MSM and Left Racism on Parade in Ferguson

By: Lloyd Marcus

Talk about deja vu Trayvon Martin spin all over again, I could hardly believe my eyes. During a discussion on CNN about the shooting of Michael Brown by a white police officer, in the background was a photo of Brown in a school graduation cap and gown. Give me a break!

Where was the picture from the surveillance video of the 6’4”, 290 pound thuggish Brown grabbing the store clerk by the throat after stealing cigars? The DOJ has advised news outlets not to broadcast the video of Brown assaulting the store clerk and robbing the store, claiming that it might insight violence. Okay, so allow me to make sure I understand the DOJ’s logic. Rather than exposing the true character of Brown, promoting the lie that a white police officer shot a studious innocent black youth who was simply minding his own business will not spark violence. Absurd.

I tip my hat to black conservative, Kevin Jackson who hung tough during a slightly contentious CNN interview. Kevin refused to allow the CNN host to get away with portraying Brown as a “choir boy”. Way to go Kevin! By the way, liberals on the internet have called Kevin a fool.

I had a similar exchange with a reporter during a radio interview about the chaos in Ferguson. However, the reporter during my interview attempted to cut me off at every turn. She had zero tolerance for any other narrative other than white cops across America are shooting young black males at will.

In both Kevin and my interview, the MSM interviewers were incensed and a bit shocked that as black men, we were not all about blaming and resenting whitey. Were we Uncle Toms, stupid or what?

Like in the Trayvon Martin case, the MSM has launched a false narrative. Angelic Michael Brown was murdered by a racist white cop. Period. No amount of facts or truth will cause the MSM to report otherwise.

What I find most disheartening about the MSM’s and Leftist talking head’s coverage of the shooting is that it is all rooted in lies, political correctness and a racist low expectation of black Americans.

The term, “institutional police brutality” is being tossed around. Hogwash! The fact that Michael Brown knew he could walk into a convenience store, take whatever he wanted and assault the store clerk without consequence says that Ferguson thugs have no fear of the police.

Pundits all over TV are scratching their heads about how to stop the violence and looting in Ferguson. The answer is simple. Arrest and lock up the bad guys. Unfortunately, political correctness does not allow common sense solutions. PC dictates that the police behave like impotent social workers, rather than protecting store owners from looters. PC caused police to back off, forcing store owners to arm themselves to protect their businesses from looters. http://fxn.ws/1pmRYi3

The elephant in the room is the MSM’s racist bigotry of low expectations. The MSM have been disproportionately critical of Ferguson police while expressing little rebuke of the thugs and looters. It has been complicit with the DOJ in hiding the character of Michael Brown.

It is as if the MSM and the Left have taken the role of parents of spoiled brat children (black criminals). They refuse to acknowledge the bad behavior of their children and attack anyone who dares discipline them.

As in the scenario of a parent coddling a spoiled child, the MSM and the Left hiding and ignoring bad behavior by black criminals is destructive to the black community.

Epidemic black on black murder in Chicago, genocidal high black abortions, epidemic black school dropouts and black out-of wedlock births are taboo topics of the MSM. Compassionate whites who dare address these issues which are devastating the black community suffer the wrath of the Left and MSM. Ask Bill O’Reilly. http://bit.ly/1pUXiZ6

And another thing, Ferguson residents are being terrorized by thugs and looters, not by the police. http://bit.ly/XhyKQI

As a black American whom liberals have called a stupid N word on numerous occasions for touting my conservative views, I get the feeling the MSM’s unspoken opinion is as followed. N****** have a right to act like n******. America should understand and compassionately tolerant it. This is pure racism and bigotry of low expectations.

Stemming from our legacy of marching with Dr King, we are a conservative, upright and moral people. A majority of black Americans, if given the truth without PC and political spin will come out on the side of justice and the law. The MSM and the Left’s condescension is demeaning and insulting to black America.

Thank God there are faithful black conservatives demanding a higher standard; defending the character and dignity of black America. Black Americans are so much more than who the MSM and Left portray us to be.

Lloyd Marcus, Unhyphenated American

Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee


Alleged, Anonymous Ferguson Testimony Corroborating Darren Wilson in Shooting of Mike Brown

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

Here it is, second, third, fourth, etc.-hand. I am posting it because of the flagrant politicization of bystanders’ remarks, from Al Sharpton, to MSNBC, to Barack Obama.

The point is counterpoint. We don’t know this happened exactly as it is described below, but neither do we know it did not happen, justly, in just this way.

Here is a transcript of what really happened with the altercation between Michael Brown and police officer Darren Wilson. This tells a very different story than what the criminals who are rioting and the news media are saying happened. This is why I say to stop using rubber bullets to control the crowd of thugs and use real bullets.

