The Justice Department has cleared a Ferguson, Mo., police officer of civil rights violations in the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager whose death set off racially charged and sometimes violent protests last year.
The decision, which was announced on Wednesday, ends a lengthy investigation into the shooting last August, in which Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Mr. Brown in the street. Many witnesses said Mr. Brown had his hands up in surrender when he died, leading to nationwide protest chants of “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
But federal agents and civil rights prosecutors rejected that story, just as a state grand jury did in November.
“Rejected that story.”
Not a bunch of racists in St. Louis. This is the Eric Holder DOJ.
Are we now to believe that Eric Holder is as racist as we’re supposed to believe Bob McCulloch allegedly is?
The report found that witnesses who claimed that Mr. Brown was surrendering were not credible. “Some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witnesses’ own prior statements with no explanation,” it said.
“Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and ‘charging’ at Wilson,” it added.
“Those witness accounts stating that Brown never moved back toward Wilson could not be relied upon in a prosecution because their accounts cannot be reconciled with the DNA bloodstain evidence and other credible witness accounts.”
Unlike the state investigation, the Justice Department’s inquiry produced a lengthy public report explaining the legal conclusions and its analysis.
And here it is:
So, I imagine that’s the last we’ll see of the whole, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” nonsense, right?
Well, at least we destroyed a lot of property in Ferguson and Dellwood, which my leftist friends tell me will result in a lot of job creation, or something.
Now, when do we start prosecuting the looters, liars and arsonists?
Be It Further Resolved that if Mr. Nixon fails to resign, the Missouri House of Representatives should strongly consider impeaching the Governor for willful neglect of duty and incompetence, as the great state of Missouri cannot afford to bear the costs of his failed leadership…(Emphasis mine.)
There are two charges there. One is incompetence.
You’ll get no argument from me that in managing the office of the Governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon is an incompetent. One look at how Ferguson and Dellwood were handled will tell you that. But in this case, incompetence doesn’t mean an inability to do a job correctly. Legally, it means he is not able to perform his duties because of mental deficiency like illness, psychosis or mental deterioration.
It’s a tough argument to make. And remember, the trial for impeachment isn’t held in the Senate. Per the Missouri Constitution, the House impeaches, but:
the governor or a member of the supreme court shall be tried by a special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the senate.
To convict, five of the seven would have to agree to the tradition definition of incompetence, which really isn’t likely.
However, Chappelle-Nadal offered another impeachable offense in her remonstrance: willful neglect of duty.
“You didn`t want to have a Kent State situation. You certainly didn`t want to have a situation where Guardsmen who had only been there a few hours, who had not been used to the very kinetic atmosphere of people throwing things, screaming things at the very front tip of that spear. That was the plan. I think it has prevented loss of life.”
For a moment, please ignore the overt disrespect of the Missouri National Guard shown by their Commander in Chief and focus on what else he said.
Time and time again, Nixon admits he purposely withheld the National Guard from being in Ferguson because he placed the lives of criminals above the rights of the property owners.
He’s confessing he willfully neglected to protect the law abiding people of Ferguson and Dellwood because he didn’t want to do what was necessary to enforce the law, as is his sworn duty as Governor.
On November 11th, in a press conference where he delivered prepared statements, Gov. Jay Nixon said this:
But violence was tolerated, deliberately and those businesses weren’t protected. They were left to burn by a governor who couldn’t be reached by anyone except Valerie Jarrett at the White House.
And since the decision was made to let the cities of Dellwood and Ferguson go up in flames, Governor Jay Nixon has been in full C-Y-A mode. His go-to spin is to point out that no lives were lost.
Just last week, he callously said, ““Those buildings and businesses will be rebuilt … but to say that that night we should have had a larger and broader gunfight? That would not have solved any problems,”
And risking a dislocated shoulder from patting himself on the back for letting bands of thugs run wild on the streets, he said, “In the hierarchy of responsibilities, saving lives was first, behind it was saving property. (That) was the right way to come at that.”
Here’s the Paradigm Shift. Governor Nixon knows that’s not the truth. He just thinks you’re stupid enough to believe it.
Nixon has presented what’s known as a false dilemma. It’s when an argument is made that assumes only two possible outcomes. In this case, Nixon wants us to believe that his choices were A) to have the National Guard on the streets of Ferguson, where they would obviously have killed people like mindless, uniformed spree killers, or B) to turn the area over to the professional anarchists, revolutionaries and random looters and joiners who didn’t want to let a crisis go to waste.
But there are other possible outcomes.
Like the fact the mere presence of the National Guard would have stopped a lot of this from even being considered.
Oh, but the Adjutant General said it would just put the National Guard in danger, they say.
Well, that’s interesting. But first let’s consider that the position of Adjutant General is an appointed position, and Stephen Danner was appointed by Gov. Nixon.
Second, it completely ignores the military strategy used for centuries known as “deterrence.”
And on the streets of Ferguson, deterrence worked. Who could forget the photo taken of Mike Gutierrez and Adam Weinstein, who stood outside St. Louis Ink tattoo studio and County Guns armed with black guns.
Looters pillaged a Dollar General in the same strip mall as those stores, but took one look at the rifles and the men holding them and thought better of trying anything.
And that was in August, months before the riots Nixon allowed to happen.
But let’s assume Danner is right and the mob would have just attacked the Guardsmen rather than being smart and backing away slowly.
Does that mean the property owners of Ferguson have to have their rights violated because a bunch of looters made a bad choice? Only to those who have no use for the rule of law.
The simple fact is, when you choose to take an action, you choose to accept the consequences of said action. Therefore it follows that if you choose to throw a firebomb at a person wielding an AR-15, you choose to be perforated by the person you’re attempting to set on fire.
Not only that, but the business doesn’t burn because the other firebombers choose to live and the firefighters can actually do their job without being left out on the dangle.
Nixon’s first responsibility was to the law abiding citizens. Instead, he abandoned them.
What happened in Ferguson wasn’t because Jay Nixon made a decision to place life above property. It happened because sometime between November 11, when he promised to protect the businesses of Ferguson and warned that violence would not be tolerated, and November 24, the night where violence was most assuredly tolerated, Nixon and most likely Team Obama, placed optics above the rights of the people they swore to protect, leaving those people to fend for themselves.
It wasn’t because Nixon wanted to protect the pillagers from being perforated by the National Guard. It was because someone, somewhere placed optics above the rights of the people of Dellwood and Ferguson.
Someone, somewhere was comfortable with those communities burning, with those businesses being destroyed and the lives of those taxpaying citizens being turned upside down, as long as there wasn’t a photo of an anarchist being gassed.
On November 24th, politics took priority over protecting the people.
A husband, a father, a son, a patriot—and our friend—a loss that becomes indelibly impressed upon our hearts—for the rest of our lives.
As a leader in the state of Missouri, many have opinions about Tom—that comes with leadership—but no one doubted his tenacity, courage and integrity in attacking waste, inefficiency, and corruption—a trait not often resident among politicians.
Tom charged ahead, he carried the torch of those uncompromising values that made our state and our country a better place.
So today, in this battlefield in Missouri there is now a gap in the lines that once was filled by a good man with the heart of a warrior.
What would Tom want us to do?
Unquestionably he would embolden us to pick up the torch and continue to charge up the hill! He would say that his values are our values—that this great cause transcends each of us as individuals. He would state: “It’s about the mission, not the man”!
Tom would also persuade us to be more respectful of each other—to care for each other—to never let our differences negate our unified values of freedom, justice, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
We can honor a man best, by honoring those values that he stood for—that he fought for.
First of all, he would want all of us to encourage one another, to foster a little kindness, as he and his family have experienced personally the vicissitudes of judgments and criticisms that comes to those who lead.
He would then convince us to spend more time with our family and friends; to recognize that they need us as much as we need them.
Then Tom would demand of all of us, as did Winston Churchill in the dark days of WWII, “Never, never give up!”
And finally, Tom would have a call for action. He would not hesitate. I can just hear him proclaim, with a sense of urgency, “Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!”
Let us not allow the legacy of this honorable warrior to grow dim over the succeeding weeks, months and years, but let us carry the torch forward, each in our own way, inspired by the life of a true statesman—who made a difference.
Senator Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, filed legislation today that would establish an overall, or global, cap on the amount of tax credits authorized each year. The bill does not deal with any one program in particular; instead, it limits the total amount of tax incentives the state can authorize annually, with that number slowly reduced by approximately 15 percent over the next five years.
I like this.
Tax credit reform has been an ongoing effort in the General Assembly for a number of years, with several bills filed each session to cap funding for the incentives. Many of those bills, though, dealt with individual tax credit programs. Senator Silvey’s legislation creates a cap that would affect all programs, versus singling any one out specifically for reform.
Senate Bill 507 would create a global cap on the annual authorization of tax credits of $575 million, slightly above the average of the last three years. The measure would then ratchet down the cap by 3 percent over a five year period. Once fully phased in, the cap would be $493 million, reducing tax credit authorizations by around $80 million annually.
“I’m running because I’m tired of seeing continued inaction in Jefferson City on issues that could help hundreds of thousands of Missourians,” Stevens said in the release. “Legislators are elected to serve the best interests of their constituents — the majority of our legislature is not working for the people of Missouri, and that needs to change.”
Stevens has a bachelor’s degree in sociology and a master’s degree in social work with a public policy emphasis from the University of Missouri, and lives in Columbia with her husband, Ben Edes, and the couple’s three dogs, the release said.
Yeah, but that’s not all. Here’s a look at her LinkedIn page:
Nearly two years working as an organizer for Planned Parenthood. That explains why the two biggest pro-abortion Democrats in the House are already lining up behind her:
The left of Lenin editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently posted an attack on the Republican leaders of the Missouri House and Senate, saying the reason they won’t bring up a massive expansion of government is because they don’t want to discuss the “success” Kentucky is having.
This month, the office of Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, issued a report on his state’s first year under an expansion of Medicaid to the working poor, as called for in President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The report, prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLC found that everything promised by Medicaid expansion proponents came true. The same thing has happened in most every one of the 28 states that, unlike Missouri, have expanded Medicaid to cover people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.
The Kentucky report should be particularly persuasive to Missouri lawmakers, as the two border states have so much in common economically, politically and culturally. Kentucky is a state with two Obamacare-hating Republican U.S. senators who realize that the Medicaid expansion part of the ACA has been good for their state.
How good? An increase in 12,000 jobs and a $1.6 billion economic impact in one year. Kentucky had the second-largest decrease in its uninsured population in the nation. It doubled projections of the number of people who would sign up for new insurance through its state-run marketplace, adding 310,000 insured through Medicaid expansion. Based on the first year numbers, the report projects that by 2021, Kentucky’s budget will experience a net-positive impact of more than $900 million. The projected overall economic impact during that time? $30 billion.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume those numbers are all correct.
The headline of the Post-Dispatch editorial is, “If facts mattered, Medicaid expansion in Missouri would be slam dunk.”
Well, if facts mattered, the Post-Dispatch would see that entitlements are destroying America.
Fact: As of this writing, the outstanding public debt in the United States is $ 18,158,789,799,692.91.
Fact: That averages out to $56,726.80 per United States citizen.
According to the new report, by Deloitte Consulting and the University of Louisville’s Urban Studies Institute, Kentucky’s cost of covering the new Medicaid enrollees will start at $74 million in 2017 and grow to $363 million by 2021.
Gov. Steven L. Beshear, right, with employees at the headquarters of Kentucky’s insurance exchange. He has said people in his state do not have to like President Obama or him to like the new health care law.
Like most states, Kentucky already spends more of its budget on Medicaid — about $1.9 billion in the 2014 fiscal year — than almost anything else.
Wow. But don’t worry, that extra cost will totally be “offset by the positive economic effects of expanding the program.”
Do you know what that means? It means, if, and that’s a big if, Medicaid expansion results in more jobs, then Kentucky will take enough from the taxpayers to pay off the added cost. So, basically they’re saying, “Yeah, it’s gonna cost more, but don’t worry. We’re gonna take more. Win-win.”
And that’s also dependent on the federal government maintaining at 90 percent contribution rate. Is there anyone who honestly believes that is going to happen, considering President Obama has already tried to lower it?
Since we’ve discussed what is “seen,” let’s talk about what is “not seen.” Let’s start off with another fact: government cannot give anything that it doesn’t take from the American taxpayer.
Therefore, the loot that went to Kentucky resulting in 12,000 new jobs had to be taken from someone else.
What jobs could have been created with that money?
Do you think the private sector could have created more jobs with it?
Do you think they would have been hiring paying?
Could it have resulted in an unemployed worker finding a job that provided health insurance benefits?
The report, and the editors of the Post-Dispatch, are promoting one of the most commonly know economic fallacies: the broken window fallacy.
There’s no boy throwing a rock through a window, but there is still the destruction of wealth through taxation. See, the shopkeeper, rather than having to expend his wealth to replace a window, just has it taken from him by force by the federal government. It’s then given to the state government, after the feds take a cut, who redistributes it around the state, losing some to legitimate costs like labor, but also to graft and fraud.
There’s no way this process could create the prosperity that leaving it in the hands of the people could.
Finally, if facts mattered to the editors of the Post-Dispatch, they’d admit that Medicaid is, at its root, nothing more than wealth redistribution and immoral. Force should not be used to take from one to provide health care for another. It’s a violation of their personal property rights.
But if the Editorial Board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch cared about fact, or rights, they wouldn’t be leftists.