While Trump did issue a statement condemning the violence, it was "not good enough" for the lamestream enemedia.
Amidst this entire chitter chatter of the critics, not one individual has even touched on how Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah handled the violence committed by "black nationalists" nor has the media even mentioned the fact that violence committed by individuals adhering to "black nationalism" ideology was ignored by them and the current administration.
The Daily Caller reported:
In July of 2016, an avowed black nationalist murdered five police officers during a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Dallas, Texas. The act of violence was well-planned and was motivated entirely by the hate-filled ideology of the shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson.
With several officers dead by the hand of a committed black nationalist, one might think the Obama administration may have considered the assassinations domestic terror and launched an investigation into groups associated with this ideology.
Not at all.
Barack Obama condemned the shootings, but he did not call out or even allude to Johnson’s hateful views. He did, however, blame “powerful weapons” for the violence.
Regarding the same incident, then Attorney General Loretta Lynch used the tragedy to push for more gun control and even praise Black Lives Matter ideology and cause.
Lynch, like Hussein Soetoro, never mentioned the perpetrator's "hate"; but, "she did manage to directly name multiple cases of police-involved shootings – all after cops were the ones murdered."
The media was silent on the lack of condemnation of violence committed by "black nationalists" from Obama and his administration, but seized the opportunity to urge Trump and his administration to condemn "white nationalists" on the assumption more violence would occur if no action was taken.
Under the Obama administration, July of 2016 saw three incidences in which Obama and his cronies remained silent.
The Dallas shootings saw additional cases of violence by "black nationalists" after the attack.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, had three officers gunned down by an adherent to the ideology.
St. Louis, Missouri, in an incident less violent, saw several churches "vandalized and graffitied with rhetoric associated with black nationalism."
Still the lamestream enemedia never called for Obama and his administration to condemn these acts. Yet, the media has lambasted Trump to condemn "white nationalists."
Unfortunately, the election of Trump did not stop acts of violence by Black Lives Matter "black nationalists."
The Daily Caller continued:
A black Muslim, Kori Muhammad, murdered three white men in Fresno, California back in April, because of the color of their skin. Muhammad openly admitted this racial motivation in interviews with police and laughed about his murders. Prior to the killings, the shooter had made numerous anti-white social media posts and rap videos.
In May, a black nationalist, Derrick Lamont Brown, shot a paramedic and opened fire on police. The authorities were responding to Brown killing his roommate and shooting a neighbor. This black nationalist was associated with the Huey Newton Gun Club, to which Micah Johnson also had ties.
So, based on this, who has been more violent – black nationalists or white nationalists?
None of the incidents of violence saw the media urge Trump and his administration to condemn this violence.
None of these incidents of violence saw an investigation by the Department of Justice.
While racist and bigoted speech and ideology is disgusting and vile, it is not a crime to be a racist or a bigot.
It may be socially unacceptable, but it is not a crime.
Therefore, speech espousing those views, while distasteful and offensive, is not a crime either.
But, it seems that crimes perpetrated by "black nationalists" and Black Lives Matter are not condemned, investigated or prosecuted.
Yet, an incident that involves a white nationalist group warrants condemnation, investigation and prosecution.
Where is the equality under the law?
There are groups on both sides, black and white, that harbor extreme ideology.
Again, while it is distasteful and socially unacceptable (for the most part), harboring that ideology is not a crime either.
It is only when individuals act upon that ideology to infringe upon the rights of others, engage in violence, looting and vandalism and/or attempts to subvert the republic constitutional form of government to replace it with one supporting their ideology that a crime has been committed.
It is when crimes committed are supported by government and the lamestream enemedia that the rule of law has been subverted into the "rule of men."
Moreover, individuals who have committed those crimes become more emboldened to commit more crimes since the acts go unpunished.
This, in turn, builds animosity among other groups and the populace, in general, when seeing the law applied unequally.
As we all know, there is a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Unfortunately, that blindfold has been removed meaning justice is only applied when those controlling the "system" determine which demographics are immune.
Many may claim that individuals engaging in "hate" speech are committing a crime.
Exactly what is "hate" speech and who determines what that is, how it is applied, and what punishment comes from it?
Where in the Constitution does it say that type of speech is not protected?
As the republic witnessed during the presidential election cycle, non-Trump supporters attacked Trump supporters as they attempted to exercise their right to assembly and free speech in supporting their candidate of choice.
The media excused these crimes by declaring Donald Trump engaged in "hate" speech, but, what exactly did that constitute?
Was it his campaign slogan?
Was it his stance on enforcing immigration law?
Was it his stance on repealing unconstitutional Obamacare?
Was it his stance to unite American citizens again under one flag representative of the republic?
What was it he said that would be unprotected speech?
The media excused these two of almost "ordering" their supporters to commit acts of violence, which is a crime.
This is the problem when determining which speech should be protected instead of all speech being protected, as long as instructions to commit crimes are absent.
Favoritism for one group or groups over others determines what speech is protected and what isn't.
For government or special interest groups to determine what speech is protected and what isn't creates a slippery slope, which Americans are seeing the US slide down rapidly.
Because of the inequitable application of law, resentment, anger, frustration and aggression builds in groups perceiving to be, or who actually are, maligned.
As the preferential treatment to some groups is widened and discriminatory treatment to other groups expands, polarization of groups is enhanced leading to extreme measures being taken in order for marginalized groups to gain the attention of government to have their grievances addressed.
The preferential groups, basking in their status and fearing displacement, mobilize to counter the other groups. It becomes a recipe for conflict and violence fomented by government and the lamestream enemedia.
The current rise of these extreme ideologies held by these varying groups rests squarely on the shoulders of the previous administration, the lamestream enemedia, and the current administration's missteps in not applying equal condemnation for violence committed by all extremists.
Instead, it has come down to members of this administration declaring that "white nationalists" have no place in the American public or the American debate.
This rhetoric provides the fuel for increasing resentment, anger, frustration and further aggression.
It all goes back to this little phrase: You can please all of the people some of the time; some of the people all of the time; but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
Knowing this, it is best to apply the law equally thereby treating everyone the same regardless of demographic.
This would go a long way to relieving some of the built-up negative emotions resulting in violent actions.
But, this will never happen since government is more interested in controlling the people than protecting their freedoms, rights and liberties.
Moreover, elected officials in government are more interested in lining their pockets through having their palms greased by special interest and big business than serving the people.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.