1,400 ‘No-Go’ Zones For UK Ambulances, Attacks on EMTs Skyrocket

See the source image

By Dan Lyman

Over 1,400 locations across England have been red-flagged as ‘no-go’ zones for ambulances without police escort, as the rate of violent attacks on paramedics has risen to a staggering eight per day, according to UK media.

More than 2,800 emergency medical personnel were attacked while on duty in 2017, up 36 percent in the last five years, latest data reveals.

“Paramedics are being stabbed, throttled, and sexually assaulted as shameful new figures show assaults on crew members have risen by a third,” the Mirror reports.

See the source image

“About eight serious attacks a day take place on NHS ambulance crews and more than 1,400 homes in England are now red-flagged as ‘no-go’ areas without police protection.”

A list of injuries suffered by paramedics in London includes dislocations, fractures, asphyxiation, severe burns, concussions, and even spinal cord damage.

Union leaders are blaming politicians for cutbacks in funding, leading to a severe shortage of personnel, as well as police support.

“These terrifying figures underline that ambulance workers, along with all those who work in the emergency services, are forced to work under an increased threat of violence,” said GMB union national secretary Rehana Azam.

“Cuts in funding mean our ambulance workers are more likely to be working alone. Cuts to police services mean back-up isn’t always there.”

Incredibly, the vast majority of perpetrators reportedly do not face legal consequences for assaults upon EMTs.

The crisis facing British emergency services highlights the effects mass immigration can have upon safety, security, and infrastructure as crime continues to rise while the government’s capacity to properly enforce the law and tend to the needs of its citizens diminishes.

‘They’re just bad people’ – NYT columnist on Trump supporters

‘They’re just bad people’ – NYT columnist on Trump supporters

President Trump meets young black Republicans at an event in October © Reuters / Cathal MacNaughton

Why would anyone work for President Donald Trump? Aside from a shared ideological vision, advancing one’s own career, or chasing a sniff of political power, one New York Times columnist has a better explanation: They’re just bad people.

In a failed attempt to understand life outside the morally superior left coast, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg argues that many Trump supporters are simply “bad people,” of two kinds: “the immoral and the amoral.”

See the source image

Goldberg wasn’t writing about the MAGA-hat wearing middle-Americans who turn out in droves for Trump’s rallies, nor the conservative-leaning average Joe who would have voted for a kick in the head before Hillary Clinton. Instead, she was talking about the revolving cast of aides, officials, and lawmakers who’ve worked for the Trump administration or lent political support to his policies.

They’re the Steve Bannons (a “quasi-fascist with delusions of grandeur”), and the Anthony Scaramuccis ( a “political cipher who likes to be on TV”), the Ivanka Trumps and the Lindsey Grahams. Out of them all, Goldberg finds the apolitical figures, the ones only in it for the paycheck, the worst.

“Trump is unique as a magnet for grifters, climbers and self-promoters,” she wrote. “In part because decent people won’t associate with him.”

Of course, all of this is predicated on the belief that ‘Orange Man Bad,’ a belief that many of the New York Times’ readers likely share with Goldberg. The columnist ponders out loud how these people could work for Trump without feeling “shame or remorse” at his “belligerent nationalism and racist conspiracy theories.” What exactly these conspiracy theories are, however, Goldberg does not explain. Instead, we’re expected to know instinctively that Trump is, for whatever reason, bad.

See the source image

The idea that anyone who works for Trump is “bad” by association is simplistic and no doubt appealing to many in the media and the #Resistance. However, reality is more complicated. Trump aides and officials have their own careers to advance, their own dreams and ambitions, and their own car payments to make. The institutions of Washington, DC will endure long after Trump leaves office, and many of these bureaucrats will still need work.

Take Mary Kissel, named this month as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s new foreign policy adviser. Kissel is a former Wall Street Journal reporter who has been sharply critical of and even openly hostile to Trump’s policies before. Is Kissel’s move to the State Department a surrender of her anti-Trump media credentials, or simply a career upgrade?

What about the officials who served in past administrations? Surely the New York Times fretted over the 29 Google employees who took up jobs in the Obama White House? After all, Obama presided over the largest expansion of mass surveillance in history, and defended the National Security Agency even after it emerged that it gathered vast amounts of call, email and internet data from millions of Americans.

Some moves through the revolving door that existed between Google and the Obama White House were reported, but the morals of the employees themselves were never questioned. Because, while these moves raised questions about the cosy relationship between Washington, DC and the tech industry, they were at an individual level, career moves. Besides, they were working for Obama, who came with a tacit seal of approval from much of the mainstream media.

