Can Israel Win The War of Public Opinion?

Israel was born in war. In 1947,  the United Nations tried to broker a deal under Resolution 181 (II) which would created two separate states, one Israeli and the other Palestinian in the area where no formal state previously existed. Up to that point the area was only a geographical region which, until then, had been a protectorate of the British Empire which it had rightfully stolen from the Ottoman Empire after WWI.

Under the terms of the plan Israel would have received 14,500 square kilometers  (which is about 10,000 square miles), the equivalent of about 52% of the land while the Palestinians would have 46% of the land amounting to 11,100 square kilometers which would be about 9890 square miles. The key cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem would become international zones under the administration of the United Nations. The plan also stipulated that British Colonial Troops would undertake a gradual withdrawal to be completed no later than August 28, 1948.

The plan sought to mitigate two competing ideologies, that of Palestinian nationalism and that of Zionism, which had come to the forefront following the end of WWII and the Holocaust. It's noteworthy that while various Zionist organizations agreed to work with the United Nation's Special Committee on Palestine (UNSOP), no one from Palestine's leadership attended. This was essentially at the behest of the Arab League, which strongly opposed any large scale Jewish settlements in the region and wasn't too fond of Jews in general being there.

What was the Arab League? The Arab League was formed in the aftermath of WWII on March 22, 1945. It was to serve as the core structure to a Pan-Arab nationalist movement. It comprised the nations of Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and North Yemen, all of which had previously belonged to the Ottoman Empire until the end of WWI when they were dutifully "acquired" and divided up by France and Great Britain under the Sykes-Picot Plan without regard to religious sects, ethnic groups, or traditional borders. which was signed on May 16, 1916.   

It's worth noting that with the exception of Syria these nations had, until recently, been British colonial protectorates. Syria had fallen under French Administration. It also should be noted that many  supported Nazi Germany during the war. Thousands joined the SS to create eight predominately Muslim SS units, including the famous 13th and 22nd Waffen SS Mountain Divisions and also several high ranking former Nazis served as advisors or security consultants for many of these countries.

Fast forward to 1948, the Arab League rejected the plan for a two state solution nominally on behalf of the Palestinians. The result was an all out war just hours after Israel declared its nationhood. Since then Israel has been a state of almost continuous war and asymmetrical war by groups like the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Black September, terrorist hijackings and bombings, and near constant missile attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah (both puppets of Iran).

Thus far, Israel has been successful in repelling these attacks, although it's come close to losing, and that would mean total and complete annihilation of Israel (the only democracy in the Middle East) and its people. The attack on October 7, 2023 was just another in a long line of unprovoked attacks, this time it was over 1400 men, women, and children enjoying a concert.

Whether Hamas, a international recognized terrorist organization, had the "right" to attack Israelis as part of their ongoing terrorist agenda to "liberate"  a mythical Palestinian homeland from Israel, it did not have the legal or moral right to murder, rape, burn alive, and kidnap innocent civilians.  If Hams considers itself "at war" as claimed, then it should conduct itself accordingly. However, it doesn't. it hides behind the innocent and vulnerable.

But nevertheless, it seems that Hamas and those behind it have learned a very valuable lesson which others have ignored---that of mixing social media and propaganda. They have launched one of the most successful "PR" campaigns in recent history. They have seriously threatened support for Israel which in the past was seen as unshakeable, especially here in the United States.  Support for Israel outside the U.S. is also drawing heavy fire from governments (many whom have been ardent supporters of Israel) and building pressure from their citizens.

We commonly see large groups of mostly college age individuals protesting on campus, in the streets and on highways, as well as massing anywhere people tend to gather. I guess is this their response to my generations anti-Vietnam war protests. The biggest difference is that these individuals don't seem to know much about the history of the region (especially recent) and they are extremely intolerant of opposing opinions to the point of harassment, shouting them down, destruction of property, and openly assaulting anyone who disagrees with them. Their solution appears to be "accept my opinion only".  

An amusing aside is that along with this, we find large numbers of gays, "trans" individuals and other members of the LGBQT community openly supporting Hamas. Apparently they don't realize that homosexuality in any form is a sin and violates the Koran. The punishment is death by stoning but just as often by being throw off of buildings followed by stoning. No reasoning. No exceptions. Just death.

Here in the U.S., despite or perhaps because of the protests, public opinion on our support for Israel seems to be shaky but intact. According to a recent poll by the Associated Press- NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, President Biden's handling of the situation over Gaza is  potentially in serious trouble.  

The poll indicates that about 50% of Democrats approve of Biden's handling of the situation thus far. However, a substantial 46% do not. 44% of Democrats polled said that Israel was getting too much support from the U.S while 45% thinks it's about right with just 9% wanting to see more from Biden.

The same poll also stated that current support for the Palestinians (which by extrapolation would include Hamas too) was too little by 44% compared to 37% saying it's just right and 15% saying it's already too much.

Of the 46% who disapprove of Biden's handing of the Gaza issue, a whopping 65% think that Israel is getting too much support. 58% also that the Palestinians aren't getting near enough support. Those Democrats who approve of Biden's actions thus far, 68% said that Israel was getting about the right amount of support while 51% say the same thing about the Palestinians.

Independents, the nation's largest voting bloc, overwhelming disapprove of Israel's ongoing war against Hamas by 60%. Only 29% approve and 11% had no opinion. The poll asked Democrats, the second largest voting bloc, the same question, whether they supported Israel's military actions in Gaza and found that 75% do not. Only 18% did with the balance having no comment.

While not surprising, the majority of Democrats under age 45 (65%)  and 58% of non-whites Democrats disapprove of Biden's handling of the war and his support for Israel. The same group blames Israel for the war by 56%.  Democrats over age 45% (65%) and white Democrats (62%) support Biden's efforts in the Middle East. This group thinks that Hamas is responsible for the situation by 76%.

