heroes or thugs?

[blugiant]

[/URL]

One of many businesses looted.

My Looh....what a disgrace. There is no need for this.



My Looh it's best we ignore blu when he spouts this drivel. Is attention im a look.....he is pure mouth. I bet he has never picked up a picket sign in his life.

tropi actuallee mi protested ann even met widd sum politrixxstahs dat led to blakk yuths activities gettinn more fundinn

wood yuh beeleeve dat mii even affended ann cawl sum blakk misleaders, rev, politrixxstahs,etc, sellouts in public

mii even reason widd sum yuths woo wanted chrow tings ann dat y dem neva didd itt.

dat y mii can chatt pon diss

[blugiant]

First thing I have read from you that I can agree with 100% without edit and/or reservations.

tg dat y mii iss such a healer cah mii can mekk yuh ann tropi agree

[blugiant]

Did a 1 cent stamp launch the American Revolution?

"Such another Experiment as the Stamp-Act wou'd produce a general Revolt in America." - George Mason, 1766.

In March 1765, the British Parliament announced a stamp tax. Beginning that November, American colonists would be charged taxes on a variety of printed items, including newspapers, wills, and playing cards. In most cases, the tax would be small, beginning at a half-penny. The response was surprising, at least to the men in Britain who had designed and approved the tax. American colonists, having recently fought in support of Britain, rose up in protest against the tax before it went into effect. The protests began with petitions, led to refusals to pay the tax, and eventually to property damage and harassment of officials. The Stamp Act protests established a pattern of action against British officials that would, in some cases, involve physical assault,

http://investigatinghistory.ashp.cuny.edu/m2.html

[blugiant]

The American Revolution began as a transatlantic dispute over parliamentary authority and policy, as American colonists chafed against British measures to reconsolidate their hold over their North American empire. This difference of opinion grew into a crisis of authority when colonists expressed their opposition by rioting, burning effigies of English officials, organizing vigilante associations, and pledging boycotts of imported goods. The colonists did not initially think of themselves as waging a war for independence, but rather believed they were defending their natural rights as Englishmen to resist misguided and corrupt government officials and representatives. With every new British assertion of authority, the colonists redoubled their activism, and the stakes got higher and higher. The colonists' faith in their sovereign, King George III, was dashed by his rejection of their appeals and his condemnation of their protests as an unlawful rebellion. Once they lost all faith in the righteousness and reason of the monarchy, the American Patriots rejected it outright and set forth not only to win independence but also to build a new kind of society in place of the old.

Why Should I Care?

If you don't already recognize the importance of the American Revolution, chances are you won't be able to understand or appreciate most of what follows in American history. This is the beginning of it all, the creation of the United States of America as an (ostensibly) unified and independent country. The story of the Revolution lies at the heart of what makes our country unique in the history of nations. The revolutionary principles that led to the nation's founding continue to influence American society, as we still turn to the founding generation seeking guidance, inspiration, or even just a useful quotation to support one contemporary political claim or another. Whenever critics of current American policies argue that we are forsaking our historic role as a nation dedicated to freedom and equality, they are invoking the principles of the American Revolution (at least as they understand them). Similarly, proponents of current government policy often refer to the American Revolution and the principles of the founders to support their tactics. And when critics of patriotic sentimentalism seek to debunk the assumptions or myths of the past, they will often point to the paradox of slavery and freedom that underlay the Revolutionary period.

For our younger readers, guess what: many young Americans were your age when they signed up with the Continental Army and Navy, even if it was just to work as deck hands or play the drums or the fife for $8 a month. Enslaved children ran away with their mothers and fathers to gain their own freedom throughout the war, especially when the conflict distracted their owners. Some of these black boys and girls actually fought or provided forms of critical support (like helping the cooks, looking for firewood, and doing other day labor) on both the British and American sides. Young stable boys in Boston were some of the first to run across town and warn Paul Revere when they overheard British officials whispering about their impending march on Lexington in April 1775. Teenage girls carried out the dangerous job of relaying the Patriots' messages to one another. Other young women carded, spun, and wove clothing, stockings, and other important items to help maintain the colonial boycott on British goods and keep their brothers, boyfriends, and fathers protected on the battlefield and warm amidst the harsh cold of the winter army camps.

And for all our readers, young and old: Did you ever wonder whether American society and government might have turned out completely different from what we got? If you haven't, you should. For colonists from a wide variety of classes, regions, and backgrounds all envisioned independence differently. For nearly half a million enslaved Americans in the 1760s, the Revolution offered a priceless chance for freedom, whether by escaping to fight behind British lines or by rebelling, or by petitioning legislatures for emancipation, or by gaining freedom by fighting with the Americans. For some American white women, the Revolution offered a chance to eke out more liberties than they had possessed under the rule of English common law. For the masses of poor and middling yeoman farmers, artisans, mechanics, and merchants throughout the thirteen colonies, the creation of an unprecedented republican government from scratch offered not only freedom of trade with all the countries in the world, but the chance to participate in a more egalitarian society than had ever existed before. Although the hopes and expectations of many of these groups were ultimately disappointed, the Revolution did establish a set of principles that could be invoked later to make moral claims for a more just society.

http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/

[blugiant]

The American Revolution

By the late eighteenth century, Americans enjoyed more liberties than most people in the world, and they paid lower taxes than the subjects of any other European state. Even as they declared their allegiance to the British monarch, they tarred and feathered his royal officials; though they professed loyalty to the rule of English law, they boycotted imports, defied taxes, and burned ships that docked in their ports.83 They came together from very disparate regions and societies because they found common ground in their grievances, their concerns about tyranny, and their notions of self-determination. They were defiant protestors but reluctant revolutionaries; in the beginning, the Americans sought reconciliation with their sovereign along with recognition of their rights.

Once the concepts of liberty and self-representation were lodged in the hearts and minds of the Patriots, the only remaining course of action was Parliamentary compromise or war. Long before the Revolution was ever waged on the battlefields at Lexington, Saratoga, or Yorktown, it was decided in the mansions of the Virginia gentry, the pulpits of the churches, the town halls of New England and the backcountry of Tennessee.

For the first time, the masses seemed to have absorbed and were acting upon their conceptualization of liberty and its meaning. Their actions—and preexisting local feuds—often profoundly influenced the response of colonial elites from the Hudson River Valley to the plantations of the Chesapeake. Dense, sophisticated seventeenth- and eighteenth-century political philosophies of the Enlightenment were now articulated in simple, easy-to-read pamphlets by revolutionaries like the Englishman Thomas Paine. Colonists demanded representation, and in the process, accountability on the part of their leaders. The underlying message of the growing tension with British Parliament was the American notion that government exists to serve and protect the people. When it fails to do so, the people can revolt and establish a new government that serves their interests.

Meanwhile, whole segments of the colonial population for whom the rhetoric of freedom was never intended capitalized on its potential for radical change. Slaves seized their own freedom by escaping, fighting behind British lines, enlisting with the Continental Army, or plotting insurrections to take advantage of the social upheaval that surrounded and distracted their masters. They understood the language and meaning of liberty and they pressed for a fuller realization of the revolutionary promise. Many blacks and whites recognized all too well the inherent hypocrisy in waging a war for independence while tolerating human bondage in their midst. Many women also saw the possibility for change that might improve upon their own lives by giving them more individual as well as nationalistic self-determination. Colonial ladies could express their dedication to the cause and derive a sense of self-importance and patriotism by fundraising, spying, weaving homespun, and delivering messages across enemy lines. For white women and all African-Americans, the Revolutionary War offered at least a chance to expand on rights and liberties that had been circumscribed before. When American victory could not guarantee emancipation or equal rights, some groups sought to achieve their aims by allying with the enemy.

The Patriots' war for hearts and minds, having been waged and won for the majority of colonists by the time the actual fighting began, also proved pivotal in the military aspect of the fight. Americans believed in their cause and in their General, George Washington, with a fervor that Hessian mercenaries (from Germany) and homesick English troops could never match. As underdogs, the Patriots were not hampered by the hubris that comes with being the world's foremost power. They also had specific notions of what they were fighting for: theirs was to be a radically new sort of society, one that judged its citizens not on their birthright but on their merits. Even if elite colonists thought differently, and even if their new government—which discriminated against women and African-Americans—seems less than completely egalitarian today, in the context of the eighteenth century it marked a substantial and unprecedented break from the past.

