Monthly Archives: August 2014

War? What War?

President Obama has been opposed to war from the moment he emerged on the national stage. He fought against combat in Afghanistan (the “good” war) and Iraq (the “bad” war). Obama is so war-averse that he completely removed all U.S. troops from a stable, self-governing Iraq (paving the way for the chaos and ISIS crisis) and intends to do the same in Afghanistan.

From the beginning of his tenure as president, Obama denied that we are in a “war on terror” and banned the use of that phrase. Indeed, accompanying his infamous apology tour, Obama declared, “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

What war

Clearly, Islam is at war with us. Did Obama forget about the Twin Towers? The Islamic jihadists engaged in the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq? The recurrent attempts by Muslim extremists to commit attacks of terror in the United States?

Has the Obama administration not yet learned its lesson?


In a press conference just last week, Obama asserted, “They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.”

In other words, ISIS poses no threat to the United States.

Just two days ago, Deputy State Department spokesman Marie Harf echoed the President’s assertion that the threat posed by ISIS “is not about the United States and what we do.” This was said after the beheading of a U.S. journalist.


While the White House is living in fantasyland, Americans will have to suffer the reality.

We Don’t Have a Strategy Yet

Yesterday, President Obama’s words shocked many people around the world. Obama admitted, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

(For a president who appears to think that only words matter – after all, he believes he can change the world with the right words – Obama surprisingly fails to grasp that words actually do matter, saying something as foolish as this.) Remember: “Don’t do stupid stuff” is not a strategy.

But Obama’s statement should have taken no one by surprise. (It merely confirmed what we already suspected.) We have Obama’s presidential record to look back on and we have his rhetorical record from both before and during his presidency.

As author Steve Hayes noted earlier this year, “[Obama] doesn’t have a coherent foreign policy vision. … It’s been an incompetent, incoherent, sloppy foreign policy for five-and-a-half years with no apparent vision.”[1]


Absent a vision, there can be no strategy, at least not one that works.

The Obama Doctrine

Throughout his presidency, pundits, politicians, and policy wonks have sought to unearth the essence of “the Obama Doctrine.” Best-selling author Charles Krauthammer came up with his answer: “a series of completely unconnected ad hoc decisions, and that’s the Obama Doctrine.”[2]

Some have defined the doctrine that enunciates Obama’s foreign policy views as “appeasement,” which would be largely accurate. Let me offer my own take on the Obama Doctrine and define it in one word: Talk.

Whether sparked by drug-induced rap sessions in college or belief in his own innate superiority as the best of “the best and the brightest,” Obama appears to believe that he can either 1) talk people into doing whatever he wants or 2) talk them to death.

In 2007, Obama astonished his listeners by saying that he would be “willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of [his] administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries.”

For Obama, talk beats action any day, as he explained, “And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them – which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this [Bush] administration – is ridiculous.”

Upon his ascendency to president, Obama immediately talked, beginning with a worldwide apology tour. Eschewing even pragmatic unilateralism, Obama insists upon turning every issue and event over to the United Nations or to other international entities. Diplomacy (talk) is in, action is out.

Moreover, when faced with taking action, he usually says what he won’t do, not what he will do.

Obama’s infamous reset with Russia back-fired, and even now, he scolds Putin for creating this crisis in the Ukraine, claiming it is not in Putin’s best interest. Putin thinks it is – and talking won’t change that.

After almost six years in office, when it comes to foreign policy, it appears that all Obama can do is talk. Our relations with “Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea” are no better than when he came into office. All of our foreign relationships – whether friend or foe – have deteriorated.

Obama has talked nonsense.

Consequences of Lack of Strategy

As a direct consequence of his failure to develop a strategy (other than an increasing disengagement from the world), and of his doctrine of discourse over action, Obama has destroyed his own credibility and that of the United States of America.

If all you’re going to do is talk and take no action, then when your opponent continues to disagree with you and continues to misbehave – in taking no action – you are appeasing your opponent.

