‘Knock That White Boy Out’: Arrests Made After Mob Of Teens Attack Disabled Vet

‘Knock That White Boy Out’: Arrests Made After Mob Of Teens Attack Disabled Vet

February 14, 2014 3:16 PM
File photo of a man in handcuffs (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

File photo of a man in handcuffs (Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

CLEVELAND, Ohio (CBS Cleveland) – Cleveland authorities have made several arrests following the mob beating of a disabled Army veteran by a group of teenagers.

Last Friday, the victim, Matthew Robinson, was surrounded by between six and eight teenagers while riding the RTA Healthline. Robinson told WOIO that he was attacked by the teens, then robbed of his possessions.

During the attack, the teens made several derogatory remarks about Robinson.

“What they were saying was, ‘Knock that boy out!’ ‘White boy.’ ‘Cracker,’” he was quoted as saying about the incident. “They were saying, ‘Knock that white boy out.’”

This week, three suspects – Kenneth Matthews, Ronald Reid Williams and an unnamed 16-year-old girl – were arrested by Cleveland and RTA police. The latter filmed the attack with her cell phone, and was said to still have the video at the time of her apprehension.

Despite the arrests, concern remains as other attacks of a similar nature have happened in the area, most of which are said to have been perpetrated by other young culprits, according to WOIO.

Added Robinson of the danger, “Your mother or sister could be on the bus, and the same thing could happen to them.”

CBS Laments Pope’s ‘Religious Street Protest’ is Anti-Obama, Pro-Putin.

CBS Laments Pope’s ‘Religious Street Protest’ is Anti-Obama, Pro-Putin

By Matthew Balan | September 6, 2013 | 14:58

 160  355 Reddit17  22
A  A
Matthew Balan's picture

On Friday’s CBS This Morning, Mark Phillips all but hinted that Pope Francis had “taken sides” with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and against President Obama in the international debate over military strikes in Syria. Phillips proposed that the Pope’s letter to Putin “must have been music to the Russian president’s ears.”

The journalist also turned to a “Vatican historian” who once publicly attacked Francis’ predecessor, Benedict XVI, as a “dictator”, and likened him to Islamists. He also labeled the Pope’s upcoming prayer and fasting vigil for peace in Syria a “religious street protest.”

Phillips led his report by noting that “popes have urged peace before. Remember, John Paul II was firmly against the Gulf War. This pope, Francis, is now actively arguing against military action against Syria. And the question is, does it matter?

The CBS correspondent continued by outlining Pope Francis’s recent actions on the Syria issue:

MARK PHILLIPS: This pope with the common touch has been uncommonly active, lobbying against an attack on Syria. He’s used his last two major public appearances in St. Peter’s Square to appeal to world leaders – and that primarily means President Obama – not to do it….Pope Francis has followed up his appeal by writing to Vladimir Putin as current president of the G-20. ‘Armed conflicts create profound divisions and deep wounds, which require many years to heal,’ he said. It must have been music to the Russian president’s ears.

The Pope may be taking a moral position, in his mind, but in arguing against military action, he has entered into the world of partisan international politics. He’s taken sides.

Phillips then played his clip from British author Michael Walsh. An on-screen graphic labeled Walsh a “Vatican historian“, but the journalist didn’t once mention that Walsh is a former Jesuit priest who maligned then-Pope Benedict XVI in the dissenting Catholic publication The Tablet in 2012:

The present Vatican regime, despite the obviously incompetent and dysfunctional administration, is a dictatorship….Whether the Pope [Benedict XVI] is a benevolent dictator or not rather depends on one’s point of view, but a dictator is what he is….And what do dictatorial regimes do when they are challenged? They lash out at all possible challengers to their power base, as we have seen across North Africa and the Middle East.

This isn’t the first time the CBS correspondent has given a platform to dissenters inside the Catholic Church. On the night of Pope Francis’ election, he singled out two radical feminists who were present in St. Peter’s Square, and let them spout in favor of women’s ordination and “LGBT issues [and] reproductive health care“.

Near the end of the segment, Phillips pointed out that the pontiff has “called for a mass prayer, fast, and peace vigil for St. Peter’s Square this Saturday“, but then referred to it as a “religious street protest“.

