Thread: Drudge Report: UNREST IN HEARTLAND

Is some of the violence in Ferguson being staged by provocateurs to justify the militarized police crackdown?

http://www.infowars.com/ferguson-rio...-provocateurs/

Missouri governor sends in National Guard after shooting protests

Reuters: Lucas Jackson
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon
6 hr ago By Reuters





FERGUSON, Missouri, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Missouri Governor Jay Nixon ordered the National Guard on Monday to help restore peace to the St Louis suburb of Ferguson, hours after police fired tear gas to disperse people protesting against the shooting of a black teenager by an officer.
"Tonight, a day of hope, prayers and peaceful protests was marred by the violent criminal acts of an organized and growing number of individuals," Nixon said in a statement on his website. As a result, Nixon said, he was directing the National Guard to help "in restoring peace and order to this community."
(Reporting by Ellen Wulfhorst; Writing and additional reporting by Sharon Bernstein and Chris Michaud; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

http://news.msn.com/us/missouri-gove...oting-protests

Drudge Report

PROTESTERS STORM GOVERNOR'S OFFICE...



PROTESTERS STORM GOVERNOR’S ST. LOUIS OFFICE – Demand Removal of National Guard in #Ferguson

No justice! No peace! Protesters storm Jay Nixon's office! Protesters march towards Gov Nixon's #StL office chanting "the Nat'l Guard has got to go" #Ferguson pic.twitter.com/NjushBrG1q — Chris Stanford (@StanfordKMOV) August 18, 2014 Protesters tried to storm Governor Jay Nixon's…
thegatewaypundit.com

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014...d-in-ferguson/

Human Events

A lot of Americans don't like what they see:



America has a ‘militarization moment’ | Human Events
We have seen something like Ferguson, Mo., before.
humanevents.com

America has a ‘militarization moment’



By: Rob Nikolewski
8/18/2014 09:35 AM

This article originally appeared on watchdog.org.

Call it our “militarization moment.”
We have seen something like Ferguson, Mo., before. A police officer shoots and kills a young black man, which touches off protests and looting. Which prompts headlong rushes to judgment about the actions of everyone involved — the cops, elected officials, activists and the media. Which causes us to question our progress on race, our politics and our national character.
We saw it with the beating of Rodney King in 1992 in Los Angeles. We saw it again with the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in 2012 in Sanford, Fla.
What’s different this time is police officers armed with equipment and weaponry normally associated with overseas military operations.
And a lot of Americans don’t like what they see.
“In Ferguson and beyond, it seems that some police officers have shed the blue uniform and have put on the uniform and gear of the military, bringing the attitude along with it,”wrote Paul Szoldra, who served in the Marines in Afghanistan.
The photos have been dramatic.
For years the federal government has been providing surplus military equipment to local law enforcement through the 1033 Program which has, since its inception in 1997, delivered $5.1 billion in weapons, Humvees, 30-ton Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and even helicopters and drones to cities and towns across the country.
The pace of the military equipment dispersal has quickened with the winding down of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In 2013 alone, the 1033 Program transferred more than $449 million in equipment, weapons and vehicles to local law enforcement.
“The only cost we incurred was the gas it took to drive it back,” the police chief in Ruidoso, N.M. — population 8,005 — told New Mexico Watchdog in June of the practically mint-condition MRAP his department picked up in Sealy, Texas. “The cost was zero dollars.”
But carrying out a military operation is a lot different than local policing.
“There’s a blurring of the military mission and the civilian police mission and that is a dangerous thing,” Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, said two months before the Ferguson unrest. “We want our civilian police departments not to lose sight of the fact that they are dealing with people on a day-to-day basis with constitutional rights, and we want them to use a minimum amount of force to bring suspects into a court of law.”
Arming civilian police forces with military gear runs the risk of conditioning “police officers to see the people they serve — the people with whom they interact everyday — as the enemy,”Radley Balko, wrote in his 2013 book, “The Rise of the Warrior Cop.”
The hyper-arming of police has been going on in big cities and small towns.
Little Preston Idaho, population 5,000 has a MRAP, as aWatchdog.org reporter found.
Nearly 20 communities in New Mexico and New Mexico State University’s campus police now have MRAPs, New Mexico Watchdog discovered. The police department in Hobbs was so proud it produced a 30-second commercial featuring the vehicle and its officers in military gear, weapons drawn, bursting through the door of a house.
Federal agencies in growing numbers field their own law enforcement departments,Watchdog reported in April. These departments protect at taxpayer expense such security risks as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of Education.
Police chiefs who have solicited our excess military hardware insist it is helpful, especially in violent situations.
CLICK HERE TO READ WATCHDOG.ORG’S FULL COVERAGE OF MRAPs
Like a domestic violence incident in May in Los Lunas, N.M. The bullet-proof MRAP protected officers and the public from 70 rounds fired by a suspect barricaded in a house, Police Chief Naithan Gurule said.
The wholesale rioting and chaos in Ferguson, Mo., was potentially far more deadly. However, watching a St. Louis suburb morph into a scene from Black Hawk Down has some Americans weighing concerns about lawlessness in equal measure with the armed might of lawmen.
“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm,” U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., wrote in Time magazine. “It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.”
Since Paul’s commentary was posted Thursday the national debate on militarized police has metastasized.
And that’s a good thing. A full-throated argument — even an angry one full of distortion and political bias — has been long overdue.
After all, local police forces are funded with tax dollars that come from each and every one of us. Police are public servants, first and foremost, just like our elected public servants, our mayors, city councilors and clerks.

