Obama: Ferguson Police Have Been ‘Oppressive and Objectionable’ – But There’s ‘No Excuse For Criminal Acts’

The president made his first public comments about the shooting of two Ferguson police officers in the deplorably passive-aggressive way we’ve come to expect from him.

During his appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live Thursday night, he told the host, “What had been happening in Ferguson was oppressive and objectionable and was worthy of protest,” Obama said. “But there was no excuse for criminal acts.”

Obama was very concerned that the awkward violence (that he, Sharpton and Holder helped stoke) would detract from the social justice narrative he has been pushing. He made sure to let the nation know that he is not for the assassination of police officers in the street. It seemed important to him to keep reiterating how hard he believes LEO’s jobs are – and how the majority of them are not the racist oppressors he and his friends in the racial grievance industry keep harping about.

“Whoever fired those shots shouldn’t detract from the issue – they’re criminals – they need to be arrested,” he explained – (as if something that obvious needs to be explained.)

“And then, what we need to do is make sure that like-minded, good-spirited people on both sides – law enforcement, (who have a terrifically tough job) and people who understandably don’t want to be stopped just because of their race…. (Is it okay if they’re stopped while they’re breaking a law?) that we’re able to come together to come up with some good answers.”

Like say – nationalizing the police. Something like that.

Obama went on to flatter and tacitly encourage the Ferguson protesters by citing the DOJ’s bogus report on Ferguson, “you can’t generalize about protesters who – it turns out – had very legitimate grievances. The Justice Department report showed that … African Americans were being stopped  dispropotionately – mainly so the city could raise money even though that was unjust.”

John Lott in the NY Post recently exposed the DOJ’s  “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department” to be the shoddy political screed that it is.

Ferguson fake-out: Justice Department’s bogus report:

Starting with the primary numerical claim. The report notes on Page 4: “Ferguson’s law-enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African-Americans.

“Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African-Americans account for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations, and 93 percent of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only 67 percent of Ferguson’s population.”

Those statistics don’t prove racism, because blacks don’t commit traffic offenses at the same rate as other population groups.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2011 Police-Public Contact Survey indicates that, nationwide, blacks were 31 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over for a traffic stop.

Ferguson is a black-majority town. If its blacks were pulled over at the same rate as blacks nationally, they’d account for 87.5 percent of traffic stops.

In other words, the numbers actually suggest that Ferguson police may be slightly less likely to pull over black drivers than are their national counterparts. They certainly don’t show that Ferguson is a hotbed of racism.

Critics may assert that that “31 percent more likely” figure simply shows that racism is endemic to police forces nationwide.

Hmm: The survey also reveals that men are 42 percent more likely than women to be pulled over for traffic stops. Should we conclude that police are biased against men, or that men drive more recklessly?

In fact, blacks die in car accidents at a rate about twice their share of car owners.

Read the whole thing.

TV entertainers like Jimmy Kimmel are not equipped with the political savvy needed to deal with professional BS artists like Obama – so why have politicians on their shows? The whole thing turns out to be an exercise in pure propaganda which is pretty disgusting and frustrating to watch.

SEE ALSO:

National Review, Thomas Sowell: Statistical disparities between ethnic groups are normal, not evidence of racism.

Obama “Embarrassed” For Republicans Because They Wrote to Ayatollah (His Secret Pen Pal)

I guess we’re supposed to all be too stupid to notice the hypocrisy here.

“I’m embarrassed for them,” said the president in an interview with Vice News.

“For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah,” Obama continued, “who they claim is our mortal enemy — and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement. It is close to unprecedented.”

Let’s unpack Captain Bullshit’s bullshit, shall we?

• “For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah”…

Who happens to be Obama’s secret pen-pal. Obama has written to Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at least four times since taking office in 2009.

• “who they claim is our mortal enemy”…

Note he says THEY (the GOP) claim the Supreme Leader of Iran, (who says things like, “the Islamic peoples all over the world chant ‘Death to America!’ and  “this battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it”) is our mortal enemy. Not he himself. No Obama seems to have found “common cause” with this person the unsophisticated troglodytes in the GOP think is a mortal enemy.

• “and their basic argument to them is don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement”…

No. That was not their argument at all – basic or otherwise. That is a flat out lie. The point of their short, blunt letter was to explain to Khamenei (who they –  but presumably not Obama –  consider a mortal enemy) that any agreement he makes with the president will not be binding, and could be overturned by a future congress.

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
 
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
 
Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.  For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.
 
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
 
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Nowhere in that letter do the Senators suggest that Obama can’t be trusted to follow through with an agreement.

Every single word of Obama’s answer was complete, unadulterated bullshit. It wasn’t – as Obama’s fanbois in the media would have it – “slick” – it wasn’t “too clever by half.” It wasn’t a brilliantly deceptive Jedi mind-trick or part of an awesome 3-steps-ahead chess move. It was transparently ridiculous nonsense.

But I’m not embarrassed for Obama. We expect him to be a lying hypocrite. We expect him to be a disdainful, treacherous cretin. It is his nature.

I’m embarrassed for his media toadies who allow him – time and time again – to get away with it.

 

 

 

 

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results

https://i1.wp.com/www.crystalinks.com/IroquoisGathering.jpg

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“One of the critical issues that we have to confront is illegal immigration, because this is a multi-headed Hydra that affects our economy, our health care, our health care, our education systems, our national security, and also our local criminality.” – Allen West

“Illegal immigrants are to immigration what shoplifters are to shopping.” – Jerry Agar

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” -President Theodore Roosevelt

“A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” – President Ronald Reagan

https://askmarion.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/right2bplanet.jpg?w=500

This week’s winning essay,The Right Planet’sA Strong Warning from Trevor Loudon on Illegal Amnesty is an in depth look at amnesty for illegal aliens, the radical roots of many of its activists and how it is being used as a tool to subvert the basic fabric of the country . Here’s a slice:

For the past three years, Trevor Loudon, author of the book “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within,” has been trying to warn Americans about the Marxist takeover of the Democratic Party. If you listen to the video above, you can hear Trevor is losing his voice from all the rallies he’s been attending lately. He is trying, with every fiber in his being, to warn Americans of the dire consequences of ignoring the ominous slide toward pure socialism occurring now in the American body politic.

A little while back I had the distinct pleasure of sitting down and talking to Trevor Loudon at length when he visited Indianapolis. Many of the points he is making in his presentation to the Leadership Institute were the same ones he made during his visit to Indy.

I want to focus on some key points regarding illegal immigration Trevor made in his presentation.

Before 1995, the AFL-CIO labor union was lead by alleged anti-communists like Lane Kirkland and George Meany. But, in 1995, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the Gramcsiist communists kicked out Lane Kirkland, replacing him with DSA member John Sweeney. Sweeney is currently President Emeritus of the AFL-CIO. He was president of the organization for four terms, from 1995 to 2009. Richard L. Trumka is the current AFL-CIO President.

The radical leftists took over every major labor union in the country, and purged the Democratic Party of all the moderates, dixiecrats, centrists and bluedog democrats—with Sen. Joe Lieberman being the last to go.

Today, there is not a single policy embraced by the Democratic Party that can be distinguished from the platform of the Communist Party USA or the Democratic Socialists of America. This is full-on Marxism-Leninism, ladies and gentlemen. I have been warning about this for years—Trevor, even longer. Now we have a situation where some twenty-thousand Marxists own the unions, and the unions own the Democratic Party. It was Vladimir Lenin who once wrote that the labor unions are “the transmission belts from the Communist Party to the masses.”

Trevor mentioned some key individuals worth noting in his presentation that have been major driving forces behind the “immigration reform” movement (i.e. amnesty) in the United States.

The first organized effort to bring Latinos into the Democratic Party started with hardcore communist Bert Corona in the 1950’s. It was Corona who set up the Viva Kennedy clubs that, for the first time, brought large numbers of Mexican-Americans into a Presidential campaign.

The former mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa—a hardcore Marxist, who cut sugar cane in Cuba for the Castro brothers—turned L.A. into a sanctuary city, and forbade the LAPD from enforcing immigration. The illegals flooded into California by the hundreds of thousands.

Communist Party supporter, and former head of the California senate, Gil Cedillo, pushed through the DREAM Act in California about three years ago, giving so-called “rights” to the children of illegal immigrants—euphemistically called “undocumented workers.”

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Mark Steyn with The Enemy Of My Enemy submitted by The Noisy Room. This is Steyn’s take on Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu’ speech to congress..and as usual with Steyn, he gets to the heart of the matter with his customary wit and brilliance. Do read it.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Rhymes With Right was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Obama Admin May Bypass Congress and Take Iran Deal To United Nations (Video)

Republicans are reacting with alarm to reports that the Obama Regime is contemplating bypassing congress on the Iranian Nuke deal, instead taking it to the U.N. Security Council for a vote.

In a letter, Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said the idea of letting the U.N. consider such an agreement, while threatening to veto legislation that would allow Congress a say on it, is a “direct affront” to the American people.

Via US News and World Report:

In exchange for signing onto a deal aimed at keeping it from developing nuclear weapons, Iran seeks relief from sanctions, including those imposed by the U.S. executive branch, the United Nations and Congress.

 Corker has introduced legislation requiring any final agreement with Iran to be submitted to Congress for review before any sanctions imposed by Congress can be eased.

Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen was invited on the Kelly File Thursday night to offer his insights on this latest Obama overreach.

“It’s an outrage,” Thiessen said. “What the president is basically saying is, ‘I care more about the approval of the United Nations than I care of the approval of the elected representatives of the American people. He’s not simply not going to congress. He’s going to the United Nations and seeking the approval of dictatorships like Russia and China while threatening to veto legislation that would give congress an up or down vote on this deal.”

Asked how the UN deal would work, Thiessen said, “so what he’s trying to do is he has this non-binding agreement with Iran, and he’s going to take it to the UN Security Council and the UN Security Council will give its blessing to this deal, and give it the force of international law which means that under international law, no countries can impose sanctions on Iran unless they’re violation the deal. That’s what he thinks he’s doing. The problem with that is – under US law, the US Constitution trumps international law. The US Constitution trumps the UN charter.”

The bottom line, however, is even though the agreement would not be binding, it would make it more difficult for the next president to undo because he’ll have to deal with the international community if he decides to reverse it.