Obama’s Lynch Mob in Ferguson

Riotsby Timothy Lane   11/25/14
Events in Ferguson took an unsurprisingly tragic turn last night, encouraged by liberal race-baiting (with the tacit assistance of Barack Obama and the Brown family lawyer, both of whom issued pro forma rejections of violence even as they encouraged the racial paranoia that stokes the outrage) and enabled by the fecklessness of liberal authorities (such as Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, who didn’t send the National Guard into Ferguson – it was on duty elsewhere in the county – until after the rioting ended).

Naturally, race relations in America have taken another hit, as they have throughout the Racebaiter-in-Chief’s imperium. Blacks, told every day that they are victimized by The Man (and often encountering some version of this for themselves, their friends, or their families), saw this as another such incident. (A caller to Rush Limbaugh today mentioned that when a black pastor asked his congregation if they would pray for Officer Wilson, no one was Christian enough to do so. When he asked if they would at least pray for his family, one woman stood up. The rest were too consumed by the race hatred stoked by liberals both black and white.) Whites saw that the evidence favored the non-indictment of Wilson, and then saw the blacks riot and wreck their own city. It turns out that at least some of the victims were black, such as cake shop owner Natalie DuBose, her business destroyed by obamathugs acting in the name of racial justice. For that matter, many of the rioters were professionals from out-of-own wearing Guy Fawkes masks, allegedly members of the anarchist group Anonymous. (Unfortunately, for lack of “shoot to kill” orders, none of the professional rioters were killed, which would at least have mitigated the damage done to the country.) How many of those were white?

Even now, we can’t be entirely sure what happened that fatal morning. We know that Brown and a friend shoplifted cigarillos from a store and shoved a clerk who objected. We also know that Brown was high (to what extent we don’t know) on marijuana. We don’t know what his past record (he had recently turned 18, so his juvenile record – if any – is sealed) might be. We know that he and his friend (and accomplice) were walking in the middle of the street when Officer Wilson told them to get on the sidewalk. After that, things get messier, though it probably helps if one realizes that many of the witnesses against testified not to what they saw, but to what they heard – mostly from the accomplice, whose own testimony (and therefore theirs as well) is totally worthless. But it seems extremely likely that Brown attacked Wilson, who shot and injured him. Then Brown started to run away, chased by Wilson. After that, we have alternate versions, and a paucity of information. Did Wilson continue to shoot as Brown ran? I’ve never heard. Some versions say Brown turned back to face Wilson and surrender, but others say he charged. I’m inclined to believe the latter, just as Ferguson blacks are inclined to believe the former, but none of us know for sure – which to me would be a good reason not to riot and destroy dozens of businesses just because the grand jury disagreed.

The liberal response to the press conference by prosecutor Robert McCulloch provided another reminder that liberals care nothing for individual justice. Many, noting the old saying that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” (a lesson liberal prosecutors remember and practice when pursuing conservatives for political offenses), wondered why McCulloch presented all the evidence (even allowing Wilson to testify) instead of presenting the evidence selectively in order to gain the indictment that they felt (and for liberals, feelings are all that matter) entitled to. If nothing else, this should finish any last belief that liberals believe in civil liberties (and due process of law) for everyone. A much fairer question would be why prosecutors don’t behave this way more often. If nothing else, they would get fewer doomed indictments (such as the racialist ordeal of George Zimmerman, another victim of a liberal lynch mob).

Unfortunately, some conservative responses have been little better, as anyone who has read Jonah Goldberg in the past couple of days will already know. Contrarily, Brown’s cousin (interviewed on Fox) actually behaved pretty reasonably under the circumstances. He made an especially interesting point when he wondered how many people were put at risk as Wilson fired 10 or 12 (I’ve seen both figures given) shots at Brown. Indeed, some will recall the hideous incident (I believe it was at the Empire State Building) a while back, when such a shootout between police and criminals led to a sizable number of bystanders being hit by the police. We need the police to be armed, but we also need them to be able to use those weapons effectively. (And maybe, if they did, they wouldn’t need to fire so many shots in the first place.) One might also note that Brown’s family said they would push for lapel cameras for police, a very reasonable solution that would eliminate many questions. (It also reduces the amount of police shooting, which itself suggests that some of it is indeed excessive.)