http://humanevents.com/2014/08/18/am...paign=heupdate

Pictures from above article. The downtown crowd looks different than the Ferguson crowd.
PROTESTERS STORM GOVERNOR’S ST. LOUIS OFFICE – Demand Removal of National Guard in #Ferguson

Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, August 18, 2014, 5:12 PM

No justice! No peace!
Protesters storm Jay Nixon’s office!
Protesters tried to storm Governor Jay Nixon’s office today in downtown St. Louis.

The guards would not let them in – security said they’re not here on “official business.”

Eight protesters were arrested.


Chris Stanford @StanfordKMOV
Follow
Several protesters just arrested downtown #StL including this woman for "blocking the entrance" #ferguson
4:47 PM - 18 Aug 2014

There was a massive crowd outside Nixon’s office.

NationalLawyersGuild @NLGnews
Follow
Today: protesters chant "Hands up, don't shoot" in front of Gov. Jay Nixon's office. #Ferguson
5:31 PM - 18 Aug 2014

Governor Nixon lifted the midnight curfew today in Ferguson but brought in the National Guard.

ug 18, 2014, 5:03pm CDT UPDATED: Aug 18, 2014, 7:04pm CDT
Protest at Gov. Nixon’s St. Louis office ends in arrests
Jacob Kirn

[IMG]http://media.bizj.us/view/img/3476441/wainwright-protester-1-081814*304xx2180-3264-19-0.jpg[/IMG]

A protester is arrested Monday afternoon in front of the Wainwright State Office Building in downtown St. Louis.
Jacob KirnDigital Producer-St. Louis Business Journal

More than 100 protesters descended on Gov. Jay Nixon’s St. Louis office around 4 p.m. Monday, demanding to meet with state officials.
Eight protesters who refused to step away from the building's entrance were arrested around 4:40 p.m.

Blocked by several police officers, the crowd did not enter the Wainwright State Office Building, 111 N. Seventh St. Instead, it set up an encampment in the building’s plaza near Seventh and Pine streets.

State officials offered to meet with one protester, but the crowd refused.

“Face one, face all!” they chanted.

Protesters took a megaphone one by one, airing various grievances against police.

Protests, some of which have ended in violence, began after the Aug. 9 police shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, in Ferguson.

The crowd chanted during the arrests Monday afternoon. “Who do you serve? Who do you protect?” they shouted at police.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/b...e-ends-in.html

Occupation Forces

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/18/2014 20:16 -0400

Submitted by Jeff Thomas via Doug Casey's International Man blog,
When I was growing up in Berlin, after the war (World War II), we lived in the American sector and the American soldiers were everywhere—on the streets, in the cafes. No one wanted them there, but whenever we made disparaging remarks, our own authorities tell us we must not do this. They tell us the Americans can do what they like and we just have to accept it. So, we stop using the words, “Yankee” and “American.” They are the occupying forces, just like the Romans were at one time, so, amongst ourselves, we refer to them as “the Romans.” So, we talk freely in the cafes about the “Romans” and the American soldiers don’t know that we mean them.
The snippet above was from taken from a conversation I had recently in a café with Klaus, a German who is now in his late sixties. He had a long career as a pilot for the German air force and had been stationed in many countries. In spite of his own career as an “occupier,” he never got over the resentment he had for the occupation of his homeland by American troops. (Berlin was occupied from 1945 to 1994.)
The US is unique in the world with regard to occupation. It has been estimated that the US has over 325,000 military personnel in over 1,000 overseas military bases in more than 150 countries, but statistics are widely conflicting.
Generally, the American troops arrive to deal with some sort of conflict (either invited or uninvited), but unlike most other armies, they tend to remain for a long time beyond the stated “need.”
There are those who praise this policy, stating that the US “keeps the world safe for democracy;” however, the US is known (at least to us outsiders) as a country that typically routs elected governments, installs corrupt and ineffectual puppet leaders, and seeks to control the occupied country as a satellite state.
There are three major downsides to this policy:
1. Occupation Forces Are Always Resented
Most Americans, during the Cold War, perceived the Russian forces in Berlin to be hated by the Berliners, but assumed that Berliners were grateful to have American occupiers to “keep them safe.” The truth, as Klaus states, was that all occupiers were hated, not just the Russians. Long after the war was over and it was time for Berlin to return to normal, the Russians and Americans maintained a standoff in Berlin that did not end for another forty-nine years. Only in 1994 did Germans “get their city back.”
Not surprisingly, many Germans, even today, feel that neither the Russians nor the Americans can be trusted, as they are seen as “empire builders” who play out their ambitions in foreign lands. Although today, there is a fair bit of cooperation between the governments of the US and Germany, the German people themselves have, even recently, expressed their distrust by asking that the Bundesbank demand the return of their $141 billion in gold from the US Federal Reserve, and have additionally railed against NSA spies in Germany.
2. Occupation Is Extremely Costly
Two thousand years ago, the Romans created an empire by training its own people as troops, then invading other countries, stripping them of their wealth. They then left troops behind in each country as occupiers to maintain Roman control. Unfortunately, after the initial pillaging, there was little ongoing wealth to be taken, and the occupations became expensive liabilities. Eventually, the once-wealthy Rome sank into debt and relied more and more on mercenary troops—troops that had no real loyalties to Rome and would eventually turn on Rome, when the money ran out.
The US is now in a similar state. There is no more military draft in the US, and the majority of soldiers occupying the 150 countries are mercenaries (or, in today’s nomenclature, “defense contractors”). As the US is technically bankrupt, it is only a question of time before the cheques stop coming. As in Rome, it can be expected that the mercenaries will drop their “loyalty” with little or no warning at some point.
3. A Government that Believes in Occupation as a Policy is a Danger to its Citizens
The US Government clearly believes in the concept of occupation, as it is actually increasing the number of countries where it has troops in occupation.
In addition, in the last decade, the US has been dramatically ramping up its preparedness for war at home. Not since World War II has the US spent so much money building tanks, buying bullets, and training troops to get ready for a major conflict.
However, this time, it is not for a war overseas, but at home. The armaments are being deployed to localised law enforcement departments and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is charged solely with domestic enforcement. Similarly, the training of police officers and other authorities has changed dramatically from the traditional “Protect and Serve” policy to one of riot control and combatting “domestic terrorism.”
Billions are being spent on this effort, and of the three downsides to occupation, this is the one that should concern American citizens most greatly, as, for the first time since 1865, the American continent itself is planned to be the occupied territory.
Indeed, under the National Defense Authorization Act, passed in 2011, the US was declared a “battlefield,” a legal term that allows a government to suspend habeas corpus and to authorise any authorities to act toward the people of the country as “enemy combatants,” should they suspect for any reason that this might be so.
In discussing post-war Berlin with Klaus, I asked him when he left his home city. He said, “As soon as I was old enough—I joined the service and got out. This is no way to live.”
As stated above, Klaus himself later became an air force pilot and an “occupier” of sorts. Still, he is correct in his view that to be the population that is occupied—that is, to be under the control of militaristic rule—is no way to live.
It would appear that, in the US, the clock is ticking. “Occupation” may be an inevitability, and we are now seeing the quiet before the storm—the time when each individual may assess his options.
One thing is certain: when the DHS troops are deployed, they will not be looked upon as the friendly neighbourhood cops of past generations. They will be seen as the Romans… the occupying forces.
Editor’s Note: Unfortunately there’s little any individual can practically do to change the trajectory of this trend in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation.
This is what Doug Casey’s International Man is all about: helping you cut through the smoke and mirrors while making the most of your personal freedom and financial opportunities around the world. The free IM Communiqué is a great place to start.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...upation-forces

Guest Post: Joblessness, Hopelessness, And Government Dependency

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/18/2014 19:24 -0400
Submitted by James H. Kustler of Kunstler.com,

Of all the awful tensions roiling and coiling in American society, it’s only a little bit surprising that the racial module is blowing off now rather than, say, the stock market. Perhaps it’s a seasonal thing: race riots in the summer; stock market crashes in the fall, revolutions in the spring.
Michael Brown, the 18-year-old shooting victim of a cop-stop in Ferguson, Missouri, was not the best candidate for martyrdom. But it was only after the violent protests to his killing got underway that his convenience store robbery videotape went public - despite attempts by the US Department of Justice to suppress it - and by then it was too late to stop the juggernaut of grievance. Meanwhile, the white condescension machine (The New York Times, The Huffington Post, et. al.) revved into top gear to validate the fears and resentments of the rioters.
The casual observer from Mars might have trouble finding the reality in this welter of bad feeling. A toxicology report should have accompanied the second autopsy report, and shed a little light, but apparently no one has asked for it yet — notably the leading news media. 18-year-old young men are not known for having great judgment or impulse control even when not high.
White America is tortured by black America’s failure to thrive, and all that guilt and anxiety has only gotten worse as a substantial quota of white America loses its own footing in the middle class and plunges into the rough country of joblessness, hopelessness, and government dependency. The usual remedies of even more dependency aren’t working so well for anybody. It’s politically easier for the moment, though. And both the government and the news media are frantically busy manufacturing excuses for everybody’s bad conduct.
This poor nation is faced with the tasks of completely retooling its economy in a way that it can’t bear to imagine, and of also reforming its grotesque social behavior. One might follow the other in a better world, but our prospects for the moment are not so bright. My own camp is inclined to expect an anguished collapse rather than any deliberate reformation. We’ve set ourselves up for it.
The future we don’t want to think about is an economy focused on food production at the local scale, along with the activities that support it and add value to its products, and the labor required to do all that. There’s a fair chance that we will fail altogether to ever get it running. In any case, the officially-sanctioned future that so many people are expecting - the digital wonderland economy - will not survive the energy and capital scarcities ahead.
The basic questions of race relations in America remain too painful to ask and too hard to answer. For instance, are we hard-wired to self-segregate? There certainly was a great wish that this were not so. Has it been disproven or overcome in the 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education? Do we have different standards of behavior for different races? Does that work?
The case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, can’t inspire a whole lot of confidence about working anything out. We’re finding out that a culture of opposition produces confrontation, often just for its own sake, because there seems to be nothing better to do. Is it the opening round of broader discontent and conflict? Black America surely faces an existential crisis, but not the one imagined in the condescending news media - of somehow getting non-black America to be more just and generous. The truth is, we’ve already been through that and there is nothing left to do. We’re out of “affirmative actions” of all kinds. “Diversity” chatter didn’t make anything better. Have we completely discarded the idea of a common culture along with uniform standards of behavior? If not, we’re in for more violence and anarchy.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ent-dependency

Charting Poverty In Ferguson: Then And Now

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/17/2014 17:05 -0400

While there have been many socio-economic 'explanations and justifications' for the recent events in Ferguson, many of which have exceeded the realm of the factual and have brazenly encroached on feelings, emotions, heartstrings, and various other of the media's favorite manipulative mechanisms to achieve a desired outcome, the unpleasant reality is that much of what has transpired not only in the small 21,000-person St. Louis suburban community, but what is taking place across all of America has to do with a far simpler phenomenon: the rise of poverty and the destruction of America's middle class.

Here are some facts:
Ferguson has been home to dramatic economic changes in recent years. The city’s unemployment rate rose from less than 5 percent in 2000 to over 13 percent in 2010-12. For those residents who were employed, inflation-adjusted average earnings fell by one-third. The number of households using federal Housing Choice Vouchers climbed from roughly 300 in 2000 to more than 800 by the end of the decade.
Amid these changes, poverty skyrocketed. Between 2000 and 2010-2012, Ferguson’s poor population doubled. By the end of that period, roughly one in four residents lived below the federal poverty line ($23,492 for a family of four in 2012), and 44 percent fell below twice that level.
These changes affected neighborhoods throughout Ferguson. At the start of the 2000s, the five census tracts that fall within Ferguson’s border registered poverty rates ranging between 4 and 16 percent. However, by 2008-2012 almost all of Ferguson’s neighborhoods had poverty rates at or above the 20 percent threshold at which the negative effects of concentrated poverty begin to emerge. (One Ferguson tract had a poverty rate of 13.1 percent in 2008-2012, while the remaining tracts fell between 19.8 and 33.3 percent.)
Below are charts of Ferguson poverty in 2000 and 2012:
Then: Census Tract-Level Poverty Rates in St. Louis County, 2000


and Now: Census Tract-Level Poverty Rates in St. Louis County, 2008-2012

The biggest concern, however, is that Ferguson is merely the canary in the coalmine. According to Brookings, within the nation’s 100 largest metro areas, the number of suburban neighborhoods where more than 20 percent of residents live below the federal poverty line more than doubled between 2000 and 2008-2012. Almost every major metro area saw suburban poverty not only grow during the 2000s but also become more concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods. By 2008-2012, 38 percent of poor residents in the suburbs lived in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 20 percent or higher. For poor black residents in those communities, the figure was 53 percent.

Like Ferguson, many of these changing suburban communities are home to out-of-step power structures, where the leadership class, including the police force, does not reflect the rapid demographic changes that have reshaped these places.

Suburban areas with growing poverty are also frequently characterized by many small, fragmented municipalities; Ferguson is just one of 91 jurisdictions in St. Louis County. This often translates into inadequate resources and capacity to respond to growing needs and can complicate efforts to connect residents with economic opportunities that offer a path out of poverty.

And as concentrated poverty climbs in communities like Ferguson, they find themselves especially ill-equipped to deal with impacts such as poorer education and health outcomes, and higher crime rates. In an article for Salon, Brittney Cooper writes about the outpouring of anger from the community, “Violence is the effect, not the cause of the concentrated poverty that locks that many poor people up together with no conceivable way out and no productive way to channel their rage at having an existence that is adjacent to the American dream.”

We have warned all along that the Fed's disastrous policies are splitting the nation in two, creating a tiny superclass of uber-wealthy oligrachs, and a vast majority of disgruntled, disenfranchised poor. It is the latter, whose life of squalor and poverty, has left them with little if anything to lose. Unless dramatic and rapid changes take place within the executive levels of the US corporato-banking oligrachy and its D.C. puppets, very soon "Ferguson-type" occurences, where participatnts could care less if the S&P 500 closed at a fresh all time record high, will become a daily, and very deadly, occurence. All thanks to the Fed's dual mandate of "maximum employment and stable inflation."
* * *
And as a tangent, we must say that we find the fact that none other than former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is now a Distinguished Fellow in Residence with the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, the source of most of the above data, to be ironic beyond words.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...n-then-and-now

Rush Limbaugh

The people who live on and profit from the notion that there's racial strife worsening in this country, they're not gonna ever allow any perception that the problem has been solved. Never.



Democrats Don't Want to End Racial Strife
RUSH: The Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons, they don't want this solved.
rushlimbaugh.com

Democrats Don't Want to End Racial Strife

August 18, 2014


Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We'll go to San Diego. Robert, great to have you, sir. You're next. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. You always say that speak about politics -- or think of politics. And in this situation, I'm looking at the way the Democrats would look at this as this case develops, and I don't want to be cynical, 'cause I'm not. I think the family really wants justice and they'd like to see a conviction and so forth, but I think the home run for...
RUSH: Whoa, whoa. Hold it a minute now. See, you're falling into a trap already that I'm gonna get in trouble for pointing out. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't mean this as criticism, but look at how easily you equated "justice" with the cop being found guilty.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: You said the family wants justice and a conviction, but we don't know that that's what justice is.
CALLER: Well, Rush, I think the Democrats ultimately hope that the robbery, the video and so forth, clouds up the issue enough so that there will be no conviction and there will be an exoneration perhaps. And that's what the party really wants, because that is the Ferguson get-out-the-vote campaign. A conviction, that's nothing for them. That's maybe what the family would like, but the Regime wants just the opposite.
RUSH: Well --
CALLER: An exoneration of a white cop would go a lot farther for them, and that's the political part that I think they're looking at, and it's looking more and more like that may be the outcome.
RUSH: I applaud the effort to think politically here. It's something I have been urging each and every one of you to do, particularly in the lead news story of every day. Always look at the politics of it. The reason is... Well, 'cause it's there. I mean, the politics is what's guiding it. The politics is what's shaping it. I just find it fascinating. All these people, particularly young people (impression), "I don't like politics. I hate it! I just despise it. It makes me nervous. I don't like the arguing and so forth."
Everything is politics, and they don't think they're looking at politics except when they see the Republicans. See how this works? The Democrats are never doing it. The Democrats always have the best intentions, the best morals, the highest ideals. "It's the Republicans! I hate the Republican! They're always arguing, always bickering. It's always politics with the Republicans."
The low-information crowd doesn't get that it's the Democrat Party and the media defining, politically, the template, the agenda, the narrative of the day. Now, in this case... In this case the way this works is, the way the Democrat Party has constituted itself, they really can't lose no matter what happens here, politically, because they've already succeeded by establishing the myth.

They've already got victory. The victory is: "This happens all the time! A white police officer shooting an innocent black victim, sometimes a child -- sometimes a gentle giant child -- happens all the time." That's the myth, and they've already got people reacting based on the myth. They've already got people feeling guilty. They've already got people tuning in. They've already got people hoping, "Oh, my God! Oh, gee, I wish it weren't this way."
It's worked, which is why I'm trying to point it out so that some people will stop being negatively affected by this in the political sense, 'cause I know a lot of you probably say (sigh), "Oh, jeez here we go again, right before the midterms this happens. Oh, people are gonna hate the Republicans." So their mythmaking has already worked. Now, I contend to you that any outcome here they will be able to spin for a political victory.
It's the nature of the beast, and the reason they're able to do this so easily is the Republicans simply do not play. The Republicans are constantly totally on defense without ever once pushing back or going on offense. So in the case of an acquittal, if it goes to trial, an acquittal of the cop is made to order, for one political enemy. The conviction of the cop is made to order, perfect and so forth.
An acquittal of the cop, same way. Your point is that they gain more politically with an acquittal because the black community is therefore more riled up. But the black community can't vote any more Democrat than they already do! So the Democrats and the media? Even if the cop is convicted, I can guarantee you what the narrative of that will be. "Don't be happy. This doesn't change anything.
"It's still horrible for young blacks on the streets of America. This doesn't change anything." If there's a trial, if the cop is convicted, they will use that to continue and further the myth that even though this cop was convicted, it doesn't happen nearly enough, and it's been gotten away with for way too long. That's the... I don't want to say "beauty," but that is the...
I don't want to say "brilliance," either, but in some sense it has to be because they've structured things so that no matter what the outcome, they have a political narrative for it that keeps things roiled and unsolved. This why it would be a mistake for people to say, "You know what? Let's throw the cop overboard! I don't care, Rush. Let's just say the cop's guilty, okay? And then that'll solve it."



It won't solve anything. The Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons, they don't want this solved. The people who live on and profit from the notion that there's racial strife worsening in this country, they're not gonna ever allow any perception that the problem has been solved. Never.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites. What a farce. The governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, on Meet the Depressed Sunday morning. Yeah, I was gonna play this, until I got sidetracked by my memory of Snerdley walking in here today telling me that I should feel responsible for David Gregory losing the hosting gig there.
At any rate, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, said, "Governor, there was peace on Thursday night after you appointed the state police to take over from the county, but then the local police chief released that video. What justifies releasing the video about the convenience store while there's still no details about what happened with the shooting itself? That's what caused everything to erupt again on Friday night and eventually led to the curfew having to be imposed. Why release the video?"

NIXON: Yeah, we in our security team and the highway patrol did not know that was going to be released. I don't think the attorney general knew that. And quite frankly, we disagree deeply. To attempt to, in essence, disparage the character of this victim in the middle of a process like this is not right. It's just not right. And secondarily, it did put the community and, quite frankly, the region and the nation, you know, on alert again. And that action was not helpful.
RUSH: This just illustrates how backwards all of this is, and it illustrates the myth making. There's no better word for it than myth, narrative, template, what have you. Why would a videotape of the gentle giant committing a crime in the convenience store, why is that character assassination, why is that incendiary? No, no. Folks, I understand. I know that in powder keg situation like this, I know how it's gonna be interpreted. That's my point. There was no doctoring. If this were made up, if they had created a video out of nothing and made it look like it was Michael brown, but it wasn't. And if they had gone to great lengths to smear Michael Brown, then, yeah. But this really happened.
He really did hold up the convenience store. And it added information because up until this point on Friday nobody knew. I remember sitting here on Friday when this thing came out, when they released the video, and I remember my initial reaction and I'm reading some of the closed-captioning on television, some of these commentators, and they're all saying, "Well, this changes everything." Why did it change everything? It changed everything because up 'til then they had succeeded in creating a myth that the cop had murdered this citizen.
Let's just be honest. That's what they were trying to concoct. The cop, for whatever reasons -- unstated racism -- had murdered this kid. His hands were up and he was unarmed and he was surrendering and all that, and this cop just shot. So they had their narrative. They had their template. They had their version of events which fed this myth that white cops shoot innocent young blacks all the time. Except they don't.
In fact, again I say it is rare, and that's why it always makes news, 'cause it doesn't happen all the time. But they had their myth, and they had their evidence for the myth. And then here comes this video, which, I mean, even the commentators on the ground in St. Louis who wanted this to be exactly what the myth was had to admit, "Well, this just changes everything." Because, remember, the time the video was released, everybody assumed the cop also knew, that he had gotten a call from headquarters, "We just had a robbery at such-and-such convenience store, suspect description is X, Y, Z." Everybody assumed the cop knew.
It wasn't until later on Friday that we found out the cop didn't know, but the gentle giant did. This remains crucially important. The gentle giant assumed the cop knew but the cop didn't. Look, I'm getting repetitive here. I don't want to bore you, but this is fundamentally crucially important. I still think it says so much. I think it opens up so many doors. It explains so much and makes so much understandable. People are outraged at a video. Here's the governor and all these other people claiming that it led to riots. Why did it lead to riots? It led to riots because people were mad that the myth had been destroyed.
Don't forget how The New Yorker originally portrayed the suspect here. "Michael Brown was eighteen years old, walking down a street in Ferguson, Missouri, from his apartment to his grandmother’s, at 2:15 on a bright Saturday afternoon. He was, for a young man, exactly where he should be -- among other things, days away from his first college classes." And then disaster strikes.
So they had created this picture of essentially total innocence and an out-of-control white cop. And then here comes video from the store, and we have a totally different picture emerge of the gentle giant. So the reason they got mad is because the original idyllic picture of innocence then gets shattered. So let's take it out on the police chief, and don't forget, everybody has forgotten that the media was demanding the release of this video. We've also learned today that the DOJ was in part responsible for suppressing it all week. Okay, so that's Governor Nixon. Now, here's Valerie Jarrett. She was on the radio this morning talking about the unrest in Ferguson, and this what she said.
JARRETT: Our immediate goal is to make sure that the residents of Ferguson are safe, that the looting stops and that the vandalism stops. That the people who live in the community have confidence that justice will be done and that's the president's primary objective right now.
RUSH: Okay. So the Regime's primary goal is to stop the looting. Well, they better get on the phone to people in Oakland, because according to Marc Lamont Hill, the agitators and the looters are in town from Oakland, California, New Black Panther Party. Okay, so that's what the Regime wants. Michael Eric Dyson, Slay the Nation, CBS yesterday, he's a Georgetown University sociology professor. He's on the roundtable, Bob Schieffer, and here's what he said.

