Did They Want More Violence In Ferguson? 10 'Coincidences' Too Glaring To Ignore - By Michael Snyder - http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/want-violence-ferguson-10-coincidences-glaring-ignore
Was it a conspiracy or was it incompetence? Those appear to be the only two alternatives that we are left with after the horrific violence that we witnessed in Ferguson on Monday night. The first round of Ferguson rioting back in August took everyone by surprise, but this time authorities had more than three months to prepare. They had the ability to control precisely when the grand jury decision would be announced and how many cops and National Guard troops would be deployed on the streets. But despite all this, the violence in Ferguson on Monday night was even worse than we witnessed back in August. Either this was a case of almost unbelievable incompetence, or there was someone out there that actually wanted this to happen. If someone out there is actually trying to provoke more violence in Ferguson, then the rioters are being played like a fiddle. Most of them have no idea that they could potentially just be pawns in a game that is far larger than they ever imagined. The only other alternative to explain what we just saw is incompetence on a level that is absolutely laughable. Something definitely does not smell right about all of this, and let us hope that at some point the American people get the truth. The following are 10 "coincidences" from Monday night in Ferguson that are too glaring to ignore...
#1 Federal, state and local law enforcement authorities had more than three months to prepare for the violence that would follow the announcement of the grand jury decision. The mainstream media endlessly hyped this controversy and everyone knew that trouble would be brewing. But despite an enormous amount of time to prepare, very little was actually done to prevent any violence from happening.
#2 Someone made the decision to make the public announcement about the grand jury decision in the evening. Anyone involved in law enforcement knows that crowd control is far more difficult after dark. This also ensured that instead of being tied up with work or school, a maximum number of protesters would be able to be involved in the violence.
#3 Fortunately for the mainstream media, the announcement of the grand jury decision was perfectly timed to provide the largest possible number of prime time viewers for the big news networks.
#4 Just like back in August, no law enforcement authorities of any kind responded while dozens of businesses were vandalized, looted and set of fire.
#5 According to Ferguson Mayor James Knowles, National Guard troops were purposely held back from intervening in the rioting that was unleashed when the grand jury decision was made known to the public...
In a press conference, he called the delay "deeply concerning" and said the Guard troops were available but were not deployed when city officials asked.
The troops had been readied last week by Gov. Jay Nixon as the grand jury announcement neared. But as gunshots rang out in the night and looters torched buildings, they were nowhere to be seen.
#6 It is being reported that the heavily armed National Guard troops were limited to "keeping the peace at a courthouse, patrolling the outskirts of town and preventing disturbances in other suburbs" as horrific violence raged in the heart of Ferguson on Monday night.
#7 Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder has accused Missouri Governor Jay Nixon of holding back the National Guard troops because of pressure from the Obama administration. On Monday night, he angrily made the following statement to Fox News...
"Is the reason that the National Guard was not in there because the Obama Administration and the Holder Justice Department leaned on you to keep them out? I cannot imagine any other reason why the governor who mobilized the National Guard would not have them in there to stop this."
#8 The Washington Post has documented that Attorney General Eric Holder had been in direct contact with Governor Nixon and had expressed "frustration" with the fact that the National Guard had been activated...
A top aide to Holder called the governor's office earlier this week to express Holder's displeasure and "frustration," according to a Justice Department official.
"Instead of de-escalating the situation, the governor escalated it," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject. "He sent the wrong message. The tone of the press conference was counterproductive."
#9 Firefighters in Ferguson did not immediately respond to calls to put out the multiple fires that were set by protesters. As a result, many businesses essentially burned to the ground. But this did make for some amazing television footage.
#10 In the worst of the "war zones", journalists with cameras and microphones were crawling all over the place while there were hardly any police to be seen at all. How is it possible that law enforcement could have failed so badly? Could it be possible that this was orchestrated on purpose?
Sadly, as I have written about previously, the civil unrest that we are witnessing in Ferguson is just a small preview of what is coming to America.
The anger and frustration that are seething under the surface in this country have reached a boiling point. Instead of coming together, we are seemingly more divided than ever. Americans have been trained to hate one another, fear one another and blame one another. I fear that we are not too far away from actually becoming ungovernable.
