Posts

New York City Muslim Threatens to Kill Cop, Vows Support for the Islamic State

After the January shooting of a Philadelphia police officer at point blank range, New York City police took seriously a tip about an ex-con on parole, who allegedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and threatened to kill a cop.

While the entire NYPD force was put on alert, the suspect, Marcus Shelton, 36, surrendered to a parole officer January 20. Shelton was wanted on two counts of parole violations and it remains undecided as to whether or not he will be charged with making a threat.

Marcus Shelton

Marcus Shelton

The drama began the previous day when the NYPD received an anonymous phone call saying that Shelton intended to shoot a police officer. A similar call (placed from New York) was also received by the Philadelphia Police Department. One of the callers said Shelton had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).

Shelton has a history of 20 prior arrests and served time for drug possession and assault.  He was in violation of his parole for possession of marijuana as well as for bending a NYC MetroCard to ride free.

In Philadelphia, police officer Jesse Hartnett was shot three times in the arm on Jan. 7 by Edward Archer, gunman who said he had pledged allegiance to ISIS.

When the call came into the NYPD, all police were issued an Officer Safety Alert. “Be mindful that any call, regardless of how insignificant it appears to be, may be a set up,” said the head of NYPD’s largest union, Patrick Lynch at the time.

“We are taking it serious based on what happened in Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago,” said Thomas Galati, chief of the NYPD Intelligence Bureau.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kent State Professor is Alleged ISIS Recruiter Yet Still on the Job

The Islamic State Will Continue to Destroy Everything in its Path

Bangladeshi Jihadi Cell Uncovered in Singapore

UN: ISIS Enslaves 3,500 People

Philly Shooter: I Did It For Allah — Philly Mayor: No, You Didn’t!

In FrontPage today I explain why Philly Mayor Jim Kenney would be the funniest man in the City of Brotherly Love, if the stakes weren’t so high.

Jim Kenney

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (center)

Philadelphia comedian Jim Kenney has a flair for absurdist humor, and his talents were on abundant display Thursday, when a local jihadi, a convert to Islam named Edward Archer, shot and seriously wounded police officer Jesse Hartnett, and then explained: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.” Kenney’s response was as dazzling a sendup of the willful ignorance of today’s public officials as you’ll ever see.

Pretending to be the Mayor of Philadelphia, Kenney, one of the most daring and imaginative comedians on the scene today, said this after showing a surveillance video of Archer garbed in Islamic dress and shooting at Hartnett: “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen….It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

Brilliant! Kenney had the audience laughing, clapping and howling for more with his poker-faced impersonation of an intentionally clueless contemporary public official. His performance recalled some of the career highlights of Barack Obama, John Kerry, and their British colleague in comedy, David Cameron, such as Obama’s classifying the Fort Hood jihad massacre as “workplace violence” and Kerry’s suggesting that all jihadis needed to discard their romantic dreams of being a modern-day warrior for Allah would be a chance to say “Would you like fries with that?”

Kenney, however, went them one better by issuing his risible claims even in the face of Archer’s own claims about why he shot Hartnett, as well as Police Commissioner Richard Ross’ statement about Archer: “According to him, police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an.”

Contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an? How could that possibly have anything to do with Islam? Clearly Kenney has a bright future on the comedy circuit.

There’s just one catch: Jim Kenney really is the Mayor of Philadelphia. His statements represent the official position of his administration: that despite Edward Archer’s explicit avowals to have acted in the name of Allah and Islam, he wasn’t really doing so. He just thought he was.

Poor Archer! What does he have to do to get taken seriously as a jihadi? If shooting a police officer multiple times and pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, which has called on Muslims in the U.S. to attack police officers, won’t do it, what will? Would it help if he had passed out Qur’ans on the morning of his shooting, told a neighbor that he was going to do something great for God, and screamed “Allahu akbar” as he was firing? No, Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan did that as he murdered thirteen Americans in Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, and that one, as we have seen, was “workplace violence.” How about if he said, as Boston Marathon jihad murderer Dzokhar Tsarnaev did, that he and his brother cooked up the entire jihad mass murder plot to “defend Islam”? No, everyone knows that one happened because Americans weren’t friendly enough to the immigrant brothers. How about if he had been reading literature by jihad mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki and spoke about Islamic martyrdom, like Chattanooga jihad murderer Mohammed Abdulazeez? No, that one has proved a real head-scratcher, with authorities puzzled as to the motives for months.

So what could Archer possibly have done? Trying to think of anything he could have said or done to convince Jim Kenney that he was acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings of warfare against unbelievers simply beggars the imagination. For the Jim Kenneys of the world are simply certain that people just do not do such things, despite any amount of evidence to the contrary. For Kenney and his ilk, Muslims are victims, no matter what. They are never at fault, no matter what they do, and in the unlikely event that they commit an act of violence, it was because they were mentally ill, or pushed over the edge by “Islamophobia” and the unkindness of white Americans.

Jim Kenney and others like him don’t need the facts of any particular case to arrive at this conclusion. They know it already, and could have a form handy: “The terror attack on [date] at [place] had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, the noble religion of peace. We call upon all people to reject racism, bigotry and Islamophobia, and we stand with the Muslim community in condemning backlash attacks against innocent Muslims during this difficult period.”

FDR could have used one of these forms in 1942 or 1943: “The military attack on [date] at [place] had nothing whatsoever to do with Germany, the noble nation of Central Europe. We call upon all people to reject racism, bigotry and Germanophobia, and we stand with the German community in condemning backlash attacks against innocent Germans during this difficult period.”

If the President had had such forms during World War II, would the United States have won the war? Probably not. And the denial today makes it harder for us to win this one: instead of calling the Muslim community in the U.S. to account and making sure that jihadis are not operating within it, officials pander to it and deny the stated motive of our enemies, and thus condemn us to ignorance about the motives and goals of those enemies at a time when they are more active than ever.