As a consequence of Obama’s lack of both vision and strategy, and his indecisive impotence as a leader, Steve Hayes notes, “We’re sitting here in the United States with a president who can’t get anyone to do anything.”[3]

Obama inherited a stable, democratic Iraq from Bush and turned it into a melting pot of terrorist entities united for one purpose: to create a regional, then global, caliphate, and, in the process crush America.

What will Obama do as barbarians are trying to destroy us? Say, “Stop! Pretty please.”


On Facebook, someone asked me: “There is a complete lack of strategy in what you say as well. If ‘talk’ is not strategy, neither is ‘action.’ What action? Be specific.”

When dealing with terrorists such as ISIS – or megalomaniac tyrants like Putin whose one desire is domination of others and restoration of an empire – words do not work.

Only power – or the credible threat of force with a perceived will to act – can deter such people. Peace through strength worked with Reagan. Appeasement has failed with Obama as it did with Chamberlain.

Bullies do not respect weakness or displays of weakness. Rather, they are emboldened by such displays. Crossed red lines must be met with action, not rebuke. Invasions of other nations must be countered with more than “Tsk, tsk, tsk, you naughty boy, you.”


[1]       Steve Hayes, Special Report, FNC, 5/28/14.

[2]       Charles Krauthammer, Special Report, FNC, 5/28/14

[3]       Steve Hayes, Special Report, FNC, 7/1/14

American Exceptionalism is in the Eye of the Beholder

(The Sixties Coulter-Culture is Alive and Well and Seeks to Fundamentally Transform America into its Long-Sought Utopia)

For most Americans, the United States has been a force for good in the world (albeit imperfectly). To them, “American exceptionalism” speaks to the best that America has become, to the American can-do spirit which is both resourceful and generous, and to America’s reliance upon a providential God who has mightily blessed her.


For others, particularly those embracing the Sixties’ countercultural ethos, “American exceptionalism” epitomizes the dark side of Americanism. For them, America has not been exceptionally good or constructively influential but, rather, exceptionally evil, creating the chaos that we see in the world at this very moment.

President Obama’s Vision

Hence President Obama’s determined zeal to disengage America from the world, to – as author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza suggests – constrain America and its own self-interests rather than constraining the evil which would destroy us.[1]

For those who think like Obama, America is the problem, not the solution. For them, America should retreat from world affairs.

Obama and those who agree with him are wrong in a number of ways. First, America has truly been a force for good in this world, particularly when it has sought both God’s righteousness and His blessing.

Second, no matter how much they deny it, evil exists. Evil exists to do evil. Evil will never be satiated.

Third, retreating from evil never works. Evil will never be appeased. Retreat merely leaves a power vacuum in which evil can enter and thrive. Obama’s leadership vacuum is directly responsible for many of the worldwide crises so evident today, especially the empowerment of ISIS.

Obama views America as fundamentally flawed, hence his calls to fundamentally transform America. Thus, he offered “hope and change” and other Orwellian clichés. The Obama administration first denied the existence of a “war on terror,” them redefined terrorism, arguing that the real terrorists are American patriots. Even now, he opposes so-called “right-wing terrorists” more than he does Muslim jihadists.

Failing to recognize evil where it does exist (all the while believing real evil only exists in America), Obama resists accepting undeniable comparisons between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler.

Wanting to believe the Russian “reset” worked, that his continuing world apology tour strengthens America, Obama actually claims “America is stronger than ever!

Unconcerned with what is best for America, Obama swapped five jihadist leaders for one deserter, and he created the chaos on our southern border due to his failure to grasp the meanings of simple terms like “citizenship” and “national sovereignty” and a diminished or jaundiced view of what it means to be an American.

As a direct consequence of his worldview and his foreign and domestic policies, President Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming America and the world.

Obama’s success derives in no small measure from a compliant media and political leaders who are in agreement with his worldview and also the employment of a wide variety of propaganda techniques, including Orwell’s infamous Newspeak.