One major problem in Ferguson has been the inept responses of the town police. Their communications have been atrocious, their failure to cover up Brown’s body for 4 hours without providing a convincing explanation, and above all their alternation between responding to events too severely (as they did with the more peaceful protests the first couple of nights) or too weakly (as when they allowed rioters virtually free reign on several occasions), were extremely unfortunate. (Perhaps they should hire Goldilocks as their next police chief. The current one certainly seems to be in over his head.) Some of the problems come from St. Louis county or Missouri authorities. No doubt it’s a coincidence that all of these are Democrats.

In conclusion, I think Ferguson could use a name change. I recommend that it be changed to Hellhole, because that’s what the city has become – by the deliberate actions of many of its citizens (as well as by others whom they have encouraged to come and join the fun).


Timothy Lane writes from Louisville, Kentucky and publishes the FOSFAX fanzine.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (4199 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Obama’s Lynch Mob in Ferguson

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    as anyone who has read Jonah Goldberg in the past couple of days will already know

    It would appear that Goldberg thinks the rights and future of one innocent should be sacrificed to the feelings of the many race baiters and anarchists.

    There is something very strange at work here. Goldberg is not stupid and could not be silly enough to believe the professional race baiters’ and anarchists’ blood lust and hate of the system would be sated by a trial in which Wilson were found innocent. It would only string out the insanity and dishonesty presently on display, and give rise to greater fury.

    What did he want, a proforma guilty verdict?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Glad to see that Brother Timothy is getting on the bandwagon as to smelling out Goldberg.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      It’s interesting, KFZ – I wrote a couple of comments on Goldberg’s pieces over on NRO, trying not to be too harsh as I’ve certainly raked him over the coals enough times in the past. In mulling it over further, I think Goldberg’s ambivalence is the result his trying to sympathize with multiple contradictory viewpoints at the same time (presumably due to some emotional need). Of course the correct approach is to put feelings aside and analyze the facts rationally, which Goldberg almost did, realizing that we don’t put innocent people on trial just to satisfy a mob. But then he undercut his own mind by trying to see it the way the ignorant and bloodthirsty do – “If McCulloch was determined to get an indictment, this process wouldn’t have taken nearly as long.”

      The obvious retort to this is that the prosecutor is not supposed to be “determined to get an indictment,” he’s supposed to see justice done.
      [The second part of the debate may be found here, for anyone interested.]

      I think this makes the proximate cause of Golberg’s increasing squishiness more apparent. In the past, I basically assumed he was literally watching too much television, i.e. picking up too much of the Left’s detritus at second hand through the TV programming that is under their control. What we see here is more disturbing: Goldberg deliberately chose to at least partly disregard his rational faculty in favor of “feeling” his way to an alternative conclusion. No one can undercut his own faculties that way without disastrous consequences. As Ayn Rand used to say, emotions are not tools of cognition.
      –Nik

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I think Goldberg wants to sympathize with the blacks, some of whom probably really are victims — but then, so are some whites (as I recall from the statistics reported when it happened, about a fourth of the people killed by the police are black). Above all, Brown was NOT a victim, and most of the blacks who are victims of violence are victims of black thugs, not white (or any other) police officers. And how much of the black feeling of victimization that so concerns Goldberg is based on reality, and how much on skewed reporting of crimes by race-baiters and their media shills.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          how much on skewed reporting of crimes by race-baiters and their media shills.

          When I turned on the 10:00 pm news tonight, the piece was about blacks driving into Dallas in order to protest against the grand jury’s verdict. The reporter asked a little black girl (maybe 8 or 9 years old) why she was there and what she thought about it and the girl said she didn’t think it was right for a policeman to shoot someone in the back.

