Mediaboss Marketing

NRA-TV host Colion Noir blasted Black Lives Matter and liberal Democrats who support the organization in a scathing ad that also defended a recent NRA video spot from TheBlaze TVs Dana Loesch.

Noir said Black Lives Matter as evidenced by an ad it released this week against the NRA and Loesch has become nothing more than a weaponized race-baiting machine, pushing the extreme liberal Democratic agenda, calling any and everything that doesnt fit that agenda white supremacy.'

Noir took on a number of other NRA opponents during his compelling 12-minute video response, along with widespread lies about the group. And first among them was the notion among the left that Loeschs ad amounted to the NRA declaring war against black people.

But Noir shot that down.

He said he watched Loeschs NRA spot over and over and over again and had a hard time seeing where this NRA ad called for violence against anyone, much less against black people. If anything the video was calling for fighting violence with truth. Hell, I saw more white people looting and being destructive in the NRA ad than I ever saw watching a Black Lives Matter protest on liberal cable news shows like CNN.

Then he hit back at the Black Lives Matter response ad with a scathing dose of reality:

According to this Black Lives Matter video, apparently the only people capable of racism against black people are white conservatives. Yet the egregiously poor state of our black communities have come under the leadership of the same liberal politicians, liberal organizations and liberal billionaires of the last 50 years. And our inner-city communities are still in disrepair.

Noir discusses poor education and poverty in the black community, declaring that the NRA has nothing to do with advancing such problems but he does call out others.

Noting how difficult it is for many black kids to attend better schools, Noir says their families cant afford to live in such communities because theyre living on a single income of a household headed by a single black mother. The question then becomes: What happened to the fathers?

He also lays direct blame for issues in black communities at the feet of the political left:

For decades our communities have been run by deceitful liberals and Democrats who promised us the stars and the moon during election cycles and disappeared once in office. The tactics are always the same. Buy off well-meaning black leaders and black organizations like Black Lives Matter with insane amounts of cash so theyre incentivized to sell out and push their liberal Democratic agenda under the guise of improving the community by advocating the same, racist laws and policies that continue to perpetuate the horrible conditions in our communities to begin with.

Check out the entire clip. Its well worth digesting:

(H/T: Bearing Arms)

See more here:
Black NRA-TV host rips Black Lives Matter, calls it a 'weaponized race-baiting machine' - TheBlaze.com

In fact, they justified the violence as necessary to the movement and war, he pleads.

The plaintiff officer is identified as Officer John Doe Smith, a duly commissioned officer acting in the line of duty in East Baton Rouge Parrish. The complaint filed in U.S. district court in the Middle District of Louisiana pleads that on July 17, 2016, he was working as a police officer when he was shot by a person violently protesting against police, and which violence was caused or contributed to by the leaders of and by BLACK LIVES MATTER a militant anti-police organization.

The lawsuit was filed just as the nation remembered the five officers killed and wounded in Dallas on July 7 last year and grieved the execution murder of NYPD Officer Miosotis Familia. The 48-year-old mother of threewas shot in the face this past week as she sat in her law enforcement vehicle.

The execution of five officers and the wounding of six others in Texas last July came just as a Black Lives Matter protest concluded. The Dallas shootings came just one day after Philando Castile of St. Paul, Minnesota, was shot by an officer and the aftermath was live streamed and narrated by his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds. The video went viral.

Breitbart News reported on July 17, 2016, about the execution of the three Baton Rouge police officers, and the wounding of three others near the Baton Rouge Police Department headquarters on that Sunday morning. Breitbart Texas reported that the killer, Gavin Long of Kansas City, Missouri, was in Houston and Dallas right before his attack. Asreportedby Jerome Hudson for Breitbart News, Long left behind a lengthy, twisted history ofencouraging violence and anti-American sentimentson social media. Long was very active onTwitterand Instagram. He also called the Dallas police sniper, Micah X. Johnson one of us.

