Match Exact Phrase    

Whatfinger: Frontpage For Conservative News Founded By Veterans

"The Best Mix Of Hard-Hitting REAL News & Cutting-Edge Alternative News On The Web"

Share This


February 3, 2017

Media 'Legitimizing Violence' To Foment Civil War - Berkeley 'Was Just The Beginning'


By Susan Duclos - All News PipeLine

The night before last it was rioting at Berkely because a conservative speaker was slated for an event, and yesterday it was New York University, where the "weaponized snowflakes" as Stefan Stanford called them yesterday, where once again out of control, and attempted to prevent a speaker who held different ideological views from the protesters, from speaking, which resulted in 11 arrests.

An NYU spokesman expressed disappointment "that many students on this campus are so disrespectful when it comes to hearing opposing speakers." The statement continued "There’s a strong idea on this campus that the slightest opposing views are completely unwelcomed.We understand that his presence was controversial but we didn’t expect these outburst [sic] from this institution. We hope that in the future, NYU students will be more open to hearing ideas that are different from their own."

This is the type of behavior we documented throughout 2016, but it is just a symptom of a much bigger issue, where liberal politicians, along with the MSM in the U.S., are deliberately trying to legitimize violence against conservatives.

Let me make myself crystal clear to the MSM, and to the liberal politicians deliberately attempting to label conservatives and trying to foment civil war in America...... If you force us to defend ourselves, you will lose.......and the blood of every American caught up in your war, will be on your hands.



As I was furiously scribbling on my legal pad, and gathering links to highlight the points I am noting while browsing news, to prioritize them into bullet points of importance, so the "big picture" I am cataloging in my head ends up being comprehensive as I lay it out in an article, I ran across a statement from Milo Yiannopoulos from his interview with Tucker Carlson regarding the riot that prevented his event at Berkeley, which succinctly summarizes the conclusion that my four pages of notes (front and back of legal sized paper), had led me to.

He said in the interview you will see below, "The real people that I want to hear from are the guys who are on CNN, who are legitimizing ordinary conservatives being called white supremacists, anti-Semites, racists, sexists, when they’re not. There’s inevitable, obvious consequence to this. … The media has created this environment in which it’s okay to say almost anything about somebody who is right of Jane Fonda. If you have slightly conservative, or even libertarian points of view, especially if you are persuasive and charismatic and funny and effective, like we both are, you will get called the most appalling things. And it’s a way of legitimizing, in some cases, as happened last night, violent responses."

Excellent points made in the interview below by both Carlson and Milo. It doesn't matter if one agrees with his lifestyle, his ideology, his terminology, as long as he is not trying to incite violence against anyone, he is entitled to speak at an event he was invited to. No one was attempting to force those protesters to listen, to join in the event or to agree with him.

From Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters "deplorable" while trying to label them white supremacists, xenophobics, homophobics and a whole host of other tags she tried to put on them, to Nancy Pelosi irresponsibly calling Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist to President Trump, a "white supremacist," just this week, to the media's consistent Trump bashing, they are all trying to normalize violence against anyone that disagrees with their liberal agenda, to which Trump is dismantling at a dizzying pace.


While Milo and Tucker discuss the latest lunacy from CNN in their attempt to legitimize violence against conservatives and libertarians, one of the links I bookmarked yesterday highlighted how the New York Times managed to launch 31 attacks against President Trump in just one issue of their paper, dated January 30, 2017. Just look at the front page of Washington Post online, on any given day and see how many of their articles focus on President Trump. One would think by looking at their papers that the whole world simply revolves around him and we are all suffering from the Trump-ocalypse! 

Look at one of the recent headlines from Foreign Policy, published by the FP Group, which just happens to be a division of Graham Holdings Company, formerly known as The Washington Post Company, which states "3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020, which includes their suggestion of a "military coup."

We also note how a New York Times journalist, India Knight, recently "joked" about assassinating the president of the United States, saying on Twitter "The assassination is taking such a long time," which followed  a German editor saying "murder in the White House" could be a way to end the "Trump catastrophe" on a German television program.

The inarguable fact here is that the mainstream media fought hard against Donald Trump when he was the Republican candidate for President, while actively promoting Hillary Clinton..... and they lost. The skewed coverage, the polls that over sampled Democrats to make it appear that Clinton couldn't lose, with NBC's Chuck Todd recently admitting that the MSM knew how "hated" Hillary Clinton was in the heartland and they deliberately "underplayed" it.

"If we sort of were straight-up honest and blunt about hey do we understand the level of hatred that’s out there and you know, all the Hillary for Prison signs that are out there, we certainly would have at least made the viewer know, hey, you know, she’s not well-liked in some places in this country in ways that’s times 10 when it comes to Trump," he said.

Let that sink in for a moment.... they knew and they deliberately chose to mislead their audience. It doesn't matter what reasons or justifications Todd offers for why they did it, he admitted they did it during the general election cycle.

Despite that.... Americans largely ignored them. The "heartland," the sea of red in the election map which gave Trump and electoral victory, completely tuned them out.



US News and World Report details a debate within Democratic ranks, where the more moderate Democrats are wondering if the "perpetual outrage" is self-defeating, driving people away, asking " If they cry wolf every 12 hours, will the effect of their urgency wane over time? Instead of presenting an alternative vision, will they end up looking simply like a party of outrage?"

The more liberal portion of the Democratic party, the hard-core progressives, want four years of Democrats declaring out-right war on everything the new administration does. In the article, the writer points something out that in my opinion, is a critical piece of the puzzle:

Yet given that Trump's approval rating is hovering between a respectable 45 and 49 percent depending on the poll, the fury emanating out of Washington and other major American cities is likely disproportional to the country at large. To some Democrats, this is a flashing alarm that incessant full-throated opposition is counterproductive.

In other words, to slap a visual on that statement, the anger coming from the portions of the map above in blue, is not being felt in the swaths of America shown in red above.

Which brings me back to the deliberate phrasing House minority leader Nancy Pelosi chose to use in reference to Steve Bannon, when she publicly attempted to label him a "white supremacist."

Hillary Clinton tried that, with the MSM pushing that meme for her consistently throughout the general campaign. I refer to you back to the map above when I say... they failed.

Say what you want about Pelosi, but she was the House majority leader at one point, she has been in politics for what seems like 100 years, and she is now the House minority leader, we may not like her ideology, her stances, her actions.... but she is not without intelligence, so what possible reason would she use an argument that failed so spectacularly and in such a public manner during the election cycle?

The argument that the "deplorables," being Trump supporters, were all a bunch of white supremacist, racist, reprobates, didn't work during the election, and the media and politicians like Pelosi know those arguments are not and will not sway the "heartland" voters now, so their constant attempts to use inflammatory rhetoric as a way to legitimize violence, and is being done to further weaponize snowflakes and to incite more protests and riots throughout the country.



Conservatives told themselves and each other that the protests and riots that occurred after the election would calm down once Hillary supporters got over the shock, which they only felt because the media refused to inform them how much Clinton was truly hated in the heartland. We told ourselves that the recount efforts were simply last acts of desperation. The death threats against the electors were their Hail Mary's, but once that all failed, things would mellow out.

Then the attempts to stop the inauguration began, then the riots that followed the inauguration, along with the vulgar vagina march, where "nasty women" talked about blowing up the White House.

Perhaps the best proof of my assertion that liberal politicians and their progressive brethren, including Holly-whores, along with the mainstream media, are so angry at "heartland" Americans, they would rather bring about a civil war than to accept the election results and the subsequent policy changes that comes with a new administration from the opposing party, is a direct threat by a liberal, which has since been deleted, where Comedy director Judd Apatow threatened Americans who support Donald Trump, in response to a CNN article about the Berkeley riots, where he said "This is just the beginning. When will all the fools who are still supporting Trump realize what is at stake?" (Seen in the screen shot of the deleted tweet above)

I will end this the way I began it, with a warning to Pelosi and progressives, the Holly-whores threatening us, and to the mainstream media.... if you force us to defend ourselves, you will lose.

Disclaimer - While ANP has never condoned the incitement of violence, and never will, we have always been proponents of self-defense in protection of self, family, property and community.

In the video below, CBS SF Bay Area names the anti-fascist  "black bloc" group as the ones starting the violence at the protests, with USA Today reporting they have been linked to "a number of modern protests, most recently in efforts opposing President Donald Trump. The Nation credits a Black Bloc protester with punching alt-right leader Richard Spencer in the face on Trump's inauguration day.  The Washington Post said Black Blocs were involved with violent protests in Washington, D.C. on inauguration day and in Portland following Trump's election win."

As further evidence that media outlets like CNN are deliberately providing their audience with outright "fake news," compare the news CBS SF Bay Area was reporting live, with the CNN video below it, where their fake news of the day is a claim the black bloc group were really "right-wingers," claiming he heard a rumor they were affiliated with Breitbart.


WordPress Website design by Innovative Solutions Group - Helena, MT
comments powered by Disqus

Web Design by Innovative Solutions Group