“He [Darren Wilson] said that … they [Mike Brown and another guy] were walking in the middle of the street. He [Darren] pulled up, rolled the [car’s] window down and, um, the two guys out in the street, they refused to and they were yelling back … there was cussing involved. He [Darren] kept rolling up and pulled over … He pulled up ahead of them and was watching.”

“Then he [Darren] got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery, and they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them [Michael and friend] and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he [Darren] goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he [Darren] said Michael did. And, then he [Darren] opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up.”

“And then Michael just bum-rushes him [Darren] and shoves him back into his car, punches him in the face. And then Darren grabs for his gun. Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off.”

“Well, then Michael takes off with his friend and gets to be about 35 feet away. And Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael was taunting him, ‘Oh what you’re gonna do about it. You’re not going to shoot me.'”

“And then all of a sudden he [Michael] just started to bumrush him [Darren]. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he [Darren] just started shooting. And he [Michael] just kept coming. So he [Darren] really thinks he [Michael] was on something because he just kept coming. It was unbelievable. So he finally ended up, the final shot was to the forehead. And then he [Michael] fell about two, three feet in front of the officer. So that’s why the story’s going around that [Michael was shot in the back]. Of course, ballistics will prove he wasn’t shot in the back.”

Comments welcomed.


UPDATE: “Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source,” FoxNews.com, August 20

Ferguson: Ochlocracy (Mob Rule) in Action,” Brent Parrish, August 20

BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack,” The Gateway Pundit, August 19

BREAKING: Autopsy RELEASED! Contrary to Eyewitness Accounts, All Shots From the FRONT!” Soopermexican, August 17

A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer,” Soopermexican, IJReview, August 17



Image from video at “BREAKING: Autopsy RELEASED! Contrary to Eyewitness Accounts, All Shots From the FRONT!” Soopermexican, August 17


Watcher’s Council Nominations – Drunk And Out Of Line Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Ethics, you know… after all, if a DA can’t try and use her position to muscle herself out of a DUI, who can?

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the two best posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

The Council In Action!!

Terresa at The Noisy Room scored when her entry this week, Communists and the New Black Panthers Gin Up Violence and Racial Conflict in Ferguson was cited by DC Clothesline and Infowars… where it subsequently got picked up by Drudge!

This week, Blazing Cat Fur, The Political Commentator and Gates Of Vienna earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have for you this week…

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that! And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!


Ferguson Update: 30 Arrested Overnight as “Protesters” Hurl Rocks, Bottles, Molotov Cocktails at Police

Hat Tip: BB

RUSH: Obama Prejudging Everything Up Until Ferguson

Q&A: Is It Legal to Use the National Guard in Ferguson?

*UPDATE* St. Louis Media REPORT – Dorian Johnson Recants Media Statement ? – Tells Authorities “Big Mike” Did Try For Officers Gun – Grand Jury Charges “Unlikely”… *UPDATE* – But Special Prosecutor Might Be Assigned Anyway


#Ferguson: Ochlocracy (Mob Rule) in Action

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

Our Founders called it “mobocracy.” And mobocracy is synonymous with democracy. But isn’t democracy synonymous with freedom? No! Not unless one defines “freedom” as mob rule.

It might surprise some to learn the United States is not a democracy. Article 4, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution clearly states the United States “shall have a republican form of government.” Our form of government, as required by the Constitution, is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy, despite what the so-called “constitutional scholar” who now occupies the Oval Office claims. (Barack Obama has stated in the past that the U.S. is the world’s oldest constitutional democracy, which is patently false.)

The Founders warned, from the very beginning, that pure democracy is one of the worst forms of government that exists. Pure democracy is simply the rule of the majority, i.e. mob rule. But a constitutional republic is based on the rule of law, which protects both the majority and the individual.

“Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.”

—E.B. White

The term “democracy” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or in any State constitution.

Even in the Federalist Papers, “democracy” is rarely mentioned. But there are a few places in the Federalist Papers where democracy is discussed–specifically, in Federalist Papers #10, #14 and #48.

On democracy, from Federalist Paper #10, my emphasis:

… From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended….

On democracy, from Federalist Paper #14:

… The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory….

On democracy, from Federalist Paper #48:

… In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions….

Still, many people nowadays believe democracy and republic are just interchangeable terms–meaning, they are one and the same. Well, that is just what the purveyors of democracy would like you to believe. Nothing makes the democracy enthusiast happier than to hear individuals on both sides of the political spectrum refer to our form of government as a democracy. And, quite frankly, it is quite dangerous; and one of the reasons, I believe, the United States has moved so far toward pure socialism.

Granted, the concept and influence of democracy has a long history in the history of American politics, stretching all the way back to the founding of the nation.

The modern Democratic Party was founded in 1828, and traces its origins back to the Democratic-Republican Party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. According to WikiPedia: “The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name primarily used by political scientists for the Republican Party or the Jeffersonian Republicans.”

