Let me make one thing clear: there is a vast gulf between the social and political organization “Black Lives Matter” and someone — ANYONE — saying, “black lives matter.” Both versions of the word are important. And we all need to stop weaponizing each.
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a social justice organization that got its start in Ferguson, Missouri, in the wake of the outrage in the African American community following the police shooting death of Michael Brown. It turned into a national civil rights organization that has expanded across the nation. Because of Ferguson, Black Lives Matter’s focus has been on the killings of young African Americans at the hands of police from every level of law enforcement: federal, state, and local.
Additionally, BLM sponsored a number of demonstrations in several of the largest U.S. cities in protest to police shootings, some of which resulted in the death of blacks. In almost every one of the rallies or demonstrations, violence breaks out. In fact, many have begun to compare Black Lives Matters with ANTIFA, who seem to target rallies and meetings initiated as Free Speech rallies or conferences. Just take a look at what’s happened almost nightly in major cities across America like Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and New York City. It seems that in each city in each protest/demonstration/riot, the anger and furor escalates and turns into more and more aggressive actions in each.
ANTIFA is another story we’ve previously written about but are not the focus of this conversation. Please know, however, it seems to many BLM takes much of their demonstration and even violence planning from ANTIFA. (Or maybe it’s the other way around)
In our summary, we will address the fact that these and other far-left political groups seem to focus most of their attention on those from ethnic communities who are involved in incidents that are often racial and often end in the death of someone. They discovered that such violent acts are magnets for news coverage. Violent death makes for a good news story!
Instead of just throwing up our hands saying, “It doesn’t matter what we do or so, these people are going to harp on this claim: ‘police target blacks in almost all incidents that include some type of serious crime in which an African American is shot. They do so for purely racist and political purposes.'”
That’s been the police shooting story since half-way through Barack Obama’s first term as president. BLM supporters have built that into a narrative that accompanies every news story at every network, newspaper, and national television show when such killings are reported to Americans. Facts prove otherwise, which many minority Americans refuse to accept. This brings us today to ask not, “Is the storyline that police are responsible for most deaths in the African American community true?” What needs to be asked and answered instead is this:
Does the truth matter?
Evidently, not to groups like Black Lives Matter. That’s tragic for many reasons, not the least of which is that black lives are being lost as a result. When it comes to the subject of American police, blacks, and the deadly use of force, here is what we know:
A recent “deadly force” study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios. Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 of officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he found that blacks were 24 percent less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent.
Does the truth matter?
An analysis of the Washington Post’s Police Shooting Database and of Federal Crime Statistics reveals that fully 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. By contrast, only four percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops. But isn’t it a sign of bias that blacks make up 26 percent of police-shooting victims, but only 13 percent of the national population?
It is not, and common sense suggests why. Police shootings occur more frequently where officers confront armed or violently resisting suspects. Those suspects are disproportionately black.
According to the most recent study by the Department of Justice, although blacks were only about 15 percent of the population in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., they were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults. In New York City, blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, commit under two percent of all shootings in the city, though they are 34 percent of the population. New York’s crime disparities are repeated in virtually every racially diverse city in America. The real problem facing inner-city black communities today is not the police but criminals. In 2014, over 6,000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. In fact, a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. If the police ended all use of lethal force tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on the black death-by-homicide rate. In Chicago, through just the first six-and-a-half months of 2016, over 2,300 people were shot. That’s a shooting an hour during some weekends. The vast majority of the victims were black. During this same period, the Chicago police shot 12 people, all armed and dangerous. That’s one half of one percent of all shootings.
Does the truth matter?
If it does, here’s a truth worth pondering: There is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police. The proactive policing revolution that began in the mid-1990s has dramatically brought down the inner-city murder rate and saved tens of thousands of black lives. Unfortunately, that crime decline is now in jeopardy.
Police officers are backing off of proactive policing in black neighborhoods, thanks to the false narrative that police officers are infected with homicidal bias. As a result, violent crime is going up. In cities with large black populations, homicides in the last two years rose anywhere from 54 percent in Washington D.C. to 90 percent in Cleveland. Overall, in the nation’s 56 largest cities, homicides rose 17 percent, a nearly unprecedented spike. Many law-abiding residents of high-crime areas beg the police to maintain order — precisely the type of policing that the ACLU, progressive politicians, BLM, and some in Congress denounce as racist. This is tragic because when the police refrain from proactive policing, black lives are lost—lost because of a myth.
The rancor escalated to never-before-seen heights with the death of Michael Floyd in Minneapolis. Since that day, the fires of anger and bitterness have stoked fires of division across the nation. Almost without fail, peaceful protests become peaceful demonstrations and marches. But almost without fail, those morph into violence, rioting, and looting.
It is uncontroverted that there are instances of white cops killing blacks — far more than we would hope would ever happen. Thankfully they are not in the numbers most in the public feel are certain. But the problem here is even though the best research and data conclude that there is no evidence that police are killing blacks just because they are black. Exclusively such incidents occur as a result of severe law-breaking acts and acts of violence.
OK, we’ve examined the statistics. They originate from very authentic and credible sources. And they’re quite conclusive in the finding that disproves the almost universal perception that police “in general” are killing blacks because they are blacks. But those statistics beg for answers to a question not part of the first segment of this conversation: What is the REAL reason for this conversation that is so necessary yet so damaging?
There’s a simple answer: No one yet has, on a national scale, offered a plausible solution. Find a peaceful way to resolve these differences is — and always has been — a monumental task which no one has completed. Many have tried, several have gotten started, but none so far have seen success.
Here’s the fearful part of where we find us today: those actively involved in these conversations have become so polarized, so far apart, it often seems a solution will NEVER be found. And even if a solution is identified, it is doubtful all sides in this crisis will agree. I think there is a group of people who are the loudest and most demanding in this that don’t even want resolution. They feed on the anger and hatred, the fear and the violence, the infliction of pain for which they know there’s no real price they will be forced to pay.
What we need is a “new” Martin Luther King, Jr. who could draw people of all races and backgrounds to him for a conversation. He taught that communication is the necessary element to begin resolution. When people speak “to” each other and not yell “at” each other, it’s much easier to finish a conversation and have substance to show for the labor.
It would help, too, if we didn’t have an industry that relies on conflict, confusion, and violence to self-perpetuate a need for their existence: the Media.
As we find ourselves inside of 90-days until an election, it would be wise for every American to pause just a moment and consider where they WANT to go in the near future. Then choose the best way under the best circumstances to get there. Open those conversations with others that live within your circle of influence. Challenge everyone to THINK instead of just ACTING.
We MUST find a way through this. And we can…I’m certain of that.
Tuesday, July 28th, was the most reprehensible day in history for the United States House of Representatives. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) gaveled-in his committee to hear the testimony of Attorney General William Barr regarding a host of topics about the attorney general’s recent actions. They pertain to legal cases from the past several years, the Department of Justice responses to the recent protest-turned-riots in Portland and elsewhere, and for the AG to answer questions about many other things that have stuck in the craws of every Democrat on that committee.
Just to put this hearing in context for you, House Democrats have filed articles of impeachment against Attorney General Barr. So you can only imagine the atmosphere in that hearing room.
Chairman Nadler was an hour late because of a car wreck in which he was involved on the way. He wasted no time to share his angst for the negative start to his day by taking it out on any Republican within earshot — including the Attorney General. Here’s a brief synopsis of how this hearing evolved into the nastiest House Judiciary Committee hearing in my memory:
Democrats sought to paint Barr, making his first appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, as a Trump loyalist who has tried to shield the president and his allies from scrutiny, all while seeking to help Trump project the image of a law-and-order president ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
“The job of the attorney general is to defend the best interests of the people and serve as the people’s lawyer, but during your time as attorney general you have consistently undermined democracy, undermined the Constitution and undermined the health, safety, and well-being of the American people,” said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). “All to personally benefit Donald Trump.”
“You are supposed to represent the people of the United States of America, not violate people’s First Amendment rights, you are supposed to uphold democracy and secure equal justice under the law, not violently dismantle certain protesters based on the president’s agenda,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in one of the more fiery moments of the hearing.
The hearing frequently devolved into shouting matches between Democratic lawmakers and Barr as well as between committee members. Democrats also said they were worried about what Barr might do before the presidential election.
A focus for Democrats throughout the hearing was the administration’s decision to send federal police to Portland.
The back-and-forth exchanges also showed how much pent up frustration there was among Democrats ahead of the hearing. Tuesday’s appearance was Barr’s first before the panel, and Democrats have long said they have wanted to hear from Barr, stemming back to his handling of the release of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.
During one tense exchange, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) repeatedly admonished Barr for interrupting her questioning. “We’ve waited a long time for you to come here. The time is mine,” Dean said. “You waited to talk to me like this? You didn’t need to wait so long,” Barr responded.
That is just a small sample of the insults hurled incessantly at the attorney general by Democrats throughout the nearly five-hour “get-together.” I call it that because it was far from a hearing. To explain what I mean in saying that is just to give you one sentence uttered in a brief pause by Attorney General Barr: “I thought this was to be a hearing. If it’s a hearing, shouldn’t the witness who’s appearing be allowed to respond?”
For approximately five hours, Mr. Barr was accused, berated, insulted, demeaned, interrupted, and called a liar. The only time he was allowed to complete any thoughts put into spoken words was during his opening statement!
“There Have Been ONLY Peaceful Protestors in Portland”
Almost to a person Democrats in that hearing demanded that there were NO Antifa or other anarchists present in Portland, NO violence at all perpetrated by any during the protests other than that alleged by Democrats during the hearing perpetrated by federal officers against those “peaceful” protestors. Chairman Nadler himself on Monday was caught on camera, responding to a reporter who asked the congressman about the Antifa-inspired riots in Oregon. Nadler responded to the question saying, “There have been no riots in Portland. That’s a myth circulating only in Washington.”
In his opening remarks, Barr stated some of the Portland demonstrators have been overly violent, and protests have damaged federal property. “What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the government of the United States,” he said.
“Rioters have barricaded the front door of the courthouse, pried plywood off the windows with crowbars, and thrown commercial-grade fireworks into the building in an apparent attempt to burn it down with federal personnel inside. The rioters have started fires outside the building, and then systematically attacked federal law enforcement officers who attempt to put them out — for example, by pelting the officers with rocks, frozen water bottles, cans of food, and balloons filled with fecal matter.
“Remarkably, the response from many in the media and local elected offices to this organized assault has been to blame the federal government. To state what should be obvious … such acts are, in fact federal crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress.”
Barr said an attorney general has a “unique obligation” to ensure that the standard of justice is applied to everyone equally and that he’s sought to uphold this obligation without interference from Trump.
“The president has not attempted to interfere in these decisions,” he said. “On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right. That is precisely what I have done.”
Barr also did not commit to withholding the results of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origin of the FBI’s Russia investigation until after the 2020 presidential election. He stated that any report released ahead of the election “will be in my judgment, not the one that is covered” by a Justice Department policy against investigations that may disrupt an election.
“We’re not going to interfere,” he said. “In fact, I’ve made it very clear that I’m not going to tolerate it.”
Further discussing November’s elections, Barr said there was no reason to believe the election would be “rigged” but did back Trump’s skepticism of mail-in voting, saying “there’s a high risk” for voter fraud if the practice is widely adopted.
Barr dismissed the allegations lobbed at him throughout the roughly five-hour hearing, arguing that he has worked to “restore the rule of law” after the DOJ “strayed” from its mission before his tenure.
Republicans also leaned into a fierce defense of Barr, joining him in blasting Democrats for failing to denounce rioters who have violently clashed with federal agents in recent weeks.
“What makes me concerned for the country is, for the first time in my memory, that the leaders of one of our great two political parties, the Democratic Party, are not coming out and condemning mob violence and the attacks on federal courts,” Barr said.
“Why can’t we just come out and say violence against federal courts has to stop? Could we hear something like that?” the attorney general added.
Jim Jordan (R-OH) set the tone for Republicans at the beginning of the hearing by showing a selectively edited 10-minute video highlighting moments of violence at protests around the country. It was preceded by images of Democrats, including former President Obama and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, describing protests as peaceful.
The GOP members repeatedly argued that an aggressive law enforcement response was necessary to quell violent protests.
“We’re seeming just to contort ourselves to get to some way to show that you have nefarious motives,” said Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.).
I have never heard such nastiness from any group of adults: insults, badgering, interruptions, allegations, defamation. Democrats showed in this hearing just how vile members of Congress can be when they want to destroy a former attorney general who is attorney general for the second time. William Barr, throughout his entire career, has been revered by Republicans and Democrats alike as one of the greatest strict adherents to the Constitution and the Rule of Law that has ever born the attorney general title.
What could make this group so venomous to Barr today?
You know the answer to that: he serves for President Donald Trump. That’s his only sin.
“That shouldn’t cause them to attack so viciously this or any attorney general!” Your saying that would be a truthful conclusion IF this Democrat Party wasn’t focused entirely on one objective: Destroy Donald Trump and destroy all that work with and for him. No price is too high to pay to run them all out of Washington, D.C.!
The fact that their objective as it has played out is so obviously one fueled by more than just anger should make every American ask, “What’s going on in all this? What is their purpose?”
The answer is simple: Attorney General William Barr, the Department of Justice, Federal Attorney John Durham, and revealed in the hearing today by A.G. Barr an added federal attorney, Stephen Cox of Texas, are together about to wrap up several massive criminal cases of illegal activities on the part of members of the Obama Administration.
Democrats are scared to death. They desperately want all of this to remain unresolved until after the swearing of Joe Biden as President to replace President Trump. If they can keep the findings of these investigations quiet and Biden wins and be sworn in as President, the massive wrongdoing much of which has already been revealed can simply be swept under the Obama “corruption rug,” which will be handed down to Biden.
In closing, let me say the hearing today was so vile and unprecedented, I wanted to save just a few audio tidbits. If you join us at 9:00 Central this morning at TNN Live, in our first segment, I will play snippets of testimony from just a few of the participants to show you how nasty these House Democrats are today. How do you listen? Just click on the blue horizontal banner at the top of this story at 9:00 AM Central, and it will take you right to the broadcast. The segment only lasts a few minutes so you can hear those and then move on to your day unless you want to stay with us.
If we don’t see you at 9:00, we’ll look forward to getting back together tomorrow at Truth News Network.
The happiest news to emerge in recent coronavirus weeks comes courtesy of videos from online news sources showing the good citizens of Michigan, fed up with their tyrannical governor, taking to the streets in mass — and maskless! — to demand an end to the tyranny.
The saddest news? The realization that it took so long for these types of protests to occur. And for reason for that, we can turn to the Declaration of Independence.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed,” the opening lines state.
Most Americans, when first informed of the coronavirus, wanted to simply do the right thing and help their neighbors, help their communities and families, help their country. They willingly stayed home; out of love for neighbor — or at least, concern for neighbor — abided by the government’s recommendations and mandates to protect against the spread of the virus. Business owners shelved their dreams of entrepreneurial freedom for the good of the country. School administrators closed their buildings; government service officers shut their doors. Church pastors, even, sent their congregations online.
Then things got stupid. Really stupid. Then the government ran amok.
The Americans saw tyrannical types, up close and personal, up close and in their own communities, seize powers the Constitution doesn’t grant and run roughshod over the rights of individuals and business owners. And Americans saw how these tyrannies were taking place in the face of failed computer modeling that showed wildly inaccurate coronavirus numbers.
“Michigan cracks down on seed purchases and tiny gatherings,” The Post Millennial reported, of Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ridiculous executive-issued prohibitions against the purchase of plant seeds and grains in the state — and against neighbors from visiting their next-door neighbors.
Police state, anyone?
Seriously: How does buying plant seeds cause — or even correlate to — a spread of the coronavirus? Then there was this, in the aftermath of an eye-opening Fox News interview between host Tucker Carlson and guest, Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey.
“By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order [prohibiting church gatherings and free assembly of the people]?” Carlson asked. “That’s above my pay grade,” Tucker,” Murphy said, as the National Review noted. “I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.”
It’s the job of a governor — of any public servant who takes the oath of office, for that matter — to first and foremost, above all else, uphold the provisions of both state and U.S. constitutions. To admit to not “thinking” of those documents, as a governor, is to admit a failure of job performance.
It’s a fireable offense. And in these coronavirus times, there are a lot of fireable offenses being perpetrated on the people by government officials, from police to politicians. Are we to stand idly by and watch, sheeplike, doing nothing forever? This is where the rights of the individual to control and curb the government should blare forth.
President Donald Trump says he’s got a plan to open America’s economy and jumpstart U.S. businesses again, and that states ought to abide by his White House guidelines. Some states say they won’t. Some states say the heck with reopening the country, the heck with freeing citizens from their house arrest, er, suggested stay-at-home, syndromes — the heck with all that until each and every last case of the coronavirus has been driven from humanity, until it’s safe and secure out there for all.
Well, what right does government have to decide that in the first place?
American citizens are well-equipped to determine how best to protect themselves and their families from looming health threats. Americans do it every day, as a matter of fact.
Those who feel sick — stay home.
Those who worry about getting sick — stay home.
Those who can’t stay home but worry about getting sick — go ahead and wear a mask, social distance, stay in the car, do whatever seems logical and proper to keep from getting sick.
Just don’t expect all of America to suffer a police state existence for the next, well, forever — as a matter of possible protection for the relatively few citizens in the country who may or may not catch the coronavirus.
It’s time for more civil disobedience. It’s time for the protests of Michigan residents against their power mad governor to spread to the rest of the states — if only to send a message to the government that says: We’re watching. We’re watching, and we’re fed up.
If not now, when? Americans aren’t going to go quietly into that good despotic night. Nor should they. After all, it’s in America’s founding to fight for freedom.
“[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations [occur] … it is [citizens’] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security,”the Declaration of Independence reads.
It’s not just a right to Americans to strive for freedom. It’s not just a right enshrined in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, in the First and Second amendments in particular. It’s a duty. An actual duty. It’s a duty and responsibility for Americans to demand government obey. And how do Americans typically go about exercising that duty? With civil disobedience. Peaceful — but purposeful, persistent and powerful civil disobedience.
As of preparation of the story and podcast, The U.S. Senate nor the House have taken action to vote on the Coronavirus Stimulus Bill. However, we were just handed the revised Senate Bill that is 800+ pages long.
As we did with the original House bill, during the day today we will break down the provisions in it so that you will know what in the revised bill is good, what is bad, and what is Nancy Pelosi pork. To that topic, let me say this:
Pelosi and Schumer have weaponized the coronavirus! There is no way around it. Though I do not know deep details of this bill yet, I know that many of the provisions in the House bill you saw yesterday are included in the Senate revision. Why is that? CHUCK AND NANCY ARE HOLDING GUNS TO THE HEADS OF GOP SENATORS BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU ARE IN DESPERATE STRAIGHTS AND NEED THIS BILL PASSED, SIGNED, AND MONEY SENT OUT!
I could rant some more about it. Let’s wait until tomorrow when I will pull out all the goodies and present them to you.
In the meantime, let’s get down with today’s business!
Think about this one horrible thought: what happens if Coronavirus whips our butts and we CAN’T STOP IT! For answers, read on:
I’m relatively comfortable that we’re going to come out of this coronavirus pandemic OK. I don’t minimize the importance of the lives lost, the companies that will shutter their operations, nor the Americans who will live through an awful financial struggle because of the virus due to no fault of their own. It’s tough but truthful to say, “Sometimes bad things happen to good people.” And that’s what is happening right now. It’s bad today and getting worse daily. How much worse can it possibly get? And what will happen?
An “Eternal” Pandemic?
God forbid that the U.S. would ever see a situation in which some “thing” could happen that could destroy all of our government infrastructure in one monstrous event. In the 60s, the fear of that materialized as a possible Russian nuclear attack. In large part, preparations for such an attack went so far as drills in which school students hid beneath their desks. In that type of horror or something even worse, much more would be required in the way of preparation if we are to expect our country to survive.
Even though President Trump said he tested negative for coronavirus, the COVID-19 pandemic raises the fear that a large number from the executive branch or even Congress and the Supreme Court could also be disabled, seriously ill and incapacitated, or even die. This would force the implementation of “continuity of government” plans that include evacuating Washington and “devolving” leadership to second-tier officials in remote and quarantined locations. Remember that television series Designated Survivor? We may be as close as we’ve ever been to that being an actuality because of coronavirus or some other cataclysmic event.
But today we’re in a different environment from those that ANY of the pandemic plans “in the can” were created to guide us through. The military is always a key piece of any of those plans. But with coronavirus, the military itself is vulnerable and the disaster scenarios being contemplated — including the possibility of widespread domestic violence as a result of food shortages — are forcing planners to look at what are called “extraordinary circumstances.”
Contingency plans already exist for what the military is supposed to do if all the Constitutional successors are incapacitated. We’d have to go pretty deep in the “line of succession” to get to that. But you never know.
Standby orders were issued more than three weeks ago to ready these plans, not just to protect Washington, but also to prepare for the possibility of some form of martial law. The various plans – codenamed “Octagon,” “Freejack” and “Zodiac” – are the underground laws to ensure government continuity. They are so secret that under these extraordinary plans, “devolution” could circumvent the normal Constitutional provisions for government succession, and military commanders could be placed in control around America. What is “devolution?”
“Devolution” is defined as the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level. It is a form of administrative decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area and thus granting them a higher level of autonomy.
This possibility is all-new for the Nation. We’ve had previous pandemics, wars, riots, but, thank God, no nationwide domestic attacks from other countries. But we go through numerous disasters for which the U.S. government in conjunction with its citizens has always prevailed handling every aspect of each of those. But Coronavirus is something totally different than ever seen in the U.S. How different?
Ok: want an example? Have you ever met “General Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy?” No, you haven’t. And let’s hope you nor I ever will. Who is Terrence? Gen. Terrence J. O’Shaughnessy is the “combatant commander for the U.S. who would be in charge if Washington literally “goes out of business.” His would be a temporary position — one that would last only until Americans could elect a new leader.
Is it not spooky to you to think that something like this that would put a total stranger — “Terrence O’Shaughnessy — in charge of the Nation? Such a thing appears to now be more than just a “remote possibility.”
Americans are not known to be the most committed planners for government matters applicable to many years ahead. Our legislators have conditioned us to plan only four years ahead at a time.
Americans are really good at setting goals and the implementation of the processes necessary to meet goals, but only on a short term basis. Using that as an example of American preparation for an event such as this, one would hope our government has made sufficient plans for this, especially in the shadows of 9/11. A plan has been started. But it desperately needs to be completed, rolled-out, tested and put in place. Our government has NOT taken such measures.
There’s a group of Americans that shortly after 9/11 felt a call to structure plans for this in the unlikely (but very possible) Washington D.C. event which would result in no federal government at all. But in 20 years of those people pushing hard to get Congress, every Administration and even each Department of Defense engaged to formalize a plan to address our needs in the event of a pandemic, nothing has happened! Is anyone surprised at that?
There certainly are multiple emergency plans of all kinds to address the needs of the nation in the case of another 9/11 nationwide cataclysm. Even though we have in the past had epidemics, none have risen to the level of seriousness as has coronavirus. And we’re finding out we MUST find and implement new ways of dealing with future horrors that we today cannot even imagine.
As a rule, Americans (and our government) are not very proficient at preparing “for” such events. We ARE proficient at addressing aggressively “after” a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, and even 9/11. But each of these other horrors are “one-offs” that are basically localized and contained from their inception. Coronavirus has as its target every human being on planet Earth! That’s a pretty big target to try to protect from an invisible enemy.
Here are the unclassified elements of a U.S. Government plan to address the chaos at every level of a Coronavirus pandemic aftermath. This plan is in place.
The Pentagon has instituted unprecedented restrictions on off-base travel. Last Wednesday it restricted most overseas travel for 60 days, and then on Friday issued supplemental domestic guidance that essentially keeps all uniformed personnel on or near military bases. There are three absolute elements of the plan for Coronavirus actions compiled by the Pentagon. They each fall under a sub-plan that carry different names.
CONPLAN 3400, or the military’s program for “homeland defense,” if America itself is a battlefield.
CONPLAN 3500, “defense support of civil authorities,” where the military assists in an emergency short of armed attack on the nation.
CONPLAN 3600, military operations in the National Capital Region and continuation of government, under which the most-secret plans to support continuity are nested.
All of these plans are the responsibility of the Pentagon’s U.S. Northern Command (or NORTHCOM), the homeland defense military authority created after 9/11. Air Force General O’Shaughnessy is NORTHCOM’s Colorado Springs-based commander. (You knew you’d learn what Gen. O’Shaughnessy’s responsibilities would be!)
On February 1, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper signed orders directing NORTHCOM to execute nationwide pandemic plans. Secretly, he signed Warning Orders (the WARNORD as it’s called) alerting NORTHCOM and a host of east coast units to “prepare to deploy” in support of potential extraordinary missions.
Seven secret plans – some highly compartmented – exist to prepare for these extraordinary missions. Three are transportation-related, just to move and support the White House and the federal government as it evacuates and operates from alternate sites. The first is called the Rescue & Evacuation of the Occupants of the Executive Mansion (or RESEM) plan, responsible for protecting President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and their families — whether that means moving them at the direction of the Secret Service or, in a catastrophe, digging them out of the rubble of the White House.
The second is called the Joint Emergency Evacuation Plan (or JEEP), and it organizes transportation for the Secretary of Defense and other national security leaders so that they can leave the Washington area. The Atlas Plan is a third, moving non-military leaders – Congressional leadership, the Supreme Court and other prominent figures – to their emergency relocation sites. Under Atlas, a still-secret bunker would be activated and cordoned, with government operations shifting to Maryland.
The three most compartmented contingencies – Octagon, Freejack, and Zodiac – call upon various military units in Washington D.C., North Carolina, and eastern Maryland to defend government operations if there is a total breakdown. The seventh plan -– codenamed Granite Shadow — lays out the playbook for extraordinary domestic missions that involve weapons of mass destruction.
Most of these plans have been quietly activated during presidential inaugurals and State of the Union addresses, the central feature of the weapons of mass destruction scenario seen in the annual Capital Shield exercise in Washington. Last year’s exercise posited a WMD attack on Metro Station. Military sources say that only the massive destruction caused by a nuclear device — or the enormous loss of life that could be caused by a biological agent — present catastrophic pressure significant enough to justify movement into extra-Constitutional actions and extraordinary circumstances plans.
“WMD is such an important scenario,” a former NORTHCOM commander stated, “not because it is the greatest risk, but because it stresses the system most severely.”
According to another senior retired officer, who said about Granite Shadow and is now working as a defense contractor, the national mission force goes out on its missions with “special authorities” pre-delegated by the President and the Attorney General. These special authorities are needed because, under regulations and the law, federal military forces can replace civil authority or engage in law enforcement only under the strictest conditions.
When might the military’s “emergency authority” be needed? Traditionally, it’s been thought of after a nuclear device goes off in an American city. But now, planners are looking at the military response to urban violence as people seek protection and fight over food. And, according to one senior officer, in the contingency of the complete evacuation of Washington.
Under Defense Department regulations, military commanders are authorized to take action on their own — in extraordinary circumstances — where “duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation.” The conditions include “large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” involving “significant loss of life or massive destruction of property.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed these rules in October 2018, reminding commanders that they could decide, on their authority, to “engage temporarily” in military control in the circumstances “where prior authorization by the President is impossible” or where local authorities “are unable to control the situation.” A new Trump-era Pentagon directive calls it “extreme situations.” In all cases, even where a military commander declares martial law, the directives say that civil rule has to be restored as soon as possible.
“In scenarios where one city or one region is devastated, that’s a pretty straightforward process,” the military planner said. “But with coronavirus, where the effect is nationwide, we’re in the territory we’ve never been in before.”
An extended period of devolution
The smooth flow of government and protection of the presidency began in the Eisenhower administration with the possibility emerging that Washington could be evaporated in an atomic attack. The need to plan for a nuclear decision-maker to survive even a direct attack led to the building of bunkers and a maze of secret procedures and exceptions, many of which are still followed to this day. Congress was also folded in – at least Congressional leadership – to ensure that there would always be a Constitutional successor. And then the Supreme Court was added.
Before 9/11, continuity and emergency programs were broadened beyond nuclear war preparedness, particularly as hurricanes began to have such devastating effects on modern urban society. And because of the advent of pandemics, broadly starting with the Avian Influenza, civil agencies responsible for national security, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, which is the lead agency to respond to coronavirus, were also brought into continuity protection.
Despite well-honed plans and constant testing over 30 years, the attacks of September 11, 2001, severely tested all aspects of continuous movement and communications. Many of the procedures written down on paper were either ignored or thrown out the window. As a result, continuity had a second coming, billions spent by the new Department of Homeland and the other national security agencies to ensure that the Washington leadership could communicate and move, a whole new system established to be ready if a terrorist attack came without warning. Bunkers, many shuttered at the end of the Cold War, were reopened and expanded. Matching the panic at the time, and the atomic legacy, the most extraordinary planning scenario imagined a terrorist attack that would involve an improvised nuclear or radiological dispersal device in a major American city.
The terrorist attack scenario dominated until 2006 when the disastrous government response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans shifted federal government preparedness to adopt an “all-hazards” system formally. Civil agencies, the 50 states, and local communities — particularly large cities — all began to synchronize emergency preparedness with standard protocols. U.S. Northern Command was created to harness military assistance in domestic disasters; its unified contingency plans are the product now of 15 years of trial and error.
Government at all levels now have extensive “continuity” programs to respond to man-made and natural disasters, a national response framework that has steadily grown and taken hold. This is the public world of emergency response, ranging from life-saving efforts to protect and restore critical infrastructure to drills that practice the evacuation of key officials. It is a partnership created between federal government agencies and the States, carefully constructed to guard the rule of law.
In July 2016, Barack Obama signed the classified Presidential Policy Directive establishing “essential functions” that government agencies were tasked to protect and retain. At the highest level were the National Essential Functions, those that control “the continued functioning” of government under the Constitution. To preserve Constitutional rule, agencies were ordered to have not just a line of succession but also one of “devolution,” a duplicate chain of individuals hidden secretly outside Washington available in a catastrophic emergency. Federal Continuity Directive 1, issued just days before Donald Trump became president, says that devolution has to establish “procedures to transfer statutory authority and responsibilities” to this secondary designated staff to sustain essential functions.
“Devolution may be temporary or may endure for an extended period,” the directive states. And it further directs that the devolution staff be located at “a geographically dispersed location unaffected by the incident.” Except that in the case of coronavirus, there may be no such location. This places the plans for the extraordinary into entirely uncharted territory, planners not just considering how devolution or martial law might work in a national disaster but also how those earmarked to implement these very plans have to be sequestered and made ready, even while they are equally vulnerable.
NORTHCOM stresses in almost everything it produces for public consumption that it operates only in “support” of civil authorities, in response to state requests for assistance or with the consent of local authorities. Legally, the command says, the use of federal military forces in law enforcement can only take place if those forces are used to suppress “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” A second test also has to be met, that such disturbances “hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and the United States within the State,” that is, that the public is deprived of its legal and constitutional protections. Local civil authorities must be “unable, fail, or refuse” to protect the civilian population for military forces to be called in, Pentagon directives make clear.
Since Hurricane Katrina in 2006, no emergency has triggered any state to even request federal military aid under these procedures. Part of the reason, the senior officer involved in planning says, is that local police forces have themselves become more capable, acquiring military-grade equipment and training. And part of the reason is that the governors have worked together to strengthen the National Guard, which can enforce domestic law when it is mustered under state control.
But to give a sense of how sensitive the employment of military forces on American soil is, when the New York National Guard arrived in New Rochelle, NY. recently, even though they were operating under the control of the governor, Mayor Noam Bramson still found it necessary to assure the public that no one in military uniform would have any “policing function.”
Local authorities around America are already expressing worries that they have insufficient equipment, particularly ventilators, to deal with a possible influx of coronavirus patients, the number of hospital beds fewer than the potential number of patients that could need them. And brawls have already broken out in stores where products are in short supply. The worst case is that shortages and violence spreads, that the federal military, isolated and kept healthy behind its own barricade, is called to take over.
Orders have already gone out that Secretary of Defense Esper and his deputy, David Norquist, to remain physically separated, and to guard against both of them becoming incapacitated. Other national security agencies are following suit, and the White House continuity specialists are readying evacuation should the virus sweep through the Executive Mansion.
The plans state that the government continues essential functions under all circumstances, even if that is with the devolved second string or under in temporary military command. One of the “national essential functions,” according to Federal Continuity Directive 1, is that the government “provide leadership visible to the Nation and the world … while maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people.” The question is whether a faceless elite could ever provide that confidence, preserving government command but also adding to public panic. That could be a virus too.
I as most Americans will never forget exactly where I was when I was notified about the first plane flying into the World Trade Center in southern Manhattan. That day changed America forever. And that day brought terrorism to the shores of the greatest country on Earth. 3000 unsuspecting Americans in Manhattan, at the Pentagon in D.C., and in a field in Pennsylvania lost their lives at the hands of Muslim terrorists: 19 terrorists in those 9/11 attacks. There were 5 terrorists on each of the planes that flew into the Trade Center, 5 on the one at the Pentagon, and 3 on the flight that crashed in a Pennsylvania field.
Since that horrible day in American history, questions of “Why?, “Who was responsible?,” “Was there a conspiracy?,” and “Can such an attack happen again?” have been asked numerous times by numerous people. And we still are NOT certain of the correct answers to any of those questions and some others.
One thing is certain: terrorism DID exist prior to that day in 2001, but has definitely escalated dramatically since, at least in part because of those September attacks. Whether the increase is a direct or indirect result of 9/11 really does not matter. What matters is that terrorists of all kinds in many nations senselessly take far too many lives of innocent people in the name of some religion or some political group.
Of course, the discussions that spring up every time there is such an attack anywhere in the World are almost always political discussions. And the question that is asked immediately when terrorism occurs is “Who is responsible?” Sadly, most deaths by terrorists in the last 20 years have come at the hands of Muslim terrorists. ISIS takes credit for most. ISIS is simply a group of Muslim extremists who have adopted a tiny sliver of Islam regarding “Death to the Infidels” to the extreme. And they slaughter innocents in the name of their god.
But you know what is most tragic? In the aftermath of most terrorist acts, most of the time the first thing that happens is political finger-pointing and name-blaming. And if it wasn’t so serious, the reporting process regarding such attacks in America would be comical. Leftist news media almost always point fingers away from ISIS and other Muslim groups. And when there is an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated by a white person, those media outlets report the killings almost with glee. Additionally, there are regular battles in the media about terrorists who kill: “Was it a White Supremacist or was it a Muslim?”
Always buried in their stories — at least initially — is the one simple fact that matters: people were slaughtered for the most ridiculous reasons by extremists. That should be enough, but sadly it’s not. The blame game ALWAYS begins in earnest.
Let’s look at a few Media examples and also polling results.
First, let’s look at the report from statistics compiled by a liberal political organization: New America Foundation.
“Since 9/11, white right-wing terrorists have killed almost twice as many Americans in homegrown attacks than radical Islamists have, according to research by the New America Foundation. In their June study, the foundation decided to examine groups ‘engaged in violent extremist activity’ and found that white extremists were by far the most dangerous. They pointed to the Emanuel AME Church shooting in Charleston, S.C., and the 2012 attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, as well as many lesser-known attacks on Jewish institutions and on police. They found that 48 people were killed by white terrorists, while 26 were killed by radical Islamists, since Sept. 11, 2001.
The study also found that the criminal justice system judged jihadists more harshly than their non-Muslim counterparts, indicting them more frequently than non-jihadists and handing down longer sentences.”
The Popular Myth That Right-Wing Extremism Kills More Than Islamic Terrorism in the U.S. Since 9/11
It may have all started with the opinion piece “U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jihadists,” which was echoed by journalist Sally Kohn. NPR interviewed the authors of the CNN story under the headline “Right-Wing Extremists More Dangerous Than Islamic Terrorists In U.S.”
The New America study was the basis for the reported statistic, which is repeated widely. The study is hosted by the International Security Program, whose backers include George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Before proceeding any further, it should be mentioned that Politifact examined the New America statistic and stated that it was “half-true.”
So, is the claim true? A professor at Florida State College at Jacksonville recently dissected the terrorism cases and has shredded the finding that right-wing extremists are deadlier than violent jihadists in the United States. Professor Andrew Holt lays out why the coding criteria, and thus, the comparisons are apples-to-oranges:
“The problem with this source, as I see it, is that the count is wrong. In International Security’s listing of the 45 deaths due to Islamic extremism, they attribute them to only nine incidents since 9/11. These include the more well-known attacks, such as San Bernardino (14 dead), Chattanooga (5 dead), Fort Hood (13 dead), the Boston Marathon Bombing (4 dead — with 264 additional casualties, I might add), as well as the Washington and New Jersey killing spree (4 dead), but also the Oklahoma beheading of 2014 (1 dead), the Little Rock Shooting of 2009 (1 dead), the Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting of 2006 (1 dead), and the Los Angeles Airport shooting of 2002 (2 dead).
So this is where they stop, but if we are comparing Islamic extremism to right wing extremism, apples to apples (and, to give credit to International Security, they acknowledge this is subjective on their website) then there are several others incidents that should be included in this total. Professor Holt finds at least six more events that the study did not attribute to violent jihadism.”
The professor discovered that when you add in the numbers from several terrorism cases driven by Islamist intent, the scales tip. Via The College Fix:
In June of 2006, in Denver a man shot four of his co-workers and a swat team member, killing one. He later claimed he did it because it was “Allah’s choice.”
In December of 2009 in Binghamton, a Saudi Arabian graduate student named Abdulsalam S. al-Zahrani killed Richard T. Antoun, a non-Muslim Islamic studies professor who served on al-Zahrani’s dissertation committee, in revenge for “persecuted” Muslims. Prior to the killing, one of al-Zahrani’s roommates tried to warn the university administration that he had been acting “like a terrorist.”
In 2012 in Houston, in two separate incidents in January and in November, two people were shot to death by a Muslim extremist for their roles in his daughter’s conversion to Christianity.
In March of 2013 in Ashtabula (Ohio), a Muslim convert walked into a Christian Church during an Easter service and killed his father, claiming it was “the will of Allah.”
In August of 2014 in Richmond (California) a man killed an Ace Hardware employee by stabbing him seventeen times, claiming he was on a “mission from Allah.”
These six murders are irrelevant, if you take the New America study at face value, yet tilt the balance towards jihadists being deadlier than right-wing terrorists: 50 fatalities to 48, respectively. Why the discrepancy?
The New America study does not count violent jihadist attacks from self-radicalized or “lone wolf” terrorists who swear allegiance to Islam in the same manner as terrorist attacks committed by a card-carrying member of Islamist terror organizations. If a terrorist yells “Allahu Akbar!” before going on a murder spree, you see, that’s not enough.
However, when right-wing terrorist attacks are coded by New America, those are attributed in a loose manner to mere statements made by the perpetrators that fit the left-wing’s shibboleth that racist or anti-government views define someone as a “right-winger.” Thus, the conclusions are not only questionable, they are borderline deceptive. The professor concludes:
“Right wing terrorism is more deadly for Americans only if you add a number of very limiting parameters (e.g. excluding the victims of 9/11, ignoring “lone wolf” attacks without solid connections to groups like al-Qaeda and their affiliates, etc…). But if you lift those limitations, and apply equal standards, then the raw and unfiltered numbers of deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism in the United States over the last fifteen years dwarf the numbers attributable to right wing extremism by a ratio of over 62 to 1. Even if you leave out 9/11 victims and just focus on the ideological statements and goals of the attackers, then the deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism still outnumber the deaths attributable to right wingers (which reveals an even greater disparity when compared with population groups). If we move beyond America’s borders, then the disparity becomes far greater, with somewhere around 90% of the world’s terrorism related deaths attributable to Islamic extremism, and only a fraction of 1% attributable to right wing extremism.”
The professor’s findings are consistent with terrorism incidents listed at non-partisan sources like the Global Terrorism Index and the Global Terrorism Database. It is certainly not true that “right wing extremists” kill more Americans than jihadists, or that they are “deadlier.”
Jihadi Terrorists Attacks Outside the U.S.
Such radical Islamist attacks, unfortunately, more common, more prevalent, and more violent than those seen in the U.S. Since we are discussing terrorist attacks in the U.S. compared to white radical attacks, it makes sense to factor in similar situations elsewhere in the World. Islam is MUCH more widespread outside the U.S. than within, so the numbers of jihadist attacks are staggering. Let’s take a look:
Saudi Arabia: November 20, 1979, at The Grand Mosque in Mecca. 244 died and 180 were seriously injured.
Lebanon: October 23, 1983, the deadly bombing of the U.S. barracks. 307 died and 75 were seriously injured.
Lebanon: September 20, 1984, at the United States Embassy. 24 were killed.
Indonesia: January 21, 1985, at The Buddhist Borobudur temple in Java. No one died.
France: December 1985 — September 1986, a series of over a dozen bombings. 13 died and 225 were seriously injured
Israel: July 7, 1989, Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 suicide bomber attack. 16 died and 27 were seriously injured.
We started to give you the numbers of Jihadist terrorist attacks with deaths and serious injuries from 1990 through today. The list is exhaustive. Let it suffice to say, since July 7, 1989, more than 20,000 citizens from more than 20 countries have been executed by Muslim terrorists. Some were mass slaughters; some were single random killings. But all were terrorist acts conducted in the name of the Muslim god.
The purpose of this story is to get away from the “It was Muslims….No, it was White Supremacists” finger-pointing. Let’s just simply face one major factor: terrorism of ANY kind is deplorable, especially when people are killed at the hands of others simply because of their skin color and/or religious beliefs. But what makes these horrors even more egregious is the actions of media zealots to point fingers at some group of individuals to simply place blame and expand division between people of different races, cultures, and religions for one reason and one reason only. And it’s NOT for a news story: it’s to drive wedges between people to foment hatred and bigotry.And we have waaay too much of that already.
The culprit in all of this is Identity Politics. Sadly, American politicians on the Left have perfected the use of specific groups to use for their singular political benefit. And they continually caste those groups without factual knowledge and certainly with no specific proof that would in any way justify the nastiness they spew.
People are humans. And it doesn’t take much to light the fires of hatred between those of different races, religions, sexual preference, nationalities, or political perspective. And today’s Leftists have made doing so an art: and they are pretty successful selling their wares to unsuspecting people.
I am fearful that we are stuck in this cycle of divisiveness. And I fear it will take the lives of many more people. It is unthinkable that when each terrorist act is perpetrated, it seems political leaders — especially those in the United States — ignore the hurt and anguish of the surviving victims and family members of those killed. They immediately rush to the “political narrative of the day” to further their causes. Isn’t it sad that political leaders in America would even consider using these despicable acts of human slaughter for any type of political advantage? But it is happening more and more every time such an attack occurs.
Where does this go? Such attacks seem to have only increased in number and severity. Media reports only fuel the fire of additional headline-seeking mass murderers. It is sad that any religion would teach adherents there are glory and righteousness along with heavenly rewards for donning a suicide vest and killing as many non-Muslims as possible when committing suicide. But it does. And it is horrific.
Unfortunately, I see no end in sight. But what MUST end is the glorification in news coverage of these events. It’s time that today’s media commit to showing the world the horrors of murder. And they need to do so using NO political narrative and reporting with NO editorial comments about details of each event. People’s lives are far more important than a network pushing for ratings to turn into advertising revenue.
As far as God is concerned in all this: “By this will all men know that you are my children — by the love you show for each other.”
I doubt jihadists or white supremacist terrorists score very high in God’s eye — even IF they are promised 72 virgins for those murders.
Just a couple of weeks ago, this story zoomed to the front of every world newspaper, every television and radio news broadcast:
“At least one gunman killed 49 people and wounded more than 40 during Friday prayers at two New Zealand mosques in the country’s worst ever mass shooting, which Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern condemned as terrorism. A gunman broadcast live stream footage on Facebook of the attack on one mosque in the city of Christchurch, mirroring the carnage played out in video games, after publishing a ‘manifesto’ in which he denounced immigrants, calling them ‘invaders.’
New Zealand was placed on its highest security threat level, Ardern said, adding that ‘this can now only be described as a terrorist attack.'”
The Christchurch attack in which a radical Australian stormed an Islamic mosque to commit the tragic murders of 50 New Zealanders was horrific. Any murder of any human at any time is tragic. Religious murders are the most egregious, for the simple fact that hatred drives someone to take another’s life in the name of religion.
In this world in which “Islamaphobia” has become an everyday word in politics, anytime there is a killing of Muslims that act immediately jumps to the front page of every newspaper, every news story, and the attack and attacker(s) is immediately damned for the atrocity. But does the World rush to judgment in the same fashion with the same vigor when the lives of Christians are taken at the hands of Muslims? “That seldom happens,” you may say. “Muslim murders of Christians hardly ever happens. That’s why we don’t hear much about that.” If you feel that way, you are dead wrong.
Would you be shocked to know that in just the first 3 months of 2019, there were 437 Islamic attacks in 35 countries, in which 2428 people were killed and 2307 injured? These were Christians killed by Muslims!
Don’t believe me? At the end of today’s story, I’ll give you a source to which you can turn 365 days of the year and see the details of every killing of Christians on Earth at the hands of Muslims: location, number killed, number injured, and the cause of each murder. The number is updated daily and goes all the way back to 9/11/2001.
It’s staggering. But it’s nothing new. As long as time has existed, there have been religious killings. No religion is exempt. Each has responsibilities for its atrocities. And each has stories of murderous atrocities that have been exacted upon its own members and members of other religions. Christians are by far NOT exempt from perpetrating killings in the name of Christianity. And, of course, millions of Christians through centuries have been killed. It’s time we all take a moment and pause in considering religious killings.
“Popular” Religious Killings
Hardly any international news agency reported that Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past month or so in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror. Not one of the leading news outlets in the U.S. carried the story: Not the NewYorkTimes, WashingtonPost, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any other outlet. BreitbartNews was the only American source for the story. There are several possible explanations for this remarkable silence, and none of them is good. Since, in point of fact, Muslim radicals kill Christians around the world with alarming frequency, it is probable that one more slaughter did not seem particularly newsworthy to the decision-makers at major news outlets.
Muslims being killed, on the other hand, may strike many as newsworthy precisely because it is so rare. A second motive for the media silence around the massacre of Christians in Nigeria may be geopolitical and racial. New Zealand is a first-world country where such things are not supposed to happen, whereas many people still consider Africa to be a backward place where brutal killings are par for the course.
The slaughter of black Christians in Africa may not spark outrage among westerners the way that the murder of white and brown Muslims in New Zealand would. But obviously the story simply does not play to the political agenda that many mainstream media would like to advance. How much mileage can be gained from Muslims murdering Christians, when Christians in America are often seen as an obstacle to the “progress” desired by liberals? The left sees Christians in the United States as part of the problem and seeks to undermine their credibility and influence at every turn rather than emboldening them.
Shortly after news broke of the horrific Christchurch mosque attack in New Zealand, radical Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez used the mass shooting as an opportunity to push an anti-gun agenda in America. Anti-Christian bias has been rightly called “the last acceptable prejudice,” one that few bother condemning.
“No one much cares about offending Christians,” wrote a coalition of African-American pastors. “In fact, mocking, belittling, and blaspheming Christianity is becoming a bit of a trend in our culture. Anti-Christian bigotry truly is the last acceptable prejudice.” “The hypocrisy on display is astounding,” the pastors continued. “Christianity is the dominant religion of our country Nigeria. It is the foundation of our government and morality. And yet, Christians are treated as fair game for mockery and insult.”
Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group in the world, but the mainstream media routinely ignore this fact as if it were unimportant or uninteresting. As a result, many people do not even realize how widespread the persecution is or that 75 percent of the victims of religious persecution around the world are Christians. Whatever the reason — or reasons — for the media silence surrounding the most recent massacres of Christians in Nigeria as well as numerous other such events, it should give right-thinking people pause. By all means, the lethal shootings of dozens of Muslims in New Zealand is a massive story and merits extensive coverage. But it only stands to reason that similar coverage should be devoted to the slaughter of Christians. For the moment, it serves as a poignant reminder that a double standard is at work when it comes to news coverage and that it is Christians who inevitably draw the short straw.
Christianity Gets No Free-Pass
How many movies have been filmed, books written, heroes and heroine created in and around the Crusades? But many do not even know that the Crusades were a religious invasion of the Middle East and slaughter of innumerable numbers of Muslims at the hands of Christians from what is now the United Kingdom and from other European nations. It’s amazing that we Christians are no different from any other religious group when it comes to justification for our wrongdoing. Every Christian knows that Christ came as a love gift from God to the entire world. That includes people from every country, every religion, every race, no matter who is flawed by anyone’s definition.
How do we get this one thing so messed up: “God Is Love?” And then there’s John 3:16: “For God so loved the World that He gave His only Son that whoever believes on Him will not perish but have life eternal.” There is NO religious or denominational qualifier in either, is there?
For Christians, violence in the name of God has forced us to re-examine our religious convictions and to self-criticise. Ultimately this will be needed in the Muslim world too. Any effort to force this from the outside will fail.
Islam vs. Christianity
Any comparison between the two religions is full of objective difficulty. However, the Bible has distinct advantages over the Koran when it comes to re-interpreting it in a way that critiques its violence rather than normalizes it for Christians today.
“Mohammad stressed that he did not work miracles like Moses,” says one theologian. “He seemed to emphasise that miracles only harden the heart. He didn’t appeal to anything beyond his own experience. So the ultimate proof that God was on his side was victory in battle.”
The Bible, on the other hand, starts and ends with ‘shalom’, and the violence in between is less than ideal. Furthermore, while there are warrior-figures like Elijah and Moses, the example of Christ is the loudest and final voice. Muslims have Mohammad, and that’s a very different final voice.
Are there lessons from history for Islamic State? Yes. Puritans were continually looking at the world and seeing confirmation that God was on their side. Above all, their proof was victory in battle. Only after the Cromwellian regime falls apart do they re-interpret Providence: ‘We only lost because of our sin.’
Many believe that in Africa and the Middle East, if sheer pragmatism doesn’t force them to compromise, terrorist regimes will continue until these groups disintegrate or until they suffer a catastrophic defeat, like the Puritans.
But in the here and now, those same folks are anxious to emphasise the need for self-criticism: our faith has led Christians to commit violence in the past, and a polarization between people of different faiths today can have the same effect.
We need to be careful about the demonization of Muslims. Our foreign policy begins around the dinner table, with the stories we tell our friends and families about Muslims. Most of us, after all, will never encounter Muslims in the East – but we’re very likely to encounter them walking down the street.
So, does religion cause violence? The answer is that it can, and it does – but it’s up to believers to make sure that it doesn’t.
Make no mistake about this: there are dramatic differences between Christian and Muslim theology. Through the last several decades, I’ve heard plenty of attempts to explain that Muslims and Christians worship the same God: He just has a different name in Islam. However, Christians should not fall for that explanation. The God of Christianity has one Son: Jesus Christ. And the Bible makes it abundantly clear in many passages in both the Old and New Testaments, God has many names, one of which is NOT “Allah.” And God is a jealous God who abhors murder, (“Thou shalt not kill” is one of Ten Commandments) and teaches us to each “love others as we love ourselves.” He also instructed us to “Do unto others as we want them to do unto us.” I doubt that any of us want to be murdered!
In understanding in some small way why there have been so many killings of innocents around the world at the hands of Muslims, the only explanation I can reasonably settle on his “hatred.” No, I cannot see or read the hearts of any other people. But human nature dictates that all of us at some point in our life will act out what we deeply feel inside. Psychiatrists teach that holding feelings in will always result in some “boiling over” of those withheld emotions at some point, often with desperate results.
Hatred for others has had horrific results throughout history. We cal all point to the evidence of cultural as well as political hatred through centuries that have resulted in the senseless slaughter of millions of people — some even by Christians.
The one common objective of all who hope to end the religious killings of every kind from our planet is simply this: love our neighbors as we love ourselves. It’s a dramatic and maybe impossible hope that somehow we can rid the world of hatred. “We” cannot do that. But one thing I DO know is certain: the God of Christianity encourages love for all people by all of His followers. He abhors the abuse of individuals by anyone and especially taking the life of another.
That same God gave all mankind a spiritual choice. No, speaking about that is NOT politically correct today. But it certainly is appropriate in the wake of the most recent murders that occurred in New Zealand and in Nigeria in the name of God and also of Allah. But just because someone tries to relegate something so personal and non-political nothing more than a political talking point is ludicrous. My God REALLY cares for every person whose life was snuffed by another. Taking of those lives was more than just tragic. Taking those lives changed human history.
It’s time for Christians in America to realize human nature as it is played out on Earth is seldom OK. It’s almost always driven by personal desires, emotions, hatred, or love and an understanding of others’ differences or their rejection. That’s what Jesus came to Earth to end: the penalty for the acts we allow our human nature to guide us into that oppose God’s plan for every human.
It’s a choice. 3000 Americans died at the hands of a handful of Muslims on 9/11. Innumerable Muslims were slaughtered in the name of Christianity at the direction of a Pople during the Crusades. Both were driven by human nature and its hatred. Both were wrong.
Can we ever get around that human nature? Of course my hope is that we can and that we will. To do so will require a massive undertaking of self-accountability. Will we take such necessary steps? Sadly, we never have. It’s too easy to simply point fingers and place blame. Unless we can en masse turn away from that, I doubt we will ever turn that page in human history.
But we need to try — and try again.
Here is the link to get the day-by-day official tally of deaths at the hands of Muslims going all the way back to September 11, 2001:
How often during the last decade have you heard the use of the term “racist?” How often have YOU used the term “racist?” Have you spent any time considering its meaning and purposes for its use? Like it or not, agree with it or not, accept it or not, that term actually defines the parameters for the state of dispute and chaos in which the United States of America finds itself.
Some will argue that our 20th-century parents and grandparents did not spend much time thinking about or discussing race, equality and inequality, the social and political structure of racial divide in America, or what things should or should not be done to change political policy regarding racial issues. From time to time social and political events that popped up forced Americans to think through racial issues — mostly to simply try to find understanding for their varied ways racial issues showed themselves in public. Otherwise, it seemed that the “handling” of those were more often than not done at home, in a closed-door meeting with the boss, or — under extreme circumstances — on the street. Unfortunately, those “street” confrontations received most of the attention.
Do not for a moment think this story is in any way to diminish the existence of or the necessity to deal with any and all issues in our nation dealing with race that are daily escalating with little or no real resolution on the horizon. Americans MUST tackle these problems. But just like addressing other problems in our personal, business, or social lives, we must first define a problem before possible resolutions can be identified, discussed, with ultimate resolution.
How Do We Do That?
In 1980, candidate Reagan asked the American people a question that is now iconic political history. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” He knew the answer, and he knew that the overwhelming majority of Americans had an opinion about the right answer. Politicians of all stripes have tried repeatedly to re-create that stark, black and white choice. As is often the case, the power of an original line is lost when the moment in time is no longer right for the message. The message is again right.
America has a problem with race relations. It’s a human problem flamed by profiteers who gain from division either politically or economically — or both. It is not simply an American problem. Make no mistake, however, in a country where we once held blacks as property, placed them in chains, and subjugated them under the law, the stain of racism is on our soul and is still part of our modern culture. We are not born racists: we teach racism and pass it on or down.
Do we want to fix racism in this country? You bet. The overwhelming majority of Americans want it gone, and our government and numerous groups have fought from broadly different perspectives to combat it. The fight has ebbed and flowed, and we have found some success and some complete failures. Indeed, we cannot even agree on what racism is let alone how to wipe it from our culture.
On this we must agree; race relations in America are worse now than they were eight years ago. This is not to say that President Obama was the “cause” of poor race relations or that President Trump is the “cause” of poor race relations. It is to say that Obama’s prescriptions for combating racial injustice did not help, and his leadership on the issue served to fan the flames of racial mistrust. I promise you that was not his intention as some folks truly believe. Mr. Obama grew up black in America. His view was profoundly different from that of those who did not, and as President, he had a passion to expose racism and problems he had seen, fought, and perceived for decades. His had been a life of racial grievance, fighting “the man.” Then he was elected and became “the man.” His fight became all about exposing the world as he saw it. Was he wrong for that? We judge intelligent sounding public policy based on outcomes, not intentions. Mr. Obama made race relations worse, even if he was only wrong for all the right reasons.
Racism is real in America … and recently Newt Gingrich discussing escalating racial issues during the Trump Administration told white Americans that they could never really know what it was like to grow up black in America. He is right … dead right. Likewise, for many minorities, they don’t know what it is like to grow up white in America. Whiteness is not a ticket to success, nor is it a path paved by privilege. Every individual in this country has hurdles, and the absence of color surely removes one hurdle for non-minorities. Racism in America is worse not because white people are becoming more and more racist. Racism in America is getting worse because we are counting and dividing by race. We are promoting and hiring based on race. We are suing and being sued based on race. We are admitting and denying based on race — even that bastion of racial equality among Ivy League universities — Harvard. We are selling and buying distrust from our leaders, even in some churches, and family members based on race. With that distrust, we are accepting the false narrative that all whites are racists, that they have unchecked privilege, and that they seek to oppress, deny, and punish blacks for being black. Whites look at staggering black crime rates, gun violence, and anti-white militancy and they too fall prey to the false narrative that blacks pose a higher risk of being a threat just because they are black. Who can stop it? Not this old white guy.
All of this happens when the emphasis of our leaders and our public policy is on our color, rather than the content of our character or the measure of our accomplishments. We cannot and we will not succeed in a war on racism until we stop making and selling assumptions based on race – no matter our race. The best way to attack this problem is to move to a race-neutral society, where the government does not divide us by race. It is hard to build a United States in a country where we divide each other socially, academically, or legally based on color. We cannot be a United States when we demonize each other, attack the necessary fundamentals of civil society, and assume and sell the concept that law enforcement and the justice system are designed to oppress people of color. They are not.
Yes, racism exists in America. However, in a country where the last President was black, and Virginia, Ohio, and California are states he overwhelmingly won, we know that “color” is thankfully not the sole measure of a man by reasonable, responsible people. What we need now is to have more reasonable, responsible, color neutral people, governments, and organizations. Here is what is true: If you dislike or distrust someone because of the color of his or her skin — no matter what color their skin is — you may have a propensity to be racist, irrespective of the color of your skin.
The success of America is based on a simple formula that works across any color boundary. Get an education. Get, and stay, married. Raise your kids in a loving family to respect people, irrespective of color or faith. Promote education, and encourage civic activism and volunteerism in your local community. When we do those things, we will change our society. If, however, we continue down a path of broken families, broken communities, race-baiting, racial profiteering, and distrust there will be no United in our states. The answer is black and white, but it starts one household at a time, black and white.
How Can We Start That Change?
Academy Award recipient Denzel Washington chimed in on that topic the topic of racism and what Americans must do to tackle it.
Denzel is speaking to a reporter who asked Denzel how he thinks race relationships are in America. Denzel responded: “Race relationships have to do with race relationships. You’re white, or whatever you are, and I’m black, or whatever I am, and we’re standing here talking now. That’s how we get things done. You can’t legislate love. The President of the United States cannot legislate us into liking each other. We have to step forward and ask questions about each other and engage. There’s no law that says because I’m President you all gotta get along now. So it’s up to us.”
It sounds fairly simple and seems pretty easy for the Oscar winner Denzel Washington to reach out to the “other side” to open lines of communication to discuss all things pertaining to race. It’s another thing for everyday folks who live in Middle America to get started in that process — especially when every day it becomes more and more obvious to Americans that the nation seems to daily grow more and more racially divided.
A recent poll finds most Americans believe race relations in this country are bad. More than half of whites think so, and more than two-thirds of blacks. Even more troubling, 40 percent of blacks and whites believe race relations are getting worse. One possible reason: The poll found big majorities — 60 percent of whites and 71 percent of blacks — believe most Americans are uncomfortable discussing race with someone of another race.
But one group is helping blacks and whites break down the racial wall by breaking bread together. It starts out like any dinner party. But then, a difficult conversation begins. “Blacks don’t trust white people by and large,” said Linda, a black woman. “And whether you think it’s based on history is irrelevant.”
“I didn’t have black friends,” Curtis, a white man, said. “A couple of acquaintances, but never had them in our home, never in their home.”
They call themselves Chattanooga Connected: A group of blacks and whites who meet once a month to have dinner and talk openly about race. They were brought together by 75-year-old Franklin McCallie, a son of privilege whose family name is seen everywhere in town. He said he was raised to believe in the South’s segregationist order.
“I’ve used the N-word and I told some N-jokes,” McCallie says. “They were ‘less.’ They lived in less homes, they got off the street, they said ‘sir’ to me as a young man.” But in college, a conversation with a black student from a nearby African-American school changed everything. “He said, ‘You know where we eat lunch? My uncles and I, who fought in World War II for freedom and justice and the pursuit of happiness?'” McCallie recalls, becoming emotional. “‘We get on a bus and ride two miles out of town to eat lunch ’cause none of the stores we shop in will let us eat.'”
Curtis Baggett said the conversations around the dinner table can get uncomfortable – but that that’s a good thing. “I think it’s liberating,” Baggett says. “It was so freeing for the first time in my life to have a black man tell me what it really felt like to be walking around a grocery store, a mini-mart, and have the owner of the mini-mart follow him up and down the aisles because he didn’t trust him. I’ve never thought of that before.”
McCallie acknowledges that the dinner parties aren’t likely to end racism in America – but they’re a start. “If it all stops at this house, it wouldn’t do that much more,” McCallie says. “It’s got to go other places.” People finally seeing each other, by talking face-to-face.
One thing is very obvious: people of different races and different color have varying differences, come from varying circumstances, and therefore have varying perspectives. I as a Christan feel strongly that as hard as it may be, it is more important than hard for us to find ways to open discourse with each other. The Chattanooga Connected example of doing so may seem simple, and even silly to you, but it illustrates one very important element in any racial reconciliation process that MUST exist: honest effort to communicate with the “other” side to honestly find similarities, differences, and develop sincere plans and even a timeline to push for common goals and objectives.
In one of the best racial movies of all time — A Time to Kill — Carl Lee in his jail cell after shooting two men who raped his little girl has a brief discussion with Jake, his attorney:
Until ALL of America gets to a place of realization that for ANY American racial reconciliation, we MUST learn how to — and commit to — begin honest dialogue with each other to define differences and similarities between us and unite to implement necessary changes to eliminate the fires of racism.
War Is Here! And it’s not just in Syria and Iraq. It is alive and thriving in the United States.
On June 30th, 2018, Joey Gibson led Patriot Prayer through the streets of Portland Oregon on their “Freedom And Courage” march. See for yourself: (what you see in the video posted on our blog page are masked Antifa terrorists stalking and attacking peaceful protestors. They beat protestors up, knocking several to the ground and are spraying pepper spray at will)
It is hard to believe that what we see in videos almost daily is actually a war of the worst kind. It’s a war of the “worst kind” because it’s here on American shores and between Americans.
War is not new to the world. It certainly is not new to the United States. But it has been more than a century since a war that involved America and Americans actually took place on American soil. The Civil War from 1861 to 1865 was the last war to invade our borders. In that one, 600,000 Americans gave their lives fighting about slavery. It changed our nation forever — not just in putting the injustices of slavery at the top of the news for generations, but for many of those who gave their lives it meant their heritage through children and grandchildren would never be achieved, cut short by an American war. It also meant they died at the hands of other Americans. That was and still is hard to reconcile.
We may be watching that reoccur in America today.
And it’s not just ON the streets.
Get In The Faces of Cabinet Members
It’s one thing to peacefully protest. Our nation was built on that tenet of democracy. But when does “peaceful” stop and “confrontation” begin?
We forgot about the riots in Baltimore in which police were physically assaulted, there were multiple injuries of rioters and police. (we show a graphic video of Baltimore violence playing out on city streets in which regular citizens and policemen were assaulted)
It seems that the horrors that play out on the streets are important only when the media need a juicy story. And when the need for those headlines and gory video fade away, so does the reporting. The news is only important when a tragedy with death and destruction and/or police brutality are important for the “appropriate” headline, OR it could simply be turning an otherwise benign White House Oval Office meeting into a weaponized call-to-arms:
That was NBC’s recount of rapper Kanye West meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office. While NBC did not “attack” Kanye, they certainly in this story took jabs at his “40 different topics” NBC reported he brought up while speaking to the President, pointing to the fact a doctor diagnosed Kanye as bi-polar. But media attacks against Americans — like Kanye West — are rampant. And they’re NOT news stories:
CNN pundit Don Lemon used rap star Kanye West’s dead mother to attack him for his political views Thursday, saying that if his mother were still alive, she “would be embarrassed” by his White House visit with President Trump.
Lemon, who has been a constant critic of the President, took umbrage at West’s appearance in the Oval Office as a new music licensing law was signed. “I have no animosity for Kanye West,” Lemon said on CNN. “I’m just going to be honest and I may get in a lot of trouble for it. I actually feel bad for him. What I saw was a minstrel show today. Him in front of all these white people, mostly white people, embarrassing himself and embarrassing Americans, but mostly African-Americans, because every one of them is sitting either at home or with their phones, watching this, cringing.”
“Kanye needs help, this has nothing to do with being liberal or a conservative. We have to stop pretending… like this is normal,” Lemon said.
CNN actually hosted a panel discussion about Kanye’s meeting with the President in which one political pundit called Kanye President Trump’s “token Negro.”
In the African American community, “them’s fightin’ words!” Wait…the pundit who called Kanye Trump’s “token Negro” WAS A BLACK PERSON!
What Is War?
OK: We’ve taken the easy way to open this conversation about War. We need to get to the “nitty-gritty:” What IS War?
Cicero defines war broadly as “a contention by force;” Hugo Grotius adds that “war is the state of contending parties.” Thomas Hobbes notes that war is also an attitude: “By war is meant a state of affairs, which may exist even while its operations are not continued;” Denis Diderot comments that war is “a convulsive and violent disease of the body politic;” for Karl von Clausewitz, “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” and so on. Each definition has its strengths and weaknesses, but often is the culmination of the writer’s broader philosophical positions.
For example, the notion that wars only involve states — as Clausewitz implies — references a strong political theory that assumes politics can only involve states and that war is in some manner or form a reflection of political activity. ‘War’ defined by Webster’s Dictionary is a state of open and declared hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a period of such conflict. This maintains that war needs to be explicitly declared and to be between states to be a war. Rousseau argues this position: “War is constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons…War then is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State…” (The Social Contract).
When Does Confrontation Become War?
That’s a good question. And Confrontation does not easily become War. There’s NO easy answer, but answer it we must.
Comparing what we are watching today to other times of conflict on U.S. soil may seem unreasonable to some. After all, we DID have the National Guard gun down rioters at Kent State during the Vietnam conflict. Those were protests that became violent riots. Barack Obama’s mentor William Ayers with his girlfriend Bernadette Dorn of the terrorist group Weather Underground bombed a police station and a policeman was killed. Is it safe for us to allege we’re facing something similar today?
Let’s think that through together:
Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) was gunned down at a baseball practice of GOP House members in Washington D.C. by a nutjob who was actually there to do just that — kill Republican members of Congress;
Rioters in Portland and Berkeley have on several occasions razed businesses, injured private citizens during riots, attacked others, all in the name of Anti-fascism when in fact they are the fascists they say they are fighting!
The recent Baltimore riots morphed into violence that resulted in personal injuries for civilians AND police as well as immense damage to personal property.
When will it be appropriate to call what we are seeing “War?”
One might say that watching Leftist politicians instruct their political adherents to “get in the faces of Administration employees and tell them they’re not welcome here,” or to “drive them out of restaurants and gas stations,” or to stand next to their tables in restaurants threatening them is all simply peaceful and legal political demonstrating.
But isn’t all of the above when put in total a type of inciting to riot? “Inciting to riot” is against the law.
Against the Law?
Saying that some of these actions are “against the law” is a joke: we don’t enforce laws — or quite a few of them. Rahm Emanuel — mayor of Chicago — is watching as every weekend dozens of Chicagoans are slaughtered on the streets. That’s been happening for several years. Yet Rahm simply allows it to continue and even restricts Chicago police, preventing them from taking measures that are necessary to stop the killing.
Isn’t that Anarchy?
“Anarchy: Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.”
I totally agree with those that say that Chicago is stricken with “the absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.” A mayor of a city should always keep and maintain a common standard and purpose — if nothing else, to assure the safety of his city’s residents!
What scares me for my grandchildren is the ever-growing benign acceptance of American leaders of this anarchy, rioting, and terrorization of American citizens that virtually goes unchecked. Maybe they allow it with some hope that it will get so bad it will force Americans to make political changes that those leaders want. Barack Obama himself made it clear he wanted to lead “in the fundamental change of America.” America is fundamentally changing — that’s for certain. But these changes are NOT for the better.
When political leaders stand in front of voters and constituents and instruct those listening to aggressively confront those with whom they hold political differences, are those leaders so blind as to think numbering among all who listen are NOT a few who take those cries literally? Maxine Waters did not only cry with a bullhorn for voters to aggressively confront Trump Administration members on the street, in restaurants, and even in gas stations, she has since doubled and tripled down on her instructions!
Over a year ago on this blog site, I told all who looked in what the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is. I’ll repeat it here for all of you:
“Conservatives don’t like what Liberals stand for. Liberals HATE Conservatives.”
Hatred goes a long way toward inciting anger and violence. Violence goes a long way toward the incitement of terror, bombing, and physical assault. Terror, bombings, and assault are a pre-cursor to War.
I’m not trying to scare everyone here. But on the eve of the midterm elections, we MUST be mindful of who we vote for. Whoever wins these elections will collectively be in positions of leading America into the ratcheting-down of this angry rhetoric that is inciting violence. If we’re not watchful; if we do NOT vote and vote our hearts; if we allow the leaders of these violent Leftists to assume or maintain leadership, we will inevitably slide into a war on American soil.
It’s getting pretty crazy in America. We are seeing not just anger and hostility from the Left, we are even closer to the “W” word since the war in Iraq.
Tomorrow we are revealing evidence of war “in” America. It’s not pretty, it’s not fun to talk about either. But if we don’t talk about it and ignore its signs, when it explodes we’ll be too late to confront and stop it.
What’s scariest is if it materializes it will be war between Americans.
Make sure you have your email registered to get the link to the story “The Pictures of War ‘IN’ America” early Tuesday morning. Log your email on the home page to receive a link to every story or podcast when they go live.