Regarding the Michael Brown case

RegardingTheMichaelBrownCase   <– PDF version

Mr. Michael Brown was shot to death by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson on the afternoon of Saturday, 9 Aug 2014.  Some of the details that have become public knowledge include:

a. Wilson first “contacted” Mr. Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson while they were walking in the street.

b. There was some sort of confrontation between Brown and Wilson, part of which occurred inside Wilson’s patrol car.

c. At least one shot was fired inside the car.

d. Brown was shot at least six times and died at the scene.

e. Johnson was never shot at, nor injured in the incident, nor was he subsequently arrested.

There are two conflicting narratives as to the sequence of events.  Both versions agree that there was a confrontation inside the patrol car, but differ as to the cause.  Some claim Wilson pulled Brown in, or slammed a door on Brown provoking an attack by Brown. Wilson’s version is that Brown simply attacked him while Wilson was still in the car and the shot was fired while Brown was trying to take Wilson’s gun.  The second area of dispute is whether Mr. Brown was shot in the back as he tried to run away, or was shot from the front as he tried to surrender to Wilson with his hands up; or had initially tried to run, but then turned and charged Wilson.  Mr. Johnson has claimed Brown was trying to surrender and Wilson has claimed Brown was charging him.  There were several eyewitnesses to the incident besides Wilson and Johnson; some corroborate Wilson’s version and other’s defending Johnson’s version.  There have been three autopsies on Brown’s body, but none of them (as far as we know) are conclusive as to whether Brown was shot from the front or back.

Because Brown is black and Wilson is white, naturally the shooting attracted the attention of outside race-baiters and agitators, resulting in a prolonged period of nightly looting and rioting near the scene.  Federal race-baiters including Attorney General Eric “Justice is political” Holder and President Barack “I lied, period” Obama also commented on the case, as usual without any knowledge thereof.  The Ferguson police department handed control of security to the St. Louis County police department, but failing in their efforts, the National Guard was called in by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.  The rioting and demonstrations finally ended when a grand jury was convened on 20 Aug to investigate the incident and make a determination as to whether Wilson should be charged with a crime.  At this writing, the grand jury has not issued its findings, although it is expected shortly.

There are some other peculiarities in this case.  First, Mr. Johnson admitted in the week after the shooting that he and Mr. Brown were in fact involved in a robbery (caught on videotape) of a local convenience store minutes before the confrontation with Wilson.  It is not clear (as there is conflicting evidence) if Officer Wilson was aware of the robbery or the description of the men.  So, we do not know yet whether the contact between Wilson and Brown/Johnson was precipitated because they were suspects in the robbery, or if it was because they were walking in the street.  Secondly, Officer Wilson’s identity was not released until 11 Aug, ostensibly in the interest of his and the public’s safety.

One of the disturbing things about this case is that Wilson was treated differently than any other person.  If Wilson had been a regular citizen, even with the chain of events as he described them, he would have been immediately arrested and charged with capital murder and his identity released.  But because Wilson is a government employee, his identity was kept secret until practically forced from the Department, and he was merely placed on paid administrative leave pending a grand jury investigation.  This is probably the greatest long-term facet of this case: the extent to which government employees are given preferential treatment compared to non-government employees involved in similar incidents.  If we are to preserve liberty, it is essential that all come under the same law, government and non-government alike.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Islamic State Practices True Islam

The Islamic State Practices True Islam  <– PDF version

We have all heard of the atrocities currently being committed by the Islamic State (IS), also called the Islamic State in Iraq (ISIS) — starving of children, mass murders, forcing people into the wilderness by the thousands, summary executions of enemy soldiers, public beheadings of Arab children and Western journalists, etc.  IS has demanded that all within the territory they control who are not with them is against them.  Their demands are simple: convert, pay tribute to IS, or be killed.  President Barack “I lied, period” Obama has responded by authorizing a limited series of airstrikes against ISIS, motivated mostly by public opinion than coherent policy.  Allegedly, the U. S. is being assisted by a few Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan) in conducting these air missions.  The military experts inform us that this is neither a rational nor a victory-oriented strategy, but never mind that, Mr. Obama can now convincingly emulate President George W. Bush as a warrior upon “radical Islam”.  Both presidents have said that they believe Islam is a religion of peace, and that no true religion would conduct itself the way IS has done.  They are both wrong: Islam is the religion of peace only when they are in a tiny minority; as soon as they become a large minority or a majority, the true nature of Islam comes out: to spread the faith by force.