First time in American History: Obama and White House refer to the National Christmas Tree as the “Holiday Tree.” Ben Stein lashes out on CBS News against the War on Christmas.

Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as Holiday Trees for the first time this year which prompted CBS presenter, Ben Stein, to present this piece which I would like to share with you. I think it applies just as much to many countries as it does to America.
the family

The following was written  by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

 

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don’t feel threatened. I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crib, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God? I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham’s daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her: “How could God let something like this happen?” (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?”

In light of recent events… terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he’s talking about. And we said okay.

Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it…. no one will know you did. But if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

The most disgraceful hour on television: 60 minutes.

What President Obama really said in that ’60 Minutes’ interview about Benghazi

by Bret Baier | November 05, 2012

ANALYSIS: Two days before the election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 “60 Minutes” interview where President Obama seems to contradict himself on the Benghazi attack. As the Benghazi investigation gets more attention and focus, CBS is once again adding to the Benghazi timeline.

In the interview, according to the latest portions, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror.

That moment was one of the most intense exchanges in the second presidential debate.  Romney was on the offensive on what conservatives believed was a serious vulnerability of Obama — the handling of the Benghazi attack and what he called it from the beginning.

The town hall questioner asked, “Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?”

Obama did not provide a direct answer, but said: “When I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable, and I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there, because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home, you know that I mean what I say.”

Romney pounced, saying, “There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and it took a long time for that to be told to the American people.”

On rebuttal, Obama seemed rehearsed, but indignant. “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror… And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president. That’s not what I do as commander in chief.”

Governor Romney walked forward and started questioning …

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

OBAMA: Please proceed.

ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

CROWLEY: They did.

ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group and — and to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday the — your — your secretary or —

Obama — who had clearly won the moment (largely thanks to Candy Crowley) — clearly wanted to move on from that victorious moment — and quickly.

   OBAMA: Candy —

   ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and — and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction.

   OBAMA: Candy, I’m — I’m happy to —

   CROWLEY: President, let me — I —

   OBAMA: I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.

   CROWLEY: I know you — absolutely. But I want — I want to move you on.

   OBAMA: OK, I’m happy to do that too.

   CROWLEY: And also, people can go to the transcripts and —

   OBAMA:I just want to make sure that —

   CROWLEY: — figure out what was said and when.

   OBAMA:– you know, all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some — their questions answered.

Now, we may know why.  Soon after that debate exchange, CBS released a previously unseen clip of an interview “60 Minutes‘” Steve Kroft did with Obama on Sept. 12 — the day after the Benghazi attack.

The clip added to the previous sound that had been released and seemed to back up the president’s claim that he was referring to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist act in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. Here’s what CBS put out Oct. 19, five weeks after the attack.

KROFT: But there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA:  As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this.   But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.   And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start.  So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.”

After the second debate back and forth, this seemed to back up the president’s stance. The only problem? Kroft started his question with “but.”

I always thought, it seems that he’s following up on a question — I wonder if there was a question before that question?

This week, we got the CIA timeline of events in which they detail all of the response of the CIA and what they put up the chain of command in the minutes and hours after the attack began.  Of all the details of the specific times the CIA contractors respond to the fight, I found this one most interesting:

“1:15 a.m.: CIA reinforcements arrive on a 45-minute flight from Tripoli in a plane they’ve hastily chartered. The Tripoli team includes four GRS security officers, a CIA case officer and two U.S. military personnel who are on loan to the agency. They don’t leave Benghazi airport until 4:30. The delay is caused by negotiations with Libyan authorities over permission to leave the airport, obtaining vehicles, and the need to frame a clear mission plan. The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack.”

So the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is at the Benghazi hospital and suspected dead. The CIA contractors know that, but they can’t get there because the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked group Ansar al Shariah, the “militia that mounted the consulate attack.”

This goes up the chain communication at 1:15 a.m. on Sept. 12.  The White House, the Situation Room, and all of those paying attention to intel channels know that the guys on the ground have determined the group that’s behind this. It’s the Al Qaeda-linked militia that are still fighting and have the hospital surrounded.

About 12 hours later — before heading to Las Vegas for a campaign event — Obama sits down for that “60 Minutes” interview with Steve Kroft.

