The war on the police

I've noticed a number of articles by liberals since the double assassination which downplay any type of danger to police from these protestors in New York and Ferguson. Dan Gainor corrects this notion. Excerpt:

The same sentiment spread on Twitter as some were gleeful about the murders. One asked: "Am I the only one happy about this breaking news 2 cops getting shot"? She wasn't. The hashtag #F---12 overflowed with hate for #pigpolice.

Now, many protesters, like White House favorite and MSNBC host Al Sharpton, claim they aren't anti-police, they are pro-justice. 

They lie.

Union organizer Robert Murray was "arraigned on charges of assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, rioting and obstruction" for an attack on two New York police lieutenants during one "justice" protest two weeks ago, according to CBS. Two Bronx public defenders appeared in a rap video with the lyrics, "For Mike Brown and Sean Bell, a cop got to get killed." In Philadelphia, a paramedic posted a photo showing two black men pointing a gun at a police officer and describing police as "our real enemy."

All this acting up and foul rhetoric bespeaks a desire to be at war, to make war on the police. There's a propaganda aspect where anything good the police do goes unreported and every time they screw up the incident gets relentlessly trumpeted. The media are complicity in this. Fortunately it seems like there is an effort on the part of many other media groups, albeit smaller outlets, to report good news about things that policemen do to save lives and protect the citizenry. However, this is only a "hedge" if you will; most people know that police aren't evil, vicious murderers longing for the chance to kill someone.

This movement won't end until it runs out of steam and funding like the Occupy crowd did. I hope it happens soon. Of course it would be great if the people at the top were arrested and jailed, but I'm not hopeful of that.

Lena Dunham is a rich, white, Tawana Brawley

Well of course she'd have to make something up if she never actually was raped. She needs feminist cred to sell books, and since all sex is rape anyway, she just had to pick her least favorite sexual experience and voilà! Instant rape.

Bizarrely, it seems like the "rape" never really took place, or it wasn't really rape. I'm not going to include the graphic details here; you can read them in the Breitbart article. If everything did go down the way she describes, i.e., she wanted to have sex but this guy got too rough, then it's a good illustration of why a 19-year-old woman shouldn't have sex with a stranger she just met. But this wouldn't be "realistic" in the liberal feminist worldview.

This article takes a while to read, but it is worth it to know just how hard Nolte and the Breitbart crew attempted to discover the identity of the rapist. Sadly her naming this person "Barry" indicates an actual person--it is not a pseudonym--and his name is now smeared with a false accusation.

“This man is by all accounts (including his own) innocent.”

Nolte noted that the man now “has to hide his Facebook page and retain an attorney” in the wake of Dunham’s book.

He said that while Dunham has pointed “her powerful finger” at the man accusing him of rape, she “has yet to clear his name.”

Having watched a friend of mine be falsely accused of rape, I would like to see this Barry guy work up some type of libel case against Dunham. I know that it would be pretty hard, but at least it might draw attention to her unreliability and to the fact that Random House is enabling felonious behavior on the part of a powerful individual against a falsely-accused, innocent man.