White House.