Things are different in 2018, however. Trump (who Goldberg actually called “the orange emperor” in her previous column) is bad, and anyone who works for him is bad and should feel bad. Life sure is black and white on the pages of the Gray Lady.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Wait–Did Twitter’s CEO Just Share A Post Calling For ‘Civil War,’ Wiping Out The GOP, And How We Should Be Like CA?

By Matt Vespa

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 5.01.27 PM

Well, if there were any lingering doubts about Twitter’s perceived bias against conservatives, look no further than what CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted out last night. Apparently, a “good read” is a post co-written by a Center for American Progress senior fellow that calls for “civil war,” the destruction of the GOP, and the adoption of how California runs everything from sea to shining sea. Yeah, bipartisanship is dead, so mob rule is what’s needed.

Now, to be fair, the “civil war” will be won at the ballot box and demographic shifts, namely through the  so-called emerging Democratic majority, but the overall theme is quite explicit: conservative Republicans are not welcome until they reform. In other words, until they break to the power of progressivism. First, if California’s politics is the future of the country, I’d rather chug bleach.

Second, the whole post, which was written by Ruy Teixeira and Peter Leyden on Medium, is what you’d expect from the coastal elite. They say the tax bill is not popular; it is. Even BET’s founder said the bill has helped bring black workers back into the work force. Over 250 companies have doled out bonuses to their workers. Over three million workers have benefitted from this legislation. It’s a tax cut for the middle/working classes of America that Democrats universally opposed.

In all, the post notes the similarities between our first civil war and this one. We had two separate Americas. Two separate economic models in each sphere. Trump is apparently the harbinger of the GOP’s doom. How many times have people said this only to be proven incorrect? Remember when (now) two-time presidential loser Hillary Rodham Clinton was supposed to win 2016 in a landslide? Also the post cites California as the basis for this GOP collapse argument. California Republicans are a different breed; they’re not really conservative. It’s a deep-blue state. Are we shocked that the GOP doesn’t do well in such environments. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is hardly a prime example of those leading the conservative movement, though Terminator and Predator are some of my favorite movies of all time.

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 5.23.26 PM

Nothing alarming about social media mogul advocating to eliminate an entire side https://t.co/kULzaAr8CT

— Amy (@AmyOtto8) April 7, 2018

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 5.26.01 PM

In California, the GOP is pretty much a lighter version of the Democratic Party. So, if there is a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat on the ballot, or a conservative Democrat and a Republican in a red state scenario, the latter in both cases will usually win. Why should a GOP voter entertain voting for a Democrat when there is a solid conservative running in an election?

Just look at Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. He was a very liberal Republican Senator; so liberal that he’s now a Democrat. Yet, in 2006, Sheldon Whitehouse booted him because Democrats had a hard-core liberal on the ballot (and RI is a blue state), despite both Chaffee and Whitehouse being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and strongly against the Bush tax cuts. Yet, beyond this—there are many ways to skin the electoral cat. The Democratic base was not enthused by Clinton. I don’t think they will be enthused by their 2020 choices, many of which are no-names and have rigid regional appeal. And the so-called emerging permanent Democratic majority (because public opinion doesn’t change *eye roll*) was turned off by Trump—and he still won.

Well, here are parts of the post. Debate amongst yourselves:

Trump is doing exactly what America needs him to do right now. He’s becoming increasingly conservative and outrageous by the day. Trump could have come into office with a genuinely new agenda that could have helped working people. Instead, he has spent the past year becoming a caricature of all things conservative?—?and in the meantime has alienated most of America and certainly all the growing political constituencies of the 21st century. He is turning the Republican brand toxic for millennials, women, Latinos, people of color, college-educated people, urban centers, the tech industry, and the economic powerhouses of the coasts, to name a few.

The Republican Party is playing their part perfectly, too. They completely fell for the Trump trap?—?and that’s exactly what America needed them to do.

[…]

Now the entire Republican Party, and the entire conservative movement that has controlled it for the past four decades, is fully positioned for the final takedown that will cast them out for a long period of time in the political wilderness. They deserve it.

[…]

America is desperate for a functioning political supermajority that can break out of our political stasis and boldly move ahead and take on our many 21st-century challenges. The nation can’t take much more of our one step forward, one step back politics that gets little done despite the need for massive changes.