Jim Kenney is not concerned about any of that. He doesn’t even think we’re in a war, so why should he care if we’re waging it all wrong? And if the voters of Philadelphia ever catch on to how they’re being lied to and throw him out of office, he’s got a great career ahead in standup comedy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hugh Fitzgerald: Francis, Far From Infallible

Germany: Muslims screaming “Jew” attack and rob Jewish man

RELATED VIDEO: Fox News interview on Philadelphia jihad shooting and Cologne Muslim sex assaults:

Muslim cop shooter: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State”

The reaction from authorities is completely according to the same old tired script. One wonders how they can keep a straight face. There needs to be an investigation into how Islamic jihadis are incited to violence by Islamic texts and teachings. These officials are obfuscating the need for such an investigation.

“Police: Gunman shot cop ‘in name of Islam,’” Philly.com, January 8, 2016:

While not classifying the shooting as a terrorist attack, police said Friday the man arrested after shooting and wounding a police officer in an ambush in West Philadelphia Thursday night confessed he acted “in the name of Islam.”

Police Commissioner Richard Ross at the same time revealed the weapon used to wound Officer Jesse Hartnett was a police 9mm semiautomatic pistol stolen in 2013 from an officer’s home.

Capt. James Clark, homicide unit commander, said suspect Edward Archer, told detectives: “I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state. That is why I did what I did.”
“He confessed to committing this act in the name of Islam,” Ross said at a news conference Friday afternoon.

He said the suspect told detectives he believed police enforced laws counter to Islam.

Archer’s mother has indicated that he is mentally ill and Ross said investigators do not know yet if the suspect was indeed radicalized or tied to terrorism.

“We will see where the investigation leads us,” said Ross, adding officers were executing search warrants.

Mayor Kenney stressed whatever the gunman’s motive, it had “nothing to do” with Islam.

Jacob Bender, executive director of the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said more investigation is needed.

“We need more information,” Bender said. “Was he in contact with any bona fide terrorist or anything like that? We don’t know.”

He said Archer’s name was not immediately familiar to some of the imams with whom he spoke Friday morning.

What a surprise.

Echoing statements by Kenney and other officials, Bender said: “This should not be seen as representative of Muslims or the faith of Islam.”

All right. But when is there going to be some investigation into why all this un-Islamic Islamic violence keeps happening?

…Reached at her home in Lansdowne, his mother, Valerie Holliday, said Archer was the eldest of seven children and suffered head injuries from playing football and a moped accident.

“He’s been acting kind of strange lately. He’s been talking to himself . . . laughing and mumbling,” Holliday said. “He’s been hearing voices in his head. We asked him to get medical help.”

She said her son is devout Muslim who has practiced the faith “for a long time.”

“He’s going through a lot lately,” Holliday said, adding Archer believed he was targeted by police.

“I don’t know how he got the gun,” she said. “I’m still hoping they have the wrong child.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Philly cop shooter jihadi’s brother: he’s not mentally ill, made pilgrimage to Mecca

Philadelphia Mayor: Shooting of cop in name of Islam had “nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith”

Sweden: “Have the Taliban Come to Town?”

The double standard of the Ottawa Police and Canadian Mainstream Media

iranian flagI was attacked and injured by a Muslim Iranian woman in Ottawa in front of the Parliament Hill in 2009 for waving the Real Iran Flag (image of the Lion and Sun right) in my hand. Identifying the attacker took than over 3.5 years for Ottawa police. Actually, I found her by chance in Tony Young’s website, where she and her family were invited at Tony’s open house Xmas party in December 2011.

The Muslim woman who attacked me admitted  the assault and told the detective in charge of my case that she became very emotional and upset when she saw the old Iran flag waving in my hand and could not control her anger and storm toward me to vanish the flag.

But despite her confession, the Ottawa Police decided not to press any charges against her.

FYI , after she was identified, we were informed that the woman held American Green Card but lived mostly in Ottawa with one of her daughters whose immigration case was rejected by Canada due to failing her medical test where it was given so much publicity by Mainstream Media for. But non of those MSM were interested in interviewing me and giving publicity to the assault.

I do not have anything personally against my attacker but since we live in Canada, under the rule of law, we should all be treated equally without given favoritism. I did not leave Iran to come to Canada to be accosted and persecuted by the same law that victimized me in Iran. In Canada, under Mr. Trudeau’s power,  if someone  verbally says something that a Muslim might find it ;’offensive’, she/her will be charged on the Spot by the Police.  Ottawa. Hope you realize my point and I am sure if Christ was to judge me as a Christian, He would want me to speak up for my rights.

Shortly after reading my incident report, the Ottawa police Crown Prosecutor told the police detective that there may be a bad blood between the women!!!

I told the detective, “what Bad Blood, I never saw that woman in my life before, how could be there any bad blood?”  And after 3.5 years. I found who she was…

Please read the following email sent to me by the Ottawa Police detective:

From: Detective XX
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:01:29
To: Shabnam Asassadollahi
Subject: RE: Case # XX _The assault_ 2009 in front of the Parliament Hill

Hello Ms. Assadollahi, I have interviewed the people involved in this incident including the older woman.  After considering all the aspects of the matter, including the nature of the incident, the emotions and circumstances surrounding it, the absence of a continuation or repetition of the offence, the administration of justice, and directives from the court and crown attorney, no criminal charges will be laid in this matter.  It will be finalized by another measure which will indicate that the subject could have been charged but was not.  I am currently away from the office at the moment but will likely check my e-mail before I officially return.  Feel free to contact me by e-mail of by leaving a message at extension.