And when the next major wave of the economic crisis strikes and we start experiencing real suffering in this nation, the temper tantrums that we are going to witness in our major cities are going to make what is happening in Ferguson right now look like a Sunday picnic.
So buckle up and hold on, because it is going to be a really bumpy ride from here on out.
Ferguson is not the end - it is just the beginning of a horrible new chapter in American history.
Ferguson: The Aftermath - Belle Ringer - http://www.salvationandsurvival.com/2014/11/ferguson-aftermath.html
It is difficult to write about Ferguson, Missouri today. Whether I agree with the decision of the Grand Jury to not indict Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown; it is not what I want to focus on. Uppermost on my mind is how easy it seems for everyone in the media to "understand" why the rioting and the looting and the burning has taken place the last two nights.
Not only that, but no one seems to want to consider the difficult position in which both the members of the Grand Jury and the witnesses found themselves. They were all citizens who lived in that community, and they should be applauded for their courage in rendering a decision that everyone knew would be unpopular. Long after the outside agitators and out-of-town demonstrators have returned home, they still have to live there. They could have made the easy decision, and avoided the destruction of their neighborhood; but they did the right thing and upheld the Rule of Law.
If you listen to everyone from the President, to Al Sharpton, to Rosie O'Donnell on The View, to news anchors who are supposed to be impartial, to the protestor on the street ... the only "fair" decision would have been to indict Officer Wilson. The overriding impression that was broadcast was "the system is broken." But is it? Is it only broken if you don't agree with the decision?
It seems to me they are all consumed with the paradigm of "white officer shoots and kills unarmed black youth." As a society, we need to ask ourselves, is there a pattern here; and is there a legitimate cause for concern? The answer to both questions would be "yes". But no one seems to be interested in the reasons why the answer is yes. What are the underlying reasons and causes that more black youths end up in these situations than young men of other races? Does anyone consider how many times this situation occurs between black youths and black officers? Is there a problem with authority among the youth in the black community? And if so, how are we to ever meet in the middle as long as mutual respect is denied? Or is it that the racial component of a white officer easily serves the agendas of all involved? And although there is much talk by all parties about wanting peace, there is no evidence that it is being actively pursued. (And I'm sorry, Rosie, but I do not see "righteous indignation"; only stealing, vandalism and breaking the law).
When the President of the United States, who is supposed to be the President of all the people, says during a national press conference, "People will be disappointed about this decision, even angry; and that's an understandable reaction...", why are we surprised when protestors take that as permission to act on their anger? And when he states yesterday, that the feelings and reactions are "rooted in the reality" of what is happening in some black communities, how does that contribute to healing the nation, or resolving the issues that underlie what happened in Ferguson? He stated that he is concerned that law enforcement be "fair", implying that there is no accountability or responsibility on the part of those who engage with law enforcement. I agree with you, Mr. President, that Trust is important to bringing about real change -- but Trust is a two-way street, to be entered in by both parties, and both races.
When Al Sharpton says that Monday night's decision by the Grand Jury was a blow to their cause, and that they are ready for "the next round", who is surprised that the protestors view themselves as fighters? Who is really surprised that violent escalation will be the result?
Everyone keeps talking about "Justice"; all they wanted was "justice for Michael Brown." But has everyone forgotten that Justice is about Due Process? It is about fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement -- every citizen, including both Officer Wilson and Michael Brown. And that is the duty of the Grand Jury; to observe the legal order of our Judicial System as prescribed by the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Can anyone explain to me how the Grand Jury in Ferguson, Missouri did not do exactly that? It seems to me that what the protestors in Ferguson, national leaders, and biased commentators really wanted was a guaranteed result.
Instead of allowing Due Process to proceed, they seem to have pre-judged this case and the only justice they wanted was that which suited their opinion. And now that the Grand Jury has determined that Officer Wilson did nothing illegal to warrant an indictment, public opinion wants to declare that justice has not been served; so much so, that the Attorney General of the United States seems poised to file federal criminal charges based on the deprivation of Michael Brown's civil rights... Plan B has been set in motion.
