It happened this past June in Wuxi Village. According to the Associated Press, the government hired a crew to cut down the metal cross atop the Wuxi Christian Church in Zhejiang Province (just south of Shanghai on China’s east coast). The day after they sawed it down, a church member welded the cross back in place and was brought in for hours of questioning. A week later, down came the cross a second time only to be put back by another church member.
A group of 11 sick, disabled and elderly Iraqi Christians --including an 80-year-old woman with breast cancer -- defied terrorists who ordered them to convert to Islam or be beheaded, saying they preferred death to giving up their faith.
It reads like something from a history book or a class lecture about something decades and even centuries ago in a time period where we were less equipped to handle it. But it is happening right now, to our own people, in a time period where we have sophisticated military, high-tech equipment and the ability to get status updates in real time.
The new Egyptian government had pledged to rebuild the churches, but they may face too much public opposition actually to be able to do that. After all, the Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt haven’t all vanished into thin air, and rebuilding the churches is just the kind of thing that could provoke them.
A Statement of the Institute on Religion and Democracy
Jesus Christ is Lord. That is the first and final assertion Christians make about all of reality, including politics. Believers now assert by faith what one day will be manifest to the sight of all: every earthly sovereignty is subordinate to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
The Church is the community of believers who bear witness to that claim. Because the Church is pledged to the Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus, it must maintain a critical distance from all the kingdoms of the world, whether actual or proposed. Christians betray their Lord if, in theory or practice, they equate the Kingdom of God with any political, social, or economic order of this passing time. At best, such orders permit the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom and approximate, in small part, the freedom, peace and justice for which we hope. At worst, such orders attempt to suppress the good news of the Kingdom and oppress human beings who are the object of divine love and promise.
The First Political Task of the Church
The first political task of the Church is to be the Church. That is, Christians must proclaim and demonstrate the Gospel to all people, embracing them in a sustaining community of faith and discipline under the Lordship of Christ. In obedience to this biblical mandate, Christians have a special care for all who are in need, especially the poor, the oppressed, the despised and the marginal. The Church is called to be a community of diversity, including people of every race, nation, class, and political viewpoint. As a universal community, the Church witnesses to the limits of the national and ideological loyalties that divide mankind. Communal allegiance to Christ and his Kingdom is the indispensable check upon pretensions of the modern state. Because Christ is Lord, Caesar is not Lord. By humbling all secular claims to sovereignty, the Church makes its most important political contribution by being, fully and unapologetically, the Church.
While our first allegiance is to the community of faith and its mission in the world, Christians do not withdraws from participation in other communities. To the contrary, we are called to be leaven and light in movements of cultural, and economic change. History is the arena in which Christians exercise their discipleship. Because our hope is eternal and transcendent, Christians can participate in society without despair or delusion. We do not despair of the meaning of history, nor do we delude ourselves that our efforts are to be equated with establishing the Kingdom of God. The fulfillment of history’s travail is the promised Rule of God, not the establishment of our human programs and designs.
Towards an Open Church
God has given us no one pattern for the ordering of societies or of the world. For almost two millennia Christians have pursued their mission within a variety of social, political, and economic systems. Among Christians today, as in times past, there are significant disagreements about the most appropriate and effective ways to advance freedom, justice, and peace in the world. That Christians are to pursue these goals should be beyond dispute. Disagreements about how they are to be pursued need be neither surprising nor destructive. In making political decisions, we are all subject to error. Through prayer, we decide in the courage of our uncertainties. We strive to credit the intelligence and good intentions of those who decide differently. Especially within the believing community we must, in the words of Reinhold Niebuhr, avoid portraying our conflicts as a war between “the children of light and the children of darkness.” Our unity in Christ is greater than whatever may divide us.
Within our several churches, disagreement about the meaning of social justice should not merely be tolerated; it should be cherished. We are pledged to the goal that our churches be open churches. An open church engages sympathetically the diversity of Christian views both within and outside denominational structures. An open church welcomes dissent on contingent judgments about the right-ordering of society; this strengthens the search for truth and helps correct error. An open church makes decisions in the light of day, not in the shadowed corners of bureaucratic power. An open church has leaders eager to engage in the fullest consultation with all its members. An open church addresses social issues not so much to advance a particular position as to inform and empower people to make their own decisions responsibly. An open church understands that the Church speaks most effectively when the people who are the Church do the speaking, and leaders speak more believably when they speak with the informed consent of those whom they would lead.
Sometimes leaders can and should disagree with the views of the majority. To disagree, however, is not to disregard the views of others. Leadership in an open church is marked by … READ THE REST
Justin Smith explains why the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) matters to U.S. National Security as a terrorist State. Look at the title of “Defending the Cross” as a wake-up call to defend our Christian influenced Western Culture.
War has not just come to America with the beheading of the U.S. "journalist" James Foley and the Islamic State's declaration of war on the United States. Our nation has been under attack by the agents of Islam and Sharia law long before Sheik Mohammed al-Hanooti conspired to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993; and, with the rise of the Islamic State and its messianic vision, regarding Christians, Jews and infidels deserving of death, a new wave of terror is soon to be launched on America's home-front, unless the United States and the free world exterminates the Islamofascists of the Islamic State.
Obama's ISIS "JV league" now controls one-third of Syria and one-third of Iraq, according to the 'Long War Journal', and the flag of Al Qaeda flies over Fallujah, flying in the face of Obama's ideologically based conclusions that Al Qaeda is "decimated" and "the war on terror is over." Far from over, it now seems apparent to the Obama administration that the real war is just beginning.
During the past decades, the U.S. has witnessed Islamic inspired terror plots, designed to kill hundreds and thousands, foiled by the Grace of God, luck and good investigative work and intelligence information. Najibullah Zazi hoped to detonate a Triacetone Triperoxide based explosive in the New York subway close to September 11, 2009 [Blog Editor: Washington Times and PI Bill Warner]; in April 2013, Ahmed Abassi, a chemical engineering graduate student at Laval University in Quebec, planned to murder upwards of 100,000 people, by contaminating the water supply of a major U.S. city. [Blog Editor: NY Times via Hydrablog Link]
Due to tight regulations regarding the sale and transfer of any explosive material in the U.S., Obama's current open border policy is an extremely serious and critical U.S. national security breach. Border agents are finding items like 'In Memory of Our Martyrs', a book documenting suicide-bombings, which was found near Casa Grande, AZ in January 2012 [Blog Editor: Townhall.com Link]. And, two months later, Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen released a report quoting Abdullah al-Nafsi, a Muslim cleric, saying "... one man with the courage to carry a suitcase of anthrax through the tunnels from Mexico to the United States could kill 330,000 Americans in one hour." [Blog Editor: Washington Times Link]
The 9/11 Commission Report has 59 references to terrorist activity in Arizona and references a classified CIA/FBI report titled 'Arizona's Long-Range Nexus for Islamic Extremists' [Blog Editor: Perhaps a similar examination in the same time frame but Joint House-Senate report 12/2002. I could only find a redacted to next to nothing redacted version of the CIA/FBI report]. Cooperation between the Mexican drug cartels and the terror groups, like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, has been fairly common knowledge for most of this decade. This is even more significant in light of 15 adult Bangladeshi men being apprehended by Border Agents on July 26, 2014, as they attempted to sneak across the border, in the Rio Grande Valley Sector near McAllen, Texas.
On August 22nd, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) told Fox 25 TV in Oklahoma City: "We're in one of the most dangerous positions we've ever been in as a nation. They're crazy out there, and they're rapidly developing a method to blow up a major U.S. city and people just can't believe that's happening."
Currently ISIS, the Islamic State, commands 50,000 jihadists/"holy" warriors in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq. Of these numbers, according to the International Center for Radicalization at King's College in London, among the Europeans, they found 700 French, 500 British, 100 Dutch, 300 Germans and 300 from various other countries.
Earlier in August, an ex-convict from North Carolina became the eighth American to be arrested before making a trip to Syria to wage their sacrilegious "holy" war. Seven of the eight are Islamic State supporters. So far, over 100 Americans have joined the fight in Syria.
Retired Navy Captain Chuck Nash told 'WND' [Blog Editor: WND Link] (Aug 20): "I think we're in trouble ... These people are traveling on American, British and other European passports, where they can very easily slip under the radar. We're going to see the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Muslim terrorist ... Hopefully we see that person before they complete their mission.
Former CIA Officer Bob Baer said, "I have been told with no uncertainty that there are ISIS sleeper cells in this country." [Blog Editor: Here’s a Newsmax Link with the same quote]
Michael Gregory, a Reuters reporter, has had numerous conversations with Islamic State jihadists, who have repeatedly told him that their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is planning something. They suggested attacks would soon be waged by sleeper cells in both Europe and the United States. [Blog Editor: Counterjihad Report Link]
Baghdadi's goals, of unifying the Levant under the Islamic State, the New Caliphate, and activating new terror strikes beyond the scope and magnitude of September 11, 2001, are certainly appearing somewhat possible, mainly due to the Islamic State's control of captured oil fields. Now, as ISIS has expanded that control and created new smuggling routes, the market is raising $2 million a day, or $730 million annually. And this is enough to sustain Baghdadi's operations beyond Iraq.
On August 21st, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel stated, "They (ISIL/ISIS) are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well funded. [Blog Editor: The Economic Times Link] (note: A large percentage of ISIS was trained in Jordan by U.S. military _see 'Blowback! ...' [Blog Editor: WND Link] by Aaron Klein 6/17/14).
Radical Islamists or Islamofascists, call them by any nomenclature, and one still cannot separate them from Islam, and neither can one separate Islam from the atrocities currently being committed. There are not any Christians, Buddhists or Jews anywhere in the ISIS organization.
After James Foley's murder, Obama stated, "People like this (ISIS) ultimately fail. They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy."
Mollie Hemingway, editor at 'The Federalist' [Blog Editor: The Federalist Link], noted that what President Obama said "is literally Mickey Mouse philosophy. And I don't mean that in a good way."
