RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2021/11/28/a-tale-of-two-cities-kenosha-vs-waukesha/

Both Wisconsin towns, Kenosha, and Waukesha, about 50 miles apart by car, were the recent sites of multiple deaths. The violence in both made national news. Yet in contradictory ways both reflected the common themes of America’s current legal, media, and societal corruption.  

The relevant public prosecutors in both were in the news for alleged ideological bias. Specifically, they habitually calibrated the charging, indicting, and trying (or not) of defendants through ideological lenses and community pressure rather than on the basis of the facts and the law.  

Kyle Rittenhouse was a 17-year-old armed youth who volunteered to protect business properties at the height of the August 2020 arson, riots, and looting in Kenosha. He was pursued and attacked by three members from a larger group who chased the armed youth, presumably either to disarm, injure, or kill him—or perhaps all three. 

Rittenhouse variously was assaulted, kicked, and had a firearm pointed at him. In reaction, he fatally shot two of his pursuing attackers and wounded a third. Kenosha prosecutors reviewed videos of the altercations. They saw clearly that Rittenhouse was running away from his assailants. He was variously rushed by one assailant, kicked by another, and struck with a skateboard by still another. Again, a final pursuer pointed a gun at him at close range.  

No matter. The Kenosha district attorney’s office charged Rittenhouse with several felonies including two first-degree homicide charges. All four whom Rittenhouse fired at—whether he missed, wounded, or fatally shot—had lengthy arrest records. Three were convicted felons; the fourth had a long arrest record. 

Given the lengthy and quite horrific rap sheet of Rittenhouse’s first attacker Joseph Rosenbaum (including multiple counts of pedophiliac rape), it is difficult to understand why the latter was not in jail (he had been released earlier that day from a mental facility to which he had been committed after a failed suicide attempt). The common denominator to the various prior convictions of his other three assailants was that they should have led to consequences far worse, given that many of their arrest charges were dropped, or bail was sometimes waived, or plea bargaining turned serious charges into merely bothersome ones. The release of violent offenders on little or no bail seems now thematic in Wisconsin. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/11/lethal-mix-woke-rap-and-live-nation-thom-nickels/

On December 6, 1969, Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones looked out over the massive crowd at California’s Altamont Speedway and saw the concert security staff, the Hell’s Angels, beating up an audience member. The Angels, who were paid in beer rather than cash to act as security that day, had apprehended a man named Meredith Hunter, 27, who attempted to approach the stage. When Hunter attempted to approach the stage again, this time with a revolver, he was beaten by the Angels and then stabbed to death by Angel Alan Passaro. The melee, which was captured on film, caused a nervous Jagger to announce, “People, people, let’s be cool!”

The murder of Hunter would come to be known as Rock’n Roll’s Darkest Day, officially marking the end of the 1960’s peace and love era which had its peak expression only months before at Woodstock.

The 1969 tragedy at Altamont has arguably been superseded in darkness by the troubling developments at Live Nation Entertainment – which bills itself as “the world’s leading live entertainment company.” The company’s recent production of the Astroworld Festival in Houston on November 2 saw 13 people killed and 300 injured when a crowd surge during the concert caused concertgoers to trample one another. Live Nation has a history of safety violations over the past decade. The massive concert enterprise also seems to thrive best in large Democrat-controlled cities where the urban landscape cultivates its own style of rough and tumble audiences and artists (Christian conservative rappers like Bryson Gray need not apply), especially artists who not so long ago specialized in ‘F—k Trump’ lyrics.

Consider my own city of Philadelphia.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/11/undermining_democracy_with_chaos.html

America will not fall to an external enemy, but to internal subversion that will collapse the body politic. The method was advanced decades ago by two sociologists, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. They sought to create a guaranteed income by throwing the welfare rolls into chaos. They never succeeded and their obsession with it was not widely shared, but their emphasis on chaos to bring about dramatic social change found a receptive audience among Marxists and leftists.

Cloward and Piven’s emphasis on chaos had a vast appeal to Marxists because they found it impossible to organize a working class more concerned with immediate material benefits than revolution. Instead of organizing for revolution, the Marxist ideology moved to undermining democracy by creating chaos.

Not deterred by the failure of the street violence of the sixties to bring about the Marxist revolution, Piven, in 2012, was still clinging to her fantasies of violence and chaos as mechanisms for social change. As she noted, “Protest, even violent protest, is thus inextricably linked to the progress of democracy, whether in challenging dictatorships, or in keeping democratic regimes from neglecting the needs of their own people. The existential aspect of protest seems also to apply to some cases of violent protests in autocracies, and sometimes in democracies as well.”

This strain of sophistry that violence can create democratic progress, as absurd as it is, explains the tolerance of our institutions for the violence we have seen in Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis. This tolerance of violence stimulates the revolutionary fantasies of Black Lives Matter and Antifa.  

It is not simply in the streets that chaos is to bring about leftist socio-political change, but it is also true of the embrace of chaos in our institutions. Nowhere has the institutional threat been greater than in the activities of the so-called congressional “Squad” that has cleverly branded themselves as social justice warriors while seeking to produce chaos by defunding the police, leaning on the Biden administration to insert leftists in positions of power, and seeking to deluge the economy with obscene sums of money. The Squad knows that if printing money led to prosperity, Zimbabwe and Venezuela would boast the world’s two strongest economies.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/11/29/needed-protection-against-our-professed-protectors/

Responding to retail gas prices that have skyrocketed to record levels, President Joe Biden has decided to pose as Americans’ protector from abuses in the energy marketplace. Ignoring his energy policy resume, which includes his cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, limiting of drilling leases and opposition to fracking, each of which predictably raises oil and gas prices, he wants to move blame by pointing his finger at alleged price-gouging, manipulation and/or collusion. As the president’s letter to the FTC put it, “The Federal Trade Commission has authority to consider whether illegal conduct is costing families at the pump. I believe you should do so immediately.”

However, that portrayal is simply a very well-worn, calculated pretense.

Real collusion has long been illegal, which raises the question of why our supposedly vigilant regulators didn’t prevent what they suddenly want to use now as a scapegoat until after the fact. Oil and gas are heavily regulated on the premise Americans need to be protected from the risk of such industry depradations. So where was the “protection”?

There has also been a long list of past industry investigations, also timed to bail out politicians and regulators from well-deserved blame, which have produced no evidence of collusion. 

Further, insinuations of gouging, manipulation or implied collusion rely on ambiguous terms. What evidence could prove, rather than just assert, gouging? Political assertions run in terms of charging “excessive” prices or failing to charge “fair” or “reasonable” prices, but none of those modifiers have clear meanings.