Publisher Bill Collier

France Under Attack- Leaders Equivocate On Enemy

W R Collier Jr January 9, 2015

While the people of France face a violent insurgency aimed at toppling their democracy and conquering France from within for the Salafist cause, the leaders of France continue to equivocate about who this enemy is and what the nature and ideology of this enemy is. Salafism is taking root among Muslims worldwide, but France’s Muslim population is leaning more strongly toward the Salafist ideology than most Muslim populations in the West.

Even as the leaders, including Prime Minister Hollande, equivocate and refuse to name, confront, and marginalize the Salafist ideology, the Salafist vanguard is being emboldened in France to attack the civilian population.

While two of the attackers who murdered the staff at Charlie Hebdo, a satirical and anti-religious weekly newspaper, were holed up with hostages at a printing plant 25 miles north of Paris, a second attack and hostage situation took place in Paris.

Authorities say Amedy Coulibaly stormed a kosher market, patronized by Jewish citizens, and, after either killing or wounding numerous individuals, took hostages at around the same time as the first hostage situation unfolded. Amedy and his girlfriend, Hayat Boumediene, a couple who are cadres in the Salafist cause, are believed to have murdered Paris Police Officer Clarissa Jean-Philippe while she was handling a minor traffic accident. Hayat is not on site and is at large in Paris. Officials fear a third attack is being planned. She is believed to have helped Amedy in some material way. Amedy, meanwhile, has stated that if the French police forces storm the site of the first attack he will kill the hostages he was holding. (There are mixed reports that Hayat was also involved.)

Police stormed both locations at around the same time and there are reports that the hostage takers were killed and all of the hostages were freed. However, there were also reports that 4 hostages were killed at the kosher grocery store and two police officers were wounded in that assualt.

It should be noted that while the Salafist cadres are armed, the French population have no legally protected right to self-defense and are therefore disarmed. This means that while the aggressors from within, operating out of Muslim-controlled “no-go zones”, where French law is not enforced, can choose any civilian target and be assured that they will not faced armed resistance.

The existence of these no-go zones throughout Paris and in some areas of France is considered in and of itself a key factor for the planning of Salafist attacks which cannot be detected by intelligence agencies. The unwillingness of the French government to identify, let alone investigate those who espouse, the Salafist jihad ideology or its increasing dominance of Muslim groups and the Muslim population have effectively tied the hands of security forces.

This problem is endemic throughout the West and is symptomatic of a civilization in its winter phase of decline and fall. Similarly US leaders and many media are reacting just as the French leadership are. In fact, individuals who are suspected of espousing Salafist ideology are feared to be in the employ of the American Department of Homeland Security and it is alleged they are among the Muslims who are considered counselors of the American President, who also refuses to name the ideology of the worldwide Islamic Salafist movement. It is not verified that these accusations are true, but the fact that the American government refuses to openly name and counter the Salafist jihad ideology and its proponents as enemies only raises suspicion, even if it is unfounded.

America’s ally, Saudi Arabia, not only espouses Salafism but plants Mosques abroad, including in the US, which teach and promote this imperialistic, authoritarian, and intolerant ideology to Muslims everywhere. Meanwhile, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which some terrorism experts consider to be a Salafist front group, is favored by the current American administration even as other Arab and non-Salafist countries have labeled it as a terrorist organization.

It is not known whether these attacks by Salafist militants will change the view of the French regarding the influx of Muslim populations which have been radicalized by Salafist ideology, but many predict a rise in anti-Islamic sentiment which may target both Salafist and non-Salafist Muslims alike. This is owing to a refusal to name the Salafist ideology is a distinct and dangerous sub-set of the Muslim faith which is not necessarily shared by most people of the Muslim faith. However, in France, a significant minority, perhaps even a majority, of Muslims have shown sympathy for Salafist positions and most French Muslim institutions are controlled by Salafist or Salafist leaning leaders.

As noted, the hostage taker in the second attack was demanding that the two suspects of the Charlie Hebdo attack be freed as a condition of releasing their hostages and had threatened to kill hostages if police storm the print plant. Police opted to storm both sites at the same time. It has been posited that the second two attackers are part of the same group, a cell with a support base of dozens who provide supplies and safe houses. Over a dozen Salafists associated with this group have been captured by French forces.

Cherif and Said Kouachi, suspects in the attack on Charlie Hebdo, stormed the CTF Creation Tendance Decouverte, a printing plant, and had an unknown number of hostages.

Meanwhile, another incident near the Eiffel Tower at Trocadero Square involved police at both the Eiffel Tower and near a subway entrance with weapons at the ready clearing people off. The French Interior Ministry (which handles policing for the entire French state) denies that there was an incident, but Twitter users on scene tweeted the following pictures:

Pictured- French Police at Trocadero Square with drawn weapons. From @Steiner1776

Pictured: police swarm Trocadero Square near the Eiffel Tower. Photo: @NationFMike

Pictured: police on scene at the Eiffel Tower, seen clearing people from the site. Photo: @mutiezo

All or most of these attackers have a long criminal record and have been apprehended for terrorism related activities but subsequently released. Many Muslims in France who become incarcerated for non-terrorism related crimes are radicalized because France’s prisons allow Salafist Muslim Imams to enter the prison and openly preach and recruit from among the population of Muslim prisoners, this all in the name of free speech and freedom of religion.

Meanwhile Andrew Parker, head of Britain’s MI5, used a rare speech at MI5 headquarters in London to warn that, “A group of core al Qaeda terrorists in Syria is planning mass casualty attacks against the West.”

These attacks in France also raise questions about New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio’s cessation of a previous policy by the NYPD of tracking and monitoring Salafist ideology in New York’s mosques. Currently, the proliferation of that ideology and the organizing of Salafist cells in New York continue apace without any real monitoring let alone counter-actions by authorities. The likelihood of such attacks in the US is calculated to be “inevitable” by most security and terrorism experts.

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.

Cuba Normalization Blindsides Congress

W R Collier Jr December 17, 2014

Normalization of Cuban-American Relations A Major Policy Shift

China Could Be Hard Hit By Cheap Cuban Labor

Bill Collier- While there has been bipartisan discussions about a new push to normalize relationships with the Cuban Communist regime in the interest of trade, the sudden and unexpected move has blindsided Congress. Only recently, Congress was assured that no such dramatic change in the US diplomatic stance regarding the Cuban Communist regime was in the offing, but in reality this promise was untrue. Plans to embark on this path of normalization had been conceived and were being worked since early summer of 2014.

Once again, a Presidential policy move is seen as undermining US law, which states that normalization of relationships and a lifting of the embargo against trade with Cuba must be presaged by Cuba adopting democratic reforms. The main purposes of this policy had been to marginalize Cuba in the region and to prevent Cuba from becoming economically powerful enough to finance a serious military threat to the US. After all, Cuba is only some 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

The move, if it goes through by Congressional support or by alleged executive fiat that is unchallenged, would also be a challenge to China. In short, US companies would have access to Cuba’s cheap labor market and one might expect to see “Made In Cuba” competing with “Made In China.”

While the President has not explicitly ended the embargo, it does expand the amount and type of agricultural products that can be exported, it allows for a higher amount of money that individuals can send to Cuban relatives from the US, and it allows for greater tourism travel. The President is expected to request that Congress ends the embargo. It is not known whether he will use the device of prosecutorial discretion to refrain from prosecuting individuals and entities which might violate the embargo.

On the diplomatic side, the State Department is being instructed to move towards establishing diplomatic relations and removing Cuba from a State Department list of nations that support terrorism.

On the Cuban side, the number of concessions appears to be limited to releasing an American prisoner who has been incarcerated in Cuba for 5 years and possibly another American who has been incarcerated for 20 years. There is no promise or agreement to institute any free market or democracy reforms, to do more to guarantee religious freedom and end the persecution of Christians, to allow freedom of the press, or any move away from totalitarianism. The entire purpose of the embargo was to encourage the Cubans to institute such reforms, whereupon the embargo would end.

The argument being made in support of this move is that such normalization will result in Cuban reforms, but this argument was used regarding China. In the case of China, the normalization of diplomacy and trade added legitimacy to the regime, gave the Chinese access to Western technology, and allowed them to grow their economy. The result of this normalization of relations with China has produced no noticeable liberalization of their political environment. Aside from purely cosmetic changes, the Chinese regime remains wholly undemocratic and continues to persecute ethnic minorities, especially Christians.

In short, there is no objective and clear evidence that President Nixon’s change in policy with China has come anywhere close to the goals which were given at the time the U.S declared this policy shift. In fact, it is argued, China has gained much more and the US and the West have lost much more out of the normalization process that occurred.

The Chinese, however, look on this development with some trepidation, though not through official channels. Cuban labor could substantially eat into their economic position. What is more, Cuban control over oil deposits in the Gulf which they are unable to exploit could result in more oil production in the Western Hemisphere to further erode the price of oil and undercut Middle Eastern suppliers and Russia.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the initiative announced by the President will succeed. Will Congress back the policy and even lift the trade embargo, and who will that benefit? Will the President use executive orders and executive memorandum to essentially gut the 1959 law that created the embargo by not enforcing it and, if so, will it be allowed to stand by what observers refer to as a supine Congress?