The first U.S. president who successfully ran as a Democrat was Andrew Jackson, who served from 1829 to 1837. The modern Democratic Party was formed in the 1930′s from factions of the Democratic-Republican Party.

The term democracy also came heavily into vogue during the Woodrow Wilson Administration, whose famous slogan “making the world safe for democracy” has become a mainstay in the American lexicon. Wilson served two terms from 1913 to 1921. It was around this time that democracy was heavily sold as being synonymous with republicanism and representative government … it has been sold as such ever since.

One constitution where “democracy” appears numerous times is the Soviet Constitution of 1977. Additionally, the term democracy is commonplace in the writings of countless Marxist writers—such as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Josef Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Antonio Gramsci, and many others. If you would like to confirm this for yourself, visit the Marxist archive at Marxists.org and enter the search term “democracy.”

Granted, Marxian socialists make a distinction between what they call bourgeois democracy versus proletarian democracy, i.e. social democracy. But “democracy is indispensable for socialism,” as Max Shachtman wrote in 1943 in a piece entitled “Trotsky on Democracy and Fascism” (New International, Vol.IX No.7 [Whole No.74], July 1943, pp.216-217).

Another example of the importance direct democracy plays in Marxian socialism appears in the Communist Party of Great Britain’s (CPGB) program from 1951 entitled “The British Road to Socialism.” Section V of the CPGB’s program is titled “People’s Democracy—The Path to Socialism.”

Communism is brought about in stages, and it all starts with pure democracy. Vladimir Lenin once said, “The goal of socialism is communism.” But, as Ivor Thomas wrote in The Socialist Tragedy (1954), there really is very little difference between socialism and communism in practice, despite some of the objections by modern-day Marxist theoreticians to Thomas’ conclusion regarding the ultimate failure of socialism-communism. Pure democracy is a form of collectivism—it readily sacrifices individual rights to majority wishes (a.k.a. mobocracy).

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Dr. Benjamin Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation by a woman who asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Dr. Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”



“Nixon’s the One” for Media Hypocrites

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Our media were so fixated on the “militarization” of the police in Ferguson that most of them failed to highlight the fact that Democratic Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s decision to call in the National Guard was another and more potent form of militarization.

Wynton Hall of Breitbart noticed the irony: “Democratic Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D-MO) said on Sunday he was ‘thunderstruck’ by the ‘over-militarization’ of the police in responding to the Ferguson riots and looting. Hours later, he ordered in the U.S. military in the form of the National Guard.”

The “striking contradiction,” as he put it, reflects the media mentality. The idea that the police have been “over-militarized” was a big theme of Radley Balko, the journalist whose book, Rise of the Warrior Cop, and writings have been highlighted for their gross distortions and exaggerations.

Some commentators, such as Kirsten Powers on Fox News, tried to insist that the initial show of force by the local police had somehow provoked the demonstrators. That seemed to be Nixon’s line as well. In addition, he claimed that the release of the videotape showing Michael Brown robbing a convenience store—before he attacked a police officer and was shot—was provocative.

In the end, however, the “militarized” local police were no match for the organized criminal elements egged on by the racial agitators. Bigger guns were called in.

The real story out of Ferguson is that a national network of agitators is ready, on a moment’s notice, to arrive on the scene to cause violence and mayhem. On Monday night, as the violence continued, Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson identified some of the protesters as coming from New York and California. Two “protesters” were shot by other “protesters.” This is a classic case of communist political agitation, as documented decades ago by a report released by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.

Rich Lowry of National Review commented, “So now Governor Nixon is calling in the National Guard, or in other words, ‘militarizing’ the response. What Ferguson needs is the restoration of basic order, and the absence of it has never been the fault of the police, but of a small, lawless fringe of protestors bent on mayhem.” But this small group seems to be growing day by day.

The Defense One website ran a story headlined, “So Much for Demilitarizing Ferguson, Here Comes the National Guard.”

Despite all the talk about the “militarization” of police, the threat to people and property in Ferguson required a more substantial response. Nixon ordered the National Guard in, even while claiming to be surprised by the need for a military response. It was classic double-talk.

In fact, despite his “thunderstruck” comments, Nixon’s Missouri Department of Public Safety has been part of the program to accept surplus military equipment for local police agencies. It is called the Department of Defense Excess Property Program (1033 Program).

The director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety is former St. Louis County Police Chief Jerry Lee. He was installed in this position on October 18, 2011, by Nixon.

If there has been the “over-militarization” of law enforcement in Ferguson, state authorities have made it possible. And that includes Nixon.

Melissa Quinn of The Daily Signal reported that Nixon “signed off as recently as January on statewide participation” in the program. She added, “Should Nixon, a Democrat elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, have been surprised? Participating jurisdictions, including agencies in St. Louis County, received weapons and equipment as early as 2010 and again in 2012, 2013 and this summer. Ferguson is a St. Louis suburb.”