          There you have the root of the problem. The little girl will no doubt grow up believing Brown was shot in the back in cold blood and resentment against the Man will likely fester.

          Such legends are not easily refuted. In later 19th/early 20th century Shanghai, there was supposedly a British public park which display a sign at its entrance which read, “Dogs and Chinamen” not allowed. I know people still believed this in the late 20th century as I had a Singaporean friend who mentioned it to me. Unfortunately, this urban legend was not true. I looked into it and ran across several confirmations that the sign never existed.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Nik, I grew up with many Jewish friends and acquaintances. Most, but not all of them from families which immigrated from Eastern Europe. I believe the harsh times their forebears often experienced in the old Russian Empire and the resultant, understandable, resentment against these, explain a lot of how many American Jews view politics. For many of them, I believe there is a gut reaction against established authority. This is passed down from generation to generation. There is also the emotional empathy one minority often feels for another.

        Of course, the history of this goes much further back in their history. From Egypt, the Babylon to the Diaspora resultant from the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

        I realize Goldberg is half-Jewish, but I think the basic thought still holds.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          One other effect it has is that they have a reflexive hostility to Christianity, since the pogroms were committed in the name of Christ and the Jews were often denounced as “Christ-killers”. (This also reflects the group justice that is so common in Europe, and is at the heart of what went wrong in Ferguson.)

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    An addendum to my article: I learned tonight that the blood-trail evidence from the original shooting corroborates Wilson’s account: it indicates that Brown went about 40 feet from the police car before turning back toward Wilson.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    George Neumayr has an article on the subject that is well worth reading. He gets down to brass tacks: Culture of Lies:

    Most of their recommended changes amount to giving criminals a wider berth in society. It is impossible to see how police departments could conform to the demands of Al Sharpton and company unless they simply stopped arresting black criminals.

    Almost all of the focus is on changing the police’s reaction to criminal behavior, not changing the behavior itself. Out of this mindset has come a culture that canonizes criminals and criminalizes cops . . . Apparently one of the “lessons” police officers should learn from what happened in Ferguson is that criminals have a right to overpower them.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This also reflects the perverse nature of liberalism, which glorifies evil as long as the evil is done in the name of a politically correct cause. It also reflects their peculiar aversion to authority figures (such as the police, the military, priests, or any other person trying to uphold order and standards of decency) even as they seek to maximize the power of authority.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I finally got around to reading the article, and had an interesting suggestion to make as a result. Perhaps the police should simply avoid areas where the local inhabitants don’t want them around, leaving those to the criminals. This would mostly be urban/suburban liberal neighborhoods, whether poor or rich. (The latter would probably be happy to rely on their paid guards anyway. The former would probably be overrun by the criminals they prefer. But it would make upper-class liberals feel good about themselves, which is what matters most to them.)

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Perhaps the police should simply avoid areas where the local inhabitants don’t want them around

        A Libertarian’s dream! Surely once the cancerous influence of coercive government is removed, all God’s children will learn to live in peace and harmony.

        This is why I often refer Libertarians to the inner cities of the USA for the best example of a society which results from their ill conceived ideas.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Just FYI, Lloyd Marcus at American Thinker has an excellent article on this very subject. Despite his support for abortion and a few other liberal things, you’ve got to hand it to Rudy Giuliani for being one of the few people still not afraid to tell the truth. A Black to Giuliani: ‘Right on brother. Way to go Rudy!’

    • Timothy Lane says:

      That was a very nice article. Technically, Giuliani misstated when he said most black deaths involve being murdered by other blacks (most black deaths aren’t violent, probably even for young black males). However, his basic point is right: most violent black deaths come not from the police or even whites in general (and never mind black policemen killing black hoods, as no doubt happens occasionally), but from fellow young black males. And until they want to do something about this, nothing will be solved.

      Unfortunately, there are many “leaders” (and others) who have no wish to solve the problem. An item at hotair.com today pointed out how many of the protest tactics (such as blocking busy highways across the country, or encouraging boycotts of Black Friday) have nothing to do with the case, and in fact seem to be designed to persuade people to oppose them. Partly this reflects the fact that many of the protestors are simply opportunistic leftists pushing other causes (such as unions seeking to organize retailers such as WalMart), including the mindless anarchy of the Occupiers.

      But it also reflects the fact that they have no wish to improve race relations. Those who rely on black identity politics feed on worsening relations and don’t care what harm it does to America. (A link to Star Trek is possible here: think of race hustlers such as Al Sharpton, Jesse the Jetstream, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and Michael Dyson as a version of the alien entity in “A Wolf in the Fold”.)

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    An item at hotair.com today pointed out how many of the protest tactics (such as blocking busy highways across the country, or encouraging boycotts of Black Friday) have nothing to do with the case, and in fact seem to be designed to persuade people to oppose them

    I am convinced the Democrats are promoting the riots and outrage in order to solidify and arouse the base for the next elections. As Rahm said, “no serious crisis should be let go to waste” especially those phony crises created by the Leftist media.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Yes, that was the point made by third paragraph (though the hotair.com writer didn’t consider that possibility). It seems obvious to me, but then I’ve regarded Barry Screwtape Obama and his lackeys as malevolent for several years now. A lot of people don’t want to see that.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Andrew McCarthy has an interesting article on the subject at hand. Here’s a bit at the end:

    In Liberal Fascism’s focus on myth, Jonah recalls Mussolini’s assertion, “It is faith that moves mountains, not reason. Reason is a tool, but it can never be the motive force of the crowd.” The crowd in Ferguson was moved to riot on the article of a false faith that condemns America and its police forces as incorrigibly racist. It is from this condemnation that all purported “reasoning” proceeds.

    Such reasoning dictates that our constitutional right not to be indicted in the absence of just cause should be subordinated to the mob’s demand for a public trial. Succeeding in that legerdemain, it next dictates that our constitutional right not to be convicted in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt be subordinated to the mob’s demand for a guilty verdict.

    Such a verdict that would have had only the most tangential connection to the tragedy of an 18-year-old’s death or a police officer’s well-founded fear for his life. But it would have fed the myth.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    A liberal columnist for Time argued a few days ago that riots aren’t always such bad things, citing the Boston Tea Party as an example of a riot revered by the very people objecting to the Ferguson lynch mobs. So now that I’ve finished reading the account of the Boston Tea Party in the biography of Samuel Adams, I have some observations to make.

    Adams was (possibly) involved in 4 mob actions prior to the beginning of the war. In the first, a mob raided the house of Stamp Act collector Andrew Oliver on August 14, 1765, doing quite a bit of damage and looting his wine cellar. In the second, they raided Lieutenant Governor (and royal advocate) Thomas Hutchinson’s house a couple of weeks later, doing a great deal of damage.

    The third was the Boston Massacre, which started as people harassing the soldiers in a fashion like the peaceful protestors of Ferguson, and then accelerated when one soldier was struck (though it seems uncertain how or by exactly what; versions vary and are all likely to be self-serving). The soldiers faced trial for the killings, and were ably defended by the best of the Boston bar (including John Adams), which Samuel Adams supported. Nor was there a riot of any sort when they were acquitted.

    Finally, there the Boston Tea Party. The patriots had tried to get the East India ships to take their tea back, but they refused. So they swarmed over them masquerading as Mohawk Indians, and emptied the tea chests into the water (though apparently they did no other damage).

    One can see some common factors here. All these were controlled actions directed against specific targets linked to their grievance, and even the damage was limited (no one was actually injured in any of the attacks other than the patriots themselves in the Boston Massacre, and no buildings or ships were burned or otherwise destroyed). This clearly contrasts with the rioting lynch mobs that have looted, vandalized, and burned down businesses completely unconnected to whatever actually happened in August (and often owned by blacks). There have been at least some serious injuries and possibly at least one death, and some flag-burning that indicates a generalized hatred of America (and Americans) as well as an uninterest in working with people to solve problems. And the rioters elsewhere have repeatedly blocked traffic at key times, seriously discommoding people who again had nothing whatsoever to do with the August events (except to be citizens of the country that these riotous obamathugs hate).