Not all of those who fought for independence had purely noble and idealistic reasons for doing so. Many colonial elites stood to benefit economically from their decision to cast off British creditors and boycott exports so as to inflate crop prices. They were also heavily influenced by African-Americans, whose strivings for emancipation worried the slaveowners who prized a stable society as necessary to protect their most valuable investment and the source of their labor. Others came down in favor of whichever side opposed their own longstanding local enemies. Even among Patriots, infighting erupted over the skyrocketing inflation of Continental paper money, Congress's inability to properly pay and clothe Washington's soldiers, Indian policy, and the lack of essential supplies that resulted from colonial boycotts.

Despite its flaws, the American Revolution changed the world, launching a global Age of Revolutions. Soon after, the centuries-old monarchy of France would fall. Then came the world's first black republic, created after slaves revolted in Haiti in 1791. In 1819, Simon Bolívar would carry the torch of independence from Haiti to his homeland in Venezuela, and the South American republics followed, then Mexico in 1821, and so on, for generations. The Americans did not foresee these consequences and were quite horrified by many of them (especially the Terror of the French Revolution and the specter of slave revolt and black independence in Haiti). Yet these actions remained intrinsically tied to the American precedent of successful struggle for self-determination, liberty, equality, and freedom. Even if equality was a concept applied exclusively to white men in the United States, this alone represented a fairly radical change for the rigidly hierarchical world of the eighteenth-century Western world.

Conservative Americans sought to regain power at war's end, in order to curb some of the radical implications of their revolution. They wanted to preempt anarchy and secure the long-term existence of the new nation, but they were also determined to maintain their privileged economic and social standing. As scholar Hannah Arendt once said, "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."84 Nonetheless, once the Patriots had dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to creating a rupture in the traditional hierarchy of the Old World, it could not easily be closed, even by some of the Patriots themselves. The American Revolution marked the beginning of a society dedicated to the concept of liberty and equality for all. It wasn't perfect, and the principles it established were restricted primarily to white men. But the principles themselves could later be invoked to widen the scope of democracy.

http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/summary.html

[blugiant]

At 5:00 pm the effigies were cut down, and a good-natured mock funeral procession passed the State House shouting "Liberty, Property and No Stamps." The marchers proceeded to the stamp office and pulled the little building down.

Crown officials quickly came to fear crowds that met at Liberty Tree, and the men who had engineered the events of August 14th soon learned that they, too, had something to fear. Out-of-door meetings were difficult to control. The line between liberty and license to riot was not easily maintained.

This was never clearer than on August 26th, when a bonfire was lit on King Street (today's State Street). A large and unruly crowd gathered. The object of their anger that night was Thomas Hutchinson, a man whose arrogance, ambition, power, and wealth made him one of the most unpopular men in Massachusetts. The mob attacked his house, one of the city's most elegant homes, where they proceeded to loot the contents and tear down walls and part of the roof, reducing the mansion to a mere shell. Several hundred people watched, without moving to stop the violence.

The next day, the men who had helped focus mob action on political targets were quick to distance themselves from the riot, which even the hotheaded Samuel Adams called the work of "a lawless unknown rabble." They sought to reassert control, but it was too late. The common folk had awakened to their political power.

British soldiers cut down Liberty Tree during their ten-month occupation of Boston in 1775. Today, a small plaque marks the site.

http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=236

[blugiant]

The Dominant White Response to Baltimore Shows Why Black Residents are Justified in their Anger

by
Grizzard



Imagine for a moment that a man's neck was almost severed, nearly clean cut in the most painful way possible, while in the custody of the people charged with the duty of protecting and serving. Imagine that man died, alone, in a prison cell, while his cries for help were blatantly ignored. Now imagine that in the wake of that tragedy, a government had been infantile in its ability to explain even the basic details of what happened.

That's the revolting reality in Baltimore. And through it all, the dominant white response was muted. From different reaches of the Internet, prominent civil rights leaders weighed in on the travesty, offering perspectives on another data point in an ever-growing body of evidence that the police state is still being mobilized against black Americans. And sure, the death of Freddie Gray received some national media attention.

But it wasn't the concern of the average guy who looks like me. White Americans are immune to these problems, isolated from the realities of police brutality and oppression. Severed spines are a problem in the abstract, but certainly not something to get all bothered about. For some of us, the Freddie Gray travesty was another opportunity to reflect on the moral failings of the afflicted, noting that if Freddie had been a law-abiding choir boy, he wouldn't have found himself in the crunching grasp of Baltimore's police force. For others, it was an opportunity to remind the world that not all cops are bad, an impulse that's certainly correct, even if ill-timed.

But the brutal death of Freddie Gray, an example of police brutality that could have reminded us all of the dangers faced by inner-city black men on a daily basis? Well, that's just not occasion enough for us to offer an opinion.

Now imagine that in response to this one particular tragedy, the citizens of Baltimore - most of them black, but many white - rose up to question the culture of brutality that's produced more than 100 successful claims against police over the last few years. Imagine that in the midst of those protests, a debatable number of mostly young, mostly angry men smashed some windows, threw some rocks and bottles, and destroyed some property. A few of those men even got violent with those around them.

After sitting on the sidelines, silent at the lynching of Freddie Gray, you'd think that some property damage and non-lethal violence would fail to shake the conscience of the average white viewer. You'd be wrong.

It's in the defense of that property - those CVS stores owned by faceless individuals and those police cars being bashed in - that we've seen the strongest response from the dominant element of society. Social media is a good indication, but certainly not the only one. There, on sites like Facebook and Twitter, folks have spoken up about Freddie Gray for the first time. They've not come to the defense of the oppressed. Rather, they've spoken up in condemnation of those "animals," "thugs," and "criminals" who are "destroying their own city."

It's some combination of historical illiteracy and racial animus that drives the response. The prevailing white view has been tragically non-curious from an intellectual perspective. Rather than asking what might cause a people to risk life and limb in an effort to smash to bits their own neighborhoods, we've responded with a stupid, incredulous look on our faces. "Look at them," we've said. "Burning down their own city." We understand that we would never do something like that - not even when our favorite hockey team failed to win Lord Stanley's Cup. But we fail to ask that critical next question - if these people, who are in so many ways like us, would do something that we wouldn't think of doing, what must the conditions be like to drive that behavior?

To put all of the blame on the lack of historical literacy of white folks in America would be letting too many off the hook. Even if they don't know about the history of red-lining, the effects of the drug war, and how Jim Crow has shape-shifted into the modern criminal justice apparatus, many of these people would be unmoved if their eyes would open. Simply put, for them, it's racial animus that drives the boat.

But white Americans, many by their own choosing, are painfully unaware of the historical context in which a mostly-black protest in Baltimore might take place. What are these people so mad about? we ask, as if the answers are too complicated to be discerned from one extended reading of anything by Ta-Nehisi Coates or Greg Howard.

As a white man, I'm in little position to pass judgment on the behavior of people so beaten down that they have little hope. I'm certainly not in a position to offer the tired white liberal tripe, asking black folks in places like Baltimore to sit quietly and trust the system, waiting for me and those like me to rescue them through legitimate democratic means. While rioting, looting, and lighting stuff on fire is certainly not a productive way to achieve equality and real civil rights, I won't lie to these people and tell them that by doing so, they're undermining progress that might have been made through legitimate protesting.

That's because I understand the unfortunate reality that powers this kind of destructive protesting. That is - these people are aware in a way I can never be aware, that whether they choose to jump on cars, sing Civil Rights hymns, hold signs, or stage peaceful letter writing campaigns to their local congressperson, the situation is going to stay mostly the same.

Why do you see destructive rioting and looting? It's not because people think it's the best way to get things done. It's because the people have finally come to realize that no matter what they do, nothing gets done. No matter how loud they scream, the system still crushes them under its weighty wheels. Their macro situation in many ways mirrors their individual situations. These people are expressing not just anger and frustration at another black man killed by another group of police officers. Rather, they're expressing anger and frustration at a socio-economic reality in which they are the bones and scraps left over after the best meat's been taken.

Despite living in the wealthiest state in the country, the residents of Baltimore's inner city find themselves in abject poverty. No group is hit harder than young people. In fact the child poverty rate in Baltimore is 36.5-percent, according to a 2014 report by Catholic Charities of Maryland. Around two in every three high school students will graduate, a number that is even an improvement over how things were just a few years ago.