Steve Deace on Newspeak

In an excellent Townhall commentary, Steve Deace shows how the counterculturalists of the Sixties have redefined basic terms, adapting timeless meanings to suit contemporary purposes. His entitled his essay, “The American Exceptionalism Dictionary,” presumably to suggest that – were words to mean today what they have always meant – we would not be in the many predicaments in which we find ourselves today.

Deace highlights four particular terms which have come to mean the opposite of what they once did, using Webster’s 1828 definitions as a foundation.

Rights” were once based on law and conformity to an accepted “human standard of truth, propriety or justice” but have become entitlements, primarily based upon one’s membership in a particular aggrieved group (racial, ethnic, gender, etc.).

Laws” were once objective, established, and applicable to all but are now evolving, subject to the whims of judges and politicians.

Morality” was once based on settled moral or spiritual principles which were considered absolutes, whereas moral relativism has become so exalted that “morality” is now defined as “An ancient word used only by those on the wrong side of history.”

Tolerance” once meant openly permitting a belief or action without constraint, but now requires “acceptance, validation, and participation in that which you don’t agree with.”

Fundamental Transformation

President Obama has transformed America and the world through, in large measure, through his rhetoric and, as highlighted here, his redefinition of words which were once objectively understood but now are subjectively misappropriated.

Deace concluded his column with two paragraphs worthy of including here:

“God, the ‘governor of the universe’ as ‘father of the Constitution’ James Madison referred to Him, spoke the universe into existence with mere words. Words declared our independence from tyranny. The redeemer of wayward mankind is literally the Words of God made flesh.”

“There is a reason those who plot to undo American Exceptionalism have worked so hard to capture the language. And we won’t preserve liberty for future generations until we take it back.”

Photo Credit:


[1]       Dinesh D’Souza, Drive at Five, WMAL, 8/25/14.

Vicky Beeching and the Lesbian Gospel

Vicky Beeching is a well-known Christian worship leader who has embraced a lesbian gospel and advocates for same-sex marriage.


Vicky’s gospel is couched in politically-correct terms of universal inclusion which are biblically inaccurate. Vicki says,

What Jesus taught was a radical message of welcome and inclusion and love. I feel certain God loves me just the way I am, and I have a huge sense of calling to communicate that to young people. When I think of myself at 13, sobbing into that carpet, I just want to help anyone in that situation to not have to go through what I did, to show that instead, you can be yourself – a person of integrity.”

I’ll get back to her concluding words – “a person of integrity” – in a moment.

“Search Me”

I purchased one of her CDs many years ago and enjoyed its content. I was particularly struck by one simple song, “Search Me,” which reminded me so much of King David’s plea that God create a pure heart in him. Search Me seemingly also draws its inspiration from Psalm 139:23-24, which reads:

“Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”

In her own reflective ballad to the Father, Vicky beseechs God to search her to discover anything in her which does not reflect His purity. Vicky asks to be refined “in the fire of Your gaze” in order that she “might be holy in all of my ways.”

Vicky further asks, like David, for “a heart after Your own heart” and “a mind that is pure and pleasing to” Him. And she asks to be filled with love, and His power and joy, so that she might reflect God’s image to the world.

I’ve always liked that song and see it as a good model for meditation, reflection and prayer. It’s sentiments are certainly biblical.

Searching the Heart

Searching the heart is a good thing and God does it perfectly (Jer. 17:10, Rom. 8:27), while we, as imperfect beings, do so imperfectly. We might ask God for what David prayed and Vicki sought, and yet not see the answers God gives us. Often, our own human nature and natural desires get in the way.

The point of Vicky’s song was to experience spiritual transformation so that Vicky “might be holy in all of my ways.” This reflects God’s own heart, as expressed by the apostle Peter in his first epistle (1:13-16):

“Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;  but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,  because it is written, ‘Be holy, for I am holy.’”

But being holy – as desired by God and sought by Vicky – requires God’s intervention and our cooperation. The apostle Paul, in a host of places, expresses the struggle Christians have aligning their wills with God’s.

Often, we fail. The temptation comes to think that God will accept our failings, even though He insists we die daily to ourselves. A further temptation arises in which we can convince ourselves that our own wrong thoughts and behaviors are not only acceptable in His eyes, but that we are actually doing His will when we are allowing Him to accept us as we are.

These are flawed ways of compromising with the world, denying God’s Word, and opposing His will.

LGBT Bible

On her website and blog, Vicky is generating a discussion concerning homosexuality and the Bible. She has offered up a series of resources and recommended reading to further her own point of view. Most of these resources offer up alternative interpretations or refutations of very clearly-worded passages in the Bible which resolutely condemn homosexuality.

(There now exists a “gay Bible” which purports to set the record straight, pun-intended, when it really makes straight paths crooked.)

Does the Bible endorse or promote homosexuality? This excellent article repudiates that notion: “Liberal Scholars Agree: The Bible Forbids Homosexuality.”

Ex-Gay Explains Gay Theology Fraud

In a Facebook response to Vicky’s claims, Greg Quinlan, former President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, writes:

“The statement ‘I am gay and God loves me anyway’ is narcissistic at its core. You are making a demand of God attempting to manipulate His unrelenting love for you so as to accept and condone your mocking behavior. NO ONE is born homosexual. No one. ‘There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biologic etiology for homosexuality’ (American Psychiatric Assn). There is Zero evidence of a ‘gay’ gene. ‘Homosexuality is not hard-wired’ (Dr. Francis Collins Director of the Human Genome Project NIH). Homosexuality is a developmental gender identity disorder that should never been removed from the list of disorders. Homosexuality is not biologic, genetic but there are vast sociological studies spanning over 150 years showing homosexuality as a disorder that is acquired by many factors including culture. Gay theology is a lie! Homosexuality is not innate but it is sinful. Homosexuality is completely outside of God’s created purpose for mankind.”

Same-Sex Marriage Denies the Gospel

Same-sex marriage is both unbiblical and antithetical to the gospel. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus affirms the Genesis account that marriage is between one man and one woman.

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul observed that marriage (between a man and a women) typifies the relationship between Christ and the Church. In other words, a godly marriage is analogous to our spiritual relationship with God. A husband and a wife are to become one, just as Jesus and the Church are one, just as the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. Believers are called to know Jesus as intimately as husbands are to know their wives.

God, through Paul, is sharing with us deep spiritual truths. Jesus models His love for His people (the Church) just as husbands should exhibit sacrificial love for their wives. Wives are to be subject to and show respect toward their husbands just as the Church does to Christ. Each marriage – husband and wife – should reflect the godly, holy principles and patterns that Jesus modeled for His people. As you reflect upon Paul’s words, notice the emphasis on sacrificial love and sanctification, cleansing and purification. That we may be holy as He is holy.

Here is Ephesians 5:22-33 …

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

Verses 31 and 33 clearly reaffirm the one man-one woman model of marriage. Why?

Verse 32 gives us the answer: Marriage reveals the nature of the relationship between Jesus and His Church.

“A Person of Integrity”

Vicky contends that by “being yourself” you can be “a person of integrity.” This utterly contradicts God’s Word. The word “integrity” derives from the concept of “wholeness” or “completeness.”

Every human being is broken in one way or another. It is God who brings us wholeness. God imparts spiritual transformation by giving us a new heart which is then, for the rest of our lives, molded and shaped into His image through His refining fire or, as Vicky put it, being refined by the fire of His gaze.

“Being yourself” – an unchanging stay just as you are “self” – is the opposite of God’s desire which is for something far, far better for us: being people who are “whole” – full of integrity – because they are full of God.

Romans 12:2 says, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

“Being yourself” as Vicky expresses it, is to “be conformed to this world,” when God desires that we “be transformed.”

We all have choices to make, whether we will be holy as He is holy, whether we will die daily to ourselves and live daily to Him, whether we will choose God’s will over our own, and whether we will embrace God’s transforming presence in our lives or be conformed to a lesser (ungodly) reality.

Vicky, let God search your heart and clearly show you what He sees. As you embrace His love, embrace His will that you be holy as He is holy.

Ferguson: Justice, Race, and Reason

Ferguson, Missouri, is currently Ground Zero in national discussions about America’s “racial divide,” the “militarization” of law enforcement, and federalism in criminal justice.

Ferguson has entered the collective national consciousness while a grieving family mourns the loss of a loved one, authorities conduct multiple investigations into what exactly happened, looters and instigators seize their moment of opportunity, and race hucksters foment strife for profit.

Opportunists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson cannibalize entire communities. These One Percenters feed off of the fears, grief, and anger of those traumatized by tragedy. Outsiders – including looters – have invaded Ferguson to exploit the chaos and confusion.


Townhall columnist John Hawkins writes: “Of course, some people aren’t ‘peacefully protesting.’ They’re looting and rioting. Molotov cocktails have been thrown. The police have also been shot at regularly since the protests began.”

1964 ≠ 2014

For many, Ferguson is a litmus test on race. Many on the Left and in the media view the events unfolding today in Missouri through pre-Civil Rights Era glasses. Sharpton, Jackson, and others promote their false narratives of black victimhood and white racism – and the mainstream media often legitimizes those false narratives, fueling the fires of presumed injustice and rage.

Pat Buchanan recently remarked on the conflicting visions of America which have been boldly highlighted during this crisis. Buchanan writes, “What we are witnessing in Ferguson today, and nationally, is not only a collision of reported facts, but also a clash of visions about America.”

According to Buchanan, “In Sharpton’s vision, America is a country where white racist cops harass, assault and gun down young black males, and Brown’s execution is the latest outrage. Many media echo his indictment and accent the facts that support this preconceived narrative.”

Buchanan continues:

“Then there is the rival vision of America rooted in a separate reality. It is that in America today, police, like Darren Wilson, are the first responders and last line of defense, willing to risk their lives battling the criminal elements that threaten us and our free society.”

“These conflicting visions are not exclusive to race. Many liberals share Sharpton’s vision, while many black folks move out of home communities to escape the scourge of crime.”

No Justice, No Peace

People understandably want justice. It is a human desire, a God-given right. Protesters with placards chant, “No Justice, No Peace.” But are they looking for “justice for the family of Michael Brown,” as Gov. Nixon seeks? That same governor demands, “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” even before multiple investigations have been completed! Is that justice?

Presuming Wilson’s guilt, Salon asked the question, “Why hasn’t Darren Wilson been arrested yet?A Rasmussen poll reports that “57 percent of blacks believe the police officer involved should be found guilty of murder. The majority of white and other minority Americans do not agree.”

Have these protestors pre-judged the case or do they seek real justice! Justice could mean trying and jailing the officer for murder, or it could mean finding the officer justified in this shooting.

What matters is not the media narrative but the truth. Will we listen to reason and be guided by facts, or will we succumb to our emotions and deny the truth?

Thomas Purcell offers sound advice, “We should examine this from a position of intellectual clarity and not emotion or bias.”

Making a Federal Case of It

In an unprecedented manner, the Justice Department is conducting a parallel investigation of the Ferguson shooting. WorldNetDaily reports: “Federal charges will be filed in the shooting death of Michael Brown, regardless of what local prosecutors do, according to a former Justice Department official who warns politicizing of the justice system is at an all-time high.”

It sounds like Attorney General Eric Holder has already convicted the officer in his mind and is using this tragedy to promote his own racial agenda, one he has had throughout Obama’s presidency.

But is that justice?

Blaming the Victim

Many activists condemn the police department for releasing the video of Brown robbing a convenience store. They say this is “blaming the victim.” But the video goes to Brown’s state of mind and what triggered the confrontation with the police. Brown had just robbed the store, was stopped by the police, and panicked. Brown assaulted the officer in his car, badly injuring him.

As for blaming the “victim,” was Brown a victim or a perpetrator? After all, he attacked both the store owner and the police officer. Is that the new description of “victim?”

“Unarmed” Black Man

The mantra of the press – and the race hucksters – is that Michael Brown was an “unarmed black man.” True. But there is much more to the story. Brown proved that he did not need to be armed to be dangerous.

Michael Brown is 6’4” and nearly 300 lbs.” Brown strong-armed a store owner and stole merchandise. According to Wilson and other witnesses, Brown was rushing full-speed at Wilson. Perhaps like an NFL linebacker trying to steamroller an opponent? Would you feel threatened, fear bodily injury?

The Gateway Pundit reported that “two local St. Louis sources [report] that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.”


“A woman claiming to be a friend of Darren Wilson, the shooting officer, called in to a talk show and reported that Wilson said the suspect Brown had attacked him in his police car, tried to take his gun, momentarily fled but then turned around and charged him, leading Wilson to shoot.”

The Daily Caller reports “According to a preliminary report from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter, police say that more than a dozen witnesses back Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson’s version of the events that led to the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.”

Alan Caruba put it simply: “Michael Brown got shot because a seasoned police officer was in fear of being attacked … again. It’s called self-defense. It’s the reason cops wear bullet-proof vests and riot gear.”

Caruba explains, “Now, for a moment, let’s look at some other murders that have occurred thus far this year in which some 120 police officers have been killed in the line of duty; half of whom died by gunfire. Some were killed because they were cops, a form of bigotry that gets scant notice in the media.”

Black Criminality

Who do blacks fear more: the police or criminals? Who do Americans fear more? Author Jason Riley made many salient observations on what has been taking place in Ferguson, among them:

“[President Obama] suggested that [black criminality] stems from poverty or a racist criminal justice system, which is nonsense. The black crime rate in 1960 was lower than it is today. Was there less racism or less poverty in 1960? This is about black behavior. It needs to be addressed head-on. It’s about attitudes toward the criminal justice system in these neighborhoods, where young black men have no sense what it means to be a male, what it means to be black.”

Riley added:

“There’s also this false narrative being pushed out there … that black men live in fear of being shot by cops. That too is nonsense. … The real difficulty is not getting shot by other black people if you are a young black man in these neighborhoods. … Cops are not the problem. Cops are not producing these black bodies in the morgue every weekend in Chicago, New York, and Detroit, and so forth. That’s not cops. Those are other black people shooting black people.”

(FYI, Jason Riley is black.)

Another commentator echoed Riley’s concerns, writing:

“It is disturbing to watch still another incident of a white person shooting a black person play out in blindingly hot outrage while young blacks kill hundreds of other blacks in crime ridden cities around this country (most notably in Chicago, the President’s home town), with barely a mention or concern. As tragic is Michael Brown’s death was, the point seems to be that because of political opportunities, his death is far more important than the slew of black people being slaughtered elsewhere. It is to our nation’s shame that this is not being addressed.”

Caruba concurs: “They have occurred before and they will occur again because a segment of the black community is convinced that their problems are all caused by white bias. It’s not. It’s caused by bad attitudes and bad behavior.”

Buchanan emphasizes that portion of the black culture which is dysfunctional, writing, “Moreover, violent crime in America – assault, murder, robbery, rape – emanates disproportionately from the black community, and especially the young male members of that community.”

Buchanan continues: “Crime rates, conviction rates, incarceration rates all testify to this truth. If cops are more on guard when encountering black males, is it not because, given the crime statistics, they have more to fear from them?”

What If Brown Had Been White?

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, “Most Americans say that things would be different in Ferguson, Mo., if the racial roles had been reversed.”

A case from last year proves respondents correct: “In fact, we doubt that you’ve heard of this incident, which also took place in Ferguson. The case is one of a white man, who was assaulted with a hammer by four black men. In August of last year, a hot dog vendor was attacked with a hammer that was stolen from the Ferguson Home Depot. When the men left the store, they stole the white man’s cell phone, and when he attempted to chase after them, he was brutally attacked. He suffered serious injuries.”

“This hate crime never made headlines.”

Are Police Supporters Racist?

According to many on the Left, those who subscribe to Sharpton’s vision of America, supporters of the police officer must be racist. Some left-wing websites have likened a rally supporting Wilson to the KKK. But that characterization is wrong, as reported by USA Today:

“Wilson’s supporters gathered Sunday in a St. Louis sports bar – Ferguson is a northwestern suburb of St. Louis – to raise money for the family. ‘This isn’t just about Darren Wilson,’ one of the organizers, Lawrence LaMontagne, told the International Business Times. ‘It’s about all the first responders and how they’ve been villainized.’ LaMontagne, who works in law enforcement, added, ‘Of course we feel bad for both parties, our hearts go out to the families. But these people have families, too.’”

Scapegoating America

While the race-baiters blame a white cop for the tragedy in Ferguson – and, by extension, white America for all the woes of African-Americans – Esquire chose to blame all Americans everywhere, writing, “We are all complicit in the warzone that has become Ferguson, Missouri.” Jim Geraghty forthrightly addressed that nonsense in National Review.

Geraghty writes,

“But it’s the height of arrogance to assert that the readership of Esquire – or any magazine or website – is complicit or somehow responsible for the events going on there. Roughly 99.5 percent of that article’s readers are not members of the Ferguson police force, nor public officeholders with authority over that police force, nor rioters, nor residents. Only a fraction of Americans have ever set foot in the state of Missouri, much less in Ferguson.”

Geraghty continues:

“If, as author James Joiner asserts, ‘acts of despotism are being carried out, by a mostly white militarized police force upon a mostly black, mostly lower class populace,’ then the responsibility lies with that police force and those who have authority over it. Casting blame on all of American society disperses accountability instead of focusing it.”

Geraghty continues:

“Eventually, Joiner focuses upon his true complaint: ‘Small town police departments will slowly militarize as we shrug or radicalize into smaller, polarizing segments, sending us tumbling backwards through the follies of history, writing off hate crimes committed by law enforcement simply because law enforcement committed those crimes, and because it was too politically inconvenient to ever question them.’”

Geraghty concludes:

“’I blame society’ is the ultimate cop-out. The American people have their flaws, but to assign a national collective blame for the actions of particular police officers and particular agitators is to perhaps unwittingly excuse the inexcusable. Crimes, whether committed by citizens or officers of the law, are solved by investigation, indictment, successful prosecution, and incarceration. Cries for abstract ‘outrage’ just don’t get it done.”

Fellow Americans

Hawkins suggests we look beyond our differences, embrace the bigger picture, and focus on what we have in common as fellow Americans. He writes:

“At the end of the day, if we’re all Americans, we support peaceful protesters, we oppose rioters and looters and we think the officer who was involved should go to jail if he shot Mike Brown after he surrendered, then we agree on 95 percent of what matters. Sure, we can always find SOMETHING to disagree about, but there’s a man dead, there are parents grieving and there are good people in Ferguson who’ve had their lives turned upside down – so maybe we should emphasize where we’re on the same page instead of looking for any excuse to divide each other.”


Guilty of Being White” at

Identity Politics Is the Problem” at

I’m Black: Truth Does Not Matter” at

Ferguson in Flames” at

Propaganda Kills” at


Every single investigation into the Ferguson shooting – including the exhaustive federal Justice Department investigation – exonerated Officer Wilson and determined that the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot narrative was a lie.

Even though this false racial narrative – this myth – has been proven false, many media, political, and cultural elites continue to promote this false narrative and attack those who expose it as a fraud.

That false racial narrative plays into the fears of those who are race-obsessed or who have been indoctrinated into believing racial stereotypes, which is ironic given they accuse others of racism.