And Sunday night, 54 days after the attack and almost two weeks after putting out the first additional clip that appeared to back up the president after the second debate, CBS without fanfare posted the rest of the Benghazi question online — the question before the question.

Remember this is from a president who has been saying he was calling Benghazi a terrorist attack from the very first moment in the Rose Garden. Also, remember what he said in the debate and notice the new part — underlined in bold.

Click here to see the “60 Minutes” interview. 

   KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

   OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans.  And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.  

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA:  As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this.   But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.  And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start.  So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

KROFT: There have been reports, obviously this isn’t the first time…there have been attacks on the consulate before. There was an attack against the British ambassador. Do you…this occurred on Sept. 11. Can you tell me why the ambassador was in Benghazi yesterday? Was it to evaluate security at the consulate?

OBAMA: Well keep in mind Chris Stevens is somebody that was one of the first Americans on the ground when we were in the process of saving Benghazi and providing the opportunity for Libyans to create their own democracy. So this is somebody who had been courageous, had been on the ground, had helped to advise me and Secretary Clinton when we were taking our actions against Muammar Qaddafi. And is somebody who is very familiar with the train. He was doing the work that he does as a diplomat helping to shape our policies in the region at a time when things are still fairly fragile. But I think it’s important to note that we have a Libyan government in place that is fully cooperative, that sees the United States as a friend that recognizes we played an important role in liberating Libya and providing the Libyan people an opportunity to forge their own destiny. And in fact we had Libyans who helped protect our diplomats when they were under attack. But this is a country that is still rebuilding in the aftermath of Qaddafi. They don’t necessarily always have the same capabilities that countries with more established governments might have in helping to provide protection to our folks. But beyond that, what I want to do is make sure that we know exactly what happened, how it happened, who perpetrated this action, then we’ll act accordingly.”

These are two crucial answers in the big picture.  Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.

Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.

How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?

There are many questions, and here are a few more.

Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama’s claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?  

Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional “60 Minutes” interview material from Sept. 12?

Why wasn’t it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that “60 Minutes” tape — why didn’t they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?  

Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don’t add up.

That’s what reporters should live for, but this time they’re not.  We will.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/11/05/what-president-obama-really-said-60-minutes-interview-about-benghazi/#ixzz2BNy7GtQq

The State Controlled News Media

This is a cover up that is far greater than Watergate.  The President of the United States refused 3 times to send help to Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans including Navy Seals.  He literally sent them to their death rather than face the potential scandal of a failed rescue mission.

Most damning is the hideous WHY of his actions.  He did it because he wants to be reelected.   With all of my heart and all of my strength I am going to continue to speak out about this disgusting scandal until the day of the election.

President Obama, you are lying when you say that there is an ongoing investigation.   After you ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden, you could not wait to reveal the details of the mission.  You even released classified information that no responsible Commander in Chief would have released.  You leaked the identity of our informant, the very man who found Osama’s hideout, to the Pakistani government and sent him to prison.

How could you sit there and say “NO” 3 times to the very Navy Seals who said “YES” to you when you ordered them to get Bin Laden?

How can you say you need more time before telling us the truth?  You were watching the attack on a live feed from the situation room even as it was happening.  The attack went on for 7 hours.  We now know that you were made aware of the attack at 4PM on September 11th.    The attack continued until almost 11PM that night! How could you sit there and say “NO” 3 times to the very Navy Seals who said “YES” to you when you ordered them to get Bin Laden?

Your next two actions boggle the mind.  With 4 Americans dead and our embassy invaded you went to bed and then left for Las Vegas to a fundraiser.   For the next several weeks you ordered your administration to lie to the American public and blame the attack on a video instead of Al Qaeda.

STATE CONTROLLED NEWS MEDIA: In the face of such evil you would expect the same media that investigated Watergate to do even more with a scandal that is far and away a much graver misuse of power.   ABC, NBC, CBS, we look to you to tell us the truth instead; you are a firewall for the President in a way that would make Stalin and Mao envious.  

My friend we now have before us the most chilling reality that any Democracy can face.   We now have state controlled News Media.   In full lockstep with the President, they dispense talking points from the White House.   Now we know just how far they will go to reelect Obama…even to extreme of refusing to see the evil, hear the evil, or speak out of the evil of state sponsored murder and cover up.