The Real Threat… Violence From The Left

Submitted by David Galland via,

The impetus for today’s musings is my growing annoyance with the factoid (something touted as fact, but false) that “conservatives” are violent nuts.

According to new and old media alike – from Google and Facebook to the New York Times and the Washington Postit’s the Trump supporter we must fear the most.

In support of that factoid, the media shrilly points out the affection Trump’s cheering squad has for the Second Amendment. And there’s no doubt Trump’s supporters like the idea of being able to defend themselves in an emergency.

While not the primary theme for today’s musings, I would like to share a quick personal aside about why private gun ownership might not be such a bad idea.

Help on Hold

It was the 1970s, and I was living in Playa del Rey, California, a co-joined suburb of Greater Los Angeles.

It was there one bright California morning that I awoke to discover the only asset of any real value I owned at the time, a souped-up Camaro, had been stolen off the curb.

Instinctively, I hot-footed it into the house and dialed 911. My expectation was that Officer Friday or, if he was otherwise engaged, one of his associates would answer on the second ring, note the details, and dispatch a patrol car pronto.

What actually occurred was that my call was answered by an automated voice confirming I had indeed reached the Los Angeles Police Department. The soothing female voice then cooed assurances that my call was important to them, and so I should remain on the line for the next available representative.

A bit surprised, but accepting that the Los Angeles Police Department must be a busy place, I held on for what I was sure would be just a matter of seconds. The seconds dragged on into minutes, and by the time a representative answered, a full 20 minutes had passed.

To be crystal clear, the number I dialed was 9-1-1. You know, the emergency line. I recall thinking to myself at the time, surely there must be another number, maybe 9-9-9, that meant it was REALLY an emergency, as opposed to a non-life-threatening car theft.

But there wasn’t, and there still isn’t.

Which is to say that if the problem hadn’t been a missing car but rather a deranged maniac hacking through the door with a serrated knife, I would have been a sitting schmuck.

Within a week I bought my first gun, a Remington 22 Magnum revolver, a gun I own to this day.

I could go on, as I am wont to do, with all sorts of relevant examples where law-abiding citizens were able to protect their belongings or selves by waving around a gun, but in the interest of time, I’ll resist.

So, no, being in favor of being able to defend yourself with something other than a broomstick in an emergency doesn’t seem a sign of insanity to me. Quite the opposite.

But I digress, sort of.

The Real Threat

The meme that somehow Trump’s supporters are not just armed but prone to violence is one of those ideas that, if explored with even a small corner of the cranium, would be revealed as utter nonsense.

For starters, you might wish to revisit press coverage of the events hosted by Trump vs. Mrs. Clinton during their respective campaigns.

As far as I can tell, there was not a single case of Trump supporters circling Clinton events like feral dogs in order to harass her supporters as they tried to enter or leave the venues where the events were being held.

Yes, there were a couple of isolated incidents where Trump supporters were overly enthusiastic in assisting security as they subdued protesters inside Trump events, and those were shameful.

But that was nothing compared to the violence committed against participants at Trump rallies in cities such as San Jose, Richmond, Chicago, and Pittsburgh.

The latest such incident occurred this past week in Minneapolis where a pack of cowards, unhindered by police, took turns sucker punching and robbing people trying to enter a Trump event.

It is equally disturbing when individuals are being targeted simply because they display symbols indicating they are pro-Trump.

The always erudite John Derbyshire recently asked whether Clinton supporters would be concerned for their personal safety as a consequence of placing a pro-Clinton placard on their lawn?

Of course not.

But what about a Trump supporter?

The answer is completely obvious in the affirmative.

If you accept the populist narrative, to plant a Trump sign in front of your home is the same as announcing to the world you’re a crazy white racist.

For certain demographics—in which I include brainwashed young white hipsters—that makes you and yours fair game.

At this point, there are too many examples of violence against Trump supporters to recount here, but I’ll toss into the ring a 62-year-old man beaten with a crowbar for wearing a Trump T-shirt, and a recent assault against Trump supporters in West Hollywood. If you read that article, you’ll note that prior to the attack, the Trumpsters were refused service and asked to leave a restaurant solely because of their political affiliation.

Oh, the irony of watching people who profess to worry about Trump being a fascist… trying to silence him and his followers. You know, because the defense of free speech extends only to their free speech.

Want to debate the Second Amendment, trade policies, the legal process for orderly immigration, the size of government, monetary policy? Pull a Trump T-shirt over your head, and all bets are off. It’s like waving a red cape in front of a herd of bulls.

Of course, it’s not all that one-sided. The odds of a dedicated Trump supporter listening with an open mind to someone making a case for electing Hillary are roughly equal to those of Bill Clinton taking a pass on an attractive and willing intern.

But based on the evidence, acts of violence toward those expressing an opposing view—in this case, pro-Trump—appear to come almost exclusively from the left.

This is only conjecture, but if you polled a wide swath of Clinton supporters as to whether they thought it a good thing if Trump were to die on the spot, I suspect the majority would answer solidly in the affirmative.

Okay, okay. I guess a similar poll directed at Trump’s supporters and having to do with Hillary Clinton’s immediate demise would probably have the same results.

Face it, the nation is divided, and dangerously so.

But as to who is more likely to actually open fire, you’ve got to place your bet on the anti-Trump crowd.

A Disturbing New Reality

In researching the violence and threats of violence against Trump supporters, I googled “Trump Supporters Attacked.” What I got was a page of listings about Trump verbally attacking someone or another.

I finally had to go to the far less rigged search engine in order to find a report, by Breitbart – the only semi-major media outlet actually reporting on this stuff – about the latest attacks in Minneapolis.

Do you remember the overenthusiastic Trump supporter who helped subdue a protester at one of his events by sucker-punching the man as security was taking him out of the venue?

The reason you probably do is that it was all over the news for the better part of a week.

Yet the latest attacks in Minneapolis were buried in the equivalent of the back pages, in small print, by the big search engines and mainstream media.

Now, imagine if it were the other way around… that a group of Trump supporters blocked the doors of a Hillary event and made the participants run a gauntlet of fists and spit.

This new reality of the media and Google (among others) acting as unindicted co-conspirators for the takeover of the American government is highly disturbing.

Their manipulation of the news is so aggressive and so overt (as well as covert) in this election that I suspect this era will be looked back on in history as an inflection point signaling the end of democracy as we know it. That is, if history won’t likewise have been rewritten by the mega-manipulators.

It’s clear the media is determined to deny Trump a fair shot at winning the election, but this continued pounding of the drums about violence could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. In which case, everyone loses.

Frankly, I’m appalled at what’s going on in this country. Which is why some years ago I voted with my feet, a decision I have never regretted, not for a minute.

If you’d like to experience what life is like on the other side of the curtain, consider attending the upcoming Discover Cafayate event hosted by Doug Casey here in the quaint wine-growing Argentine valley where we live. The dates are November 1–6, and there is a limit to the number of guests who can participate.

If you’re interested, drop my friend Juan Larranaga a note at

Here Come the Clowns

Save the Planet, Take Over the Economy! Another recent example of the socialist mindset is provided in a New Republic article by Bruce McKibben, a true believer of the most dangerous sort.

In his article entitled, “A World at War,” he calls for a takeover of the American industry and property by the government, similar to that in WWII, but in this case in order to fight the war against weather.

Here’s a telling quote:

Mark Wilson, a historian at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has just finished a decade-long study of the mobilization effort, entitled Destructive Creation. It details how the federal government birthed a welter of new agencies with names like the War Production Board and the Defense Plant Corporation; the latter, between 1940 and 1945, spent $9 billion on 2,300 projects in 46 states, building factories it then leased to private industry. By war’s end, the government had a dominant position in everything from aircraft manufacturing to synthetic rubber production.


“It was public capital that built most of the stuff, not Wall Street,” says Wilson. “And at the top level of logistics and supply-chain management, the military was the boss. They placed the contracts, they moved the stuff around.” The feds acted aggressively—they would cancel contracts as war needs changed, tossing factories full of people abruptly out of work. If firms refused to take direction, FDR ordered many of them seized. Though companies made money, there was little in the way of profiteering—bad memories from World War I, Wilson says, led to “robust profit controls,” which were mostly accepted by America’s industrial tycoons.

Remarkably, McKibben and a number of similarly dangerous socialists are thought-leaders for millions of Americans. As the useful idiots increasingly take the reins of political power, could we see this enviro-fascism lead to calls for arresting climate-change skeptics? You betcha.

via Read More Here..

Turkey Invades Northern Syria — Truth of Turkish “Coup” Revealed?

Syria’s conflict has escalated into dangerous new territory as Turkish military forces cross the Turkish-Syrian border in an attempt to annex the Syrian city of Jarabulus. The operation includes not only Turkish military forces, but also throngs of Western-backed militants who will likely be handed control of the city before expanding operations deeper into Syria against Syrian government forces.

Vía BlackListed News

Tech firm brags about blocking FBI from recovering Clinton emails

A technology company that provided the program Hillary Clinton’s team used to scrub her private server of emails bragged on its website Thursday that it had prevented the FBI from accessing deleted records.

Vía BlackListed News

Were France burkini photos STAGED? A Muslim woman on a beach with no towel, no book, or parasol… and then forced to remove swimwear by police … fresh claims pictures may be SET UP

The France burkini row has deepened after claims that photos of a Muslim woman forced to remove her swimwear by armed police on a beach were staged. French politicians and media questioned the controversial incident in Nice on Tuesday and asked why the woman was lying down on a beach with no towel, book or parasol in the full glare of the midday sun near a police post – with a photographer nearby. They are fears France’s controversial burkini ban, which began in Cannes, may be leapt upon as a propaganda tool by Islamic extremists.

Vía BlackListed News

How Neocons Helped Create Trump

Prominent neoconservatives, led by Bill Kristol, have played leading roles in trying to block Trump’s nomination or repeal it somehow. They’ve lined up fellow-neocons to sign letters opposing his election and/or declining to serve under him should he actually make it to the White House. Some, albeit a relatively small minority so far, have gone so far as to publicly endorse Hillary for president, if only as the lesser evil. Among the most outspoken in the latter group are Bob Kagan, Max Boot, Bret Stephens, and Eliot Cohen. Indeed, it’s very difficult to find a neocon at the moment who publicly supports the Republican candidate.

Vía BlackListed News

Whitewashing Israeli War Crimes, the NYT Turns its Back on Survivors and Critics

So it’s settled, according to The New York Times: Israel was not at fault in a strike that killed 10 civilians near a United Nations school in the 2014 assault on Gaza, nor was it guilty of breaking the law in other instances that left innocent victims dead during that conflict. This, at least, is what the Israeli military claims, and in a one-sided story in the Times this week, Isabel Kershner takes the Israeli military findings at face value, never questioning its conclusions or seeking commentary from outside sources.

Vía BlackListed News

Private Prison Involved in Immigrant Detention Funds Donald Trump and His Super PAC

Geo Group, the second largest private prison company in the U.S., and a major player in for-profit immigrant detention, filed a disclosure this month revealing that it provided $50,000 through its political action committee to Rebuilding America Now, the Super PAC backing the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. While Trump has not used his campaign to purchase campaign advertisements, an unusual dynamic noted by many in the campaign press, Rebuilding America Now has become his de facto paid media voice, with $2 million in recent anti-Hillary Clinton ad buys.

Vía BlackListed News

Bolivian Minister Kidnapped, “Savagely Beaten To Death” By Striking Mineworkers

In a shocking development in Bolivia, striking workers – who were demanding more mining concessions with less stringent environmental rules – kidnapped and “savagely beat to death” 56-year-old Deputy Interior Minister Rodolfo Illanes.

Vía BlackListed News

Bolivian Minister Kidnapped, “Savagely Beaten To Death” By Striking Mineworkers

In a shocking development in Bolivia, striking workers – who were demanding more mining concessions with less stringent environmental rules – kidnapped and "savagely beat to death" 56-year-old Deputy Interior Minister Rodolfo Illanes.

Bolivian President Evo Morales is calling Friday a day of "deep pain" for the country following the violent murder of Deputy Interior Minister Rodolfo Illanes on his way to negotiate with striiking mine-workers. Illanes "was kidnapped, tortured and murdered," Morales said. As Reuters reports, officials said he died of blows to the head.

Striking Bolivian miners kidnapped and beat to death the country's deputy interior minister in a shocking spasm of violence following weeks of tension over dwindling paychecks in a region hit hard by falling metal prices.


The miners were demanding they be allowed to work for private companies, who promise to put more cash in their pockets.


The issue has bedeviled President Evo Morales, who began as a champion of the working class and privatized the nation's mining industry, only to see his support crater amid the downturn. Miners say Morales has become a shill of the rich, and done little to help them make ends meet as the economy slows.


Deputy Minister Rodolfo Illanes, whose formal title is vice minister of the interior regime, had traveled Thursday to the scene of the violent protests in an effort to negotiate with the strikers who armed themselves with dynamite and seized several highways.

As AP reports, the fatal beating came after the killings of two protesters in clashes with police Wednesday, deaths that likely fueled the tensions.

Illanes, who was also a lawyer and university professor, had gone to Panduro, 80 miles (130 kilometers) south of La Paz, to open a dialogue with the miners.



They had blockaded the highway there since Monday, stranding thousands of vehicles and passengers.


Officials said he was taken hostage by the miners Thursday morning.  At midday Illanes said on his Twitter account: "My health is fine, my family can be calm." There were reports that he had heart problems.


Illanes' body was later found abandoned on the side of the highway, his car burned.



Illanes' driver escaped.

Bolivia has seen increased social agitation as a financial slowdown hit an economy heavily dependent on natural gas and minerals, which account for over 70 percent of foreign export sales. Export earnings fell by about a third in the first half of the year.

As Reuters notes, Bolivia's informal miners number about 100,000 and work in self-managed cooperatives that primarily produce zinc, tin, silver, gold and lead concentrates.

They want to be able to associate with private companies, but are currently prohibited from doing so. The government argues that if they associate with multinational companies they will no longer be cooperatives.


The influential National Federation of Mining Cooperatives of Bolivia, a strong ally of Morales when metal prices were high, was organized in the 1980s amid growing unemployment in the sector that followed the closure of state mines.


Federation members went on an indefinite protest after negotiations over mining legislation failed. Strikers are also demanding access to new mineral deposits and subsidized electricity to help them handle the crisis in the mining sector.

President Morales said the protests and Illanes' death looked to be part of a "political conspiracy rather than a legitimate social claim" made by the miners.

via Read More Here..