But we need to take a real hard look at what is "feeding the beast". It is an ugly picture of inflammatory rhetoric, political strategy, and self-serving motivations. It is about anarchy and mobocracy. It is about race-baiting, and furthering the racial divide, rather than mending it. It is about facing the truth of our inner cities and the mentality of aggression and hatred that breeds so insidiously in poverty. It is asking ourselves if the racial animosity is being distorted and manipulated to tear our country apart. Protests in over 20 major cities across the land seems to support this premise.
Make no mistake -- the small community of Ferguson became the focal point of outside agitators and subversives who hijacked a local tragedy, and used it for their own purposes. But when these opportunists have tired of Ferguson and moved on to their next target, the good folks of Ferguson will be left in shambles. Right now, the senior citizens are afraid to leave their homes; local businesses have been destroyed; and young children are scared to go outside to play.
The only ray of hope I have seen are the Ferguson pastors who took to the microphone to declare that the rioting and looting needs to stop; that we are all children of God; and that any hope of change lies in following His path ... and not in acting in accordance to the misguided, opportunistic tactics of those who would serve to divide us. Those are the schemes of the devil.
Proverbs 28:4-5 "Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them. Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely."
Missed opportunity--Ferguson as expected - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
The sad thing to me is that there is hatred among the races, among those of us who, as Americans, should have a natural national affection for one another. Sadder yet, are leaders such as now-former Attorney General Eric Holder, race baiters who should know better like Al Sharpton, even the "president" who jumped on the Ferguson shooting at the onset as if the police officer was guilty and stirred the emotions, raised the tensions, invoked suspicions. And now, after the Grand Jury says Officer Darren Wilson did not shoot unarmed attacker Mike Brown in cold blood, but in self defense, these same people are once again fanning the flames of racial hatred, demanding justice. It is sadly a missed opportunity.
In the purest of hearts, Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin are missed opportunities. For the pure of heart, there is sadness that a promising life made choices that resulted in death. For the pure of heart, there is no color, but character and relationship. For the pure of heart, there is a yearning for the day when racial diversity is celebrated and brothers and sisters of all races can come together and do what Christ told us in John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." Ferguson is a missed opportunity to bring people together and have a real national discussion on the challenges before us and how to solve them.
Those with hearts of deceit, however, are taking the deaths of these young men as an opportunity to advance an agenda. Never mind the truth, they say, there must be justice. Their goal is to use "justice" as a wedge to divide people, establish a higher level of class warfare, to fan the flames of suspicion among the races. All the while they are saying that whites and people of color should get along. This kind of conflict is part of the Hegelian Dialectic--to create mental conflict by saying that with justice, there is no justice, and establishing a new justice. Thesis--justice; antithesis--justice is actually unjust; synthesis--new justice. In the confusion of protesting the lack of justice, the agenda advances.
You may ask what is the agenda? The agenda can be identified by those who participate--New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, Communist Party USA, anarchist movements, and so on. While their goals may not be compatible in the end, one goal is consistent--to tear down the country so that they can have more power. Jesus said in Matthew 24:4, "Take heed that no man deceive you." The deception here is that people's emotions are being plied to advance something far from justice. We, as Christians, need to be mindful that others are using Ferguson as an opportunity to spread darkness. We have an opportunity to show Jesus, who is the way, the truth and the life. In this darkness, let Jesus be the light as you converse with people today.
What's Happened To The Rule Of Law? - Belle Ringer - http://www.salvationandsurvival.com/2014/11/whats-happened-to-rule-of-law.html
It is just my opinion, but I am willing to speculate that one of the primary reasons this country has been a beacon for immigrants in the nearly two-and-a-half centuries of our existence is that we have represented a fairly consistent pattern of restricting the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws.
There ... I just gave you the definition of "the Rule of Law". History shows that this land was a magnet for people who dreamed of escaping tyranny -- from the Pilgrims, who were escaping political and religious persecution, (as well as imprisonment), for charges of treason against the Crown; to South Africans who longed to break free of the apartheid injustice of a ruling party who, with extreme intent, demolished anything that got in the way of its legal and political agenda.
