Current Riots in America (June 2020)

Recommended Posts

Others are not as restrained as Andy.

From Infowars (Paul Joseph Watson):

Alleged killer was a hardcore leftist.


The identity of the alleged shooter was later revealed to be snowboarding instructor Michael Reinoehl, who according to his social media profile is a hardcore leftist.

The police obviously have this information by now. So let's see what they say.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, I forgot.

There's this, too.

Portland Shooter Allegedly Identified By 4Chan: This Is The Supposed Killer Black Lives Matter Celebrated


Today, just hours after the shooting took place, a crowd-sourced effort has revealed the likely identity of the shooter.

Michael Reinoehl, 48, A Native Of Portland And Self-Proclaimed Security Guard For The Portland Rioters Appears To Be The Trigger Man

After collectively scouring the internet from footage from other riot incidents, citizen sleuths on 4chan managed to uncover what appears to be the shooter in last night’s execution of a Patriot Prayer member and supporter of President Donald Trump. Below you will find the evidence collected by the anonymous image board that Nationalist Review found quite compelling. Among the exhibits are side-by-side photos, an upload from Reinoehl’s Instagram in which he wears the same vest as the shooter, and an interview he recently published with Bloomberg explaining that he viewed himself as security for the riots.


4Chan Users Appear to Have Identified Portland Rioter Who Shot and Killed Trump Supporter

A Tweet in the article:

And pictures:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was re-watching that revolting video of Rand Paul and his wife being accosted on the street. I was thinking about the moral and legal advisability of defending him if I had been there. The question I pose: “Is it moral to travel to a place and help defend individuals and property owners from those who seek to riot, loot, destroy, maim or murder? I don’t think any “rational person” would deny that the police, national guard, and Army are legitimately tasked with that job. But what about honest, decent patriots who declare, “This must stop?” In the American Old West no one waited for the sheriff.

Michael Miller is a bit macabre, but I suppose the death penalty and lethal retaliatory force, is too. Peter

Notes. From: Michael Miller To: objectivism Subject: OWL: After-the-fact retaliatory force Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 16:25:47 -0700. In January 1963, Nathaniel Branden published this on p.3 of THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER:

"What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment? In considering this issue, two separate aspects must be distinguished: the ~moral~ and the ~legal~.

The moral question is: Does the man who commits willful murder, in the absence of any extenuating circumstances, ~deserve~ to have his own life forfeited? Here, the answer is unequivocally: ~Yes~. Such a man deserves to die -- not as "social revenge" or as an "example" to future potential murderers -- but as the logical and just consequence of his own act: as an expression of the moral principle that no man may take the life of another and still retain the right to his own, that no man may profit from an evil of this kind or escape the consequences of having committed it.

However, the ~legal question~: Should a legal system employ capital punishment? -- is of a different order. There are grounds for debate -- though ~not~ out of sympathy or pity for murderers.

If it were possible to be fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; ~that~ is the problem. There have been instances recorded where all the available evidence pointed overwhelmingly to a man's guilt, and the man was convicted, and then subsequently discovered to be innocent. It is the possibility of executing an ~innocent~ man that raises doubt about the legal advisability of capital punishment. It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisonment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death. If a man is unjustly imprisoned and subsequently proven to be innocent, some form of restitution is still possible: none is possible if he is dead.

The problem involved is that of establishing criteria of proof so rationally stringent as to forbid the possibility of convicting an innocent man. It should be noted that the legal question of capital punishment is outside the sphere of philosophy proper: it is to be resolved by a special, separate discipline: the philosophy of law."


Michael Miller comments: This should leave little or no room to doubt that the Objectivist position on the right to life includes its negation by the act of initiating force. As Bill Dwyer so efficiently clarified in post #2 of 2 6/30, that right is conditional, and only those who sustain their recognition of it may continue to lay claim to it for their own benefit.

Branden's article coincides also with my contention, 6/23 and 6/28, that the morality of including death as a possible consequence of the exercise of after-the-fact is not a problem. The problem is establishing certainty. The problem is not one of ethics, it is one of technology.

