America Needs A Third Party And We Need It Now!

Six out of ten Americans say a third party is needed and the current Democratic Party race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The House of Public Discourse over the last several weeks has been reviewing data concerning the ever growing desire for the establishment of a third political party in America. 

"A majority of Americans, 60%, say a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties "do such a poor job" of representing the American people. This matches the high set in 2013. Since 2007, a majority of Americans have generally called for a third party, with the exception of the last two presidential election years." [See Source]

The approval ratings of Congress is at all-time lows. The American people are fed up with the dysfunction of how our government works, The image of both political parties is in the trash bin. To coin a phrase from Bernie Sanders "enough is enough." Now, in 2016 with one Democratic Party primary debacle after another and the outward show of favoritism by the Democratic National Committee [DNC] the Democratic Party establishment and their corporate owned media outlets, and the shutting out of Independent voters by way of closed primaries Progressives and Independents are screaming for a third-party.

Only 26% of Americans polled feel that both political parties are doing an adequate job of representing the American people. 60% of American polled say the two political parties are doing such a poor job that a third party is not only needed it’s needed right now!

At no time in America's political history has there been such an outcry for a third political party to be established. In the past, there has not been a huge variance between Democrats and Republican voters on whether a third party was needed. For decades, Independents have been the loudest voice screaming for a third party. However, with 2016 Democratic Party presidential race taking on the appearance of political rigging and voter suppression within the Democratic Party mostly Bernie Sanders supporters, there has been a huge spike in the call for a new Progressive Party. 

Enough With The “Spoiler Argument" The Two-Party System Is Already Rotten To The Core.

The question at hand for advocates of a third party in America is how do you build on this political momentum?

One thing you do not do is to continue to vote for a lesser evil and reaffirming the status quo. That is exactly what happens when we continue to vote for either party’s establishment candidates. Both the Blue and Red party's have brought us to this point. They have colluded along the way, they have created a corrupt perverse system that works for the benefit of the wealthy and is a true Plutocracy. [See Article]

Our government, as it stands today, works for the wealthy and not in the best interest of all Americans. This malady has happened with the collusion and the corporation of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. It[corruption] will continue if we don't right now " while the iron is hot," by people power take charge and send a clear message that " We the People" are not taking it anymore and we are going to change the system of political corruption once and for all. We are not talking about just changing the players that operate with this perverse system they play we are talking about changing the game period. It's time to change the rules. This is what Bernie Sanders message has been from day one we as a collective people have the ultimate power to effect this most needed change. We all must put our heads together organize and get behind a new Progressive Party that operates with new rules geared for the interest of all Americans and we need to start at the local and state levels right away and start preparing for the mid-terms in 2016.

There Has Been A Line In The Sand Drawn For Many Progressive Democrats Who Feel Betrayed By The Democratic Party Establishment.

Where do you as an individual draw the line? Think about it! As a matter of principle, will you draw a line? There have been violations of the "War Powers Clause,"and the "War Powers Resolution." [See Source] When will the lesser of two evils not cut it for you personally? For many of us, this writer included this is what we got when we fell for the Obama 2008 " Hope and Change" declaration and many of us were not focused on the fact that Obama just like Hillary Clinton has turned out to be nothing more than a " Third Way Democrat." [See Article]

Yes, Obamacare has been a big improvement and most Progressives fought tooth and nail in support of President Obama in his fight against the Republican obstruction to its [Affordable Care Act] passage. However, and this writer remembers like if it was yesterday when I heard that Obama had caved on the single-payer opinion and the private for profit Health Insurance Industry skipped on down the streets happy as a Jaybird on Jaybird street knowing now that every American has to buy their perverse products. What irritated this writer most is he [Obama] did not have to cave in and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IW) said it best.

Top Democrat: 'We Had The Votes' For Single-Payer

As Bernie Sanders has made clear in his bid for the Democratic nomination America remains the only industrialize country in the world who relies on for-profit health insurance companies and Obamacare does nothing to change that and was brought to us by the Democratic Party. 

Will you draw the line with impunity on the war criminals from the Bush Administration that in 2008 he spoke of with such disdain and rightfully so but no sooner that he[Obama] got into office he says " let's not bother with bringing them to justice let's move forward." Will you draw a line now that in 2009 Democratic Party " Hope and Change" president Barack Obama signed into law the power for any president to point out any American citizen deemed them to be a belligerent, or terrorist and have life, liberty, and freedom to move about without no legal counsel, no charges, no trial, and you could be incarcerated for life under this 2009 legislation. The first time in the history of America any such legislation ever became law.[See Source]

Finally, will you draw a line in the sand against the obvious rigging of our political process by both the Democratic and Republican Parties?

This argument based on fear by Hillary Clinton supporters and the corporate media pundits that our " Political Revolution," and Bernie Sanders is doing harm to the Democratic Party and our insistence that we will no longer settle for what we perceive to be a lesser of two evils and that for us " Any Blue Want Do" attitude in fact is not harmful it is the example of grassroots Democracy at its best. 

America Needs A Third Party And We Need It Now!

Are Liberals And Progressives One In The Same?

Are Liberals And Progressives One In The Same?

Photo Courtney of wsj.com

In modern politics particularly in the United States the terms Liberal and Progressive are often used interchangeably. These political positions are often treated as if they were one in the same. However, in fact, these terms are mutually exclusive.  Never has this truth become more apparent than in the present 2016 Democratic Party presidential race.

For the sake of clarity, definitions are in order.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Whereas classical liberalism emphasizes the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation[See Source]

One of the major concepts of liberalism is self-ownership or individualism. This individualism includes personal liberty, equal opportunity, and the rule of law, economic freedom, free markets, and free trade. The liberal values freedom of expression and the right to assemble. Of course, this includes freedom of the press.

There should always be a quest for political freedom within a democratic society. 

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.  Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government. Individualism is often contrasted with totalitarianism or collectivism.[See Source]

In short, Individualism is the root of being liberal. There is no greater desire of anyone who calls themselves a liberal than that of personal liberty. By definition, personal liberty is the freedom of the individual to do as he pleases limited only by the authority of politically organized society to regulate his action to secure the public health, safety, or morals or of other recognized social interests. [See Source]

So What Does Being A Progressive Mean Today?