I am curious to know that if the above assault was vise-versa, how would the Ottawa Police conduct their judgment?

RELATED ARTICLE: Iran sentenced woman to be stoned on Human Rights Day

The Evil of Gun-free Zones

One thing worse than supporting bad policy is knowingly supporting bad policy.

Worse still is knowingly supporting bad policy and shielding yourself from its destructive effects — while visiting that policy on children.

There has been much debate recently surrounding so-called “gun-free zones,” places such as schools, where law-abiding people won’t carry guns. But really there should be no debate. This is because it’s plain that even the zones’ defenders — liberals — don’t really believe they’re a good idea.

For evidence, consider a largely forgotten video made in 2013 by Project Veritas (PJ) after The Journal News in Westchester, N.Y., printed the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in its coverage area.

Posing as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence,” PJ operatives visited the homes of Eric Holder and various liberal journalists to ask them if they’d “support the cause” and post on their lawns a sign stating “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE.”

Not one accepted.

At the home of The Journal News’ Greg Shillinglaw they were told, “In this neighborhood that nobody puts out stuff like that” (except maybe at the schools?). The person at the Shillinglaw home concluded with, “I do believe in it, but I think I’ll pass on it.”

Translation: he believes in it for others.

Next was the Journal’s Mike Meaney. A woman answered the door and tersely said “I’m sorry, I can’t help, but good luck. …I have other reasons [for refusal] I can’t get into right now.” But, hey, they just needed to speak to ol’ Mike personally — I’m sure he’d snatch one of those signs up quicker than Hillary Clinton changes personalities.

The next one, the Star Ledger’s Bob Braun, offered tremendous support. Without missing a beat he said, “I agree with you and I am on your side on this, but I’m just wondering if that’s not an invitation to somebody with a gun!” as he emitted a chuckle. His wife chimed in, “I agree with you, but I’m not sure about the sign.” Braun then said moments later, “The problem in this town is, you know, somebody driving around here might think it’s a — seriously — might think it’s an invitation to come barging in.” But Braun did offer this consolation: “Well, if the sign said “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” without “THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE,” I would put the sign up.”

Because a Gun-free-zone is a bad idea.

Except at schools.

Because the people who might drive around and barge into Braun’s house in Elizabeth, N.J., could never drive around and barge into schools in Elizabeth, N.J.

Or maybe it’s that children in Elizabeth, N.J., are bulletproof?

Now, it apparently took Braun — smart liberal that he is — all of two and a half seconds to figure out that putting a gun-free-zone sign on his lawn is a bad idea. Logically translated, it amounts to advertising, “We’re defenseless.” Yet he presumably supports them “in principle”; after all, he didn’t say, “Look, I support gun control, but not these zones.” So what’s the story here? Was this the first time he pondered the matter for two and a half seconds? When advocating policy, did he only consider it for 4/10ths of a second?

Clearly, these liberals either never thought their policies through or just couldn’t care less as long as their laws only hurt others. So take your pick: gross negligence or callous disregard.

Delving a bit deeper, we’re witnessing a typical leftist phenomenon: style over substance, image over reality. These liberals want to be seen as “good” people in their milieu; they want to appear enlightened in their echo chamber of effeteness. And achieving this has nothing to do with action. All their fellow travelers, that caponhood of hypocrisy, are as two-faced as they are. It’s all about what you say — all about posturing.

It’s reminiscent of some NYC liberals — in a gentrifying Brooklyn neighborhood fittingly called “Dumbo” — up in arms because “diversity” has come home: they’ve learned that their kids may be forced to attend school with poor minorities. One Dumbo parent actually said, “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children.” Yes.

And it’s more complicated when it’s about your own lawn.

Except that it really isn’t. It just seems so when it’s the first time in your life the realities of your ideology are brought home to you. Much like the youngster I once heard wonder why problems of poverty couldn’t be solved by just making more money, things can seem very simple to a child; they can also seem simple to a childish person, someone content to operate on emotion like a child or too self-centered — like a very young child — to consider how his actions, attitudes and advocacy affect others. This is the way of the overgrown juvenile masquerading as an adult that we euphemistically call a liberal.

But here’s the reality. Saying the politically correct thing — such as supporting gun-free-zone policies for schools — when you wouldn’t apply the same to your own home because you realize it’s a dangerous idea, doesn’t at all make you a good person. It makes you scum.

You’re willing to imperil American children nationwide just so you can strut around, puff up your chicken-chest and say “Look at me! I have the correct ideology!”

Don’t misunderstand me. Eliminating gun-free zones is no panacea. No doubt, maniacal mass murderers who target schools are to a degree motivated by the copycat factor and the maximized media attention attacking schools brings. Yet schools’ being gun-free zones does make them more attractive targets. And, no, it’s not necessarily because the perpetrators don’t have to fear harm, especially since these individuals often accept that their crime will be a suicide mission. But think about it: if your goal is to massacre a large number of people and go out in a blaze of notoriety, you want to ensure you won’t be stopped before your deed is done. Gun-free zones virtually guarantee this.

As for the “gun-free-zone for thee but not for me” liberals, I’m firmly convinced that some (not all, of course), on some level, aren’t all that troubled by school shootings. After all, it provides a great opportunity to beat the gun-control drum for people to whom “the cause” is everything. I mean, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. And what does it matter as long as the egg isn’t the egghead in the mirror, right?

Of course, there’s generally no such thing as being truly insulated from the consequences of your bad decisions. You know those gun-free-zone signs you think are such a bad idea that you wouldn’t put them in front of the home in which your child lives?

They could be in front of the school in which your child studies.

I’m talking about those signs that mean “We’re defenseless. Commit your massacre here. You’ll get 9 or 10 before the guys with guns arrive and stop you.”

Not that this will change many liberal’s hearts (forget the minds). The chances of a given liberal’s only child being killed in a school massacre are extremely slim. But the chances of getting that proud, self-satisfied, warm and fuzzy feeling from mouthing the right position and being accepted by the right people are 100 percent.

But if it does happen, perhaps you can console yourself with the knowledge that you took one for the cause, can rage in the media and maybe even appear in front of Congress. I just wonder, will you think it was all worth it?

As for legislation creating gun-free zones, I’m game. Really. But with one condition written in: any politician voting for the bill must put a “Gun Free Zone” zone sign in front of his home. After all, Mr. Compassionate Liberal, if it’s good enough for America’s children, it’s good enough for you.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Another Muslim Murders Police Official: Authorities Rush to Defend Islam

In FrontPage today, I chronicle just another day in the suicidal West.

Last week a fifteen-year-old Muslim, Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, went to a police station in New South Wales and shot dead a civilian police employee, Curtis Cheng. After the murder, the young murderer was, according to an eyewitness, “dancing joyously.” Outside the station, he waved his gun at police and screamed “Allahu akbar” at them before he was killed in the ensuing gunfight.

In the wake of this jihad murder, Australian officials have behaved in an utterly predictable manner – one that we have seen many, many times before in Western countries, and that we will doubtless see many more times as well: they rushed to profess ignorance of the killer’s motives and above all, to defend Islam.

None of these officials are Muslims. They have all just been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that to look too closely at the motivating ideology behind murders like that of Curtis Cheng would be “hateful” and “bigoted.”

And so Pat Gooley from the New South Wales Police Association said: “We are used to being under threat. What’s really concerning police is there’s no rhyme or reason to these current terror threats.”

No rhyme or reason? Have you ever heard of jihad, Mr. Gooley? Evidently not.

Other police officials, meanwhile, made themselves busy ensuring that Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad’s jihad murder doesn’t lead anyone to think there is anything amiss with the Muslim community. The murder “was doubly shocking because it was perpetrated by a 15-year-old boy and it underlines the importance of families, communities, leaders being very aware of whether young people are becoming radicalised,” said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, complacently assuming that Muslim “families, communities, leaders” in Australia are against this “radicalization” — but where is the evidence of that?

Turnbull also said: “We must not vilify or blame the entire Muslim community with the actions of what is, in truth, a very, very small percentage of violent extremist individuals. The Muslim community are our absolutely necessary partners in combating this type of violent extremism.”

When has the Muslim community in Australia or elsewhere in the West genuinely acted like partners in combating this type of violent extremism? And we must indeed not vilify or blame the entire Muslim community, but can we not call upon them to institute honest, transparent and inspectable programs in mosques and Islamic schools that teach against this understanding of Islam that they ostensibly reject and oppose?

Meanwhile, opposition leader Bill Shorten said: “Our thoughts are also with the family of the alleged young perpetrator. Like all Australians, they will be struggling to comprehend how someone so young could be part of such a terrible crime.” How does he know his family wasn’t involved? Has he carried out an investigation? He assumes that the family taught young Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad the true, peaceful Islam, but that he was then “radicalized on the Internet” — but why was his family’s true, peaceful Islam not able to withstand the challenge from the twisted, hijacked Internet Islam?

New South Wales Premier Mike Baird said that he and others were trying to understand “how someone so young could commit such a hideous crime.” He might wish to look into Islam’s teachings about jihad, but he won’t. He also said: “We cannot let actions such as this divide us. We cannot let hate overtake us. We have to come together and I’m sure that’s what we’ll see from this city and state.”

Indeed, we must not let hate overtake us, as it overtook Curtis Cheng. But can we do that by refusing to examine the ideology that led to his murder? By “hate,” Baird means “honest investigation into the texts and teachings of Islam that incite attacks such as this one, and the prevalence of such teachings in the Muslim community.”

And that’s the problem: every time there is another jihad attack or foiled jihad plot in the free world, our leaders just circle the wagons, trot out their Religion-of-Peace cliches again, warn us against “Islamophobia,” and refuse to look into the genuine root causes of the problem.

It’s a sure-fire path to societal suicide.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tony Blair: The “perversion of Islam is the source of a lot of the problems in the Middle East”

Saudi Arabia: Muslim clerics call for jihad to defend the Islamic State

The Real Rogue Cop Problem

Over at PJ Media, I discuss where, and why, police are actually participating in the heinous targeting of certain population[s]:

Do #InfidelLivesMatter?

It’s open season on police officers these days, because many black Americans believe that it’s open season on them. And while some police officers are no doubt hateful, corrupt, and compromised to powerful interests, in the main one must go out of the country to find the real rogue cops: police officers who aid and abet, and sometimes even participate in, the terrorizing of their own people.

Last week, the Supreme Court of Pakistan took the unusual step of criticizing the police’s failure to intervene in the case of a couple, Shahzad and Shama Masih, who were murdered by a lynch mob in Kot Radha Kishan, Punjab, in November 2014. Five police officers stood by and did nothing while a frenzied mob murdered the Masihs.

Why didn’t they step in and stop the lynching? Because the Masihs were Christians, accused of blasphemy.

Blasphemy is a capital crime in Pakistan, but all too often the death sentence is carried out not by duly constituted authorities, but by slavering mobs such as killed Shahzad and Shama Masih.

Police, sharing the mob’s world view, stand by and let it happen.

Sometimes these rogue cops do worse than just stand by while infidels are brutalized.

Earlier this summer in Indonesia, police in the West Papuan city of Karubaga opened fire on worshippers at the local congregation of the Evangelical Church of Indonesia (GIDI), killing a fifteen-year-old boy, Endi Wanimbo, and wounding eleven other Christians. Indonesian authorities have hastened to protect the perpetrators: they have neither arrested the police officers responsible, nor released their names.

National police chief General Badrodin Haiti explained:

The victims were shot because they were pelting stones at Muslims who were just performing Eid prayers.

However, Natalius Pigai of the National Commission for Human Rights contradicted Haiti:

It seems to have been a misunderstanding that Evangelical Church of Indonesia (GIDI) is being hostile to Islam. In fact, they were not planning to burn the mosque. People were upset because of the police shootings.

Haiti appears to be another rogue cop, willing to bend the truth to protect Muslims who harm Christians.

Most troubling, the problem of cops protecting Muslim perpetrators has been occurring in Western countries, too.

In non-Muslim countries, “infidel” police officers are so afraid of offending ever-so-easily-offended Muslim sensibilities that they turn a blind eye to crimes committed by Muslims — particularly when there is justification for such crimes in Islamic scripture and law.

The most appalling example of this came in the British city of Rotherham. There, 1,400 British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims whose actions found Islamic justification in the Qur’an’s allowance for men to take non-Muslim “captives of the right hand” for use as sex slaves (4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50).

Police hesitated to act for fear of being considered “Islamophobic.”

A whistleblower noted the following about members of the Rotherham council:

They described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

Last November, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) announced that it was going to investigate ten officers of the South Yorkshire Police Department for their role in covering up the activities of Muslim rape gangs in Rotherham.

But in this case, the cops weren’t rogue; their superiors were. These ten police officers were just being set up to take the fall….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Descent Into Lawlessness

French soccer fan converts to Islam, joins jihad terror group, blows himself up

What we have learned since 9/11

Are Law Enforcement Officers Above the Law?

Few people will write an article that even comes close to being critical of our U.S. law enforcement officers. Americans are due a non biased review of why law enforcement officers (LEO) are either treated with enormous respect or in many cases are despised by the people they are sworn to serve.

I can effectively write on this issue because my background includes serving almost two decades as a U.S. Federal Agent. I had the opportunity to work with dozens of law enforcement agencies around America.  This included local, state and federal agencies. I am happy to give our LEO a pat on the back when they do as they have been sworn to do, or write a critical article for the one’s who have forgotten they are not above any U.S. law.

In America the media and politicians have groomed us to always put LEO on a throne above all other professions aside from our military personnel.  LEO are not owed any higher allegiance to their careers than a plumber, factory worker, insurance salesman, athlete, or doctor.  People who apply for LEO positions do so because this career is very stable and the pay covers their bills and provides for their families. The popular belief is that LEO enter law enforcement to ‘serve’ the people.  This is so far from the truth that no further explanation is needed. For the vast majority it is for a paycheck and for many it feeds their ego’s.

The LEO who enter law enforcement to feed their adrenaline and ego are the one’s who believe they are one step ahead of other Americans.  The one’s who do this job for a paycheck are the honest officers and they serve the people because that is what they are paid to do.  These officers are the LEO that show respect to all Americans regardless of their wealth status, race, or religion.

The LEO who show disrespect for the people they serve are the one’s who believe some laws apply to them, but not all laws.  A few examples:  In a busy city it is more likely you will see a police officer in his/her patrol car breaking traffic laws than you will see from citizens. There are some officers who strongly believe it is their job to let citizens know they have the absolute power to make or ruin a person’s day, and in some cases have been known to alter the truth and evidence.

There are LEO who believe they are not subject to the laws of assault and battery. In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person: 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious or “aggravated” assault/battery occurs when one: 1) tries to or does cause severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly weapon. Throughout America an assault by a police officer on a suspect or prisoner in a jail or prison happens much more regularly than ever reported by the media.

Technology has started to bring many assault cases by police officers into the limelight.  Seldom in our past history does a person making a complaint about officer abuse were shown even the courtesy of listening to them.  Today with cameras on every corner and many officers being required to wear body cameras the truth is being revealed.  Do you think most police officers are in favor of having to wear a body camera? No.  Even officers who are not inclined to assault a person often berate suspects to the point of the suspect admitting to crimes he/she did not commit.  In spousal or child abuse experts have shown emotional abuse of the innocent person is often worse than physical abuse.  The same applies in law enforcement.

There are two famous words every law enforcement officer is quickly taught in the academy and throughout their career. ‘Stop Resisting’ Often you will hear these two words being shouted even while a suspect may be docile. They are safety words for the officers. Without cameras it is hard to contradict an officers testimony if he/she testify they shouted this command ten times!

In conclusion citizens and police officers must be taught that mutual respect and courtesy must be shown at all times to one another.  Of course there are citizens who are serious troublemakers and deserve to be put through the legal system, but there are indeed LEO who abuse their authority.  An LEO is not above the law in America.  If you have ever been pulled over or had the police respond to your home/business on a criminal complaint, you likely did not have a pleasant experience.  These encounters of course should not be fun, but they should not be used by an ego cop to demean a person who has not been convicted of a crime.

Respect is an earned reward and not given out due to intimidation.  

An LEO doesn’t and should not believe since he/she  was hired by a police department that they automatically have earned respect from the people they serve.  If a plumber is hired by a company does he/she automatically earn the respect of the customers he serves?  Of course not.  It is only when the plumber treats the customer with courtesy and completes the job as he is being paid to, will he begin to progress in his career and earn respect from the person he/she serves.

Responding to ‘Black Lives Matter’ & What Obama Can Learn from Bill Clinton

When is President Obama going to stand up and lead on the issue of violent rhetoric directed at our nation’s police officers? Although a direct connection between many of the recent assaults on police officers and the Black Lives Matter movement is still tenuous, it’s difficult to argue that chants of “Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon” are helping diffuse community tensions with the police. Yet, President Obama has still refused to publicly denounce the group.

This should infuriate every law enforcement officer in the country at the local, state and federal level who bravely stands on the demarcation line between law and order, and street chaos. It also begs the question, what does a left-leaning group have to do, or say, to earn President Obama’s condemnation? We know from experience that just being a Republican is enough to generate condemnation from President Obama in many cases but, calls for assaults on police officers have earned Black Lives Matter activists not condemnation, but an endorsement from the President’s party.

If the Democratic Party insists on endorsing, rather than condemning, a movement that has some of its members declaring open war on our police officers then they have made the politics of this fair game. If President Obama continues to cower on this issue and continues to avoid condemning the dangerous rhetoric of Black lives matter, then law enforcement should openly boycott the Democratic Party. There is power in numbers and if a major, national political party, led by the current President of the United States, cannot gather up the courage to condemn what’s evolving into an openly violent movement, then the Democratic Party should suffer politically for it.

Police investigate the scene where two police officers were shot outside the Ferguson Police Department Thursday, March 12, 2015, in Ferguson, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Police investigate the scene where two police officers were shot outside the Ferguson Police Department Thursday, March 12, 2015, in Ferguson, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Leadership and judgment are two qualities we look for in a President and, with regard to the Black Lives Matter movement, and their calls for violence against police officers, President Obama has shown neither of these traits. But, Mr. Obama still has an opportunity to redeem himself. He could take the path chosen by Bill Clinton in 1992 when he was given the opportunity to take a stand against inflammatory, and divisive, racist rhetoric when he refused to appear at a Rainbow Coalition event because activist Sister Souljah was speaking there. Sister Souljah—who infamously stated to a Washington Post reporter “If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?”—gave Clinton an opportunity to show sound judgment in distancing himself from this type of nonsense, and he took it.

I’m no fan of Bill Clinton’s politics, and I cannot dive deep into his thoughts to uncover what his real motivation was for calling out Sister Souljah, but actions matter and talk is cheap. President Obama is all talk, and no action, on the extremely violent rhetoric being directed at the police.

President Obama was quick to be seen on camera in the Henry Louis Gates incident claiming, without a full grasp of all of the circumstances of the interaction, that the police officer acted “stupidly.” He was quick to be seen on camera after the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, stating that it “stains the heart of black children,” while failing to responsibly describe to the America people the full context of the interaction between police officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. He was quick to issue a statement after the grand jury’s decision not indict the police officer involved in the death of Eric Garner stating, “It’s incumbent on all of us as Americans…that we recognize that this is an American problem,” despite not having the facts presented to the grand jury in the case.

It’s interesting that the President was so comfortable indicting the country and talking about police use of force incidents as an “American problem” but he still refuses to stand publicly in front of the cameras and give a forceful speech defending the good cops out there and condemning the dangerous and violent rhetoric employed by the Black lives matter movement as an “American problem.” How many more police officers are going to have to die before the President acts on this?

Finally, playing word association games is a terrific way to get past the clutter and find out what people are really thinking about. The recent word association results from a Quinnipiac University poll are devastating for the Hillary Clinton campaign as the word mentioned most often in association with Mrs. Clinton was “liar.”

I made the case in my August 4 Conservative Review piece that the ongoing email scandal regarding Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server was clear evidence that she is missing the two qualities most important to the presidency—leadership and judgment—and the association of Hillary with the word liar is further evidence that the public doesn’t trust her anymore. If President Obama doesn’t change course with his attitude towards police officers in America the first word that’s going to be associated with President Obama on the lips of our nation’s police officers is going to be “opportunist.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review.

Reduce Firearm Ownership, Say Anti-Gun Researchers

A new “study” by David Swedler, trained at the (gun control crusader Michael) Bloomberg School of Public Health, and co-authored by longtime anti-gun researcher David Hemenway, of the Harvard School of Public Health, uses rigged methodology to conclude that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered in states that have higher levels of gun ownership. As a result, Swedler and Hemenway say, “States could consider methods for reducing firearm ownership as a way to reduce occupational deaths of LEOs.”

In what may be the understatement of the century, Swedler and Hemenway concede that it’s “possible” that law enforcement officers are more likely to be murdered than other Americans because they have “more frequent encounters with motivated violent offenders.” To say the least. According to the FBI, from 2004 to 2013, 46 percent of officer murderers had prior arrests for crimes of violence, 63 percent had been convicted on prior criminal charges, 50 percent had received probation or parole for prior criminal charges, and 26 percent were under judicial supervision, including probation, parole, and conditional release, at the time of the officers’ murders.

On the other hand, Swedler and Hemenway say, law enforcement officers are able to defend themselves because they carry handguns, an argument that on its face endorses the carrying of handguns by private citizens, which is certainly not what the anti-gunners intended.

In painstaking academic detail, economist John Lott shows that Swedler and Hemenway skewed their study by comparing the number of law enforcement officers murdered with firearms in each state, to the percentage of suicides committed with firearms in each state, pretending that the latter accurately measures each state’s level of gun ownership. Additionally, the anti-gun researchers didn’t extend their comparisons over time to determine whether law enforcement officer murders increased or decreased in each state or did so in comparison to other states.

The anti-gunners also try to measure gun ownership with survey data, which is problematic, because over-reporting takes place in states where people are more supportive of gun ownership, while under-reporting takes place in states where anti-gun viewpoints are more common.

For the obvious reason, Swedler and Hemenway didn’t point out that law enforcement officer murders have been decreasing while ownership of firearms has been increasing dramatically. From 1993 to 2013, the most recent year of data from the FBI and BATFE, the annual number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms dropped 61 percent, while the American people acquired 140 million new firearms. In 2013, the number of law enforcement officers feloniously killed with firearms was less than half the annual average of the last 20 years.

That, however, is not what you want to point out if you’re jockeying for a cut of the $10 million that President Obama has asked Congress (p. 8) to throw at so-called “gun violence research” or to continue to promote an anti-gun agenda.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the NRA/ILA website.

UK Counter-terror Police Official was Defender of the Islamic State who “Despised Britain”

The story of Abdullah al Andalusi, aka Mouloud Farid, aka Wazir Leton Rahman, epitomizes the confusion and willful ignorance of the British political class. The British government wouldn’t be able to distinguish a “moderate” from an “extremist” if its life depended on it, and it does. The British intelligentsia will never, even to the point of suicide, admit that the hard and fast, never bridgeable distinction they believe exists between the “moderate” and “extremist” camps is more a figment of its imagination than reality. The British political elites will never, ever admit that much of what they consider to be “extremist,” and that they assume most Muslims in Britain reject, is actually established doctrine of mainstream Islam that Muslims reject only at risk of being declared apostates and heretics. This denial and willful ignorance will be the death of Britain, and Britain is racing eagerly toward its demise.

“By day, at heart of counter-terror policing. And by night, preacher of extremism,” by Andrew Gilligan, Telegraph, July 12, 2015 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

The Government watchdog which inspects police forces’ readiness for terrorism admitted that it employed one of Britain’s most notorious Islamic extremists.

For almost two years Abdullah al Andalusi, led a double life, the Telegraph can reveal.

By night, he taught that the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was “no different to Western armies,” said that “kaffirs,” non-Muslims, would be “punished in hell” and claimed that the British government wanted to destroy Islam.

By day, using a different name, he went to work for the same British government at the London offices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the official regulator of all 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The disclosures will be intensely embarassing [sic] to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has criticised parts of Britain’s Muslim communities for “quietly condoning” Islamist extremism.

HMIC’s staff, who number less than 150, are given privileged access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections.

The inspectorate’s work includes scrutinising police forces’ counter-terrorism capabilities and top-secret plans for dealing with terror attacks.

It has also recently published reports on undercover policing and the use of informants.

HMIC admitted that Mr al Andalusi, whose real name is Mouloud Farid, had passed a security vetting check to work as a civil servant at the inspectorate.

He was subsequently promoted to executive grade, a management rank, placing him at the heart of the security establishment.

He was only sacked after bosses spotted him on television defending extremist Islamic positions on behalf of his organisation, the Muslim Debate Initiative, which is heavily dependent on Saudi money.

The inspectorate insisted that he did not handle classified material but former friends of Mr al Andalusi said he had done so.

His work did involve security areas. He said he had a role in overseeing the police response to terrorism and there were areas he couldn’t talk about,” said one former colleague at the Muslim Debate Initiative, who asked to remain anonymous.

“He would discuss the reports that HMIC were working on and the data they needed to present.

“His story is so odd and so scandalous in many respects. He had these two completely incompatible lives that went on for years. He despised Britain, yet worked for the British government. He would talk about the right of oppressed people to take up arms against the oppressor and yet he was overseeing the police….

Under the name by which he was known to HMIC, Mouloud Farid, his links with the Muslim Debate Initiative were a matter of public record.

He was registered as a director of the organisation at Companies House, though he earlier this year changed to yet a third name, Wazir Leton Rahman, on the companies register.

“This man’s unsuitability for sensitive work should have been obvious from the start,” said Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr.

“There is a lack of understanding of different strains of Islam in the civil service. I will be asking why the systems designed to prevent this did not work.”

There certainly is a “lack of understanding of different strains of Islam in the civil service.” British officials assume that every Muslim is a moderate who abhors and rejects the violence committed in the name of Islam and in accord with the texts and teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and that everyone who believes otherwise is a racist, bigoted Islamophobe.

Mr al Andalusi, a prominent figure on the extremist lecture circuit, is closely associated with the extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir, which believes that voting and democracy are un-Islamic.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is committed to working toward the imposition of the Sharia all over the world.

He is also a strong supporter of the terrorist lobby group Cage, which sparked outrage earlier this year when it defended the Isil hostage-killer Mohammed Emwazi, “Jihadi John,” as a “beautiful” and “gentle” man who had been radicalised by MI5. Like Cage, Mr al-Andalusi fiercely supports the right of British citizens to travel to Syria to fight.

He spoke at a Cage rally outside his own employer’s parent department, the Home Office, to demonstrate against the arrest of the former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg, on Syria-related terror charges, later dropped. Alongside him were other high-profile extremists and hate preachers including Haitham al-Haddad and senior figures in Hizb ut Tahrir.

Mr al Andalusi has spoken at at least three other Cage events in the last ten months, including on September 20 last year when he claimed that, as part of its “war against Islam,” the British government wanted to force Muslims to eat non-halal meat.

He says that Western liberal society is committed to the “destruction” of all Muslim belief and shows on his Facebook page a picture a concentration camp with a Nazi swastika and “21st century” written on the watchtower.

In the foreground is a gallows with a short route to the hangman’s noose for “Islamists” and a longer route for “Muslim moderates.”…

In a talk at Queen Mary University, in East London, on 16 January, he asked why the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, was treated as a terrorist organisation by the West while the moderate Free Syrian Army was not.

He condemned memorials to 9/11, describing the terror attacks as “the day a vicious world empire [the US] found a publicly-acceptable excuse to bomb others, invade non-threatening nations, torture political dissidents and kill at least 300,000 innocent people.”

After Isil took over large portions of Iraq last year, he wrote that “most Muslims would be jubilant at the return of the caliphate [Islamic state], which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long.”

He condemned the group for killing civilians but said that the West had “no basis to judge Islamic State” because “IS are no different to Western armies and even some of the ‘founding fathers’ of Western nations… IS’s crime is being actually a good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organisation and ability to use social media.”