Carpet-bombing of Germany by the Allies in WWII was not immoral, even though the potential for error of that method and the number of innocents killed was high. The solution was not to ban bombing in war for fear of error, but to pursue systems that could obviate such errors, like the smart-bombs of the Gulf War.

Additionally, the importance of the role of the death penalty vis a vis rational justice has been exaggerated in this discussion, because most of the posts have been concrete-bound in the context of our present philosophical-cultural-political complex with all of its inherent imperfections. The word-pair "death penalty" itself locks the debate into the tradition-generated false alternative of life-imprisonment v. execution with its excessive interest in punishment.

The alternative to both, which I introduced in my post of June 23, takes death from the head of the line and places it last in importance in the design of systems and standards for exercising after-the-fact retaliatory force. Here is a more concise outline of it:


1) PROTECTION OF SOCIETY from potential future harm

a) by willful act of the criminal, and

b) by erroneous or inordinate use by the State of its delegated retaliatory powers.

2) COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS AND SOCIETY for losses sustained and costs imposed by the criminal's act.

3) UNCOERCED FUNDING OF JUSTICE, specifically, the costs that are beyond the capacity of the criminal to provide.


The State is exempted from any limitations on the use of retaliatory force against the criminal that are normally imposed by and enumerated in the Constitution to guarantee all men the right to life. The criminal's failure to refrain from initiating force, which is a prerequisite for the recognition of one's right to life, disqualifies him from further claiming that right.

Rather, the State's limitations, which shall be enumerated in the Constitution as well, are necessitated solely by the requirement to maximize the 3 goals above. Fulfilling those goals is part of State's mandate to guarantee all men who do ~not~ refrain from the initiation of force ~their~ right to life.

I will not attempt to list all such limitations here. Our discussion is focused on only one at the moment. And please note: there was no need to even mention death in presenting my position. It is not an issue of primary importance in a presentation of retaliatory force as it could and should be. It is only the primary issue to those who limit themselves to the topic of retaliatory force as it is exercised today.

Furthermore, these goals are all but insurmountable barriers to the option of causing or allowing the death of the criminal. The fulfillment of 1b demands every caution detailed to death (oops!) in the posts of this discussion. The maximization of 2 and 3 requires that the criminal be alive to be productive. Nevertheless, it is ~not~ to be totally excluded as a moral option for after-the-fact retaliatory force.

To include the death of the criminal as a moral option, four criteria must be met:

1) Protection of society requires incarceration of the criminal, because he is too dangerous.

2) The criminal refuses or is unable to produce enough value to pay for his own incarceration.

3) No one and no other State, volunteers (for whatever reason) to pay for and guarantee his incarceration. (Without volunteers and that guarantee, sending a criminal to another State would violate the rights of its innocent citizens).

4) Absolute certainty of guilt. The standards for certainty would vary according to the efficacy of technologies available. That would be weighed by the citizenry against their long-term confidence in the probable future objectivity of their Constitution, government, and each other. As with all other issues, the dominant assessment of that confidence would define the standards to be met, and the government would succeed or fail in this portion of their task per the accuracy of that assessment.

Whenever all four criteria are met, the State would have no alternative but to allow (starvation), facilitate (cup of hemlock), or execute (lethal injection) the death of the criminal. If at that time any debt is still owed to the victim(s),  the State would be required to effect the death of the criminal in a way to  maximize the value of his remains (particularly the viable organs), which would become part of the criminal's estate and thence the property of the victim(s).

This is a benevolent scheme for after-the-fact retaliatory force. It is more protective of society, more mitigating for the victim, and more judicious to the criminal than others I have encountered. I will be grateful for any constructive contribution to its refinement. Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Whenever all four criteria are met, the State would have no alternative but to allow (starvation), facilitate (cup of hemlock), or execute (lethal injection) the death of the criminal. If at that time any debt is still owed to the victim(s),  the State would be required to effect the death of the criminal in a way to  maximize the value of his remains (particularly the viable organs), which would become part of the criminal's estate and thence the property of the victim(s).