This writer has no problem with labeling myself a progressive. However, regardless how I choose to label myself it's important to understand that labels are just that labels. Labels are nothing more than a word or words used to describe a concept or belief. Concepts and beliefs in and of themselves are not absolute truths. They are ideas we utilize in an attempt to describe shared experiences. Labels work well as guidepost but are extremely limited in being able to depict the human condition. For example, I may label myself to be progressive because most of my positions concerning politics tend to lean that way so the label tends to provide a point of reference. 

What Is The Central Message Of The Progressive?

The central message of the “Progressive Movement" is one of fairness and equality. From Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and now Bernie Sanders Progressives feel that everyone gets a fair shot and that everyone plays by the same rules. What we mean by “fair shot" everyone deserves an equal shot at securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What we are not talking about is free handouts. It is the desire to seek and achieve the common welfare for all. Progressives believe we all must do our fair share to help obtain this common good. This is achieved through education, hard work, and active participation in one's community. What Progressives mean by playing by the same set of rules is that there should be no special privileges for the rich and well connected. 

Freedom

The most profound belief of the Progressive is freedom. The concept of freedom may mean different things to different people. Freedom is a double edged sword. Freedom from and freedom to. All real Progressives believe that privacy is not a crime and that government intrusion in how they carry out their private affairs should be off limits. For example the right for a woman to have an abortion or the right to marry someone of the same sex or to smoke marijuana. Like Liberals, the Progressives have a strong belief in the concepts of freedom of speech, associations, and religion. Also, like Liberals the Progressives cherish their rights to make their own choices about their bodies and personal lives. 

Progressives also believe that all humans have the right to live a fulfilling life supported by the basic foundation of both economic and physical security. This belief holds that we all should be protected against bodily harm as well as adequate income from a fair and just living wage. Progressives believe that healthcare is a human right and that all citizens should get a solid advanced education. The real Progressive understands the importance of community and social programs like the police , fire departments, and the military. The Progressive has no problem with their taxes going to help rebuild and grow our nation's infrastructure. The real Progressive wants to expand Social Security not privatize it and embraces the need for universal healthcare. 

Opportunity

Any commitment to freedom by a society must provide an equal opportunity for humans that make up that society. Like freedom opportunity has two components. The first is political equality and the others are economic and social arrangements that enhance our lives. Political equality by default should never discriminate against its populist in any way fashion or form. Political equality should strive to achieve that all its citizens should be able to turn their talents and ambitions into a meaningful and productive life regardless of economic status or racial heritage. The second component to opportunity involves the conditions necessary for people to feel secure to reach their goals. Healthcare, education, a job that pays a good living wage workers rights and retirement are all fundamental in creating these conditions. 

Responsibility 

With great freedom and opportunity comes great responsibility. Once again there are two factors involved with responsibility. First, is personal responsibility and the second is our responsibility to one another and the common good. Personal responsibility requires us as individuals to do our part to add and not take away from the common good of our communities. Yes, this does entail working hard, educating ourselves and living an honest life. 

Responsibility to others and the common good requires a commitment to putting the public interest ahead of the interest of the rich and powerful and to combat their influence on our political process that has put our democracy on sale to the highest bidder. The real Progressive understands that strong families and communities are the foundation of a strong and productive society. As Progressives, we strive to achieve higher social standards and economic conditions that not only will help us as individuals but also help the community at large. 

This requires that each and every one of us demand an open and transparent governance and that we as a populist engage this attack by the wealthy to disenfranchise us from the process by buying off politicians who enact laws that are contrary to the will of the people. Citizens United ring a bell?

Cooperation

The Progressive understands that there must be cooperation with our political values in that cooperation is the foundation to coinciding with our most important social institutions, families, communities, civic and faith-based groups. Freedom without cooperation leads to a divided society that cannot work together to achieve common goals and improve the lives of all. Cooperation begs us to be open minded and sympathetic to others. Real Progressives know that we are all accountable and responsible for the well-being of all who are in our society. To achieve this cooperation is a must. Progressives believe if we blindly pursue our own needs and ignore those of others our society as a whole will fail like so many in the world's history. Progressives value interdependence on a larger scale and look beyond our own needs to help others while seeking to find global solutions to global problems.

Are You Progressive?

Being progressive is more than just following some ideology there is plenty of cognitive dissonances in both political party’s establishments and their authoritarian followers that being a real Progressive catapulted us from this affliction and what sets us apart from being lumped in with the Liberals.

Being Progressive is more than a way of life or way of thinking it's a way of being. If you are a real Progressive these factors are part of your DNA, not something your mom and dad or teacher or preacher instilled in you. It is your existence that says who you are as a person. Being progressive transcends party identification. [See Article]

Being progressive gets to the heart of what being human is all about in this writer's view. Contrary to what you hear coming from the religious right Progressives value human life above all else our value of a human life does not end after the birth of a human being. It's where it continues and intensifies. Progressives have the view that all people of all origins and backgrounds are connected and all add to the overall human experience. To Progressives there is no them there is only us. However, don't let this kindness be perceived as weakness push a Progressive and expect to be pushed back. Progressives do not react we respond. There is a difference. Being a responder as opposed to a reactor takes a level of restraint and discipline. These factors are vital whenever threat evaluation is part of the equation. By doing so Progressive will almost always land on the right side of history. Bernie Sanders position on the war in Iraq, as opposed to Liberal Hillary Clinton, bears this out. Being a real Progressive is not about being right it's about doing what is right. 

So, Are Liberals And Progressives One In The Same?

America The Land Of Inequality

There is no denying that America has become a nation of inequality. The $64,000 question is "how do you constrain capitalism from doing stupid things that are not in the public interest?[Robert Reich] In practice we have a set of rules and regulations to check these rogue factions in our community. However, our democracy has been corrupted, and these rules and regulations are being discarded or not enforced. If the corruption by the excesses of the American Capitalist is the cause of this malfeasance then the first thing we must do is get big money out of our politics.

