Ferguson - MissouriBecause it is a pointless distraction, I had not planned on posting again on THAT DISTRACTION IN FERGUSON, MISSOURI. However, after I left a comment on The Ferguson Report @ Amusing Nonsense, I decided I may as well post my comments.

siriusbizinus apparently accepts the Obama administration’s view that what is going on in Ferguson, Missouri is all about racial bias on the police force.

I just read this article over at Yahoo News about the report that the Department of Justice just sent out about the Ferguson Police Department. There’s a lot of striking information in there (including some really discriminatory emails). What gets me the most is how much the DOJ found. It’s like Ferguson PD wasn’t even trying to hide a police culture that discriminated against black people. (continued here)

I can’t read minds, but it looks to me like our Attorney General is trying to aggravate our racial troubles, not fix them.  So left this comment.

Citizen Tom
MARCH 6, 2015 AT 9:41 PM

Let’s review the history.

A white policeman shoots a black guy.
The corporate news media declares the shooting racially motivated.
The government, DOJ, steps in. Instead of calming the situation, the Attorney General promotes the notion the shooting was racially motivated.
A Grand Jury investigation confirms the black guy is a huge brute who robbed a store. When the policeman stopped him, the black guy tried to take the policeman’s gun. Frightened for his life, the policeman shot the black guy in self defense.

How likely is it that the DOJ has issued a self serving report on behalf of its boss?

Of course,  just pointed back to that DOJ report. It is curious how people miss the point. So I wrote this.

Citizen Tom
MARCH 7, 2015 AT 7:17 AM

What makes a man remarkable is that no credible “evidence” can be found against him (Daniel 6:1-5). (Note that I did not include the link to this verse in the original comment.)

We can look at any police department in the country, and we will most likely find the sort of “evidence” the DOJ found. That would include the DOJ. In fact, the guy running the DOJ needs to be investigated for racism.

Wherever we find man, we will find sin. Wherever we investigate, we will find “evidence” that supports the charge of excessive pride, and all racism is is an unjustified pride in one’s race (Strangely, black racism seems to be politically correct, and white racism seems to be politically incorrect.). Moreover, “evidence” can be misrepresented to mean what it does not, especially statistical evidence.

Since Ferguson is an area experiencing “white flight,” if the authorities there were not experiencing difficulties keeping the lid on racial tensions, that would be remarkable. As it is, the discovery of racial tensions has nothing to do with the DOJ report. The case that supposedly brought the race issue to light in Ferguson never had anything to do with race. The news media and our Attorney General just used that shooting to aggravate racial tensions. As if the shooting had been racially motivated, the Attorney General just shifted the focus to the Ferguson police department. Since people no longer expect anything except hype and bias from it, the news media does not bother covering up. That outfit just continues pushing its narrative.

If our Attorney General were actually trying to tamp down racial tensions, then he would have stayed out of Ferguson, Missouri. Even though there was lots of news media hoopla, THAT DISTRACTION IN FERGUSON, MISSOURI from start to finish was a phony story.

Consider how sickening what happened in Ferguson really was. Here we have a policeman on the beat doing his job. He tries to make an arrest. The thug tries to kill him, and the national news media and our nation’s Justice Department commence to cry out for the policeman’s blood. Only the vestiges that remain of our justice system and the brave witnesses who spoke the truth prevented a horrible miscarriage of justice.

Did the Obama administration learn anything? Did the news media? No. These people continue in their desire to divide us. With the DOJ’s Report, the Obama Administration has kept the story alive and continues to stoke the fires of racism.


This Wikipedia article, Ferguson, Missouri, includes data on Ferguson’s changing demographics.

Here is DOJ’s Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. Keep in mind that DOJ never had any justifiable pretext for doing this report. That makes it little more than a witch hunt. On page 29, the report contains this footnote.

17 This set, however, did not include any substantive information on the August 9, 2014 shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. That incident is being separately investigated by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Here from the report’s summary is the DOJ’s gobbledygook excuse for the report.

This investigation was initiated under the pattern-or-practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d (“Safe Streets Act”), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI”).

What is news is what we make of it. It is an unfortunate fact that much of the mass media is in the hands of about six massive corporations that apparently share a similar brand of journalistic ethics and common political objectives.  Thus, most of the news media is in an uproar over the DOJ report, telling us that the rioters in Ferguson were justified.

Thus Sean Hannity has a wide open field for presenting a dissenting view (here). His evidence, our Attorney General’s words. Compare that video with the one here from The Washington Post.

BTW, if you don’t think policing involves bilking “lawbreakers” for revenue, try driving and parking in our nation’s capital.

Postscript (March 8, 2015)

 did not like the comments I left at his post, The Ferguson Report.  He summed it up this way.

MARCH 8, 2015 AT 9:55 PM

A couple things here CT –

1) The data gained from the report is being used to support a conclusion that Ferguson PD was acting in a racially discriminatory manner. If you’re going to call people out on Circular Reasoning, please identify it correctly. You are now making yourself look bad.

2) I have repeated several times that your question isn’t on topic for this post. Ulterior motives are irrelevant unless it shows the data I or Think Always is using are false.

3) I’ve given you a lot of leeway, Tom. But please make sure you are familiar with my rules for commenting. This constitutes your warning to get on topic. Either you can actually produce something that negates the data found in the Yahoo article or the report itself, or you can try a relevant comment.

As per my rules for commenting, any further irrelevant comments will be moderated like it is spam.

I guess I was not be respectful enough. What puzzles me is why my question was not relevant.

Here is the question.


So I left this comment.

My rules are commenting on commenting on other blogs are simple enough. Where I am not wanted, I don’t go.

You don’t think my question pertinent?


I think that answer enough.

Will that comment ever see the light of day at ‘s blog? I don’t know.

What was I calling Circular Reasoning? I explained in my MARCH 8, 2015 AT 9:41 PM comment.

How is the report biased? I suspect you already know. Otherwise, you could and would promptly answer this question.


So far neither of you have. Instead, you use the conclusions of the report to justify producing the report. That’s what we call Circular reasoning.

When our government spends a bunch of our money producing a report, I think they should have a good reason before they started producing the report. Given that the DOJ has been jumping all over the Ferguson police department, and it appears to quite a few people that our President and Attorney General helped to stir up the rioters in Ferguson, I think my question especially relevant. Maybe we need a report on that.

Anyway, thanks to that report, instead of being on defense, our Attorney General is now on the attack. Holder says he’s ‘prepared’ to dismantle Ferguson police department if necessary. Whether that report really provides sufficient justification for dismantling the Ferguson police force, however, is another matter (Ferguson by the Numbers). Statistics can too easily be used to mislead us.

That said, if you want to put on blinders and view the DOJ’s Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department in isolation from the circumstances and motives that led to its production, please visit The Ferguson Report.



  1. @ Tom – Whether one thinks DOJ and Holder were effective or not in deterring rioting (clearly they did not prevent it), I have answered the question you posed very directly, at least as far as one on the outside looking in can venture an opinion – the Report was issued to assure the citizens that their interests were not being neglected by the federal authorities and to give them some sense that grievances would be examined and considered by responsible officials. The motivation, beyond adherence to federal civil rights laws, I suspect was that there was less likelihood of violence if it was thought that someone was paying attention in a context where many of the locals felt that the local government was not paying attention.

    @ Keith – I would have to go back and see what Holder and Obama said at the time. I think it’s fine if they make comments to the effect that killings of citizens by police merit close scrutiny to determine what happened. If they assert in advance of formal investigations that they know that there was actionable homicide, then they overstep considerably. You indicate that they were very clear in laying blame on Wilson (or Zimmerman before him) and that the motivation was to inflame African-American opinion against police. I think it far more likely that their motivation was to try to calm things down. The option of saying nothing, or, even more provocative, telling people to calm down and suck it up would likely (it seems to me) have been even more inflammatory.

    This is one of those things that is hard to measure, because you can’t measure the result of them having done a different or opposite thing. But I, frankly, strongly doubt that the motivation was to cause riots.


    1. Your defense of Obama and Holder is saddening, scout, as well as utterly wrong. Do you remember the hundreds of riots over the past year because of all of the black-on-white knockout game assaults and killings? No, of course not, because Obama and Holder chose to say nothing about them.

      Do you not remember Obama’s early statement making the killing of the evil, vulgar, fight-addicted Trayvon Martin a virtual attack on Obama’s on family? “If I had a son,” Obama said … suggesting that if he had a son, he too would be an evil, vulgar thug. I don’t doubt it. That case gained national attention because Obama and Holder and Sharpton pushed it into the limelight, and used it to enlarge the racial divide they needed for their idea of success. The same was true of Brown and Garner.

      Even after the evidence was revealed that Trayvon Martin had a history of theft and drug use, that the “Skittles” and drink he can famously gone to get were to make a street drug, and that he had a history of violent, unprovoked attacks on people (and bragging about this), and that witnesses saw him viciously beating on Zimmerman … Obama still honored him as a noble cause. He was doing this as recently as last week — because it keeps blacks angry and keeps the country divided.

      Had Obama wanted to do some good, he’d have mentioned on national television the horrific slander against Zimmerman by the media, doctoring photographs and editing sound clips to create a false narrative. But the media was following Obama’s lead: Keep the American blacks, whom Obama considers to be ignorant, angry, and ineffective in their anger, stirred up and focused.

      You look at Obama and Holder and you evidently see only benign intent. Amazing.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 2 people

    2. @scout – I really don’t have anything more to add. What Keith said he said better than I would said it anyway.

      What puzzles me is why you said what you said. Has the Obama administration done any one thing that by it to justify calling the people in it dangerous to our country? Yes. In fact, I gave some examples, and as Keith pointed out, with respect to stirring up racist strife, we have a pattern of behavior. Why do you refuse to see it? Your attitude is not funny. It is just a pity.


      1. Well, I wasn’t trying to be funny, so I guess it doesn’t concern me that you agree that I was not. I can’t really respond to your question because I don’t understand it syntactically – I think you left out a word or phrase or something.

        I do think you and Keith, on the one hand, and I, on the other, are in disagreement as to whether the Administration’s objective is “to stir[ ] up racist strife.” I am not a big fan of this Administration and question their competence, particularly in a foreign affairs context (although I somewhat despair that my party is showing or has shown in the last 15 years, much of a viable alternative). However, as Keith indicates, I do not share either of your views that domestic policies are motivated by malevolent objectives, least of all the incitement to racial conflict. Perhaps we just leave it at that.


  2. Maybe, in some kind of wooly way, we’re getting somewhere. What I extract from all the words in you last comment is simply that you think that the DOJ report should not have been produced, rather than that it contains “lies” or that it is the work of “liars”, the terminology that brought me to comment on your original post. I am taking your various non-responses to my inquiries to mean that you can’t sustain those remarks and that you are retreating from them. Good move, Tom. You were looking a bit out of control with all that. I also see that you are not quarreling with the conclusions of the report (hence, presumably, your current comment questioning whether the “conclusions of the report [ ] justify the producing the report.”)

    I suspect a similar report would have been produced, in these circumstances, by any administration, R or D. Since the 1960s and the enactment of federal civil rights laws, there has been an affirmative burden on DOJ to examine local incidents that raise questions of unequal treatment based on race to determine whether federal law has been violated. Here there was significant social disturbance following a killing and the feds had to look at it. We can debate about whether Mr. Holder had to go to Ferguson in the immediate aftermath of the Grand Jury decision and just exactly how high-profile he or the President himself should have been at that moment. I think I might be closer to you on those subjects than to them. On the other hand, I think they would say that the place was a tinderbox, and that they had to show that there was a federal presence that would backstop, under federal law, any perceived defects in the administration of local justice. The subsequent violent riots undermine that theory, but it is not irrational and we cannot know whether they would have been worse without that assurance of federal review.

