Why Were Cops Shot in Ferguson?

There is new blood on Barack Obama's hands as two officers were shot in Ferguson, MO last night.   Pretty harsh, right?  Does Barack Obama deserve blame for every act of violence against cops in the wake of Michael Brown's death?  Here's a brief history.  You can draw your own conclusions.    

(I put the above images together because you will not see them in the pop media.  But they are real and should be part of the record.  What they mean is up to you to decide.  Of note: neither was raised by his father, and all seem to have issues with authority.)

On 8/15/14, after Barack Obama made his first comments in the wake of the Ferguson riots, I wrote:

I have no idea what happened in Ferguson, MO, and neither do you.  And we all agree any unnecessary death is a tragedy.  But we have a judicial system to deal with bad cops, if that turns out to be the case.  Rioting, looting, Molotov cocktails, death threats, and the like, should be singled-out as inexcusable no matter what the facts turn out to be.  Justice can only be served through our judicial system and that takes time, patience, civility, and wisdom.  Instead of making that case convincingly and emphatically, as a president should,  Barack Obama spoke to the nation in bland platitudes and equivocated.
America, we have a problem.

Four days later, after he commented again, I wrote:

Obama spoke to the nation again yesterday (8/18) and again equivocated.  If he wanted to avoid further violence, looting, anger, and hate, he could have explained to those calling for "death to Darren Wilson!" that we have a judicial system and that the facts will come out as they do in every public case, especially when there are dozens of eye witnesses as there are in this case.  But this case should not be tried on TV, or in the streets,  or from the pulpit, or with molotov cocktails.  Instead he drew a moral equivalence between our judicial system and looting rioters.  Think about this America -- The President of the United States, for political reasons, does not want to prevent further violence, looting, anger, and hate.

Then on 11/24/14, the grand jury spoke and the case was closed.   The officer, Darren Wilson, was not charged with any crime because the jury believed he acted with justifiable use of force.  I wrote:

Again the president spoke and again mistook his role for that of agitator.  He accused the judicial system of racism.  He made no mention of the fact that Michael Brown would be alive today if he had obeyed officer Wilson.  He made no mention of his faith in the grand jury or the public servants who worked this case according to the law.  He made no mention of the officer whose life has also been upended by Michael Brown's belligerence.  He made no mention of the fact that moments before the incident officer Wilson had helped save the life of an infant.  And finally, he made only bland equivocal calls for peace and non-violence.

It's a shame this isn't baseball, because on Ferguson alone I count three strikes.

Finally, Obama's DOJ recently released two reports regarding Michael Brown.  The first one exonerated Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown.  There was no violation of civil rights, no racism, and certainly no crime.  Michael Brown was not surrendering, "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was a myth, and the shooting was self-defense.  The second report nevertheless, indicted the entire police force as racists.  Based on the discredited notion of "disparate impact" and some racist joke emails which were forwarded by three specific employees, the Obama administration tainted the entire Ferguson PD and stirred the anger of the community once again.

Did Obama say anything to calm tensions in Ferguson?  Did he say anything to remind people that the shooting was justified?  Did he talk about how "hands up don't shoot" was a false narrative?  Did he point out how the system worked, and justice was done?  No.  Instead, he stoked anger, hate, resentment, and reprisals by calling the Ferguson PD's alleged racism "not an isolated incident".

Why would Obama do this and risk inciting violence?   I hate to go all "Godwin" on y'all, but this has happened before.  (Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies states that any heated online discussion will eventually lead to someone making a Nazi analogy.)

The race industry and the Democrat Party need division, passion, anger, hatred, and the threat of violence to continue enacting their agenda. 

Consider the following quotes:  

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by... distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

Hate is more lasting than dislike.

It is not truth that matters, but victory.

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

Great liars are also great magicians.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.

All of the above quotes are from Adolf Hitler.

No, I'm not suggesting Barack Obama is about to annex territory, build gas chambers, kill Jews and Gypsies, or launch a World War like Adolf Hitler.   But looking back on his embrace of the politics of deception and division as personified by ACORN, Alinsky Community Organizing, Occupy Wall Street, disingenuously crying racism,  stirring hatred and violence, etc., it is hard to discern any tactical differences.