Leftist Provocateur Celebrates Shooting of Officers in Ferguson [Video]

As two Missouri Police Officers were shot early Thursday morning in Ferguson, amateur video captured the gleeful celebration of a (presumably white) leftist provocateur who bellowed just seconds following the shooting "acknowledgement 9 months ago would have kept that from happening." While Americans both black and white have reacted with horror at the violence in Ferguson, the pseudo-Bolshevik whose voice was captured on tape seemed to revel in the pain suffered to the two law enforcement personnel.

A 32-year-old Webster Groves police officer was shot in the face and a 41-year-old St. Louis County police officer was shot in the shoulder during a standoff with protesters on S. Florissant Road in front of the Ferguson Police Department shortly after midnight. Three shots in all were reported. Jon Belmar, St. Louis County Police Chief, reported that both officers are alive, conscious and with their families at a local hospital.

"I would have to make an assumption right now that based on the fact that these officers were standing together," Belmar stated, "and there were several officers standing right there when this happened, that these were shots that were parallel to the ground, not up in the air, they weren't skip shots." He added during his emotional statement, "And I would have to make an assumption that these shots were directed exactly at my police officers."

Roughly 70 protesters had gathered in front of the building Wednesday evening in response to a U.S. Justice Department review of the Ferguson Police Department which claimed the department displayed a pattern of "racially based enforcement" and used unreasonable force against African-American suspects. The report was issued in the wake of last year's shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson Police Office Darren Wilson.

This is not the first instance in which far-left, liberal activists have been tied to the protest movement in Ferguson. In the demonstrations in the days following the shooting of Brown, a local black resident complained of "outside forces" agitating angry young black males, assisting in turning what were initially peaceful protests into violence-filled riots which threatened local businesses and residents.

]

What role has left-wing agitation played in the violence in Ferguson, MO?
(Courtesy of Facebook)

In an August posting on his Facebook page, the unidentified (for his safety) local resident noted the presence of an apparent "professional protester" who it was claimed was inciting emotional young men present at the scene into violence. "You wont see this blood sucking vampire during daylight because he doesn't blend in well," the man writes, "if you see him tonight give him a swift kick in the nuts and tell him to get out of our community! THIS is the fire starter at night he's who is going to get more of our youth killed."

The Facebook poster provides insight into the mans motives by recalling a previous encounter with the agitator as he states, "Don't think I don't remember you from the NATO demonstration Veterans for Peace had in Chicago. I'm not brand new to this, I don't forget faces." He added a caption to the photo in which he accused the agitator of Bolshevik-like methods in teaching the young men in Ferguson how to make Molotov Cocktails. He goes on to state he witnessed the "angry youth" following his lead.

As America prepares itself, once again, for divisive rhetoric and analysis from major media outlets, politicians and opportunists, we must ask the question as to what role far-left agitators have played in the events of these past few months, in this small town in Missouri. Judging by the gleeful celebration of the leftist provocateur reacting to the shooting of two police officers, we would hope the Justice Department investigates this angle as well.

While we were constantly reminded by the selective repeating of the audio and visual later unincluded text portions of the Martin Luthur King Jr. famous “I have a dream “ speech.

The left and its media arm never makes references to the beginning and King’s references to the way this country was uniquely created with its purposes of existence declared through its carefully crafted Constitution, citing God gifts to mankind, and its Declaration of Independence .

They never cite King’s support and belief in it. Because it wouldn’t serve the purposes of racial division which King was against.

This race war crap was started for one reason and this agenda was driven because;

As opposition to Obama’s abuse of his constitutional authority and talk of “impeachment” began to arise and his polling numbers fell.

What Obama needed, worked for, and got , by separating and isolating his solid group of supporters the blacks through creating out of whole cloth stories of “victimization”.

Using circumstances where lawless black youths wound up dead in felonious struggles over guns held by figures of authority. Both Martin and Brown were the attackers. Obama used his “Bully Pulpit to reinforce that “victim” agenda in Florida and Missouri. In both cases he portrayed authority as the aggressors and the perpetrators as the “victims”

In Florida’s case success was indicated by the number of incidents where members of other races were attacked severly injured or murdered by black youths committing these assults in the name of the so called “victim” All the while Obama neither commented on nor condemed such activity.Because of this, the question ; Is there blood on his hands ? Are those deaths that resulted from these incidents innocent “victims” of that agenda? Is avoided.

In Missouri he met with and issued a “stay the course” order to the Ferguson protesters. They in turn coordinated by the usual suspects organized nationwide protests. Their purpose and result was a successful demonstration of what would happen if congress ever moved on any constitutional efforts to restrain or even remove Obama including“Impeachment”..

Once the regime measured its unexpected success why not continue ?

Expand it to war on law enforcement. Get more cops refuse to respond or get killed if they do. or hesitate to defend themselves while attempting to confront “afro-americans” engaged in felonious assults while fleeing or are engaged in criminal activity resisting arrests.

Attack the Grand Jury system investigating police mal practice. It’s not after the facts. It’s after “payback”to those poor hypenated Americans known as “Afro” who because of their financial situation are forced to pillage, kill, and rape. And are entitled to do so.

Exploit innocent interchanges between “afros” and different races make them (the afros) believe it’s racist. Create uneeded tension between them and other groups so that those groups not only view them with aprehension but feral creatures unable to know right from wrong

All because the regime must be protected from being questioned in its exercize and abuse of power.

Then bring in another completely alien group which they believe are easier to manipulate which will furthur isolate the “afro” who will get thrown to the wolves once they’re politically no longer “usefull”.

All made possible by the agenda driven socialist products from academia running the alphabet soup venues controlling the visual and print media . Competing with each other protecting their beneficiairies financial interests. That has wound up in “Trusts” controlled by individuals or groups interested only in protecting their own self interests. “Trusts” which should be broken up.

Worse yet supported by the leadership of the political opposition. Who see the benefits of “working together” expanding government. As the happless voter having never to get their day of reckoning and their children’s children’s children pay the bills living in a culture their forebearers wouldn’t ever recognize. Using the dream of King’s speech as the door mat by a person of his race destroying it.

bet his paycheck is signed by Soros.

I wonder which news agency he's with.

National Review: Undercover Photographer - L.A. Times staffer Carolyn Cole crosses a line, again.

(By Andrew Breitbart, National Review May 14, 2002)
Little critical attention has been given to the recent antics of Los Angeles Times staff photographer Carolyn Cole, who on May 2 joined a group of "peace activists" who had clandestinely entered Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, in solidarity with the Palestinian militants holding dozens of civilians and clergymen hostage.
Upon her arrival inside the holy site, Cole took on the dual role of photographer and reporter for the Times, offering first-person accounts from within the church.
The Times, often accused of carrying an anti-Israeli grudge, confirmed many of its critics' suspicions by printing Cole's blatantly pro-Palestinian church dispatches. Cole even noted that she felt safer with the Palestinian militants than she did with the Israelis. (A collection of her like-minded photos from inside the church appear in this week's Time.)
...But this isn't the first time Cole has stepped over a professional line in her career. In April 2000 — at the height of the Elián Gonzalez affair — Cole was arrested on felony charges of "throwing deadly missiles" at police during protests in Little Havana, apparently in an effort to stir up her subjects and thereby generate "better" news.
Miami detective Delrish Moss said Cole "was seen throwing two or three rocks and then picked up her camera and proceeded to take photographs."
Michael Parks, her boss at the Times, said in a statement that her arrest was "an abridgment of the people's right to know."
"Carolyn Cole was covering the protests in Miami as a news photographer, not participating in them, and her photographs published in the Times make that clear," Parks insisted.
Of course, Ms. Cole would never overstep the law nor defy journalistic principles to get a story. And there's no way that she held the anti-Castro crowd in contempt and wanted to create shots that would portray them in the most frenzied and violent light.

“bet his paycheck is signed by Soros.”

Actually his paycheck, like that of tens of thousands of community organizers, ultimately originates from the taxpayer funneled by leftists in the bureaucracy to thousands of leftists community action groups. Government grant money pays for contracted “services” performed by these organizations. The organizations in turn employ community organizers. Other sources of funds for these organizations come from private foundations (Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation).

Two things Congress could and should do to end the subsidies of this type of activity. First, end the flow of discretionary grant money for worthless studies and services. This action alone would save the taxpayer billions and save citizens from the trouble the community organizers, like Barack Obama in his early year, stir up.

The second action is to start taxing the annual income from the investment portfolios of large private foundations and require the foundation to liquidate after a defined period of time (say 25 years). No matter what the intent of the wealthy philanthropist who starts the organization, the missions of these multi-billion foundations become redirected once they are taken over by liberal activists. For example Andrew Carnegie set up his foundation to fund and build libraries around the nation. The foundation built its last library in the 1950’s. Today it funds a multitude of variety of leftists programs under the headings: Education, International Peace, International Development, and Democracy. The Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundations have seen similar evolutions.

Would Barak Obama even exist today as a major political figure if not for the pools of government and foundation grant money. His father’s education in the USA was paid for by grants. Obama’s mother’s Indonesian activities were funded by the Ford Foundation. Obama’s community organizing activities during his early years in Chicago were likely funded with private foundation and government money.

The two wealthiest billionaires in the US, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, have pledged to leave the bulk of the fortunes to perpetual foundations. Essentially these foundations will become tax free pools of money for advancing the progressive agenda. Would we as a nation not be better off if these foundations were taxed on their income and there was a mandatory sunset provision (say 25 years) for their liquidation?

A Republican demand for reform of foundations would turn the class warfare theme of the Democrats against them. They would be forced to defend allowing billions of dollars in foundation income to be free from taxes. They would be forced to defend a loophole that allows wealth to escape estate taxes and employ heirs and friends of the individual creating the foundation. The Clinton Foundation is the poster child for wealth, special privilege, and keeping friends on a payroll in cushy jobs. Let the Democrats defend their billionaire supporters shielding billions of dollars in income from the taxes everyone else must pay.

Taxing foundations is not a limitation of freedom. The wealthy would still be free do what they wish with their money. They would still be able to give the money to foundations, individuals, or institutions. The major change would be the foundation would pay taxes on the income from its investments, just as an individual or corporation is required to do. In addition, foundations would not be perpetual pools of money existing for the benefit and vision of individuals unaccountable to the benefactor (who is dead) or to society.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.