Category Archives: Crime

Charlottesville: Fact vs. Fiction, by Jack Kerwick

Here’s something refreshing concerning the Charlottesville incident: facts. From Jack Kerwick at lewrockwell.com:

As everyone who cares now knows, the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that was held this past Saturday “turned violent.”

It “turned violent” just as did so many of Donald Trump’s campaign rallies, the “free speech” rallies that have been held over the last seven or so months, and Trump’s inauguration.

Of course, it is only within the fantasyland of the Fake News media that any of these rightist (or pseudo-rightist) events “turned violent.” The latter is one of the many stock phrases that Fake Media trots out whenever it is leftist “counter-demonstrators”—another of its terms of choice—crash the events in question with every intention of stopping them by whichever means necessary.

The happenings that unfolded in Charlottesville on Saturday fall all too neatly into a pattern stretching back for the better part of two years, a pattern that has become nearly an ironclad law.

Listening to the coverage of Charlottesville, one could be forgiven for thinking that those in Big Media, whether “liberal” or “conservative,” were oblivious to the existence of this phenomenon.  Commentators struck the unprejudiced observer as either scandalously ignorant or just as scandalously (but predictably) dishonest.  Particularly disappointing were “conservative” commentators and showboating politicians who appeared every bit as immersed in the Big Media bubble that they accuse their “liberal” counterparts of inhabiting.

First, while there were indeed some self-styled neo-Nazis that were present among the rally’s attendees, they were, by all appearances, a tiny minority.  And they constituted a far smaller fraction of the totality of the group than, say, that which on multiple occasions comprised the totality of Black Lives Matter demonstrators that marched through busy city streets shouting such murderous slogans as, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” and “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!”

Second, the Charlottesville demonstrators organized their rally months in advance of its occurrence. Their application for a permit to march was initially denied. To its eternal credit, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a left-leaning organization, came to the organizers’ defense and helped them to appeal this decision.  A federal judge eventually ruled that it was illegal for the city of Charlottesville and the state of Virginia to prevent people from exercising their Constitutional right to peacefully assemble.

To continue reading: Charlottesville: Fact vs. Fiction

Advertisements

When Liberals Club People, It’s With Love in Their Hearts, by Ann Coulter

Violence against people who have not attacked makes cause irrelevant. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:

Apparently, as long as violent leftists label their victims “fascists,” they are free to set fires, smash windows and beat civilians bloody. No police officer will stop them. They have carte blanche to physically assault anyone they disapprove of, including Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Ben Shapiro, me and Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as anyone who wanted to hear us speak.

Even far-left liberals like Evergreen State professor Bret Weinstein will be stripped of police protection solely because the mob called him a “racist.”

If the liberal shock troops deem local Republicans “Nazis” — because some of them support the duly elected Republican president — Portland will cancel the annual Rose Festival parade rather than allow any Trump supporters to march.

They’re all “fascists”! Ipso facto, the people cracking their skulls and smashing store windows are “anti-fascists,” or as they call themselves, “antifa.”

We have no way of knowing if the speakers at the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally last weekend were “Nazis,” “white supremacists” or passionate Civil War buffs, inasmuch as they weren’t allowed to speak. The Democratic governor shut the event down, despite a court order to let it proceed.

We have only visuals presented to us by the activist media, showing some participants with Nazi paraphernalia. But for all we know, the Nazi photos are as unrepresentative of the rally as that photo of the drowned Syrian child is of Europe’s migrant crisis. Was it 1 percent Nazi or 99 percent Nazi?

As the “Unite the Right” crowd was dispersing, they were forced by the police into the path of the peace-loving, rock-throwing, fire-spraying antifa. A far-left reporter for The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, tweeted live from the event: “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.”

To continue reading: When Liberals Club People, It’s With Love in Their Hearts

Charlottesville 2, by Paul Craig Roberts

The first Charlottesville was very good and so is Charlottesville 2. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

What the liberal/progressive/left is trying to do with Charlottesville is to associate Trump supporters with White Supremacists and in this way demonize Trump supporters so that they will not have a voice when Trump is overthrown in a coup. Or it can be put in a different way: Charlottesville is being used by someone to discredit Trump and the people who elected him in order to pave the way for a coup, and the liberal/progressive/left is enabling the plot.

Upon reflection, I think that for most of the liberal/progressive/left the denunciations and one-sided interpretation of Charlottesville are just the ingrained knee-jerk reaction of people brought up in Identity Politics. In Identity Politics, everyone is a White Hat except racist, sexist, homophobic, gun-nut white males. The only tolerable white males are those who accept this characterization of themselves. All others are “white supremacists” or “nazis.”

From what I read on progressive websites, those imbued with Identity Politics are letting the emotionalism of the politics run away with them. My friend, Rob Kall, who is fair and open-minded and posts my columns on OpEdNews, including those to which he takes exception, writes: “Trump is Now the Leader of White Supremacists and Nazis.” Rob reaches this conclusion because Trump held both sides responsible for the violence in Charlottesville. By seeing equivalence between the two sides, Trump “made it clear that he was siding with the White Supremacists, giving them aid, support and encouragement.” https://www.opednews.com/articles/Trump-is-Now-the-Leader-of-by-Rob-Kall-Donald-Trump_Hate-Groups-Neo-Nazis_White-Supremacist-170816-650.html (You might remember Jean Kirkpatrick who denounced liberals for seeing moral equivalence between the Soviet Union and the US.) I doubt this is the way Trump saw his statement. From the news videos I saw, there seemed to be plenty of hate on both sides. Certainly, there is plenty of hate for Trump among progressives.

To continue reading: Charlottesville 2

Chaos in Charlottesville: No One Gave Peace a Chance, Including the Police, by John W. Whitehead

At best it appears the Charlottesville police were inept, at worst that they were deliberately trying to provoke confrontation and violence. From John W. Whitehead at rutherford.org:

No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders.” — Robert F. Kennedy

Let’s be clear about one thing: no one—not the armed, violent, militant protesters nor the police—gave peace a chance during the August 12 demonstrations in Charlottesville, Va.

What should have been an exercise in free speech quickly became a brawl.

It’s not about who threw the first punch or the first smoke bomb.

It’s not about which faction outshouted the other, or which side perpetrated more violence, or even which group can claim to be the greater victim.

One young woman is dead because of the hate, violence, intolerance, racism and partisanship that is tearing this country apart, and it has to stop.

Lawful, peaceful, nonviolent First Amendment activity did not kill Heather Heyer.

She was killed by a 20-year-old Neo-Nazi who drove his car into a crowd of pedestrians in Charlottesville, Va.

Words, no matter how distasteful or disagreeable, did not turn what should have been an exercise in free speech into a brawl.

That was accomplished by militant protesters on both sides of the debate who arrived at what should have been a nonviolent protest armed with sticks and guns, bleach bottles, balloons filled with feces and urine and improvised flamethrowers, and by the law enforcement agencies who stood by and allowed it.

As the New York Times reported, “Protesters began to mace one another, throwing water bottles and urine-filled balloons— some of which hit reporters — and beating each other with flagpoles, clubs and makeshift weapons. Before long, the downtown area was a melee. People were ducking and covering with a constant stream of projectiles whizzing by our faces, and the air was filled with the sounds of fists and sticks against flesh.”

The madness is spreading.

People I know—good, decent people who value equality, reject racism, and believe strongly in tolerance—in their grief and dismay and disgust, threatened violence, acted like a mob, and adopted similarly violent, intolerant, disorderly tactics as those they claim to oppose.

Those who defend free speech were castigated by those who believe that only certain views should be allowed to be heard.

Those who cling to nonviolence were outnumbered by angry mobs intent on inciting violence.

Those who normally advocate a message of tolerance gave into the temptation to spew hate and intolerance.

To continue reading: Chaos in Charlottesville: No One Gave Peace a Chance, Including the Police

Charlottesville, by Paul Craig Roberts

Everybody has something to say about Charlottesville, but Paul Craig Roberts is at the top of the heap on this one. From Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

Listening to NPR this morning confirmed what I already knew. Charlottesville is being turned into another nail in President Trump’s coffin.

NPR had no interest whatsoever in reporting the actual facts about what had occurred in Charlottesville. The several “interviews” with the like-minded were orchestrated to produce the desired propaganda result: It was all Trump’s fault.

It was Trump’s fault for many reasons. He had stirred up White Supremacists and Nazis by appealing during the presidential election campaign to their supremacist views with his slogan “America first.”

Of course, what Trump means by “America first,” is precisely what the voters understood him to mean—the interest of the broad American public should come before trade deals that serve the interests of other countries and the narrow profit interests of global corporations. However, the NPR propagandists put words in Trump’s mouth and twisted the meaning of the slogan to be “White America Comes First.”

In other words, “America first” according to NPR is code language to white supremacists to take advantage of the electoral college and elect a leader over the popular vote of the heavy population densities in the narrow geographical areas that comprise the northeast and west coasts, the centers of moral rot. Thus, Trump was the candidate of white supremacists and, thereby, illegitimate.

NPR next conveyed the message that Trump proved he was the Nazis’ candidate when he criticized both sides for the trouble in Charlottesville. NPR used its orchestrated interviews to place all blame for violence on the group that had a permit for their rally. According to NPR, the group that had no permit and formed in order to protest the rally consisted entirely of white hats defending America from free speech from alleged Nazis and racists.

