Danny Reise photo of a burning police car in Ferguson, MissouriThis past week brought stories and photos of violence in Ferguson, Missouri. The rioting took place after a grand jury decision was announced by St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch on the evening of November 24, 2014.
The action by the grand jury was characterized as Raaaaacism in America. Here’s another way to look at it:
The Democratic Party objectifies African Americans. If you have dark skin tone, you are assumed to be associated with the Democratic Party. In fact if you are a black voter, the odds are ten-to-one that you are a Democrat.
What does this tell us about Ferguson? With very few exceptions, all those individuals participating in the violence last week were Democrats!
Of course, we don’t actually know that, because nobody is sampling riot participants for their political affiliation. But it is a conclusion that can be drawn using inference.
The Democratic Party has the power and resources to create protests across the country, and it did so the week of November 24, 2014. But why the intensity of feeling at Ferguson?
Here comes another “we don’t actually know” response, but (again using inference) we can conclude that it has to do with control of a governmental institution.
The Democratic Party exerts great power and authority over our nation’s police. That power extends from the federal domain of the Department of Justice down to local jurisdictions such as the Ferguson Police Department. When a police cruiser displays the logo “To Serve and Protect,” there is an expectation by the Democratic Party that the prime recipient of that service and protection is in fact the Democratic Party.
This explains the harsh response to Officer Darren Wilson’s actions. As a police officer, Officer Wilson made the mistake of promoting the general welfare in Ferguson.
He had received notification of a petty theft, and had a description of the individual involved. When he encountered an individual matching that description, he had two choices: He could protect the neighborhood from the behaviors associated with the reported theft, or he could carry out his duty to “serve and protect” the Democratic Party.
The latter course of action would involve noting that the individual had dark skin tone, and was therefore likely to be (or become) a lifelong Democrat. The proper reaction would then have been to move on and avoid confrontation with that individual.
Instead, Officer Wilson embarked on a course of action intended to curtail neighborhood thuggery. It was a decision that has now become a public accounting of the power of the Democratic Party. Those who fail to show proper deference are at risk of personal destruction.
Our culture does not yet focus on the human costs associated with the Democratic Party transition into a political-religious movement. We watch as a sporting event becomes theater with Tavon Austin (11), Stedman Bailey (12), Chris Givens (13), Kenny Britt (81), and Jared Cook (89) of the St. Louis Rams showing their solidarity for the Democratic Party.
Although there was talk of sanctioning the players, their desire to demonstrate allegiance to the Democratic Party at a football game is properly recognized as free speech. Just as an athlete may use a sporting event to exhibit devotion to a religion, players may emphasize their dedication to a political-religious movement.Ferguson, Missouri may be the moment when Americans begin to see the Democratic Party as a political-religious movement. That would be remarkable!
The Democratic Party control over America's police force results in a New York kerfuffle! The New York Post has a story on the contention between New York's Mayor, Bill de Blasio, and the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. Either way, the Democratic Party is the power player.
Return to Bottom