The federal complaint charges that plaintiff DERAY MCKESSON was a leader of the national unincorporated organization that is known as BLACK LIVES MATTER and other derivative and/or related organizations. It continues that in 2016 McKesson and the other defendants, Johnetta Nettie Elzie, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Network, Inc., and #BlackLivesMatter:

planned the Summer of Chaos, Weekend of Rage, and used the internet and social media to organize, stage and orchestrate protests and to attend and/or lead multiple protests and violence that accompanied the protests including, among many others, those in Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore, Maryland; McKinney, Texas; Dallas, Texas; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Baton Rouge protests, in large part, took place outside the Baton Rouge Police Department located in front of the former Womans Hospital on Airline Highway. This place is the same area where this shooting took place.

Black Lives Matter lists its principal place of business in California and has been formed as a partnership, the federal lawsuit states. Black Lives Matter Network, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation. It further pleads that Black Lives Matter is a national unincorporated association which states on its website donation payment receipt:

#BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society. It is an affirmation of Black folks contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

Black Lives Matter and its related associations/organizations were created by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, as well as, Deray McKesson and Johnetta Elsie, all of who are leaders. The complaint says that Netta Elzie and DeRay McKesson were in Baton Rouge during the protests.

The general allegations in the federal pleading begin with At least eleven (11) police have been shot dead and at least nine (9) more wounded by BLM protesters, activists, and/or supporters.

The pleading chronicles unrest, rioting, property damage, and/or violence in Baltimore; Ferguson and other places in Missouri; McKinney, Texas; Manhattan and Harlem; Tennessee; Phoenix; Minnesota; Oregon; North Carolina; San Diego; Indiana; and other cities and states.

It cites as one example, that after Michael Brown was shot by an officer in Ferguson in 2014, BLM started a mantra of holding their hands in the air and yelling Hands up, Dont shoot. Riots began the next day. The U.S. Department of Justice released a report in March 2015 that found that [Officer] Darren Wilson was not at fault and finding that Michael Brown did not have his hands in the air. This and other actions detailed in the federal lawsuit, including after Alton Sterling was shot by a Baton Rouge Police Officer on July 5, 2016, was seized upon to further incite its followers to take action against police.

McKesson and Elzie were in Baton Rouge for the purpose of demonstrating, protesting and rioting, as well as to incite others to violence against police and other law enforcement officers, the plaintiff officer urges.

Officer John Doe Smith is described as 42 years old, with two (2) children who worked in law enforcement for over 18 years. He was shot in an ambush of Law Enforcement Officers on July 17, 2016, by an activist whose actions followed and mimicked those of another BLM activist who killed several officers in Dallas just days earlier.

The officer has asked for damages, including medical and hospital bills, saying the shot through his abdomen tore up his intestines. He has had to endure 16 surgeries to his abdomen and must now wear a colostomy bag. He has a hole in his large intestine that leaks into the exit wound which in part is a cause for continuing infections. He has also undergone three surgeries after he was shot in the head on his left side and he will have to endure more. His left ear had to be sewn back on. The officer is permanently disabled.

Officer Smith has asked for damages for physical pain and suffering, physical injuries, emotional and mental distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, the loss of employment opportunities and future earning capacity and lost wages, and for all litigation expenses, and other damages.

Breitbart Texas reported in November that the father of one of the officersexecuted in Dallas in July 2016 at a Black Lives Matter protest filed a lawsuit against Black Lives Matter, Rev. Al Sharpton, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, George Soros, and others charging that they inflamed and inspired a War on Police. Tometi, Cullors, Garza, McKesson and Elzie are also named in that lawsuit. Breitbart News reportedlast August that Soros Open Society Institute approved $650,000 in 2015 toinvest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.

Lana Shadwickis a writer and legal analyst for Breitbart Texas. She has served as a prosecutor and associate judge in Texas. Follow her on Twitter@LanaShadwick2.

Officer John Doe Smith Lawsuit Against Black Lives Matter and BLM Leaders

Continue reading here:
Wounded Baton Rouge Officer Sues Black Lives Matter, Five Leaders

One of the police officers who was grievously wounded last July in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in a brutal attack by Gavin Long, a black, 29-year-old former Marine, filed an action on Friday for damages against the Black Lives Matter movement and several of its leading activists, including DeRay Mckesson and Johnetta Elzie, alleging that they negligently caused the attack.

The complaint alleges that the defendants used the internet and social media to organize, stage and orchestrate protests, that they knew or should have known that some of these protests had in the past become violent and that police officers had been injured, and that they did nothing to condemn or to discourage such violence.

Although I am deeply sympathetic to the plaintiff, an officer who was innocent of any wrongdoing, the trial judge should dismiss the complaint. The essential claim set forth by the plaintiff is that the defendants should have known that their speech condemning the attacks by police officers across the country against African-Americans might at some point lead some individual in this instance an individual with serious emotional issues to viciously attack police officers somewhere in the country.

The reason the judge should dismiss the complaint is not because it was inconceivable that of the millions of individuals exposed to the Black Lives Matter movements expression someone might have done what Long did, but because that is not the test for restricting speech in our democracy.

The First Amendment prohibits government from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. But what does that mean?

In the Supreme Courts first decisions on the meaning of the First Amendment, during World War I, the Court held that any person whose speech had a bad tendency could be held civilly or criminally liable. Under this approach, an individual could be held liable if he could reasonably have foreseen that his expression might contribute to unlawful conduct. Under this approach, some 2,000 individuals during World War I were imprisoned for terms ranging up to twenty years in prison merely for criticizing the war or the draft, on the theory that such speech might turn people against the war and thus have the effect of discouraging enlistment or encouraging insubordination.

Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis vehemently dissented from this understanding of the First Amendment. Holmes maintained, for example, that we

should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Several years later, Justice Brandeis added that those who won our independence . . . knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment, that fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly, and that

even advocacy of law breaking... is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on.

In 1969, in a unanimous opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court fully embraced the Holmes-Brandeis approach. The case involved the prosecution of a member of the Ku Klux Klan who declared at a Klan rally that it might be necessary for members of the Klan to take revengence if the government continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race. The Supreme Court held that the defendants speech could not constitutionally be punished and that the First Amendment forbade the government to restrict even speech that expressly advocates unlawful behavior except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

That has been the governing law ever since. But, you might ask, Why? Why shouldnt the First Amendment permit the Black Lives Matter defendants to be held liable because they allegedly should have known that their speech condemning police attacks on African Americans might conceivably have led someone at some time in the future to shoot six policeman? In short, why did the Supreme Court come around to embracing the Holmes-Brandeis approach?

There are many reasons, but here are two of the most obvious. First, experience teaches that individuals are easily deterred from exercising their freedom of speech. This is so because individual speakers usually gain very little personally from speaking out they know that whether they speak or not is not likely to have any significant impact on society. If they fear that they might go to jail or be held liable for damages for their speech, they will often forego their right to speak. This is known as the chilling effect. The net effect of this chilling effect when many individuals react the same way is to mutilate the thought process of the community. If those who endorse the Black Lives Matter movement could potentially be held liable for criticizing police misconduct because their speech might indirectly lead someone to kill a policeman, then our public discourse will be seriously crippled.

Second, experiences also teaches that if government can penalize speakers for their speech under a low standard for liability, it is likely to use that power selectively. It will pursue civil or criminal liability against those who convey views those in authority dislike, while at the same time shielding those whose views they want to encourage. In this way, government would be well placed to manipulate public discourse in a dangerous manner.

Thus, as Holmes and Brandeis consistently maintained, except in emergencies, the proper remedy for speech that might conceivably lead to bad consequences is not to punish the speaker, but to engage in counter-speech, to use other measures to avoid the danger, and to punish the person who actually commits the crime.

In this particular case, the outcome is crystal clear. Indeed, every significant factor needed to hold speakers accountable for the acts of others is missing. These defendants did not expressly advocate the shooting of police officers, there is no reason to believe that they ever specifically intended to encourage such behavior, and there is no reason to believe that their speech had anything directly to do with the heinous actions of Gavin Long.

The judge should quickly and decisively dismiss this complaint to make clear that the First Amendment wholly protects the speech of the Black Lives Matter movement . . . and the freedom of all Americans.

Excerpt from:
The Lawsuit Against Black Lives Matter And The Central ...

According to the Washington Times, LA-based BLM activists released a video saying:

Were talking about our lives here. When theNRAissues a public call to their constituents inciting violence against people who are constitutionally fighting for their lives, we dont take that lightly. We know that we are not safe, but we are not scared, either. We will continue to produce media, teach students, march and protest to not only protect the First Amendment as fiercely as theNRAprotects the Second [Amendment], but to protect our lives from gun-toting racists.

The videos narrator uses the language of us vs. them to mimic the NRAs description of the left as them and the NRAs explanation of how the left uses their media to assassinate the truth. The narrator implies that President Trump is the oppositions president, elected as part of a law and order administration that allows themmeaning policeto shoot first, to make them ask questions to later, make them scream I thought he had a gun in his hand and I feared for my life and he matched the description of a suspect.'

This videoand the subsequent pledge to continue disrupting, demonstrating, and participating in the resistancemakes Black Lives Matter only the latest in a series of leftists and left-leaning groups to criticize the NRA for pointing out the violent propensities of the left.

On July 6 Breitbart News reported that the Los Angles Times suggested the NRAs campaign for truth was antisemitic. Prior to that, the Womens March described the NRAs campaign as a direct endorsement of violence against women and California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested the NRAs campaign for truth was putting politicians lives in danger, including his own.

All of this because the NRA released videos highlighting the lefts propensity for violence in media and in action.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Follow this link:
Black Lives Matter Suggests NRA Campaign for Truth Incites ...

Four years ago Thursday, the Black Lives Matter movement came into existence, shifting both how many Americans perceive social justice and the lexicon used to describe racial injustices.

"Four years ago, what is now known as the Black Lives Matter Global Network began to organize," the organization wroteon its website."It started out as a Black-centered political will and movement building project turned chapter-based, member-led organization whose mission is to build local power and to intervene when violence is inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. In the years since, weve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive."

The movement began after George Zimmerman,the man who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was acquittedin Florida. Since then, there have been countless killings of black Americans that the movement has addressed and put a spotlight on. In the wake of the deaths of Eric Garner in New York City, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in South Carolina, Freddie Gray in Baltimore and many others, "Black Lives Matter" became a rallying cry and hashtag in the wake of police-involved deaths of African-Americans.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

The protestshaveput the movement in the crosshairs of some Americans, President Donald Trump included. After Trump won the election, the movement said in a statementto Mic, in part: "What is true todayand has been true since the seizure of this landis that when black people and women build power, white people become resentful. Last week, that resentment manifested itself in the election of a white supremacist to the highest office in American government.... Donald Trump has promised more death,disenfranchisementand deportations. We believe him."

The president has targeted the organization, especially protesters who have taken to the streets. The White Housewebsite went live after inauguration and promised to end the"anti-police atmosphere" while noting "our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter." Slate wrote about this shift withthe headline "In One of His First Acts as President, Donald Trump Put Black Lives Matter on Notice."

In May, Trump delivered a speech that the conservative outlet The Washington Times noted took "aim at Black Lives Matter" and slammed"'hostility and violence'against police."

The Washington Post wrote in May that Black Lives Matter hada renewed sense of purpose under Trump, but had adopted a shift toward effecting policy as opposed to organizing protests. As Newsweek previously reported,hate crimes are rising across all marginalized groups in 2017, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Human Rights Campaign.

"What people are seeing is that there are less demonstrations," Alicia Garza, one of the three women who createdthe #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, told The Washington Post. "A lot of that is that people are channeling their energy into organizing locally, recognizing that in Trump's America, our communities are under direct attack."

Original post:
Black Lives Matter Four Years Later: Under Donald Trump ... - Newsweek