According to a March 27, Gallup Poll, the majority of Americans--55%--disapprove of Israel's response to the Hamas attack. Only 36% approve. When looking at party, Republicans still support Israel's actions by 64% with 30% disapproving. It should be pointed out that while former President Donald Trump has been a keen supporter of Israel and a friend of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, that may be changing.

The former President stated in an interview with Hugh Hewett, a conservative talk radio host, that Netanyahu has made some serious mistakes in the handling of the war, including the unintentional bombing of a Palestinian refugee camp which was allegedly harboring members of Hamas. The bombing killed or wounded dozens of civilians.

It should be pointed out that since exact figures are unavailable or unreliable, it's currently estimated that over 10,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed thus far and thousands more maimed or injured. The food situation has reached  a humanitarian crisis point bordering on what many governments are calling a potential "genocide".

However, Hamas shares much of the blame due to their routine use of civilians as shields (they commonly use schools, hospitals, mosques, and private homes as staging positions for their missile attacks) and  block or hijack shipments of food, water, medical supplies and other forms of aid. Any Israeli response to these attacks is nearly always a automatic PR coup for Hamas. 

Trump also pointed out the obvious, namely that Israel is "losing the PR war.  They're losing it big". Perhaps this isn't such a big surprise since many of Trump's diehard supporters oppose Israel's ongoing response to the war and in a not too surprising partisan response, have been chanting "Genocide Joe" at pro-Biden rallies.

It appears the one of the key issues which will likely affect the outcome of the November Presidential Election will come down to what Biden does next regarding Israel. A large minority of his party oppose his current level of support for the Israelis as does the largest voting bloc, the Independents.  While a majority of Republicans continue their backing of Israel, it appears that many "MAGA" Republicans don't.

The best outcome for both presidential candidates is for Prime Minister Netanyahu bringing this war to quick end before November, even if that means not" wiping out Hamas" as he promised the Israeli people. At the same time, Netanyahu needs to seriously step up his PR game before not just Americans turn against Israel, but so does the rest of the world.

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

PBS News: Nearly half of Democrats disapprove of Biden's response to the Israel-Hamas War poll says

Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza

A century on: Why the Arabs resent Sykes-Picot

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Trump used to brag about his support for Israel. Now his criticisms are growing sharper

The Triumph of Evil as Good Does Nothing...Again: Protestors, Looters, and Reparations

The Irish born British political philosopher, Edmund Burke, is credited with saying "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". The quote, taken from a letter he had written around 1770 to a friend named Thomas Mercer, dealt with political apathy. Right now, we have dozens of public officials throughout the United States guilty of just that. They are allowing their towns and cities (some of which having the population of small countries) to be trashed and looted.

We're seeing people assaulted or even killed by piss-ant punks in the name of their "right" to protest. We're witnessing businesses being robbed; property vandalized or worse, burned to the ground. Yet, these officials still do nothing. Why? Are they afraid of making some group mad at them for enforcing the law? Are they worried about name calling like little kids on the playground at school?

I don't understand it. I really don't. They hide in their offices behind walls of security and pretend nothing is happening. They go to their upscale homes with manicured lawns each afternoon, safe behind taxpayer paid police officers while neighborhoods are being burned and looted. These are exactly the type of people that Edmund Burke was talking about some 200 years ago. They are the ones who've chosen to do little or nothing while anarchy is allowed to run rampant; while people are being robbed, beaten or killed. Violence only begets more violence.

Meanwhile, city councils sit back and do nothing too. Sure, they pander to the local media, but what is that really accomplishing? Maybe building up some brownie points to pull out for their next reelection where they can claim to be "tough" on crime or "supportive" of the protestors, depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing? These too are the people that Burke spoke about.

Oh, for what it's worth, I've notice that the cities and towns where the protests and looting have been the worse also tend to have a Democrat dominated local government, including mayor. I don't know if that means anything as I suspect incompetence and cowardice are non-partisan attributes.

For decades, at least going back to when Bill Clinton was President and certainly through the eight years of Obama, we heard nothing but how militant and organized the Right was, especially the "Tea Party", which was the bane of liberals everywhere. Yet, here we are in 2020 and I'm not seeing much of a response from the mean ole nasty Right-wingers are you? Where are all those homegrown militias the Left Wing media warned us about when you need 'em?

Right now, it's privileged Far Left snot nose kiddies playing at being revolutionaries. We see individuals barely old enough to shave throwing rocks or bricks at people and cars and actually expecting no one to say or do anything about it! We see young blacks ganging up on mostly lone white kids who are either just going from point "A" to point "B" or worse, thinking they're going to be accepted as part of the "big change" just because they're out in the street protesting. In most cases the only thing being "accepted" is their ass whooping as seen on social media the world over.

We see spoiled truants smashing windows and setting fires to buildings with the only real results being that people have lost a job and paycheck while the owners simply collect their insurance money and move to someplace a little safer. How does that "empower" anyone? How does that bring improvement to neighborhoods, especially those on the economic bubble which needs those jobs?

We see whites on bended knee begging for "forgiveness" for something they never did. Some are demented enough to don manacles while others kiss or wash the feet of imaginary victims. It's nauseating. This behavior is no more than a form of self-loathing by the emotionally or psychologically weak. Some simply buy off their "sins" with cash, credit cards, or other things.

Perhaps worse of all is the removal of statutes, which marks our collective past for good or bad. But it's not just statutes, it's books, movies, flags, and everything else which we share in common. Trying to destroy or rewrite history doesn't work. It never has. Don't believe me? Look at the old Soviet Union. Look at Communist China or Cuba. Take a look at Nazi Germany or the old Communist Bloc.

Nowadays, we've got sports figures condoning disrespect to the flag and National Anthem by "taking a knee". I guess they don't see all the good this country has done for them or people like them. If it wasn't for all that flag represents, they wouldn't have those multi-million salaries. Hell, they wouldn't have gone to college on "full ride" scholarships. Most wouldn't have been able to afford to go to school period if it wasn't for the taxes paid by the citizens of this country who are represented by that flag.