Robert Reich On Inequality For All

On the issue of inequality in America, there is much confusion. Most people of the right-wing persuasion blame the poor. On the other hand, people on the left want to blame the rich. There is a lot of blame going around. According to well-respected economist Robert Reich, "people are not looking at the actual structure of the economy as its evolving." "They're not looking how we need to change the organization of the economy." America is the most unequal of all advanced societies in the world. Our research found many misconceptions floating around out in the public sphere. Many believe the economy is some natural force that can't be changed. In short, we all are slaves to the immutable economy. However, when you " peel back the onion," the economy is a set of rules and regulations.

Our economy is not a state of nature. 

Robert Reich

There are rules regarding property and liability, anti-trust laws, bankruptcy, subsidies, and taxes for various things. These are the rules and guidelines for the game we call the economy. These rules determine the outcome of the game. In a democracy, if you don't like the rules of the game you can create a conscientious and change the rules. If we had a democracy, that was working as envisioned by our founding fathers[See Source]  The rules for the game of economy can be difficult to explain in writing. To get a clear understanding, one must refer to the experts. Our source Robert Reich book " Beyond Outrage," does an excellent job of explaining these rules in writing. American economist has some hard questions to answer. Why does the United States have an unequal distribution of income and wealth by far than any other civilized country? And it's surging! Reich's metric for answering this question is to evaluate the earnings of the people at the top[1%] compared to the earnings of a typical worker[47%] which represents the middle.

Wealth Inequality in America

In Today's America, 400 of the nation's richest people have more wealth than half the population of the United States.

According to our source, which looked at IRS data stretching back to 1913 the beginning of the progressive income tax wealth inequality reached an all-time high in 2012. What was apparent from our research here in the House of Public Discourse America's economic growth has consistently been going to a small group of people at the top.[See Source] 

The Wealth Inequality In America Is Startling To Say The Least!

This inequality is tearing at the fabric of America. In the first three years, of the recovery from the recession brought on by the financial collapse of 2008, the top one percent of Americans took home 95% of the income gains. Amazing! In the past, as the economy grew so did everyone else. Ronald Reagan and his God-awful trickle down economics saw an end to this equitable formula and what we got in return was a nation in debt and growing now surging wealth inequality. Regular Americans knew this as shared prosperity. Along came the Republicans in the 1980's with these so-called family Christian values 'War on Drugs,' 'War on Women,' and "War on the Poor" calling this shared prosperity socialism. Hell, Eisenhower a Republican was president during most of this time of shared prosperity and We The People did not consider him a socialist, We did not think him abnormal. 

In the years of shared prosperity our nation's economy doubled. Moreover, everybody's income increased as well. Even, Americans in the bottom 5% percent did better. Then here comes Ronald Reagan and the extreme radicalization of the Christian Right,and  the "slobbering at the mouth," Capitalist Elect.  The 1980's changed the historical relationship of shared prosperity between economic growth and the growth in productivity and wages. Over the last three decades, most of the wealth and most of the new wealth has gone straight to the top.  Income gains went to the top and people in the middle, the median worker, the median wage stagnated.

How Do We Fix It?

To the point, a strong and vibrant labor movement needs to be orchestrated and based on our research here at the House of Public Discourse could be the " wonder drug" for lack of a term. 

Drawing on a myriad of evidence  as in our nation's past a re invigoration of equitable labor practices would go a long way in achieving an equal society.  The research bears it out clearly. Almost all health and social problems that disproportionately affect poor and middle class are greater in societies with higher levels of inequality. The widening income gap as mentioned earlier seems to be a direct result of the " War on Unions" and the lack of a strong and consistent labor movement in America. Another factor is the dwindling democratic constraints on the top 1% income earners. One of the conclusions we came to here in the House of Public Discourse is to implement practical limitations by extending democracy to our economic institutions.  Our study found equal societies gain greater equality by redistribution. We need a fundamental approach to reducing inequality in America. Our exhaustive research on the issue of " America The Land of Inequality," found that the weakening of the labor movement over the last quarter of the 20th Century has severely impacted the ability of working people to influence their standard of living and overall quality of life. 

One of the House of Public Discourse primary points of advocacy is to recreate a healthy, active labor movement in America. We achieve this with both political and social influence that will enable the old labor movement to regather itself and fight for a fairer more sustainable future for our country.

Read The Main Source for This Article Here

The Christian Fascist and Their Political Religion

Lakewood Church Houston Texas

One of the biggest things this writer has noticed living in the same city Houston, Texas as  Joel Osteen's Lakewood mega-church is that it's totally isolated from the community. Our research here in the House of Public Discourse has found this  isolation is not unlike all mega-churches around the nation. They do not reach out to other denominations. They do not reach out to the public schools. They could care less about local officials. The only two groups we found them to reach out to were law enforcement and the military.

U.S. Marine Corp appreciation day. State Trooper Sunday. Our source reports they would bring these people in and praise them for their Christian service. It is the position of the House of Public Discourse they know full well what they are doing. These forces of coercion within a society are fundamental if any radical movement is going to succeed. Over the last several decades in America, our governance has been overrun with radical right Christian extremism. These religious groups and organization not content with religious matters have holy-rolled themselves into the public sphere of government. They have brought this to materialization through deeply funded media outlets and expounded their rhetoric through networks like the 700 Club, TBN, CBN, and others.

There is no greater example of Christian extremism finding its way into our politics than televangelist John Hagee. Pastor Hagee proclaims the U.S. must join Israel in a preemptive military strike against Iran. The nitwit overweight pastor says GOD ordains it himself and it would be the fulfillment of an end -time Biblical prophesy. This confrontation with Iran will lead to the Rapture and the second-coming of Christ.

Watch Pastor Hagee Stink His Nose Where It Does Not Belong.

So, What Do These Self-Proclaimed Christians Really Want?

Political Religion is what these people want. Political Religion is a non-church religion that has a spirituality aligned to combat and struggle. While it may employ democratic means to achieve its goals it frequently resorts to violence, and so generates fear in the communities it targets. Religions infiltration into our 21st century politics is the greatest problem facing our country and world. See, in short, if we did away with religion no one would have a reason to kill and die for. Modern day science professional have been advocating this for many years. This becoming a reality, however, is far-fetched. The problem with religion is not what people believe personally. Political Religion becomes dangerous when this personal belief system becomes involved in political decision-making.