It is also my opinion that, from the beginning of time, societies and civilizations have succeeded because people recognized the need for a moral and legal set of rules by which to live. They have succeeded economically, socially and politically when they have respected the authority and influence of law; law which is described as "a system of rules which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior." (Wikipedia).
But that success and harmony only continues to exist when laws, (or constraints on behavior), are equally observed by the populace and the governing officials. Why do you think that we have had tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of illegal immigrants flock to our southern border in the last year or so? They are escaping the tyrannical rule of corrupt politicians and dictators, the uncontrolled dominance of drug cartels, and the unrelenting violence of civil wars within their own countries --- all the result of a lack of the Rule of Law.
In other words, when the government of a nation decides that the instituted laws of that nation no longer apply to them, then there is not only the threat of injustice to the citizens, but a complete breakdown of their individual security, economic stability, and personal freedoms.
When any government body, or individual, decides that they can arbitrarily ignore the established laws, and exercise power at their will, then the Rule of Law no longer exists. In effect, laws are a check (or curb) on that autocratic power. When they are breached, the freedom we have known under the law, becomes insubstantial. There is a profound deterioration of individual rights, in the wake of a growing power of the State. That makes liberty-lovers a little nervous.
Here in the United States, it has been accepted that all government officers, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. It has also been understood that these oaths affirm that the Rule of Law is superior to the rule of any human leader. But when law-makers determine that they are no longer subjects of the law, then chaos ensues.
We have seen that with the Fast and Furious debacle, the imminent "amnesty" issue, and I fear that we will see it set forth from the Ferguson, Missouri incident, as well. To be sure, we have a problem with the Rule of Law being appropriately honored and administered in this nation.
But let me drop a little bug in your ear ... our Rule of Law is not only being diminished from within our own country's framework, and by our own governing leaders, but could all this "lawlessness" soon come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations? Let me explain ...
Did you know that International Leaders from around the world convened about a year ago for what was called "the Bangkok Dialogue on the Rule of Law"? Apparently, the UN has Millennium Development Goals, and the Rule of Law is a hot topic towards achieving those goals. In fact, at the heart of the United Nations' agenda is its role as the guardian of international legal frameworks. That means that they, ideally, want to determine what our Rule of Law should be.
Keeping that in mind, here is the UN's definition of the Rule of Law: the rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which "all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly broadcasted, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights, norms and standards".
Since when has America ever considered herself as following "standards or norms", as dictated by other entities? Isn't that exactly why immigrants are streaming to our shores? Never mind that our nation's Rule of Law was founded on Christian-Judeo principles of a "Higher Law" than man's laws; that our individual rights and liberties were established by our Creator, and are not subject to the whims of a human ruler. When that principle is forgotten, we are left with this reality: "Behind every legal order there is always a god, be it God Himself or those who have control over the state machinery." (RJ Rushdoony, American philosopher, historian and theologian).
Ultimately, we are in danger of losing our unique Rule of Law in this country. We have abandoned the Source of our Liberties, and forgotten that God's Higher Laws are above the laws of any man. It's simple, really ... we, as the people of our nation, along with those we have chosen to protect our Rule of Law, must decide what kind of authority we want as the source of power over us. Do we want the authority of God-instituted laws; the control of an "international body", such as the UN, to mold us to an acceptable standard; or do we want the authority of a mere human ruler, who seeks his own power, instead of glorifying God's laws?
I think we've taken our unique Rule of Law for granted too long, and assumed it would always exist. But when men put their laws above God's; and seek their will, instead of His, then the legality of laws don't really matter -- only the end results that uphold a man's power and authority. That's when we are in danger of replacing laws with illegality, and we cease to exist as the land of the free. How much longer before our Rule of Law vanishes altogether?
Jeremiah 10:23 "I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps."
BE SURE TO CHECK OUT MY ALL NEW PROPHECY AND CREATION DESIGN WEBSITES. THERE IS A LOT TO SEE AND DO..........
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.