Bill Collier- The meeting with Cuba’s dictator will no doubt leave a bad taste in the mouth of President Obama’s critics and many Cubans, for whom the Castros are synonymous with Hitler or Stalin. The image of the President proudly smiling with glee and talking about how nations should only use pursuasion and nothing more in their dealings with one another is in stark contrast to the scowls and bitter bromides his domestic political opponents feel they endure. It was well beyond “persuasion”, his critics lament, for the IRS (allegedly) to turned loose on the President’s political opponents.
Of course the President’s supporters seem happy with the move, indeed the left in this country idolize the likes of Che Guevara, an Argentinian communist who played a key role in Cuba’s revolution. For them, opening trade, diplomacy, and travel to Cuba seems a bit like a dream come true. Michael Moore, a leftist documentary film maker, even came to Cuba to extol the virtues of its health care system.
The President has been seen with many foreign leaders who seem unsavory, including the Chinese communist leaders who notoriously order to aborting of all children beyond a couple’s first child unless that couple can pay steep penalties for “permission” to have other children. But so too have other Presidents been seen with such characters, and the President pointed out that having dialogue and diplomacy does not constitute agreement as such. For him, merely having diplomacy and dialogue is an improvement that might just mitigate future conflict. This is exactly what is being done with Iran, and normalization of relations is the end goal.
But Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of Florida, so the fact we have a communisty tyranny so close and that, with economic trade, it could afford (again) to export its revolution by force (as it once did) is deeply troubling. That the current American President proclaims policies that to his critics sound too much like the rhetoric coming from Cuba on “economic justice” only makes the optics of a Castro-Obama relationship seem all the more objectionable. A communist dictatorship across the ocean is one thing, but many Americans feel, instinictively, a particular revulsion for a communist dictatorship 90 miles from Florida!
Make no mistake, the Castro regime is a massive human right violator. Even during the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama, anti-Castro protestors were brutally beaten by Cuban security who were on scene while the Panammian police stood by and did nothing.
For a President who is accused of being in bed with communism and who is accused of over-stepping his bounds of authority, the optics of being more friendly and congenial to Raul Castro than he has been toward his domestic opponents, the optics were particularly unfavorable: at least in the eyes of his domestic political critics. But President Obama believes an opening with Cuba might soften the regime and do for Cuba what Nixon felt US relations with Communist China would do: export the values of freedom. Some would argue that Nixon’s China policy has failed and that, instead of exporting freedom, America imported shades of socialism.
Despite his smiles and clear satisfaction in meeting with a man many see as an enemy of American values, despite the fact a majority of Americans appear to approve of this opening of relations with the communist dictatorship, one should not expect such efforts at open and cordial dialogue and a commitment to not go beyond persuasion with the President’s domestic political opponents.
By Bill Collier Jr- The conservative base of the GOP wants Boehner and McConnell, the respective GOP heads of the House and Senate, to go. They want them to go because the base believe these men, indeed the entire leadership of the GOP, are quislings at the helm selling their soul to special interests on a number of issues, including the Affordable Care Act (so-called Obamacare) and “Immigration Reform”. The conservative base feel un-represented in DC and they are, as Democratic pollster Pat Cadell has claimed, “ready to bolt the party.”
Average Americans do not closely follow the minutae and nuances of the political scene and do not have an in-depth working knowledge of the American political process. This does not mean they lack the acumen to understand these things, it’s only a matter of how much time they have: and understanding these things to the granular level takes time.
The truth is, as I see it anyway, that “realpolitik”, the art of the possible in the political process set before you, is not very simple or straightfoward. One might argue convincingly that in many ways Boehner and McConnell are masters of the art of realpolitik. Their ceaseless manuevering cannot be discounted as a factor in their party’s stunning successes in the last election cycle, though they’d be mistaken to assume they take the sole credit for those successes. They are indeed playing chess while it seems the President is still playing checkers, or at least that is the argument.
Some would counter that Americans are fed up with “realpolitik”, that they are becoming incresingly anti-establishment, regardless of their political persuasion. They want politics to be up front and simple, and people-powered instead of being driven by elites and special interests who buy access and influence. All this is grist for the populist mill on both sides of the political spectrum, but it is not entirely true that this sentiment drives dissatisfaction with leaders.
Far from populist sentiment driving dissatisfaction with leaders who master realpolitik, I would argue that dissatisfaction with leaders drives populist sentiment. And I say this as someone who, on principle, embraces a more populist politics driven by consensus of the People, especially at the local level.
The real problem is not whether or not Boehner and McConnell understand realpolitik, the real problem is whether they can be both masters of that art and dynamic leaders of their own potential supporters. We should, I propose, take it as a given that if 60% or more of members of the Republican Party, this according to Pat Caddell’s polling, reject their own leaders then there is a leadership problem. When leaders must take to sniping their own allies and friends who demonstrate a lack of confidence in their leadership, then those leaders should step aside. When your own support base canot stand you then you cannot blame them and call them names in a petulant act of whining.
Already, Boehner is retaliating against those 25 House members of his own party who voted against him. And it is remarkable to see the number of House members who voted for him trying to excuse their vote to angry constituents who have been raising royal hell on the phone lines for the past few days. It would seem to the average American conservative that the GOP are far more afraid of harsh editorials by the New York Times than they are of angry constituents who have lost confidence in their ability to lead.
I am not arguing that Boehner and McConnell are in fact liberals in disguise plotting with the Democrats to move American down the road to socialism, as many angry conservatives are. I actually believe they are playing realpolitik in a skilled manner that will ultimately unravel the plans of their opponents on the left. I do not believe these men are not conservatives. But the reality is that these two men are focused on the traditional roles of leading a caucus of elected Republicans, a role that, arguably, is what their positions have normally entailed, and not on also being the leaders of PEOPLE on the street level who are looking for a symbol of their values and their opposition to their political opponents on the left.
The traditional role of merely being the leader of a Party Caucus is just not sufficient in the 21st century. In times past, people barely knew who these party leaders were, but not so today. Everything they do and say is published and broadcast to the Party base without any party filter- it is transmitted by bloggers and conservative news sites who are constantly looking for re-assurance that their leaders are towing their line. That those leaders have tended to just assume that if you tell your own base about the nuances required in realpolitik while assuring them of your shared goals that the base won’t get it is unfortunate.
The conservative base, up to 60% of the Republican party, no longer believes party leadership have the same vision or represent the same values they hold dear. This is not the fault of the followers, it is the fault of the leaders. And for this reason alone Boehner and McConnell should step aside from leadership and help find leaders who know how to both master realpolitik AND rally and inspire their Party’s core of supporters- and they should do this before that base just up and walks away.
Bill Collier- Rumors are circulating that President Obama may unilaterally authorize the State Department to extend “some level of recognition” of a Palestinian State in a move not unlike the sudden reversal of US policy regarding Cuba.
In that move, the President worked for over a year without disclosing his intentions to ANY member of Congress and it is believed that a similar approach is being taken with regard to the Palestinian bid for statehood. This effort would receive the blessings of John Kerry although many Democrats, who receive millions of dollars in campaign donations from Jewish sources, could face a backlash from those same sources if such a poicy shift were to materialize.
It is known that the US has threatened to use a UN veto if the UN Gernal Assembly votes to recognize the Palestinian State, however in recent statements the US has indicated this would be based on “the language of the resolution.” This seeming backpeddle has led to speculation that a policy reversal is in the offing.
While this move seems unlikely, so too did the Cuban move, which has already caused outrage in the Cuban expat community. It would appear that the President, mindful that he has no more elections to endure and determined to use executive authority to what he perceives its limits to be, a line some feel has already gone too far beyond the legal norm, wants to push as much of his true ideological agenda as possible. It is calculated by some that his (alleged) vision for totally transforming America into what must objectively be defined as a leftwing presidential state that is led by technocrats with centralized authority supercedes all other considerations.
What is certain is that the President is swinging for the fences, determined to stay in control of the agenda and determined to keep his political opponents in reaction mode as he pursues initiative after initiative without consulting anyone but his own intuation.
Recognition of a Palestinian State while Congress is in recess, in between the recess of the old Congress and the swearing in of the new Congress, would be a fait accompli which the President may believe his political opponents could do little about, but it would also be extremely unpopular among all but the hard core leftist base. It would throw Israel into the arms of China and Russia and increase the likelihood of Israel taking Iran’s threats and potential of obtaining nuclear weapons into its own hands, and it would undercut Arab efforts to begin a process of moving toward an understanding with Israel. Finally, it would result in a Hamas controlled “proto-state” and place Israel at direct varience with US policy.
We will be watching events closely and while we cannot confirm that such rumors are true, the recent backtracking on statements about a UN resolution recognizing a Palestinian State and the recent move regarding Cuba seem to bolster such speculations.
Normalization of Cuban-American Relations A Major Policy Shift
China Could Be Hard Hit By Cheap Cuban Labor
Bill Collier- While there has been bipartisan discussions about a new push to normalize relationships with the Cuban Communist regime in the interest of trade, the sudden and unexpected move has blindsided Congress. Only recently, Congress was assured that no such dramatic change in the US diplomatic stance regarding the Cuban Communist regime was in the offing, but in reality this promise was untrue. Plans to embark on this path of normalization had been conceived and were being worked since early summer of 2014.
Once again, a Presidential policy move is seen as undermining US law, which states that normalization of relationships and a lifting of the embargo against trade with Cuba must be presaged by Cuba adopting democratic reforms. The main purposes of this policy had been to marginalize Cuba in the region and to prevent Cuba from becoming economically powerful enough to finance a serious military threat to the US. After all, Cuba is only some 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
The move, if it goes through by Congressional support or by alleged executive fiat that is unchallenged, would also be a challenge to China. In short, US companies would have access to Cuba’s cheap labor market and one might expect to see “Made In Cuba” competing with “Made In China.”
While the President has not explicitly ended the embargo, it does expand the amount and type of agricultural products that can be exported, it allows for a higher amount of money that individuals can send to Cuban relatives from the US, and it allows for greater tourism travel. The President is expected to request that Congress ends the embargo. It is not known whether he will use the device of prosecutorial discretion to refrain from prosecuting individuals and entities which might violate the embargo.
On the diplomatic side, the State Department is being instructed to move towards establishing diplomatic relations and removing Cuba from a State Department list of nations that support terrorism.
On the Cuban side, the number of concessions appears to be limited to releasing an American prisoner who has been incarcerated in Cuba for 5 years and possibly another American who has been incarcerated for 20 years. There is no promise or agreement to institute any free market or democracy reforms, to do more to guarantee religious freedom and end the persecution of Christians, to allow freedom of the press, or any move away from totalitarianism. The entire purpose of the embargo was to encourage the Cubans to institute such reforms, whereupon the embargo would end.
The argument being made in support of this move is that such normalization will result in Cuban reforms, but this argument was used regarding China. In the case of China, the normalization of diplomacy and trade added legitimacy to the regime, gave the Chinese access to Western technology, and allowed them to grow their economy. The result of this normalization of relations with China has produced no noticeable liberalization of their political environment. Aside from purely cosmetic changes, the Chinese regime remains wholly undemocratic and continues to persecute ethnic minorities, especially Christians.
In short, there is no objective and clear evidence that President Nixon’s change in policy with China has come anywhere close to the goals which were given at the time the U.S declared this policy shift. In fact, it is argued, China has gained much more and the US and the West have lost much more out of the normalization process that occurred.
The Chinese, however, look on this development with some trepidation, though not through official channels. Cuban labor could substantially eat into their economic position. What is more, Cuban control over oil deposits in the Gulf which they are unable to exploit could result in more oil production in the Western Hemisphere to further erode the price of oil and undercut Middle Eastern suppliers and Russia.
What remains to be seen is whether or not the initiative announced by the President will succeed. Will Congress back the policy and even lift the trade embargo, and who will that benefit? Will the President use executive orders and executive memorandum to essentially gut the 1959 law that created the embargo by not enforcing it and, if so, will it be allowed to stand by what observers refer to as a supine Congress?
As we had reported earlier today, the Grand Jury chose not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for his role in the shooting death of Michael Brown. The shooting touched off months of protests and violence in Ferguson, MO.