There is no doubt that a rally of what is called the “alt-right” will pull into itself all sorts of extremists and that the cause of the rally, apparently defending a statue of Robert E. Lee from demolition or perhaps simply gaining attention for the organizers, was done harm by the young, apparently unbalanced, man who drove a car into counter-marchers, after the permitted rally had ended. The nonsensical element of this act has convinced some Americans that the entire scene was an orchestration by the deep state as a weapon against Trump and civil liberty.

To continue reading: Charlottesville

Smoke and Fire, by James Howard Kunstler

Kunstler examines the doctrines of various “progressive” movements that are regressions towards violence and repression. From Kunstler at kunstler.com:

Cue the corn pone Nazis. Enter, stage left. Well, what did you expect?

With the various authorities in this culture incessantly applying “white privilege” noogies to the public’s skull, sooner or later they were sure to provoke a lizard-brain response from the more limbic-oriented low orders of honkeydom. Of course, you couldn’t stage-manage a more stupidly arrant provocative act in the State of Virginia, guaranteed to bring out the raging yahoos, than threatening to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee.

There’s a depressingly tragic overtone to this whole affair that suggests the arc of history itself is driving this story — a dark animus in the national soul struggling to resolve its contradictions. And the Charlottesville incident, which left a woman dead and many others badly injured from a car-ramming, has the flavor of a “first shot” in a new civil war.

The echo civil rights campaign of the moment — a strange brew of Black Lives Matter, “Antifa” (anti-fascist), latest-wave feminism, illegal immigrant sanctuary politics, and LGBTQQ agitation — emanates from the college campuses and creeps through the culture-at-large like a miasma, poisoning group against group, in an orgy of victimization claims of the sort that inevitably lead to violence. This is how tribal and religious wars start in primitive societies.

There is also a funk of phoniness about this campaign that should alert the higher centers of judgment in the brain. The Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, MO, that kicked off the BLM movement was never a convincing case of injustice, but has been widely regarded as if it was, despite state and federal inquiries (under Obama’s DOJ), that concluded otherwise. The figment of “white privilege” is not responsible for the extraordinary black-on-black homicide rates in Chicago and Baltimore or the black teen flash mobs in malls around the country. What is suspiciously at the bottom of it all is the spectacular failure of the original civil rights campaign of the 1960s to alter the structures of poverty in black America, as well as the grinding guilt among white Democratic Progressives over the failures of their own well-intentioned policies — converted perversely into racial self-flagellation.

To continue reading: Smoke and Fire

 

JFK Killing: Lies & Russophobia, by Finian Cunningham

CIA “disclosures,” especially about the CIA itself, should be considered disinformation until proven otherwise. Finian Cunningham explores recent disclosures about JFK’s assassination. From Cunningham at informationclearinghouse.com:

Information Clearing House” – The assassination of President John F Kennedy in 1963 was a seminal event in modern American history. Yet 54 years on, the official US state continues covering up the shocking truth about the killing of one of its most popular leaders.

A recent release of secret memos from the Central Intelligence Agency is a classic case of disinformation put out to further contaminate public knowledge about how and why the president was murdered in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.

American news journal, Politico, headlined an article about the latest declassified information: “How the CIA came to doubt the official story of JFK’s murder”.

From a casual glance, one might think that “at last” some new insight into the Kennedy assassination may be forthcoming and on the role played by Lee Harvey Oswald, the young ex-marine accused of pulling the trigger. Not a bit of it.

The latest batch of CIA memos – penned around 1975 – do not in any way “undermine the [official] Warren Commission’s finding that Oswald killed Kennedy with shots fired from his perch on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository… and that there was no credible evidence of a second gunman.”

What the newest release of CIA documents appear to “disclose” is that the agency was involved in a “benign cover-up” by influencing the 1964 Warren Commission to conclude that Oswald acted alone in killing the president. What appears to be revealed now is the CIA had deeper concerns that the late Cuban leader Fidel Castro may have indirectly motivated Oswald. The CIA refers to a New Orleans newspaper article published two months before JFK’s murder, in which Castro is quoted denouncing covert American operations against his own life.

That news report, says the CIA in a 1975 memo, may have inspired Oswald as an American supporter of the Cuban socialist revolution to proceed to Dallas and plot against the US president as an act of revenge.

Other “intriguing glimpses”, as Politico describes the latest declassification from the US National Archives, include CIA misgivings that alleged meetings by Oswald with Cuban and Russian officials in Mexico City weeks prior to JFK’s assassination were not adequately followed up by Warren commission investigators.

 

To continue reading: JFK Killing: Lies & Russophobia