PBS to Air Documentary ‘Humanizing’ Late-Term Abortion Doctors

Kelsey Harkness /

Taxpayer-funded broadcast station PBS is airing a documentary this Labor Day weekend highlighting the lives of the last four remaining late-term abortion doctors in America.

PBS describes the film, “After Tiller,” as a “deeply humanizing and probing portrait” of late-term abortionists who remain “absolutely dedicated to their work” in the wake of the 2009 assassination of Dr. George Tiller.

Tiller was the nation’s pre-eminent abortion practitioner. He was known for his willingness to perform late-term abortions, doing so hundreds of times each year. At 67 years old, he was shot in the head in Wichita, Kans., by abortion opponent Scott Roeder, who was eventually convicted of first-degree murder.

“After Tiller” focuses on the “intense protest” from pro-life supporters that the four remaining doctors who abort babies after the 24-month mark face.

>>>‘Gosnell’ Filmmaker Glad Kickstarter Got the Message That People Won’t Stand for Censorship

The film’s producers, Martha Shane and Lana Wilson, openly admit the feature documentary is focused on the doctors’ experience, stating in a press release, “We decided to represent the anti-abortion movement as it is experienced by the doctors themselves.”

They added:

“It is a given, of course, that mainstream news coverage related to abortion must allot equal time to both sides of the issue, but as independent filmmakers, we chose to limit the scope of our film primarily to the point-of-view of the doctors because it allowed us to tell much deeper and more intimate stories.”

“After Tiller” will have its national broadcast premiere on Monday, Sept. 1 at 10p.m on PBS’s “Point of View” series. POV is television’s longest-running showcase for independent non-fiction films and is funded by PBS, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

In 2013, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting received $445 million in federal appropriations, with PBS receiving about $300 million of that.

>>>Commentary: Should Federal Funding Remain Public for Broadcasting? No.

Sarah Torre, a policy analyst in Heritage’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, is concerned about themes inside the PBS-endorsed documentary.

“Large majorities of Americans generally oppose abortions in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy — and for good reason,” she said. “Gruesome late-term abortions endanger the health and safety of women and brutally take the lives of children capable of feeling pain.”

Torre also addressed another one of the filmmakers’ goals: Helping audiences to understand the “desperate” situation that leads to women choosing a late-term abortion. Torre refuted the notion that they’re left with no other choice, stating:

Women facing difficult situations should be given compassionate care and empowered with life-affirming options — the kind they can find at thousands of pregnancy centers across the nation. We should protect the lives and health of women. And we should not deny the most fundamental human right to life to the most vulnerable children in our society merely because they are small, dependent, disabled or simply inconvenient.

PBS could not be reached for comment.

What Conservatives Must Understand About Hispanic Voters - Daily Signal

What Conservatives Must Understand About Hispanic Voters

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez /

Half a century ago we saw the spark of powerful ideas that changed the face of America. Some became legislation, such as the War on Poverty. Others became potent cultural trends, like the sexual revolution. Less noticed but no less impactful was the onset of a radical change in our nation’s demographic makeup.

That millions of immigrants, the majority from Latin America, began arriving just as the United States was being hit by a social and cultural tornado receives surprisingly little analysis. This whirlwind, after all, ripped up norms that had been in place for generations.

These new immigrants had no memory of what the country had been like. In the media, in schools and in entertainment, they began to hear dubious reinterpretations of America and a denigration of traditional values. For many of them, “assimilation” meant adopting the emerging standards of a rapidly evolving country.

>>> First Look: Mike Gonzalez’s ‘A Race for the Future: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans’

We’ll soon mark the 50th anniversaries of the two major changes that brought this wave of new immigrants. On Dec. 1, 1964, Congress allowed the Bracero guest worker program to expire. The economic need for these workers didn’t go away, however, so illegal immigrants began streaming in – hundreds of thousands annually, for decades. Unlike under Bracero, these were not circular migrants; they stayed.

On Oct. 3 the following year, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act. Supporters like President John F. Kennedy had said the change would benefit primarily Southern Europeans, but it was Latin Americans who experienced the biggest gains. Close to 25 million of them have legally immigrated here since 1965, including my family and me.

These legal and illegal immigrants, and their progeny, spearheaded a demographic tsunami. Hispanics – a label the federal bureaucracy created in the 1970s for the express purpose of affirmative action – went from just about 3 percent of the American population in 1960 to 16 percent today.

And they are expected to account for about one third of the population by mid-century. Half of the demographic growth so far this century has been Hispanic.

Unless conservatives can share their message with these new Americans, they will encounter electoral difficulties and won’t be able to enact their policies. But the confluence of forces of the past 50 years is making it easier for liberals to be elected, and change America further.

Because they are almost shut out of the knowledge-making industries of media, culture and the academy, conservatives must make a greater effort to get their message across. To do this, they must shed their axiomatic fear that newcomers will negatively affect the culture, lest it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Theirs should be an upward mobility message. Or, to use less wonky and more aspirational language, they should speak of attaining the American Dream. But they have to be aggressive, too, in showing that many of the political and cultural changes brought in by the 1960s have erected roadblocks that bar Hispanic success.

That means showing how minoritizing these new immigrants under the “Hispanic” bureaucratic label has hurt Hispanics, rendering them dependent on government for their success.

The sexual revolution heralded what Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute calls “the unmarriage revolution,” eroding one of the mainstays of Hispanic stability, the family. The rise of government assistance, which the bureaucracy unstintingly pushes on Hispanics, also chipped in. As Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, discovered long ago, welfare undermines the family.

And so today the Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is a stratospheric 53 percent, second only to the African-American rate of 72 percent. This is worrying, as the rate stands upstream from other pathologies.

Illegitimacy is tied to another problem holding Hispanics down: an education gap with non-Hispanic whites. Broken families beget under-education, and under-education begets broken families.

With education, the prescriptions are easy: school choice is already popular among Hispanics; conservatives should unite with them to fight the teachers’ unions standing in the way. Putting the family together is far tougher, many argue. But it’s not impossible. Politicians should use their bully pulpit to underscore its importance to success.

None of the usual nostrums from the left or the right will help Hispanics, or our country, unless conservatives first grasp that we have undergone a perfect storm in the past 50 years.

Originally distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2014/08/29/3510018/conservatives-must-better-understand.html?sp=/99/1641/1647/#storylink=cpy
Want Your Biggest Pay Raise Ever? Here’s the Step You (Probably) Need to Take - Daily Signal

Want Your Biggest Pay Raise Ever? Here’s the Step You (Probably) Need to Take

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez / Salim Furth /

Labor markets in the U.S. have become steadily less dynamic for the last few decades. In a dynamic labor market, there is more hiring, more firing, more promoting, and more quitting. All that churning leads to a stronger economy on average: more employment, higher productivity, and higher wages.

In a paper presented at the Kansas City Fed’s Jackson Hole symposium, economists Steven J. Davis and John Haltiwanger documented the decline. “The loss of labor market fluidity suggests the U.S. economy became less dynamic and responsive in recent decades,” they conclude.

The simplest explanation is that the U.S. workforce is aging, and older workers tend to change jobs much less. But that is not the whole story. The most fascinating finding of the research is that fluidity seems to spill over across demographic groups: Just having more young people in a state raises the employment rate and job-shifting behavior of workers of all ages.

The new findings and previous research paint a grim picture of declining dynamism in business, with fewer startups and fewer fast-growing companies. The sclerosis is not just bad news for economic indicators like U.S. gross domestic product. The most harm is felt by young workers and workers with little education. Young or less-educated workers are the first to be squeezed out whenever the labor force shrinks, denying them current income and the upward mobility encouraged by experience.

The good news is that individuals can help themselves and the economy at the same time. Workers often get their biggest pay raises when switching jobs. Trying different occupations and employers makes workers more likely to find something they do extremely well. And Davis and Haltiwanger’s research suggests that employers might be a little more aggressive in hiring when labor fluidity rises.

