This Isn’t the America I Signed Up For

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It disgusts me to see peaceful protesters treated the same way that the Iranian regime treated me, when I marched on the streets in 2009.

Don't know how Iran treated him, but saying we treated our peaceful protesters the way Iran reportedly treated its protesters seems more like a lie or misrepresentation rather than mere exaggeration.

I was struck this week when President Trump had the peaceful protesters forcibly removed from Lafayette Park so that he could stage a photo op, in which he used the Christian religion as a political weapon the way the mullahs have exploited Islam for four decades.

One of the ways we do resemble Iran, a small way, is that our dominant established press often purposely misrepresents (lies about) what actually happens. The result being that good people like Mr. Khatiri are susceptible to a false picture.

See what Bill Barr says actually happened. For full article link to: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/barr-de...k-white-house/.

Before the Lafayette park incident occurred, there was already a plan, because of the violence that was escalating in D.C., to extend the defensive perimeter around the White House before the Lafayette park incident. Here are following excerpts from article:

"This is the federal city. It's the seat of the federal government," Barr said at the virtual press conference. "When you have a large-scale civil disturbance that is damaging federal property, threatening federal property, threatening federal law enforcement officers, threatening the officials in government and their officers and our great monuments, it is the responsibility of the federal government to render that protection, and we do so in close coordination with the Metropolitan Police Department."

In Washington, demonstrations north of the White House escalated in intensity over three nights beginning on Friday, May 29, and peaked on Sunday when demonstrators set several fires, damaged buildings and launched projectiles, the attorney general said.

"It was very serious rioting," Barr said. "The Treasury Department annex there was broken into. A historical building on Lafayette Park, which is federal property, was burned down. There was a fire set at the historical St. John's Church, right there across from the White House."

The attorney general said there were "numerous head injuries" among officers protecting the White House, and 114 overall injuries to law enforcement since Saturday. He said 22 officers have been hospitalized, most with head injuries.

Barr said he hoped to extend the perimeter "relatively quickly, before many demonstrators appeared that day," but delays in getting units in place pushed back the move.

"By the time they were able to move our perimeter up to I Street, there had been a number, a large number of protesters that had assembled on H Street," he said, adding that the group was becoming "increasingly unruly." He claimed the protesters were asked three times to move back a block, which has been disputed by demonstrators who were there.

"They refused. We proceeded to move our perimeter out to I Street," Barr continued.

Federal officers deployed chemical irritants to scatter dozens of protesters, a dramatic confrontation that played out on live television just minutes before Mr. Trump was set to address the nation from the White House Rose Garden.

On Thursday, Barr denied that the decision to extend the perimeter was related to the president's decision to walk to the church.

"There was no correlation between our tactical plan of moving the perimeter out by one block and the president's going over to the church," he said.

And fake videos were made to make it look like the forced movement of the crowd was occurring while Trump was walking to the church when it actually occurred well before that.

Contrast this moment with President Bush, who, after 9/11, took off his shoes and walked into a mosque to remind us that Americans of all religions were the victims of that great tragedy and not perpetrators or sympathizers.

One of these men was trying to make America more American. And one of them is trying to turn it into something different.

Something that I recognize. Remember: I grew up in Iran.

The violation of Americans’ Constitutional right to assembly disgusts me like nothing in my life. Sure, I have seen worse in Iran—much, much worse. But I expected that. In fact, I expected nothing but police brutality, discrimination, and oppression in Iran. Because that’s the natural state of an illiberal regime.

To see anything similar in America, even if a fraction of it? It’s not natural; it’s disgusting.

The Constitutional right to assembly was not violated. The protesters still had that right, but a block away from where they were gathered. There was never a right to assemble wherever you wanted. There is no right to block streets. If there is a lawful boundary, it cannot be trespassed without permission. One wonders, if there even is a right to assemble in close packed crowds when there are restrictions against that during a pandemic.

And it is disgusting not because America has suddenly become evil, but because the government of the United States is betraying Americanism—its ideals, its beauty, its generosity, its kindness.

OK, here he's getting into his overly rosy, dreamlike notion of Americanism. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, generosity and kindness are personal traits, not intrinsic only in Americans. Surely, there must have been kind and generous Iranians in Iran. Did that make them "American"?

Republicans, conservatives, those of you who spent the 2000s parroting President Bush’s sincere call for liberty, equality, and compassion, where are you? This betrayal of America’s Founding principles is not patriotism. Tax cuts, deregulation, and judges may be nice things, but they aren’t what makes America, America.

Now he's wallowing in the make-believe world of virtue signaling. A vague signal at that. What is he claiming the Founding principles to be? Equality, liberty, and compassion?

And where does he get this notion that tax cuts, deregulation and judges aren't what make America, America. This is feel good, "snow fake" nonsense. We were essentially founded on the condition of low federal taxes, limited government, and a judicial system created to prevent government from expanding, compassionately or otherwise, beyond its prescribed limitations.

America was never about any of those things. It was about liberty and equality of rights.

Liberty, protected against government intrusion by LAW, not compassion or generosity. Equality before the LAW, not any other equality. LAW--that blindfolded, dispassionate, justice.

Like all human projects, America has always been—and always will be—imperfect. Our Constitution opens with:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes, the Constitution, the supreme law of the land is what ensures our ability to strive for a more perfect union.

A more perfect Union! Just because our ideals haven’t been fully met, it doesn’t mean we stop seeking them. The Framers knew we would never reach perfection. All they asked was that each generation endeavor to inch closer toward it, always uncovering the flaws, and always trying to fix them.

And yet, perhaps because of his overly rosy view of the intrinsically harsh, cold, dispassionate nature of American LAW, he doesn't understand that our ideals are fully met by strictly adhering to Constitutional limitations, and that abandoning principles for feelings of compassion, over time, erodes, inch by inch, the hard rock foundation that holds together the ability to freely maintain that more perfect union and possibly create that perfect one.

We owe it to the Founding Fathers, to those who came before us and made it better for us. We owe it to Lincoln and Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman, to Teddy Roosevelt and Susan B. Anthony, to Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. and Jackie Robinson, to Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan. And we owe it to those who will come after us, too.

He is so in love with his rosy picture of America, that he doesn't recognize that some of those he claims we owe it to were more "racist," authoritarian, Constitution Busters than Trump.
Namely the two Roosevelts.

President Trump’s apologists and enablers are not inching us closer to perfection. They are encouraging a fast and accelerating retreat in the opposite direction.

He was so starved for freedom because of his oppression in Iran that he accepted the America he came to, comparatively, as a near paradise. But he doesn't know, or doesn't want to know, that by the time he got here, America had already inched away from its founding "ideals" and was steadily inching further away. He doesn't realize, or doesn't want to, that Trump, for all his massive faults and abrasive personality, is like a monkey wrench thrown into the Progressive process that was grinding us toward the type of government that he hates.

Lincoln is my first love

Well, if you think that moving protesters a block further away from where they were is taking away their constitutional rights, how do you justify killing and maiming hundreds of thousands in order to take away half a nations constitutional desire to not associate with you?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, if you think that moving protesters a block further away from where they were is taking away their constitutional rights, how do you justify killing and maiming hundreds of thousands in order to take away half a nations constitutional desire to not associate with you?

Now you are claiming that this is somehow analogous to the Civil War?

Open your eyes, you are being lied to again, just like this incident.

Watch the video below and then look at this press statement from the Buffalo Police Department about the incident:

"A 5th person was arrested during a skirmish with other protestors and also charged with disorderly conduct. During that skirmish involving protestors, one person was injured when he tripped & fell."

What we have here is a perfect distillation of the three levels of corruption that exist in law enforcement.

The first is the violence of the police themselves. In this incident they are in total control of the situation. I can count 28 law enforcement officers, all of them wearing armor of some sort and carrying weapons.

They are approached by an unarmed 75-year-old man. It is unreasonable for any of the officers in this situation to have felt as though they were in clear and present danger. But if they had felt threatened, they could have restrained him.

Instead, they assault him, shoving him backward violently. Go back and watch the video again. Listen to the sound the man's head makes at the 0:06 mark when it hits the ground. Look at the blood coming out of his ear. Watch how motionless his body is.

At best, this is a terrible accident by law enforcement officers who are not competent at their jobs. At worst, it is criminal assault.

The second level of corruption comes in the reaction of the officers who did not shove the old man. None of them rush to his side. None of them confront the perpetrators of the assault.

Instead, the first two actions we see from the other police are these:

(a) One of the officers who pushed the man seems surprised that he fell and makes a move to check on him. The officer behind him directs him to keep moving and leave the man alone.

(b) Other officers immediately move to clear witnesses out of the area. There appear to be two civilian witnesses who try to tell the police that the man on the ground is bleeding. One of the other officers says, "Grab these two guys right now."

These two witnesses put their hands in the air and offer no resistance. We see one of them handcuffed.

Another officer goes after the credentialed media present and orders them to leave the scene.

What you're seeing here is, in the immediate aftermath of police misconduct, a large number of officers working in a coordinated manner to cover it up and witnesses to the misconduct being detained for no discernible reason.

Which brings us to the third level of corruption: The press release.

With the benefit of time to react, the Buffalo police department portrayed this assault as a mere accident resulting from a "skirmish" in which a civilian "tripped & fell."

This is a two-part outright lie being fed to the public the police department is supposed to serve.

This may sound strange, but I view the actual assault on the old man as the least worrisome of those three corruptions.

Police are human. They will make bad decisions sometimes even if they are good cops. You can understand how a bad decision gets made in snap-encounters.

Do I think these police should be prosecuted? Yes.

Do I think that, regardless of the outcome of criminal prosecution, they should ever be allowed to put on the uniform again? Absolutely not.

However, I am open to the possibility that these are good men who made a terrible mistake and simply lack the faculties and temperament to be professional law enforcement officers.

But what about the police around them who see what has happened and do nothing?

These officers are witness to an assault that they were not a part of. They have no "heat of the moment" excuse. And their first move is not to help the citizen they have sworn an oath to protect, but to cover up for colleagues who have just committed what may be a criminal offense.

It is hard to view these officers as anything but fully corrupt. Every one of them should lose their badge.

The deepest corruption, though, is the press release.

Because this is not the act of a single person operating under constraints of time and space. It's the product of an organization.

That means multiple sets of eyes and multiple lies. It means people had the luxury of time to deliberate before acting and their choice was to deceive the public.

When you find a bad cop, it means that he can't be trusted.

When you see a gaggle of cops covering for a bad cop, it means the culture is corrupt.

When you read a press release issued by the department claiming that a man who was assaulted by cops "tripped & fell" as a result of a "skirmish," it tells you that the entire institution is rotten.

Thank God the local NPR station caught this assault on tape. Had they not, then the police department's lie would have been the official truth.

That is the problem that has people in the streets, because they know that their eyes are not lying.

But maybe you can use your weasel words to explain how institutional corruption is great and we all should accept it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

During that skirmish involving protestors, one person was injured when he tripped & fell."

If it wasn't for the cell phone video George Floyd would have "tripped & fell"

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If it wasn't for the cell phone video George Floyd would have "tripped & fell"

The video from Buffalo is horrific.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

The video from Buffalo is horrific.

I saw that. my issue wasnt the 1 arm push . I dont think the officer thought the guy would loose his blance and go down that hard. And i understand why the 1st line went by him thats taught to keep the line.. its the follow on officers except 1 who seemed un concerned . Of his conditions bother me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

The video from Buffalo is horrific.

if he was following social distancing rules I think he'd be ok right now...