    How such reports are used depends a lot on us. If we acknowledge the components of them that identify valid concerns over how governments at any level function to serve all the citizens, and then make the fixes necessary to eliminate those problems, we come out ahead. Ferguson is running a little protection racket, apparently, with its fine system. It has not done a good job of engaging all elements of the community in the structuring and purpose of its law enforcement organizations. Those defects can be cured over time. Would they have been fixed without a report like this and the requirements of federal law? Probably not.

    Bottom line for me: The report identifies some glaring flaws that are no doubt not peculiar to Ferguson, but which indisputably exist in Ferguson (you no longer appear to be disputing its content) . If the problems identified are fixed properly, the cause of good governance is advanced. If they exist elsewhere, they ought to be addressed in those locations also. Maybe the report will encourage reform in other municipalities that are using their police to shakedown revenues from citizens going about their normal business. I do not see “lies” or the work of “liars.” I now begin to perceive that you don’t either. You just said that because . . . . well, you know better than I. You fill in the blanks.


    1. @scout

      Since I cannot stop you from doing what you do, I suppose I should be thankful I can make use of it, nevertheless.

      Let’s see. How should we describe what you are doing. Perhaps we should let people decide for themselves.
      1. I never said the DOJ report contained any lies. That is how you chose to interpret what I said. All I said about the report is that we can expect our government to misrepresent and misuse the data it contains.
      2. I have not retracted anything.
      3. You only pretended to answer my question. What you actually did is say that Republicans because would do the same thing it is okay for a Democrat run DOJ produce the “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department.” Then you added the news media induced riots as an afterthought. That does not answer the question: WHY WAS THE REPORT GENERATED? It talks around an answer.
      4. How DOJ’s “Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department” will be used depends depends on us? That’s a hoot! Here are some of latest things that “depended on us.” The Bailout. Obamacare. Obama’s immigration reforms. The FCC’s takeover of the Internet. There are lots more, but this is just a comment.
      5. Nobody said the report did not identify problems.The issue is why the DOJ did the report. When the news media and our government officials makes such a big stink about a policeman who is plainly defending himself, why do you want to defend that report? You are a Conservative? Well, that is what you say you are.

      Do you remember watching boys in a schoolyard. Imagine two boys roughhousing and one goes too far and hurts the other. The boy who was hurt gets angry. Then other boys start egging him on. Pretty soon we have a fight.

      Had the two roughhousing boys been alone, most likely one would have apologized and the other would have accepted the apology, but within every crowd there are always some who thrive on the strife they create. We each need to beware we are not one of them.


      1. You need to focus, Tom. You tend to fly off in a lot of directions at once.

        1. Your post was entitled, “When Liars refuse to Give Up”. Your post was about the DOJ Ferguson Report. It’s not a stretch to think that you were attempting to imply that liars were involved in some way. I don’t think that is a misinterpretation unless your meaning had little relationship to your words. If so, you can clear it up. Where there are liars, there are lies. Hence my question: who are the liars, what are the lies?

        2. Good for you. I try to help you out when you climb out on these limbs, but it’s up to you whether you take the proffered hand and crawl back to some rational, defensible perch.

        3. I thought I had been clear, but I’ll try again. My surmise is that the report was generated because the federal government was trying to fulfill its statutory responsibilities under civil rights statutes and because there was some hope that a thorough federal look at the situation might assure citizens that the federal government was not ignoring the situation.

        4. Try to focus. You’re rambling again.

        5. There’s nothing in the DOJ Report that is inherently “conservative” or “liberal” or anything in between other than that both conservatives and liberals (as we use those terms so very loosely today) can take issue with municipal governments that lapse into this sort of highwayman approach to raising local revenues by harassing citizens over tail lights and then compounding the offenses to build up fines. Show me where Hayak or Kirk or any respectable “conservative” thinker would defend that. I don’t think you can. I don’t know any thoughtful conservative who would defend the Ferguson situation, a situation that probably has quite a few analogs around the country. Cleaning this stuff up should be a universally appealing enterprise.


        1. I need to focus? I am not focusing on the report. That’s where you want the focus. Why? That’s why I asked: WHY WAS THE REPORT GENERATED?

          You answer doesn’t cut it. Holder always had the option of not being one of those who egged on the rioters, but he did it anyway.


        2. It seems to me pretty obvious that the “liars” involved here are Obama and Holder, both of whom are well-documented liars. In Holder’s case, of course, this has risen to the level of perjury before Congress; Obama merely lies to nearly everyone nearly all the time. In fact, it would be interesting to learn if there is anyone on the planet with whom Obama is regularly truthful.

          Both of these men jumped on the initial news of Michael Brown, assigned the worst possible interpretation to the events there in advance of the facts, insisted upon this interpretation even when the facts were revealed, and of course did the same thing afterward with Eric Garner and before with Trayvon Martin. In each case, lying for the narrative was more important to them than the advance of justice and the truth. And people’s lives have been destroyed as a result.

          The report — I’ve read it — is troubling. The “racism” seems trivial; they document about one email per year, with the most recent being more than three years old, and none of it rises to the recent recorded chant in Oklahoma.

          But the revenue focus is of far greater concern. The “disparate impact on African Americans” is harped upon, but not convincing. Nevertheless, the revenue focus as a driver for government activities is so pervasive, and so perverse, that it seems like a microcosm of the Obama administration. Such abuse should be ended.

          The focus on this one town of allegedly excessive warrants seems unwarranted. The original case was not as Obama and Holder (and Sharpton, whom we did not elect) described in such radical terms. Eliding the business about “disparate impact,” much of which is almost certainly over-egged by this notably racist and dishonest administration, the practice of revenue generation is quite bad enough and seems sadly likely to be common. But it could be fixed without intentionally adding fuel to the fires of racism which are the goals of Obama and his inner circle.

          In other words, Obama sent his henchmen looking for a scalp to enlarge and inflame the hostility of blacks toward police. They found bits, hyped them through anecdotal reporting, and laced all of this with “and it’s mostly against African Americans!” But all of this should have been done in a way that generates introspection and improvement, not merely infamy and international ire.

          Thanks to Obama and Holder, we have the worst human rights abusers around the world gleefully lecturing the US because of Ferguson … for what is demonstrably a false narrative. But this “searing” report which was originally going to be into whether Darren Wilson violated Brown’s civil rights mentions Wilson only once, in a footnote. Cover documents don’t admit that the evidence supports Wilson, they say instead that the evidence was insufficient and too contradictory to prosecute him. And yet even the footnote promises more investigation against Wilson.

          So, the narrative continues that the killers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner have gotten away with murder. That narrative is wrong, poisonous, and promoted for the most cynical of motives.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Color me puzzled, Tom. What were the lies in the DOJ report that caused you to make reference to “liars”? How does the DOJ report discriminate against white males? Do you think that problems of racial discrimination in this country ended in the 1960s because Christians stopped supporting racist politicians? (You say triumphantly “That worked!”, but one gets the sense now and again that the struggle for equal justice, while advancing, is not complete.) How does the mercenary law enforcement system in Ferguson relate to your concern about affirmative action? If every single citizen of Ferguson and every single police officer were purple, wouldn’t the problem with such a system be a serious one that we all could agree was worthy of condemnation? What are the “two wrongs” to which you refer?


    1. How is the report biased? I suspect you already know. Otherwise, you could and would promptly answer this question.


      But you usually don’t answer questions. You just color yourself with crayons.

      What are you doing here? Apparently, you would like us to believe the conclusions of the report to justify producing the report. That’s what we call Circular reasoning.

      Do I need to answer your questions about the report? No. I am not attacking the report itself. The problem with the report is no justification ever existed for producing it.

      Look at past history. How do the Democrats use such immaculately objective and perfectly accurate statistics? Instead of trying end discrimination based upon race, sex, and creed, they use statistics to justify discrimination based upon race, sex, and creed. They just give their discrimination a fancy name like “affirmative action,” and they call their discrimination “fair.”

      What we tend to forget is that government is the worst culprit of discrimination based upon race, sex, and creed. It takes government power to make the worst kinds of discrimination possible, slavery, for example. That is why we had a civil war. Hence, what I object to is not the report itself. I am concerned about how such reports are used. The last thing we need is to give our government is more power to discriminate against us.

      Do you believe two wrongs make a right? Then take the time to consider why that report was generated and how it will be used.


  4. I’m not of the view that you and your alter ego use half-truths to “tell the biggest lies.” I do think you are sometimes careless and hyperbolic in your choice of words. I guess in this sense, I am more lenient on you guys than you are yourselves. But to return to the report and your assertion that it is a reflection of “Liars” refusing to give up:

    I only looked at the summary at the beginning of the report and the table of contents. I’m not that interested to invest more time in the document. But assuming the content of the whole document tracks with what I looked at, the primary point (or at least the first point in the series) that DOJ made was that the entire law enforcement system in Ferguson is built and maintained to produce public revenues and that such systems can have corrosive effects on public trust and the relationship between citizens and law enforcement officers. Do you think that that premise is a lie?

    The report also says that the FPD engages in unconstitutional stops, First Amendment Violations, and excessive force Fourth Amendment violations. Do you think that is a lie? I found it interesting that the data show that African Americans were twice as likely to be searched at a traffic stop that whites, but were found to be in possession of contraband 26% less frequently than white suspects. Do you think that datum is a lie?

    The report says that the court system in Ferguson imposes unduly harsh penalties for missed or late payments of fines. Do you consider that a lie? It sounded to me like Ferguson had a kind of debtors’ prison racket going out there.

    Other elements related to lack of diversity on the force, and evidences of discriminatory intent in law enforcement practices. Do you think those conclusions were lies, and, if so what are the factual bases that enable you to refute those conclusions?

    The report fortified the Grand Jury decision not to indict Officer Wilson (although the issues at the federal level are somewhat different than at the state/local level). We don’t know exactly what caused or motivated the killing of Michael Brown, but the legal process at both the local and federal level made what appear to be correct decisions that, given the conflicting evidence, it would not be appropriate to subject the officer to trial on either state or federal charges. Seems like things worked the way they should have in this instance and for the right reasons. By the way, I have never seen any information indicating that AG Holder “harassed an innocent man” or that DOJ was “cry[ing] out for the policeman’s blood.” On what do you base those assertions? It did appear to me that DOJ was attempting to assure the community that it would review the situation to determine if federal laws were violated. I think the hope was that Ferguson residents would have a less cynical view of the process if the federal government engaged to address its responsibilities, particularly in the wake of the Grand Jury decision (with which, as indicated above, I have no reason to quibble, but which had led to protests in Ferguson).

    The verb “to lie” and its various cognates have a very precise meaning. Presumably you had something specific in mind when you used that particular word. My curiosity was whetted and unsatisfied by my admittedly cursory review of the Report. Of course, you must know what you meant. Hence, my question to you went to the best source of the information. Who are the “Liars” and what were their lies?


    1. The DOJ, the Liberal news media, and the race racketeers helped to elevate a shooting in self defense to something that “required this report.” Objectively, there never was any reason to make a big stink over it. Yet Holder did exactly that, helping to lead people to believe that a gentle giant had been killed in cold blood.

      Have you considered that what you wrote has nothing to do with whether it does any good for the DOJ to stick its nose into the matter.
      1. Before he had any data, the Attorney General had already indicated his own biases with respect to the shooting in Ferguson.
      2. When they have shown no desire to fix the problem of discrimination, it is ludicrous to expect the Democrats and the Obama administration to fix the problem.
      3. The government cannot end discrimination based race, sex, and creed by practicing discrimination based upon race, sex, and creed. Yet that is how the Democrats expect to end discrimination.

      The Civil Rights movement began in the 1960’s. During the 1960’s, large numbers of our people had to reconcile their racial biases with their Christian consciences. They did so by trying to make themselves stop discriminating based upon race, and they stop supporting politicians who discriminated against blacks. That worked!

      Unfortunately, there was an overreaction. I know. I spent a couple of hours a day on a yellow bus in Maryland just so I could help to integrate a high school. Why me? Government authorities found it convenient to discriminate against the children of the military personnel stationed at Andrews AFB. Yep! Our wise government officials knew that those children were guilty of all kinds of discrimination. So we had to be punished by making us sit on a bus. Don’t you know that put us in a great mood to love blacks when we arrived at the school?

      How many generations of white males does our government need to discriminate against to be “fair” to blacks and women? Where is the justice in such a thing? Where in the Constitution are our leaders empowered to do such a thing? Since when does two wrongs equal a right?


  5. Tom – I have read your post and extracts of the DOJ report (I probably won’t make time to read the entire thing). Who are the “liars” you refer to at the top of the post? What were the lies? With a splashy start like that, I expected to find some dam-busting expose (where are the French accent marks when I need them?) in the body of the post. I didn’t see anything about lies or liars.


    1. Sophistry. Yes, you do it well. With half the truth, don’t we tell the biggest lies?

      You ask questions. I am by your questions suppose to be put on the defensive, but you almost never answer any questions. You don’t have any answers.

      Are we really suppose to believe the DOJ is trying to fix anything in Ferguson. Are we suppose to believe our Attorney General harassed an innocent man because he cares about justice? Are we suppose to believe that a shooting that had nothing to do with racism justified that report?

      What has the Obama administration done that has not aggravated the divisions between us?


  6. If a white LEO works in a predominately black neighborhood or city, then it logically follows that most of his encounters will be black individuals. The inverse is just as true. The witch hunt by the DoJ is politically motivated, even Holder admitted that he will do whatever it takes to sift Ferguson before his departure — his last “trophy.”


  7. The Administration put its view of its Ferguson fiasco in writing:

    The cop was right and the Gentle Giant was put down justly like any homicidal maniac should be – by having his brains blown out.

    Of course it’s the White Man’s fault because he created all the homicidal maniacs in the first place.

    Am I being too blunt?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. When people are of a totalitarian mindset, they do something rather strange. Consider, for example, what happened here. They started by creating a straw man. Supposedly, that policeman who defended himself is a racist. Then they attacked and tried to destroy that straw man, using him as an example. If anyone tried to defend that policeman, then he must also be a racist.

      Effectively, what the Obama administration wants to implement is racist. Affirmative action is racism.

      Look at all the Democrats’ favored identity groups: blacks, Hispanics, feminists, homosexuals, Muslims, and so forth. Because they want to use the THE GOVERNMENT discriminate outrageously, they accuse those who don’t want THE GOVERNMENT discriminate against others based upon race, sex or creed of “discrimination.” Hence, these clowns don’t really object to discrimination. What infuriates them is not being in control of who THE GOVERNMENT discriminates against.

      So what is strange about the behavior of those of a totalitarian mindset? To justify what they want to do, they project their own beliefs and behavior upon those they intend to harm.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. You’re not being too blunt, but you’re not being particularly factual. The DOJ report said nothing of the sort. I think you’re projecting your own views onto the document.


      1. It is plain that I addressed why the DOJ wrote the document. I did not say what the document says, and you know it. Again, you are acting like a smart aleck.


        1. I was addressing SilenceofMind, not you, Tom. SoM had asked if he/she was being “too blunt”. Hence my response. Pay attention.


Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love


Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Allallt in discussion

Debate and discussion: Reasonable, rational and fair

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


Finding Clear and Simple Faith


Author Alexander Hellene - Sci-Fi - Urban Fantasy - Fantasy - Culture - Art - Entertainment - Music - Fun

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

Sharing the Gospel message of hope, strength, love, and peace through Jesus Christ to those who are hurting in their soul or spirit. This is the mission of Healthy Mind Ministry

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Fear Not, Only Believe." Mk. 5:36

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

College Professor


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

Running The Race

Hebrews 12:1


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.


My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: