Is President Obama a Sunni?

Why is President Obama  so intent on destabilizing the Middle East (and Libya) while  fighting along side the extremist  Sunnis? So far he as destabilized Libya, now in controlled by al Qaeda, destabilized Egypt were the President stood up for the Sunni extremist Muslim Brotherhood and now all that's needed for the Sunni Caliphate is the capitulation of Syria. The US assault on Syria is an interesting campaign of retribution, propaganda and the US unholy alliance with (Sunni) Saudi Arabia.  A year ago President Obama  armed and trained (Sunnis) al Qaeda fighters, calling them Syrian Rebel  fighters; known today as  ISIS or the Islamic State. Prior to the Syrian assault, the US and Saudi Arabia consistently blames Syria for allowing terrorists training camps. This was quite the absurdity   as Saudi Arabia probably funds over 90% of the radical Sunni terrorists in the middle East (9 out of 15 of the hijackers on 9/11/2001 were citizens of Saudi Arabia).

When chemical weapons were used on civilians and Syrian soldiers during this assault on Syria, the US was quick to blame it on Assad; with some very questionable evidence and reasoning. However is was thought almost from the beginning that the use of poison gas would only benefit the Syrian Rebels; it was confirmed later by a UN investigation that radical Sunni jihadists in the Syrian Rebel army had gassed their own people in  an agent provocateur act to create international condemnation of Assad. Then there is the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of U.S. ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. While it was strategically a US disaster, there is also evidence from numerous sources that confiscated Libyan weapons were being stored in Benghazi by the CIA (there were 31 CIA agents in Benghazi at the time the US embassy was attacked) to arm the Syrian Rebels The Real Benghazi Story ;

It appears the attack occurred when a local al Qaeda wanted the guns for themselves and swarmed the embassy and annex building and seized the weaponry; this is the reason there was so much misdirection form from the White House, trying to create an alternate explanation. When the US followed the Russian lead, ending the assault on Syria, to allow Assad to turn over his chemical arsenal, Saudi Arabia was furious as Obama had promised to remove Assad. The plan now, as I understand is the US is going to arm the Syrian Rebel fighters (of which over 90% are now loyal to ISIS) to fight ISIS?? Only if the endgame is to bring down the Syrian regime does this make any sense. Of course Syria has it's friends like Russia and Iran that may take exception to such an endgame. For right now Assad has been told not to fire on US fighter planes as they are not to attack Syria; for now.   

Six Years Later; Did Bush Crash the Economy?

Over and over the blame Bush Liberals repeatedly excuse Obama for not taking ownership of the economy or even his own policies. You still hear that Clinton handed Bush deficit free economy and Bush's policies crashed the economy (granted after 7 years of relative prosperity). But again he need to go back to the Clinton years to understand the 2008 economic meltdown was years in the making.

The seeds of the great recession were sewn during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the Glass Stegal Act was repealed; the same year Fanny Mae under the control of CEO Franklin Rains (previously the Chairman of the US Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton) launches the American Dream Commitment (ADC) with a stated goal of pledging $2 trillion dollars to increase home ownership for 18 million American families.. At this time Fannie Mae was easing credit requirements for home mortgages loans in response to increasing pressure from congress. The largest mortgage house that pushed these sub prime loans was Countrywide, at the behest of Democrat Senator Chris Dodd. Barney Frank was the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee from 2003 until his retirement, and he served as committee chairman when his party held a House majority from 2007 to 2011. The end result was the housing market collapsed because the borrowers of the sub-prime mortgages defaulted on their loans.

While conservatives do believe in reducing regulations, they also believes in fiscal responsibility; no fiscally response congress would pressure the housing market to give homes away; it was surely put in place by the Democrats and Franklin Rains cooked the books of Fanny Mae; Raines resigned in Dec 2004 when his numbers weren't adding up, it was determined he misstated over $6 billion in profits adding about $90 million to his bonuses. When it was discovered that home sales were significantly below what Raines had claimed, the result was congressional pressure to catch up, championed by Barney Frank.

As far as Clinton's balanced budgets, you have to remember first that the military was being down sized after Desert Storm and he spent immediately spent the entire projected peace dividend; he also used the Social Security surplus ($2.6 trillion that had accumulated the prior 10 years) to pay down the national dept (borrowed money that is just being returned now), Also due to his taxes on the rich, the US trade deficit plummeted and middle class debt skyrocketed The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton ; so once again a Democrat makes the middle class pay. Then Bush had to ramp up the military as a response to 9/11 adding back the money that Clinton used to balance his budgets. So yes, Clinton had a balanced budget, but he raided the cookie jar to do so, leaving Bush 43 holding the bag.

As far as Democrats and better Economic growth, economists have never been able to show that it is a result of Democrat polices. A recent study from Princeton is explained, "Blinder and Watson have shown that the president has little effect on the economy. Economic performance is determined by factors that are largely outside the control of public policy, or at least the kind of policy that is directly controlled by the Commander in Chief. Explaining the mystery of fast economic growth under Democratic presidents"; More than anything else it boils down to economic trends that are out of the Presidents control; "Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy." There is also a Technology benefit, again out of the hands of the President; "The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration.

Why Justice for Michael Brown? and 20/20 Hindsight

It has become obvious that like a reverse form of the Jim Crow laws in the old South, the Black Community believes  that any time a black is killed (especially if the black is unarmed) there is no defense; it is a defacto racist killing. Immediately after the shooting of black Michael Brown by while Police Officer Darren Wilson, the media aired the usual false narrative (the victim was not doing anything and the cop just murdered him), always initiated from a subjective source. This narrative is always extremely simplistic  and void of any real evidence; however it is quickly codified by the media, hungry to sell the narrative that shows the victimization of blacks. Then comes the black activist (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder) to make sure black community have been properly race baited to turn on their own community.  Once this narrative is codified, it is used to convict the white police officer in the court of public opinion. What is usually missing from the narrative is always common sense. First, policemen like Off Wilson, a white police officer in a black community, has probably had numerous occasions where he could have justified shooting an unarmed black, but he was never done so; six years of service and he has never fired his firearm in the line of duty. So something different must have occurred.

There is also the second guessing of the officers actions; Why didn't he use a taser? Why didn't he use  rubber bullets; How come he had to shot so many bullets? Most of these questions can be answered by how short  time was compressed (how much time Off Wilson had to make any decisions) between the time the fight in the Off Wilson fought Michael Brown for his pistol and when Off Wilson shot Michael Brown dead. As a matter of fact, the fight over Off Wilson's pistol pretty much determined the sequence of evens afterward. If there is one thing that will trigger the fight or flight response in a police officer it is a fight to retain his firearm. In this case two bullets were fired and Off Wilson's eye socket was shattered during the fight; at this point I imagine Off Wilson  responded mostly out of instinct. (edit) Another subject that is rarely discussed, but known well by Police Officers and is a vital part of their training, is that a surprising number of Police Officers are killed with their own guns; about 8% There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent. Officers Killed by Their Own Guns   (added 11.28.2014);


 Fight or Flight is the body's last ditch effort to save itself, which is fueled by adrenalin; Off Wilson's pulse  rate and blood pressure increased dramatically, he would loose some of his small motor skills, his strength is increased, his pain receptors will shutdown and he will experience tunnel vision as he zeros in on his perceived threat.

When  Michael Brown ran from Off Wilson and he (Off Wilson) exited his vehicle Off Wilson had a shattered eye socket and  had just experienced a life or death fight over his duty weapon; either would likely trigger fight or flight. As a result, Off Wilson probably did not realize the extent of his injury (due to fight or flight), but it is highly possible he was seeing double vision. It is also unlikely that he would have re-holstered his pistol. So pistol in hand as he pursued Michael Brown about 25 feet (according to witnesses) and yelled for him to "freeze!". Michael Brown may have stopped raised his hands and turned toward Off Wilson; whether he had his hands raized or not, he was taunting Off Wilson by saying something similar to, "You're are not going to arrest me" and "What are going to do; shoot me?" It was then Michael Brown apparently rushed Off Wilson.


One of the criteria of use of force is the size and pre-knowledge of their fighting ability of the suspect. Michael Brown was 604 390lbs,  Off Wilson on the other hand looks to be of average size, say 509-511 and average build. There is also the fact that just moments before, Off Wilson was in a fight for his life, as he and Michael Brown were fighting over his gun in Off Wilson's SUV. This means Off Wilson had pre-knowledge of Brown's fighting ability and his desire to disarm and possibly kill him (Off Wilson) with his own gun. Having this in mind one can only imagine what was going through Off Wilson's mind when Michael Brown suddenly rushed him. What we know happened was Off Wilson started shooting at Michael. When he a bullet actually struck Michael Brown is debatable. Contrary to most peoples belief system, unless a weight bearing bone is broken or a massive wound to the brain, bullets do not stop people. Michael Brown may have been struck early on or Off Wilson may have missed his first shots; it's unknown. If a person is struck with a fatal wound(s) that will cause him to bleed to death, it will take this wounded person 30 seconds to "bleed out"; during this time it is not unusual for the wounded person to continue their attack with no sign that they have been wounded, until they suddenly fall down dead. As mentioned before, the effects of fight or flight is a loss of some small motor skills and tunnel vision; which sometimes mean the shooter will loose the ability to hit any small targets, such as an arm or leg, that he might be aiming at. This is why the police are always trained to shoot "center of mass" as it offers the best chance of the shooter hitting his target.

If one wants to know why Off Wilson shot so many bullets, it is most likely because the first bullets he shot did not stop Michael Brown's attack. This was described by a witness: "The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him". So how many bullets does it take to stop a person attacking you? The answer should be self evident; as many as it takes to stop the attack. So the number of shots fired by Off Wilson is really irrelevant.

What has been obvious from the beginning, it seems the only entity interested in a vigorous investigation was the Ferguson Police Dept. Most of those politically posturing say they want "justice for Michael Brown;" the message is clear, I've already seen enough and Off Wilson is guilty."   This includes the most of the media (CNN  has been especially heavy handed with this), the Governor of Missouri,  Jay Nixon (who also said that a  "vigorous prosecution must now be pursued" in Michael Brown's death), the NAACP,the Brown Family' s Attorney Benjamin Crump (and chief  race baiter) not only demanded equal justice for Michael Brown also said "We will not accept three-fifths justice,"( a reference to the Three-Fifths Compromise in the US Constitution which had nothing to do with the comparative worth of black slaves and whites; this was even voiced by the legendary black activist Frederick Douglas," but has been used by many dishonest and unscrupulous black activist to forward a personal agenda ) . Eric Holder was the reason Ferguson PD waited so long to release the tape of Michael Brown robbery of the liquor store 10 minutes before Off Wilson's contact and also said he remembered being stopped for DWB (Driving While Black); again implying that Michael Brown to was contacted and shot because we was black.

The standard that Off Wilson needs to be judged is black letter law; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (a court decision drummed into every police officer in training) "The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight. The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving". But this has not stopped the media and activist from de-compressing what was perhaps 20 harrowing seconds in both the life of Michael Brown's and Off Wilson. This of course is exactly what Graham v. Connor says should not be done;  "a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight." and this is what needs to stop or their will be no justice for either Michael Brown or Off Wilson.

Ferguson, Missouri; All Evidence Points to Michael Brown as the Aggressor

 There is a certain absurdity to how the story line of the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri is being carried out. The initial story came from the person (friend) of Michael Brown, Dorian Johnson who was with Brown at the time of the shooting. The initial contact  and then re-contact of Brown by Officer Wilson is not really in dispute ( "Dorian Johnson, 22, told CNN that he and Brown were walking in the middle of the street when a white male officer pulled up and told them, "Get the f*** on the sidewalk." The young men replied that they were "not but a minute away from our destination, and we would shortly be out of the street...The officer drove forward but stopped and backed up, almost hitting (them) ...We were so close, almost inches away, that when he tried to open his door aggressively, the door ricocheted both off me and Big Mike's body and closed back on the officer... Still in his car, the officer then grabbed Brown by his neck..missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know

There are varying accounts of struggle in Officer Wilson's police SUV after the second contact, what it resulted in a round being fired from Officer Wilson's gun that did not wound anyone. The following is the statement of  Dorian Johnson,   "I saw the officer proceeding after my friend Big Mike with his gun drawn, and he fired a second shot and that struck my friend Big Mike," Johnson told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "And at that time, he turned around with his hands up, beginning to tell the officer that he was unarmed and to tell him to stop shooting. But at that time, the officer firing several more shots into my friend, and he hit the ground and died." Another witness,  Witness Tiffany Mitchell started  filming the aftermath of the shooting and gave a similar story as Johnson,"The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around and he put his hands up. ... The cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground, and his face just smacked the concrete." .  The problem with Dorian Johnson's and  Tiffany Mitchell's account, is on a video shot by Mitchell herself, an unnamed witness off camera, is heard giving a contradictory account.

Man 1: 'How’d he get from there to there?'
Eyewitness: 'Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck'
Eyewitness: 'But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him'
Eyewitness: 'Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him'
Man 1: 'Oh, the police got his gun'
Eyewitness: 'The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
(crosstalk)'
Eyewitness: 'Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing'
Man 1: 'The Police?'
Eyewitness: 'The Police shot him'
Man 1: 'Police?'
Eyewitness: 'The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running …  then something about he took it from him'


Read more: Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer

Interestingly enough, this account was almost word for word what was heard in radio interview with a spokesman for Off Wilson (Josie),  "He (Officer Wilson) pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery....he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever...so he goes in reverse back to them"He (Officer Wilson)tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up...'And then Michael (Brown) just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and then Darren (Wilson) grabs for his gun. Michael (Brown) grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip...and he shoves it away...and the gun goes off. 'Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’... stands up and yells, 'Freeze!..(then) Michael and his friend turn around. "And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him (again). He just started coming at him full speed...and, so he Officer Wilson) just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something." It has also been reported by the St Louis Dispatch that,“Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop’s version of events in shooting,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch crime reporter Christine Byers tweeted, without elaborating witnesses-say-ferguson-teen-attacked-cop-before-shooting

Within this storyline, several issues came up that where treated with absurdity by the forces that wanted to maintain the mythical storyline that Off. Wilson murdered Michael Brown while his hands were up. First there is the case of a video of Michael Brown committing a strong arm robbery, stealing a $50 box of cigars and assaulting the store owner. It was also established by the Chief of the Ferguson Police Dept, that Off Wilson did not know of the strong arm robbery that had committed by Michael Brown during the initial contact, so even if Michael Brown was walking with the box of cigars, Off Wilson would not have known that it was evidence of a robbery. A point of contention was the video was not released for 6 days later.  "But on Friday, police released the video that stoked outrage in Ferguson, with Brown’s family calling it “character assassination” and a smear campaign." feds-urged-police-not-release-michael-brown-robbery-video The reason the Michael Brown family called the video a smear campaign was two fold, #1, the video was not evidence as Off Wilson did not have knowledge of it when he first stopped Brown and #2 the police didn't release the video in a timely manner.

The argument against #1 is while Off Wilson did not know of the robbery during his initial contact, it was certainly evidence of the state of mind of Michael Brown, as Michael Brown surely suspected he was being contacted because of the robbery. Further the fact that Off Wilson drove passed Michael Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, stopped and suddenly backed up to re-contact Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson, is consistent that at some point Off Wilson was dispatched to help with the robbery. It appears that Off Wilson left Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson ignorant of the robbery, but was then informed of the robbery via his radio. Realizing Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson matched the suspect(s) description(s), he backed up to re-contact them; on both accounts the video was vital evidence and not an attempt to smear Michael Brown's character.

The facts behind #2 is more straight forward, is was the US Attorney General, Eric Holder that held back the video,  The Department of Justice urged Ferguson police not to release surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a store shortly before he was shot and killed by police, arguing the footage would further inflame tensions in the St. Louis suburb that saw rioting and civil unrest in the wake of the teenager’s death feds-urged-police-not-release-michael-brown-robbery-video

Below is a diagram of the wounds received by Michael Brown and there are no wounds in Michael Brown's back. "Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body. But he has not yet seen the X-rays showing where the bullets were found, which would clarify the autopsy results. Nor has he had access to witness and police statements. Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds*.“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone*. The last two shots in the head would have stopped him in his tracks and were likely the last fired.

..there is a contradiction in how Dr Baden's information has been released; most likely the reporters have been confused by Dr Baden's terms, wounds vs bullets vs shot.

 

The information from the below web link said the following. Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front. *If you take the information from these comments above,  one (bullet) that left at least five different wounds and One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone* and compare them to this comment six shots produced numerous wounds there is a contradiction in how Dr Baden's information has been released; most likely the reporters have been confused by Dr Baden's terms, wounds vs bullets vs shot*. There are 5 wounds on Michael Brown's right arm and chest in the diagram. Assuming these wounds are the ones shown on Michael Brown's right arm in the diagram, it appears a single bullet entered at Michael Brown's left thumb, exited his forearm, re-entered at the lower biceps, exited the upper biceps and re-entered  Michael Brown's chest just above his left nipple; affirming Dr Baden's statements that one bullet caused 5 rounds. Add to that, the three wounds on the diagram show Michael Brown's wounds at his eye, cheek,  and chest, that Dr Baden said was also from one bullet and what appears to be a single wound to the top of his head, it appears that all nine wound were caused by 3 bullets. The report "Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body" But there is no explanation how this jives with Dr Baden's statements about the wounds.


Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution a police officer may only use such force as is “objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. The standard that courts will use to examine whether a use of force is constitutional was first set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and expanded by subsequent court cases. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight. The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

So the real question is, was Off Wilson justified in his shooting an unarmed man that came rushing at him and their is no simple answer. Michael Brown was 604 390lbs, by any comparison, a big man.  Off Wilson on the other hand looks to be of average size, say 509-511 and average build. It would have been shortly after this that Brown reportedly rushed Off Wilson.

There are numerous issues that can be taken into account as to the escalation of force, one is a substantial difference in size and/or strength. Brown was 604 390lbs, by any comparison, a big man.  Off Wilson on the other hand looks to be of average size, say 509-511 and average build. There is also the fact that just moments before, Off Wilson was in a fight for his life, as he and Michael Brown were fighting over his gun in Off Wilson's SUV (resulting in a round being fired in the vehicle); this would have given Off Wilson pre-knowledge as to Michael Brown's strength and fighting ability It has been learned the Off Wilson's eye socket was shattered as a result of the fight with Michael Brown, for possession of his pistol. Off Wilson  would also have knowledge that in their previous altercation, Michael Brown had tried to take away his duty weapon, meaning Michael Brown would probably try to take his gun away again. At some point Michael Brown probably had his hands up; however it most likely occurred after Michael Brown stopped and turned back toward Off Wilson, after running  away from him . Michael Brown was reported taunting Off Wilson, most likely he had his hands up and was asking Off Wilson similar to, "You're are not going to arrest me" and "What are going to do; shoot me?" If one accepts the numerous reports that at this point Michael Brown Add these up and it could be said that within the perimeters set up by Graham v. Connor, Off Wilson could articulate his escalation to deadly force as “objectively reasonable” under the circumstances judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

One issue that also needs attention is what were the force options available to Off Wilson. #1 Rubber bullets; rubber bullets are generally fired from a specially designed 37mm/40mm weapon are not routinely carried in your average police vehicle and even if that was the case it would most likely be out of the immediate reach of the officer. #2  Taser; It is unknown if Off Wilson was carrying a Taser, but even if he was, transferring to a taser under these conditions would be contrary to his training. I Taser is not a substitute for a pistol to protect yourself from deadly force; is is an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon. Off Wilson was obviously still holding his duty weapon which had discharged during the scuffle inside his SUV. Since Michael Brown had already shown he would try and take Off Wilson pistol, there are just too many things that could go wrong if he tried to protect himself with a Taser. Also, the effective range of a Taser (dependent on the model) is about 15 feet;( if Brown was 35 feet from Off Wilson, he would have also been out of the range of the Taser).

The fact is there is very little evidence to show that Off Wilson was doing anything more than reacting to the threat from Michael Brown and the only thing driving the "Michael Brown was shot in the back with his hands up" story are the racebaiters like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and Eric Holder; these racists activist always push the "you're a victim of the racists system and this is the result" theme. Even if they are eventually proved wrong (which is most the time) they have already let the smoke out of the box. This means any facts that are later derived from the investigation of the incident, that deviates from their original one side of the story, that paints the minority victim(s) as blameless, will then be paraded around, at an even a louder level of rhetoric, that there now a cover-up. This by the same advocates that live off the victim mentality that they sow and reap and profit by. It's this victim mentality that keeps minorities, especially blacks, dependent on government and continue the myth that they live in such a racist society they will never be allowed to prosper.

Edit: 8/19--"The black teen killed by a white cop in Ferguson, Mo., viciously attacked the officer as he sat in his patrol car, delivering a bone-crunching punch that shattered the cop’s eye socket, a report claimed Tuesday". po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown

According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighborhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said..“They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source said. "They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face. missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source

There is No Arguing With the Left

One of the differences I see between liberal and conservatives is liberals seem to define themselves by the righteousness of their argument; it therefore becomes dogma. Anyone the speaks against liberal dogma is not just illknowleged as conservatives view those that disagree, but an enemy that must be de-humanized, demonized and extinguished; as Saul Alinsky promoted, your opponent must be treated with complete disdain with no redeeming value whatsoever. The left also needs to believe that they either speak for the majority, even though they represent a small minority and the only way the left makes has ever political headway is to promise for than they can ever deliver and then blame the right when it doesn't happen.

 In order for liberal dogma to be possible, they must selectively remember the past and perpetuate the lies told at the time ( If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it"). One of those I heard recently was the Bush was an AWOL draft dodger; this is repeating the lie from Dan Rather and the "Killian Documents". It turns out the documents were fabricated and than forged to appear to be from the personal files of then Lt. Bush's former commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. CBS first claimed the documents had been authenticated by experts until the very experts came forward saying the documents appeared to have been forged. The end result was CBS fired the story producer and three other CBS producers connected with the story were forced to resign; Dan Rather subsequently took an early retirement.

Then there is the Bush Patriot Act was a prelude to a Police State; this one is tricky because Obama started off where Bush ended (the Bush Patriot Act looks almost reasonable and tame, compared to that added to and re-authorized by Obama); it is Obama that (begrudgingly) re-authorized the NDAA giving him authorization for targeted assassinations and drone strikes (at the whim of the President, including American citizens outside the US),  'free rein for martial law' that has created the framework for a police state, and the government authority for the indefinite detention of US citizens. Obama also re-authorized the Bush Patriot Act, but unlike the Bush law, allows the NSA to monitor all our phone calls and computer activity, not just those to or from foreign countries. He also expanded the TSA to a "civilian national security force", "to achieve the national security objectives we've set." It should obvious to anyone that the government can not have a police state unless it has a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded (as the US military). Add to this President Obama's detain for the US Constitution and it's separation of powers, and you can have a real Police State on your hands.

The only positive that has come out of the last 6 years of President Obama's rule is the electorate can see what liberal collective rule looks like. Who they turn to is yet to be decided, but the prevailing attitude will surely be, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men" Okay not really, but they will certainly be looking for the adults to take over. 

Sanctuary Homeless Camps; Their Failure is in the Details

In Santa Cruz there is again talk of a Sanctuary camp. Like all liberal ideas it sounds good, but the devil is in the details. I wrote this a while ago and it was published in the Santa Cruz Sentential 10/2013.

In 1991 I left my position as a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy and moved to Santa Cruz  where I became a Police officer with the City of Santa Cruz. Not soon afterwards the homeless were allowed to create their own a tent city in the then vacant lot behind the Homeless Resource Center, prior to it's expansion; this was done with the tacit approval of the City Council. There was also talk of zero tolerance to drugs, alcohol and anti-social behavior, but it quickly spiraled down into lawless quagmire. You see it turns out the homeless have more issues than just needing a place to sleep and concentrating people with these issues in one place is a receipt for extreme disorder. One then has to determine who will be responsible for maintaining order in the camp and what authority will they have. 20 years ago those tasked with maintaining order simply could not contend with level of threats and violence so the city police were called numerous time daily. And it wasn't just the human campers, many of the homeless do not exert enough (or sometimes any) control over their pets. Between the human fights, dog fights, drugs and drinking that permeated the camp it was simply impossible to maintain order. Then the rain came and the Homeless Camp became a cesspool of human and animal feces and urine. The City Council finally realized that the Homeless Camp was a complete failure. Their answer? They started busing the homeless to and from local State Parks. The impact on State Park system in Santa Cruz was so unacceptable to State Parks , they had to create a statewide rule that group camping is limited to only 7 nights a year. The history of creating a Homeless Sanctuary Camp does not address any of the numerous issues behind homelessness in Santa Cruz and will probably make the problems even worse .  Remember the words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

How Left Tries to De-humanize the Right

History is replete with racists and bigots that have matured and grew spiritually to renounce their bigotry. However there is simply not a case for the reverse; one would have to look far and wide to find a group  that was a champion of civil rights and suddenly became bigoted toward the same group; the concept is absurd. But that is exactly what the Democrats preach when they claim the Republicans turned racist as a political ploy to take the South from the newly marketed champion of the black man during the 60's. But just prior to the 1960's is was the Democrats that eviscerated the 1957 Civil Rights Act, that was supposed guarantee blacks the right to vote. from Wikipedia;

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.

Even Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights Act,  was heavily contested by southern bloc Democrats; when the final tally was counted less than half the Democrats in the Senate and House voting for the Act while  80% of the Republicans voted yes.

It wasn't just enough for Democrats to claim they were now champions of the black man, they had to villainize the Republicans to make it believable and Saul Alinsky provided the frame work for this;  “charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting” this “with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband,’” one convicts oneself of “political idiocy”.  The winning strategy is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”; in this case Republicans are always the "establishment" regardless who is actually in charge; this is one reason the left can charge the right with racism, misogynism, homophobia with apparent impunity as they claim of ownership of victimism; where the right sees victimism a transitory stage to overcome, the left  fosters a permanent victim class from which it creates a power bloc. Alinsky says The reason for villainization of ones opponent is "Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition [is] 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” Even though the Republicans have had a 100 year head start in civil rights, the left must create a narrative fed by revisionist history to demonize them.

Do you notice the left never has a civil conversation with the right? This is also an Alinsky tactic, because any conversation with your opponent will humanize them. The end game of the left is collectivism and the real distribution of wealth is not to the middle class, but from the today's rich to the watchers of socialism. But collectivism is a hard sell, so instead they offer more than they can possibly deliver; later down the road when the left can not deliver on their promises, the right is blamed for obstructing the unattainable. The true weakness to Alinsky it is his tactics never leads to a solution; it's the unraveling the fabric of society solely for it's own purpose.