America today has many parallels to America in the 1850s or America in the 1930s. Both of those decades ended with one side definitively winning, forming a political supermajority that restructured systems going forward to solve our problems once and for all. In the 1850s, we fought the Civil War, and the Republican Party won and then dominated American politics for 50 years. In the 1930s, the Democratic Party won and dominated American politics for roughly the same amount of time.

America today is in a similar position. Our technologies, our economy, our geopolitics are going through fundamental changes. We are facing new challenges, like climate change and massive economic inequality, that must be addressed with fundamental reforms.

America can’t afford more political paralysis. One side or the other must win. This is a civil war that can be won without firing a shot. But it is a fundamental conflict between two world views that must be resolved in short order.

California, as usual, resolved it early. The Democrats won; the Republicans lost. The conservative way forward lost; the progressive way forward began. As we’ve laid out in this series, California is the future, always about 15 years ahead of the rest of the country. That means that America, starting in 2018, is going to resolve it, too.

Whatever the case, the conclusion to all of these posts about the end of conservatism/GOP should always be wait and see. We don’t know—and frankly for the people who thought the Obama years realigned the country, brought about a high mark for liberal politics, and the marked the end of conservatism were dead wrong. In 2010, the GOP retook the House. In 2014, they recaptured the Senate—all while expanding their power at the state and local level.

Enthusiasm is surely with the Democrats—and they could do well in 2018. But Democrats have tons of candidates and division among the Left. Civil wars erupting during primaries can happen. In Texas, it already has, showing the gulf between the establishment and progressive (i.e. Bernie-ite) wings of the party is wide and the wounds are still raw. It’s quite possible the Left fumbles the ball at the goal line come Election Day. We’re over 200 days way from the midterms. I’d take this with a grain of salt, but say you do read the whole piece and blood pressures go through the roof—I redirect you to Mr. Kurt Schlichter.

TRUMP WAS RIGHT: CHILDREN SMUGGLED, TRAFFICKED FROM MIGRANT CARAVAN

Trump Was Right: Children Smuggled, Trafficked From Migrant Caravan

Watch disturbing reports on global child smuggling rings

Infowars.com – NOVEMBER 27, 2018

Multiple mainstream outlets have reported that caravan members – including children – are being exploited by sex traffickers, which confirms President Trump was right when he warned this would happen.

In a tweet from Nov. 21, the president said there were “a lot of criminals in the caravan:”

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 5.01.27 PM

Correspondingly, local cartels are responsible for kidnapping at least 100 members of the caravan, including children, according to British media outlet The Independent.

“Around 100 members of a refugee and migrant caravan traveling towards the U.S. have reportedly fallen victim to organized crime as they moved through Mexico,” reads the report. “The Los Zetas cartel was likely to be behind the disappearances.”

Additionally, kidnappers have offered rides on fruit trucks to the traveling migrants, according to HuffPost Mexico.

“There we began to see that fruit trucks were coming to us, of those that carry 16 to 23 tons of food, they offered us transport, charging up to 150 pesos per person, we started to document plates to images of the drivers, alert the migrants that they did not do it, but in despair people took it in.”

“All I could do was try to open the boxes of the trucks, which were locked with padlocks.”

This also sheds light on how, over the past several years, international media has reported on the sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers:

However, the U.N. reportedly “cannot” punish peacekeepers from other countries, meaning that only a fraction of the alleged perpetrators have served jail time.

Video: Number of sex crimes against Swedish women and girls more than quadruples

By VOICE OF EUROPE 27 November 2018

As we reported earlier, things in Sweden are pretty bad. Based on a survey (NTU) from the Swedish Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) Since 2006, the number of women men have commit sex crimes against has increased from 2.5 per cent to 10.7 per cent in 2017.

More shocking, is when the data is broken down into specific groups, it reveals that sex offenders have commit an offence against one in three women aged 16-24 years old.

The number of sexual offences against this group has seen a surge from 7.1 percent in 2006 to 34.4 percent in 2017. More is explained in the video below.

Obama Used Tear Gas At Least 80 Times at Border

GettyImages-1065219488 (1)

By Bob Price

Under the Obama Administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) law enforcement officials, including Border Patrol agents, utilized tear gas against migrants at or near the border at least 80 times between FY2012 and early FY2017.

CBP officials reported the use of tear gas and pepper spray to push back “assaultive” caravan migrants attempting to enter the U.S. illegally on Sunday. The agency began using these particular sprays during the Obama administration in 2010.

Breitbart News confirmed the CBP began using tear gas (2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile – CS) in 2010, though the available usage data initiates in FY2012.

