Chaperone of high-school kids:

I would like to answer the question the FOX reporter asked the Catholic School chaperone which she was unable to answer.

Article on above graphic here:

Source for image above:

More evidence for any reasonable hypothesis you may have formed from the images and information above:

Catholic Leaders Refuse to Retract Slander of School Boys at March for Life

A number of Catholic leaders and institutions who slandered a group of Catholic school boys after the annual March for Life remain silent after the boys were shown to be innocent.

A short video released on social media made it appear that a group of students from Covington Catholic High School could have accosted Native American activist Nathan Phillips, whereas more extensive footage from different angles made it clear that it was Mr. Phillips who approached the boys and began playing his drum directly in the face of one of them.

 

Videos show that the students were not propagating racist abuse, they were being victimized by it. One of the activists who confronted the group told them: “You white people go back to Europe where you came from! This is not your land!”

A lot of people have contributed to this post. I have lost track of all but Xanthippa, and Richard at this point but thank you all for your diligence and keeping track of this increasingly bizarre, yet revealing story.

I begin to think the less sense a viral story makes, the greater the importance at a level of abstraction that is perhaps, not being addressed.

Lets go back to first principles in terms of what makes a law work. Something that it’s becoming increasingly clear, the Islamic-leftist alliance did at the strategic level at least, some time ago.

In a democracy,  a bunch of us decide what is not acceptable and then pass laws to make those unacceptable things clear, and then hire people on the public purse to make sure that those who engage in those practices are caught and force is applied to them. Those who are hired to use force on behalf of the state have limits, transparency and are themselves in theory, accountable to law.

In a democracy, certainly in the US, but generally in the West, that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed. The opposite of leftism and islamic cultures/law (after all, what is law other than the formal codification of a culture, right?) where all that is allowed is expressed and all else is forbidden generally.

Freedom of speech for example is a given. People may say what they want without fear of persecution by the state, is more than a cornerstone of democracy, its the entire foundation, basement windows, plaster and paint on the inside walls and a nice stucco finish for Western democracy because controlling the flow of information is controlling what decisions people make. Every tyrant’s dream. (You indexing this Google?)

The left of course has circumnavigated that right by passing selectively enforced “hate-speech” laws, where those law enforcement officers who’s job it was to protect your rights, now really are goons for the state to make sure you practice right-speech and right-think.

But that isn’t the major force for change in the West today, although it is one of them.

First principles teach us that whatever we do or want or believe can be overcome with sufficient force applied in just the right way.

So our system gets overwhelmed with muslims demanding we not speak truthfully about Islam in a way that makes it look bad to people who do not hold the values that slavery, rape, forced marriage, genocide, terrorism, and Islamic-supremacy uber-alles are good things.

They apply force to any publication or individual that can be identified, as an example to others who might speak out of turn, thereby in effect (which is all that matters to muslims and leftists at this stage) creating new laws. We are afraid to say what we know is true, because the consequences are real and negative. This applies to questioning global-warming with actual climate science, open borders, Islam, with actual islamic history and Scripture and so on and so on. I think the example of Charlie Hebdo is a good one as its the most spectacular. But there are literally tens of thousands of examples of people who have been negatively affected for saying true things about Islam or leftist sacred cows ranging from death, to attempted murder, Lars Hedigaard and Kurt Westergaard just for two, to being fired, ostracized or losing family connections ad friends.

Examples of this are quite frequent in the last seven days and in fact, I have wanted to write about this for a while now. But what happened to these kids is too good an example to let it sit any longer. That, and the Church’s seemingly bizarre reaction to it, if you do not understand how this pope intends to destroy the Church as it has been for a very, very long time now.

Soviet Crucifix Francis, Equador commie president

In fact his behaviour is 100% consistent with someone who is trying to undermine the authority, message, and dignity of the Vatican, in much the way it appeared that Obama was trying to do to the office of president. (Fortunately for America, his fans and supporters imputed so much dignity to his presidency that this one kind of damage did not succeed) Note that the Pope denied sanctuary to an actual Catholic Pakistani who was convicted on blasphemy of Islam charges while simultaneously demanding Europe destroy itself with islamic immigration.

But back to the central thesis:

For a decade or more now, I have watched as police have moved from enforcing the law, to trying to reduce the amount of violence and injuries in a given situation. An example might be where in I think it was Sweden, and this has to be 8 years ago minimum, a pro-Israel group of Jews and non-leftists had a permit for a peaceful demo with folk style music and so on, and a large group of Muslims and leftist came and presented such a threat that the police arrested (on a catch and release basis) the legal peaceful people in order to stop what looked like it could have been an awful and violent scene.

Now you have law enforcement acting as mitigators for the real law makers. Those with the willingness and capability using the most force to a purpose.

You cannot get a permit to do something involving drawings of Mohammad, or any other point where muslims have demonstrated a willingness to use force. And of course this will increase in terms of the scope of the demands as the population of muslims increases. One of the best examples in the past few days will be to see how fast Marks and Spencer changes the Aloe leaf on their toilet paper because ONE MUSLIM said it looked like the arabic symbol for ‘Allah’.

It is unlikely they won’t. Burger King changed their packaging for soft serve ice cream because their line drawing of a soft serve ice cream cone, looked like allah to one muslim. Sony changed an entire video game because one muslim felt the music in one part of it resembled something something blasphemy islamic.

Orban recognizes this and its why he simply will not let muslims into Hungary, because there is no way you can without losing sovereignty. Muslims believe in the use of any and all means possible, especially violence and ideally lethality, to be the law and only culture in a territory. Their ideology, their central dogma demands it. There is no denying this. Read the Koran and the most authoritative Hadiths, not to mention Reliance of the Traveler, a book written in English, for muslims outside of the officially Islamic world.

And so Muslims and Leftists will use force to make damn sure that no matter what is true, fair, just or honourable, people will be afraid to stand against them.

The number of people who know that the Catholic high school kids are the real victims of this event is predictable. Generally, the headline is a lie favouring a leftist or Islamic narrative. Then the correction comes out. No “Asian” cut the little girl’s head cloth, the whole thing was a hoax, right? But only a fraction of those that know about the initial event know the truth of it, and the policies that were desired will be enacted whether the event was true or not.