Where is our President? Praising fictitious Islamic contributions to Our American Heritage? America cannot tolerate Obama's foreign policy based on inaction, delays and half-measures, while the fires of global jihad burn.
In his most expansive remarks on the crisis, since the U.S. airstrikes began in Iraq, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E Dempsey said (NY Times Aug 21): "This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days vision that will eventually have to be defeated. Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no." [Blog Editor: NY Times Link]
America is in a generational struggle against the sick, pathological and extreme ideology of Islam, and America must show no mercy for the merciless Islamic State, which seeks the "breaking of the American [Christian] cross" and the fulfillment of Islamic prophecy. We must unleash the full fury and might of the U.S. military on the Islamic State and annihilate these animals, who would end our U.S. Republic, democratic elections and religious freedom, leaving only Sharia law. And, we must fight to victory or condemn future generations to a perpetual state of war, or worse.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
All text and links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.
When Scottie McCowndied ten years ago, it did not cause a nationwide stir. Maryland paid little notice. There was not much attention paid in Baltimore, where Officer McCown had shot and permanently disabled a local teenager decades before.
The Baltimore protests in 1980 paralleled those we see today here in Missouri to one more deadly incident. Young black teenagers in America seem to continue as routine casualties. So it was in Baltimore three decades ago.
Riots had been massive in Miami at the acquittal of police officers who had beaten to death a motorcyclist after an eight minute chase. The cyclist was driving on a suspended license and likely had been trying to escape a fine.
I was living in the Baltimore area at the time. Like most area residents, I paid little attention to details. A 17 year old black kid had gone into a sub shop with a friend. He was unarmed. As he stood before the counter, he was shot in the back three times by a Baltimore city police detective.
There were raucous press events. Non-violent protests provided an outlet for rage. Baltimore authorities were mindful of the violence in Miami. They wanted to avoid similar racial conflict in Baltimore. A brief hearing was held. Officer McCown was fired, later sued for a million dollars by the young man and his parents.
He did not "identify himself as a Police Officer to the owner or employee of the Pizza shop and request they telephone for a back-up unit" or "accost the suspects, identify himself as a Police Officer, and conduct a stop and frisk." Finally, "there existed insufficient facts and circumstances to warrant reasonable belief of imminent danger to himself."
The difference McCown shooting of 17 year old Ja-Wan McGee and Darren Wilson shooting 18 year Michael Brown is that Wilson was clearly a police officer exiting his squad car because Michael Brown with his imposing size was belligerently walking down the middle of the street in defiance of city ordinance and Officer Wilson enforcing the rule of law by telling a the big man to go to the curb. It is my understanding that although Wilson was alerted a small time yet strong-armed robbery took place but at the time of telling Brown to get to the curb had no idea he was connected to the robbery. However I am certain I can surmise that Brown figured he was being accosted by the local police for stealing a box of cigars without paying.
Because of the Ferguson Police Department reputation for stepping over the line of law enforcement with Ferguson Black citizens, it is probably an assumption of Brown himself would be arrested and roughed up in the privacy of the police station. And since Brown was six-foot four-inches tall with the imposing presence of a football Defensive End, felt he could take on Officer Wilson before other Ferguson police officers came to assist in an arrest.
This is me not believing Black Community eyewitnesses and believing what has become public knowledge of the entrance wounds being the front part of Brown’s body. Ergo when Wilson proceeded to place Brown in the squad car to execute the standard procedure of checking on wants and warrants, Brown went to action. He grabbed Officer Wilson and pulled inside the squad car and began thrashing the officer’s head with his probable size comparable fists. Whether Wilson’s eye socket was actually broken or not is irrelevant, after the shooting Wilson went to the hospital for x-rays to see how bad the damage was to his face. This is indication that Wilson was pummeled enough that when Wilson broke free from the punishing grasp of Brown he had pulled Department weapon as much as for an enforcer as for self-protection. Rather than standing down Brown of his own free will charged Officer Wilson. Now I’m not a trained police officer, but if I was in a situation in which I escaped a pummeling and had a gun at my grasp, I would fire a barrage of bullets myself. Wilson’s mistake as a trained officer is that six bullets just might have been overkill.
I was not there though. Ferguson Police and perhaps even Officer Wilson had been involved in probable civil rights violations against the Black Community. Perhaps the first shot did not stop the Brown charge. So Wilson let fly five more rounds to make sure the youthful giant’s charging progress definitely ended. Perhaps a definite disabling of a huge male charge would make a probable hostile Black crowd think twice before engaging in mob action against Wilson and oncoming police officers. If the latter is true it would be the fault of the abuse of the Ferguson Police Department and a good reason for a civil suit as in class action rather than just Brown family vs. City of Ferguson.
Mitigating details were unimportant at the time. Nobody, myself included, had time for mitigation. An unarmed kid would never walk again. What could justify that?
In the area of Erdman Street where the shooting occurred, robberies had been committed in which a small chrome pistol had been used. The detective had noticed a couple of young men in a familiar pattern, looking through the storefront window. The pattern was repeated several times. Were they casing the place? Only when most customers had left did they enter.
I think the situation in Ferguson was more of racial hostility than the prevention of a repeat crime that included a weapon. Again this is the fault of the governing structure of the city of Ferguson that encourage White favoritism and Black criminal profiling beyond the scope of the majority Black Community.
Detective McCown readied his own revolver, just in case. As one of the young men suddenly faced the shop owner, McCown saw the metallic flash. The shop owner had not yet noticed the mortal danger facing him. The detective fired three times, screamed at the accomplice to stand still, and yelled at the shop owner to call police emergency.
McCown was not a uniformed Officer. I understand he was a plainclothes Detective. I suspect a police Detective has a higher standard of training and accountability than a uniform Officer. AND YET he shot his weapon first and then scrutinized the situation. Shooting the Black seventeen year old without actually seeing a weapon is quite inexcusable. When McCown saw the glint of a metallic flash he should have unholstered his weapon as a precaution due the crime spree in that area of Baltimore but before discharging his weapon it was McCown’s responsibility to actually observe a weapon. After seeing a metallic lighter McCown could have gone whoops, thought I saw a chrome gun like in the robbery down the street and then holster his weapon.
Then he saw the metallic flash had been from a lighter. There had been no robbery, no accomplice, no mortal danger.
Simon makes the case that we, members of the public, are trapped in a fictional world in which no bad shooting can happen at the hands of a good police officer. Ambiguity is seldom a reality after the fact. But a lack of certainty is a fact of life in each professional moment of a fallible human. What Simon calls "the myth of perfection" haunts every incident.
It doesn’t matter that a shouted warning concedes every advantage to the gunman, that death can come in the time it takes for a cop to identify himself or demand that a suspect relinquish a weapon. It doesn’t matter that in a confrontation of little more than a second or two, a cop is lucky if he can hit center mass from a distance of twenty feet, much less target extremities or shoot a weapon from a suspect’s hand. And it doesn’t matter whether a cop is an honorable man, whether he truly believes he is in danger, whether the shooting of a black suspect sickens him no less than if the man were white.
The young man in Baltimore did not deserve to be shot. He did not deserve a life of partial paralysis. The officer did not deserve the public censure that became a part of his life.
A few miles from my home here in Missouri, 34 years later, a new police shooting has aroused community anger. Local resident Michael Brown has been killed on a residential street in Ferguson. He had just graduated from High School.
Just because Brown graduated from High School recently doesn’t mean he was not a thug. The confirmed video of him strong-arming the theft of cigars from a convenience store proves this. Does the public just look the other way because a teen is a thieving bully just because he is still viewed by adults as a kid at eighteen? That is more evidence of Liberal permissiveness for poor misunderstood social circumstances rather than the enforcement of social mores to prevent the entrenchment of a peer pressure disrespect for society and adults in general.
The demands for justice, to the extent that the demands are specific to this case, are premature. Justice without process is not justice. Judgment that comes before evidence is not justice.
Like I said enforcing social mores will a long way toward crafting a better society. The problem in this day of a polarized political spectrum, who decides what a better society is?
My friend, liberal Michael J. Scott, is a former police officer. He makes a brief point: "... we don’t yet have the facts so I’m going to reserve judgement. [sic]"
This is an excellent point.
As those facts slowly dribble out, it has become difficult to compose a case that would justify the shooting. Was there an assault on the officer? Was Michael Brown sufficiently provoked by insult - Get the f*** out of the street - to react with violence? Did the young man decide that apprehension for an earlier forceful robbery was worth attacking a uniformed officer? Was there some other perceived threat?
Certainly this should not be socially unacceptable! However, it is symptomatic of both the liberalization of social mores, police unprofessionalism and abusing civil rights based on racist attitudes.
What is known so far obstructs the search for a reasonable explanation. The number of shots fired, the distances involved, the accounts of a young man with arms raised in surrender, all join to strain the imagination. The slow motion revelation of those details has not helped. The absence of evidence has itself become evidence.
Actually the exploitation of the lack of public evidence by a Left oriented media and race bating has been more of a problem for stoking the fires of rioting and looting. The absence of official public evidence is fairly standard procedure in criminal investigations especially when the media focuses on the crime. Too much info could damage a jury pool for both prosecution and defense in the civil rights of the accused. If it is determined there is sufficient evidence for a trial of a crime, it is better for a jury to hear and see the evidence at trial than before the jury is selected. If a trial option is not exercised then the public has the right to become apprised. Not releasing evidence after an investigation is concluded smacks of cover-up and robs the offended party or parties of the right of a civil case to review if a decision to not prosecute a crime was actually warranted.
And so there has been outrage. The initial reaction by police authorities to community anger leaves little to the imagination. The lack of distinction between legitimate protests on one hand, and attacks on police, or destruction or looting on the other, has been beyond justification. The relentless march of military level force, the armament and equipment, the early disproportionate response did little to help.
Believe it or not I actually struggle with this view. Many of my fellow Conservatives – especially with a Libertarian slant - find the militarizing of police departments to handle civil unrest an unacceptable law enforcement plan. It has all the appearance of a government police state dictatorship. My problem is that even with all the military hardware the City and State law enforcement basically watched as indiscriminate looting of stores took place. There was such a lack of shame by looters video feeds of the looting were all over television news and the Internet. With all the military looting the use of military hardware became worthless in the protection of private property. I am surprised store owners didn’t go to their stores with guns and begin to shoot the looters themselves. Think of the Liberal outcry then when people began to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect property with deadly force. The Left Wing Media would frame looters as martyrs and property owners as out of control gun owners. America must confiscate all guns so the tragedy of shooting looters never happens again on American soil. My GOD! Talk about a police state making the populace defenseless.
These were not the decisions of individual police officers. Those in charge seem to have achieved a complete disconnect from the consequence of their actions. What are we to expect when protest is necessary and peaceful protest is made impossible?
You see I don’t understand this scenario. I am guessing the assumption that peaceful protesters became a rioting mob because of the presence of military hardware sounds a bit weak to me. I think it is a better guess that the exposure of military hardware by civil police was put in place more of because of the mutual hostility between the racial profiling Ferguson Police and the weary of Police abuse Black Community. Other than tear gas what kind of military-style lethal force was distributed by the police with military hardware? I suspect a SWAT situation uses tear gas without the presence of military hardware, right? As it turned out the police did nothing to protect property even with the big dollar taxpayer paid military toys.
Mercifully, authority seems to have shifted to more responsible command.
Separating the actions of authorities from the initial shooting is not an easy emotional leap. But it is a necessary leap. In the fullness of time, as evidence bleeds forth, the truth surrounding the death of young Michael Brown will unfold.
Official ineptitude should not be part of that evidence.
I don’t know. Perhaps “Official ineptitude” should be a part of that evidence in the process of how rioting and looting became acceptable under the watching eyes of a police presence.
Blog Editor Thoughts on Burr Deming’s blog FU – FairAndUNbalanced:
As far as Left Wingers/Liberals/Progressives go, I have a lot of respect for Burr. He pulls no punches on his political perspective yet I have not ever (or at least in my case) ending a conversation in a virulent excesses of profanity. I would be surprised if less informed Conservatives did not pull the same profanity stunt on Burr. In the end of a conversation stick to your guns. Agree to disagree and move on.
FairAndUNbalanced is a WeBlog bringing focus to popular insights on top political issues from today's news media. FU puts you in the pundits' seat. Tell it like it is, and get strong reaction from others who agree or disagree. Either way, you can be assured that lively debate will ensue - and democratic values will be celebrated in a political forum that surpasses anything our forefathers ever envisioned! At FU, free speech honored to the fullest, intelligent dialogue on current events is welcomed, and people who are looking for drooling idiocy can just go somewhere else...
It is becoming increasingly clear the racism that currently exists in Ferguson Missouri is not so much from White policemen but from a crime infested element of Ferguson’s Black community. Oh yeah, I think it is more politically correct to say ‘African-American,’ sorry about that pc police.
Anyway, the Lamestream Media went directly to the so-called eyewitnesses for an account because the local police was erring on the side of caution due to the racial volatility of which they were already aware. On the other hand the Ferguson Police has a crummy civil rights record. Other than the demise of Michael Brown a fairly recent incident involving an arrest of Henry Davis occurred. The problem: the Ferguson Police arrested the wrong Henry Davis. Here is a description of what happened to the wrong Henry Davis:
The short version: the police beat up Davis, concussing him and causing him to bleed. A lot. Although they had to admit he wasn't the man named in the warrant -- the only reason he was picked up in the first place -- he was criminally charged for . . . wait for it . . . getting blood on their uniforms. You ought to read Daly's piece to get the full flavor of the case. (A Little Ferguson History; By Michael Lumer; Fourth and Fourteenth; 8/16/14)
And the perspective local justice corruption gets worse in the case of Henry Davis:
A quick check on Pacer reveals that Davis filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in August 2010. During the case, according to Daly, the officers, who deny the excessive force, actually denied that they were bled on, even after being confronted with the signed criminal complaint. It also appears that the district judge found this perjury too minor for a due process violation, which is bizarre. If the officers lied to prosecutors about the damage to their uniforms in order to initiate and maintain the prosecution, Davis ought to be able to proceed to trial on a fabricated evidence/due process claim. The court also decided that the concussion was not a severe enough injury to merit a trial, which is another facially ridiculous ruling. (Ibid.)
O yeah, I forgot to mention that Davis was Black. Thus it is quite evident the Black citizens of the city of Ferguson have little to zero faith in the local justice system.
And yet again, on the other hand, the conflicting accounts on just how Michael Brown was shot by police and the evidence pointing out the kid was an 18 year old thug, meant he should have been arrested. The Leftist retort that small time robbery (cigars from convenience store) is never an excuse for fatally shooting anyone let alone a person as young as 18 year old Michael Brown although he legally was an adult.
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, America’s total population is 299,736,465 (via InfoPlease). In this population breakdown 223,553,265 (72.4% of total) are White and 38,929,319 are Black (12.6% of total).
According to FBI 2011 homicide statistics there were 3172 White homicide victims by White perpetrators. Of those 3172 there were 2630 White perpetrators against White victims (or 1.76% of White population). But the ratio between perpetrator and victim among Whites is much larger, viz. 83%.
Black perpetrator homicides against White victims are in the numbers (448 – Black) and of course the total victims of Whites which again is 3172. This percentile ratio is 14%. It is my opinion the disparity is made vis-à-vis the high Black crime rate and the greater population among the White majority. The thing that seals this disparity is the Black on Black murder rate. The total number of Black victims of homicide was 2695 back in 2011. The number of perpetrators of Black committed homicides is 2,447. The Black on Black percentage is 91% according to the numbers supplied by the FBI.
When a small town policed department with a significant Black population looks at the statistics of the volatility of Black crime, police officers don’t really care on social explanations from either the Left or Right on how Black-American and crime seem to coexist in an alarming manner. AND when the police department is made up of largely White police officers that either show a propensity to use racist attitudes to dispense law enforcement among Black Communities there will be mutual distrust in the motives behind actions observed by White officers and Black residents.
It could be some time until the public receives the details that led to Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown. Nonetheless the Lamestream Media were in unison to place on blame of police brutality straight on Officer Darren Wilson. Why? The reason is because Lamestream reporters descended on Ferguson to find some eyewitnesses because the Ferguson Police Department refused to release details while an ongoing investigation was occurring. Of the course the Black Community interpreted that standard procedure as a cover-up for yet another incident of police brutality that resulted in the death of a Black 18 year old recent High School graduate.
The so-called witnesses probably filled more with rumor and innuendo from cop-hating Black companions of Michael Brown either stretched the truth of what they allegedly saw or simply downright lied. After Zimmerman was found not guilty of a racist inspired murder of Trayvon Martin, the Press was more than willing to receive so-called eyewitness accounts that placed Wilson in a negative light and Brown in a positive angelic light. I suspect the Press assumption that Zimmerman was found not guilty back of the lack of actual eyewitnesses other than reviewers of 911 calls and the perceptions of people behind closed doors. Basically Zimmerman’s jury had to sift through Prosecutor and Defense mutual character assassinations to come to a verdict was either guilty or guilty without any reason of doubt. Regardless of the Lamestream Media convicting Zimmerman with words before a jury verdict, it was quite inevitable for a not guilty verdict under the rules of innocent or conviction according to the U.S. Constitution.
So when stories began to emerge that conflicted the Brown-murder eyewitnesses’ claim he was shot fleeing with his hands up in the air. The other chain of events reported is that Michael Brown was belligerently walking down the middle of the street refusing Wilson’s order to go to the curb which led to Wilson exiting his car to arrest Brown. As Wilson attempted to place Brown in the squad car Brown began to defiantly beat Wilson in the face after being pulled himself into car by Brown. The police account is Brown acted as if he was reaching for Wilson’s gun but Wilson manages to remove himself from Brown beating his face in. At which time Wilson upholstered his gun telling Brown to surrender. Rather than submitting Brown charged the already face beaten Wilson resulting in the gun being shot six times into the six-foot four-inches of Michael Brown’s body. Depending who read the fatal shot being in Brown’s neck or head.
Somebody is lying – either Brown fled arms raised as the Lamestream Media initially reported or Brown charged Wilson in defiance with the Officer’s gun being shot six times of an extremely violent (NOT GENTLE) giant who acted in a homicidal manner. Whichever story is correct convicts or exonerates Wilson no matter the Officer’s racial prejudice – if any.
It seems a Left-Right media fracas is emerging along the lines of whose story is the truth about how much physical harm that Darren Wilson received from Brown leading to Wilson shooting Brown.
Some initial digging by the Blogger Gateway Pundit reported that Wilson’s orbital (eye) socket was broken by Brown. CNN investigative reporting dismissed the Gateway Pundit story as false. Since the Ferguson incident has become international news British news sources have gotten involved in the investigative reporting for their readers. So it is ironic that the British Daily Mail makes an effort to summarize the Gateway Pundit vs. CNN reporting:
Officer Darren Wilson did not suffer a broken eye socket as a result of his deadly confrontation, according to latest reports
On Tuesday it was reported that he had suffered an 'orbital blowout fracture'
The officer was taken to a hospital with a badly swollen face following the shooting on August 9, but x-rays came back negative for any serious injury
Earlier reports had claimed that the officer was almost knocked unconscious by Brown's blows
Only six arrests were logged overnight in Ferguson on Thursday as the town witnessed a more peaceful night
Officer Darren Wilson did not suffer a broken eye socket as a result of his deadly confrontation with unarmed Ferguson, Missouri, teenager Michael Brown, according to latest reports.
In recent days, reports had emerged stating that Wilson, 28, was badly beaten and left with serious facial injuries following the fatal shooting in the St Louis suburb, including an eye socket fracture.
On Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit reported that the officer had suffered an 'orbital blowout fracture'.
But CNN reported on Thursday that although the officer was taken to a hospital with a badly swollen face following the shooting on August 9, x-rays came back negative for any serious injury.
Earlier reports had claimed that the officer was almost knocked unconscious by Brown's blows, according to the source.
A police source told Fox: 'The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side. He was beaten very severely.'
The source continued: 'They ignored him [Wilson] and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move. They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face.'
A police source has confirmed to MailOnline that Wilson was taken to hospital and treated for facial injuries sustained during the Brown incident but would not elaborate on the severity or nature of those injuries.
Last week, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson had suffered swelling to the side of his face but gave few details of the injuries.
Wilson, a six-year veteran of the Ferguson force with a clean record, has not been arrested or charged with any crime.
He is on paid leave pending the outcome of the investigation and is under 24-hour guard after death threats were aimed at him.
Wilson is 'traumatized, scared for his life and his family' along with being deeply concerned that a grand jury, which met for the first time on Wednesday, will make an example out of him, the source told Fox.
… Daily Mail has more including photos and videos in this story (Police officer who shot Michael Brown did NOT suffer a broken eye socket but he did go to hospital with a swollen face after deadly altercation; By DAVID MCCORMACK; Mail Online; 9/21/14 17:26 EST – Updated 9/22/14 1:02 EST)
Gateway Pundit is sticking with their original story:
On Tuesday The Gateway Pundit reported from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.
Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.
Now this… The Gateway Pundit confirmed from a third local source close to Wilson that Officer Darren Wilson did indeed suffer a broken eye socket.
This morning [i.e. 9/22/14] The Washington Post also reported that Officer Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket–
CNN really needs to be more responsible with such sensitive information. READ ENTIRETY (NOW THERE ARE FOUR SOURCES: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered Fractured Eye Socket; By Jim Hoft; Gateway Pundit; 9/22/14 9:17 AM)
And finally I am excerpting a One Citizen Speaking post that fairly well expresses my opinion on the shooting … so far. I say so far because like I said public data will not occur until the Ferguson Police or whoever ends up in charge of the investigation releases them. That might not happen until after a murder trial is imposed on Darren Wilson because after all – the Lamestream Media, professional race baiters and much of the Black Community are still calling for Darren Wilson blood.
Enough is enough!
I am tired of seeing the mainstream media feature black racists, agitators, communists, and self-serving race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson spouting nonsense that defies common sense and offends the sensibilities.
One, Michael Brown’s death was self-inflicted the moment he decided to challenge authority and present his 6’4” 292-pound body as an existential, in-your-face, threat to Officer Darren Wilson. There appears to be no intent on the part of the police officer to do anything except get two idiots who were walking down the middle of a street back on the curb.
Two, the outrage over the release of convenience store crime photos showing someone appearing to be Michael Brown in a strong-arm burglary of a convenience store in the proximity of the fatal encounter. Various sources have confirmed that it was Brown and his companion that took a box of cigars out of the convenience store without payment – and it became strong-arm burglary (rather than shoplifting) the minute he attempted to intimidate the clerk with his physical presence and put his hands on the clerk. This is relevant because the first things defense attorneys will demand is the police officer’s record including any use of force complaints – no matter how old. This is to establish a pattern and practice of using unjustified force.
Three, the police officer may not have known about the theft from the convenience store, so he was just hassling someone for “walking while black.” Not only were the two suspects walking down the middle of the street (an infraction), but they also refused the lawful orders of a police officer to “get out of the street.” But why this is a bogus issue is common sense. While the police officer may have not known – or possibly suspected -- that a more serious crime had been committed, Michael Brown certainly was aware of his criminal acts, and that may have been motivation for his assault on the officer. Yes, there is little or no doubt – including medical treatment records – that the officer was injured during the altercation.
Four, the idea that “unarmed” equals innocent, defenseless, or incapable of causing great bodily injury, is an outright lie. Here is a recent case in Los Angeles when an “unarmed” domestic violence suspect assaulted an officer that resulted in grave bodily injury …
Five, that the mainstream media took the word of an unfiltered, unvetted thug who was there in the convenience store at the time of the strong-arm robbery over the presumption of innocence of a police officer until he was proven guilty or facts to the contrary surfaced was disgusting and un-American. This thug’s narrative that Michael Brown was shot in the back while trying to surrender appears to be suspect by the preliminary autopsy notes of noted forensic pathologist Michael Baden who noted that all of the shots appeared to come from the front.
Six, that Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder would attempt to enter a local police matter and spin the story for political advantage – places the officer at much greater risk of over-zealous prosecution and the conjuring-up of evidence that doesn’t exist or that may have alternative explanation. We have seen a number of Obamacons openly thumb their nose at the American justice system to gin-up a media-worthy event or political result. I do not believe Attorney General Eric Holder is honest and ethical – or can be trusted with this inquiry.
Seven, that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has somehow gained wisdom and enlightenment to put forth the following piece in Time Magazine is to demonstrate why progressive socialist democrats are bereft of common sense and are perhaps the most dangerous among us …
Atrocity? A thug apparently attacks a police officer after committing a criminal act and is shot dead – and that’s an atrocity? Just another act of systemic racism? An example of class warfare? In what alternative universe does a basketball player, albeit a champion basketball player, have access to all of the facts and comes to the conclusion we are viewing an atrocity, another act of systemic racism and class warfare? This is an example of the clear and present danger idiots who have gained some measure of celebrity pose to society when they opine on social events.
Eight, a peaceful protest ends being peaceful when Molotov cocktails are used or shots are fired. It doesn’t matter what group initiates the hostile action, the police cannot allow anyone, peaceful or not, to remain at risk in the area. To do so would be police malfeasance.
Nine, to allow looting, rioting, and the destruction of private property in order to prevent further rioting or to avoid appearing racist is wrong.
Ten, when you hear “no justice, no peace” who are hearing the words of racists, activists, and others who are willing to condemn and convict someone without knowing the facts. …
Eleven, and if you want to see a case of blatant self-promotion from the mother of another thug, you need go no farther than the liberal Time Magazine piece by Trayvon Martin’s mother.
I hate that you and your family must join this exclusive yet growing group of parents and relatives who have lost loved ones to senseless gun violence. Of particular concern is that so many of these gun violence cases involve children far too young. But Michael is much more than a police/gun violence case; Michael is your son. …
Further complicating the pain and loss in this tragedy is the fact that the killer of your son is alive, known, and currently free. In fact, he is on paid administrative leave. <Source>
Excuse me! Is this the mother who was looking for a big payday from the death of her son – even before Zimmerman was charged with a crime? Is this the innocent child that was visiting his father while serving a ten-day suspension from school? A man-child killed due to a self-initiated confrontation with a neighborhood watch captain that did everything right when he called the police and was then attacked by the physically imposing Trayvon Martin?
She didn’t lose her son to senseless gun violence, her son precipitated the confrontation by attacking George Zimmerman and forcing him to use lethal force to save his life.
Her statement that …
Bottom line …
The racists, race-baiters, race-hustlers, and agitators don’t give a damn about Michael Brown or those in the Ferguson community. They are there for self-promotion and possibly a payday. It pains me to see a community suddenly fall prey to these race-mongering bastards – and I include President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Governor Jay Nixon, and the other political asswipes who are attempting to spin the story for political advantage. As for the communist rabble-rousers like the New Black Panther Party, one wonders why some in the black community – including law enforcement authorities – have not demanded that they be charged with a crime in rally a crowd to call for Officer Wilson’s death.
The progressive socialist democrats are continuing to divide America into … READ ENTIRETY (FERGUSON: POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON HOSED BY BLACK RACISTS, AGITATORS, AND PROGRESSIVE MEDIA? By Steve the One Citizen Speaking; 8/19/14 04:49 AM)
On Wednesday evening, Bill O’Reilly returned from vacation to anchor his Fox News Channel (FNC) program live to discuss the situation in Ferguson, Missouri since the death of Michael Brown on August 9. In just over an eight-minute-long “Talking Points” segment, O’Reilly addressed multiple aspects of the story, but specifically slammed MSNBC host and activist Al Sharpton as “this charlatan” who “has the nerve to insult the American police community” while only caring “about his own self-aggrandizement.”
After airing a clip of Sharpton speaking at a rally in Ferguson on Sunday in which he indirectly called out law enforcement for “smear[ing]” Brown instead of “the principles of justice and dignity,” O’Reilly grew extremely agitated: “Al Sharpton has the nerve to insult the American police community, men and women risking their lives to protect us. This charlatan has the gall to do that and NBC News is paying him. My god! Why is that acceptable?” [MP3 audio here]
Bill O'Reilly is mad as hell at Al Sharpton and how MSNBC is paying him to race bait the crowds in Ferguson MO.
Later, he emphasized the point that the officer who fatally shot Brown, Darren Wilson, “is entitled to the presumption of innocence that we all have under our constitution.” It is this tenet of the American criminal justice system that, in his opinion, is:
Something Al Sharpton will never give him because Sharpton only cares about his own self-aggrandizement and if he has to stoke racial hatred to get that, that's what Sharpton will do. I know this man. His record defines him. Yet, he has succeeded in bringing his brand of racial grievance to the White House.
In addition, O’Reilly addressed the “race hustlers” who he said have taken full advantage of this tragic incident. He declared that “[w]hat is going on in this story is beyond belief” and “[y]et these people get away with it and in certain places they are even respected.”
On the subject of the investigation of whether charges should be brought against Wilson, O’Reilly again held little back in voicing his disdain for what has transpired:
[T]o the race hustlers, Officer Wilson is already guilty. They have convicted him. There slogan is no justice, no peace. I guess that's lynch mob justice because if those people will never accept anything other than a conviction of murder in this case. They don't really care what happened. They want Officer Wilson punished and he should be punished if he murdered Michael Brown.
From the top of the show, O’Reilly told viewers that he was “[f]urious about how the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown is being reported and how various people are reacting to it.” He summarized the basic facts of the case and agreed with the federal government stepping in to oversee the investigation.
O’Reilly agreed with the decision to release surveillance footage of Brown allegedly committing a strong-armed robbery of a convenience store just before he was murdered, but lashed out at critics of this move and the news media:
You don't suppress an important piece of information in a case like this when only one side of the story is being reported by the media, which is generally terrified of any racial situation.
Further, O'Reilly reported that, according to work done by his program, only four out of the 78 people arrested on Monday night in Ferguson were actually from Ferguson. A statistic like this, he said, shows that:
Many of the others are trouble makers who just streamed into town, but the liberal media will never report that. Nor will they report the true picture of criminal justice in the U.S.A.
After praising President Obama for how he has handled the situation in Ferguson thus far, the aforementioned host of The O'Reilly Factor concluded an extended “Talking Points” memo wih this:
As you saw with the O.J. Simpson acquittal, our justice system can be very flawed, but it's all we have. It's the only thing separating us from the anarchy that Al Sharpton and others want to impose. What happened to Michael Brown should never happen to any American. What happened after his death should never happen in this country, but it is happening and only the truth will overcome the chaos.
The complete transcript from the Talking Points memo on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor on August 20 is transcribed below.
FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor
August 20, 2014
8:01:27 p.m. Eastern
O’REILLY: The truth about Ferguson. That is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. I came back from vacation because I am furious. Furious about how the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown is being reported and how various people are reacting to it. So let's run it down. Mr. Brown is a victim, shot six times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who up until August 9th, had a very good record. Now, some suspect Wilson of murder and a grand jury is hearing the case. Also, Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson, Missouri today to meet with FBI agents and state authorities who are conducting separate investigations. Good. The feds should look into this case and their investigation should be transparent. That is Americans should get hard information as it comes out, which brings us to this video of Mr. Brown stealing from a convenience store and pushing the clerk around. Agitators call the release of the video a smear against Michael Brown and his family. Further inflaming the situation, but facts are not smears and this goes to Mr. Brown's state of mind on the day he was killed. Americans have a right to know what happened leading up to the shooting. You don't suppress an important piece of information in a case like this when only one side of the story is being reported by the media, which is generally terrified of any racial situation.
Then there is the looting, disgraceful and one guy, even has a gun, alright? Shoots the lock off the door while his cohorts break in, and steal the merchandise. It doesn't get any lower than this. The people rioting and looting in Ferguson are dishonoring the memory of Michael Brown and his grieving family. They are insulting them. Again, flat out disgraceful. The Factor has been investigating those arrested. On Monday night, 78 people were taken into custody and we believe about 30 of them have criminal records. Only four, four out of the 78 are from Ferguson. Many of the others are trouble makers who just streamed into town, but the liberal media will never report that. Nor will they report the true picture of criminal justice in the U.S.A. Instead, NBC News pays Al Sharpton to deliver garbage like this.
SHARPTON: A young man 18 years old shot down in the streets unarmed and rather than you address it, you tried to smear the young man, rather than uphold the principles of justice and dignity. I want you to know these parents are not going to cry alone. They're not going to stand alone. They're not going to fight alone. We have had enough.
O’REILLY: Enough of what, Al? Enough of what? Police efficiency? In 2012, the last stats available from the FBI, there were about 12 million arrests in the U.S.A. That averages out to 34,000 arrests per day. In 99.9% of those cases, the perpetrator was not killed by police. In fact, just over 400 fatal police shootings a year are recorded in this country, according to the FBI. So, let me restate, 12 million arrests a year, 400 fatal shootings, many of them justified and Al Sharpton has the nerve to insult the American police community, men and women risking their lives to protect us. This charlatan has the gall to do that and NBC News is paying him. My god! Why is that acceptable? Also on MSNBC, another agitator said this.
MICHELLE BERNARD: There is a war on black boys in this country. In my opinion, there is a war on African-American men. It is an absolutely deplorable situation that the United States, which is supposed to be the greatest country on Earth, sits back and allows black boys to be murdered.
O’REILLY: “Black boys being murdered?” In the context of Ferguson? Are you kidding me? The truth is that 91% of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks, 91%. Yet, that woman tries to mislead folks by accusing American law enforcement of shooting down young black men in the streets. It's beyond belief. What is going on in this story is beyond belief. Yet these people get away with it and in certain places they are even respected. Incredibly, Al Sharpton is going to speak at the funeral of Michael Brown on Monday morning. The slogan the racial agitators are using in Ferguson is hands up, don't shoot. They apparently believe that Michael Brown was trying to surrender when officer Wilson shot him dead. Maybe that's true. We'll find out, but MSNBC put a person on the air who said Mr. Brown was shot in the back. That turns out to be false, according to an autopsy.
We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blow out fracture of his eye socket. The Factor has not been able to confirm that, and we do not want to try this case on television. We're only reporting the alleged injury to demonstrate that there will be much more to come in this case. That is why there is an investigation, and a grand jury and a trial process, but to the race hustlers, Officer Wilson is already guilty. They have convicted him. There slogan is no justice, no peace. I guess that's lynch mob justice because if those people will never accept anything other than a conviction of murder in this case. They don't really care what happened. They want Officer Wilson punished and he should be punished if he murdered Michael Brown. If a jury finds Wilson guilty, he should be put in prison for the rest of his life, but Officer Wilson is entitled to the presumption of innocence that we all have under our constitution. Something Al Sharpton will never give him because Sharpton only cares about his own self-aggrandizement and if he has to stoke racial hatred to get that, that's what Sharpton will do. I know this man. His record defines him. Yet, he has succeeded in bringing his brand of racial grievance to the White House.
When President Obama announced his brother's keeper's initiative I was there. Sharpton was there. Finally, the president himself. He was completely correct to call for calm in Missouri. That is his job, to lead the nation, but now, the president should step aside and allow his own Justice Department headed by Eric Holder, certainly sympathetic to Michael Brown to uncover the facts.
As you saw with the O.J. Simpson acquittal, our justice system can be very flawed, but it's all we have. It's the only thing separating us from the anarchy that Al Sharpton and others want to impose. What happened to Michael Brown should never happen to any American. What happened after his death should never happen in this country, but it is happening and only the truth will overcome the chaos. And that's the memo.
This will be the last part relating to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Administration. Parts One and Two focused on the credibility of the sources that show FDR was not quite the American hero that Democrats and Progressives would have you believe. I think I covered the New Deal as much as I want to in the post “Nefarious Presidential Actions – Calvin Coolidge to FDR”. This post will focus on Soviet Marxist infiltration of FDR’s Administration.
To give you an idea of how serious Soviet infiltration check out this 1995 article from the Baltimore Sun:
An aggressive Soviet spy network penetrated a key strategy meeting between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during World War II and tried to recruit friends of first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, according to decoded Soviet messages released yesterday by the National Security Agency.
NSA declassified 250 messages sent between Moscow and the Soviet spy headquarters in New York in 1942 and 1943.
They confirm that a number of wartime American intelligence agents were secretly working for the Kremlin.
The messages from the so-called "Venona" project document the tireless efforts of Soviet leader Josef Stalin to recruit agents across the United States and Mexico.
The cables also give a glimpse of Soviet secret police chief Lavrenti P. Beria's recruitment, payment and management of his global network of spies, including a warning sent to Soviet agents around the world against "talkativeness."
A message dated May 29, 1943, to Moscow from the NKVD unit in New York, whose agents worked under the cover of the Soviet consulate, trade mission and TASS news agency, includes a report from a high-level American agent code-named simply "19."
"19 reports that KAPITAN [the code name for President Roosevelt] and KABAN [or Wild Boar, the code name for Churchill] during conversations in the COUNTRY [code name for U.S.] invited 19 to join them," says the cable.
But from the timing, NSA historians concluded that the still-unidentified "19" was a high-level agent who had penetrated Roosevelt's inner circle and attended at least part of the two-week conference in Washington and Williamsburg, Va., code-named Trident, a major strategy meeting.
The 250 messages are the second of a series of planned releases of the cables intercepted between 1942 and 1946 and decoded and analyzed over many years under the American code name Venona.
The release of the first 49 Venona messages in July drew national attention in part because they provided strong evidence that Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were indeed Soviet spies.
The idea of Soviet infiltration is not a novel idea of Right Wing nut jobs as a Leftist might try to deceive you. We are talking the beginning of public revelations occurring in this article in 1995. Thanks to the largesse of Russia not long ago and a bit unwittingly releasing their version of the Venona Papers to the public even more insidiousness has been revealed about FDR’s Administration. Alexander Vassiliev and his Notebooks [Note on Reliability] of briefly declassified KGB documents by post-Soviet Russia verifies and even updates the revelations of the Venona Project.
The biggest fish of Soviet infiltration seems to be the code name Agent 19. The identity of Agent 19 among Conservatives exposing Soviet infiltration has turned out to be quite heated. The identity debate about Agent 19 is Harry Hopkins vs. Laurence Duggan.
I have always leaned to M. Stanton Evans as a primary source on this issue and he insists Roosevelt aide and confidante Harry Hopkins is Agent 19. Those who lean to this outlook:
Radosh caricatures West’s arguments, misrepresents her conclusions, and ignores some of the book’s major themes and the contents of a number of chapters. He exaggerates the centrality of certain claims, in order to attack them. However, he was provoked.
The problems with the book, though, have less to do with West’s treatment of the Soviet penetration of the U.S. government or its impact on “our nation’s character,” the subtitle her critics ignore, as much as with its consequences for the prosecution of World War II. Her unfamiliarity with military history leads her to overemphasize the role of Communist agents in influencing strategic decisions. She also ignores the wider context of some decisions, rides her counterfactuals too hard, and engages in some rhetorical overkill.
Both Radosh and West tend to see things in black and white. For West, Stalin’s agents were responsible for Soviet control of half of Europe for nearly 45 years. For Radosh, they had nothing to do with it. The truth, unsurprisingly, is somewhere in between.
The first thing any historian is bound to notice about American Betrayal is that it doesn’t have a “scholarly apparatus” -- acknowledgements and a bibliography -- which indicate the archives and other primary sources the author consulted, and also help identify sources in endnotes. (N.B., A bibliography has been prepared recently by a supporter of West.)
Historians are taught to check these first, before they peek at the conclusion, to see what new evidence the writer is drawing on and to whom he or she is indebted.
West does not rely entirely on secondary sources; she’s looked at volumes of FRUS [Foreign Relations of the United States] and at other government documents online, at the New York Times and other papers and magazines.
And she’s done a prodigious amount of reading, not only the post-Venona books on Soviet subversion and some diplomatic, political, and cultural history, but what would also be considered primary sources: the cornucopia of books and articles published in the ‘30s, ‘40s and early ‘50s by defectors, former communists, those investigating them, disillusioned government officials and army officers, and others with first-hand experience of the USSR and the CPUSA. This is a literature known to specialists, of course, but otherwise (except for Chambers’ Witness) forgotten today.
Unfortunately, the vivid writing sometimes creates problems. Radosh targets, correctly, the phrase “de facto occupation,” West’s characterization of Soviet penetration of the government. Nothing is repeated just once in American Betrayal. I lost count of the number of times West uses the phrase. After awhile, she drops the “de facto” fig leaf.
This is bound to irritate any historian of the Cold War.
Readers would have little sense from Radosh’s review that American Betrayal is about the cover-up, broadly defined, as much as it is about the activities of Communists and fellow travellers.
This had two phases. The first began in 1933, with the diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union in the midst of what was truly one of the crimes of the century, the war on Ukrainian and Russian peasants, the forced collectivization launched at the end of 1929. The U.S. government was obliged to lie, to pass along Soviet disinformation. It’s revealing that FDR, at Stalin’s behest, shut down the anti-Communist Eastern European section of the State Department, assigning its members to other posts and dispersing its excellent library.
The second, post-war phase persists down to the present, West argues. While today only a few unregenerate English professors deny Soviet crimes, the Leftist consensus prevails: those who investigated the CPUSA’s subversive activities were Red-baiters and witch-hunters; Party members were harmless idealists, persecuted for their high principles. Che still adorns t-shirts; Warhol’s Mao hangs in living rooms. And the film industry continues its blackout of Communist crimes. For Hollywood, there are no Soviet villains.
… Diana West is writing about a double betrayal, and the second betrayal is ultimately more important. West argues that it has corrupted the country and rendered it defenseless.
… She is “connecting the dots” in a way that blinkered historians have failed to do.
The dots lead in three directions:
The extent of subversion of the U.S. government;
The consequences for foreign policy and military strategy;
The implications for the response to Islam in the West today;
Each deserves a close look.
Was HLH also a Soviet agent?
In an essay published in 1998, Air Force historian Eduard Mark theorized, by the process of elimination, that he was “Agent 19” mentioned in Venona 812. Andrew and Mitrokhin called the article “a detailed, meticulous, and persuasive study,” but the Vassiliev papers revealed that this individual was in fact Lawrence Duggan, a State Department official. The identity of 19 was disclosed in 2009, in Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev’s Spies.
Instead of merely calling West’s attention to this (the conclusion had also been ignored in books by Romerstein and Breindel and by Evans and Romerstein), Radosh attacked West for not knowing about an alleged retraction Mark had made at a 2009 conference shortly before his death. The details of this retraction morphed alarmingly. In any case, it was not recorded and Mark put nothing in writing. The pursuit of this red herring involved lengthy email exchanges and angry recriminations.
West’s other source for identifying Hopkins as an agent was the recollection of defector Oleg Gordievsky of a lecture by Iskhak Akhmerov, “illegal” NKVD spy chief during the war. …
Radosh’s criticism is worth noting for what it reveals about his lingering affection for FDR.
Gordievsky, Andrew writes, eventually decided that Hopkins was “an unconscious agent.” This is not a helpful label. Whether he was receiving instructions or simply anticipating Stalin’s wishes, he was conscious of what he was doing. The authors’ conclusion suggests that they believe Akhmerov to have been exaggerating, but they offer no evidence to support this assumption. The identification of HLH as a Soviet agent is not something anyone would have forgotten in 40 years, or 60, or 80.
Unfortunately, West’s rhetorical excesses again act as a red flag. Repeatedly, Lend-Lease is labeled “a rogue operation.” Readers of American Betrayal would have no clue that, as the name suggests, the program was originally intended to help Britain …
Lipkes has a Part Two to the Radosh/West pertaining to the pluses and minuses of their venomous tête-à-tête between each entitled, “Diana and Ron: The Second Front”. This Lipkes Part Two is less about Soviet infiltration in the U.S. government and more about FDR Administration decisions that were bad for the Free World and beneficial for the spread of Soviet Communism.
I tend to like the idea that Harry Hopkins was an agent working on behalf of the USSR largely because ... READ THE REST at SlantRight 2.0
As a Biblical believing Christian I place all other religions in a box of shunning. As a First Amendment believing and promoting American I believe each individual has the right to worship whoever or whatever they believe. However, because I believe in Religious Freedom does not mean that I will not point that which is particularly abhorrent to the Christian faith. I definitely am not a promoter of Multicultural Diversity that dilutes my Christian cultural heritage. And so I am often labeled a bigot.
Tackling contrary religious beliefs probably would be a multi-post project of which I am already in the middle of two. Allow me to say this as briefly as I can pertaining to Islam. Islam is not only an antichrist religion that focuses on eliminating Christians and Jews their Quran deceptively call the People of the Book, that particular religion especially represents everything that is destructive to the Western Culture that has led to the best rule of law document that has become the guiding light politically leading to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – the United States Constitution. Because of this violent goal to force all humanity to submit to a man-created deity derived from a polytheistic god turning into a monotheistic religion, Mohammed the creator of Islam has set in motion a theo-political death cult that has forced its Liberty destroying upon a large chunk of the world.
The genocide going on in what’s left of Iraq under the control of ISIS (or ISIL) is what will occur whenever a purist form of Islam gains the reins of political power. The Christians and Yazidis have faced the brunt of this Islamic intolerance under ISIS. Most Americans know about Christianity. If you are anything like me, you know little to nothing about the Yazidis:
A historically misunderstood group, the Yazidis are predominantly ethnically Kurdish, and have kept alive their syncretic religion for centuries, despite many years of oppression and threatened extermination.
The ancient religion is rumoured to have been founded by an 11th century Ummayyad sheikh, and is derived from Zoroastrianism (an ancient Persian faith founded by a philosopher), Christianity and Islam. The religion has taken elements from each, ranging from baptism (Christianity) to circumcision (Islam) to reverence of fire as a manifestation from God (derived from Zoroastrianism) and yet remains distinctly non-Abrahamic. This derivative quality has often led the Yazidis to be referred to as a sect. (Who are the Yazidis and why is Isis hunting them? By Raya Jalabi; The Guardian; 8/11/14 08.46 EDT)
Knowing about the Yazidis is a bit more complicated than The Guardian synopsis. Here are a few places to get a more complete idea:
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, under the command of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is evil incarnate, and, more than a threat to Christians and America, it represents a new global threat, which was a foreseeable consequence of arming the "rebels", Al Qaeda, in Syria. Having burst forth as a product of the Syrian civil war and the U.S. premature withdrawal from Iraq on Obama's orders, ISIS now seeks to expand the area it already controls, approximately an area the size of Great Britain, through violence and terror, beheading all unlike them - liberal Muslims, Christians, and Yazidis - raping the women and murdering entire families; they are destroying all who do not accept their vision of an Islamic state, their declared Caliphate, as they give them the ultimatum of "convert or die." And now, this genocide of historic proportions demands that the U.S. and the free world exterminate the dire threat from ISIS through all the military might they can muster.
Obama, ever sympathetic to Sunni Muslims, more than likely illegally and surreptitiously armed the so-called "rebels" in Syria by late 2011 from Libya, as strong evidence suggests. Conclusive evidence from U.S. officials and Syrian figures reveals the CIA and U.S. Special Forces delivered weapons to the rebels, mostly Al Qaeda affiliates, around September 1, 2013, according to the Washington Post (9/11/13).
Many war weary Americans did not want to intervene in Syria's civil war last year, including myself, since many of us, along with many government officials, believed Bashar al-Assad could be deterred and eventually removed through better alternatives, than arming the rebels, as Senator John McCain advocated. Now the very circumstances, of which some, such as Lt Col Ralph Peters, warned and America sought to avoid, have developed, and ISIS murder and mayhem cuts a swath across the Middle East, due to Obama's unilateral actions.
Abu Bakr Baghdadi, the self-appointed Caliph of the Islamic State and a one-time prisoner at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, leads somewhere near 35,000 well-armed and trained jihadist warriors, and he has steadfastly worked to redraw the map of the Middle East. He swiftly led ISIS into Iraq around June with an army led by former Baath Party military and military intelligence from Saddam's old regime. As they closed within 25 miles of Baghdad, they suddenly veered north and took Mosul on June 10th, and its dam on August 7th, routing the Kurdish Peshmerga (regional army) and creating tens of thousands of refugees in the face of their onslaught, mostly from the Yazidi minority.
At least 40,000 Yazidis took refuge in nine locations on Mount Sinjar, as ISIS hordes advanced on the town of Sinjar the first week of August, and approximately 130,000 more have fled to Dohuk, in the Kurdish north, and Irbil, once it became obvious ISIS was heading towards them; nearly all 300,000 residents have left, since ISIS Islamofascists stormed Sinjar on August 3rd and delivered their inhuman message of "convert or die."
During an August 7th interview of Mark Arabo, a California businessman and a leader of Chaldean Catholics in America, when CNN's Jonathan Mann seemed to be in disbelief and startled by his narrative, Arabo repeated his facts slowly (numerous videos support his account): "They are systematically beheading children. The world hasn't seen evil like this for generations. There's actually a park in Mosul where the actually beheaded children and put their heads on a stick.... They are doing the most horrendous, the most heart-breaking crimes you can think of."
Also on August 7th, Obama answered the cries of many refugees, who had said "no one is coming to help", with "Well, we (the U.S.) are coming to help", as he authorized a series of bombing raids on ISIS positions and supply drops of food and water to those encircled and besieged Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar. Subsequently, 114,000 meals and 35,000 gallons of water were soon dropped by the U.S., followed by British cargo planes that dropped essential supplies and 16,000 more liters of water on August 11th.
As of August 15th (Friday), the ISIS siege was still in place and their perimeter had only withdrawn a couple of miles due to U.S. bombing, despite claims by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on August 13th that "we broke the siege at Mt. Sinjar," although Yazidi and Kurdish Peshmerga rescue teams had been able to move some civilians on August 10th to Kurdish controlled territory, near Fishkabour.
Iraqi Member of Parliament and a Yazidi, Vian Dakhil, who has been in constant contact with Yazidi leaders trapped on Mt. Sinjar, was recently injured in a helicopter crash, as she attempted to reach her people. She suggested (8/15/14) that the U.S. military assessment team visited the only side of Sinjar accessible by helicopter, the north side, leaving the real plight of nearly 80,000 more Yazidis on the south side unseen.
"We are being slaughtered, annihilated," MP Vian Dakhil declared, as reported by the Middle East Research Institute. "An entire religion is being wiped off the face of the Earth. Brothers, I am calling out to you in the name of humanity ___ In the name of humanity save us!" And she then soon broke down in tears.
The world is witnessing a genocide of Christians that promises to surpass the Turkish slaughter of two million Armenian Christians (1915-1918). One and a half million Christians present in Iraq in 2003 have now been reduced to less than 400,000, according to Ablahad Afraim, the head of the Chaldean Democratic Union Party, who based this assessment on international reports and church records; this rising genocide of Christians in the Islamic world, whether in Iraq, West Africa or South Asia ought to cause a global alarm that makes this the most significant human rights challenge of this era.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's parting message to his U.S. guards at Guantanamo Bay detention camp was a vow that "we'll see you in New York," and one of his spokesmen recently declared that ISIS will "raise the flag of Allah in the White House."
Obama is truly a pathetic commander-in-chief whose curious actions, as well as his inaction, may well allow Abu Baghdadi to rebuild the Islamic Caliphate in the Levant and a terrorist base of operations, unless PM Tony Abbott of Australia, PM Stephen Harper of Canada, PM Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and PM David Cameron of the U.K. unite to stop him, since they seem more inclined to do so than Obama. Obama seems to think a supply drop or two and a few F-18 airstrikes is enough.
Seeing what ISIS has done in Iraq, one quickly realizes they would gladly do whatever they could to deeply injure America again, and ISIS represents a direct threat to the U.S. and humanity. This is genocide pure and simple. America sees it and knows it as genocide, and as such, it is imperative that the U.S. and the world take vigorous military action against ISIS and all possible measures to prevent this massacre of minorities in Iraq. And with more than vigilance and 130 advisors, the U.S. and its allies should send 130 bombers and 130,000 soldiers to run ISIS into the ground, utterly destroy them and kill them mercilessly with extreme prejudice, just as they did entire Christian communities.
Shamim writes about the incredulous hypocrisy of Pakistan’s school system especially as it affects religious minorities and worse – the girls of those minorities. I believe I found a decent website that explains how education works in Pakistan. The information was put together by a Pakistani whose name is Umbreen Sabir Mian. I find it fortunate he put together the data in English. Mian’s website info is based on a presentation he put together in 2011. Here are some excerpts that will provide a framework for Shamim’s report:
The educational system of Pakistan is among the least-developed in the world. The system was based on the British colonial educational system, which lasted until 1947. In that year, Pakistan gained independence as a result of the partition of the Indian subcontinent into the states of India and Pakistan. The colonial system was elitist; it was meant to educate a small portion of the population to run the government. Despite changes since independence, the Pakistani educational system has retained its colonial elitist character, a factor preventing the eradication of illiteracy.
There are 3 main sectors of education system in Pakistan.
The provincial Education Departments are headed by their respective Provincial Education Ministers. The civil servant in charge of the department is the Provincial Education Secretary. The provinces are further divided into districts for the purpose of administration. The head of the Education Department in a district is Executive District Officer (EDO). Literacy Department functions separately in case of Punjab and Sindh only it is headed by Executive District Officer (EDO) literacy. In the Provinces of NWFP and Balochistan, literacy is the part of Education Department. The hierarchy then runs down to the District Education Officer, Sub-district Education Officer, Supervisors or Assistant Sub-district Education Officers.
At the grass root level (the union council level), Learning Coordinators (LCs) provide academic guidance as well as supervise the schools. The administrative structure has been decentralized under the Devolution Plan. Village Education Committees (VECs)/ School Management Committees (SMCs) have been set up in the provinces at grass root level.
Despite the intentions of the Pakistani government, the educational system has failed to eradicate illiteracy in the post-independence era. It has also failed to train an adequate number of professionals to meet the needs of the country in different fields, which has been a major hindrance to the nation's economic development. …
… The government privatized the schools nationalized in the 1970s. It also reversed the process of promoting Urdu as the language of education and encouraged a return to English language in the elite private schools. Finally, the government emphasized Pakistani studies and Islamic studies as two major fields in the curriculum. This was a shift from colonial education's emphasis on British history and English culture and literature.
The government of Pakistan recognized that education is the basic right of every citizen; therefore, access to education for every citizen is crucial for economic development and for poverty alleviation. …
… The targeted groups for EFA goals belong to disadvantaged communities with minimal opportunities. These groups are highly vulnerable, without access to learning facilities, or public sector facilities, which are functioning at sub-optimal levels.
The Pakistani educational system has demonstrated a discriminatory trend against women. This bias is evident in the pattern of literacy, which shows a strong correlation between gender and literacy rates. …
Despite all shortcomings of private education mentioned above, PIHS survey indicates that enrolment rates in public schools have declined since 1995-96 particularly a large decline has been observed in rural areas. It is generally perceived by parents that quality of education in private schools are better than the public schools, therefore, those parents who can afford prefer to send their children to private schools. These trends indicate that the public education system is unable to meet public demand for providing quality education in the country. (Education system of Pakistan; Pakistan – Higher Education System)
I realize this was a quite lengthy intro to Shamim Masih’s report on the lack of education opportunities for Pakistani Christians. Many might even feel this is superfluous info and as such unneeded. The Pakistani who put the data together not unsurprisingly failed to mention anything about religious minority discrimination let alone Christian discrimination.
Actually the treatment of Christians in Pakistan is symptomatic of all Christians throughout the entire Muslim world. So read and become enlightened to what the Western World has been sticking their heads in the sand for quite some time. AND PLEASE SUPPORT SHAMIM MASIH WITH YOUR GENEROSITY.**
ISLAMABAD: When Church bells are ringing and you hear worship songs all around your surroundings on Sunday services, it sounds good. But it is only possible in a Christian country not in Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In Pakistan, on Friday, you will find that people block the roads for Friday prayer near and around the mosques. Although it is said that mosque is not for prayer but a base for recruiting Muslim youths to engage in terrorist activities. It sounds that Pakistan has become the hub to control religious extremism and discrimination.
On the other hand, religious minorities have been targeted; colonies, villages were being burned, accused in false cases of blasphemy, victims of intimidation, forced marriages, and force conversions is seen in this country. New church buildings are restricted unconstitutional, and you cannot arrange religious gathering at your homes even. During the last few weeks; we started Sunday service at our home but our landlord asked me to stop this service because we live in Muslims’ surroundings. According to the report, the greatest levels of social hostilities toward religion felt in Pakistan. Social hostilities include armed conflict, terrorism, sectarian violence, harassment, intimidation or abuse motivated by religious factors. Harassment against Christians has been increased in the recent decade.
Government has imposed unannounced restrictions on religious minorities’ which include political restrictions, limit preaching, and construction of the new church buildings. On the other hand when a Christian is accused of blasphemy, the people of a neighborhood gather to punish the accused, burning him alive or lynching him. The police and the government have never punished such acts.
Education is basic right of every child and [the] state is responsible to provide basic rights to every citizen. Ninety percent of the Christian girls remain uneducated and indulged in household jobs. They are being sexually harassed and then being forced to convert to Islam. If girls from the minority go to school they face discrimination. They are not only forced to study Islamic studies but forced to do manual jobs like cleaning in the schools while other girls remain in the class rooms. Iffat Nasim, headmistress of the Government Khadija Girls High School in Rawalpindi, is reportedly involved in extra-educational activities by indulging the Christian students in cleaning/washing classrooms, toilets, verandas/corridors for hours and preparing burgers/buns from Muslim students for earning money for her.
Parents of the different Christian students submitted an application to the District [Executive] Education Officer (EDO) Qazi Zahoor ul Haq. He conducted an inquiry but it was not in letter and spirit, rather [it was] swept under the carpet. Parents provided rotated clips and pictures even then no prompt action is being taken. The above mentioned activity not only depicts her interest in education, but also shows her discriminatory attitude towards the Christian community. This is not the end; discrimination against religious minorities is seen in every walk of life in Pakistan.
Request: I want to make a documentary on the plight of the Christian women in Pakistan, please support me, if you can. **
[**Blog Editor: The information enabling you to support and/or donate to Shamim Masih is below.]
Editor:For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone - +92-300-642-4560
FOR USD TRANSFER. Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, NEW YORK
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQUS33
Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 70008227
Title Of a/c Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number: 405527
Top of Form
IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227
FOR GBP TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 00010855
Title Of a/c Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number: 405527
IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227
FOR EURO TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 10847
Title Of a/c Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number: 405527
IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227 Bottom of Form
Of course before entering politics in 2010, West was a Lieutenant Colonel in U.S. Army fighting Islamic terrorists in Iraq. West was a decorated Army hero treated shabbily and unjustly by the U.S. Army largely due to a Left Wing cancerous disease of political correctness.
The short version of an incident that then Lt. Col. West became directly involved with was some enhanced interrogation of a captured Islamic terrorist that was proven had knowledge of an assassination attempt on West and an ambush against his soldiers. West was essentially drummed out of the Army for this enhanced interrogation technique that led to the capture of terrorist insurgents sparing the lives of his soldiers from that plan.
Here is the long version courtesy of FrontPageMag.com in a write-up of the online news service’s 2004 Man of the Year:
… He knew only too well of the terrorist attacks carried out by Saddam loyalists and recently arrived jihadist fanatics, claiming an average of one U.S. soldier’s life each day. With a firm commitment to protect his soldiers’ well-being, he determined to keep his troops safe.
In late August, Colonel West received news that his men had been targeted by a group of thugs associated with an Iraqi policeman named Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi. Allied forces quickly apprehended Hamoodi in Saba al Boor, a tiny town near Tikrit. Four interrogation specialists worked late into the evening of August 20, desperately trying to pry the attack plans out of him. Growing frustrated, the interrogators resorted to physical force, punching Hamoodi – without success. (Hamoodi was not seriously injured at any point during the interrogation.) It was then that Col. Allen West intervened.
Seeing that even physical violence had proven ineffective, Colonel West took the next logical step: He took the intransigent suspect outside, shoved Hamoodi’s head into a sandbox and threatened to kill him. The Colonel then pulled out his sidearm and fired a warning shot into the sky. Then West carefully held Hamoodi’s head aside as he fired a shot over Hamoodi’s shoulder, into the warm Iraqi sand burying his visage.
That near-scrape with death did the trick. Hamoodi began singing, telling West the identities of two men planning the attacks and revealing their attack plans, including the site of the intended ambush. The two men were arrested, and Colonel West ordered his men away from the site as they continued to serve the liberated Iraqi people. Upon turning Hamoodi over, he admitted his unorthodox tactics. For protecting the 700 soldiers in his care and cracking Hamoodi where professional interrogators had failed, Colonel West was immediately stripped of his command and threatened with jail time.
On December 11, West escaped court martial. Major General Raymond Odierno ordered West to pay a $5,000 fine and allowed him to retire as a Lieutenant Colonel. The ordeal caused by his desire to save his troops a violent death in a desert land had finally ended. He was free to return to Ft. Hood, Texas, to his wife Angela, with his reputation essentially cleared.
I had entered into hero worship of Allen West before he entered politics of his heroic actions to protect his troops and hunt down Islamic terrorists. Did I say “hero worship”? Well, get over it if you are a Leftist.
So anyway I am a supporter of Allen West because I trust his decisions and his patriotism. Recently West called President Obama an Islamist because of his presidential decisions that tend to favor the Muslim world’s narrative about America and Israel.
I am going to cross post that article below, but before I do I feel the need to qualify West’s strong words describing President Barack Hussein Obama.
There will be Leftists and those that favor a counterjihad approach to exposing Islam that will read something into the “Islamist” label that West did not mean. The Left will call West an Islamophobe bigot and counterjihad amateurs will jump in glee for exposing BHO as a closet Muslim.
Allen West did not call President Obama a Muslim. West affirmed that Obama’s actions shows all the evidence of Islamist enemies of America hence West called the President an Islamist.
Personally I am convinced Obama is a largely irreligious Leftist that has embraced the political strategy of using radical Islam as a tool to accomplish a Leftist agenda which would produce the Leftist utopia government control of people, their customs and their societal life.
Below is Matthew Burke’s news piece posted on TPNN bi-lined with Allen West calling Obama an Islamist.
Former congressman, Lt. Col. Allen West proclaimed on Wednesday that there is only one true explanation that Obama is “purposely enabling the Islamist cause.”
West, a favorite among many in the pro-freedom, pro-Constitution Tea Party movement, listed six instances where the Obama regime has been “working counter to the security of the United States of America”:
1. The unilateral release of five senior Taliban back to the enemy while the enemy is still fighting us.
2. Providing weapons of support to the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government — F-16s and M1A1 Abrams tanks — but not to the Egyptian government after the Islamist group has been removed.
3. Negotiations with Qatar and Turkey, two Islamist-supporting countries.
4. Negotiations with Hamas, a terrorist group.
5. Returning sanction money, to the tune of billions of dollars, back to the theocratic regime led by Iran’s ayatollahs and allowing them to march on towards nuclear capability.
6. Obama’s evident support of Islamists in Libya.
Along with the above, West cited the recent report that Obama has lifted longtime restrictions against Libyans attending flight schools and receiving nuclear science training in the U.S, only two years after the terrorism that took place in Benghazi, Libya.
There is only one logical reason for the Democrat president to make these anti-American decisions, West concluded Wednesday on his website, that there is no other reason why Obama would prop-up America’s enemies:
Sorry, but I can only explain this one way: Barack Hussein Obama is an Islamist in his foreign policy perspectives and supports their cause. You can go back and listen to his 2009 speech in Cairo, where Muslim Brotherhood associates were seated front and center.
All the circumstantial and anecdotal evidence points to that conclusion. The pivot away from the Middle East seems to be nothing more than an opportunity to enable Islamists and their goals. Anyone supporting this Libyan ban being lifted is indeed an enemy of this state.
Barack Obama’s longtime pastor for over two decades, Jeremiah Wright, told author Ed Klein two years ago that “Barack Obama was steeped in Islam” and that he “knew very little about Christianity.”
“When I asked the Reverend Wright about this whole question of Islam and Christianity. He said, well, you know, Barack Obama was steeped in Islam. He knew a lot about Islam from his childhood. But he knew very little about Christianity. And I made it easy for him to feel not guilty about learning about Christianity without turning his back on his Islamic friends.”
I have been having a discussion with a commenter on my NCCR blog. I had posted that discussion in portion under the title, “So who’s Full of Baloney?” As you can expect that discussion has continued in the comment section at the NCCR blog. We have both entered the realm of antagonism once in a while but for the most part the discussion has been civil. I have always assumed Bryan the commenter was a Leftist due to his way Left of Center defense. In his last comment he said he was neither a Leftist nor a Right Winger but read info and made his own decisions. I will probably get into trouble by trying to find a place on the political spectrum for a guy that puts up a stiff defense for Left Wing principle yet considers himself neither Left nor Right on that spectrum. So I won’t.
Anyway, Bryan posted a rather lengthy comment to a comment I made knocking a previous Bryan comment. Bryan’s most recent comment is an impressive evenhanded response to my comment. I am going to do you – the reader – a small disservice by not posting Bryan’s last comment. Bryan’s comment was posted on August 5th so I am a bit behind the curve in actually responding. As you read my most recent response you may feel the need to go to Bryan’s comment to read exactly what I am responding to. HERE is the link to Bryan’s most recent comment as of this post if you choose to read.
Thus begins my response:
Bryan I appreciate the civility of this last comment. The only thing I can get behind 100% is the concept of the Free Choice and the 1st Amendment. As you can guess there are some nuances that I can never agree with.
Leftists, Atheists and perhaps centrists that interpret the 1st Amendment as the Freedom from religion in the sense of Christian Morality is flawed. And you can realize why from our exchanges. On the other hand I absolutely support one practicing any faith that does not run contrary to the American-style of the rule of law and I absolutely support a non-religious life if so chosen. What I cannot support is for Leftists, Atheists, Centrists or non-Christian faiths forcing the practice of Christianity out of the public forum. That was never the Original Intent of the Constitution. Rather the Original Intent was to make the rule of Law to not force anyone practice a particular form of Christianity and I'll accept by extension to not force anyone to practice any form of religion or atheism. However, unconstitutional Separation of Church and State enthusiasts force Christians NOT to practice their faith quite forcefully under the false that practicing faith forces the non-faithful to practice a religion or ideology that is against another's faith or lack thereof.
The Original Intent of the First Amendment was to offer anyone to practice their faith even in a public forum without restrictions than with restrictive prohibitions. The government is not endorsing any religion because the public forum allows one to freely practice like-minded religious principles. After all there is a certain universality on the foundations of Christian between all the Denominations of Protestants (incidentally the Original thinking of the Founding Fathers), Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite Christianity. Hence a prayer by a football team or a city council will probably have more broad agreement than hostile disagreement. If an atheist chooses not to pray - so be it. If a non-Christian in attendance wishes to pray according their own faith - so be it. Don't force a culture in which Christians cannot pray just because taxpayer money might be paying for a Public School Football team or Field or pays for the meeting room of a City Council et al. That is breaking religious freedom more than the fallacy of allowing prayer establishes a national Church. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national Church (Original Intent) and by extension any national religion.
The case for or against abortion is argued as a woman's free choice with their own body or against the personal life of the unborn baby in a woman's womb. For a Biblical Christian calling an unborn baby a body extension with philosophically sanitized word of "fetus" is just smoke and mirrors to people of faith.
The increasing (and unfortunate) success of homosexual activists changing the minds of a huge chunk of American voters does not make the homosexual lifestyle any more acceptable to Biblical Christians. Yet homosexual activists have successfully used the legal system to force Biblical Christians to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, restricted Biblical Christian clubs or associations in Public Schools or Public Colleges from forming while allowing homosexual clubs and associations to prosper. This is a restriction of 1st Amendment religious freedom to accommodate a fairly recent acceptance of homosexuality. Indeed a Biblical Christian is now vilified as a bigot for demanding their religious freedom on a campus while a homosexual club or association gleefully mocks the Biblical Christians because they are restricted and the homosexuals freely practice a lifestyle Biblical Christians find abhorrent.
The one complaint you have that indicts me is my attitude toward Islam. I have a huge problem with Islam as a religion and Muslims that support Salafist (i.e. purest) Islam or even Muslims that might consider themselves moderate yet support Islamic terrorist like Hamas that are dedicated to killing Jews, Christians and Americans. I actually sway back and forth between Dajjal’s solution for Muslims who hate and the Christian principles of forgiveness and mercy. It depends on the Muslim atrocity, the Muslim self-justification or the Muslim lie of the day versus how much time I have spent in meditation in the Holy Scriptures. This inner struggle between ending Muslim hate and the patience of Jesus is constant. Perhaps you can be the conscience of the day once in a while that isn’t quite antagonistic.
Bryan I am certain I probably did not respond to all your concerns but I have run out of gas. I think you get the idea of my frustration with Leftist, Atheist and Centrist complainers of the practice of Free Market principles and Biblical Christianity. I am also certain your principles are no more tolerant of my Biblical Christian Conservative ideology than I would be with yours.
This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.