These are young people who live in communities torn to pieces by the War on Drugs, where violence is the norm. They're young people who are considered a "success story" if they achieve what people in my community would call the base level of productive existence - graduating high school without dying or being sent to prison. They're young people who, if they were to achieve what my parents would call success, will be a story so rare that Hollywood might come calling for the movie rights. The handful of young people who escape horrible Baltimore neighborhoods and find themselves in the middle class are the exception that proves the rule.

And they're smart enough to know it. Centuries of oppression, and more specifically, decades of policies targeted at the economic destruction of black communities in places like Baltimore, have led to this reality. They're the bubbling furnace that powers the kind of frustration necessary for destructive protesting.

As a white male, I don't particularly care for looting and rioting. I wouldn't like to be one of the store or property owners who will have to replace or rebuild. But I'm forced to recognize this destruction as the final option for a group of people so systematically disenfranchised that their voices have not been heard. And I have to ask myself a difficult question - who is the worse moral monster: The young man whose hopelessness leads him to jump on the hood of a cop car, or me, a person who has acquiesced to a system that creates justified hopelessness among young people in places like Baltimore?

When we, as white folks, seem more eager to speak up in defense of property than we are to speak up in defense of another slain black man, we demonstrate that the righteous anger of those doing the rioting is justified. We show that our unwillingness to invest resources in their future is not a coincidence, but rather, the intentional workmanship of our decrepit value system, which tosses away young black men as readily today as it did 200 years ago.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/28/1380944/-The-Dominant-White-Response-to-Baltimore-Shows-Why-Black-Residents-are-Justified-in-their-Anger

[blugiant]

Where did I say that? Go ahead cout and paste it right here?

I am waiting.

Eyewitnesses: The Baltimore Riots Didn't Start the Way You Think
Baltimore teachers and parents tell a different story from the one you've been reading in the media.


After Baltimore police and a crowd of teens clashed near the Mondawmin Mall in northwest Baltimore on Monday afternoon, news reports described the violence as a riot triggered by kids who had been itching for a fight all day. But in interviews with Mother Jones and other media outlets, teachers and parents maintain that police actions inflamed a tense-but-stable situation.

The funeral of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who died in police custody this month, had ended hours earlier at a nearby church. According to the Baltimore Sun, a call to "purge"—a reference to the 2013 dystopian film in which all crime is made legal for one night—circulated on social media among school-aged Baltimoreans that morning. The rumored plan—which was not traced to any specific person or group—was to assemble at the Mondawmin Mall at 3 p.m. and proceed down Pennsylvania Avenue toward downtown Baltimore. The Baltimore Police Department, which was aware of the "purge" call, prepared for the worst. Shortly before noon, the department issued a statement saying it had "received credible information that members of various gangs…have entered into a partnership to 'take-out' law enforcement officers."

When school let out that afternoon, police were in the area equipped with full riot gear. According to eyewitnesses in the Mondawmin neighborhood, the police were stopping buses and forcing riders, including many students who were trying to get home, to disembark. Cops shut down the local subway stop. They also blockaded roads near the Mondawmin Mall and Frederick Douglass High School, which is across the street from the mall, and essentially corralled young people in the area. That is, they did not allow the after-school crowd to disperse.

Meghann Harris, a teacher at a nearby school, described on Facebook what happened:

Police were forcing buses to stop and unload all their passengers. Then, [Frederick Douglass High School] students, in huge herds, were trying to leave on various buses but couldn't catch any because they were all shut down. No kids were yet around except about 20, who looked like they were waiting for police to do something. The cops, on the other hand, were in full riot gear, marching toward any small social clique of students…It looked as if there were hundreds of cops.

The kids were "standing around in groups of 3-4," Harris said in a Facebook message to Mother Jones. "They weren't doing anything. No rock throwing, nothing…The cops started marching toward groups of kids who were just milling about."

A teacher at Douglass High School, who asked not to be identified, tells a similar story: "When school was winding down, many students were leaving early with their parents or of their own accord." Those who didn't depart early, she says, were stranded. Many of the students still at school at that point, she notes, wanted to get out of the area and avoid any Purge-like violence. Some were requesting rides home from teachers. But by now, it was difficult to leave the neighborhood. "I rode with another teacher home," this teacher recalls, "and we had to route our travel around the police in riot gear blocking the road…The majority of my students thought what was going to happen was stupid or were frightened at the idea. Very few seemed to want to participate in 'the purge.'"

A parent who picked up his children from a nearby elementary school, says via Twitter, "The kids stood across from the police and looked like they were asking them 'why can't we get on the buses' but the police were just gazing…Majority of those kids aren't from around that neighborhood. They NEED those buses and trains in order to get home." He continued: "If they would've let them children go home, yesterday wouldn't have even turned out like that."

Meg Gibson, another Baltimore teacher, described a similar scene to Gawker: "The riot police were already at the bus stop on the other side of the mall, turning buses that transport the students away, not allowing students to board. They were waiting for the kids…Those kids were set up, they were treated like criminals before the first brick was thrown." With police unloading busses, and with the nearby metro station shut down, there were few ways for students to clear out.

Several eyewitnesses in the area that afternoon say that police seemed to arrive at Mondawmin anticipating mobs and violence—prior to any looting. At 3:01 p.m., the Baltimore Police Department posted on its Facebook page: "There is a group of juveniles in the area of Mondawmin Mall. Expect traffic delays in the area." But many of the kids, according to eyewitnesses, were stuck there because of police actions.

The Baltimore Police Department did not respond to requests for comment.

Around 3:30, the police reported that juveniles had begun to throw bottles and bricks. Fifteen minutes later, the police department noted that one of its officers had been injured. After that the violence escalated, and rioters started looting the Mondawmin Mall, and Baltimore was in for a long night of trouble and violence. But as the event is reviewed and investigated, an important question warrants attention: What might have happened had the police not prevented students from leaving the area? Did the department's own actions increase the chances of conflict?

As Meghann Harris put it, "if I were a Douglas student that just got trapped in the middle of a minefield BY cops without any way to get home and completely in harm's way, I'd be ready to pop off, too."

On social media, eyewitnesses chronicled the dramatic police presence before the rioting began:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge

[blugiant]

Freddie Gray Protest In Baltimore; Once Again, "Officials'' Try To Discredit A Protest With Agent Provocateurs STAGED "LOOTING" Pictures
(NOTICE: check out the UPDATE in RED at the bottom of this post!!! someone came out with a video of this exact same thing this post is about!!!)

(the latest STAGED "LOOTING" pictures for mass media consumption)

I wrote a post on the Ferguson protests about how "officials" dispatch agent provocateurs to protests to discredit peaceful protests and how it is a plan to shift the focus of the "news" from the actual peaceful protesters to (fake) "LOOTERS" complete with STAGED PHOTOS of "LOOTING" so then everyone talks about the "LOOTERS" instead of the real protest. I supplied the obviously STAGED "LOOTING" photos, see here in this post below:

BIG DAN'S BIG BLOG August 17, 2014: You Can Be Assured That Agent Provocateurs Are "LOOTING" And Throwing "MOLOTOV COCKTAILS" In Ferguson


So today I start reading my Sunday paper, not thinking about protests/looting/agent provocateurs/staged photos, and I come across an article about the Freddie Gray protest in Baltimore. There were two pictures in the paper accompanying the article. I looked at the photos and several things jumped out at me (to the trained eye): the SAME WOMAN was in both pictures although the pictures were for two separate incidents. She was very distinctive: she had red hair, a very skintight black dress, black stockings, and black high-heel shoes. In one picture, there is a black man playing tug-of-war with this woman and her purse along with two other women, and in the 2nd photo this same woman is being held back by a white male as she appears to be trying to stop a black male from throwing a chair through a storefront window:

Picture #1 - notice woman with red hair, black skintight dress, black stockings, black high-heel shoes. Also notice that the REAL PROTESTERS aren't even looking at a black guy playing tug-of-war with three white women's purses in a "FROZEN IN MOTION" picture:


Just like the STAGED Ferguson "LOOTING" photos, they are "FROZEN IN MOTION" staged photos.

Who is taking these photos? Why is the same woman in two separate photos of two separate incidents? Someone happened to take a perfect "FROZEN IN MOTION" picture of the same woman in two separate incidents and BOTH PICTURES happen to make a syndicated "news" paper story?

REALLY???????????

Picture #3: Here is another picture of this same woman I happened to come across on the internet while looking at pictures of the Baltimore protest. This same woman is now standing in front of the store that the black guy threw the chair through the window. So after being held back by a white male from the evil black man throwing a chair through the window, she then stood in front of the window for a NICE PICTURE. The black man and the white man holding her back must've left, but the PHOTOGRAPHER is still following her around for more pictures of her :


So there happened to be TWO CAMERAMEN capturing this SAME chair-throwing event from TWO DIFFERENT ANGLES, and at the EXACT SAME MOMENT!!!

BUT WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you notice that in photo #2 & photo #4, the same event at the exact same moment but from two different cameramen, the WINDOW IS ALREADY BROKEN in both photos? So is this black man THROWING A CHAIR THROUGH AN ALREADY BROKEN WINDOW?

Photo #3 of the "aftermath" shows the chair lying OUTSIDE of the building. So it appears that the black man DID NOT THROW THE CHAIR THROUGH THE WINDOW because the window was ALREADY BROKEN and the chair is OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.#5


Now look at photo's #5 & #6: BAR & GRILLE CUSTOMERS EXPERIENCE "DEJA VU":

Photo #5 and photo #6 are identical: a black man ready to punch a white man and the black man in each photo is captured perfectly in each picture at the point where his black fist is cocked and at the furthest back position ready to punch the white guy. The only thing is: it's two different black guys and two different white guys in the SAME EXACT "FROZEN IN MOTION" POSE IN FRONT OF THE SAME EXACT RESTAURANT!!!!! The customers must be experiencing DEJA VU or else they're in the set of Bill Murray's movie "GROUND HOG DAY":

Picture #5



So the exact same thing happened in front of the exact same restaurant and the exact same photo was snapped....only with a different black guy and a different white guy? Really? Or were the patrons just watching a "show" being put on for them? HEY LOOK! THE EXACT SAME THING IS HAPPENING AGAIN! AND THAT SAME GUY IS STANDING BEHIND THEM SNAPPING THE SAME EXACT PICTURE! GIMME ANOTHER BEER!


To wrap this up, another thing pointing to these photos being staged is that they were the photos in the "news" paper. If photos were staged to take the focus off the protest and put the focus on "LOOTERS", they, in fact, would be the photos they would put in any "news" articles. Think about it: why would they put ONLY "LOOTING" photos in the Baltimore protest, and NOT ONE photo of anything other than "LOOTING"?


AGENT PROVOCATEUR STAGED "LOOTING PHOTOS": you got SNAGGED by BIG DAN'S BIG BLOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


OONNOO GO READ DA REST

http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/2015/04/freddie-gray-protest-in-baltimore-once.html

[Tropicana]

Where did I say that? Go ahead cout and paste it right here?

I am waiting.

Still waiting.

[Tropicana]

tropi actuallee mi protested ann even met widd sum politrixxstahs dat led to blakk yuths activities gettinn more fundinn

wood yuh beeleeve dat mii even affended ann cawl sum blakk misleaders, rev, politrixxstahs,etc, sellouts in public

mii even reason widd sum yuths woo wanted chrow tings ann dat y dem neva didd itt.

dat y mii can chatt pon diss

You did not answer my question. Have you ever picked up a picket signed or marched for anything anywhere? I doubt it.

[j-kid]

many businesses never recover, some such as, Detroit, LA.

[j-kid]

Woman, why yuh talking tuh yuhself?

Still waiting.

[Tropicana]

I am talking to the one named blu.

[blugiant]

You did not answer my question. Have you ever picked up a picket signed or marched for anything anywhere? I doubt it.

yess mii protested ann stapped blakk yuths fram fallawinn plants fram chrowinn tings att babylon

da picket ting iss trickee cah mii nuh too much like fe support fimi union ar addar unions cah aff dem long histary aff racist xxclusionaree policy against blakk. do million man march count reread mii addar respanse

tropi wen yuh meet widd politrixxstahs ann responsible fe blakk yuths' programs gittinn more fundinn den yuh can challenge mi'