So why is Nixon surprised by this? He’s not. But this has become the fashionable thing to say.

Still trying to drive the national conversation, Radley Balko is now excited that Attorney General Eric Holder has announced “a broad, national review of police tactics.” He adds, “The Holder Justice Department has been great about investigating and fighting police brutality.”

Ferguson has become a “war zone” because of outside agitators, and yet the Obama/Holder Justice Department has decided to investigate and punish the police.

There was a time when Congress had internal security committees investigating attacks by communist and other groups on law enforcement. Those panels were dismantled by liberal politicians. As a result, the cop who protected himself against Michael Brown is living in fear and hiding while the mob runs wild in Ferguson. Police Officer Darren Wilson could be indicted by a grand jury under the influence of the Obama/Holder Justice Department.

Obama and Holder have a record of leniency toward criminals, terrorists and cop-killers. Weather Underground terrorist Marilyn Buck was given early release from federal prison by Holder, who was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and involved in pardons for members of the Weather Underground and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorist group at that time. Holder also intervened last year to release terrorist lawyer Lynne Stewart from a federal prison.

More recently, Obama nominated Debo Adegbile, who had filed a legal appeal on behalf of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, to head the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Several Democrats in the Senate joined with Republicans to defeat his nomination.

This is the same Civil Rights Division that Holder has ordered to help lead an investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson.

Reacting to the defeat of Adegbile, Radley Balko wrote in The Washington Post that “Frankly, we need more people with criminal defense experience in policy-making positions. We certainly need more of them sitting on the bench, particularly at the appellate level and on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

On his Twitter account, he denounced the vote against Adegbile, saying, “The U.S. Senate has just demonstrated some ugly ignorance about the role of a criminal defense attorney.”

This was more nonsense from a discredited “expert.” The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) had noted in a letter to Obama that Adegbile, working at the time for the Legal Defense Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, “volunteered” to represent the cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and that “His just sentence—death—was undone by your nominee and others like him who turned the justice system on its head with unfounded and unproven allegations of racism.”

FOP National President Chuck Canterbury wrote in the letter, “We are aware of the tried and true shield behind which activists of Adegbile’s ilk are wont to hide—that everyone is entitled to a defense; but surely you would agree that a defense should not be based on falsely disparaging and savaging the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer. Certainly any legal scholar can see the injustice and absence of ethics in this cynical race-baiting approach to our legal system.”

But Radley Balko is perfectly content with Holder’s race-baiting approach.

Balko may have started out his career as a libertarian, but he is quickly showing his true colors—as an apologist for the anti-police agenda of the Obama/Holder Administration. He has set the stage for the media’s failure to hold the double-talking Democrat Nixon responsible for failing to stem the violence and the chaos in Ferguson.


No, Tor.com, GenCon Isn’t Racist. A Fisking.

By: Larry Correia — Happy bday Larry!!
Monster Hunter International

I read this article before arriving in Indianapolis, so I was able to ponder on it a bit as I observed the gleeful masses at GenCon enjoying themselves and having a fantastic time proudly flying their geek flags high. Little did those poor gamers realize that they were actually engaging in racist-cismale-patriarchal-micro-aggressions and invisible privilege. Luckily for us Tor.com has once again swooped in to suck the fun out of everything.


As usual, the original article is in italics and my comments are in bold. Before I get going, let me just skip ahead a bit and say that the author of this article says he wanted to have a conversation on race in gaming. Okay. Here you go. Be careful what you wish for.

First off, so you know my preexisting biases, here is my opinion on GenCon: http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/08/18/gencon-2014-report/ In short, it is friggin’ awesome.

Gaming’s Race Problem: GenCon and Beyond



Tomorrow I will be attending GenCon, the biggest table-top gaming convention in the United States. Held in Indianapolis, Indiana, it is four fun-filled days in celebration of the art and hobby of role-playing. There is something for everyone there: games, films, seminars, workshops, dancing, music, and parties. It’s an annual event where people from all over the world come to let their hair down and their inner geek out. As a lifelong gamer, I am excited to go to GenCon.

This is standard operating procedure with Tor.com articles, start out with an intro about how something everyone enjoys is great fun before they helpfully explain how it is actually horrible, and thus you should feel bad. They even did the same thing explaining how Guardians of the Galaxy hates women, minorities, and gay people. http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/08/guardians-of-the-galaxy-we-need-to-talk

As an ethnic minority, I am apprehensive about going to GenCon.


For all that GenCon offers, it lacks in minority gamers.

Huh? Not particularly, but we’ll get back to that.

Last year was my first GenCon, and as I explored the convention, I saw almost no one who looked like me.

Why? Are you physically fit?

Continue reading