Posted on 11/30/2014 6:18:30 AM PST by RoosterRedux
President Obama betrayed the nation last night. Even as he went on national television to respond to the grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown in August, the vicious violence that would destroy businesses and livelihoods over the next several hours was underway. Obama had one job and one job only last night: to defend the workings of the criminal-justice system and the rule of law. Instead, he turned his talk into a primer on police racism and criminal-justice bias. In so doing, he perverted his role as the leader of all Americans and as the country’s most visible symbol of the primacy of the law.
Obama gestured wanly toward the need to respect the grand jury’s decision and to protest peacefully. “We are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make,” he said. But his tone of voice and body language unmistakably conveyed his disagreement, if not disgust, with that decision. “There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction,” he said. Understandable, so long as one ignores the evidence presented to the grand jury. The testimony of a half-dozen black observers at the scene demolished the early incendiary reports that Wilson attacked Brown in cold blood and shot Brown in his back when his hands were up. Those early witnesses who had claimed gratuitous brutality on Wilson’s part contradicted themselves and were in turn contradicted by the physical evidence and by other witnesses, who corroborated Wilson’s testimony that Brown had attacked him and had tried to grab his gun.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
Great article.
The good of the country never enters Obama’s mind. Everything he says is political and to glorify himself. Obama could not have simply said that we are a nation of laws and the grand jury did what it was supposed to do. No, he had to pander to the radicals and fulfill the racial narrative that got him elected.
And how many times did the malignant narcissist talk about himself. This guy is sooo in love with himself. I simply cannot believe that people fell for this.
Two more years of this puke...
The article is dated November 25, just to put it in the timeline.
How come white supremacist groups can be sued for stirring up hate and violence and progressives cannot be sued?
The Obama-Holder demagogues, the Sharpton race-grievance industry, and many MSM employees surely can be sued by people harmed by the violence. I am no lawyer as you will soon discern; but..
Traditional principles of vicarious liability include
Though associated with criminal law, these theories can be used to attribute fault to persons not directly related to an act that harmed a victim.
It must be proved that the others 'provided substantial assistance or encouragement' to those who did harm the victim.
In the SPLC suit against Tom Metzger and WAR the skinheads were not members of Metzger's WAR. But Metzger's rantings had influence over the mindless skinheads due to his reputation in the white supremacy movement
Tom Metzger recruited 16-year-old Mazzella and schooled him in the world of racist violence. Mazzella was sent to Portland to join up with and train the East Side White Pride [skinheads]. Members of that group later brutally murdered an innocent black man.
How is that any different that being "recruited" in college or by progressive ideologues?
The aiding and abetting theory fits because
Lawyers can invoke the aiding and abetting theory with relative ease. Invoking the aiding and abetting assumes two independent actors.
To prove an aiding and abetting claim
Civil conspiracy was also used and proved against the Metzgers because he had contacted the East Side White Pride skinheads and after the murder and their arrest one skinhead called Metzger from jail. Here civil conspiracy might be proved by any contacts between the criminals and Sharpton, Holder, Obama, et al.
Obviously I am not a lawyer and this is a kind of an outline of information available on the Internet. Why can't it be used against the "progressives" and racists of all colors?
well put.
Well, it's obvious we don't have a black president like that. We have the opposite. We have an incendiary, anti-American president who likes to pour kerosene on the fire.
“”Two more years of this puke...””
I knew before we were done with this jerk, we’d run out of names to call him so I am going to just settle on “puke” from now until we see his backside heading to IL or wherever the heck he decides to land. Something tells me we will never see the last of him.
Both a verb and noun...
People in this country may ask: "Is there an epidemic of racial violence in this country?"
The answer to this question may be found in Bill Whittle's excellent video: VIDEO: Bill Whittle: Ferguson and the Real Race War
In summary, here are the raw statistics for general violent crime Black-on-White and White-on-Black crime from the National Crime Victimization Survey (the branch of the DOJ responsible for collecting these statistics) here are the raw results for 2010:
Here is the RAW disparity between Black-on-White and White-on-Black general violent crime:
But this raw data is misleading, due to disparity in the sizes of the population. Here are the numbers that show the population totals for black and white populations in 2010:
If you normalize the statistics to take into account the relative sizes of the populations, Here are the numbers that reflect the real magnitude of Black-on-White versus White-on-Black VIOLENT ASSAULT crime:
Furthermore, if you narrow the statistics shown above on violent assault (GENERAL VIOLENT ASSAULT) to a specific type of violent assault (IN THE CASE BELOW, VIOLENT AGGRAVATED ASSAULT) , the statistics that Black-on-White versus White-on-Black VIOLENT ASSAULT crime take on an entirely different magnitude:
When one looks at these statistics, one can only reach the same conclusion that Bill Whittle did in his video:
"Oh, there's an epidemic of racial violence in America, all right."
Bill Whittle further accurately states:
"Critics will say that I am using these statistics to justify the murder of Michael Brown. But I said at the beginning – if Michael Brown were shot in cold blood then the police officer needs to pay the price for murder. This has nothing to do with Michael Brown. This has EVERYTHING to do with the narrative that the President, the Attorney General, and all of these race hustlers are trying to create using Michael Brown.
There is, in fact, a racial war of violence and hatred in America. Open racism is simply not tolerated in white America today, but black racism is the toxic glue that holds the progressive coalition together. Tolerance of – in fact, as we see from the events in Ferguson, open encouragement of black rage at a narrative that not only does not exist but reverses the daily outrages that do exist, is what defines modern progressivism. It is the politics of envy, anger, entitlement, lawlessness, violence and bald-faced lies.
And of all the promises broken by this man, surely none is more heartbreaking than the one promise that got him elected in the first place: the promise of a post-racial future. He and his racist progressive cohorts can never surrender the weapon that has gotten them everything, not the least of which is personal political power and trillions of dollars of redistributed wealth. And this latest outrage in Furguson is yet another example – as if another was needed among the economic wreckage, creeping totalitarianism, and foreign-policy disasters -- that he and his leftist cohorts would rather rule over ruins than disappear into the dustbin of a healthy and healed nation."
(All statistics, graphs and quotes from Bill Whittle's "Ferguson and the Real Race War")
A vicious and intention circle trap designed to keep the cycle of violence, racial division and blame spinning while maintaining the status quo for the PTBs who politically exploit this rich asset.
These mental/emotion chains are way cheaper than actual physical chains, with no to low maintenance costs that will always be someone else's fault and problem!
The question is, how do you get out of this trap?
Thx for posting that.:-)
“The question is, how do you get out of this trap?”
You don’t in a society lacking a common culture and values. We are living through the consequences of our decision to walk away from the concept of America being a melting pot, with shared beliefs, to a multicultural society comprised of competing groups (i.e. tribes) organized along ethnic, racial, religious, and gender lines.
Thanks...I did think it reflected directly on the sellout by Obama and his ilk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.