Topic category:  Decline and Fall of the USA

President Obama spoke about two separate recent shootings involving police officers and Black victims.

Instead of urging patience and offering federal assistance in the investigative effort to discover the facts surrounding these shootings, Obama encouraged people to jump to conclusions based solely on racial considerations. In so doing, Obama fanned the flames of racial tensions. Speaking of the shootings, he said: "These are not isolated incidents, they are symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system."

To what "racial disparities" does Obama refer? Crime statistics that reveal a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by Black men? The animosity that exists between law enforcement officers of any racial makeup and a large segment of Black communities? Or the lack of cooperation of many Blacks with police investigating crimes in their own neighborhoods?

On its face, Obama's statement is racist. As with prior shootings during Obama's two terms, Obama is quick to play the race card whenever a Black is a victim, assuming racism must have played a role because that fits his narrative. It couldn't have been poor police training, or failure to obey instructions from a law enforcement officer -- no, in Obama's world, if the victim is Black, and police are involved, it's always racism.

That is, of course, unless no minorities are among the victims. In that case, Obama is quick to condemn guns. Now, with the deadly sniper shootings in Dallas, Obama has an opportunity to condemn both. But if the shooters are found to be Black, will Obama condemn their actions as racist?

Another Democrat politician, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, had to chime in with his uncalled for and appalling racist remark, "Would this have happened if those passengers would have been white? I don't think it would have."

Well, one thing is certain, Dayton has no crystal ball and is not a mind-reader. He has no idea what were the root causes of the tragedy that resulted in the loss of two Black lives. He merely assumed racism was involved without thinking of or caring about the consequences of his flippant remark.

Dayton's assumption of racism overlooks the distinct possibility that the deaths did not stem from racism, but from other factors that can be determined by proper and patient investigation, a course that would allow deficiencies in training or procedure to be corrected.

Instead, Dayton decided he could gain some attention by assuming it couldn't have been poor procedures or a victim with an illegal gun resisting arrest. It just had to be racism.

The racist remarks of President Obama and Governor Dayton were clearly chosen to whip up racial tensions. They were the foolish statements of small men and embarrassing to their constituents.

And, to what end?

How politically convenient it would be for Democrats if our nation were thrown into widespread racial war. Democrats and their news media PAC would have a field day doing what they do best. Lying. They would mercilessly blame Donald Trump and Republicans for the violence perpetrated at Democrats' instigation, hoping this will put aside any focus on the criminal acts of Hillary Clinton.

And how convenient to Democrats that racial tensions are rising just at a time when we are becoming ever more vulnerable to ISIS attacks in the United States.

And who is responsible for allowing agents of ISIS easy access to the US?

Democrat politicians, who consistently stonewall efforts to tighten border security.

Earlier Thursday, Sen. Reid spouted vile lies and saw to it that his partisan followers would block passage of a law that would have prohibited sanctuary cities and provided mandatory stiff penalties to illegal immigrants who commit violent felonies. Democrats nearly universally fell into line to block passage of those laws.

Apparently, Democratic Party insiders believe both inciting racism and porous immigration are among the acceptable tactics that serve their partisan quest to acquire and hold on to power. The end justifies the means.

How convenient to Democrats that Obama has released Islamist "refugees" in disproportionate numbers into targeted Republican states. Is it far-fetched to believe Obama is facilitating a combination of ISIS terrorist violence and "Black Lives Matter" racial violence?

The two were recently linked when ISIS leaders instructed their agents not to target minorities (in other words, to target Whites).

As if on cue, late Thursday evening, two to four snipers shot 12 law enforcement officers in Dallas, TX, during what had otherwise appeared to be a peaceful effort to calm racial tensions. Five officers are dead, four Dallas Police officers and one Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) police officer. Six other officers were injured along with two civilians.

This well-planned Dallas sniper attack was, according to the words of one of the snipers, Micah Xavier Johnson, inspired by the recent deaths of two black men at the hands of police. Clearly, the inflammatory rhetoric of Governor Dayton and the ill-conceived fanning of racial tensions by President Obama while visiting Poland bore toxic fruit.

Let's hope a proper investigation will determine the snipers' motivation and not some politicians flippant remark

Since police officers were the primary targets, it is fairly obvious the shootings were a response to the persistent allegations that law enforcement targets young Black men. If it is determined that the snipers' motivation was Black racism or shooters are members of the radical Black Muslim organization who focused on law enforcement officers, the blood of those officers is, in part, on the hands of both Dayton and Obama for their racially-charged remarks.

Compare the remarks of Dayton and Obama to a portion of the statement issued in response to the Dallas shootings by the family of Alton Sterling (the Black man fatally shot by police in Baton Rouge, La.,) reads:

"Regardless of how angry or upset people may be, resorting to this kind of sickening violence should never happen and simply cannot be tolerated. Members of law enforcement have a very difficult job and the vast majority conduct themselves honorably as they protect and serve our communities. We maintain that officers who violate the public trust and their training should be held accountable through our country's justice system. Responding to violence with violence is not the answer."

Rather than having fanned the flames of racial anger, if only Governor Dayton and President Obama had spoken with the same calm eloquent consideration for the consequences of their words, those eleven dedicated law enforcement officers could well have had an uneventful evening.

Sadly, this may only be the beginning.

There are consequences to flippant remarks calculated to create a political distraction.

Just as there must be consequences to jeopardizing national security by callous disregard for requirements to safeguard highly classified information.

Given the racial agitating of Minnesota's Governor and President Obama and the racial targeting of Whites by ISIS, it may well be that the United States is already involved in the early stages of a domestic racial war.

And what is Obama's first political response? To renew his efforts to override our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Let's work diligently to see that this pervasive climate of political opportunism is ended before 2017 begins.

Sadly, many people are either oblivious to or in denial of the obvious part played in fomenting racial violence by the repeated racially-charged remarks of Democrat politicians.

That could change. Quickly.

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Biography - Bob Webster

Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.