    But, of course, such distinctions are irrelevant to a thug-supporting liberal, even if by some chance liberals are actually aware of such differences.

  8. David Ray says:

    Obviously Mr. Lane’s intellect and passion have been fully tapped. Only thing I have to add is that twice I’ve seen that belligerent bullshit of forming a walking fence in the middle of the street.
    Second time the bullshit annoyance bid me to tap my horn. All four turned and came towards me. My 9″ sawed-off talked them out of it. (I had rock-salt rounds. It gave me the edge to pull the trigger.)

    No harm; no cops. I, to this day have no regrets.

  9. Timothy Lane says:

    There was an interesting piece on RedState by Ben Howe on why he said that if he had been in Wilson’s position he would have reacted the same. Naturally he got a lot of fall-out from liberals reflexively denouncing him as racist, so he proceeded to show how his early comments were very sympathetic to Brown. As the evidence increasingly showed that Brown was the attacker and Wilson the defender, he (not being a liberal and thus totally closed-minded) switched to reflect the facts. The link is:

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/11/29/why-i-said-id-have-shot-michael-brown-face/

  10. Timothy Lane says:

    There have been a number of interesting items today dealing with Ferguson and the Garner case in Staten Island. Michael Reagan pointed out an important aspect of the Ferguson grand jury: the black witnesses who testified anonymously there might have been afraid to testify in public against the obamathugs’ Cause. David Clarke (Milwaukee Country Sheriff) pointed out that too many young urban blacks grow up without fathers and reject all authority as a result. This makes them disruptive in classes, a terror to their mothers, and quick to challenge the police — which leads occasionally to the police killing them.

    Megyn Kelly challenged several black race-baiters to provide evidence for their claims of racism, noting that they spouted a narrative but never supplied any facts. Some of the race-baiters, challenged on the issue of black-on-black crime, riposted with the straw man that most white crime victims are victims of whites — which would be relevant if whites were rioting over black violence against whites while ignoring the intraracial crimes.

    Sean Hannity similarly challenged the race-baiters to provide evidence that the 2 police killings were actually racist acts instead of prating about patterns or such. (One thing people need to point is the simple question that to me is a key to the whole problem: How much of the black paranoia results from actual problems, and how much from race-baiters’ identity politics aided and abetted by the synoptic media? I suspect most of it is the latter.) He also discussed the invisible (to liberals) victims of the Ferguson rioting (and intends the Friday night show to focus on that subject.)

    Ann Coulter brought up the triviality of the crime Garner was accused of (selling individual cigarettes without a license and without paying the exorbitant taxes that NYC liberals insist on collecting). Some people think that the “broken window” policing that Rudy Giuliani brought in may need to be modified, but one might note that this usually involves going after people who commit crimes that are small but still harmful. Tax cheating is harmful only to the tax collectors — which, as Coulter pointed out, is why liberals are so concerned about it. (She suggested that this is why they pay so much more attention to Ferguson than Staten Island, even though they have a much better case in the latter.)

    Robert Tracinski, meanwhile, noted that the liberals reflexively judged both cases from the beginning based solely on which groups were involved. (Note that the police went after Garner because of complaints by “minority” businesses in the area, that the precinct chief who sent them is black, and that the sergeant who oversaw the arrest is a black woman.) By contrast, conservatives agreed with the Ferguson verdict but were more skeptical of the Staten Island one because of differences in the evidence of the 2 cases.

    Another point I will make here is that much of what happened in terms of coverage can be explained by modern liberalism’s perverted preference for the bad over the good. Thus they sympathize with violent rioters, not the business owners (many of the black) they ruined. Thus they care more about a young black thug than they do an older and less violent (but still troublesome; if Eric Garner hadn’t resisted arrest, he would have lived) black marketer.

  11. Pamela says:

    You ought to be a part of a contest for one of the best sites
    on the net. I will highly recommend this blog!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *