Our “Post-Racial” Future…

thug…brought to you by our first “post-racial” president.

In reality, what we witnessed last week was a made-to-order riot, engineered to take our minds off of Obama’s executive amnesty. From this standpoint, it was a success: all of the Sunday morning news shows were consumed with the Ferguson riots.

The timing was impeccable. Both Obama and Attorney-general Eric Holder had meetings with “community” leaders and by means direct as well as subtle, got the message out that “protests” would be acceptable. To make sure that the “protests” would get out of hand, someone in the White House leaned on Governor Jay Nixon (Idiot, MO) to not call up the National Guard.

Ingenious really.

Anyway it worked. Five million illegal aliens will soon be filling the Welfare rolls and voting for ever-more largesse from the public fisc for themselves. Soon, more will come; after all, law-breaking is now rewarded. The permanent Underclass just grew by a percentage point or two.

Still, a word must be said about the death of Michael Brown. The official narrative collapsed almost from the get-go. It was clear that the “not-so-gentle giant” acted criminally. The question remains “why”?

I’m not convinced that it was merely because of the THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) which was found in his blood system which caused him to act so stupidly. That may have played a part but my suspicion is that anarchy is now so deeply entrenched in so many black ghettos that the deceased simply had no other moral frame of reference. Common sense is deadened in men-children such as he and cause-and-effect completely unknown. The collapse which Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted for the black family fifty years ago is now complete. Save for the increased incarceration of black men and the sky-high abortion rate, there’s no real turning back.

This is very sad. But until real leaders rise up –regardless of race–and denounce the thug culture which is glorified in so many black communities, we’re going to keep seeing repeats of last August again and again. Yes, those leaders will be denounced as “moralists.” Academics will arise and scold them for not understanding “authentic” ghetto culture. Morality we will be told is a “European construct.” Blacks who go to school, study, raise their pants and respect women will continue to be denounced for “acting white.” And so on.

But in time, it may work. I have a dream (to paraphrase Martin Luther King) that one day, young black people will look at photographs such as the one above and be shocked that anybody could be so stupid and so vile as to want to have himself remembered in such a way. It’s just a dream though. I imagine that with two more years of Obama and another two terms with Madame Hillary at the helm, we will continue to gallop to Gomorrhah at our present pace. Lord have mercy.

In the meantime, keep your eye on the southern border and see it grow ever more porous.

About GShep


  1. I note that Mr. Michalopulos has attached a picture to his screed which is NOT Michael Brown even though it was widely disseminated as such.

    One wonders why he would do such a thing! I guess since there wasn’t a real ‘gangsta’ photo to show, George will just slander the dead. I have to wonder if he didn’t know it wasn’t Brown, or he did and intentionally omitted saying so to technically not lie to his readers, even while making an association. Such class!

    I also note that Mr. Michalopulos did not, in fact post the now public photos of the ‘greviously’ injured Officer Wilson, the lack of their release supposedly being some kind of media conspiracy to not inflame sentiment against Brown? What a fine crock that theory turned out to be!

    All the lies of the Ferguson police department, the staggeringly unbelievable testimony of Wilson, the farce of a show that the DA put on, none of those are worth mention in his screed!

    • George Michalopulos says

      Hate to break it to you but the late, great, not-so-gentle giant besmirched his own legacy with his criminal actions. You don’t need to take my word for it, just look at how he bullied that much smaller Asian shopkeeper just ten minutes before he tried to kill Officer Wilson.

      As for the “grievously wounded” policeman’s photos taken immediately after this incident, it’s a well-known fact that bruises get worse the day after a trauma.

      • Nate Trost says

        In his trademark style, I see Mr. Michalopulous once again dodges an uncomfortable question to instead try and change the subject.

        Before we tackle his tangent, perhaps one might engage in a thought experiment. If I were to follow Mr. Michalopulous’s sterling example in his usage of not-Michael-Brown-but-purported-to-be-such-by-internet-racist-idiots, what kind of image should I use on my blog commentating on the racist material in the above screed? Clearly an image representing Mr. Michalopulous is called for! If I am to follow in his shoes I suppose all I really need is to google image search for an old balding white guy holding a white hood. That no such actual photo of Mr. Michalopulous in such a state exists is but an irrelevant detail and I certainly don’t need to say who the photo actually is, the readers would understand.

        Of course I would never do such a thing. But, wonders why someone who presumably considers himself a Christian ‘gentleman’ would stoop to such a level.

        besmirched his own legacy with his criminal actions

        Ah yes, the tangent. What is striking here is that I recall Mr. Michalopulous falling for a phony leak that Michael Brown had committed, among other sins, second-degree murder. Which, ended up being utter bunk.

        Now, it can certainly be said that Michael Brown allegedly, and almost certainly stole some cigars. I believe the closest we still get to a eyewitness account of what happened in the store was elements of Dorian Johnson’s testimony. Now, that action, as was shoving the store clerk is clearly unacceptable, but as we can see, teenage petty larceny does not apparently disqualify one from growing up and becoming a GOP political staffer.

        But even that is rather beside the point: which is, if we take as a given that Michael Brown stole some cigars, did he deserve to die for that crime?

        And the real problem is, as strongly as the likes of Mr. Michalopulous will deny otherwise, one is inevitably led to a suspicion that in their minds they harbor beliefs that the answer is “yes”. Why is one led to such a drastic perception? Could it be in large part due to the utter and complete indifference to the subsequent details and questions involving the shooting? Because lazy anonymous, later disproved rumors concordant with prejudiced views are immediately treated as Gospel truth? When you see that happening whilst an utter apathy to any potentially troubling details that cast doubt, it is unavoidable that one begins to notice the intensely unpleasant odor of racial prejudice.

        before he tried to kill Officer Wilson

        And there we have it distilled into a nutshell. Mr. Michalopulous clearly states his belief that Michael Brown tried to kill Officer Wilson. There is no ambiguity in his words. Which is a scathing indictment on Mr. Michalopulous as it clearly indicates he has made up his mind and doesn’t have the slightest care about the complications of the provability of that belief from the staggering incompetence and breaches in proper protocol by the authorities in the aftermath of the shooting, the complex picture of the witness testimony, or the rather problematic account by Officer Wilson of his version of the incident.

        None of that is relevant to Mr. Michalopulous.

        If the Bundy ranch protestors who pointed their rifles at federal agents had gotten themselves shot for their foolishness Mr. Michalopulous would have turned them into martyrs. But it wasn’t Michael Brown who killed two Las Vegas police officers. Of course you would never learn about such evils on Mr. Michalopulous’s blog, he only seems to bring up non-white shooters as the poster children for one of his screeds (especially one who might have “converted” to Islam or a cult using the word Islam), in order to launch soapbox tirades against his perceived shortcomings, failings and degeneracy of non-whites.

        Rather than listening to actual contemporary black voices or looking at the bulk of the actual protests in say Ferguson over the past several months, Mr. Michalopulous trots out decades old tired Moynihan, recycles racist mythology about black culture, and pretty much demonstrates why systemic and structural issues of racism are here to stay in America for a while, and it is indeed a fantasy that we are in a ‘post-racial’ society. Get a mirror, you need one.

        On Monomakhos distrust of government, concern over abuse of power, and conspiracy theories abound! Unless they happen to involve the death of a young African-American male, in which case, whatever the officer said must be how it is! Absorbing the police misconduct in the Dontre Hamilton case or the stories the officers told without realizing there was video of the Tamir Rice shooting can’t shake the firm conviction of Mr. Michalopulous that Officer Wilson is beyond doubt and Michael Brown got what was coming to him!

        Clearly we don’t have any endemic racial issues in the American justice system and law enforcement. Not at all!

        it's a well-known fact that bruises get worse the day after a trauma

        Strange, any ‘informal’ photos of bruises at their ‘worst’ never made it out to the world. I think we all know such had been leaked they would have ended up on monomakhos.com! Heck, the ‘official’ photos still didn’t follow protocol, and considering Wilson didn’t even write an incident report the day it happened, they might as well have just taken photos a week later while they were at it.

        Or, you know, that just would have made it more obvious that the actual injuries didn’t quite jibe with the “full force” punches and characterization of the strength of Brown from Wilson’s testimony.

        I suppose, to throw one other question out that will disappear into the ether never to be addressed, let us pretend for a moment Mr. Michalopulous that you are capable of empathy. If you had a child that was shot by the police, and the officer stated that your child had grabbed their service weapon, would you not ask what evidence there was of this other than the word of the officer? And if you were told that the officer involved in the shooting was the person who continued to handle the weapon, and put it himself into evidence, and in fact, the gun was never even tested for fingerprints, would you be content with that answer? Or with taking the word of the officer at face value with the multitude of witness reports, many of which conflict with the official line?

        It is to wonder.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Nate, the trouble with your expansive rationalizations is that the Grand Jury, which was made up of three black people, listened to the testimony of several witnesses (six of whom were black) and came down with the only conclusion that they could: that Michael Brown acted stupidly, violently and was indeed threatening Officer Wilson’s life.

          It’s really that simple.

          • Sue Simpson says

            You people don’t have the facts. Off. Wilson wasn’t near-by when the call was made for police assistance. He arrived late and heard over the police radio of stolen cigarillos (not a capital crime). He finds the two teens walking in the street with the big guy holding the box of cigars. Either Wilson pulled Brown into his car via the driver’s side window or upon exiting, Brown pushed him back into the car. WILSON PULLS HIS GUN (on his right-side inside the car) – WHY? Where’s the threat to his life? Wilson says there was a scuffle (Wilson was probably aiming the gun at Brown and Brown may have tried to grab it and was shot in the hand). Brown runs down the road while Wilson exits his car shooting at Brown 6-7 times. The final two shots to Brown’s head executing him. All for the theft of some cigars! Wilson was the aggressor and didn’t try to shoot Brown in the leg or use a baton or taser, but executed the teen.

          • Nate Trost says

            What would have been simple would have been for you to familiarize yourself with the Grand Jury process in Missouri. Your point about three black grand jurors is no point at all because they could have voted to indict on any or all potential charges. Except those votes don’t necessarily matter because it takes 9 out of 12 to indict. So a mere four contrary jurors who didn’t feel the low bar of probable cause was met to indict is enough to end the process there. McCullough explicitly said he wouldn’t reveal whether the results were unanimous. Guess what that means! (hint: it wasn’t unanimous). And the jurors are prohibited from disclosing that information. McCullough didn’t want an indictment, and got what he wanted.

            So, to sum up, you’re satisfied with the results of a process you were ignorant about because it fit your idea of a just result, whereas if it had gone the other way you would have been howling about the travesty and injustice from an equal position of ignorance.

            I think that pretty much epitomizes you you a ‘t’ Mr. Michalopulos.

            Are you sure you weren’t a grand juror on the Eric Garner case?

            • George Michalopulos says

              True enough, yet according to the news reports, the grand jury was unanimous. What you fail to comprehend is that most black people are just as offended (and hurt) by black thuggery as are whites. Indeed, more so.

              • Nate Trost says

                Which news reports are those? Please link them. It will be very entertaining to see how they justify that reporting when the relevant authority has refused to provide that information and it is consequently utterly impossible to verify.

                It falls into the category of: unconformable rumor you believe because you wish it to be true, not because it’s something you can actually prove.

                Saying “True enough,” is a rather flimsy lead-in for attempting to pass off fiction as fact.

                • Actually, there is no way a grand jury should have ever been called in the Brown case. The officer only needs to state he was in danger. See Tennesee v Garner and Graham v. Connor.

                  These court rulings are the crux of the problem Nate; not McCullough. Graham v. Connor is the cat’s meow of allowing police a blank check. The protests need to address the root problem.

                  In Great Britain, police are required to get authorization to carry a gun for special investigations/arrests. The only police carrying sidearms as the norm are in Northern Ireland.

                  What needs to happen in our great nation is the police need different rules of engagement to reduce their willingness to bring harm. Tasers, for example, in situations where there is no gun, or the officer’s life is not directly threatened. And in the Graham v Connor matter; no use of force if no crime has been committed.

                  • William G. says

                    Actually the British police do have armed officers on patrol, in police cars, across the country. Every major police force has an armed patrol. Historically the armed officers in the Metropolitan Police had cars with a distinctive orange reflective stripe, but I understand this is no longer the case. In general, the armed officers make up a minority of those on patrol; the “Bobbies” in custodial helmets on foot patrol are invariably unarmed. There have been calls to arm more British police due to an increase in anti-Police violence, and this would make sense I believe.

                    What I find troubling about these riots is that the rioteers in Missouri and New York are protesting a decision made lawfully within the judiciary. We must have an independent judiciary; if grand juries feel compelled by threats of violence to indict the innocent or not indict the guilty, then we have no justice. Protesting the decision of a grand jury is essentially a protest against the rule of law. This is true even if the grand jury erred.

                    • The problem is people protesting don’t understand the law and if they did, they, like me, would not agree with it.

                      The Roe decision was also done by fiat. I don’t suggest the outcomes would be vastly different, but they would be done by a representation of the people and not a few judges.

                      The evolution of the taser and other non-lethal forms of incapacitation has NEVER been written into law governing use of force.

            • Ronda Wintheiser says

              Grand jury result in Ferguson was just

              Article by: MICHAEL SMERCONISH , Philadelphia Inquirer

              Many have criticized the legal process following the Michael Brown shooting, but it appears to have played out in the most realistic way it could.

              A friend e-mailed last week with a question: “You said that you were reserving your [Ferguson] opinion until you read the evidence. What do you say now?”

              Fair enough. In late summer, I wrote:

              “If there is so much we don’t know, why are so many committed to a particular outcome? … The only thing anyone should desire at this time is a full accounting of what occurred — not that the officer be charged and convicted, nor that he be exonerated.”

              Now, having immersed myself in the evidence presented to the grand jury, I’ve concluded that while the process investigating the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown was imperfect, the result was nonetheless just.

              First, prosecutor Robert McCullough was in a no-win position. He didn’t think there was probable cause to arrest Officer Darren Wilson, but recognized the community would not accept his unilateral decision after questions had been raised about his affinity for law enforcement. That’s why he turned to a grand jury, or as veteran criminal defense attorney Mark O’Mara described it to me, a “super” grand jury, where he presented all evidence without any recommendation. The net effect was a trial with little to no cross-examination.

              Many have criticized this process. Jeffrey Toobin, writing in the New Yorker, remarked:

              “By submitting all the evidence to the grand jury, he added to the perception that this process represented an independent evaluation of the evidence. But there is little doubt that he remained largely in control of the process; aggressive advocacy by prosecutors could have persuaded the grand jurors to vote for some kind of indictment.”

              At National Review, Rich Lowry saw it differently:

              “It’s unusual, yes, but not unheard of for prosecutors to present a case to a grand jury without a recommendation to indict. Regardless, who could really object to a grand jury hearing everything in such a sensitive case? If any of the evidence were excluded that, surely, would have been the basis of other howls of an intolerably stacked deck.”

              Another unconventional aspect of this grand jury was that Wilson testified for 90 minutes without once asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Experienced criminal lawyers will tell you this is unheard of and might dramatically confirm that Wilson knew he had nothing to hide. His account was consistent with his prior statements and plausible — too plausible for some. NBC legal analyst Lisa Bloom is among those who found his ability to check all the boxes constituting reasonable fear of serious bodily harm a bit too convenient. Of course, unlike the rest of us pontificators, the grand jurors were able to assess Wilson’s demeanor and judge his credibility.

              Eyewitness accounts both supported and contradicted Wilson’s account. The Washington Post created an interactive compilation of this testimony (http://wapo.st/1z89Tvx). Some, like Wilson, saw Brown charge (“started charging toward the officer”; “I thought he was trying to charge him”), while others saw surrender (“kept saying, ‘I got, my hands is up’ ”; “he was walking in a demeanor as ‘I give up’ ”).

              The result has been a parlor game of sorts where biased observers point to the testimony of one eyewitness or another to support their argument of whether there should have been an indictment.

              But even if eyewitness accounts are read to support an indictment, the physical evidence suggested otherwise. Paul G. Cassell, a criminal law professor at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, who writes for the Volokh Conspiracy, pored through that evidence and wrote last week in the Post: “The physical evidence is important because, unlike witness testimony, it doesn’t lie and can’t be accused of bias (such as racism). As the cliché goes, the physical evidence is what it is.”

              His conclusion? That the powder burns, DNA, bullet trajectory, blood evidence and shell casings all support Wilson’s account.

              Wilson said that Brown wrestled him for his gun inside the police vehicle and that during that struggle Wilson fired two shots. The medical examiner testified that the soot was indicative of a gun firing just six to nine inches from Brown’s hand, and his DNA was found on Wilson’s gun.

              The medical examiner’s report also said the fatal head wound sustained by Brown was angled “downward and rightward,” which is consistent with Wilson’s testimony of being charged.

              The blood evidence at the scene also comported with Wilson’s account, showing Brown moving toward the officer, not surrendering in place. The location of the 12 shell casings retrieved also supported Wilson’s story as to location.

              Reasonable minds might differ whether any conflicting testimony met a threshold of probable cause, but there’s no way such evidence would ultimately have convicted Wilson “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wilson was free to use deadly force if he reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent death or serious injury. No criminal jury would have found him guilty of first-degree murder (in which the accused “knowingly causes” death “after deliberations”) or even involuntary manslaughter of the second degree (“criminal negligence”). If McCullough believed those burdens could reasonably have been met, he would have brought charges against Wilson without a grand jury investigation. Knowing that he could not secure conviction, McCullough was ethically bound not to bring charges.

              Finally, we come to the most significant issue presented in this case: race. Did Wilson stop Brown because he was black? Compare Wilson’s actions with those of George Zimmerman. Many, including me, think that Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin, who was walking home at night, simply because he was black.

              Is there anything to suggest that Wilson had similar motivation? Wilson had no complaint filed against him during his time on the force. He was rightfully in the neighborhood, responding to a distress call, where he encountered Brown. When he stopped Brown, Wilson had just received a police radio description of a man in a black shirt who had robbed cigarillos from a nearby convenience store, a description that matched Brown. There was no racial profiling. Period.

              The death of the unarmed Michael Brown is a terrible tragedy. While the process by which it was investigated wasn’t perfect, the result, warts and all, was just. Some police do give perfectly innocent young black men a tough time for no good reason, but this isn’t the case to make that point.

    • George Farsalas says

      The farce was how the DoJ bullied the DA into sending the case to a grand jury without any evidence for an indictment.

    • primuspilus says

      Thats right! That picture is not of Michael Brown! There has NEVER been a picture of him being a thug….however there is a video so……yeah, we’re done here.

  2. Ronda Wintheiser says

    I didn’t think it was Michael Brown. I thought it was a photo representative of the “men-children such as he” that Mr. Michalopulos was speaking of.

    I’m curious about folks like you, Mr. Trost, speaking of “screed”, who besmirch the Ferguson police department, Wilson, etc.

    Do you believe that Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown intentionally and out of racial hatred?

    • Nate Trost says

      Ms. Wintheiser frames her question as if the only “bad” reason Officer Wilson would have had for shooting Michael Brown was out of racial hatred. But, of course, this is not the case.

      It is entirely possible that Wilson “merely” acted inappropriately in choosing to use deadly force in circumstances that did not warrant it. And due to the vast authority given his position, the utmost scrutiny is demanded when a law enforcement officer engages in the use of deadly force that ends up taking a life. Except, as detailed in my earlier reply to Mr. Michalopulos, we don’t actually engage in that scrutiny as a society.

      So, no, I do not believe Wilson killed Brown “out of racial hatred”, but given the content of Wilson’s own testimony, I think one can clearly state that race, and specifically racist tropes played a role in his threat assessment. Black men capable of magical feats of strength and violence is an ugly and storied mythology and “bulking up to run through bullets” is a textbook example in a tragic story.

      The problem is when it isn’t viewed as the farce that it is. To put in context imagine if some random fictional comboxer here, let’s dub them “The Ladder of Monky Acesis” goes to a lonely Monomakhos meetup and gets into an argument with an equally fictional “Demetrios da Greek”, and in the process becomes afraid for their life and shoots poor Demetrios. And when questioned, part of their justification was that “it was like he was turning into a Greek warrior before my eyes, and time was going to slow down and his muscles were suddenly oiled and I was going to end up with a spear through my chest, like in ‘300’”. Ridiculous? Sure, but somehow not when it’s a black male.

      Although as an aside, if “The Ladder of Monky Acesis” were white and it happened in a stand your ground state, good luck getting a conviction! I’m sure if the media couldn’t find any dirt on Demetrios, maybe they’d find out his father occasionally posted essays by white supremacists on a blog and would end up painting him as a troubled possibly neo-Nazi youth or something.

      • Ronda Wintheiser says

        “Ms. Wintheiser frames her question as if the only ‘bad’ reason Officer Wilson would have had for shooting Michael Brown was out of racial hatred…”

        I did?

        No, I didn’t. I asked you what you think.

        This case, after all, has been framed for our consumption as about race.

        “But, of course, this is not the case…. It is entirely possible that Wilson ‘merely’ acted inappropriately in choosing to use deadly force in circumstances that did not warrant it. And due to the vast authority given his position, the utmost scrutiny is demanded when a law enforcement officer engages in the use of deadly force that ends up taking a life. Except, as detailed in my earlier reply to Mr. Michalopulos, we don’t actually engage in that scrutiny as a society.”

        Absolutely that is possible. And absolutely the utmost scrutiny is demanded in such a case for the reasons you offer. There seem to be more and more cases where that scrutiny is called for recently, and the people I associate with engage in that scrutiny constantly. Perhaps you need to think carefully about the company you keep, Mr. Trost.

        “So, no, I do not believe Wilson killed Brown ‘out of racial hatred’, but given the content of Wilson’s own testimony, I think one can clearly state that race, and specifically racist tropes played a role in his threat assessment. Black men capable of magical feats of strength and violence is an ugly and storied mythology and ‘bulking up to run through bullets’ is a textbook example in a tragic story…. ” etc. etc. etc. (I.e. you go on and on and on making the case that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown out of his hatred and fear of black men.)

        So, Mr. Trost, in plain terms, yes, you do believe Wilson killed Brown out of racial hatred.

        • Nate Trost says

          If you are going to ask “what I think”, Ms. Wintheiser, the normal fashion is to just ask that, not present it in the form of a loaded, leading question with the most negative possible connotations for motivation.

          “There seem to be more and more cases where that scrutiny is called for recently, and the people I associate with engage in that scrutiny constantly. Perhaps you need to think carefully about the company you keep, Mr. Trost.”

          This is the most delightfully absurd and bizarre thing anyone has said to me in recent memory. I treasure it even as I try to figure out what on earth you could possibly mean by it. Perhaps you are advising me against commenting on this blog because you find it unsavory and full of unpalatable characters? Seriously, you sound like you’re channeling some mobster out of “The Godfather”, which, if that’s your intent, you really aren’t pulling it off.

          (I.e. you go on and on and on making the case that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown out of his hatred and fear of black men.)

          Except, of course, I did not because hatred and fear are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to bungle your threat assessment with deadly consequences out of fear without requiring hatred. That some of those fear responses can be cultural conditioning due to influences of racial stereotyping and myth also does not require hatred.

          • Ronda Wintheiser says

            Gee, Nate. I wish you would shuck all those bristling layers of armor, take a deep breath, and just talk. Are you always this uptight?

            I did just ask that. I don’t know how I could have asked my question any more simply and directly than I did. I can’t help it if you see things that aren’t there.

            And you haven’t answered yet. You don’t seem comfortable answering in the first person. I am not interested in theoretical, third person conjecture. I wanted to know what you think. I’m trying to stop stereotyping you — but you’re making that very difficult.

            Since you won’t answer, all I can do is guess, and you make it pretty obvious that you believe that Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown because he was black.

            Personally, I think the circumstances surrounding Michael Brown’s death are so complex — unlike the Eric Garner case — that I wish the grand jury *had* indicted Wilson so that we could have had a trial and maybe get a clearer idea of what really happened, and why.

            “This is the most delightfully absurd and bizarre thing anyone has said to me in recent memory. I treasure it even as I try to figure out what on earth you could possibly mean by it” you write.

            I’m glad I could help. 🙂

            “Perhaps you are advising me against commenting on this blog because you find it unsavory and full of unpalatable characters? Seriously, you sound like you’re channeling some mobster out of “The Godfather”, which, if that’s your intent, you really aren’t pulling it off.”

            Um, no. What I meant by what I said is that there seem to be more and more cases when police act inappropriately in choosing to use deadly force in circumstances that do not warrant it, and because I hang out with libertarian types who are very uncomfortable with the militarization of law enforcement, we worry about that quite a bit.

            I was suggesting that you might want to get to know a few of them; might be an improvement on the “society” you’re keeping who “don’t actually engage in that scrutiny”.

            Does it occur to you that perhaps all your talk of “cultural conditioning due to influences of racial stereotyping and myth” is just a fancy, progressive way to stereotype certain people?

      • Ronda Wintheiser says

        “…(S)omehow not when it’s a black male.”


        Eric Garner is (was) a black male.

        There is ample evidence that the NYPD officers responsible for his death should have been indicted, and your jaundiced view notwithstanding, I’ll wager Mr. Michalopulos agrees.


  3. Michael J. Kinsey says

    The city of Toledo is evicting 140 residents from the Rivera Mia apartment complex for faulty wiring. The concern for the safety of it’s citizens cast out into the street with only a week notice doesn’t seem to be a concern. I expect the electricity and water turned off tomorrow or the next day. There have been no fires or death or injuries due to wiring here. I can still use the library computers. Any church in the Us willing to help me, get set back on my feet would be gratefully accepted. This is my hometown, but I have SS money and no debts. Finding another apartment will be difficult here. I barely got this one. The inspection is tomorrow. Have Christian soul will travel. They don’t like my beard, and I don’t like the gay mayor.

  4. Thomas Barker says

    According to Officer Wilson, Brown, in a full run, hit the pavement face first with enough force to throw his feet up toward his back. Yet only mild abrasion of his skin was noted. That doesn’t square with what we know happens when skin hits pavement with any velocity. But nearly 300 pounds at a full run? Were Browns facial injuries consistent with Wilson’s account? It matters a lot whether Brown was charging Wilson or not. But we’ll never know, because the whole business was conducted with such secrecy. A trial with cross-examination of each witness would have answered many questions. But it’s not so easy for the oligarchs to manipulate the public when the facts are laid bare.

    • It did not matter regarding any facial wounds on Wilson. An officer has a right to shoot at a fleeing suspect and Wilson acknowledges as much. There is no point in lying if it is unneeded. Most of the witness testimony argued the hands up was actually hands running.

      • Thomas Barker says

        Mr. Fall,

        I was referring to lack of facial injuries on Michael Brown after hitting the pavement face first, not facial injuries to officer Wilson.

        • Yes, and I misspoke. Wounds on the face of Brown are meaningless. The officer has the right to shoot if he feels he is in danger; including in the back or a fleeing suspect-the faceplant is meaningless Thomas. Our rules of engagement for police are too arbitrary, imo.

    • James Denney says

      “Face first” does not mean that he hit his face on the street. Manipulation of words to fit ones agenda is fun, isn’t it?

  5. Michael J. Kinsey says

    I would start a riot here, if I thought it would do any good. The states have become gUlag archipelegoS. I expect the FEMA camps will be firing up soon.

  6. Michael J. Kinsey says

    Temporary housing is offered for a month. Liaison officer offered to help determine housing. I don’t trust this, paid my rent and I will not leave until the police issue an eviction order. I will not obey any order to vacate unless the police are involved. I have powerful enemies.

    • ChristineFevronia says

      Dear Michael J. Kinsey,

      I am very sad for you and this whole situation, and please know that many of us who read your words regularly on this site will be praying for a speedy resolution to your housing situation. Nothing says “Christmas Spirit” like an eviction order for 200 renters in December. Our prayers are that the Theotokos will guide your steps to your next home quickly and peacefully. Please take care.

      Believing in a miracle for you,

    • M. Stankovich says

      Mr. Kinsey,

      I have made some calls and sent some email to see what benefits may be available to you. I would appreciate you leaving me information (identifying info, date of birth, military service, etc.) at my website http://mstankovich.com Leave a comment to any post – I am the only one to see it.

      If there is anyone living closer to Mr. Kinsey and knows resources and would be interested in helping me, please contact me as well.

      No “revolution” for the moment, Mr. Kinsey! Perhaps we can help you first.

  7. All the lies of the Ferguson police department, the staggeringly unbelievable testimony of Wilson, the farce of a show that the DA put on, none of those are worth mention in his screed!

    George also forgot to mention the grand jury testimony of the 7-8 black witnesses who all corroborated the officer’s testimony despite the dangers it places them in and the obvious inconsistencies in the testimony of those who claimed Brown was surrendering.

    But, hey, Nate Trost, why let such inconvenient truths get in the way of a US government executive led race based lynching of a white police officer?

    • Nate Trost says

      And you, Basil, don’t get to cherry-pick your witnesses or ignore inconsistencies in the story of the officer.

      Although, frankly, this really takes the cake:

      US government executive led race based lynching of a white police officer

      Sadly, the actual response I would like to give to your utterly revolting misuse of the term lynching in this context is inappropriate for the standards of discourse for this blog. However, I will offer you this food for thought: there is a rather high probability that at least a couple people who funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to Officer Wilson for a defense he was never going to need, in their youth, actually literally lynched someone.

      If you wish a more visceral refresher, I’m sure you own a necktie. Fashion it into a noose, stand in front of a mirror, stare at it and yourself in the mirror, and repeat to yourself “If I were merely accused of raping a white girl, this would be my fate.”

      Repeat until you get some perspective.

  8. The inner city thug mentality is a derivation of redzoning. Sadly, none or few of them and none or few of us recognize it.

    Michael Brown was a child-man-thug. He made a horrible error taking on the police officer at his squad car. Imagine his horror when he was fleeing the cop who was firing at him and he was still being fired upon(this was stated in the Wilson tv interview as fact). We’ll never really know if the cop told him to get down on the ground(as stated), but I doubt it(based upon the rapid gunfire in the video chat recording), and I’m not a Michael Brown fan a bit.

    What we do know is the cop had the legal right and admits to shooting in the direction of Brown as he was fleeing. Brown probably did not recognize his full options; just knew he was being shot at while running away and figured his only option was to fight, or he was toast.

    There is one part of the story that should bother all of us. The privilege police have to shoot at a person they determine to be dangerous(fleeing or otherwise) was decided by judicial fiat. That’s right, a SCOTUS decision is the basis for police having the right to shoot at you if they decide you are dangerous. And that decision is very arbitrary. What do I really mean? I mean that laws are supposed to be written by our states or Congress and decided upon by representation of the people. The rights of police should never be decided by judicial fiat. Of course, the opinions are so vividly for or against one side or the other, no one considers the gray matter.

    But the decision to fire bullets is made too lightly by police. I think the killing of the boy with a handgun at the park and the killing of a bystander in the hallway in NY recently are good examples of how this judicial fiat is a failure. The examples go on and on… Michael Brown is probably another one; he just got a little closer to the lines of less arbitrary by reaching for the cops gun before he ran 153 feet down the sidewalk getting fired at the whole time and then turning around and charging the cop before taking the final rounds.

    Sadly, the idea our Congress would ever get together and decide how police ought to behave is pretty unlikely.

    And, for the record, I don’t believe, based upon current law, a grand jury ever should have been seated in the Brown case. I just don’t like how police got their rights.

    • State legislation does regulate use of deadly force by law enforcement, but state law must comply with the restrictions of Grahm vs Connor, Johnson vs Glick and Tennessee vs Garner to remain withing the boundaries of the constitution. All judicial tests must be met for a law not to be unconstitutional, but legislation duly passed by the State of Misourii authorized Wilsons actions.

      • Daniel E Fall says

        The judicial decisions were agriegous errors.

        Why should a cop’s mere notion subject anyone to abuse?

        And then wonder why cops are disrespected?

        There are two issues. Disrespecting police and police having carte blanche. When combined you get dead idiots. If you reduce carte blanche; you get to save a few idiots.

        Plenty of deaths by cop have been those meek in our Beatitudes.

        Looks like federal law is needed.

        Puffing feather show starts now.

  9. Gail Sheppard says

    This has nothing to do with Brown or Wilson.

    This is about dreams deferred: “I’m asking you to believe,” “Vote for Change,” “Yes We Can . . . ” Obama disappointed a whole nation and people are rising up in angst, whether they recognize the source of it or not.

    By Langston Hughes

    What happens to a dream deferred?

    Does it dry up
    like a raisin in the sun?
    Or fester like a sore—
    And then run?
    Does it stink like rotten meat?
    Or crust and sugar over—
    like a syrupy sweet?

    Maybe it just sags
    like a heavy load.

    Or does it explode?

    • Gail Sheppard says

      RE: “Btw, that is my teen daughter’s favorite Langston Hughes’ poem.”

      Not surprising. She is exceptional like her mother. 😉

    • James Denney says

      Wonderful, Langston Hughes, communist, apt representative of the Godless ideology that murdered hundreds of millions, and continues murdering today. If people feel their dreams are deferred, it’s because they have failed to lift themselves up, and have become self-victimized government dependents. Here’s another poem by the fascist Hughes:

      Ballad of Lenin

      By Langston Hughes

      Comrade Lenin of Russia,
      High in a marble tomb,
      Move over, Comrade Lenin,
      And give me room.

      I am Ivan, the peasant,
      Boots all muddy with soil.
      I fought for you, Comrade Lenin.
      Now I finish my toil.

      Comrade Lenin of Russia,
      Alive in a marble tomb,
      Move over, Comrade Lenin,
      And give me room.

      I am Chico, the Negro,
      Cutting cane in the sun.
      I lived for you, Comrade Lenin.
      Now my work is done.

      Comrade Lenin of Russia,
      Honored in a marble tomb,
      Move over, Comrade Lenin,
      And give me room.

      I am Chang from the foundries
      On strike in the streets of Shanghai.
      For the sake of the Revolution
      I fight, I starve, I die.

      Comrade Lenin of Russia
      Rises in the marble tomb:
      On guard with the fighters forever –
      The world is our room!

  10. Invitation to discuss LGBT issues with Senator and Representatives

    Why Congress Must Pass a Comprehensive LGBT Non-Discrimination Act

    December 10, 2014, 9:30am ET – 11:00am ET

    Bookmark this link to watch the live webcast
    Keynote address:
    Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

    Distinguished panelists:
    Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)
    Rev. Delman Coates, Senior Pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church
    Chad Griffin, President, Human Rights Campaign
    Sarah McBride, Special Assistant, Center for American Progress, and co-author of the report

    Maya Harris, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

    In roughly 30 states, it is still legal to fire, refuse housing, or deny service to Americans based solely on sexual orientation or gender identity. This discrimination causes disproportionate rates of homelessness, unemployment, poverty, and negative health outcomes within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, community. With marriage equality continuing its overwhelming success in courts across the country, it is time to continue the conversation about ensuring basic protections for all Americans.

    Please join the Center for American Progress for an event discussing these issues, where CAP will unveil a major report outlining discrimination against LGBT people in many facets of American life. The report calls on the U.S. Congress to take a comprehensive approach to securing nondiscrimination protections in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, and federal funding for LGBT Americans. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), the lead sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. Senate, will headline the event.
    December 10, 2014, 9:30am ET – 11:00am ET

    Space is extremely limited. RSVP required.
    Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis and not guaranteed.

    A light breakfast will be provided at 9:00 a.m.

    Center for American Progress
    1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor
    Washington, DC 20005

    Nearest Metro: Blue/Orange Line to McPherson Square or Red Line to Metro Center

    RSVP to attend this event at


    For more information, call 202.682.1611.

  11. cynthia curran says

    A lot of conservatives don’t like the old trade guilds but actually in the middle ages prices were sent by the guilds instead of government. Conservative being too anti-guilds or unions has allowed the left to pushed minium wages since wages are held low by companies. To get decent wages and low prices maybe unions or guilds to help workers with housing . I’m becoming a mild dstrutionists these days to combat both the problems with modern capitalism and some of the statist of the left. There is a movement in the US called the makers movement it started with tech geeks that make 3 d printers and manufacturing equipment more available to the general public to go back to an artisans making the furniture and pottery in the local area instead of a large manufacturing firm that moved to China and so forth. many of them work as tech workers but do thei stuff as a hobby or sell some of it.

  12. Michael Kinsey 1380805 says

    I was evicted with 140 other people, but I was offered a bed in a shelter, AFTER Paying my rent for December. Each day’s trouble is sufficient, AND SO IT IS1. I am manomakos, try it sometime. I suspect most people do not want anything to do with someone who claims to have authored the TRUTHFUL definition of the abomination of desolation. TIME will prove me to be in the Truth. No one, to date, has yet to offer a definition that can challenge mine. I do challenged all Orthodoxy and all Christianity to match the wisdom God gave ME!! Most of you feel, I’m not good enough for you. God will judge with perfect Divine Justice. I will see Justice. Nothing you can do about it. you lose.