This would be absolutely fitting, unfortunately it looks like this guy's organs won't be worth much.


After the "We got a Trumper, right here!" you hear, "Right here?" immediately before the gunshot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what clueless looks like.

This is so dumb on its own, this guy is so dumb on the surface, I don't know what to say to point to any underlying anything.

What you see is what you get.

This guy is dumb through and through.

And he preens as self-righteous about his own stupidity while he whines like a five-year old about the big bad bully.

It's an amazing thing to behold.


And now, if and when he cries uncle and asks for federal aid, he's going to have to swallow this right in front of President Trump's face, which means right in front of the whole world.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some peaceful protesters in Oakland. California last Wednesday.

They were lovingly screeching and yelling, "Death to America!" in call and response along with peacefully destroying property.

For those who keep trying to find a deeper meaning and excuse the excesses of zeal, they're not hiding what they want.

And don't forget, it doesn't matter what YOU think. In terms of what they will do if unimpeded, it only matters to them what THEY think.

Now look at reality, not just the story in your head. They are telling you to your face:

America--to them--means you. Your whole life. Your whole way of life.

All of it.

They want that dead.


  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how some people compare Bishop's murder to the targets of Rittenhouse. Their brains are not functional... Everything is justified in approaching equality; that's the only way to make sense of their evil.


I saw a new mural on the front of a women's shelter yesterday: "Until We've All Made It, None of Us Have Made It." Anyone who disagrees with this must be bigoted towards those groups who are typically seen as having not "made it."


They are riling themselves up. They are stoking their own craziness because they think the chaos today is their opportunity to finally do something good with their lives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the Viet Nam War protesters and there were millions of them. In contrast there are sometimes hundreds of “city protesters” and most of them are paid agitators not even from those cities. So, does the following also apply to the rioters, looters, and murderers in cities across America? Is insurrection a reason for the Federal Government to get involved? After all, those mayors who are allowing some lawbreakers, in the name of free speech,  to squash the rights of law abiding citizens, are derelict in their duties.  From the “Playboy,” Ayn Rand interview.

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2020 at 5:52 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

What did Beck fight Trump over?  You probably talked about it plenty at the time, but....I've forgotten what Beck's declared grievances with Trump were.



On 6/4/2020 at 10:23 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


Basically Beck thought Trump was immoral. Beck backed Ted Cruz in the primaries with everything he had. After Trump won the nomination, Beck went on a campaign against Trump that was similar to Rachel Maddow's preaching, "Muh Russians!" every night, except Beck talked about Trump being a con man, Godless, not fit to be president, a buffoon, and things like that. He was in-like-Flynn with the Republican never-Trumpers and wrote one of the biggest articles in the National Review anti-Trump edition. He had public feuds with people like Hannity over Trump. Then he started saying that anyone who supported Trump was immoral, stupid, naive, and so on.

I don't remember if he supported Hillary Clinton at some point. I don't think he did. But he was engaged heart, mind, body and soul against Trump. He also lost about 80% of his audience back then over this.

Then one magic day, he sat in front of the camera and said (I paraphrase), "You're not going to believe this." He pulled out a red MAGA hat and put it on. "I am now on the Trump train. Make America great again." Then he went off into a discussion of why, but I don't think anyone remembers the reasons. That's because everyone thought he got his ass kicked and cried, "Uncle!" Nothing more.

The weird thing is that Trump espoused all the fundamental values Beck espoused from Day 1 and Trump actually implemented them as he went along.

Beck's behavior to me--and to many others--was self-serving in a really gauche manner. Trump was getting the crowds and influence Beck thought he would get for himself and bring to Ted Cruz. Beck lost, but went down kicking and screaming like a baby. Then to stay in the game, he capitulated.

Along the way, he betrayed everything he believed in for power and influence.

That's the distrust I feel for him.

But there is a core to Beck where he actually believes his values--and these are values that are welcome to any Trump supporter. This is the part I hope is reawakening in his soul as he stops sleeping with the enemies of America and of people like us.

Like I said, even if this attitude of his stays hot only for the duration of the take-down of the Deep State, I'll take it. Beck is super talented and when he is on, he knows how to mobilize crowds. Trump doesn't need him for that, but on the scale Beck can pull it off, it would help cement things for Trump's reelection and taking back the House.


Well, it looks like Glenn Beck is finally out of the dog house.

And I think that happened here, about 4 or 5 days ago.

So this happened.

That's the very first time I am aware of that President Trump has tweeted about Glenn Beck.

Let's hope Beck doesn't screw it up.

Like I said in a quoted post above, he is good at mobilizing people at local levels. If he pours that ammo at helping elect Republicans in House elections, I think he can make an important difference.


EDIT: President Trump also followed with a series of tweets and retweets referencing The Blaze, starting with this one:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2020 at 7:42 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The victim has been identified.

And his cold-blooded murder was a group effort.

See the Gateway Pundit article below:

MUST SEE: NEW VIDEO ANALYSIS of Murder of Aaron Danielson (Jay Bishop) in Portland Suggests it Was an Organized Antifa Team Assassination

A link to the video is given below, but the entire Gateway Pundit article bears reading. This was a coordinated assassination.


Here's the video on Minds.

Comprehensive view of the Portland assassination. NSFW. Is this a coordinated kill team?


The video doesn't embed. Clicking on the headline or the image takes you to Minds where you can watch the video without joining.

btw - NSFW means Not Safe For Work.

It is a 7+ minute video with a step-by-step analysis of this murder superimposed over paused images. The raw video itself seems to have been taken by one of the killer's team members (with spoken commentary by same), but written comments and arrows were superimposed on the stopped images by someone else (one of the good guys).

At the end of the video, the guy filming pretends his has been gassed or something while a person who arrives advises him to turn the video over to the cops. After being blown off, he then demands it. The guy filming keeps trying to get out of the situation.

This was a coordinated hit and filmed on purpose (for whatever reason) by the bad guys.

What's worse, from what I see, the victim was probably chosen at random for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

I predict the targeted murder rate Of Antifa members is about to go up....


President Trump was sure pissed.

But the doofus who killed Jay Danielson decided to do a TV interview for Vice where he ended up confessing. It was a little inadvertent, but it was clear.

A few hours later, bro... he dahyed.

The cops cornered him, there was a gunfight, and bye-bye killer. From the sheer number of bullets he unloaded on the cops, when they shot back, I don't think they were in a mood to worry about a media narrative.

FIRST PHOTOS AND VIDEO: Antifa Killer Michael Reinoehl Shot Dead in Washington State — US Marshals Attempt to Revive Him



BREAKING: Antifa killer of Trump supporter shot dead by law enforcement



Reinoehl had reportedly fled Oregon and crossed state lines into Washington. A federal fugitive task force located him outside of Olympia.

Reinoehl reportedly left an apartment complex appearing to be armed, The Olympian reported, and entered his vehicle when a shootout began. The shooting occurred in the 7600 block of 3rd Way Southeast in Tanglewilde about 7 p.m. Shots were apparently fired at a traffic stop, KATU reported.

Witnesses at the scene cited an unmarked SUV parked on School Street when the vehicle converged with another on the car at the apartment.

The suspect reportedly exited his car and fired what was believed to be an assault rifle at the SUVs. Bystanders noted hearing 40 or 50 shots, then officers returned fire, hitting Reinoehl.


One down.

But that one down can no longer finger his partners.

From what little I saw of the video, the killer of Danielson was emotionally imbalanced and in a huge state of rationalization, one that felt to me like it had been engineered. I bet he had a handler who knew how to push his buttons to get him to act.

Both to kill Danielson and to commit suicide by cop in a blaze of glory.

When listening to him talk to Vice, he sounded like what I imagine a suicide bomber would sound like (with adjustments for culture).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From what little I saw of the video, the killer of Danielson was emotionally imbalanced and in a huge state of rationalization, one that felt to me like it had been engineered. I bet he had a handler who knew how to push his buttons to get him to act.

Both to kill Danielson and to commit suicide by cop in a blaze of glory.

When listening to him talk to Vice, he sounded like what I imagine a suicide bomber would sound like (with adjustments for culture).

I'm glad he's dead, it would be wrong for tax payers to have to pay for this terrorist's imprisonment. The left-wing terrorists seem to have a type:

Willem Van Spronsen


Willem Van Spronsen was an anarchist and anti-fascist who was shot and killed by Tacoma Police officers while trying to set fire to a propane tank with incendiary devices during an attack at an ICE detention center in Tacoma on Saturday, July 13. 2019 Van Spronsen was previously arrested in 2018 at the Tacoma detention facility when he was accused of lunging at a police officer who was detaining another protester. (Courtesy of Twitter)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can count on the fake news media to try to hide information about Danielson's killer and spin a soft story.

Between this and the worst of the alt press, it's hard to find a difference.

If the fake news media is going to keep using this propaganda crap even for cold-blooded murderers as the standard, what's wrong with full freedom of speech for everybody?

This same fake news media is trying to be a censor, yet favors cold-blooded murderers.

I predict they are going to get the financial punishment they deserve. Many outlets are downsizing, closing and going bankrupt.

No wonder. People want news and all they get is the crap they serve up.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intellectual underpinning of Black Lives Matter and Antifa are going bye-bye from the Federal Government. I expect this to start a trend among institutions, corporations and at places in the education system (which is far too corrupt at the present to expunge this throughout the system).

Critical Race Theory is the name of the snake that keeps BLM and Antifa alive. The snake has a mother and father, so more snakes are out there. But this one just got a mortal wound.

Party’s Over: Trump Orders Purge of ‘Critical Race Theory’ from Federal Agencies



At the direction of President Trump, the White House Office of Management and Budget will move to identify and eliminate any trace of “critical race theory” in the federal government.

Critical race theory is the leftist, racist doctrine that forms the intellectual underpinnings of Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and other radical organizations currently engaged in unrest on America’s streets.

It alleges, among other things, that the United States is a white supremacist country, and that all white people are guilty of racism, whether they intend it or not.


You can read a pdf of the Memorandum from here.

It may not seem like it, but this is HUGE. 

Ayn Rand always talked about philosophy being a prime mover of men. Well a horrible philosophy just got a kick in the balls at the government level and I think the trend is going to continue.

Later, since people are people, they will eventually take it too far the other way and become what they despise, but that's another fight for another day. Critical Race Theory is the snake that is biting right now.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I expect this to start a trend among institutions, corporations and at places in the education system (which is far too corrupt at the present to expunge this throughout the system).

The education system is thoroughly dominated by that kind of junk at this time, but one can hope.  A trend has to start somewhere.

Fifty-two years ago is about when the trend toward "studies" programs started - women's studies, black studies, minorities studies, etc.  

From September 1968 - spring 1969, I worked as typist and research assistant on a proposal being put forth to Vassar.  Vassar was planning to fund a special program of some sort.  The proposal I was working on, overseen by Charles Frankel, was for an interdisciplinary science/humanities curriculum.  I would have loved to enroll in the proposed course plan.

The program wasn't funded.  Instead, two other projects - women's studies and race studies - got the go-ahead.

The decision was in keeping with the trend beginning at many universities then.

The result of the trend has not been glorious.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The education system is thoroughly dominated by that kind of junk at this time, but one can hope.  A trend has to start somewhere.


And it is fitting to let the guy who signed the Memorandum take a bow.

I believe he just earned a place in history as more than a footnote.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a peaceful protester lobbing a peaceful Molotov cocktail at the police in Portland and setting another peaceful protester on fire.

The way the guy was dancing away from the main blaze with his shoes on fire is already turning into a meme called the Antifa Shuffle.


You can read more about this here


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now