Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
We've all been waiting for days now on the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, in connection with the police shooting of Michael Brown.
And finallly, the decision has just been made public moments ago ...
Amid fear of a repeat of widespread and often violent protests, a St. Louis County grand jury has decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of black teen Michael Brown Jr., the prosecutor’s office announced Monday evening.
Wilson, 28, shot and killed Brown on a Ferguson street Aug. 9 after a confrontation as the 18-year-old and a friend returned from a convenience store. Surveillance video released that day appeared to show Brown strong-arming a clerk at the store and stealing a box of cigars.
Some witnesses told media the 6’4″ and nearly 300-pound Brown, who was unarmed, had his hands raised in an attempt to surrender when he was killed. The growing narrative of an unarmed black teen shot to death by a white cop prompted rioting and looting in the Ferguson area. But subsequent leaks of grand jury evidence indicated Brown attacked and injured Wilson, and the officer feared for his life.
When St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch announced the decision, he said, “The duty of the grand jury is to separate fact from fiction.” Later in his announcement, he revealed, “They determined that no probable cause exists to indict Darren Wilson.” McCulloch said, “The federal investigation is still ongoing.”
Upon hearing the decision from the 12-person grand jury, Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, began crying and shouting, “What do you mean no indictment?!”
Brown’s parents issued the following statement:
We are profoundly disappointed that the killer of our child will not face the consequence of his actions.
While we understand that many others share our pain, we ask that you channel your frustration in ways that will make a positive change. We need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen.
Join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera.
We respectfully ask that you please keep your protests peaceful. Answering violence with violence is not the appropriate reaction.
Let’s not just make noise, let’s make a difference.
Schools already had been canceled classes this week leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday.
Police officers and leaders of some 50 protest groups planning public protests already had agreed on “rules of engagement” after some protesters took to public areas shouting: “What do we want? Darren Wilson! How do we want him? Dead!”
See the video (warning, contains foul language):
Meanwhile, family members of Ferguson police officers have moved into hiding or left town.
The wife of one police officer told KTVI-TV she had received threats.
It also had been speculated that Wilson was in discussions to leave his post with the department, even though he maintains he did nothing wrong.
One group, calling itself the “Militant Resistance,” first offered $5,000 for details of Wilson’s whereabouts, because the officer had been in hiding ever since the shooting.
Gateway Pundit reported some black protesters flashed weapons in a video and threatened to kill “mother-f—ers” if the grand jury chose not to convict Wilson.
“Ni–as aint out here playin’ no more,” they said in a video. “We gonna bring it to your front door.”
Gateway Pundit said, “Tonight, media sources just notified The Gateway Pundit that the ‘Tactical Sh-t’ gang members were spotted in Ferguson.”
And citizens making their own defense plans sparked a surge in gun purchases. According to one report, Dan McMullen runs Solo Insurance, close to where the looting happened in August.
“I bring an extra gun now only because it has a bigger magazine,” McMullen said.
After reports leaked that the evidence supported Wilson’s version of the confrontation, New York Magazine said it “doesn’t look good for those hoping for criminal charges.”
But the shooting remained a focal point for Democrats trying raise turnout for the 2014 midterm elections.
“The people we elect on November 4th will be in charge of our police departments,” said one flier. “If we want to end senseless killings, like Michael Brown in Ferguson, we need to vote.”
The official autopsy showed Brown had marijuana in his system, was initially shot at close range and did not appear to have been killed while running away.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported the grand jury had been told that Brown reached inside Wilson’s police car and struggled for the officer’s gun. That resulted in Wilson firing twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Moments later, Wilson fired the fatal shots outside the vehicle.
The leaked information said the FBI found blood from the teen on an inside panel of the car and on the officer’s gun. The report said Wilson claimed he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life during the struggle.
Some witnesses stated Brown was shot while raising his hands to surrender, but the autopsy indicated his hands were at his side.
On Aug. 21, WND reported a noticeable drop in protest activity came after a media decision to pull out of Ferguson as word circulated that Brown had injured Wilson in a struggle to get the officer’s pistol.
On Aug. 22, WND reported public officials were milling about protesters, bracing the community for the possibility that Wilson would not be charged with murder.
A St. Louis County Police Department officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told WND that department reports confirmed Wilson was injured in a struggle with Brown before the shooting.
“For Michael Brown to fight the police officer and try to take his gun away and then to say, ‘Don’t shoot me,’ that’s resisting arrest, and it’s a felony,” he said. “All you have to do is touch the officer’s gun and you’ve committed a felony.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/verdict-is-in...
HE SHOULD NEVER COMMENT OR SHOW RACIAL PREJUDICE FOR THESE INCIDENTS ...
President Obama's statement, delivered moments after St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch rendered the grand jury's verdict, was a plea for calm. It was steady and evenhanded. Obama recognized the fear and anger of both sides. He called for calm. He argued that the two sides here were, in a sense, one. "Nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with high crime rates," he said. And, in doing, he disappointed many who had hoped to hear something more impassioned, more outraged, from the president:
The statement — and the reaction — were a precise echo of the first time Obama spoke on Ferguson. Those remarks, delivered on August 18, began with the words "I also want to address the situation in Ferguson. Earlier this afternoon I spoke with Governor Nixon..." and didn't get much more passionate from there. There, too, many of Obama's supporters were disappointed:
As I wrote after those remarks, Obama's supporters aren't asking for anything Obama can't do — or even anything he hasn't done before. Obama was elected president because he seemed, alone among American politicians, to be able to bridge the deep divides in American politics. The speech that rocketed him into national life was about bridging the red-blue divide. The speech that sealed his nomination was about bridging the racial divide. That speech, born of a crisis that could have ended Obama's presidential campaign, is remembered by both his supporters and even many of his detractors as his finest moment. That was the speech where Obama seemed capable of something different, something more, than other politicians. In the White House, it's simply called "the Race Speech." And though the administration often fields demands to repeat it, they have no plans to do so.
The problem is the White House no longer believes Obama can bridge those divides. They believe — with good reason — that he widens them. They learned this early in his presidency, when Obama said that the police had "acted stupidly" when they arrested Harvard University professor Skip Gates on the porch of his own home. The backlash was fierce. To defuse it, Obama ended up inviting both Gates and his arresting officer for a "beer summit" at the White House.
The "beer summit" is an actual thing that once happened in American politics. (Pete Souza/White House)
Nor is Obama able to bridge the red-blue divide anymore. Presidents are polarizing figures, and Obama is more of a polarizing president than most.
Obama polarizing Gallup
Moreover, Obama's presidency has seen a potent merging of the racial and political divides. It's always been true that views on racial issues drive views on American politics. But as political scientist Michael Tesler has documented, during Obama's presidency, views on American politics have begun driving views on racially charged issues.
Tesler makes the point with two graphs, one showing that prior to Obama, racially charged controversies didn't tend to split Republicans and Democrats:
And the second showing that since Obama's election, racially charged controversies have begun to sharply split Republicans and Democrats. Note, in particular, the massive divide on the Zimmerman verdict, which came after Obama, speaking in unusually personal terms, said, "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago":
This all speaks to a point that the White House never forgets: President Obama's speeches polarize in a way candidate Obama's didn't. Obama's supporters often want to see their president "leading," but the White House knows that when Obama leads, his critics become even less likely to follow. The evidence political scientists have gathered documenting this dynamic is overwhelming, and Frances Lee lays it out well here:
If Obama's speeches often aren't as dramatic as they used to be, this is why: the White House believes a presidential speech on a politically charged topic is as likely to make things worse as to make things better. It is as likely to infuriate conservatives as it is to inspire liberals. And in a country riven by political and racial polarization, widening those divides can take hard problems and make them impossible problems.
There are times when that isn't true. There are fights where Obama wants to mobilize his base — and he doesn't much care if it angers his critics. Mere days ago, Obama gave a primetime speech announcing his executive action on immigration. The address was powerful, personal, impassioned. At times, the president seemed close to choking up.
"We are and always will be a nation of immigrants," the president said. "We were strangers once, too. And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal -- that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will."
Obama's supporters were thrilled. His detractors, not so much:
The polarized reaction wasn't a surprise. But the White House was prepared for it. They were willing to further polarize that debate.
Obama's language didn't soar tonight, just as it didn't soar in his first set of remarks on Ferguson. And that's because Obama can manage polarization on immigration in a way he can't manage polarization on race.
President Obama might still decide to give a major speech about events in Ferguson. But it probably won't be the speech many of his supporters want. When Obama gave the first Race Speech he was a unifying figure trying to win the Democratic nomination. Today he's a divisive figure who needs to govern the whole country. For Obama, the cost of becoming president was sacrificing the unique gift that made him president.
Many of us are awake. But, not the majority. How do we get them to pay attention to what is happening?
Several people said to me; other presidents used executive orders, so what's the problem with OBama using it.
Other presidents did not use their executive orders to bypass the constitution. OBama is burning the constitution and daring anyone to do something about it.
People, your constitutional rights are slipping away on a daily basis. We are already living in a police state. At what point will each of you wake up and do something about it?
Michael Dozier, PhD
Associate Spokesman Teaparty.org
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is stepping down under pressure, the first cabinet-level casualty of the collapse of President Obama’s Democratic majority in the Senate and the struggles of his national security team amid an onslaught of global crises.
The president, who is expected to announce Mr. Hagel’s resignation in a Rose Garden appearance on Monday, made the decision to ask his defense secretary — the sole Republican on his national security team — to step down last Friday after a series of meetings over the past two weeks, senior administration officials said.
The officials described Mr. Obama’s decision to remove Mr. Hagel, 68, as a recognition that the threat from the Islamic State would require a different kind of skills than those that Mr. Hagel was brought on to employ. A Republican with military experience who was skeptical about the Iraq war, Mr. Hagel came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestration.
SPECIAL: Join the Tea Party REVOLUTION! The Obama Regime must be dismantled!
But now “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that the defense secretary initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.
But Mr. Hagel’s aides had maintained in recent weeks that he expected to serve the full four years as defense secretary. His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State.
Even before the announcement of Mr. Hagel’s removal, Obama officials were speculating on his possible replacement. At the top of the list are Michèle Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense; Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a former officer with the Army’s 82nd Airborne; and Ashton B. Carter, a former deputy secretary of defense.
A respected former senator who struck a friendship with Mr. Obama when they were both critics of the Iraq war from positions on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Hagel has nonetheless had trouble penetrating the tight team of former campaign aides and advisers who form Mr. Obama’s closely knit set of loyalists. Senior administration officials have characterized him as quiet during cabinet meetings; Mr. Hagel’s defenders said that he waited until he was alone with the president before sharing his views, the better to avoid leaks.
Whatever the case, Mr. Hagel struggled to fit in with Mr. Obama’s close circle and was viewed as never gaining traction in the administration after a bruising confirmation fight among his old Senate colleagues, during which he was criticized for seeming tentative in his responses to sharp questions.
He never really shed that pall after arriving at the Pentagon, and in the past few months he has largely ceded the stage to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who officials said initially won the confidence of Mr. Obama with his recommendation of military action against the Islamic State.
In Mr. Hagel’s less than two years on the job, his detractors said he struggled to inspire confidence at the Pentagon in the manner of his predecessors, especially Robert M. Gates. But several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers over the past few months have also acknowledged privately that the president did not want another high-profile defense secretary in the manner of Mr. Gates, who went on to write a memoir of his years with Mr. Obama in which he sharply criticized the president. Mr. Hagel, they said, in many ways was exactly the kind of defense secretary whom the president, after battling the military during his first term, wanted.
Mr. Hagel, for his part, spent his time on the job largely carrying out Mr. Obama’s stated wishes on matters like bringing back American troops from Afghanistan and trimming the Pentagon budget, with little pushback. He did manage to inspire loyalty among enlisted soldiers and often seemed at his most confident when talking to troops or sharing wartime experiences as a Vietnam veteran.
But Mr. Hagel has often had problems articulating his thoughts — or administration policy — in an effective manner, and has sometimes left reporters struggling to describe what he has said in news conferences. In his side-by-side appearances with both General Dempsey and Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the first former enlisted combat soldier to be defense secretary, has often been upstaged.
He raised the ire of the White House in August as the administration was ramping up its strategy to fight the Islamic State, directly contradicting the president, who months before had likened the Sunni militant group to a junior varsity basketball squad. Mr. Hagel, facing reporters in his now-familiar role next to General Dempsey, called the Islamic State an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding, “This is beyond anything that we’ve seen.” White House officials later said they viewed those comments as unhelpful, although the administration still appears to be struggling to define just how large is the threat posed by the Islamic State.
- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/chuck-hagel-forc...
Obama just gave his response to the grand jury saying Wilson has violated no law. His response was infuriating, typical, and race baiting just like usual. At one point, he even said he wants to “seize the moment” to push his racial agenda.
Barack Obama is the Divider in Chief. His goal is to divide Americans to keep some demographics strong for the Democrat party for political gain. It’s a typical liberal strategy and it’s sickening.
Let’s look at the points he made:
1. Refused to Say Wilson’s Name.
Perhaps the first sign it was going to be a racially dividing speech was the first few sentences when he refused to mention Officer Wilson by name. Instead, he referred to it as the ruling regarding the death of Michael Brown.
2. Brought Up the “Rule of Law.”
Really? Really, you total fraud?
3. Used Dramatic Language to Describe Protesters.
He said, “There are Americans who agree with it and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry.” Note the different tone he uses describing both groups. It’s obvious that Obama is against Wilson.
4. Said He “Joins” Michael Brown’s Family.
Obama literally said, “I Join Michael Brown’s Family.” This was completely unnecessary and wrong. Instead of simply calling for peace, he wants to make it clear which side he’s on. This is NOT a federal issue, but of course, he couldn’t care less.
5. Lectured Law Enforcement.
He told police to “show care and restraint” when dealing with rioters. Meanwhile, cop cars are being destroyed. There shouldn’t be “care” shown to those who violate our laws. The sword of justice should be used.
6. Referred to “Legitimate Issues” of Protesters.
This is sickening. He literally said that the protesters have “legitimate issues.” This is a blatant lie. He knows Wilson did no wrong, but he couldn’t care less. This is purely about politics.
7. Nationalized the Local Issue.
Obama said that this reveals the “broader challenges we still face as a nation” of “racial discrimination.” Once again, the fraudulent president lies.
This had NOTHING to do with racism. Michael Brown was a violent thug who tried to beat up the wrong cop. Get over it.
8. He’s Giving Eric Holder a Larger Role.
He said Eric Holder will have a role in fixing police around the country. Right. Eric Holder is just looking to politicize things just like usual. All these corrupt politicians care about is power. That’s it.
9. Claims Discrimination Is a Huge Problem.
Unless this is related to Michael Brown, why bring this up? To cause racial conflict and division. To politicize the riots. It’s pathetic. He knows what he’s doing.
Barack Obama is a corrupt fraud. His only goal is more power for his leftist agenda, and racial conflict is just one tool he uses. I’m ashamed of this president.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter so people can see what Obama is REALLY saying.
Your support keeps freedom alive!