They seem to have forgotten that sports is just that...a game. It's merely a form of entertainment no different than movies or video games. It's a form of escapism. It isn't necessary to our way of life. It's the fans, hard working men and women, who make their elitist lifestyles possible. These jocks might consider showing them a little respect and stand for the flag and anthem. If they want to "protest", they should do it on their time not ours.

By the way, that flag and anthem also represents the millions of lives that have been lost or altered in countless wars and conflicts in service to this country. Without those men and women, there's no telling where these coddled rich jocks and their ilk would be right now. Destroying or defacing the memorials and graves of these fallen heroes is a scar on the soul of this nation.

As for blaming "white people" for slavery, that's pure BS. Slavery has existed since civilization began. It probably existed in one form or another since we fell out of the trees on some African savannah! Ever religion has condoned slavery. It's in virtually every religious text. Want to purge Confederate memorials, why not start with purging the Jewish and Christian symbols and religious texts first?

After all, those in the South and North who benefited from slavery saw it as a biblical directive. Even the Islamic Koran supported slavery. In fact, slavery is still practiced by some Muslim groups to this very day. You want reparations or apologies? Great. Start with God. After all, it's all written in his holy books.

Reparations presupposes that someone was "injured" and needs to be compensated in some way. Now, I don't know of any slaves in this country let alone slaveholders. In fact, no one's parents, grandparents, or even great grandparents either owned slaves or were slaves. There are damn few whose 2x great grandparents qualify. We also cannot apply the morals and values of today to events of a bygone era.

We need to remember that the United States was not responsible for slavery. We were, however, one of the first to end it. Slaves were prohibited from being imported into this country in 1807 and slavery was formally ended on January 1, 1863 with the "Emancipation Proclamation". Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Dutch brought slavery to these shores long before there was a U.S. of A.

In addition, the native peoples of this continent engaged routinely in slavery and had for centuries. Even after the arrival of Europeans, they continued to use slaves. In fact, they even sold slaves to the Europeans. Eventually, Europeans were even captured and enslaved by native tribes just as they were in turn. Everyone was fair game!

Meanwhile, back in Africa, African tribes were attacking and capturing rival tribes and enslaving them (not to mention local troublemakers or those they were envious of). Later, they turned it into a business by selling them to other tribes, or European and Arab merchants. Many an African tribal chief became very wealthy thanks to the sale of human beings, but I don't hear the Left talking about this. Why do you suppose that is? Why isn't anyone asking them for reparations or apologies?

As for the Arab merchants (who also dealt in Asian slavery), it wasn't uncommon for them to capture ships with Europeans onboard and sale them into slavery. In fact, Boko Harem, al Qaeda, ISIS, al Nursa and others are still engaged in the slave business to fund terrorism. The big difference these days is that they prefer young Christian girls who are sold into sex slavery.

An interesting aside is that some Europeans sold other Europeans into slavery, albeit illegally. This was especially true of those individuals didn't speak the language or know the laws. I'm not talking about indentured servitude now. I'm talking about actual slavery. I should know. It happened to some of my ancestors. It was often the Irish, Welsh or Scots who were sold to the Arab merchants by the British who, in turn, sold them to other Arabs or Asians. Slavery was perhaps the first truly global business.

As for this country, it has done more than any nation to make up for the failings of its past, be it in terms of equal housing, voting or holding office, owning businesses, serving in the military, etc. Perhaps the greatest gift this country has bestowed is that of education. The minorities in this country are afforded the best educated in the world, and they receive the lion's share of scholarships and grants.

The ongoing protests in this country right now is over a perceived abundance of white police brutality toward blacks; not Asians, not Hispanics, and not Native Americans. Could it be that whites simply make up the majority of police officers in this country because they're largest demographic? As an aside, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, white males are actually now an official minority in this country.

Could there be a culture, especially among young males, which encourages a distrust of authority figures (including teachers), which in turn encourages them to ignore or flee from police officers, not to mention resisting or fighting with them? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes (including wooden boxes). Wouldn't it make more sense to just do as told and then take it to court with a lawyer? I rather be temporarily inconvenienced than permanently dead. Maybe too change should come from within.

As for the looting, that doesn't help their cause. It makes them into criminal punks looking for an excuse to steal and destroy property which simply reinforces the stereotype they claim they're trying to change. Lastly, playing in traffic. Yes, they have a right to protest; more power to them. But they don't have a right to block streets or highways. None whatsoever. Who among them is going to be responsible for delaying an ambulance with a heart attack victim, fire truck racing to save someone's home, a police officer going to an accident or a husband taking his expectant wife to the Emergency Room? Will those financially backing these protestors accept responsibility? I seriously doubt it.

Meanwhile, do motorists have an obligation to stop? Well, yes in the sense that they don't want to injure or kill anyone, even an idiot with a sign, if they can help it. But if they are surrounded or feel endangered or even threatened, do they have a right to protect themselves? I would think they would be entitled to the same rights as to when someone breaks into their home, but that's just a guess. I know what I would do to protect myself or others with me.

So, as Burke said, all that's required of good people is to do nothing for evil to triumph; evil, which I might add includes violence, looting, or the destruction of property. Meanwhile, mayors and other elected officials sit and twiddle their thumbs. Perhaps we should give them a reason to do something rather than to do nothing. Want to know more? Check out the links below.




These are all the cities where protests and riots have erupted over George Floyd's death


It's a cult: Thousands of Whites Grovel In Front of Blacks Begging For Forgiveness


Total Humiliation: Thousands of Whites Kneel in Front of Blacks asking for Forgiveness for being White Devils

The Bible and slavery

Yazidi sex slaves raped by dozens of ISIS fighters reveal five years of hell to charge abusers with war crimes


Slavery in 21st Century Islamism


The White Slaves of Barbary

African Slave Traders
https://www.thoughtco.com/african-slave-traders-44538

Understanding the Difference between Protesting, Rioting, and Looting: A Primer in Civil Disobedience

Apparently there seems to be some confusion between protesting and rioting for social change and looting for the sake of destroying property and stealing other people's stuff. So, I thought it would be a good idea to write a short primer about the difference between the three.

Protesting is the act of civil rebellion. By the word "civil", I mean respectful. Civil protesting is as old as civilization itself. In fact, it was probably the first act people undertook to bring about change (coupled with the sacrifice of some unfortunate sheep, chicken, or pig).

The act of protest is to force change on the ruling establishment. It's usually brought about when some event or issue is seen as "unjust" by a segment of the population.

In recent years its usually been about rationing of food or gas, cutting of government assistance, voting rights, housing, increases in taxes, or influencing foreign policy such as ending a war (Vietnam comes to mind) or perhaps starting one (like the Spanish American War following the destruction of the USS Maine) and the unwillingness of the political leaders to satisfy the demands of the public.

Protesting is usually seen as a good thing. The ability of the populace to take to the streets and express their voices without fear of repercussions by the authorities is seen as a sign of a healthy society. Governments which repress the right of the people to gather and speak their collective mind freely is typically viewed as a indication of a repressive or authoritarian society (worse yet, dictatorial should the government fail to act on or consider the people's demands without the benefit of open dialogue).

That's not to say that all demands by the protestors should be enacted. Hardly. Many times the demands are based on emotion or missing facts which could make the situation worse. However, with the government's tendency to withhold pertinent information either due to national security concerns or simply as a form of cover-up, the public begins to get more agitated, which then can lead to an increase in protests and possibly violence in the form of riots.

If that should happen, the government has to choice to put down the violence, which almost always makes the situation that much more violable. It's at this stage that more radical elements of the public become more openly engaged. It's their sole desire to see the situation become more violent and manipulate public opinion by making it appear that the government is solely at fault.This is typically accomplished by provoking the police or military and getting them to respond in a hostile manner such as seen to shoot, beat, or manhandle the protestors who are always portrayed as being innocent of any wrongdoing.

Simply put, in a confrontation between protestors and the authority, the victor is the one who one controls the appearance of having the moral high ground. In the case of the government, it must prove justification for what might otherwise be seen as "heavy handedness" or infringing on the people's rights. In the case of the protestors, it can be viewed as justification for their calls of resistance or even assaults on the establishment as a form of "self-defense". One great example us the shooting of Crispus Attucks, a free man of color (he was part black and part Native American; a longshoreman by trade) who is thought to be first person killed in the cause of the American Revolution.

The place was Boston Massachusetts on March 5th of 1770 when colonists faced off against British soldiers following a failed attempt by the British Government to impose a stamp tax on the colonists two years earlier. This resulted in the Townshed Acts (named after Charles Townshed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer) which were enacted by the British Parliament between 1767 and 1768.

The purpose of the Acts were multifold---to raise revenue for the Crown in order to pay the salaries of judges and governors, enforcing compliance of trade agreements with England, to punish New York for failing to comply with "Quartering Act" requiring citizens to house and feed British troops in their homes, and most important of all, establishing a precedent that the Crown could and would impose taxes on the colonies at its discretion. Of course, the colonists rejected the acts out of hand, which led to the confrontation in Boston Commons amid two years of mounting tensions.

Initially, young children threw snowballs at the soldiers and called them names. This was followed by a group of colonists complaining to a soldier than an officer had previously refused to pay a barber's bill. The situation quickly escalated. Soon snowballs became rocks and pieces of wood. At some point the sound of a shot rang out. No one knew if it was an actual gunshot or something else, but it didn't matter. The British troops opened fire on the citizens. When the smoke cleared, five colonists were dead and six were wounded. The first to die was Crispus Attucks, who had been twice hit in the chest.

The early Founding Fathers, particularly Sam Adams, Paul Revere, John Hancock and Henry Pelham, made quick use of the media available to paint a vivid picture of abuse at the hands of British troops, thus fanning the flames of a simmering revolt. Nevertheless, the "Boston Massacre" as it became known included every aspect of a successful protest, including provoking the government into violence which was exploited to the hilt as any propagandist worth their salt would do (downplaying some points while highlighting and even exaggerating others) and commanding public opinion.

In short, protests are the means whereby the people can make their desires known when the ballot box either fails or is simply not available or suitable given the immediacy of the situation in a peaceful and nonviolent way. It can be exploited into providing the groundwork for a greater expression and be a catalyst for more severe reforms or even platform for revolution.

As for riots and looting, they are a separate but related expression of protests by the people. As a general rule, riots are not planned or organized as protests typically are. They tend to be formed when a small group of people are outraged by some event and choose to express their anger in the form of violence, be it attacks on people or property. However, the chief object of their anger is almost always some symbol of authority or the cause of their anger such as a particular building (police, city hall, etc). A classic example is the storming of the Bastille in Paris at the outset of the French Revolution.

What started out as protest quickly degenerated into a riot led (as most are) by a small but determined angry mob. In this case, the peasants were tired of the abuses by the French monarchy and the elites (which, together, made up just 2% of population) over their "privileges", ever rising taxes and a judicial system known for its horrific treatment of prisoners; many of whom were imprisoned over their inability to pay the ever increasing taxes and fees which had gone on for decades.

Finally, on July 14, 1786, the French lower classes---the peasants, farmers, and merchants (aka the "commoners") had enough. Protests turned into riots and then into armed insurrection. The Hotel des Invalides, a government complex which included government offices and monuments, was stormed first. By the time the Bastille was stormed there were only seven prisoners being held. Nevertheless, it was seen as a symbol of the abuse. It ultimately led to the start of the French Revolution and eventual overthrow of the French monarchy and the elite status quo.

Riots are not uncommon. They typically occur when the crowd is overtaken by anger, usually at the behest of a small but focused group. The crowd, following group mentality, tend to simply join in the chaos (i.e.: "getting caught up in the moment"), often finding themselves just as shocked by the carnage as everyone else once it's over like a drunk after a "lost weekend".

The best thing to counter a riot is for the majority of the protestors to physically dissociate themselves the rioters as much as possible. If that's not possible, they should attempt to identify the rioters to the authorities or, if it can be done safely, attempt to either redirect the crowd or stop prevent the violence from spreading. However, it should be pointed out that riots and rioters are dangerous.

Lastly, looters. They are typically opportunists hiding in the crowd. While they may or may not have a beef with authorities, their primary goal is not change as with the protesters or even the rioters. Instead, they are using the occasion for the sake of destruction and for theft. Period. These individuals usually show up alongside the rioters in order to use the mayhem to try and hide their crime.

Looters as much as the rioters are responsible for the destruction of property. Most looting happens within the community of the looters since they're familiar with the businesses. Some see it as a means to settle old scores for one reason or another. Others see it as means to level the economic playing field at the expense of their neighbors. The end result is almost always the loss of local businesses, and with them, local jobs, not to mention homes. Thus they only succeed in making their community worse off than before the riots. The best way to think of looters is as social pariahs.

The ability to protest is fundamental in a free and open society, albeit even a moderately one. The Constitution and Bill of Rights establish for the citizens of this country not just the right to express our grievances with the government, but an obligation to do so. We have a duty as citizens to freely speak our minds to the government. To peacefully assemble. To petition and seek redress of injuries inflected upon us by the government, whether intentional or accidental. We also have the right to take matters into our own hands, but only as a last resort.

We do not have the right to destroy property. We do not have the right to steal. We do not have the right to harm another individual except in self-defense. We can disagree with them. We can scream at them. We can even call them names, but we can't physically touch or cause harm them in any way. As jurist Zechariah Chafee Jr is credited with saying in 1919, "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins".

So, if you're going to protest, have at it. No real change has ever happened without it. Try to have a specific message which includes not just a complaint or accusation, but a solution as well. A complaint without a workable fix is just bitching. Research the problem thoroughly. Get a buy in from other groups if you can, but be careful. Making sure they share similar objectives. Try resolving the matter through the system if possible. If not, protest. Organize it. Get the word out every way you can. Make sure everyone understands the rules---be polite and keep it peaceful. Alert the media.

If you encounter troublemakers, identify and report them (it doesn't hurt to have names and contact information of the media and/or key law enforcement officers handy). Get their names, film them, get pictures, or whatever. Distance yourself and your group as much as you can. If possible, try to discourage others from joining in with rioters and especially looters. If worse comes to worse, disperse your group until another time. Try to follow police instructions. Don't block traffic. That's dangerous and dumb. Lastly, your reputation as a leader and as a group has as much to do with your eventual success as your message or any action you take. Want to know more? Check out our links below.




Crispus Attucks

Storming of the Bastille

Constitutional Rights Foundation: Social Protests

Albert Einstein Institution: 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action (pdf)

ACLU: Know Your Rights: Demonstrations and Protests (pdf)

The Power of Protests: 15 Methods to Make Yourself Heard

Reflections: A Look At Our World

I'm a Babyboomer. The result of the post World War II generation. An era where America had achieved international political and economic dominance for the first time. It was a time of unrivaled wealth throughout the country. Eisenhower, the man who led us to victory in Europe, was the President and Mamie was our First Lady. It was also a time of the "Red Scare"; where there were "Commies" lurking behind every bush and corner. It was also the time of the Cold War which could go "hot" at any moment.

The world was divided into two camps---the Pro-Soviet and the Pro-West, which meant the Pro-American. There was, of course, the Non-Aligned Nations who tried to play the two sides off each other for economic gain, but when push came to shove, even they had to pick a side. The US political world view was based on the "domino effect"; if one country was allowed to fall to the "godless" Communists, it would lead to the toppling of an adjacent country, then another and so on. Of course, we grossly overestimated the Soviet and Chinese economies just like we confused their massive quantity of weapons with quality. However, as Stalin was said, "quantity has a quality all its own", and they had a lot of it.

Both sides engages in a long series of proxy wars and indirect conflicts in places like Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Panama, Argentina, Nicaragua , Iraq and Iran, India and Pakistan, the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and dozens of other "hot spots' with strange and exotic sounding names. Both sides tried to edge out the other through the supply of arms, intelligence, training, and promises to help rebuild the infrastructure, economic trade and aid packages (which were defacto bribes) as well as political and military support to help maintain their grip on political power.

A classic example was Manuel Noriega of Panama. A military strongman who was helped into power by US intelligence agencies with the understanding that he would protect US government and corporate interests in the area. Other than that, he was free to do as he pleased. However, after he became a bit too greedy and his usefulness faded, he was ousted like so many other strongmen that we've propped up over the decades like Hussein, Batista, Mubarak, Marcos, Ngo Dinh Diem, or Mohammad Reza Pahlevi (the Shan of Iran). If you look back of the last 75 or so years, we seem to love coups and juntas. President Franklin D Roosevelt is credited with once saying, "He may be a son of a bitch, but at least he's our son of a bitch", which seems to sum our foreign policy pretty nicely.

Nevertheless, the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies were unable to match the West in terms of its economic power and it ultimately collapsed. The first cracks appeared in Poland, thanks in large part to the Polish trade union, Solidarity. Then came fissures in East Germany which spread like wildfire throughout the Eastern Bloc. Finally, "Mother Russia" itself succumbed to the weight of its own inefficient bureaucracy and economy, brought on in part by its own "Vietnam"---Afghanistan, with the US support of the native "freedom fighters", the Mujahideen.

Since "winning" the Cold War, many expected to see the whole world embrace democracy, specifically American style democracy. After all, since World War II, the US has been engaged in a "blow 'em up build 'em, up" nation building foreign policy. It has repeatedly engaged in overthrowing governments and underwriting assassinations, propping up military juntas and dictatorships in the name of "making the world safe for Democracy", which generally translates to unrestricted economic and military imperialism. Little wonder then that no new post-WWII government has modeled itself on the American model, preferring instead the British parliamentary system.

