freedom news

Nudge-O-Nomics- The Cass Sunstein Plan for America

W R Collier Jr July 19, 2021

Cass Sunstein- The Nudger Behind The Obama Presidency

Bill Collier- Originally posted on March 30, 2015, this article bears reposting as the same theories animate our current corrupt President- One man above all others is the force behind the new style and methods employed by President Obama: he is a man who quite literally co-wrote the book on how to use regulations to transform human nature itself.

This man’s name is Cass Sunstein. He believes, based on the book he co-wrote with Richard Thaler, that there are two kinds of humans. Homo economicus is reflective and evolved and generally makes wise decisions. Homo sapiens is instinctive and not evolved and generally makes foolish decisions. While the two authors use as much scientific jargon as possible in their book “Nudge”, and studiously avoid explicit ideological or political references, it becomes clear to critics that “homo economicus” is a progressive liberal and “homo sapiens” is a traditionalist conservative. It also becomes clear that the “libertarian paternalism” they advocate for is simply a re-branded version of the traditional progressive belief that the state in its regulatory and taxing power is the prime move of human history and progress.

Cass Sunstein is not simply an academic. He is, for all intents and purposes, President Obama’s “regulatory czar.” His ideas and theories were the very reason the President chose him to be a key player. If Sunstein’s advice is consistent with the theories behind “Nudge”, as we must assume it would be, then it is Sunstein who is the architect of the President’s approach.

Their ideological agenda, based on this notion of two species, one evolved and the other not evolved, would not be pursued legislatively but, rather, by processes that are as far removed from the “homo sapiens” as possible, and which are controlled by “homo economicus”, the more evolved human species. The objective is not to subjugate homo sapiens but, through nudging, to elevate him to the level of homo economicus. Nudging seeks to do so without denying homo sapiens free choice but only by nudging him in the right direction.

For instance, you are still free to not get health care. The only “penalty” is that you are taxed. In actuality, everyone is taxed, but those who have health care are given a tax break. That this was (allegedly) concealed during the passage of the Affordable Care Act is also consistent with the general theory. The key thing here is that free choice is actually preserved, albeit with a “nudge” in the form of a new tax that only those who have health coverage are exempted from.

The idea of using regulations, which fall into a grey area, to nudge the populace and thus bring homo sapiens into the homo economicus club has firmly taken root and the President’s innovation here is that he has gone beyond merely nudging through regulations. He has succeeded, and this without very much resistance, in pushing through many policy changes that affect millions of Americans, even against the express wishes of a supine legislature. For those who embrace progressivism and who believe we need to evolve beyond traditional conservatism, these changes are a breath of fresh air.

Using the Sunstein model of “nudging” by regulatory legerdemain, the President has transformed many aspects of US policy, at home and abroad, and has had little need for Congress. He also faces no substantive resistance from the courts. As a matter of fact, with few exceptions, the courts, thus far, have aided in his efforts, not resisted them,

Immigration reform is a de facto reality. Marriage itself is being redefined to a more progressive vision. Punishing but, progressives argue, necessary climate control regulations are being enacted. The internet itself is now a government controlled “utility.” Abroad, the US, under the current President, is conducting agreements not classified as treaties, but which are de facto treaties, without Congressional oversight: indeed the deal with Iran over its nuclear program is being kept from Congress and will not be submitted for their approval.

The nudge behind the Obama Presidency is a man who is a staunch ideological adherent himself, as is evidenced in his writings and his actions. Discerning the President’s actual belief-system from both his books and his actions, for him the progressive and secularist worldview is not merely a competing worldview with others, it is the only “valid” view.

This is a fact of life many progressives embrace: that anyone who disagrees with their version of morality and justice is not evolved and, it is argued by their opponents, needs “managed” or “nudged” into the “right” choices. What is more, the progressive thesis that the state is the prime mover of human history and progress is particularly pronounced under the current President.

This feature of a President who makes policy without the legislature’s full and hearty consent is not entirely new. Critics of President Bush pointed out, or alleged, that his was an “imperial presidency”, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs and military action. They argue that his “neoconservative” penchant for “nation building” in the name of “national security”, and with faint Congressional oversight, went too far. Indeed, even some conservative critics felt that “nation building” and “preemptive wars” smacked of the thesis that states are the prime movers of human history and progress.

The argument is made that now is the time for humankind to turn a corner, and that a benevolent “libertarian paternalism” that nudges people by regulation without totally taking away their free choice is the right path for a planned human evolution.

For those who believe in both this basic worldview of what “progress” means and that the state is the prime mover in human history, Sunstein’s model is benevolent and, what is more, efficient. In point of fact, supporters might argue that, aside from conservative ideologues, this “nudging” is having a tremendous effect. Every main agenda item and belief of the modern progressive ideology is featured and celebrated in our society while their opposites are ridiculed, shamed, and even punished, albeit socially more than legally.

It remains to be seen whether this nudging will survive as a practice into the next presidency, or even whether a more conservative President might turn the whole thing on its head and use the precedence set by this President as a weapon against the beliefs of the very people who invented it. It would certainly take a President of great moral character to forego the use of such a powerful tool that nobody, not Congress nor the Courts, has demonstrated either the ability or the will to stand up against.

In the end, the republic became a democracy and now the democracy has become something else. It is hard to put a name on it. Basically, it has become a state where a few un-elected and un-accountable bureaucrats, at the direction of the President, control the actual political action of the country, and where politics (instead of faith, culture, family, free association, the market, or community) controls everything else.

This is a condition I call a “politocracy”, a state totally ruled by politics where only a few totally control politics. This, it can be argued, is the ultimate (even if unintended) legacy of Cass Sunstein. On the other hand, if this is the case, it can be argued from the other side, that the advancement in human and societal evolution will be well worth it.

This new American reality also creates even more of a premium on winning the White House, no matter which camp you belong to. The game is now an all-or-nothing battle for the only office in the land that wields any real power, the office that appoints and directs the experts, the regulators, the next generation of Sunsteins.

The questions you must ask are these; Are these ends good ends for human society and do these ends, even if they are good, justify the means by which they are carried out?

Cass Sunstein, unknown to many, is the nudge behind the Obama Presidency. This one man is fundamentally rewriting American society, one regulatory nudge at a time. Welcome to the new America, the America of Nudge-O-nomics.

Read Bill Collier’s Intelligence Analysis on this topic here.

Sustainability, NOT Global Warming

W R Collier Jr October 5, 2020

Bill Collier- In an article on the 8th of February, Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph lambasted “global warming” and “climate change” science, joining a growing chorus of critics who accuse scientists of skewing data to prove their theory. Indeed, the fault line for the “global warming” debate is ideological and political, not “scientific.”

Critics of the global warming theorists point out that their solutions often lean heavily toward a top-down global “collectivist” approach. Some use the word “Socialist” to describe the global warming theorists. Even efforts by non-collectivists to produce a free market approach to effect reductions in “carbon emissions” have been rejected- evidently, critics point out, global warming can only be dealt with by resorting to some form of global collectivism that is managed by a small group of ‘experts.’

This begs the question as to what is or isn’t collectivism and whether critics are “red baiting”, but the fact the argument has come down to the alleged ideology of the proponents of the global warming theory seems to reveal that the “science” has taken a back seat to ideology, on both sides. Only time will tell if accusations against the “science” behind the global warming theory are true and founded.

For years, efforts to clean our air and produce what is called “sustainability” have been based on “global warming.” We were told that “in order to prevent global warming, we must reduce pollutants and we must focus on sustainability.” Sustainability is a move towards locally renewable or recyclable raw materials and alternative energy all of which have a “light footprint” on the environment.

Partially as a result of this fear compelling people to seek such solutions, these sustainable solutions, including alternative energy, have come down in costs. More and more advances are coming along making wind, solar, and other forms of sustainable energy solutions affordable to average people. Alternative building techniques, which city codes are still catching up to, such as cobb and straw bale construction, can so reduce building costs as to make adding on wind and solar power generation to each home quite within reach of average people.

Sustainability and clean air are tied almost inextricably to “global warming” and if, whether it is fair or not to do so, the whole theory of global warming is rejected by most people, then it may also be that concerns of clean air and efforts to create more self-sustaining communities will suffer the same fate. The picture of large plumes of soot-smoke pouring into the sky from factories and coal fired power plants will no longer concern people who believe that this has not impact on “climate change.”

One city has become the poster child for a move away from fossil fuels and toward sustainability- Peking. Here is a city which has days of such heavy pollution that people are forbidden to go outside, and rare is the day when the “fog” lifts enough for you to actually clearly see the city skyline. Perhaps all that smog will not do one thing to tick the global temperature up, but one can certainly argue that this smog is not good for the people, the plants, or the animals of Peking.

A precipitous rush away from fossil fuels towards sustainable energy is economically harmful, it is argued, and with some serious questions emerging about the science behind global warming, it may be tempting to drop the whole move toward sustainability altogether. The current EPA rules regarding coal-fired power plants are driven almost totally by global warming fears, for instance. While it may be argued that the EPA is moving too far, too fast, and all in the name of something fewer and fewer people believe is a real threat, the truth is that there are other good reasons to consider pushing forward, even if at a more reasonable and far less disruptive pace, with sustainable energy solutions.

Sustainable local energy is energy from locally renewable raw materials which local people, at the household level, are mostly in ownership control over. It means that the community, down to the individual homes and businesses, owns and controls its own energy resources and that the use of those resources has little to no negative impact on their air, water, or natural environment in general. Far from being only about global warming, it is about empowerment and it is about clean air, water, and an overall pristine natural environment being left to future generations.

Such solutions, however, are not proposed by many global warming theorists. Often their solutions focus on “one big system”, or “OBS”. OBS looks like this: a giant solar and/or wind farm owned and controlled by a corporation or government that distributes power through a nationally interconnected “smart grid” that charges consumers, you and I, high costs for energy. This is already happening and anyone who pays electricity bills knows all about this.

Sustainable local energy focuses on empowering individuals to become individually “energy independent”, at least in their household, by freeing them to use better and less expensive building techniques to shift the cost of building a home from the building to its energy and waste removal infrastructure.

Sustainable local energy is empowerment. It puts more wealth, more resources, and more control in the hands of the individual and removes much of the “middle man” fat of governments and corporations which currently control our energy.

As the debate over global warming devolves into politics and ideology, if people genuinely reject this theory, then it is possible they will reject and be suspicious of anything associated with it, including efforts to pursue cleaner air and sustainability in general, which are rewarding and beneficial even if global warming were conclusively proven to be a total myth. The danger here is that we will continue, as individuals and communities, to rely on OBS, whether OBS is sustainable or not sustainable, and we, as individuals, are thus rendered “dependent” on OBS rather than ourselves and our neighbors.

The Optics Of The Obama-Castro Meetings

W R Collier Jr April 12, 2015

Bill Collier- The meeting with Cuba’s dictator will no doubt leave a bad taste in the mouth of President Obama’s critics and many Cubans, for whom the Castros are synonymous with Hitler or Stalin. The image of the President proudly smiling with glee and talking about how nations should only use pursuasion and nothing more in their dealings with one another is in stark contrast to the scowls and bitter bromides his domestic political opponents feel they endure. It was well beyond “persuasion”, his critics lament, for the IRS (allegedly) to turned loose on the President’s political opponents.

Of course the President’s supporters seem happy with the move, indeed the left in this country idolize the likes of Che Guevara, an Argentinian communist who played a key role in Cuba’s revolution. For them, opening trade, diplomacy, and travel to Cuba seems a bit like a dream come true. Michael Moore, a leftist documentary film maker, even came to Cuba to extol the virtues of its health care system.

The President has been seen with many foreign leaders who seem unsavory, including the Chinese communist leaders who notoriously order to aborting of all children beyond a couple’s first child unless that couple can pay steep penalties for “permission” to have other children. But so too have other Presidents been seen with such characters, and the President pointed out that having dialogue and diplomacy does not constitute agreement as such. For him, merely having diplomacy and dialogue is an improvement that might just mitigate future conflict. This is exactly what is being done with Iran, and normalization of relations is the end goal.

But Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of Florida, so the fact we have a communisty tyranny so close and that, with economic trade, it could afford (again) to export its revolution by force (as it once did) is deeply troubling. That the current American President proclaims policies that to his critics sound too much like the rhetoric coming from Cuba on “economic justice” only makes the optics of a Castro-Obama relationship seem all the more objectionable. A communist dictatorship across the ocean is one thing, but many Americans feel, instinictively, a particular revulsion for a communist dictatorship 90 miles from Florida!

Make no mistake, the Castro regime is a massive human right violator. Even during the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama, anti-Castro protestors were brutally beaten by Cuban security who were on scene while the Panammian police stood by and did nothing.

For a President who is accused of being in bed with communism and who is accused of over-stepping his bounds of authority, the optics of being more friendly and congenial to Raul Castro than he has been toward his domestic opponents, the optics were particularly unfavorable: at least in the eyes of his domestic political critics. But President Obama believes an opening with Cuba might soften the regime and do for Cuba what Nixon felt US relations with Communist China would do: export the values of freedom. Some would argue that Nixon’s China policy has failed and that, instead of exporting freedom, America imported shades of socialism.

Despite his smiles and clear satisfaction in meeting with a man many see as an enemy of American values, despite the fact a majority of Americans appear to approve of this opening of relations with the communist dictatorship, one should not expect such efforts at open and cordial dialogue and a commitment to not go beyond persuasion with the President’s domestic political opponents.

Why Boehner and McConnell Should Step Aside

W R Collier Jr January 7, 2015

By Bill Collier Jr- The conservative base of the GOP wants Boehner and McConnell, the respective GOP heads of the House and Senate, to go. They want them to go because the base believe these men, indeed the entire leadership of the GOP, are quislings at the helm selling their soul to special interests on a number of issues, including the Affordable Care Act (so-called Obamacare) and “Immigration Reform”. The conservative base feel un-represented in DC and they are, as Democratic pollster Pat Cadell has claimed, “ready to bolt the party.”

Average Americans do not closely follow the minutae and nuances of the political scene and do not have an in-depth working knowledge of the American political process. This does not mean they lack the acumen to understand these things, it’s only a matter of how much time they have: and understanding these things to the granular level takes time.

The truth is, as I see it anyway, that “realpolitik”, the art of the possible in the political process set before you, is not very simple or straightfoward. One might argue convincingly that in many ways Boehner and McConnell are masters of the art of realpolitik. Their ceaseless manuevering cannot be discounted as a factor in their party’s stunning successes in the last election cycle, though they’d be mistaken to assume they take the sole credit for those successes. They are indeed playing chess while it seems the President is still playing checkers, or at least that is the argument.

Some would counter that Americans are fed up with “realpolitik”, that they are becoming incresingly anti-establishment, regardless of their political persuasion. They want politics to be up front and simple, and people-powered instead of being driven by elites and special interests who buy access and influence. All this is grist for the populist mill on both sides of the political spectrum, but it is not entirely true that this sentiment drives dissatisfaction with leaders.

Far from populist sentiment driving dissatisfaction with leaders who master realpolitik, I would argue that dissatisfaction with leaders drives populist sentiment. And I say this as someone who, on principle, embraces a more populist politics driven by consensus of the People, especially at the local level.

The real problem is not whether or not Boehner and McConnell understand realpolitik, the real problem is whether they can be both masters of that art and dynamic leaders of their own potential supporters. We should, I propose, take it as a given that if 60% or more of members of the Republican Party, this according to Pat Caddell’s polling, reject their own leaders then there is a leadership problem. When leaders must take to sniping their own allies and friends who demonstrate a lack of confidence in their leadership, then those leaders should step aside. When your own support base canot stand you then you cannot blame them and call them names in a petulant act of whining.

Already, Boehner is retaliating against those 25 House members of his own party who voted against him. And it is remarkable to see the number of House members who voted for him trying to excuse their vote to angry constituents who have been raising royal hell on the phone lines for the past few days. It would seem to the average American conservative that the GOP are far more afraid of harsh editorials by the New York Times than they are of angry constituents who have lost confidence in their ability to lead.

I am not arguing that Boehner and McConnell are in fact liberals in disguise plotting with the Democrats to move American down the road to socialism, as many angry conservatives are. I actually believe they are playing realpolitik in a skilled manner that will ultimately unravel the plans of their opponents on the left. I do not believe these men are not conservatives. But the reality is that these two men are focused on the traditional roles of leading a caucus of elected Republicans, a role that, arguably, is what their positions have normally entailed, and not on also being the leaders of PEOPLE on the street level who are looking for a symbol of their values and their opposition to their political opponents on the left.

The traditional role of merely being the leader of a Party Caucus is just not sufficient in the 21st century. In times past, people barely knew who these party leaders were, but not so today. Everything they do and say is published and broadcast to the Party base without any party filter- it is transmitted by bloggers and conservative news sites who are constantly looking for re-assurance that their leaders are towing their line. That those leaders have tended to just assume that if you tell your own base about the nuances required in realpolitik while assuring them of your shared goals that the base won’t get it is unfortunate.

The conservative base, up to 60% of the Republican party, no longer believes party leadership have the same vision or represent the same values they hold dear. This is not the fault of the followers, it is the fault of the leaders. And for this reason alone Boehner and McConnell should step aside from leadership and help find leaders who know how to both master realpolitik AND rally and inspire their Party’s core of supporters- and they should do this before that base just up and walks away.

SPECULATION- Obama May Recognize Palestinian State

W R Collier Jr December 19, 2014

Bill Collier- Rumors are circulating that President Obama may unilaterally authorize the State Department to extend “some level of recognition” of a Palestinian State in a move not unlike the sudden reversal of US policy regarding Cuba.

In that move, the President worked for over a year without disclosing his intentions to ANY member of Congress and it is believed that a similar approach is being taken with regard to the Palestinian bid for statehood. This effort would receive the blessings of John Kerry although many Democrats, who receive millions of dollars in campaign donations from Jewish sources, could face a backlash from those same sources if such a poicy shift were to materialize.

It is known that the US has threatened to use a UN veto if the UN Gernal Assembly votes to recognize the Palestinian State, however in recent statements the US has indicated this would be based on “the language of the resolution.” This seeming backpeddle has led to speculation that a policy reversal is in the offing.

While this move seems unlikely, so too did the Cuban move, which has already caused outrage in the Cuban expat community. It would appear that the President, mindful that he has no more elections to endure and determined to use executive authority to what he perceives its limits to be, a line some feel has already gone too far beyond the legal norm, wants to push as much of his true ideological agenda as possible. It is calculated by some that his (alleged) vision for totally transforming America into what must objectively be defined as a leftwing presidential state that is led by technocrats with centralized authority supercedes all other considerations.

What is certain is that the President is swinging for the fences, determined to stay in control of the agenda and determined to keep his political opponents in reaction mode as he pursues initiative after initiative without consulting anyone but his own intuation.

Recognition of a Palestinian State while Congress is in recess, in between the recess of the old Congress and the swearing in of the new Congress, would be a fait accompli which the President may believe his political opponents could do little about, but it would also be extremely unpopular among all but the hard core leftist base. It would throw Israel into the arms of China and Russia and increase the likelihood of Israel taking Iran’s threats and potential of obtaining nuclear weapons into its own hands, and it would undercut Arab efforts to begin a process of moving toward an understanding with Israel. Finally, it would result in a Hamas controlled “proto-state” and place Israel at direct varience with US policy.

We will be watching events closely and while we cannot confirm that such rumors are true, the recent backtracking on statements about a UN resolution recognizing a Palestinian State and the recent move regarding Cuba seem to bolster such speculations.

The White Guilt Lie

W R Collier Jr December 13, 2014

By Bill Collier- Opinion- It’s all the rage. Whenever you do something a partisan class don’t like, they throw up something your ancestors allegedly did and accuse you of being a racist. Now Notre Dame has a seminar on white guilt. Meanwhile, as amnesty for illegal border crossers is debated, some say white people are hypocrites because of alleged abuses by their ancestors of Indians (Native Americans).

What is not seen is a PROPER response, a response that says, “none of these accusations and none of this guilt nonsense matters.” We can resort to the Word of God, the Bible, to see how God judges people, and we would never hear God saying, “because of something your ancestor did, you are guilty and you have no moral authority.” This would be injustice and it flies in the face of the great American ideal articulated by Martin Luther King Jr. that everyone should only every be judged by the content of THEIR character.

As for those who preach “white guilt” or who lay the guilt of previous generations upon people today, blaming living Christians for the alleged wrongs of the Crusades or living Americans for the alleged wrongs done to Indians, this is the Word of the Lord, who is just and righteous and true, and every man a liar.

EZEKIEL 18
1The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,

2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?

3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,

9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.

10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,

11 And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour’s wife,

12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,

13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father’s sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,

15 That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour’s wife,

16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,

17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.

18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.The Soul who Sins will Die

19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Whoever dares condemn ME or YOU of anyone for that which we have no part, whoever tries to lay ANY guilt on you or for that which you or I had no participation, this is their fate: as they have judged others, so shall they be judged. Every sin their ancetors have committed will be upon their head, for as you judge, you are then yourself judged. But as for me, my innocence before God will be vindicated by God and not one weapon formed against me will prosper.

If you have been condemned because of the alleged sins of others who came before you, renounce that curse and share this as a way of saying you refuse to receive such unjust condemnation, and as a warning to your accusers, for by so judging you they themselves own every sin of their ancestors, and not one of us is lacking in sinful ancestors!

The days of peddling white guilt must end and those using it must understand that they are the ones truly condemned by their own words, not the people they are falsely accusing.

Blacklash And Whitelash Fomented From Ferguson

W R Collier Jr December 2, 2014

Bill Collier- Officer Darren Wilson did not give a “a death sentence for petty robbery” as some who many see as race-baiters are saying. He was shot by a police officer who claims that this young man was threatening his life. A death sentence occurs when a court find someone guilty and passes a sentence. When an individual defends themselves, whether as a cop on the beat or a home owners facing an intruder, the death caused by their action is considered an act of self-defense. But as “blacklash” aimed at whites and cops is fomented by the likes of Al Sharpton and, some argue, the President himself, some fear the “whitelash” that will follow as angered whites, and cops, decide to push back against what they see as a libelous narrative that paints them ALL as criminals, racists, or jst inferior people from a moral perspective.

The real issue in this particular case is whether the officer acted in self-defense and the Grand Jury decided that he was, or at least that they could not indict him. Mike Brown is being made the new “hero” of the so-called “civil rights” movement, a movement that some argue is now demanding “special rights” for black criminals. The real issues in general are whether or not our police forces have non-lethal alternatives and whether or not there is an embedded prejudice against minorities by some police officers, enough so that we should have a national discussion about the issue.

While some would argue that, regardless of the details of this case, who was right and who was wrong. these issues of police aggressiveness and prejudice in some instances, the strategy employed by Ferguson inspired “protesters” (in quotes because too many protesters have acted as little more than looting thugs) is making such rational and honest discussion impossible. It is merely leading to more hate and anger, and more prejudice on both sides.

The choice of Mike Brown as the symbol of these issues is problematic for civil rights activists in more ways than they seem to realize. To make a young man whose death, tragic as it may be, was at least partly the result of his own criminal conduct discredits all who use him as their “poster boy” means, to some, nothing more than painting all whites as criminals and amounts to a demand that black criminals should not be apprehended, let alone punished Of course, the protesters and their supporters would deny this is what they want. and that is probably true, but the “optics” of having Mike Brown be the face of their movement are not good.

People in America are not being persuaded by the radical #Ferguson protests, by their disruptions, or by their broad-brushed accusations against all police and all white people. They are not impressed with painting all white people and all police with a broad brush more akin to blood libel that promotes violence against the maligned groups. Indeed, violence against whites, for simply being white, is on the rise, and everyone knows about the “knockout game” where blacks come up on an unsuspecting white person and knock them out. Demonizing white people and cops will only continue so much longer, and violence against those groups will only be tolerated so much longer, before the gloves come off and a violent push back, sadly and tragically, begins to take place.

For instance, I can see a group of these “protesters” storming into a crowded mall accusing white people of this or that and being bum rushed by an enraged crowd who have just about HAD ENOUGH of being slandered because of the color of their skin. The rage these so-called race-baiters (aas some have labeled them) are feeding is going to erupt, and violently, because, as history shows us, no group of people, especially a MAJORITY, will long endure being abused through no fault of their own.

As a “white man” myself I am deeply angered and offended by people who accuse me of being “privileged” or “prejudice” just because I am white. I have experienced racism and hate both because I was white at the hands of prejudiced blacks (I must note, black people came to my defense) and by whites because I had a black girlfriend (Vietnamese refugees rescued me in this case). I do not own or receive or tolerate such slanders against myself because of the color of my skin. But I am not going to react in violence, the weapons of my warfare are spiritual, not carnal- I understand that demonic forces are behind this ramping up of hate and mistrust.

But I can see, and predict, that a violent backlash is coming, a whitelsh against the ongoing blasklash which Al Sharpton seems intent on fueling with his divisive rhetoric. I myself feel anger that rise up in me, a desire to strike back and punish these who accuse ME of being morally inferior just because I am born white, but I understand that this is of the flesh and is demonically inspired on both sides- so I wage spiritual war in prayer and in being a witness to the truth.

“White rage” , a whitelash, is being stoked by the ongoing and, many now argue, irrational “blacklash”. Some say that is intentional, but if it is then the ones stoking that rage should know that they will quickly lose control over the situation if they do this. The fact that a notorious “anti-white black supremacist” (as some have now taken to calling Al Sharpton) is spearheading what some see as a “racist” President’s efforts in this arena proves to some that the President wants to foment a race war. I doubt that either supposition is true, but appointing Al Sharpton will only make a peaceful resolution and real discussion impossible.

The Ferguson shooting does reveal some weaknesses in our law enforcement system, both in terms of training and the use of non-lethal methods and technologies, but a rational discussion of either that or lingering racist sentiments, on all sides, is now impossible. One feels that blacks are taking the side of a criminal thug who might not necessarily have needed to die for a petty robbery and whites taking the side of a cop who may have only been doing all that his training allowed for him to do- in other words, blacks will defend Brown because that is “their” side and whites will defend Wilson because that is “their” side.

As a white man, I am finding that even suggesting that there are still race problems and that blacks are far more likely to suffer lost economic opportunities and prejudiced treatment by official agencies, including the police, is no longer even considered for discussion without being shouted down. I see more and more anti=black racist comments being directed at these protesters, and a callous disregard for the life of this young man, Mike Brown, who committed a petty robbery and who resisted arrest.

On the other hand, if I suggest that the police officer is not a criminal, that Mike Brown chose to rob someone and then assault a police office, I am called a racist by some black people who just assume that all white people are moral inferiors just because of the color of their skin.

Here is the tragedy: judging from his statements and divisive actions, Al Sharpton seems to a race war and, sadly, as whites and police become more incensed at the blood libels being lobed at them, he may get precisely that. One hopes that white people and police do not fall for the bait and that more and more black people rise up to demand a more rational response, but so far things seem to be marching toward a conflict on the basis of the color of people’s skin.

This would be a tragedy far beyond the tragedy of one young man’s tragic death.

No Indictment for Wilson

W R Collier Jr November 24, 2014

As we had reported earlier today, the Grand Jury chose not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for his role in the shooting death of Michael Brown. The shooting touched off months of protests and violence in Ferguson, MO.

Speculation now remains as to why the announcement was held off for so long. Delaying the announcement, it was not even announced at its scheduled time of 8PM local (9PM Eastern), and in fact the Brown family attorney leaked to USAToday minutes before the presser that no indictment was handed down.

Protestors had blocked several intersections with human chains and crowds began to swell within a few minutes of the scheduled announcement.

Regardless of the decision, many across the political spectrum believe that a serious dialogue is needed regarding police tactics and the use of force, including demands that non-lethal technologies be employed and training be provided. The non-indictment does not change the view of many that there are many non-lethal technologies and methods which are available and which, if employed, would not have resulted in a death.

The rioting continued apace, in fact as President Obama was calling for calm and citing examples of what not to do, such as breaking out the windows of a cop car, a split screen showed exactly those things happening, as if here narrating events. One protestor who was not happy about the looting complained that the police had backed off and left businesses defenseless. But, as we noted earlier, the local authorities are severely constrained by Federal pressure, potentially coming direct from the Justice Department. One official telling us that for them there is “no good choice”, they are being asked to back off and, now that looting is occuring, they are being blamed for not protecting the businesses.

Small crowds of protestors are taunting police, hurling invectives and epithets, as well as bottles, but police are hiding behind shields and vehicles and using tear gas to disperse the crowds, but they are keeping their distance in what appears to be a protocol which matches what we reported on earlier regarding Federal pressure.

In one case, at a beauty shop, protestors prevented looters from entering the store. Later, however, looters returned and set fire to that same shop, which is owned by a local woman who also happens to be black.

In general, and it must be noted, the looters are not part of the protest and are not welcomed by the protestors who have been heard in numerous video and audio scenes trying to stop the looters. One could be heard yelling “stop this, this is not right!” But to no avail. But despite this the police kept their distance from the crowds, even as fires were lit in various locations.

Serious questions will be raised regarding any Federal pressure to stand off and what consequences may have resulted from a stand-off policy. To some, including locals, “the police are just letting this spin out of control.”

The damage to local businesses and, by extension, the local economy, is incalculable. Many will have no job to go because of what has transpired. Multiple businesses were burned as police backed off and multiple shotes erupted in Ferguson.

Non-violent, and smaller, protests took place in other cities, including New York, Chicago, Saint Louis, Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. A highway in St. Louis was shut down.

We will update this story as it emerges.

Claim- Ferguson Grand Jury- NO On Indictment of Darren Wilson

W R Collier Jr November 24, 2014

Multiple local media sources close to the Grand Jury investigation of Police Officer Darren Wilson are claiming that there will be no indictment (h/t Warner Todd Huston). While the decision is not scheduled to be released until after 6PM local, many factors have been considered as evidence for this claim.

Police and even National Guard are in preparation for “massive” unrest and we have been informed of a “growing rfit” between Federal and State officials, with State officials claiming that the Obama Administration is far too much focused on getting political advantage in this situation and far less concerned with justice or public order. With Reverand Al Sharpton, a firebrand and staunch partisan, said to be leading the Administration’s efforts there is concern that real public safety is taking a back seat. Federal officials are leaning on local and state officials to use “such extremes of constraint” that it is feared the unrest will get way out of hand.

As one official confided, “if we do as they wish and things get out of hand, we will be condemned, but if we actually keep order, we will be accused of using too much force- there is NO good option.” Morale is reported to be very low.

The issue regarding the outcome of the Grand Jury, whether local sources prove right or wrong, is of less importance to local and state officials than the issue of public order. The rioting and looting have had a tragic affect on the local economy and a repeat of the same type of events is likely to drive what businesses have remained in the area out of the area, or out of business. The protestors have promised to disrupt many communities and have targeted many businesses which, arguably, have not one thing to do with the case.

One protest group has announced: “they are NOT going to indict….The time has come for nationwide revolution.”

Hagel Out As Secretary of Defense

W R Collier Jr November 24, 2014

Chuck Hagel Steps Down As Secretary of Defense
Bll Collier- In a move that was as sudden as it was unexpected, Chuck Hagel offered his resignation on the morning of November 24, 2014 to the President, effective immediately. Hagel has only been at his post since 2013 and his tenure was rather short.

It is believed that the sudden move was meant to allow a replacement candidate under the lame duck Congress, a candidate who will fit more with the pacific policies of the Administration. Hagel had been more of a hawk and had repeatedly suggested that the fight against ISIS might require ground forces. It is also believed by insiders that Hagel resisted the talks with Iran, talks over their nuclear weapons program which are currently at an impasse.

The new nominee is expected to be someone who might be less attractive to the GOP, owing to their pacific intentions and possibly their lack of experience with defense or military matters. Increasingly this more pacific Administration has bucked heads with top military brass, and although there has been quite a turnover in both the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, the President has not been satisfied that the upper ranks have not embraced or backed his broad sweeping policies which involve a far less aggressive foreign policy stance and a reduction in military manpower and capability. The President has focused more on diplomatic ties and economic leverage and tends to eschew either using military force or the threat of military force.

Within the military, the popularity of Hagel and the President, the civilian leadership, has hovered at around 20% to 30%, which many see as understandable due to the deep and ongoing cutbacks. The new Secretary of Defense will continue the previous policies of the Administration and it is expected that they will be more in lockstep with the core beliefs of the Commander in Chief.

While Republicans have threatened to block all nominees by the President over his use of what they call “executive amnesty” for 4-5 million illegal immigrants, they have stated that they would not block nominees who are vital to national security.

Within the Defense establishment there are growing concerns that the pacific policies and the force reductions in the face of Russian and Chinese military expansion is beginning to seriously undermine America’s global military standing. Others, however, are convinced that the US military would have to be reduced by over half to reach a point where it could not handle any potential foreign threat. A third school of thought believes that the overall military budget is bloated due to a combination of a top-heavy administrative and logistics organization and over-inflated prices for military equipment by the defense industry in general.

It is generally believed that this move is part of a larger effort by the Administration to gain complete control over foreign policy, putting and end to contradictory messaging, and pursuing their deep felt convictions regarding diplomacy and economics as better tools than force or the threat of force much more consistently and un-apologetically.