Speculation now remains as to why the announcement was held off for so long. Delaying the announcement, it was not even announced at its scheduled time of 8PM local (9PM Eastern), and in fact the Brown family attorney leaked to USAToday minutes before the presser that no indictment was handed down.
Protestors had blocked several intersections with human chains and crowds began to swell within a few minutes of the scheduled announcement.
Regardless of the decision, many across the political spectrum believe that a serious dialogue is needed regarding police tactics and the use of force, including demands that non-lethal technologies be employed and training be provided. The non-indictment does not change the view of many that there are many non-lethal technologies and methods which are available and which, if employed, would not have resulted in a death.
The rioting continued apace, in fact as President Obama was calling for calm and citing examples of what not to do, such as breaking out the windows of a cop car, a split screen showed exactly those things happening, as if here narrating events. One protestor who was not happy about the looting complained that the police had backed off and left businesses defenseless. But, as we noted earlier, the local authorities are severely constrained by Federal pressure, potentially coming direct from the Justice Department. One official telling us that for them there is “no good choice”, they are being asked to back off and, now that looting is occuring, they are being blamed for not protecting the businesses.
Small crowds of protestors are taunting police, hurling invectives and epithets, as well as bottles, but police are hiding behind shields and vehicles and using tear gas to disperse the crowds, but they are keeping their distance in what appears to be a protocol which matches what we reported on earlier regarding Federal pressure.
In one case, at a beauty shop, protestors prevented looters from entering the store. Later, however, looters returned and set fire to that same shop, which is owned by a local woman who also happens to be black.
In general, and it must be noted, the looters are not part of the protest and are not welcomed by the protestors who have been heard in numerous video and audio scenes trying to stop the looters. One could be heard yelling “stop this, this is not right!” But to no avail. But despite this the police kept their distance from the crowds, even as fires were lit in various locations.
Serious questions will be raised regarding any Federal pressure to stand off and what consequences may have resulted from a stand-off policy. To some, including locals, “the police are just letting this spin out of control.”
The damage to local businesses and, by extension, the local economy, is incalculable. Many will have no job to go because of what has transpired. Multiple businesses were burned as police backed off and multiple shotes erupted in Ferguson.
Non-violent, and smaller, protests took place in other cities, including New York, Chicago, Saint Louis, Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. A highway in St. Louis was shut down.
Multiple local media sources close to the Grand Jury investigation of Police Officer Darren Wilson are claiming that there will be no indictment (h/t Warner Todd Huston). While the decision is not scheduled to be released until after 6PM local, many factors have been considered as evidence for this claim.
Police and even National Guard are in preparation for “massive” unrest and we have been informed of a “growing rfit” between Federal and State officials, with State officials claiming that the Obama Administration is far too much focused on getting political advantage in this situation and far less concerned with justice or public order. With Reverand Al Sharpton, a firebrand and staunch partisan, said to be leading the Administration’s efforts there is concern that real public safety is taking a back seat. Federal officials are leaning on local and state officials to use “such extremes of constraint” that it is feared the unrest will get way out of hand.
As one official confided, “if we do as they wish and things get out of hand, we will be condemned, but if we actually keep order, we will be accused of using too much force- there is NO good option.” Morale is reported to be very low.
The issue regarding the outcome of the Grand Jury, whether local sources prove right or wrong, is of less importance to local and state officials than the issue of public order. The rioting and looting have had a tragic affect on the local economy and a repeat of the same type of events is likely to drive what businesses have remained in the area out of the area, or out of business. The protestors have promised to disrupt many communities and have targeted many businesses which, arguably, have not one thing to do with the case.
One protest group has announced: “they are NOT going to indict….The time has come for nationwide revolution.”
Chuck Hagel Steps Down As Secretary of Defense
Bll Collier- In a move that was as sudden as it was unexpected, Chuck Hagel offered his resignation on the morning of November 24, 2014 to the President, effective immediately. Hagel has only been at his post since 2013 and his tenure was rather short.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
It is believed that the sudden move was meant to allow a replacement candidate under the lame duck Congress, a candidate who will fit more with the pacific policies of the Administration. Hagel had been more of a hawk and had repeatedly suggested that the fight against ISIS might require ground forces. It is also believed by insiders that Hagel resisted the talks with Iran, talks over their nuclear weapons program which are currently at an impasse.
The new nominee is expected to be someone who might be less attractive to the GOP, owing to their pacific intentions and possibly their lack of experience with defense or military matters. Increasingly this more pacific Administration has bucked heads with top military brass, and although there has been quite a turnover in both the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, the President has not been satisfied that the upper ranks have not embraced or backed his broad sweeping policies which involve a far less aggressive foreign policy stance and a reduction in military manpower and capability. The President has focused more on diplomatic ties and economic leverage and tends to eschew either using military force or the threat of military force.
Within the military, the popularity of Hagel and the President, the civilian leadership, has hovered at around 20% to 30%, which many see as understandable due to the deep and ongoing cutbacks. The new Secretary of Defense will continue the previous policies of the Administration and it is expected that they will be more in lockstep with the core beliefs of the Commander in Chief.
While Republicans have threatened to block all nominees by the President over his use of what they call “executive amnesty” for 4-5 million illegal immigrants, they have stated that they would not block nominees who are vital to national security.
Within the Defense establishment there are growing concerns that the pacific policies and the force reductions in the face of Russian and Chinese military expansion is beginning to seriously undermine America’s global military standing. Others, however, are convinced that the US military would have to be reduced by over half to reach a point where it could not handle any potential foreign threat. A third school of thought believes that the overall military budget is bloated due to a combination of a top-heavy administrative and logistics organization and over-inflated prices for military equipment by the defense industry in general.
It is generally believed that this move is part of a larger effort by the Administration to gain complete control over foreign policy, putting and end to contradictory messaging, and pursuing their deep felt convictions regarding diplomacy and economics as better tools than force or the threat of force much more consistently and un-apologetically.
While politicians and activists from both sides of the political spectrum scramble to benefit from Ferguson, we wonder if Ferguson might be a turning point in American history, when people reject the limousine leadership of the left and the right and start leading themselves.
OPINION- William Collier- There is rioting, police brutality, and racial hate menacing the town of Ferguson, MO as a result of the fatal police shooting of 18 year old Michael Brown.
Michael Brown (Social Media screen grab)
Events in Ferguson, Missouri, which is in St. Louis County, have taken a course which alarms many citizens across the political spectrum.
Meanwhile, leaders in Ferguson are calling for people like Al Sharpton to remove themselves from a local problem. They accuse Al Sharpton of inciting a near-riot when he proclaimed that the incident in Ferguson involving a young black man being shot to death by police is ‘bearing witnesses for all of America’, specifically America’s race relations.
According to Sharpton, the Band-Aid has been ripped off, and all of America is seeing that racial hatred is alive and well. The accusations are seen as doing more harm than good, inciting militant activists to violent actions, such as can be seen in Ferguson right now.
PHOTO- Facebook MEME circulating allegedly shows another side of Michael Brown. We have not confirmed that this IS Michael Brown FACEBOOK SCREEN GRAB
Regardless of the act that led up to the unstable situation in Ferguson, the reaction by the local police has been dramatic and militaristic. The police deployed were wearing military-style clothing. They were armed with heavy weapons and drove armored vehicles. They were not facing insurgents, but unarmed protesters.
This overt display of military power on American streets by a local police department has come under scrutiny not just from the protesters, but even from the members of the community who do not support the protesters.
An armored vehicle with a fully automatic weapon manned and ready…against unarmed protesters. PHOTO Provided by ANONYMOUS Twitter user
The incident that triggered the riots and unrest was the shooting of an 18 year old unarmed man, Michael Brown. Michael Brown had a long criminal background before the incident, so the police might well have been aware of who he was. According to the police version of the incident, Brown was assaulting an officer. There was a struggle for the officer’s gun which led to the 7 shots that killed Brown.
A friend of Brown, who is also accused of participating in the assault, claims Brown was attacked for no reason by the police. The friend claims Brown was shot while trying to raise his hands and surrender.
Police supporters claim this is a cut and dry case. They note that the officer was injured in the altercation and that both Brown and his friend have a criminal background (as I noted earlier), including assault (this has been confirmed in the case of Brown, but not in the case of his friend).
Michael Brown supporters say this is a case of police brutality and, now, as charged by Sharpton, racism. In fact, President Obama called Michael Brown’s family to offer condolences before any facts had emerged about the actual nature of the shooting. Obama’s overture to the family is seen by the police supporters to reinforce the narrative that this is about racial hate, not an altercation that went wrong.
Scereen Grab- Fox News covered Al Sharpton’s inflammatory remarks which many local leaders wish he would not have uttered.
But both sides in that debate have problems to contend with.
For the police supporters, there are real and proven incidents of police brutality against members of the community of Ferguson during this unrest. There have even been reporters that have been roughed up, arrested and let go without any paperwork filed, and a number of other documented ‘irregularities’ by this police department. These incidents cannot be brushed aside, and they only serve to offer evidence of a police department gone rogue, one that could possibly have done what Brown’s friend alleges they have done.
Two reporters were arrested, one roughed up, at a local McDonald’s when they were clearly not breaking any laws and, though they were released, no paperwork was filed. Another reporter was shot point blank with a rubber bullet. Additionally, I myself watched a live feed as police, in military gear, with armored vehicles, pushed a crowd of protesters INTO an otherwise quiet and peaceful neighborhood.
The crowd being pressed by the police fled into the neighborhood, running between homes, often being chased by police, bringing chaos to a neighborhood that was not involved in the rioting. The police then proceeded to turn their tear gas and rubber bullets on the people in this neighborhood who had stepped outside to see what was causing all the disturbances on their front lawns and back yards.
The notion that this same police force, the local police force in Ferguson and the St Louis County Sheriff’s Department, never uses excessive force cannot be easily discounted after what has transpired.
For the supporters of Michael Brown, the problem is that the only witness to claim this was police brutality may himself have been involved in the alleged attack on the police officer and, if reports are true (which we have not confirmed), he is himself a criminal.
He certainly has the tattoos that are associated with gangs, say those who disbelieve his story, which we have not confirmed. It had been alleged that the deceased man, 18 year old Michael Brown, had a criminal record already, including burglary and assault. Man posts with links to court records went viral. What is disconcerting about these allegation was that his juvenile record is closed and he is only 18- this means his list of crimes SINCE he turned 18 would be fairly lengthy. His rap sheet is cited as reason to believe the police officer’s version of the events. We have learned that possibly 4 other witnesses have also come forward with similar stories. We have SINCE CONFIRMED- Michael Brown had NO CRIMINAL RECORD and no charges were pending against him.
The shooting took place on August 9, a Saturday, at around noon. After the shooting, efforts to organize protests and reprisals went viral on social media, and by Monday the riots had become severe, resulting in businesses being looted, One local convenience store was not only looted, it was also burned down.
The rioters were further inflamed by the vitriolic and black supremacist rhetoric of the New Black Panther Party, as well as by Al Sharpton, both of whom flew in from out of state to ‘lead’ the protesters’.
The violence-inciting rhetoric was legitimized, police supporters argue, when US Attorney General Eric Holder promised to get involved, as well as by President Obama’s rush to call to offer condolences to Michael Brown’s family before getting the facts of what actually occurred.
But many local citizens and leaders, even those who believe this was police brutality, have accused the politicians and the national figures from outside of making things worse.
I saw one woman on live video, a black woman who had come out of her home. She was outraged at how the violence was encouraged by people from outside the community. She noted that while her taxes were up and schools were failing, these local politicians continue to ask for the “black vote” but do nothing for the black community. The only time political leaders, local or national, show up in a black community is during times like this, in their helicopters and Lear jets, making matter worse for all concerned. She kept saying “they win, they win”. When asked who “they” were, she replied, “them politicians!”
She did not appear to sympathize with police, who she saw come through her quiet neighborhood bullying anyone who was seen outside, even homeowners who were concerned about the ruckus. But she did not endorse the rioting, which she blamed on “people from outside the community coming to stir things up and get their 15 minutes of fame!”
Whatever the truth is now may only matter in the legal sense of the word. The question from the outside looking in is this, who benefits?
There seem to be two opposing views on this:
The first view is from the leadership on the right. They believe that whether the killing was justified or not, leftist agitators saw an opportunity to reinforce the demonizing narrative of the white man attacking the black man. It is the same tactic used by the mullahs of Iran who wish to deflect blame for their own failures away from themselves by attacking the great Satan, America.
In the case of the trusted leftist voting bloc of African Americans, the deflection is away from the failures of democratically controlled governments to deliver prosperity and security to the ghettos of America. If the black community focuses on hating white people, they won’t pay attention to the failure of government, run by Democrats, to give them a good education, offer them a safe place to live and a path to prosperity.
The countervailing view from the leadership of the left is that the police are attempting to agitate the black community in order to create a similar bogeyman, for different voting bloc, this one for republicans, white America. The narrative goes something like this; The black mob is being whipped up to a frenzy by republican-leaning agitators to reinforce the notion that white America should fear violent black America and come back to the republican party to check the growing power of the black-supported left.
As outlandish as these theories sound, they have more than a few adherents, and this is the cause of no small amount of division between Americans. But the police reaction may have a rather interesting effect not foreseen by anyone- people from the left and right, people who are of all races, and people who disagree about the original incident, all seem to agree that what the police in Ferguson are doing to protesters and what outside leaders are doing to stir the pot are equally awful and illegitimate in a free and democratic society of equals.
One sees leftwing and rightwing blogs, as well as social media commentary all saying the same thing- the spectacle of a military-styled police force is detestable on the streets of ANY American neighborhood. It could be that if there are true agitators on the left and the right, neither side will get what they want, greater control over the voting power of a bloc of people. It could be, at the end of the day, when the dust has settled on Ferguson, that the real winners might be the Americans, of all ethnicities and beliefs, who decide to no longer be led by the helicopter-swooping, Lear-jet parking leaders. Rather, they will choose to lead themselves where they are, neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block, town by town, to build pathways to prosperity, security, and liberty.
In Ferguson, it appears, there are no heroes. One can only hope that from such flames, a new resolve is forged in America, to build, where you are, with those who will build with you, what most of us really want, across all divides, the freedom to prosper and pass along to our children a better world than the one we were given.
Let us hope at the end of the day, be they Republicans or Democrats, that we do not say the only winners from Ferguson were ‘them politicians’’.
The Obama Bush- Perfect symbol of the reality today?
Mr. Bill Collier- Fans of comedian and actor Robin Williams were shocked to learn of the actor’s death of suspected suicide by asphyxia.
The actor has starred in countless movies but his big break came portraying that lovable alien “Mork” on the Mork and Mindy Show. Williams battled “severe depression of late” according to his wife and yet was often heard trying to encourage people to just be themselves and have a positive outlook. This role as the nation’s “encourager” was sealed during his appearance as “Patch Adams” in the movie of the same name.
In his latest project, “The Crazy Ones”, Williams played a man named Zach Cropper, a rather zany copywriter working for an ad agency which is run by Simon and his daughter, Sydney.
William’s passing was announced over major media who broke into normal programming to share the news. The official press release follows:
August 11, 2014, at approximately 11:55 a.m, Marin County Communications received a 9-1-1 telephone call reporting a male adult had been located unconscious and not breathing inside his residence in unincorporated Tiburon, CA. The Sheriff’s Office, as well as the Tiburon Fire Department and Southern Marin Fire Protection District were dispatched to the incident with emergency personnel arriving on scene at12:00 pm. The male subject, pronounced deceased at 12:02 pm has been identified as Robin McLaurin Williams, a 63 year old resident of unincorporated Tiburon, CA.
An investigation into the cause, manner, and circumstances of the death is currently underway by the Investigations and Coroner Divisions of the Sheriff’s Office. Preliminary information developed during the investigation indicates Mr. Williams was last seen alive at his residence, where he resides with his wife, at approximately 10:00pm on August 10, 2014. Mr. Williams was located this morning shortly before the 9-1-1 call was placed to Marin County Communications. At this time, the Sheriff’s Office Coroner Division suspects the death to be a suicide due to asphyxia, but a comprehensive investigation must be completed before a final determination is made. A forensic examination is currently scheduled for August 12, 2014 with subsequent toxicology testing to be conducted.
We offer our condolences to and prayers for his family and friends as well as his fans.
Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!
Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here