So brush up your resume and read over a few job listings: When a job change helps you, it makes the rest of us better off as well.

Originally published in the Wall Street Journal.

Reagan Historian Accused of ‘Invisible’ Footnotes, ‘Sloppy’ Work - Daily Signal

Reagan Historian Accused of ‘Invisible’ Footnotes, ‘Sloppy’ Work

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez / Salim Furth / Kelsey Harkness /

The flap over a new book on Ronald Reagan centers on accusations of plagiarism but actually highlights the danger of devaluing what it means to be a historian, a Heritage Foundation scholar says.

Rick Perlstein’s book “The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan,” has come under fire not only for passages that resemble those of another Reagan biographer, Craig Shirley, but also for misstating facts and understating sources.

“Mr. Perlstein is calling into serious question the place of the historian at a time where we need to understand the past more than ever before,”  Lee Edwards, the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

Edwards, author of biographies of Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and other conservative luminaries, is a respected chronicler of the American conservative movement.

While shifting citations of his sources online, Edwards said, Perlstein employs ideologically “loaded adjectives and cheap shots”  — Reagan is “a phony and a hustler,” “the candidate from Disneyland,” a “diarrhea mouth”  — to paint illegitimate pictures of Reagan, Goldwater and Richard Nixon as “dividers” of America.

And that, Edwards said, “is simply not true.”

Shirley, also a prominent Republican strategist, called foul shortly after the Aug. 8 release of “The Invisible Bridge.”

Shirley specified 45 instances in which he said Perlstein, a liberal author and journalist who was a senior fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future, appears to lift, without citation, material from Shirley’s 2004 book “Reagan’s Revolution.”

“There are no footnotes, endnotes, bibliography or other common form of citation in his book,” Shirley told Breitbart News in a detailed critique.

Instead, Shirley said, “buried on page 810, Mr. Perlstein directs readers to access his personal website where, after several clicks, they can uncover ‘A Note on Sources’ for ‘The Invisible Bridge.’ There, Mr. Perlstein credits some — but not all — of his uses of ‘Reagan’s Revolution.’ ”

A spokesman for Perlstein’s publisher, Simon and Schuster, called the allegations “ludicrous.”

Edwards, a leading historian of American conservatism, told The Daily Signal that he isn’t so much concerned with his own work being plagiarized — although his copy of “The Invisible Bridge” is filled with bright pink sticky notes — but rather, about the role of the historian in the modern day.

In a scathing review posted Aug. 13 by the venerable conservative journal Human Events, Edwards gives several examples of Perlstein’s failure to cite a source for a key assertion.

Edwards also notes that a previous Perlstein book “lifted portions of my Goldwater biography without citing my work.”

Soon after his review appeared, Edwards received an email from Perlstein thanking him for pointing out “deficiencies” in his footnotes.

“I’ll be able to correct them,” Perlstein wrote. “Very soon will have a wiki-style system that will record and time-stamp all additions and subtractions and changes, so both mistakes and missing sources, will be transparent in real time.”

He urged: “Keep ‘em coming if you notice others.”

If Perlstein doesn’t shape up, Edwards quipped  to The Daily Signal, he “might be consigned to the ash heap of historians like Edmund Morris.” The Heritage scholar added:

“At worst, it’s plagiarism. At best, it’s sloppy, careless, ideological writing.”

A footnote: Asked to comment on this report, Perlstein at first declined but later  e-mailed The Daily Signal about the three examples of  “loaded adjectives and cheap shots” about Reagan cited above by Edwards, writing:

All three of the sentiments Edwards claims come from me are in fact quotations
of what other people thought about Reagan. The first was a neutral observation:
some Americans do indeed think Reagan was a phony and a hustler. (I don’t ) The
second was quoted precisely in order to hold up to ridicule the tendency of many
liberals to foolishly underestimate him. The third came from his first wife, and
was adduced for the purpose of demonstrating what led to his divorce.

Obama’s Divisive Course on Immigration - Daily Signal

Obama’s Divisive Course on Immigration

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez / Salim Furth / Kelsey Harkness / James Carafano /

Is it possible to have a debate on border security and immigration reform that doesn’t descend into an unproductive shouting match? Yes. I’ve been involved in many such debates all across the country, and none of them proved contentious.

In each case the discussion started by identifying the points all sides could agree on. Imagine if Washington tried that. Congress and the president could roll up their sleeves and work on the issues everyone knows need to be addressed. Then, with that work behind them, they could settle down and work out their differences on the really intractable issues.

Unfortunately, it’s very unlikely that this White House and this Congress will ever take a sensible approach toward immigration. President Obama has always insisted that a sweeping amnesty for the millions unlawfully present in the United States must come before any other congressional action. He has never backed off that demand.

Obstructionism from the White House has extended to the absurd. Take extending e-Visa status to New Zealand, one of the most innocuous measures waiting before Congress. These visa programs are designed to promote trade and job growth between like-minded free-market partners with the United States. Including New Zealand in the program is more than long overdue.

But no. Even though it’s a simple legislative fix, it’s stalled. Like other common-sense measures — any legislation that advances visa reforms and improves the lawful migration system and sensible border security — it’s backed up like bottlenecked traffic. And all because no measure can move till the president delivers amnesty.

Obama has increasingly been pushing his amnesty agenda without Congress. He started by loosening up enforcement of immigration laws. Then, in 2012, he initiated his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which implemented an administrative amnesty for minors. Now it’s widely reported that Obama is planning a broader administrative amnesty that could include millions.

The president’s “solution” adds to the problem. It doesn’t solve it. Amnesty only encourages more to seek to enter the U.S. illegally. It does nothing to enhance border security or visa or immigration reforms.

Further undercutting the president’s legitimacy are reports of a series of meetings with pro-amnesty and business groups as a run-up to his proposed amnesty. To many, that smacks of cronyism, buying off or placating special interests. It paints an image of a president intent on pleasing some at the expense of others.

To make matters worse, the president’s actions are riling up Americans. Across the political spectrum, fewer and fewer people feel like Obama is acting in their interests. Even the liberal left is angry, arguing the president’s actions could poison the well for long-term reforms to replace his administrative measures — measures which could be terminated by the next president.

The recent flood of illegal immigrants streaming across the border has sparked outrage among pro-immigration groups. The public’s frustration with the administration’s handling of the issue is actually making lawful immigration less popular. Demands to deport illegal aliens are also becoming more strident.

The intensity of the concern of average citizens is also skyrocketing. A year ago, most Americans thought of immigration as back-burner issue. No more. A new survey by the Polling Company, a Washington-based consulting firm, indicates that more than half of likely voters consider immigration a top-three issue.

Obama’s course is so deeply divisive that even the Oval Office may be wising up a bit. The White House is signaling that it may wait until after the mid-term elections to act, so that congressional candidates in the president’s party won’t suffer a backlash at the ballot box.

If there is a bright side to the current mess, it’s that even as the showdown in Washington gets more acrimonious, the common concerns among people outside the beltway stand out even more starkly.

Americans recognize the need for a more secure border and for more rational and practical immigration policies. They see the need to reduce the backlog of those waiting in line to lawfully immigrate to the United States.

If only the White House started with these concerns, rather than sweeping them aside, then Washington might actually get things done.

Originally distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service

The Stonewalling Techniques Used By ‘Most Transparent Administration in History’ - Daily Signal

The Stonewalling Techniques Used By ‘Most Transparent Administration in History’

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez / Salim Furth / Kelsey Harkness / James Carafano / Ed Feulner /

President Obama claims to be running “the most transparent administration in history.” Even those who knew he was exaggerating, though, must have been surprised when dozens of his own inspectors general revealed what a laughably hollow claim this is.

Earlier this month, 47 of the federal government’s 73 watchdogs filed a formal complaint about the “serious limitations” the Obama administration places on their ability to uncover waste, fraud and abuse.

It’s an unprecedented charge. “I’ve never seen a letter like this,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, said. “And my folks have checked. There has never been a letter even with a dozen IGs complaining.”

IGs from the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice — among many others — say the administration is imposing such “serious limitations on access to records” that it’s creating “potentially serious challenges to the authority of every Inspector General and our ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”

Time after time, the IGs request information necessary for them to do their jobs. Time after time, they’re told the information is “privileged” and, therefore, can be legally shielded, even though prior administrations haven’t made such dubious claims.

Yes, this can be a legitimate claim in certain, very limited instances. Information that could jeopardize certain matters of national security, for example, is naturally very sensitive and must be handled carefully.

However, when you’re concealing more information than you’re revealing, and doing so almost routinely, something is seriously wrong.

Take how the Peace Corps refused to provide records of reported sexual assaults to assist an investigation into how the agency handled such cases. Or the difficulty the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general had obtaining documents from the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Or many other cases that haven’t become public yet.

The IGs aren’t the only ones disturbed by the stonewalling attitude of “the most transparent administration in history.” In July, representatives of 38 journalism organizations sent a letter to President Obama, complaining about a lack of government openness.

The lead signer was David Cuillier, president of the Society of Professional Journalists. The letter accused the administration of “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies.”

The administration is always quick to dismiss any focus on the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservatives, the Benghazi attack or the Justice Department investigating reporters, as “phony scandals.” They want us to believe they’re baseless distractions.

We’re supposed to take this on faith. Why not provide the information necessary to prove their point? Why not open the files so we can see for ourselves?

“All of these stories linger because of unanswered questions and lack of meaningful information,” USA Today recently editorialized. “The administration could bring all of these matters to closure by simply releasing all available records.”

If they refuse to do so, how can they blame anyone for assuming that the information they’re hiding must be damaging and that the evidence of wrongdoing is so strong that it’s better to weather charges of hypocrisy?

Even Ralph Nader isn’t happy with the White House. “Despite lofty initial campaign promises by the Obama administration, widespread government secrecy has only worsened in recent years,” he wrote earlier this year.

Originally appeared in The Washington Times

Maps Developed in Secret Suggest EPA May Be Expanding Regulation - Daily Signal

Maps Developed in Secret Suggest EPA May Be Expanding Regulation

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez / Salim Furth / Kelsey Harkness / James Carafano / Ed Feulner / Rob Port /

BISMARCK, N.D. — A map developed by the EPA and released to a U.S. House committee investigating controversial proposed water regulations should have citizens concerned, says U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer. “It is certainly alarming the EPA would develop these maps in secret and only release them after being confronted by members of Congress,” Cramer, a Republican, said in a news release accompanying his office’s release of the maps. “The EPA has been hiding information which could upset the public and jeopardize its massive power grab of unprecedented authority over private and public water.”

Photo courtesy of U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer's office

Photo courtesy of U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer’s office

The maps were released by the EPA to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, on which Cramer serves. One map shows perennial bodies of water in blue and intermittent bodies of water in yellow. A second regional map including North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah uses blue to show each state’s “wetlands inventory.” On that map, nearly the entire state of North Dakota is in blue. Critics of the proposed rule have suggested the EPA intends to use it to expand regulation far beyond permanent bodies of water to lands that hold water only some of the time. “It doesn’t take much of a leap to conclude these highly detailed maps developed with taxpayer funds are for the purpose of enforcing this rule,” Cramer said. But EPA officials say the maps have nothing to do with the Waters of the U.S. rule.

“Let us be very clear — these maps have nothing to do with EPA’s proposed rule or any other regulatory purpose,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia told Fox News. The EPA has regulatory authority over “U.S. waters,” but it’s unclear how that authority extends to non-permanent bodies of water. In New Mexico, one landowner has already experienced the federal government attempting to regulate wetlands that aren’t always wet. In 2013 a landowner was prohibited by federal authorities who cited the Clean Water Act from cleaning out a dry creek bed.

Ultimately federal authorities backed down after the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of the property owners. But that may not happen in North Dakota. “It is a gall darn can of worms opening,” Pete Hannebutt, the director of public policy for the North Dakota Farm Bureau, says. “They’ve been trying to reinterpret the rules for years, and we’ve been jumping up and down saying it’s not right.” Hannebutt is concerned about the EPA’s maps. “It could impact everything that we do in generally accepted farming practices, including digging a fence post hole, including running fence, including growing hay. It could have a huge impact on us,” he said. He’s worried EPA’s regulations could be so broad as to hinder a farmer’s ability to access his land.

Read More on Watchdog.org.

The ISIS Propaganda War - Daily Signal

The ISIS Propaganda War

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez / Salim Furth / Kelsey Harkness / James Carafano / Ed Feulner / Rob Port / Helle Dale /

While the U.S. government unbelievably – according to President Obama himself – does not have a strategy for dealing with the threat from ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), Iraqis themselves have found a way of countering the propaganda war being waged by this latest terrorist insurgency. In the echo chamber that is the social media sphere, fighting hashtags with hashtags can be hugely effective.

Iraqis are under propaganda assault from Twitter and other social media postings by ISIS, which delights in showing the world its barbaric acts. Ordinary Iraqis, to their enormous credit, however, are refusing to be intimidated, and have been tweeting and retweeting under the hashtag #No2ISIS. This catchy slogan has caught on like wildfire and is showing up not just on the Internet. Muslim demonstrators in London have even been carrying posters with the slogan.

Digital Journal interviewed the man behind the campaign: Sayed Jyiad, the director of policy at the Iraqi Centre for Integration and Cohesion (ICIC). His is seeking to inform the West and to unite Iraqis for a state free of the terrorist scourge. He both a student of ISIS and an Internet entrepreneur.

Among other things, he told Digital Journal in regarding ISIS:

“They will spread rumors that they are attacking a particular area, to cause panic and for people to flee, this is reported by some wire services and unfortunately ISIS then lay in ambush for the people fleeing as happened in Tal Afar on Sunday.They also spread lies and use fake images in order to stoke sectarian tensions and recruit people to their cause. Above all they use social media to display their ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ power to give different images to supporters and enemies.”

In other words, ISIS is using propaganda both as a tactical military tool and as a way of striking terror. But the fact is also is that ISIS is so far beyond the pale that it has has pushed other Muslims into action, and into finding strategies to unite with each other.

Their spirit and determination should be an inspiration and an encouragement to those here in the West, including the U.S. government, to focus on this menace from the Middle East.

The U.K. Has Raised Its Terror Threat Level - Daily Signal

The U.K. Has Raised Its Terror Threat Level

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez / Salim Furth / Kelsey Harkness / James Carafano / Ed Feulner / Rob Port / Helle Dale / Peter Brookes /

What does this mean?

More than Half of Voters Think This Agency is Motivated by Politics. And No, It’s Not the IRS. - Daily Signal

More than Half of Voters Think This Agency is Motivated by Politics. And No, It’s Not the IRS.

Kelsey Harkness / Mike Gonzalez / Salim Furth / Kelsey Harkness / James Carafano / Ed Feulner / Rob Port / Helle Dale / Peter Brookes / Melissa Quinn /

A new poll found that the majority of Americans believe the Department of Justice  is motivated primarily by politics.

According to a Rasmussen poll released Thursday, more than half of likely voters believe the Department of Justice is more concerned with politics than ensuring justice is served when deciding whether to investigate a local crime separate from the local police department. To the contrary, 35 percent say the agency is concerned with making sure justice is done when deciding to investigate a local crime.

54% of voters say the DOJ is more concerned with politics than ensuring justice when deciding whether to investigate a local crime.

The survey comes after Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a federal civil rights investigation into the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., earlier this month. Brown was shot and killed by veteran local police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9. Witnesses say the teen was unarmed.

>>> Area Residents Take to the Streets of Ferguson. But Not For the Reason You Think.