The founding fathers of America particularly Jefferson and Madison were insistent that one's faith in GOD was of a personal nature and not a matter of the state. The issues lie in dogma and the interpretation from that point of view. The problems come into play when these dogma's begin to influence laws, judicial issues, and when people aren't discussing these issues based on 21st century attitudes. Political Religion becomes even more dangerous when religion and nationalist views coalesce so that it  forms a political ideology.[See: James Madison On Church and State]

We The People are already seeing how these ideas have created a political divide in America and have cause some unstable individuals to act out in violence. What is missing in this equation is the lack of critical thinking at least from the American political right who shun intellectualism and have been for a dumbing down of America since the Reagan years. What the facts are is these radical Christian zealots like the Dominionist don't use critical thinking whatsoever they use mystical superstition thinking. This thinking and its infiltration into our political process is the biggest danger this country and world faces today. 

One might ask why this is dangerous? It's dangerous cause World War III could be the result not of some mythical Bible story but due to a lack of critical thinking.[See Source]

It is the view of the House of Public Discourse that Americans need to stop fuzzing over taxes, economics, and social issues. We should draw a line in the sand on our countries future and rebuke these mystical  thinkers who beat the drums of war to their dumb downed minion. Political hacks like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and this real nutcase Ben Carson, while highly educated themselves they are playing to the least common denominators of our society for support.[See: Why Do Poor Uneducated White People Vote Republican?]

The attitude of "American Exceptionalism"  and this horrid belief system that somehow America was a nation founded on Biblical principles could be the primary factor in our nation's demise. 

The American Experiment Is Under Crisis!

Is the American experiment under crisis? Today you can ask five people their interpretation of any given constitutional  question, and chances are you will get five different viewpoints. Our founding fathers gathered  themselves in a small room in Philadelphia to hash out what at the time was nothing more than a governmental experiment, to form a new type of government for a new country they would call the United States of America. Not only were there no assurances that it would work but history at the time told them it wouldn't.  In their day, nations were ruled by rulers, not rules.  Kings told everyone else what to do. A government run by the people themselves was an old idea;  however,  it had never worked. People fight with each other. It's human nature. People are messy,  they have their interests, and they disagree. Rulers knew it took armies to keep people under control. These men [Founding Fathers] believed it took a constitution. They felt they could create institutions that would let conflict occur, then deal with it and that people would accept the outcome. That is, in fact, what they believed. In the Spring of 1787 it was time to deliver. There was much indecision as to whether they could. The Constitution was written in a time of crisis. Our founding fathers at that moment knew if they failed,  their country would fail. They responded by starting a nation in a small room with just a handful of ideas.[See Sources]

Many of the images and ideas we have of our founding fathers comes from 19th-Century historians. These historians advocated GOD himself handed down the Constitution. 

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father. Jefferson wrote the " Declaration of Independence." Jefferson called the men who wrote the Constitution demagogues. So what did this make Thomas Jefferson? Our founding fathers are the equivalent to " Greek Gods" in America. We The People have transformed these men into larger than life figures.  We have written untold books about them and have cast them in bronze. We have made educational films about them with many of those films' facts being entirely unsubstantiated. The average school child in America has been taught to speak of these men in a hushed whisper. These men were going to be whisked straight to heaven. These were real men that faced real challenges, but they were not gods. Our research here at the House of Public Discourse has found several who did not believe in God period. These men knew they were not gods. In fact, they were in fear of any man who would march himself a god. King George II ring a bell? Our research found these men would be disgusted at the reverence "We The People,"  pay these men. Some of them would for sure. We should admire these men by all means but to give them GOD status is over-the-top. We should find solace in that these men were not " Supermen. " They were just ordinary men involved in an extraordinary ordeal of forming and shaping a new country, a new nation that the world had never experienced before:  the'' American Experiment."

For the record, Ben Franklin felt the Constitution would last about ten years. 

The Articles of Confederation were a disaster and  the primary reason for much of the conflict. So history tells us that the first Constitution of America was a failure. The Articles of Confederation did not bind the new states together into one nation. This document functioned as a " league of friendship." We must remember the populists of that time still had the memories of being ruled and lorded over. The population was wary of any identity that would somehow become too dominant. And as back then as is the order of the day today, people were Virginians, North Carolinian's, Pennsylvanians, and New Yorkers. Sectionalism  was rampant. Just like in these modern times these citizens clamored for states' rights. These states saw themselves as sovereign nations.  In practice, they kind of, sorta, made an agreement to work together with other states. These arrangements fell apart so quickly that it boggles the mind. One of the biggest problems was there was no power of taxation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States government was flat broke. The US could not afford to protect ships on the Atlantic from pirates. They could not protect citizens on the western borders either. Each state printed its money. For example, the state of New York was charging Connecticut and New Jersey an " arm and a leg" for everything coming into its port.  So, in turn, these states planned a military attack on New York. The real breaking point was Shay's Rebellion. 

WHAT WAS SHAY'S REBELLION?

In closing, Part 1 of this series of articles,  do you the reader see where we here at the House of Public Discourse are going? This writer believes that history, in fact, does repeat itself. Sectionalism is on the rise in America. The Articles of Confederation  were a complete failure falling prey to sectionalism. Is our great "American Experiment." the Constitution of the United States, destined to go the way of the Articles of Confederation? Today, there is much talk of secession. Sectionalism has risen its ugly face more and more by the day. We are seeing shades of the Shay's Rebellion rearing its head through hate groups, radicalized religious zealots, political corruption, and domestic terrorism just to name a few. " The American Experiment Is Under Crisis," and in part 2 of this series we will investigate the question, "Is Secession  Inevitable?"  Back in 1987, a woman in the presence of Ben Franklin asked him the question. " Mr. Franklin fine sir, did the Constitution establish a Republic or Monarchy, Franklin replied:

Johnny Hill is a freelance writer who has extensive experience in writing for sales, marketing and advertising.   He has a background in radio broadcasting which is showcased in the music mixes he creates for his FB page, "One Nation Under the Groove."  Johnny  has been an avid  and life long student of politics . He is the founder of the House of Public Discourse Political Organization, which he created as a platform for his progressive liberal ideology.  You can follow Johnny on Twitter, @hillj60.

Racism Alive And Well In Southern States (Video)

Obamacare + Obstruction X Threats of Impreachment= Racism

The answer to this equation is often the understood but not spoken reason for much gridlock in our government today. Upon my reference, I came across an article, Yes, The South Really Is Different — And It’s Because Of Race. Personally, race has no geographical boundaries in my view. However, the point is well taken that in the South, racist tactics meet little to no resistance such as in gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the very common racial profiling. 

Republicans Have Attacked Civil Rights Legislation, Implemented Questionable Voter ID Laws, with  Regressive Voting Rights Laws  Under Federal Review.

The list could go on, and the pushback is starting to rear its ugly head. With all the rigor and rhetoric of the past weeks, we heard many dogs whistle words coming from the politicians, pundits and citizens; words like "obstruction, ransom, hostage," and phrases like ‘Domestic Terrorist.” There have been many people who feel the actions of the principles on the right were, in fact, seditious. Well, that is a gray area, but one thing this episode did reveal is that the practice of institutionalizing racism is alive and well in the South.

What is Institutionalize racism?  The Urban Dictionary defines it as, “the process of purposely discriminating against particular groups of people through the use of biased laws or practices.” 

 Even though the main purpose of the last government shutdown may have been Obamacare, the underlying issue to all the obstruction and gridlock that led to the shutdown was in fact the fight over the overall regressive policies and practices of the radically right controlled Republican Party; which really were nothing more than prime examples of institutionalized racism. Obamacare is a racial slur given to name what is, in fact, the Affordable Care Act. Yes, it's true that individuals host their set of racist feelings that are, in fact, indigenous to oneself. However, one would be remiss not to recognize the role that institutional racism has played in American History and American Culture. Racism in this country would not have thrived if not for institutionalized racism.

Examples of Institutionalized Racism

• Slavery In The United States- [No Commentary Needed] Civil War ring a bell?
• Racism In Medicine- In a report posted by Mike LaCon/flickr.com he stated that Racism has influenced U.S. health care in the past and continues to do so today. “The most shameful chapters in American history involve the U.S. government funding studies that allowed poor black men in Alabama to succumb to syphilis or Guatemalan prison inmates, mental health patients and soldiers to be afflicted with the disease and other sexually transmitted infections.”
• Racial profiling- People are profiled every single day in this country based on the way they look. People of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent report being routinely profiled at the nation’s airports. In New York City,  Black and Latino men have been unfairly targeted by that city's  "stop and frisk policy.”
• Voting Rights legislation- With the Supreme Court's affirmation that certain aspects of the Voting Rights were no longer relative, there has been an onslaught of voting legislation ram-rodded through.  The Republicans help state governments to make it harder for minorities to vote and use other mechanisms that  purge the rolls of valid voters,  and limit time and access to vote.
• Church Sunday- Racism and segregation can be witnessed in no finer fashion than on Church Sunday.  Even though there have been more inter-racial Church congregations spring up across the country,  most Churches remain segregated and in fairness,  what seems to be by choice. The United Methodist Church and the Southern Baptist formally apologized for their support of Jim Crow laws and other racist practices in recent years as well. Despite their efforts to diversify, overall church congregations remain mostly segregated up until this day.

With the actions of the Republican Party and the Libertarian and Tea Party, all radical elements

within those parties are freely exercising  institutional racism by using the politics of nullification;  the doctrine which holds that the states, singly or in concert, can defy federal actions by declaring them invalid or just ignoring them Don’t expect to see any real change any time soon. In fact, we are seeing emboldened politicians with gerrymandered “safe zones” using nullification to voice the anti-government passions and hate for Obamacare, a fully legally enacted law. We have seen both overt and covert actions to curtail voting, repeal legislation and in the case of President Obama, delegitimize his presidency. 

There Is A Strong Sectional Stronghold of Institutional Racism In  The South

This reality is an understatement. The force of change brings about fear and suspicion to Southern people. Government is seen as an intrusive force with invasive intentions to do harm to individual and community. However, when you look at all unbiased reports, the Southern States garner the most benefits from the “Big Government,” they so rail on about.

To put this all in perspective, a little history lesson is in order. In practical, these radicalized elements within the Republican party are not  new free radicals, they are old radicals nothing more than the old Dixiecrat. The George Wallace Crowd is a group that housed the KKK and other white supremacists within the then Democratic party. You know, the ones who left the party and the Republican Party had no problem embracing when the Democrats adopted both the New Deal of FDR and later the Civil Rights legislation of 1964, which enacted the Voting Rights Acts of 1965.

All of this culminated in a Southern Strategy which is in full force and unlike anytime in history entirely exposed itself since the election of one Barack Obama, the first person of color to the White House and with a foreign name at that. On her nightly show, Rachel Maddow does an excellent job of explaining how this institutionalize racist mechanism has been used for years in the South and moreover, how they won elections using it.

Now that there has been an unveiling of just how some of these racist tactics can be harmful to the overall common good of our citizens, the people are getting a clear view of how right-wing politics is holding back states like North Carolina and Texas and Florida.

Now that there has been a turn on the lights moment when the American people can clearly see how obstruction, voter suppression, and how institutionalized racism has directly caused a government shutdown and legislative gridlock, and the result has been the Republican Party getting the lowest approval rating ever recorded by any political party ever, we can maybe just possibly effect change in the South one voter at a time.

To The Christian Right, Nelson Mandela Was A Terrorist

Nelson Mandela's life was an example for all of us to follow. The entire world  mourned  his death, we rejoice in his spirit and may it give us all renewed strength never to give up. These were my feelings back in Dec 6, 2013 during the time of his passing and are the feelings I share to this very day. America, we have a far-reaching problem Religious Extremism in any form is self-destructive, unproductive, and dangerous.


To many in America, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. As we have learned, the Radical Right, Christian Zealots and Dominionist are on a political/theocracy witch hunt to this very day as they were throughout Nelson Mandela life.

American Right Wingers and Christian Zealots labeled Mandela, a terrorist.

The History

The African National Conference [ANC] relationship with the U.S. has been a complicated one. The U.S. has not always supported the efforts of the ANC to gain their freedom from oppression. There were many conservative groups and Christian right groups that had strong lobbies in Washington, D.C. while in the 1980’s who urged Congress, not to give any aid to the anti-apartheid cause.

The George W. Bush administration removed  Mandela from the terrorist watch list imposed by Reagan just prior to Mandela receiving the Nobel Peace Prize on his 90th birthday in 2008. Even so, some Republicans supported the Mandela movement — 21 Republican senators voted to sustain the Reagan veto.[See Article] 

Despite a growing international movement to topple apartheid in the 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan maintained a close alliance with South African government that was showing no signs of serious reform. And the Reagan administration demonized opponents of apartheid, most notably the African National Congress, as dangerous and pro-communist. Reagan’s bill to impose sanctions on South Africa was overruled by Congress.[See Source] One could argue that this issue along with abortion [social problems] was the genesis of the modern-day influence of the “Christian Right ‘ in the political mix. However,  the man we know as Nelson Mandela confounds the passage of time, and his legacy will endure in the hearts of all the people of the world. Where there is such a parallel is the close resemblance of the tactics used by the South African apartheid government and that of the “Jim Crow” southern states. What raises this writer’s eyebrows is the trend in those same southern states to regress back to the “Jim Crow” era.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

Republican VP Dick Cheney labeled the ANC as a “terrorist organization.”  The Christian right front  has been vocal in opposition to Nelson Mandela and his ANC group directing the flock to write their congressman and senators to oppose sanctions against the apartheid South African government. Notably, Christian right patriarch Jerry Falwell commented:

"South Africa is torn by civil unrest, instigated primarily by Communist-sponsored people who are capitalizing on the many legitimate grievances created by apartheid, unemployment and policy confrontations."

Pat Robertson

In 1986, the 700 Club did a series of reports on South Africa and the white government’s struggle against the African National Congress. While many socially liberal religious leaders decried the apartheid regime, Robertson openly supported it because he felt that it was a bastion against communism. For Robertson, everything else was secondary to defeating what he saw as the enemies of God. Robertson sent a copy of The 700 Club program to Freedom Council’s Dick Thompson to have it forwarded to Pat Buchanan, who in turn promised to show it to the president. Reagan’s attitude toward South Africa was one of his most controversial foreign policy stands, and Robertson was one of Reagan’s few allies on the policy.

Those same forces that have been at work since the influx of the “George Wallace Democrats” over civil rights legislation and now the evangelicals spurred on by the Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson 700 Club, and others all who deemed this very much-loved “soldier of love” man a communist terrorist are the same identities of today who have done nothing but obstruct and demonize President Obama. The same ones that called Martin Luther King, Jr. a Communist, home-grown terrorist, and urged Hoover to put him under FBI surveillance.

The George Wallace Crowd Are " Alive  & Well"

The Ferguson Fail, A Process Run Amuck

What is prosecutorial misconduct? Is the prosecutor in the Michael Brown Ferguson, MO, police shooting case guilty of it? There are many elements that can constitute prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor in this case, Bob McCulloch, according to many renowned legal minds has crossed the line with the Michael Brown Grand Jury. Is the Grand Jury process at fault in this case and other cases across our nation? In a nutshell, recent decisions by courts and juries have left many people in America pondering the answer to these questions.

The Process Is The Issue In Ferguson!

As a rule of thumb, we pride ourselves here at the House of Public Discourse in researching our points for accuracy and with an open-mind. Our research over the last several days has concluded the Grand Jury process in Ferguson as problematic and may have come to the level of misconduct by the prosecutor overseeing this case. Much of this dysfunction stems from witness accounts of the incident. The misconduct in the case primarily revolves around the handling of these eye-witness accounts. For example, we have found stories of so-called anonymous witnesses for the officer in this case who remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from the local community. Many well-respected legal minds some who identify themselves as political right thinkers claim this case was a miscarriage of justice.

Officer Darren Wilson

Another problem surrounding this issue is a low bar we have placed on the taking of a human life by a police officer. The judicial process by  court precedent has given police officers a wide latitude in situations like in Ferguson. However, " death by cop," is on the rise in our nation to the point of being an epidemic. Moreover, a large portion of these killings involves " white cop," shooting a " black male." 

As in any situation there are truisms and realities. The justice system in America is adverse. Most of the time,  a cop and a prosecutor are on the same side in this adversarial system. The reality? It is harder to convict a police officer of a crime than a civilian. In most police shooting cases, a police officer will claim his life felt threatened. Unfortunately for the victim's families, proving otherwise has been a high bar to meet. Both the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings attest to this reality. 

More importantly where do the solutions lie? First, cameras on cops make a ton of sense. Second, we need to reform our criminal justice system. Our research on many levels and for many reasons conclude "We The People," need to put a better mechanism in place to ' police the police.' 

Does Our Legal System Sanitize The Behavior Of Police Officers?    

There is one sure thing that has materialized  in the case of Michael Brown. This case has brought an awareness of the need to reform the Grand Jury process. There is no arguing the national media attention in this case created a unique set of challenges for the prosecutor.

But law professors and legal experts had sharply varying views on whether the presentation of the non-indictment and legal procedures were followed appropriately, adequately or fairly. [See Source]

Judge Scalia

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to inquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880).

The Specifics 

In our legal system, a suspect under a grand jury investigation has never been thought to have the right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.[See Source] In this case, the prosecutor McCulloch allowed officer Wilson to give evidence for hours and including every morsel of exculpatory evidence he could muster.  Knowing the basic of exculpatory evidence is vital to understanding the malfunction and misconduct that this case has presented.

The Prosecutors Instructions To The Grand Jury.  