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 11.55.03 AM

The agency also reportedly began using pepper spray (Pava Capasaicin) at about the same time.

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 11.55.52 AM

“CBP takes Sunday’s employment of use-of-force very seriously. CBP reviews and evaluates all uses of force incidents to ensure compliance with policy,” a CBP spokesman told Breitbart News in response to an inquiry. “Over 1,000 individuals who were part of the so-called caravan attempted to cross illegally into the U.S. by breaching sections of the fence and using vehicle lanes in and near the San Ysidro Port of Entry. This group ignored law enforcement agencies in Mexico and assaulted U.S. Federal Officers and Agents assigned to respond to the situation in San Diego.”

“As a response to the assaults and to defuse this dangerous situation, trained CBP personnel employed less-lethal devices to stop the actions of assaultive individuals attempting to break into the U.S.,” the spokesman continued. “CBP has been preparing for weeks for events like the one on Sunday. We have seen the use of violence by members of this so-called caravan who have attacked law enforcement personnel in Guatemala, Mexico and now the U.S. CBP will consider using all approved and available resources to protect travelers, caravan members, and our agents and officers.”

The CBP use of force reports show CS tear gas used 126 times since 2012. Officials utilized pepper spray a total of 540 times during that same period.

The current CBP Use of Force Policy handbook (dated May 2014) requires all officers and agents to be trained in the use of all weapons utilized in operations, including less than lethal devices, such as these types of sprays. It also requires the officers and agents to be exposed to the sprays as part of the course of instruction.

During a telephone conference call with news media on Monday, CBP Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan said, “Yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and officers in San Diego effectively managed an extremely dangerous situation involving over 1,000 individuals who sought to enter the U.S. unlawfully in large groups. They did so safely and without any reported serious injuries on either side of the border.”

“As we’ve articulated for several weeks, we have been concerned about the size of the caravan, its primarily single-adult composition, and the aggressive and assaultive behavior at both the Honduras-Guatemala border and the Guatemala-Mexico border,” the commissioner continued. “U.S. government officials have noted the presence of criminals in the group, and the Government of Mexico has arrested over 1,000 caravan members for criminal violations in Mexico.”

“In the course of these events, individuals engaged in active assaults, throwing dozens of projectiles at CBP law enforcement personnel,” McAleenan explained. “Our Border Patrol agents were able to counter this activity, address the attempted group entry, and resolve the assaults with presence and less-lethal device deployments. Elements of the group then staged west of the port of entry and sought to press into the United States in the area of the Tijuana River channel. This group again became assaultive, with rocks and other projectiles thrown at our agents. Again, four agents were struck by projectiles in these assaults.”

Despite media reports to the contrary, CBP officers and agents operating under the Trump Administration responded the same way they did during the Obama Administration when, in 2013, migrants rushed the same stretch of border, Breitbart News’ Neil Munro reported.

Democrat congressional leaders and Hollywood activists teamed up to condemn the Trump Administration’s use of force in defending the border but ignored President Obama’s prior, identical response.

Pop star Rihanna accused the Trump Administration of “terrorism” for spraying tear gas at the border. Others called for the president’s impeachment over the clash.

Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said the migrant caravan members are like the Jews fleeing the Holocaust, while Vermont Senator and possible 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders called President Trump’s use of force “authoritarian.”

See additional Breitbart News coverage of the Migrant Caravan here.

SOROS’ “OPEN SOCIETY” DRIVEN OUT OF TURKEY AMID PROBE INTO TERRORISM TIES

Soros' "Open Society" Driven Out Of Turkey Amid Probe Into Terrorism Ties

The Hungarian-born billionaire financier and his “Open Society” have been driven out of yet another country.

Zero Hedge – NOVEMBER 27, 2018

Six months after Hungarian President Viktor Orban succeeded in driving his former mentor, and current nemesis George Soros out of Hungary, the Hungarian-born billionaire financier and his “Open Society” Foundation that has financed an army of liberal NGOs across Europe and the US has been driven out of yet another country.

According to the Guardian, Soros’ Open Society Foundation is formally withdrawing from Turkey after the founder of its Turkey organization was arrested and charged with supporting an opposition figure accused of trying to overthrow the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

See the source image

The organization announced its decision to withdraw from Turkey amid an interior ministry investigation seeking to uncover links between the organization and protests at Gezi Park in Istanbul in 2013. One of the founders of the Turkish OS branch, Hakan Altinay, was arrested along with 12 others two weeks ago and accused of supporting jailed Osman Kavala, an opposition activist accused of trying to overthrow the Hungarian government with mass protests. Kavala has been accused of supporting terrorism within Turkey, and Open Society has been accused of supporting Kavala.