Salafist Gains In Global War

W R Collier Jr December 15, 2014

Islamic Salafist Is Winning Battles Against Freedom

The West Refuses To Fight An Ideological War

By Bill Collier- The Salafist forces, united on the Shia side around Iran and on the Sunni side by Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, continue their ongoing war against modern Muslim states and the states in the West, including America and the United Kingdom, with unrelenting fury. The Islamic Salafist war on freedom is being waged on every continent- it has resulted in numerous (and often misnamed0 acts of terror in the US and elsewhere, and has most recently raised its ugly head in a chocolate shop in Sydney, Asutralia.

Salafism, for those who are not familiar with the term, is a world-conquering pseudo-socialist and authoritarian ideology that utilizes only the earliest writings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad as the basis for a worldwide revolution, or “Jihad”, against all non-Salafist states. The Salafist the modern Islamic notion of a more moderate and reformed religion in which later writers, or Surahs, which carry more weight in terms of interpreting Islamic law and doctrine than the earliest writing, This view of an “unfolding revelation” of Islam is the reason why some of the seemingly “bloody” texts of the Koran in its earliest sections are interpreted today by many Muslim scholars as having a more spiritual meaning. For instance, modern “Jihad” is viewed as an inner struggle to become more righteous and pure in the yes of Allah, not as a war against anyone on the outside.

The forces of Salafism, however, are in the ascent, not only in terms of their geopolitical and their propaganda gains, but also among rank and file Muslims, For instance, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian territories, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Turkey, and Islamic State (or ISIS) are all Salafist regimes of varuying degrees and of different types.

Among many Muslims around the world, the Salafist version of Islam is in fact gaining in popularity, it is no longer possible to say that “most Muslims do not agree with that” when it comes to Salafist ideology. Even in America, Abu Mujahid Fareed Abdullah of the Islamic Center of Connecticut is a Salafist scholar with a growing following among American Muslims. He was recently hosted at a seminar at The University of Southern California, espousing his Salafist ideology to an Islamist organization on campus that has over 350 members.

As Salafism grows in popularity, there remains no effective ideological response from the West, however Muslim states are beginning to push back and counter with their own ideological response, emphasizing that Salafism is a violation of Muslim teachings and ethics, for instance focusing people to convert or penalizing those who refuse. One Muslim state, the United Arab Emirates is quite vocal in its efforts to present a counter-ideology and Salafism remains largely unpopular among Muslims who live there.

Salafist gains on the battlefield in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have humiliated Muslim and Western States, which had portrayed their Salafist foes as on the fringe and on the run. It turns out they are no longer a “fringe” group among most Muslims around the world and they are certainly not “on the run.”

The recent release of a party-line Senate report, pushed by Democrats, attacking the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and disclosing information some have argued is useful for our enemies and not helpful in any debate regarding these techniques, has provided the Salafists with much propaganda material, especially in view of the fact that the West remains fixated on refusing to deal with Salafism on ideological terms. Some argue that it also provided actionable intelligence for Salafist forces and that it makes foreign governments extremely hesitant to share intelligence with the US in light of these disclosures regarding their prior and top secret collaboration.

During the recent hostage taking in Sydney, Australia, for instance, police refuse to acknowledge the motive of the hostage taker or the terrorist nature of the incident, despite the attacker forcing hostages to display a Salafist flag and demanding an ISIS flag be provided, thus clearly indicating that this was an act of Salafist terrorism.

Even the use of the term “Salafism” and information detailing the clear and undeniable difference between modern Islamic doctrines and Salafism has yet to be presented by most media or governments to the general public. There is no question of waging war on Islam, as such, but the lack of an effort to wage ideological war with Salafism, and the confusion caused by conflating modern Islam and Salafist Islam has caused many to withdraw from even criticizing Salafism for fear of being called “Islamophobic.”

When the American President said that ISIS was not “Islamic” his comments sounded absurd to most observers, after all ISIS calls itself the Islamic State, but his real failure was to not explain WHY one should refrain from calling ISIS “Islamic”: because “Islamic” is a broad term that is used to include both Salafist and non-Salafist Muslims. Not noting thatISIS does have an ideology, Islamic Salafism, obscures the difference between modern Islam and Salafist Islam and it fails to deal with the war against this Salafist aggressor on ideological terms.

Islamic Salafist forces are not united, which is likely a good thing given that, even in their disunited state, they continue to advance militarily, politically, and in their popular appeal to Muslims who are increasingly turning their back on modern Islam and embracing this dangerous ideology. A failure to confront Islamic Salafism head on as an ideology by both undermining its legitimacy claims and presenting a contrary ideology will see the continued advance of this dangerous and violent movement.

The attack in Sydney by an Islamic Salafist is only just the beginning of what is in store for many states, both Muslim and non-Muslim, which refuse to go along with Islamic Salafism but which also refuse to confront it on an ideological level.

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.