Bob McCulloch

"And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in the evidence." [See Article]

By allowing officer Williams to testify for hours and allowing exculpatory evidence to be presented in support of these above-mentioned " complete defenses," this prosecutor has ignored how grand juries have functioned historically. There were several eye-witness accounts in this matter that suggest officer Wilson did not act in self-defense. This prosecutor could have but did not present these testimonies. Many critics of McCulloch allege he should have and if he would have done so an indictment would have come with a quickness. We here at the House of Public Discourse ask the question Why? What were  McCulloch's motivations for not allowing this testimony. We are not for a second buying the notions that these citizens were not credible. Our gut feelings tell us there are  more deviate motivations behind McCulloch's action or non-action in this grand jury process.

" Lock Them up, and Throw Away The Key," Nancy Grace has a problem with this case.

What happened with this Ferguson grand jury is rare. With all the leaks coming forth from this grand jury, it was reasonable to conclude there was not going to be an indictment in this case. Missouri is known as the " show-me-state." When the National Guard was sent in days before the verdict by that state's governor, it showed this writer all I needed to know or see. Grand Juries in this country almost always indict.

Or at least they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.

In 2010, a study was conducted. In 162,000 federal cases brought before a grand jury, only 11 failed to indict.[Federal Bureau Statistics] In the Wilson case this matter was heard in state courts. In Missouri, like most states, the prosecutor has the option to bring a suspect before a judge as opposed to a grand jury. The fact is many routine cases never go before a grand jury. However, with that said, it is common knowledge that it is very rare for a prosecutor not to get an indictment from a grand jury. Cases involving police shootings is are exception to this factoid. First of all, there is no real good data on police involved shootings. But researching  many newspaper articles on the subject, grand juries more often than not, by an extensive margin decline to indict law-enforcement officials.   

Police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004[See Source] 

Our research has led us to some reasons for this. One of the biggest barriers in procuring a conviction of a police officer is juror bias. No matter the evidence, jurors tend to trust the cops and seem to side with the police in their use of violence in police-related cases. There is also a prosecutorial bias. Whether their actions are conscious or unconscious, prosecutors who depend on cops in their work in criminal cases tend to present less compelling cases against police officers. Another reason is prosecutors only bring cases to the grand jury they feel they can win. There was no way the prosecutor in the Michael Brown case was going to drop the charges in this highly publicized case. There was no way this prosecutor could do that because of the many eye-witness accounts of the incident. However, as we have noted, he could change the process and tailor a sheepish grand jury to his privy. In short, there was too much evidence against the officer Wilson to not bring charges.

Beyond Ferguson, We The People Must Answer The Question, Why Are Grand Juries So Reluctant To Indict Police Officers? 

Voices From The House!

"Yes rioting is an extreme expression of anger and frustration. However, the actual issue being ignored is racism. If Michael Brown did everything he's accused of then he was wrong. However, racism is the issue being protested and is the elephant in the middle of the room. It is an issue that has never gone away.

Yes, some of the rioting is about opportunity and group mentality. Yes, I have studied it. The larger issue rears its ugly historical head as opportunity for the corporate rulers. Racism within the ruling class wants us to fight about the details.

There is an old saying that "the devil is in the details." It absolutely applies in terms of the mass media presentation of facts and or commentary. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book." [House Mentor: Diana M Buettner]

Racism Is The Calling Card Behind The Ferguson, MO, Unrest.

Persons of color are the majority in Ferguson, MO. With one black city council member and three black cops in this town it begs the question, Why? [See:Has Liberty Given Way To Gerrymandering?] Then when a white police officer guns down an unarmed black teen who is a suspect in a shoplifting case by putting six rounds in him, one in the head while on the ground, and there are riots in the streets, people have the audacity to ask, Why? Granted, violence and destruction of property is unproductive. But a peaceful gathering of concerned citizens to protest a perceived injustice is the American way in this writer's view. Moreover, the community reaction [outrage]  to this killing of an unarmed youth regardless of the color of his skin is a predictable outcome. Furthermore, with an ever increasing aggressive police force being fashioned from ex-military personnel all across America are, "We The People," being protected or are we seen as  game for the predatory police officer with an ax to grind?

There has been study after study that has shown inexperienced cops fearful of minorities have resorted to use of force. Often, these confrontations are between white police officers and a minority. There is a growing culture of confrontation between police and communities of color, and the problem is only getting worse.

Many experts argue that police forces that represent the community makeup can ease tensions. But the more systemic problem is the political infrastructure that creates and maintains disproportionately composed  police departments. This historical tension is most evident in towns like Ferguson, MO. When you have a population comprised of 67% blacks who have become non-factors in choosing their elected officials, what you get is Ferguson. 

There are innumerable ways a community can become so disproportionately misrepresented.

Ferguson's Mayor is white. Five of the six city councilmen are white. These members are tasked with recruiting, training, and setting parameters as to how the police functions. This white City Hall produced a 95% white police force. This disparity does not equal discrimination or prejudicial policing, but it does create an atmosphere where white elected officials seem insensitive to police brutality in these minority communities. Whatever the reasons for this dysfunction, gerrymandering, voter apathy, etc  its designers have circumvented the political process that would give people in the community the right to have a say in how that community functions. Ferguson, like many small cities, towns, and communities across this country, appear to be in an apartheid state where a small but influential group of people maintain dominion by discouraging electoral participation and creating a police state environment.

With radical-right wing courts allowing unfettered influence peddling in the form of Citizens United and  liberty being replaced by gerrymandering and U.S. Supreme Court regression of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, these factions have recreated a Jim Crow aura around this country. Ferguson is a case study of just what those policies reap. Moving forward, all Americans left or right should seek to ensure the electorate- no matter its makeup - has full participation, and the elected officials are a mirror of the community. If not, it's the view of the House of Public Discourse, "The Ferguson Fail, A Process Run Amuck," will be more and more commonplace.

Fiasco In Ferguson, Makes Ya Wanna Hollar!

As an old disc-jockey of mostly classic rock and funky ole soul, I have a tendency to relate current news events with music. As I sit here looking at the live feed [see above] of the unfolding events of the Fiasco In Ferguson, I, m reminded of the Marvin Gaye classic, Makes Me Wanna Hollar! What is ever so shocking is how fore-sighted our musical artist can be.

Violence Is Not The Answer, Make Ya Want To Hollar!!!

Voices From The House

 My heart is bleeding for those business owners who have lost their businesses, and for those who now will have no jobs.  They did nothing to earn this burden.  It was no choice they made, yet the price they have to pay is far higher than most others.

My heart bleeds for those who sincerely wish to silently protest the injustice they feel, without committing a violent act, because the acts of stupidity and vandalism are overshadowing them and their message.My heart bleeds for a town that is being set back when it could have been catapulted forward into a world of understanding, compassion and mutual respect.

And yes, my heart is bleeding for our nation, so caught up in teaching and learning hatred, bigotry and judgment that we can't see the world through the eyes of another.

My heart bleeds for a people that have still not learned that what we really need in this world is, quite simply, love.[HOPD Staff Writer & Editor Bev Cowling] 

 

Children Of The Ghetto, Keep Your Heads To The Stars!

Can We Imagine Peace??

What If Michael Brown Was Your Child??

Voices From The House!

Today my heart breaks for the Brown family and friends. My heart breaks for all the business owners who will have to start over. Its Thanksgiving but as for us we will be so thankful for the little we have that others don't have. How I wish I could just save the world. I'm saddened by the racism, hate and greed in this Country, saddened by the children and adults dying by the hands of those who are supposed to protect us. Our police are out of control, and it saddens me that today in this day and time that we must fear the police as if we were back in the 50's and 60's again. This country is not moving forward, but it is moving backwards. We must stand hand in hand together united to beat this system and work as one. We all bleed red, have the same bodies and hearts. I'm begging for equal justice for all color and origins. Its time for a change, time to fight back and use our minds without violence. I am sad today; I hurt for all who have lost their lives at the hands of haters and racist, ignorant people who have no souls. May God comfort your hearts Mr. and Mrs. Brown and people of Ferguson ......We will never forget Mike Browns life mattered!!! [Susan Collins: Friend of the House]

Be A Ribbon In The Sky

What Does The Law Say In The Matters of Police Shootings, and Moreover Should It Be Revisited By The Courts?

Current law gives police wide latitude to use deadly force.

Here is the Heart of the Matter from a legal standpoint.

Justice Bryon White

“It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape,” wrote Justice Byron White for the majority. “Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. …A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”

But the court added that police could use deadly force if the suspect had threatened the life of a police officer.

“If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given,” said Justice White.

Voices From The House.

The ignorance of reality runs deeply throughout this country. Just as far as the massive corporate owned government and media will allow. Wouldn't it be something if the people actually had a voice that was recognized? You know like the voice of reason.It's called racism.

When our institutions use profiling based on skin color it creates fear on the part of the officers. They act from a place of fear rather than a desire to protect. Thereby supporting the premise that blacks commit more crimes. The poor and the oppressed populations are in fact more likely to steal, but the reasons aren't greed driven like those of the corporate owned government.
 Racism is an absolute reality in the present situation regardless of whether or not the officer Darren Wilson is charged. The idea that one incident has created this situation is in itself ridiculous. This country has work to do. I wish to state proudly that I would like to be a part of the solution and not a problem. One People One LOVE![Mentor of the House: Diana Buettner]

Voices From The House!
Omg!!!! Protest in Greenville* can I go get my groceries & shopping done* I am against racism!! The jury was Not a jury of peers- was NOT equal* I do BELIEVE in fairness & I don't believe in violent riots* I do believe in protest in& rallies & standing up for your beliefs if it can be done in a non- violent fashion* WE ALL DESERVE TO BE TREATED WITH KINDNESS & EQUALITY!!! POLICE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE-THEY GET AWAY WITH TOO MUCH SHIT!!
[Lisa Peacock: House Political Administrator & Social Worker]

Voices From The House.

CAN YOU SAY 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' AND 'PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT'????

If this is true then this matter MUST be investigated by the National Bar Association, the State of Missouri Bar Association, and the Department of Justice, and other related government agencies!!!!!
In addition to his duties as the county prosecutor, Robert McCulloch is also the president of The Backstoppers, Inc., an organization used to fund-raise for the men and women in uniform in both Missouri and Illinois. And, in August, his organization was affiliated with a t-shirt drive featuring a picture of Missouri and the statement “I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON” which was set up to raise money for the Darren Wilson Defense Fund as well as The Backstoppers." [ See Source Sharon McGowan Willicome: Friend of the House]

People Do Make This World Go Round.

Final Voice From The House!

Something that has been bothering me lately about the grand jury report, and the statements that have been made from officer Wilson, and various reports made about this shooting. When the shooting first occurred, they did an autopsy, and released the animated drawings with the autopsy report done by Dr. Michael M. Baden, Forensic Examiner for New York State Police. Nothing in the grand jury report, or any media coverage lately, has even mentioned, or shown how the autopsy completely shreds officer Wilsons accounting of the shooting. On the pictures of the autopsy, they show two bullets entering his wrist from his palm side, with an upward trajectory. He would of had his arm raised somewhat to have the bullets travel in that manner. From the autopsy report, they give officer Wilsons height as 6' and Michael Browns height as 6'5. The two bullets that entered his abdomen were in a downward trajectory. The only way those bullets could of entered in that manner, would be if Wilson was above Brown, which would mean that Brown had to be at least falling, and fairly close to Wilson when those bullets entered his body. The two bullets to his head, went in at the very top of his head, and went almost straight down, which again from the trajectory, would mean that Wilson would of had to be practically standing right over him. This wasn't just the report from Dr. Baden, but also Dr. Cyril Wecht, world reknown forensic Pathologist, who also reviewed the autopsy. Why hasn't this been brought up? Furthermore,

 The Civil Rights Federal Investigation will gather all their investigative reports and the findings and actions that were taken, as well as the information from the grand jury. It will be interesting to say the least, what comes of it. After all is said and done, I'm sure that there will be a civil trial, and that should prove to be interesting as well. There are a few people that aren't happy about the questions that I have raised, and think that I am defending what ever Michael Brown did. I'm not defending what ever he may have done, or the way he did it. I just think from what all the evidence and the autopsy report shows, it isn't matching up at all with what the different reports that officer Wilson has said, or the grand jury, and I don't think that what Michael Brown did, warranted lethal action. Especially the way the autopsy shows it. [House Contributor: Edythe Redmann]