Obama's Response to Killing of Michael Brown Nearly the Opposite of his Response to Killing of Trayvon Martin

By Lou Saboter

I will shamefully admit I voted for this maniac. Not only once, either. Such was the cruel nature of the two-party pressures I was subjected to, along with heavy doses of dread about our nation's future. I was afraid that Mitt Romney was more of a plutocrat, and that Ron Paul would shred all programs of social uplift, leaving only corporate power and legal weed in place.

Perhaps he was the best of three terrible choices. I don't recall a candidate who truly seemed on the side of the people, Obama was emblematic of equality and possibly better Supreme Court judges. And I used to be on the fence about gun control.

But this article is about Obama's response to Michael Brown, and how it compares to his response to Trayvon Martin's death--both of which were crimes in my mind.

Obama, when Trayvon was shot, made the statement that Trayvon could have been his son or even him. Some thought he was actually inspiring protest at the time.

 But you could look at it another way. In the case of Trayvon, a civilian shot a man of another race, possibly motivated by race issues. Obama has promoted gun control--but only of civilians. When it comes to the police, Obama has done quite the opposite.

So it is no surprise that hear we aren't hearing anything like "Michael Brown could have been my son."

Now, his rhetoric, after being briefed by Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder, is plainly directed at quelling protest.

The object is a disarmed, obedient citizenry. Eric Holder has even, in the past, openly promoted brainwashing the citizenry into giving up their guns. And he meant "black people."

A Globalist objective is plain here. We are being carefully massaged, beaten, gassed, and shot into it.

The violence is coming from them. They are the ones arming the cops to the teeth. And the crackdowns in Ferguson, Albuquerque, Boston, and New Orleans are the result.