As proof, we need look no further than the policy of Abu Bekr, the first elected Caliph after the death of the Prophet Mohammed; he served as Caliph from the death of Mohammed in 632 until his assassination by poisoning in 634.  Abu Bekr was the father of Mohammed’s favorite wife, and was elected over Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali and an early dutiful convert, Omar.  The historian Henry Coppee has furnished us with the transition from Mohammed to Abu Bekr [1]:

“The venerable chief entered at once and with ardor upon the plans proposed by Mohammed.  He summoned the nation to arms, and after some desultory, or rather experimental efforts, he dispatched a large force to wrest Syria from the weak grasp of Heraclius.  His troops were full of ardor; the new war which was undertaken to propagate the faith would also enrich the faithful, by securing, as a result of victory, the costly spoils of the Lower Empire, of which the marvelous accounts hardly exceeded the marvelous reality.”

He followed the dictates of the Koran as laid out by the Prophet Mohammed [2]:

“If you be slain or die in defense of the religion of God, verily, pardon from God and mercy are better that what they heap together of worldly riches; and if you die or be slain, verily, unto God you shall be gathered.”

Here are Abu Bekr’s instructions to the army [3]:

“If God should give you the victory, do not abuse your advantages; and beware how you stain your swords in the blood of him who yields; neither touch the children, the women, or the infirm old men, that you may find among your enemies.  In your progress through the enemy’s lands, cut down no palms, or fruit trees, destroy not the products of the earth; ravage no fields; burn no dwellings; from the stores of your enemy, take only what you need for your own wants.  Let no destruction be made without necessity, but occupy the cities of the enemy, and if there be any that may serve as an asylum to your adversaries, them do you destroy.  Treat the prisoner, and him who renders himself to your mercy, with pity, as God shall do to you in your need, but trample down the proud and rebellious; nor fail to crush all who have broken the conditions imposed on them.  Let there be no perfidy or falsehood in your treaties with your enemies; be faithful in all things, proving yourselves upright and noble, and maintaining your word and promise truly.  Do not disturb the quiet of the monk or hermit, and destroy not their abodes, but inflict the rigors of death on all who shall refuse the conditions you would impose on them.”

What were these conditions?  Very simple, identical to what the new IS has proclaimed: “convert to Islam, pay tribute, or die by the sword.”

The new Islamic State, led by Abu Bekr al-Baghdadi (pseudonym or coincidence?), is in fact practicing the true form of Islam and spreading it in the way authorized by Mohammed and the successor caliphs.  This explains why every nation with a large Islamic population requires a government of tyranny and dictatorship: first, individual freedom is prohibited by Islam; and secondly, without a government of absolute powers, the nation would degenerate into perpetual chaos.  It is exactly as we have seen in Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Iraq in recent years as soon as the secular dictators and absolute monarchs were overthrown or challenged.  It is a way of life in the weakly-governed Islamic portions of the Philippines, Sudan, and Somalia.  Why would our government try to deceive us into believing that Islam is a “religion of peace”?  Are they naive and gullible, or something worse?

[1]  Henry Coppee, The History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, Vol. 1, p. 44,  Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1881

[2]  The Koran, chap. 3.

[3]  ibid., Coppee, Vol. 1, pp. 46, 47

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in terrorism, war powers | No Comments »

A View of the Islamic State

A View Of The Islamic State  <– PDF version

The Islamic State (IS), formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), formerly known as an offshoot of Mr. bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization, continues to demonstrate that they are incapable of any semblance of civilized conduct in either peace or war.   It has thus far conquered and controls an area bridging both Syria and Iraq encompassing about 12,000 sq. miles, more or less.  It has seized military equipment from the Iraqi army (which fled the scene); this is the same U.S. equipment left behind after the Iraq war, supposedly for Iraqi self-defense.  It has captured and then summarily executed numerous Syrian army personnel.  It has beheaded an American journalist, James Foley, and displayed the video on the internet.  It has forced many thousands of people which adhere to Christianity and the Yazid religion from their homes under pain of “conversion to Islam or death”.   Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi, (formerly a resident of the Guantanamo Bay prison) has claimed that IS intends to establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, and that the organization’s symbolic black flag will one day fly over the White House.  Some American commentators have suggested that IS constitutes an “existential threat” to the U.S. and must be defeated, preferably with a coalition, but by the U. S. alone if necessary.  That would require land forces in both Syria and Iraq, something the American people are not prepared to support.  President Barack “I lied, period” Obama, leading with his behind as usual, has ordered a series of minor air strikes against IS forces scattered in Iraq, but recently admitted he has no strategy to deal with IS in general.

If the dictionary definition of words matters anymore, I am doubtful the IS could actually conquer America.  It could launch some internal attacks, disrupt some segments of the economy temporarily, and put a scare into the weak-minded.  Those attacks would encourage any Islamic jihad sympathizers already here, and may cause a rush of more such supporters over our non-existent southern border.  Naturally the American politicians would use those attacks to justify further encroachments upon the liberties of Americans, as they did after the 11 Sep 2001 attacks.  This last characteristic is the true threat from IS.

However, IS may well constitute an existential threat to some nations in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Lebanon, and of course, the ultimate prize, Israel.  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has addressed the threat posed by the IS, stating [1]:

“If we ignore them [IS], I am sure they will reach Europe in a month andAmericain another month.  … You see how they carry out beheadings and make children show the severed heads in the street.  …  It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to so.  I ask you to transmit this message to your leaders: ‘Fight terrorism with force, reason, and (necessary) speed.’ “

Fine speech, Your Majesty, fine speech indeed.  So, Your Majesty, tell us dumb Yankees how many divisions of heavy armor, how many infantry divisions, and how many squadrons of fighters and bombers has the mighty kingdom of Saudi Arabia committed to fighting IS?  None.  How many divisions and squadrons have been committed to fighting IS by the other nations at risk mentioned above?  Zero.  There won’t be any, not now, and not ever.  How many of the principal clerics of the above Moslem nations have issued a fatwa against IS?  None; they never have and they never will.  Why is that?

There are two reasons.  First, IS is what you get when Islam, the “religion of peace”, is no longer constrained by secular dictators or tyrannical monarchs.  Since the above named nations are devoted to Islam, they probably support the goal of IS, but would like to avoid being its victims.  King Abdullah conveniently forgot to mention that the official religion of his nation, the Wahabbi (Salafi) form of Sunni Islam, is the ideological force behind IS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadists worldwide.  What they really want is a kinder, gentler IS, chastened by limited American force, that will share power with the existing entrenched monarchs and dictators.  Second, the above-named nations have grown comfortable from the proceeds of the oilfields, and desire the Europeans and dumb Yankees to do their fighting for them in order to protect their delicate sensibilities.  In this way the Saudis and other Moslem nations can share in the global expansion of radical Islam with its attendant wealth, power, and underage girls without giving even the appearance of opposition to their Moslem brethren.  We shall see if Mr. Obama will take the bait.

[1]  “Saudi king warns West will jihadists next target”, 30 Aug 14,  http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-king-warns-west-jihadists-next-target-093701543.html

 

 

 

Tags:
Posted in Bill of Rights, government powers, war powers | No Comments »

On Richard Nixon

OnRichardNixon   <– PDF version

It was 40 years ago this week (9 Aug 1974) that Republican President Richard M. “I am not a crook” Nixon resigned his office because he was discovered to be a crook.  He had willingly and knowingly covered up a burglary of the Democratic Party offices at the Watergate office building in Washington, committed by his supporters, some of whom worked in his campaign or his administration.  Nixon had waged a long internal battle to save himself from disgrace, but in the end the facts came out about his knowledge of the burglary and his abuse of power in covering it up.  We will probably never know if the burglary itself was his idea.  Many people in his own Republican party, understanding enough about history to know that honest government is always preferable to raw power, assisted in Nixon’s decline.  Nixon himself knew by then that he was about to be impeached, and would probably be removed from office, so he resigned in order to prevent a drawn-out political turmoil to the exclusion of other important issues (the Vietnam War being one of them).

So Nixon said good-bye and retired with full benefits to his mansion in San Clemente.  He was subsequently given a full pardon by his successor, President Gerald R. Ford, ostensibly to avoid seeing his old buddy have to stand trial for abuse of power and other crimes.  It was the worst mistake Ford ever made because it set the precedent by which future Presidents knew they could get away with anything.

Nixon was a crook.  He knew he was a crook, everyone else knew he was a crook, there was no means left by which he could talk his way out of it, and few in Congress or the courts were willing to tolerate any more of his corruption.  But let’s give old Tricky Dick some credit here: at least he retained some semblance of integrity such that deep down, he recognized that the American people deserved better than him.  Therefore, he did what was right by resigning.

We do not have that sentiment in politics any more.  The respective political parties have become so ideologically motivated towards the acquisition of power by any means that they will defend their crooks no matter what.  There is no limit to the crimes and abuses of power that will be tolerated so long as they expand their powers and associated privileges.  We have suffered with recent Democratic President William J. Clinton who even now cracks a smile whenever he is reminded of the massacre at Waco, the IRS targeting of his enemies, and the undermining of American elections with Chinese money (not to mention his personal victims).  Our current Democratic President, Barack H. Obama, regarded as the messiah by some of his supporters, has violated his oath of limited powers per the Constitution too many times to count, has once more encouraged and tolerated IRS abuse of his political enemies, and has implemented socialism at home and weakness abroad.

Unlike Nixon, who believed the American people deserved better, these two moral midgets believe the American people are not good enough for them.  I suspect the Republicans are no better.  So it will continue until “we the people” start demanding better, and start ignoring the slick political advertising extolling the alleged virtues of those who love power for its own sake.  In that spirit, I have three recommendations for elections:

1.  Regard every word by every candidate as being submitted to you, the citizen, as under penalty of perjury.

2.  Never vote for anyone who has committed perjury per #1.

3.  Only vote for those who have demonstrated a willingness to limit themselves to the enumerated powers granted to their offices under the appropriate local charters or state and federal constitutions.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Congress, elections, government powers, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »