Why Black Lives Matter More in North Carolina than Oklahoma September 27, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, pr stunts, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, unbelievable BS.
Another title I considered for this post: Black Lives Matter (BLM) actually means GHE – Get Hillary Elected.
A writer at American Thinker noted what many others have, that the BLM movement, which has had profound overtones of racial supremacy and naked bigotry from the start – seems to be, much like the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011, primarily a vehicle to support demonrat electoral prospects, especially for the office of president. Otherwise, why would protesters be making such a major play in Charlotte, where a black man was shot by a BLACK police officer under slightly questionable circumstances (when you have a group of cops pointing guns at you, who reaches for something, anything, especially when carrying a handgun in an ankle holster?), when in Tulsa a black man was shot by a white officer under what appear to be, or have appeared to be, much more dubious circumstances?
Could the answer be that North Carolina, unlike Oklahoma, is very much “in play” in this election, with Clinton and Trump in a close race? Is that why there was also such a major outbreak of rioting in Missouri and other hotly contested states? Is that why George Soros has put $33 million behind the Black Lives Matter organizers? Is that why paid professional leftist protesters are being bused in from out of state? Think about the more outrageous assaults on those attending Trump rallies, too – they have almost entirely occurred in states that are either solidly democrat, or which are being contested in this election.
Some interesting thoughts to consider:
Charlotte is the latest Ferguson. The facts of the event, still unknown, do not matter. It does not matter that since Obama took office, over three thousand African-Americans have been killed in Chicago by other African-Americans. No one outside their immediate family and friends knows their names. [Which fact shows the prevarication at the heart of the BLM movement, it is entirely about political and economic power, only expressing outrage at certain, politically charged killings. When it comes to black on black violence, which kills almost an order of magnitude more blacks than white on black murder, they are totally silent] Obama does not speak out about their murders or the fact that Illinois’s strict gun laws have done nothing to reduce the number of shootings in Chicago. So, curiously, Charlotte is the scene of riots, looting, and more violence like Ferguson, Baltimore, and Dallas. Many of the protesters are being bussed in and paid, quite possibly with dollars donated by George Soros. He was behind the paid protesters in Ferguson and is most likely behind the chaos in Charlotte. Last night, seventy percent of the people arrested were not from North Carolina.
So why are there riots and demonstrations in Charlotte and not in Tulsa? Could it be because Oklahoma is a conservative state? The citizens of Tulsa know that the law will prevail. North Carolina is, according to the polls, split between Trump and Clinton. Is it possible that the Clinton campaign thinks that rioting and chaos by the Black Lives Matter crowd will help her in that state?
Why on Earth would she think that? Because she is the racist who assumes that black people watching black people destroy their businesses will blame Trump and vote for her? Might those black citizens be more likely to want some law and order in their communities like everyone else in this country? And if that is the case, won’t they be more likely to vote for Trump, who is the law and order candidate, endorsed by the police union? That would be the logical conclusion if the left were ever logical. But the left is diabolical. Anything for power and control, no matter how sleazy and truly, revoltingly racist. Soros and his acolytes like Clinton are well and truly vile. Our African-American citizens mean nothing to them but voters to be beguiled.
For inexplicable reasons, leftists believe that the violence wrought by angry minorities will benefit them, so they encourage it. They subsidize it. Obama has given his not-so-tacit permission to riot every time one of these tragic events occurs, from the Henry Louis Gates minor incident to the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and the Dallas officers. And now BLM is rolling in money, $100M from “social justice” organizations. Soros gave them $33M.
What we see in Charlotte is what they pay for. They are not wasting their money in Tulsa because Oklahoma is in the bag for Trump………[That’s as good an explanation as I’ve heard]
……..In Charlotte, as in Ferguson, Baltimore and Dallas, the rioters/protesters shout their anger and hatred for white people. White people, in their view, are responsible for all their problems. As one protestor said in Dallas, “They have all the money and won’t give us any.” [They said a lot worse than that. On that satanic night, my wife and I watched in stunned disbelief as a local BLM leader expressed zero remorse for the killing of multiple officers and petulantly blamed police for the massacre that happened here, saying, in almost these words, they got what was coming to them. I’ve never been able to find that clip online, though both my wife and I saw it clear as day]
…….That Trump won the Republican nomination was a shock to the Beltway establishment on both sides of the aisle and to many conservative voters. How could this thoroughly unacceptable jerk ever be considered for the office of the president? Charlotte pretty much answers that question.
Interesting conclusion. A lot of people found Richard Nixon unacceptable, and yet elected him in another time of serious social disorder of a racial nature, after two terms of unprecedentedly liberal leadership at the federal government level and a similar collapse in respect for the views of the self-anointed elite. Nixon was, of course, far more accepted by the “establishment” of the Republican party than Trump has been, but he certainly had numerous enemies dating back to the late 40s, within the party and without. That anti-government sentiment, simmering since the early 60s (and with the Goldwater nomination in ’64 as an early reaction sign of it) coalesced in the late 70s around Ronald Reagan and the most conservative American president since the 1920s.
Will a similar outcome occur now? It still seems to remain in doubt, but I have a sneaking suspicion that as much as people are frequently unnerved and even disgusted by Trump, there remains a majority in this country that simply will not be ruled by that vile, corrupt, always self-seeking woman. Trump seems to have a similar capability in preventing attacks from sticking to him (remember Reagan as the “Teflon president?”), and he has a similar capability to cut through leftist shibboleths like a buzzsaw, undermining the always tilts left cultural narrative of the past 100 years or so. Reagan was hated and despised by the Left and many within his own party, but he was able to rise above all that. That’s where the similarities end, Trump has shown himself always willing to get down into the mud, to get bogged down in minor, meaningless spats. Perhaps he’ll finally outgrow that.
But Trump won’t just have to win, he’ll have to win decisively, to overcome what will surely be several million votes worth of demonrat voter fraud.
Win or lose, we can expect the BLM movement, like the “war on women” movement and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement to wither away and be disposed in the memory hole, once this election is complete. They’ll move onto something else for 2020, most likely.