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.   

Ready for Hillary?

Hillary Clinton will answer questions today about why she conducted all her business as Secretary of State on a secret private email server, which apparently broke several laws and has thwarted multiple congressional investigations.   No doubt the questions will be pre-screened and the reporters all hand-picked sycophants.  Nevertheless, it will be good theatre.  But Hillary's no dummy - by controlling her own email server, she was able to destroy any evidence of corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, and criminal activity.  There is no way the Obama administration is going to pursue a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.  (Unless she goes all Menendez on Obama's Iran appeasment.  Not likely.) But regardless of how this latest scandal plays out, there's all the others, including the recent revelations about foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation and being traded for government favors.   The fact that Hillary still polls ahead of any other potential candidate for 2016 means two things:  fun times for bloggers like me, and sad times for America.

Here's my contribution to the Hillary mystique:  "NoMoreClintons.org" (Remember all those NFL ads about sexual abuse?)  Please watch this and explain to me why the Clintons should be back in the White House.  

   

Netanyahu Returns

For the first time in almost two and a half years, I am proud of a national leader in Washington.   Today, he went before congress and spoke with clarity about liberty, peace, security, and founding principles.   He was forceful, graceful, and articulate.  His reason was sound and his positions well thought out.  Too bad President Obama was out of town and missed Netanyahu's excellent speech. 

(I posted the above 5/24/11,  the last time Netanyahu spoke to congress.)  

Does Obama Love America?

Rudy Guiliani walked into a firestorm last week by stating his belief that Barack Obama does not love America.  The media and the left (but, I repeat myself) went four-alarm apoplectic.  Is Rudy wrong?  Is the left right?  Does Obama Love America?

That depends on what you mean by "America".   Is America the physical area within it's borders?  Is it the Grand Canyon, the Appalachian Mountains, California to the Gulf Stream Waters?   I have no reason to suspect Obama does not love this aspect of America.  He  certainly seems to love America's golf courses!  Or is America its people - the motley melange of the melting pot.   Obama sure seems to love those that support him.  Not so much those that don't.  I don't think Obama cares much for conservatives, tea party members,  Libertarians, Republicans, gun owners, "bitter clingers", Fox News employees, Fox News viewers, conservative 501 Cs, video-makers who mock Mohammad, Zionists, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Utah...well, you get the idea.   Though this amounts to about half the country, I still don't think this defines Obama's love, or lack thereof,  for his country.

In short, every country on the planet has interesting people and majestic physical features.  Having those things does not make America any more lovable than, say, Canada or Ethiopia.  I have no doubt Obama loves America the same way he loves Scotland with its great golf courses and iconic caddies.  But none of that really defines America and separates it from the rest of the world.   

There is only one thing that really makes America America and separates it from every other nation on the planet - the ideas on which we were founded.  Those ideas eventually led to the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution of The United States, and the twenty seven amendments thus far.  All those ideas have been distilled into the living document that is the Constitution of the United States as amended.  Under our constitution, the federal government has very explicit limits on it's power and everything outside those powers belongs to the states and the people.  This had never been tried in world history.  The US Constitution is what makes America unique among nations and it alone is what constitutes "American exceptionalism".  

We’ve heard a lot about “American exceptionalism” lately, but most of it misses the point.  Barack Obama was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism early in his presidency.  “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism”, he replied.    Subsequently he amended that view on numerous occasions, only to reveal that he continues to misunderstand the meaning of the term. 

Last fall, the president stood in front of a group of healthcare workers who had recently returned from Ebola stricken Africa.  “That’s American exceptionalism!”, the constitutional scholar informed us, which was ironic because many of the care givers present were members of a French organization known as Medecines Sans Frontieres, known here as Doctors Without Borders.  Oops, maybe he meant French exceptionalism. 

No doubt, any person who goes to Africa to treat Ebola patients is an exceptional human being, but that has nothing to do with American exceptionalism.  American exceptionalism refers to our founding principles; never before in human history had a nation been formed with the central principle being the supremacy of the individual and deliberate limits on the powers of the state.  It made us an EXCEPTION among nations.  American exceptionalism does not mean that we are superior to other nations.  It simply means we are unique, different, an EXCEPTION to the rule. 

Those unique ideas are what made us great.  Everything we've achieved as a nation stemmed from our founding ideas:  outlawing slavery, creating the world's most successful economic engine, raising standards of living like never before, spreading democracy and tolerance,  helping defeat fascism and terrorism around the globe, and being a magnet for the world's tired, hungry, and poor.

Here are the six big ideas expressed in the Constitution of The United States: 

1. limited government
2. republicanism
3. checks and balances
4. federalism
5. separation of powers
6. popular sovereignty

After six years of Obama's presidency, he has demonstrated through his words and deeds that he has nothing but disdain for these six ideas.

No president has been more outspoken about his disdain for limited government than Barack Obama.  He has openly denigrated the concept calling the constitution a “charter of negative liberties”.  Ummmm, yes it is from the perspective of an all-powerful state.  But from the perspective of the individual it was designed to protect, it is a godsend.  Obama has explicitly stated that he'd prefer a constitution that says "what the government must do on your behalf" rather than one that says "what the government cannot do to you".  Obama went so far as to use the word "tragedy" in describing how limited government restricted the federal governments ability to redistribute wealth.   

Here's Obama in his own words:

Obama has been equally hostile to the other five big ideas in the constitution.  Here is a piece from Forbes in 2012 that nicely covers most of this.

Is there anyone who has ever heard Barack Obama speak in favor of "Republicanism"?  I doubt it.   The party by that name certainly gets no love.  Checks and balances may have gotten lip service, but his deeds indicate nothing but disdain.  Federalism ditto.  Separation of powers?  Don't make me laugh.  Popular sovereignty?  Obama's intransigence in the wake of the recent landslide mid-term election proves his disdain for popular sovereignty. 

To love America is to love the unique exceptional ideas on which it was founded and which became embodied in the US Constitution as amended.  Barack Obama has nothing but disdain for those ideas and the document they became.  So you tell me, does Obama love America?  Does Hillary?  How about any Progressive who wants to progress away from the six big ideas in The US Constitution?  

Jobs for Terrorists!

The latest moronic position from the Obama idiocracy is that barbaric Islamic behavior is the result of a lack of economic opportunity...and jobs.  Two things come to mind:  one is that of the many religions in that part of the world, all with equal opportunity, only Muslims are regularly behaving like sub-human animals; and the other is that their big target in the US was actually devoted to global economic opportunity - The World Trade Center.  This position could only be more risible if it had come from someone who speaks like a valley girl on a high-school model UN panel.  Oh, wait...

The Fifty Year Plan

Now that it has been revealed that illegals can vote and are eligible for up to $24,000 in bonuses, it is time to connect the Obama induced flood of illegals, Bill Clinton's 1993 "Motor Voter Law", and two prominent activists from Columbia University named Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who conceived a plan fifty years ago that has way more fingerprints on recent history than most people realize.

In 1966, Cloward and Piven laid out a strategy for achieving what Karl Marx had proposed could only be done with a violent revolution.  Marx was writing in the context of a non-democratic society where the existing power structure had to be violently overthrown in order for his utopia to become reality.  Cloward and Piven envisioned a less kinetic approach in the context of a democratic society wherein the existing power structure could be overthrown by collapsing it after overloading it with dependents.

Barack Obama, Columbia University Class of '83, was taught the Cloward and Piven strategy during a time when, in his own words, he was steeped in Marxism.  Speaking of his college years he said,

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors...

Barack Obama from "Dreams From My Father"

Frances Fox Piven and Barack Obama are also linked by membership in the socialist New Party.  (more here.)  And both were adamant about eventually achieving socialized and nationalized medicine, AKA single payer healthcare, towards which Obamacare is but a stepping stone.

But the big one, which ties Obama's executive actions on immigration to Clinton's Motor Voter Bill with Cloward and Piven is this:

What many have probably forgotten, even those who are very familiar with the Cloward-Piven Strategy, is that this dynamic duo was instrumental in the enactment of one of the greatest vote fraud facilitation systems that this country has ever seen, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act aka “the Motor Voter Law.” Here’s a photo of them standing right behind Bill Clinton at the 1993 signing ceremony, Piven is in the green coat, and Cloward is in the light grey suit. - See more at: http://teriobrien.com/six-degrees-of-chuck-schumer-connecting-the-dots-between-amnesty-and-1993s-motor-voter-law/#sthash.bkmxmMUV.dpuf

As far as Cloward and Piven having fingerprints on recent history, what is rarely considered is that in 2008 we had a dress rehearsal for a Cloward and Piven type collapse.  Again Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were behind it.  Bill Clinton initiated a constellation of policies under the banner of "affordable housing" around the time of the Motor Voter Bill.  This is how Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the banking system eventually became loaded down with subprime mortgages, liar loans, Alt-A mortgages, no-doc loans, and risky mortgage derivatives.  Never before had these things been used for housing finance.   Barack Obama worked tirelessly for these redistributive policies as a Community Organizer,  ACORN associate, Illinois State Senator, and finally as a US Senator, where he took campaign cash from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a higher rate than any other member of congress:  

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name	Office	Party/State	Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J	S	D-CT	$133,900
2. Kerry, John	S	D-MA	$111,000
3. Obama, Barack	S	D-IL	$105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary	S	D-NY	$75,550

(Remember:  These are cumulative totals and Barack Obama served less than two years!)

Right on schedule, the whole thing collapsed in 2008 and brought down the global financial system along with it.  But that collapse was limited to the financial sector; we simply borrowed and printed our way out of it. 

The next collapse, the one Obama's illegals will help vote us into, and the one Cloward and Piven conceived fifty years ago, will be more transformative.
  
(UPDATE:  On 2/17 a judge temporarily stayed Obama's executive amnesty plan.  This may result in disabling Obama's scheme to create new laws singlehandedly like issuing work permits to illegals, but the Cloward and Piven goal of overloading the system with dependents will be unaffected by this ruling.  Those illegals are here now, more are on the way, the strategy is intact, and this ruling is nothing but a distraction on the road to a Cloward and Piven collapse. )    

Brian Williams vs. Faux News

The left loves to call Fox News, "Faux News", which is pretty ironic in light of NBC's embarrassing cover-up and promotion of serial liar Brian Williams, who  is not only their flagship anchor, but also the Managing Editor of NBC Nightly News!  Imagine if anything like that ever came out about a Fox News managing editor?  However,  it's not just the rank and file that mock Fox News, it starts with president Obama himself.  Why would a sitting president cross the traditional line by repeatedly singling out a private sector media company and setting a tone of derision and de-legitimacy?  Here are some hints:   

5.  “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

6.  “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.  

12.  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” 

Net Neutrality Explained

Now that Obama's FCC has finalized their "net neutrality" rules, it's time everyone understood the full impact of bureaucrats micro-managing broadband.  Here's but one piece...

[VIDEO] Hey NFL, run this ad or shut-up!

If the NFL really has a problem with abusing women, they will run this ad during the Superbowl.   Otherwise NFL, please shut-up.

 

Football, Marx, Smith, Cloward & Piven, Alinsky, Greece, and Obama

It’s Superbowl week, Greece just elected a Communist government, and Barack Obama has indicated he has no intention of changing his strategy, even after his historic mid-term rebuke.  It’s a perfect time for me to bravely attempt to tie these disparate things up in a neat little bow.  What’s more, I will do it with fully inflated analogies and rhetoric.

Suppose there were two football teams, the Marxists and the Smithians.  Each team has adopted an opposite management approach.  The Marxists have policies wherein every player, coach, and employee is paid the same, every player is given the same amount of game time, and positions are decided by a committee of people who've never played football.  The Smithians have policies wherein every player, coach, and employee negotiates their own salary, and game time and positions are determined by ability, circumstances, and a football coach’s judgment. 

Now suppose you were a committed Marxist who inherited the Smithian team.  How would you convert them to your preferred system? 

Karl Marx addressed this dilemma back in 1848 and prescribed violent revolution.  Of course, his world was vastly different from ours (and I don’t think he was thinking about football!).  Modern Marxists have searched for a less kinetic approach.  This has split the Marxists into two groups, one that still favors violent revolution and direct confrontation, and another that favors democratic revolution and indirect confrontation. 

Among the thinkers who preferred the latter approach were two people at Columbia University, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.  Their theory was that if Smithian economies were overburdened by progressive Marxist redistribution, they would eventually collapse in on themselves and Marxists would become the democratic majority.  The spark for the strategy was a tactic from Saul Alinsky, “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”  In other words, load up on debt, dependency, and obligations, and then blame the Smithian system when it reaches a crisis.  This would achieve the same result Marx had prescribed, only politically and without violence.

This is exactly what has happened in Greece.  The Greek system collapsed in on itself because they had created a progressively redistributive system that resulted in a majority of the electorate being dependent on government.  This resulted in a massive debt burden that eventually became a crisis when the debt got downgraded to junk.  As a Euro member, Greece could not unilaterally print money to pay off its debt, a strategy countries have used throughout history.  Backed into a corner, the Greeks chose Communism, just as Cloward and Piven predicted. 

So, what’s this got to do with Barack Obama? 

What would a committed Marxist in the Cloward and Piven mold do if he obtained power in the US?  Would he work tirelessly for government rules to subsidize mortgages for those who cannot afford homes in the hope that it might collapse the system?  Would he maybe run up more debt in eight years than all previous presidents combined?  Would he reduce workforce participation and greatly increase government dependency?  Would he work tirelessly for progressive redistribution of wealth?  Would he avoid any direct Marxist or Socialist language and instead fall back on vague terms such as “hope” “change” and “fundamental transformation”?  Would he possibly nationalize healthcare, student loans, community colleges, daycare, etc. in an attempt to consolidate votes, and eventually collapse the system?  Would he try to flood the voter rolls with dependents and illegals? 

If you have followed Barack Obama and his past, you would know by now that he attended Columbia University and was introduced to the Cloward and Piven strategy there.  You might also know of his affinity for Saul Alinsky and his roots as an Alinsky Community Organizer.  You might also know that Frances Fox Piven was all but present at the signing of Obamacare.  You might also know that she is among those behind Obama’s recent executive action on immigration.   What you probably don’t know is that she, and the then living Richard Cloward, were present at the signing of Bill Clinton’s 1993 “Motor Voter” bill.

That's them right behind Clinton.  Do the math.   

Incidentally, which football team would you bet on long term, the Marxists or the Smithians?

(UPDATE:  An earlier version of this post placed Frances Fox Piven at the signing of Obamacare.  That was likely incorrect.)