However, things didn't quite worked out as planned. Lacking an enemy, our economy stumbled and we seemed to lose our national sense of direction. It didn't take long before we found a new enemy to replace the Soviets. Before then, the military and intelligence agencies muddled along to find a new purpose and politicians tried to figure out how to keep the economy on a upward trajectory. All that changed on 9/11 and we found the perfect enemy, and so was launched the "War on Terrorism" and a perpetual wartime economy was born. Our "freedom fighters" had morphed into the terrorists who made this all possible.

This new "war" was partially the result of post-World War I colonialism, when maps were redrawn to suit the colonial powers without regard to history or tradition, and partially the product of the Cold War where each side tried to pit some country or group against the other not just for military advantage, but mainly for economics. This fanned the flames of long suppressed nationalism, tribalism and religious zealotry; something the West and East were woefully, if not willingly, ignorant of. What mattered was access to natural resources, a cooperative government, and profits.

A few decades earlier, due in part to economic growth and declining birth rates, Europe---especially Germany---began importing huge numbers of Muslim Turks. Nowadays, thanks to the not just the instability of the Middle East but also due to short sighted policies on immigration, Europe has been subjected to a defacto invasion from Africa and the Middle East by mostly poorly educated Muslims who are more intent on drawing off of Europe's once famously generous social system rather than contributing to it. The result has been as serious and near crippling drain on the tax supported social safety net; feeding the illusion that democratic socialism was a failure.

In addition, because of timid politicians, these "migrant" invaders increasingly demanded change and a new conformity such as all women being covered, prohibition on the sale of pork products or alcohol, restrictions on owning pets, and so forth. They have been making increasing demands for the capitulation of democracy in favor of their more repressive religious laws. Amid all of this, violence has been rampant with both the police and government authorities terrified to respond, so they blame and punish the victims. Worse, they knowingly lie and/or suppress the facts about the crimes as well as prohibit negative reporting. Thus, we are witnessing the willing suicide of the West, at least in Europe, due primarily to political cowardice, which has imposed a form of self-punishment of anyone who chooses not to go along with the suicide.

Part of the problem is the native population of Europe itself. They have the real power here. Not the migrants groups. Not the news media which cooperates in hiding the truth. Not the government and its spineless politicians, who are both short sighted and afraid to act. So they cover up the truth and bully the victims. The people have the ultimate power and no government can stop that. The only thing which will save Europe, as well as the West as a whole, are the people themselves. The same thing can be said for the East as well. There has been some progress such as banning burqas in some countries, but that seems to have come too little too late.

In America, the government and military are happily funding and fighting their never ending (and profitable) wars. Meanwhile, we are seeing our nation increasingly divided through manufactured differences. Political extremism now is the order of the day instead of common sense. We have politicians fighting to protect criminal migrants instead of supporting our national sovereignty. Whoever thought that we'd see the day when We the People would have to fight to force politicians, elected to service us, into securing our borders? At the same time, these very same individuals are doing their best to restrict or remove one of our key rights bequest to us by our Founding Fathers, namely the right to own and bear arms.

Some claim that the 2nd Amendment was created in lieu of a professional military. Others think the government can do a better job in protecting us than we can ourselves. A few even believe that if guns are outlawed, the criminals will surrender theirs! Mind numbingly naive. The 2nd Amendment was put in place not just a means for the individual to protect themselves, but for the citizenry to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. It was aimed at giving the people the means to fight and remove a government which no longer represented them. Now, why do you think government would like to get their hands on our guns? Hint: it's not to protect us.

The people of Europe are unable to defend themselves the way Americans are. There are those who would like us to look more like Europe. More "migrants", fewer guns, not to mention restrictions on free speech (censorship), higher taxes, and all with less public input. They have the means to push through their demands. After all, they own the news and entertainment media, which tells us what they want us to know and think. They literally own both corporate political parties, so their political and economic interests are protested. They have made it nearly impossible for third parties and Independents (the nation's largest political bloc) to run for office through ballot restrictions, limited or no participation elections, and access to campaign financing. Of course, with the added aid of "Citizens United", which gives corporation a freehand in financing their favorite party, gerrymandering, and a lack of term limits, they have rigged the election process to the point where they can ignore the voters with near impunity.

This isn't about money. They literally control the world's financial spigot. This is about control. Be it government, the economy and access to the world's resources, foreign policy, or even us. This Oligarchy, the nefarious "they" which we talk about, wants complete control over everything. Slavery no longer involves chains of iron with which to bind you to the land and the owner. Today, it's your debt and credit rating which determine your value to the economic system which is controlled by the Oligarchs. They want to divide us in as many ways as possible. If we're fighting among ourselves, bound by our chains of plastic, like dogs for scraps, then we aren't focused on them. We aren't trying to restore our Republic and the freedoms bequeath to us not by our Founding Fathers, but by our divine right as human beings and citizens of this country as memorialize by our Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights. We must not become like Europe. We must remain Americans, and we must do whatever it takes to remain such.

Snowflakes and Buttercups

Let me ask you question. Let's say you're driving down the expressway. It's starting to get a bit late and as usual, the lighting isn't so great. You're tired and just want to get home. There's not a lot of traffic on the expressway in either direction. Up ahead you see something; a lot of movement moving toward the overpass directly in front of you. As you get closer, you see it's a large group of people; some are carrying something but you can't tell what. A few seconds later you're close enough to see that this mod of people are protestors and some are carrying signs. A few seem to be trying to get you to stop...for what who knows? What you know is that there's not much traffic out and no body to help you in case things go wrong, and given what you've seen on TV, most of these protests end up as riots with looting, burning, rapes, robbery, and a lot of bottle and rock throwing. Then you see they are spreading across the expressway in an attempt to block you and anyone else who happen along. What do you do? Well get back to your answer shortly.

Ever since "The Donald" surprised the political Left with his decisive victory over Hillary Clinton, her supporters---mostly Left leaning Millennials, hardcore Democrats, and a few Bernie Sanders supporters have been alternating between acting like someone just stole their ice cream cone and kids being told they can't play on their IPod until they clean up their rooms (to be honest, I'm not sure kids actually have to that anymore, but I'm sure you get the analogy). Classes at some of the nation's top schools have cancelled because the students are too "distraught". Some colleges have cancelled midterms and, instead, set up "cry-ins" where students can come and have a good cry among friends. A few of these centers of higher learning have even ordered in pizza because, well, after a good cry I guess they figure everyone likes a cheese pizza (I suppose there was a special standby of salad, you know, just in case). A few other colleges--and even high schools---have established "safe place" away from the media and "mean" students who aren't as "sympathetic" to their pain.

Meanwhile, some of these individuals, after sucking it up, have gone out protesting; a few with signs saying "Not My President", "Love Trumps Hate", "No White Supremacy", "We Won't Obey", as well as some that are pretty vulgar (must be English or American Lit majors). Some of these protests have involved confrontation with the local police, and there has been several calls from people who should know better to assassinate the president-elect (just in case you don't understand our political system, given that you want to do away with the Electoral College and all, that won't result in a "do over" or make Hillary the President as sort of a runner-up prize. It means that Vice President Mike Pence becomes President, and if something should happen to him, the presidency goes to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, so you might want to think these things through---just a suggestion).

A few of these protests have turned violent and devolved into riots, complete with looting, burning, destroying property and beating of white and Asian folks (it's almost "as if" somebody or some group is trying to start a race war for some reason. Of course, that would result in martial law being declared. Now, who do you think would want to do that and why?). I'm not sure what that purpose of all that is, but the message it sends is "Hey look at us. We're idiots. We're trashing neighborhoods". It's no big deal to be upset about the results of an election, but that's not how you change things. It simply makes the situation worse and less likely that anyone will listen to you. But, given that we are connected globally in ways that we were never before, groups have formed in Europe to protest Trump's election. The really amusing part is that their protests are based mostly off of rumors spread by Left leaning groups in this country and misinformation spread by the corporate media which has been actively---and more or less covertly---working against Trump since just before he announced he was running! The only media who seem to be getting it right are over at RT News. Not even Fox News has kept their promise to keep it "fair and balanced".

The fact is that Trump won the election, regardless of what the corporate media had been saying for during the entire election cycle, so face it---you were lied to. You were lied to by not just the corporate media, but the Democratic Party, the out-of-touch celebrity types, but yes, even by Hillary. You saw in real time how Hillary's camp and the DNC worked to rig the Primary and convention against Bernie Sanders and you heard from Hillary's own emails the crimes she committed without any sense of remorse or hesitation. You saw how the Republican Establishment worked against Trump throughout the entire campaign; even occasionally working in cooperation with the Democrats and corporate media to smear Trump, a family member, or a supporter of his. Now you understand some of what those on the Right have been saying all along about how badly the system is broken. You saw how economic elites, both political parties, as well as the political system itself worked hand-in-mailed-glove against the best interests of us---the citizens of this country.

I'm sure those on both the Left and the Right are not going to like everything Trump does, but then nobody ever does. Despite being in the public eye, the presidency is a very lonely job; something I'm sure every President has quickly learned. But remember too, those on the Right had to endure eight years of Obama, and while you might think he was a good president, many in America didn't, and neither did many of the world's leadership, but you never saw an temper tantrums did you? You never saw any "cry-ins" or demands for "safe places". You also never saw any looting, burning, destroying of property, or beating up of liberals (or yelling at them and making them cry) or for that matter, any protests.

Now, let's get back to my opening question. What would you do if you suddenly saw yourself being blocked by a group of protestors...or possible rioters? From news reports, most drivers, while attempting to avoid hitting anyone, would not stop out of fear of being attacked or damage to their vehicle. So far, there has been two individuals severely injured trying to block traffic and several who have been slightly injured. There's nothing wrong with protests, but not everyone is going to agree with you; in fact, most aren't. Don't expect them to act accordingly, so use common sense. Oh, by the way, there was one death as a direct of these protests. It seems one older individual died of a heart attack. He was in an ambulance on the way to the hospital but protestors blocked the expressway and wouldn't let the ambulance through. Had he made it to the hospital he would have likely lived. I hope the organizers of this protest showed up at his funeral to explain to his family and friends why their actions where more important than his life. Personally, I think the police should have rounded up everyone of these individuals and charged them with contributory homicide and refused any plea deals. Actions do have consequences be they economic, political, social, or humanitarian.





Anti-Trump Protest Killed a Man
http://www.headlinepolitics.com/anti-trump-protest-killed-man/

The Race to Beat Trump

I have to admit that I'm perplexed and to be honest, a bit amused. Why you ask? The Republican Primary and race to defeat Donald Trump. I've never seen anything like this and I've been involved in politics for a very long time. This is much more than just an attempt to dethrone a frontrunner. It goes far deeper than that. There is an organized and concerted effort by both the Democrat and Republican Establishment to defeat Trump before the May 17th Primary, and if they can't do it then, the GOP party boys seem intent on using "small print" convention rules to deny him the nomination.

As a few political observers have noted, a party nominee isn't determined at the conventions by the candidate with the most delegates(i.e., who the people want). The nominee is chosen by the party leadership, who may, at their discretion, ignore the wishes of the voters through the use of so-called "super-delegates", which were built into both parties by-laws in ensure control, along with more than a little backroom intimidation and bribery. I think this is something most voters were unaware of previously; that their vote doesn't necessarily mean anything, which seems to play right into Trump's hands since part of his campaign has been about just how corrupt both political parties are.

Almost from the outset, the GOP leadership, the candidates themselves, the corporate media (including several at the once conservative Fox News), and naturally, the Oligarchs who now run this country, have been behind a no holds barred campaign to belittle, bully, distort, and harass Trump and his supporters. We would expect this from the Left leaning wing of the corporate party, the Democrats, and the Left leaning (but corporate controlled) media, but not from the those on the Right. We've even had candidates try and team up against Trump, such as Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz in various configurations. When did that last happen? Just recently, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, who is still nominally a candidate though mathematically eliminated, publically agreed to join forces to work against Trump. A few days ago, after losing all four races in the same night, Cruz, acting "as if" he was the party's frontrunner, announced that former candidate Carly Fiorina was going to be his choice for Vice President. Seriously? Cruz has no chance of catching Trump at this point, so why is he announcing Fiorina as his running mate? Is he counting on the party boys to engineer his nomination? Is this a "Hail Mary" effort to pick up at least a few more delegates so he doesn't look so bad going into the convention? Is it to deny Trump the opportunity of asking Fiorina (though doubtful) to be his running mate?

Then there are all the protestors showing up all of sudden at Trump rallies. Again, when was the last time that happened? I'm reminded of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, when there were a large crowd of anti-war protestors down the street and the Chicago Police were given approval by then Mayor Bill Daley to go ape on the protestors, which spilled over into the convention itself and police "thugs" went after a few reporters and camera crews they disliked (the incident later became known as the 1968 Chicago Police Riot). A lot of people were seriously injured by the Chicago cops; something which I think they have yet to live down. Now, we have individuals sneaking into Trump rallies, trying to shout down speakers, start fights, pushing people around, tearing up signs, and whatever else they can to do. It reminds me of the ways the Nazi "SA" or Brownshirts, the Italian Fascist Blackshirts, and the Communists used to do back in the 1930's (as did corporate hired thugs to break up union meetings); anything to disrupt, embarrass, or intimidate their opponents. The corporate media presents the disturbances "as if" it was all Trump or his supporters fault by cherry picking what they say and how they edit the footage. No wonder people don't believe the corporate media anymore.

Recently, the violence has increased. We have protestors breaking through police barricades and attacking Trump supporters, throwing bottles, rocks, tearing down signs, blocking entrances and even trashing police cars and assaulting police officers. Of course, the corporate media bends over backwards to blame Trump. All of this is, naturally, to create a negative image of "The Donald" and keep supporters away, all in an attempt to sway voters to Cruz or at the very least, get them to lean to towards Hillary should Trump get out of the Primary with the GOP nomination. What they've accomplished, however, is in making themselves look like punks. In fact, I think we've long passed giving them the legitimacy of calling them "protestors", which implies at least a measure of order. What we are witnessing aren't "protests". These are political riots like what you would expect to see in Third World countries or places with dictatorships who order opponents and their supporters to be harassed (Paraguay and Egypt come to mind). Is that what we've become? Is that how our political system functions how?

In just the past few days, we've seen thousands of these "political rioters", including hundreds of apparent illegal immigrants and others with dozens of Mexican flags, breaking through police and security barricades, overturning police cars, burning the US flags, violently attacking individuals who simply came to hear Trump speak---leaving several beaten and bloody, blocking traffic for miles (which has become a favorite tactic of late); forcing Trump and other speakers to cross a footbridge, cut through a fence, and come in a side door...to his own event! Even during the worse of the riots of the 1960's and 1970's, this never happened, not at least to this degree!

What all this says to me is less about Trump and his message, and more about what the Oligarchs who run this country are afraid of. What is it about "The Donald" that inspires such fear on the part of the powerbrokers and their pawns? Is it the fact that Trump has enough money to fund his own campaign and isn't beholden to them; doesn't have to make any special deals? Is it because he is actually a political outsider, and not one of the usual insiders who pretends to be "one of the people" and will "stand up to the special interests in Washington"---that is, until the election is over (the only "standing up" they do is when their paymasters walk into the room and that's because many are too old thanks to gerrymandering and the absence of term limits to be able to get off their knees).

Ted Cruz and others like him like to pretend he's not one the Oligarchs' minions, just like all the rest in Congress. It's part of the game. They try to convince the American People they are "different"; that they really represent the interests of the ordinary Americans, just don't look to close at their records or who they get their money from. These are the vetted and pre-approved candidates who will do as they told, without question or conscience. They will foment wars, economic downturns, labor and social unrest, challenge traditional family values; whatever is required of them just so long as their Overlords, the Oligarchs, make a profit and enlarge their control. After all, control is the name of game, be it control over resources in some far flung nation or here at home. It's also control over us. We're are necessary liabilities. The more control they can exert over us, through control of the economy, our workplace, our credit ratings, social norms, and most of all, our privacy, the more they can maximize their profits and minimize their risks by manipulating and anticipating our actions and reactions. They control our elections through pricing ordinary---and perhaps more qualified---individuals out from the get-go. They buy who they want, thanks to Citizens United, and keep them for as long as they want, with thanks to gerrymandering and no term limits. It's how we went from being a democratic republic to a neo-fascist nation with an emerging police state. Welcome to the Machine boys and girls.

Perhaps all this is what frightens the Oligarchs the most about Donald Trump. He's unscripted, which makes him genuinely popular with ordinary Americans across the political spectrum. He's self-financed, so no backroom "sell-your-soul" deals. He's a actual outsider, not a Kool-Aid drinking Democrat or Republican follows party dogma over the Will of the American People (what a novel concept). He's willing to think outside of prescribed boundaries or act in pre-approved ways. He's willing to do what the American People want, not just either make empty and meaningless promises or simply ignoring us altogether. He will not take a stand, but make a stand, regardless of whether its popular with the 1% elites or not. Personally, I haven't been a particular fan of Donald Trump through the years; a bit to brash for me. However, if the Oligarchs, their corporate media, the K Street moneymen, the party boys on both sides are willing to go to this extent to degrade, belittle, harass, intimidate and bully, burn vehicles, attack and beat innocent people up, blocks highways and streets, assault police officers, burn American flags, bring out illegal immigrants, then there must be something they are terrified of and if that's the case, then Trump must be on the right track and that's someone I think we need to get behind.