DYSON: We need his leadership, his vision, his unique style. He's an oratorical genius. Deploy that in defense of the people from whom he learned that oratorical genius and to defend those vulnerable populations, especially white people whose white privilege in one sense obscures from them what it means that their children can walk home every day and be safe. They are not fearful of the fact that somebody will kill their child who goes to get some iced tea and some candy from a store. Until that quality is brought, the president bears a unique responsibility and burden to tell that truth.
RUSH: Okay, so according to Michael Eric Dyson, it is incumbent upon Obama to get out there and use his rhetorical genius on Ferguson. Now, wait a minute, now. Wait a minute here again. Hold the fort. Obama's been using his rhetorical genius for six years. Obama used his rhetorical genius in the 2008 campaign and the 2012 campaign, so much so that people said it was genius. So much so that Harry Reid asked Obama, where'd you get this genius? And Obama told Harry Reid, it's a gift, Harry. Well, he's been doing it for six years. Why didn't it work? Why didn't six years of oratorical genius work?
No, no, no, no. Don't look at me that way. I'm totally serious. B. Hussein O. was elected, in part, to end this kind of stuff, right? Hope and change. People really thought, a lot of white voters thought that this stuff was gonna stop because that's what them voting for a black president would mean, that the country's no longer racist. Six years of oratorical genius, if that's what you want to call it, and yet this stuff is still happening. In fact, it's probably worse.
But I have another reaction to this, too. I don't think it's true and I don't think it is accurate to say that white parents do not worry sending their kids out of the house on errands. We comment on this frequently on this program about how parents are afraid to let their kids go do anything anymore. There's either a purse snatcher out there; there's a child molester out there; there's an Amber Alert waiting to happen; there's human traffickers out there; there are drug dealers out there, criminals, muggers, racists, purse snatchers, rapists and so forth. There are all sorts of stuff out there. How often do we talk here about how when we were kids our parents kicked us out of the house, and if we came back before five o'clock they got mad at us, accused us of being lazy.
Now if the kid's gone for 30 minutes, "Oh no! Oh no! Where's Little Johnny? Oh, my God!" Am I right? All kinds of people are afraid to let their kids loose for fear of what's out there. Not specifically racial problems, just there's a lot of evil out there that a lot of parents are very worried about. They've been told to be worried about it. They've been told to be protective. Monitors and so forth.
Here's Charles Ogletree. He's a Harvard Law professor, and this is during the roundtable on Meet the Press. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, the moderator said, "Rand Paul wrote, 'Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it's impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government's particularly targeting them.'"
Rand Paul. So she said that, and she wants a reaction. If Rand Paul really said that, that's irresponsible. Anyway, that's for another discussion, another time. Here is Charles Ogletree's reaction to Rand Paul saying that it is "impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them."

OGLETREE: I'll tell you what. People think that three days of rioting is the end of it in Ferguson, Missouri. It's just starting. People are upset. They're frustrated. They want to take their city back. They don't like the fact the police... The black man, young, are being stopped and killed. How many people have to bury young people for people to understand that something is wrong in Ferguson, Missouri?
RUSH: It's not the case! It doesn't happen all the time. This is my point. This is further mythmaking. They don't like the fact that the police are...? Black men are being stopped and killed? When's the last time happened in Ferguson, before Michael Brown? Was it the day before? Was it last week? How many times last week? Was it last month? How many times last month?
I mean, if it happens a lot, so much so the people Ferguson are tired of it, how often is it happening? And if they're tired of it in Ferguson, why aren't they rioting in Chicago? Why aren't they rioting in Detroit? Why aren't they rioting in Compton? What is it about Ferguson? It's just Ferguson's in the news today. It doesn't happen all the time in Ferguson. People in Ferguson want their city back?
Apparently from the New Black Panther Party in Oakland that's in town stirring things up. But, see, this is the mythmaking. This is Mythmaking 101. "It's just starting," says Ogletree, Harvard professor. "This isn't the end! This is just the beginning." That's a threat. That's a warning or what have you. "It's just beginning! They're frustrated. They want their city back."
Really? I don't remember the last time it happened there. Do you, Mr. Snerdley? Do you remember the last story involving a black citizen killed by white cop in Ferguson, Missouri? (interruption) I can't remember when it happened. It must be slipping my mind 'cause apparently it happens all the time. I just can't remember. It must be the racist media there not reporting it, otherwise we would know.
END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

• Breitbart.com: Valerie Jarrett: President Obama Viewing Ferguson Unrest from 'Perspective of a Parent'
• NBC: Gov. Nixon 'Deeply' Disagreed With Release of Surveillance Video
• FOXNews: YouTube Video Purportedly Captures Witness Backing Police Version in Ferguson Shooting
• Mediaite: Michael Eric Dyson: Obama Needs to 'Step Up' on Ferguson

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20..._racial_strife