Back in May, OS closed its Budapest Office and moved its operations to Berlin after the country passed an “Stop Soros” law aimed at making it more difficult for foreign NGOs to operate in the country.

In a speech last week, Erdogan accused Soros of trying to sow instability and discord in Turkish society, and of organizing destabilizing protests.

One of its founders in Turkey, Hakan Altinay, was among 13 people detained 10 days ago. They were accused of supporting jailed rights activist Osman Kavala in trying to overthrow the government through mass protests.

In a speech last week, Erdoğan linked those arrests to Soros. “The person [Kavala] who financed terrorists during the Gezi incidents is already in prison,” he told a meeting of local administrators.

“And who is behind him? The famous Hungarian Jew Soros. This is a man who assigns people to divide nations and shatter them. He has so much money and he spends it this way.”

Though it denied links to the protests, Open Society told the Guardian that it would nevertheless seek to close its office in Istanbul and liquidate its Turkish operations as swiftly as possible. The organization added that it was unsure whether it will be able to continue its Turkish operations.

See the source image

The foundation said that “new investigations” were trying to link it to the Gezi protests. “These efforts are not new and they are outside reality,” it said

The foundation said it would apply for the legal liquidation of its operations as soon as possible.

According to the New York Times, a representative for Open Society said maintaining the organization’s operations in Istanbul had become “completely untenable.”

“We are deeply dismayed and disappointed that the foundation had to close,” an Open Society spokeswoman, Laura Silber, said on Monday. But, she said, “it became completely untenable.”

Open Society purports to support “justice and human rights” in more than 100 countries; but in more recent years, it has primarily focused on Soros’ liberal agenda of open borders and free trade while resisting the wave of populist sentiment that has swept across Europe and the US.

Why No Outrage When Obama Admin Used Tear Gas On Illegal Border Crossers?

While the liberal media is brimming with outrage over President Trump’s administration using “tear gas” on caravan migrants attempting to storm the border, there was no such outrage when Obama did the same thing.

Back in 2013, the Obama administration pepper sprayed a group of approximately 100 rock-throwing migrants who attempted to illegally cross our border. The media was relatively silent. However, Sunday’s clash between border patrol and migrants caused a media sensation. The Huffington Post reported that border agents fired tear gas on hundreds of migrants protesting near the border with Mexico on Sunday after some of them attempted to get through the fencing and wire separating the two countries, and American authorities shut down the nation’s busiest border crossing from the city where thousands are waiting to apply for asylum. The situation devolved after the group began a peaceful march to appeal for the U.S. to speed processing of asylum claims for Central American migrants marooned in Tijuana. Bizpacreview.com reported on the difference between the 2013 coverage and Sunday’s clash. The reaction Sunday by the pearl-clutching left and their media allies to the chaotic scene on the southern border could serve as Exhibit A in a case study on hypocrisy, and goes to show that it’s all about politics. Unless the Obama administration is held to a different standard when setting the precedent for actions taken by the Trump administration. Hundreds of illegal immigrants from the migrant caravan made a mad rush on the U.S. border, with some becoming violent, attacking Border Patrol agents with rocks. Agents held their ground, fighting back with flash bang grenades and tear gas. The 2013 article is below. From San Diego Tribune A group of about 100 people trying to illegally cross the border Sunday near the San Ysidro port of entry threw rocks and bottles at U.S. Border Patrol agents, who responded by using pepper spray and other means to force the crowd back into Mexico, federal officials said. The incident has raised concerns among advocates on both sides of the immigration debate, as well as Border Patrol representatives. Immigrant-rights groups in San Diego said they didn’t know beforehand about the plan to rush the border, and they worry that desperation is driving homeless deportees to make a bold bid to rejoin their families in the United States. Border-security groups see this situation as evidence that the border remains unsecured, something they said should be fixed before Congress considers proposals to grant legal status to unauthorized immigrants. And Border Patrol representatives worry that Sunday’s confrontation could be a political protest, which they said agents want to avoid — especially when it involves the potential for loss of life. The incident occurred about a quarter-mile west of the San Ysidro border crossing in the Tijuana River channel. No one was seriously injured, no shots were fired and no arrests were made, said Mary Beth Caston, a Border Patrol spokeswoman. The group first approached a lone agent stationed about 1/8 of a mile north of the border. They ignored his commands to stop, so he fired pepper balls to try to stop them and protect himself, Caston said.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