He said that “those who reject IS merely because IS’s school of thought is disagreeable to them should remember that Islam permits difference of opinion. To reject something as outside the fold of Islam, due to it being a different school of thought to one’s own, makes one a purveyor of disunity among Muslims.”…

One said that he was disturbed by a meeting at which he and Mr al Andalusi heard another man say he wanted to join al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda franchise, and regarded civilian airliners as legitimate weapons of war. The former friend reported the conversation to police.

The former friend said Mr al-Andalusi used a number of psuedonyms and was always secretive about his real name but eventually revealed it in discussions with them.

Mr al Andalusi, who lives in a subsidised £750,000 housing association flat in Westminster, said last night that as Mouloud Farid he was “proud to work for a public watchdog which holds those in power to account. Cage are peaceful and not proscribed. Kaffir is a theological term which has no relation to non-Muslims.”….

Why is he living in subsidized housing when obviously he has gainful employ?

“Kaffir is a theological term which has no relation to non-Muslims” — that is an outright lie. Kaffir is generally translated as unbeliever or infidel, and it has everything to do with non-Muslims. The Qur’an declares that those Christians who believe that “Allah is Christ, the son of Mary” have “certainly disbelieved” (5:17, 72). The Arabic word used here is kafara, (كَفَرَ); it is a form of kufr, unbelief, and is related to kaffir, unbeliever.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State’s female police force whips, bites women who get out of line

2nd Tunisia jihad attack foiled, 5 Islamic State jihadis shot dead

What Bastiat Had to Say about Police Abuse by Jeffrey A. Tucker

When it comes to being employed by the government, membership has its privileges. How far do these privileges extend? It’s a question that is central to political philosophy. It is most poignantly addressed by one of my favorite pieces of writing, Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law (1850).

The same question is being debated on the streets in every U.S. city today. Videos of citizen abuse at the hands of the police are everywhere. It seems the cops have been empowered to do to us what we would never be allowed to do to each other. Some cases have made it to grand juries and trial juries. People are asking pointed questions regarding the relationship between the state and its citizens.

From the mainstream media to the courts, disagreement usually revolves around questions of the motivation, the character, and the behavior of police officers. Are they following the regulations? Abusing their authority? Motivated at some level by racism? Some would like to confront the related question: What level of citizen noncompliance justly prompts the police to use extreme force?

But there’s a question everyone wants to avoid here: Are the laws themselves just?

Many of the most famous beatings and killings at the hands of the police began with small infractions such a selling contraband cigarettes, evading criminal prosecution for the failure to pay child support, carrying knives, or small-time dealing of illegal substances. Then there are the many cases of asset forfeiture that never make it to YouTube, ongoing acts of plunder that aren’t flashy enough to inspire mass protests.

If the debate stays centered on police actions alone, we will never reach the core issue.

What is the law — and what should it be?

These are the bigger questions that are not yet part of public consciousness. Every law and regulation, no matter how small, is ultimately enforced by the threat of violence on the part of public authority. Laws are not “nudges”; they are mandates enforced by the legal use of coercion against person and property.

Bastiat tried to get people to think hard about what was happening and how the law had become an instrument of plunder and violence, rather than a protector of property and peace. If the law itself is not just, the result is social division and widespread discontent. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled becomes distorted, and a sense of systemic injustice pervades the culture. Bastiat observed this in horror in his time, and it’s a good description of our own:

The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

Further, and most poignantly in our time: “Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal.”

Indeed.

Whether this happens at a traffic stop, at the arbitrary hands of an angry cop, or due to a tax or regulation passed by a legislature doesn’t change the nature of what is happening.

Bastiat’s essay asks fundamental questions that most people go through life never having thought about. The problem is that most people accept the law as a given, a fundamental fact of life.

As a member of society, you obey or face the consequences. It is not safe to question why. This is because the enforcement arm of the law is the state, that peculiar agency with a unique power to use legal force against life and property. The state says what the law is — however this decision was made — and that settles it.

Bastiat could not accept this. He wanted to know what the law is, apart from what the state says it is. He saw that the purpose of law is, most fundamentally, to protect private property and life against invasion, or at least to ensure that justice is done in cases in which such invasions do take place.

This is hardly a unique idea; it is a summary of what philosophers, jurists, and theologians have thought in most times and places. It’s what most of us think, intuitively, that the law should be about. What makes Bastiat different is that he takes that next step, the one that opens the reader’s eyes as nothing else does. He subjects the state itself to the test of whether it complies with that idea of law.

He takes notice, even from the first paragraph, of the corruption that ensues when the state turns out to be a lawbreaker in the name of law keeping: the state does the very thing that law is supposed to prevent. Instead of protecting private property, it invades it. Instead of protecting life, it destroys it. Instead of guarding liberty, it violates it. And as the state advances and grows, it does these things ever more, until it threatens the well-being of society.

Even more tellingly, Bastiat observes that when you subject the state to the same standards that the law uses to judge relations between individuals, the state fails. He concludes that when this is the case, the law has been perverted in the hands of the governing elites. It is employed to do the very thing that the law is designed to prevent. The enforcer turns out to be the main violator of its own standards.

The law, wrote Bastiat, is supposed to protect property and person from arbitrary attack. When the law becomes a tool for providing legal cover for such attacks, as it has from Bastiat’s time to our own, its whole purpose has been turned upside down and inside out.

What Bastiat was seeking, as the embodiment of justice, was a consistent ethic of public life. The law should be the same for everyone. We should all obey the same rules. Neither the state nor any of its functionaries can be exempt from the rules they purport to enforce.

We cannot permit the state to judge itself by a different standard. Indeed, when Marilyn Mosby, Maryland’s state attorney, announced that the she was prosecuting the cops who beat and killed Freddie Gray, she struck a chord that resonated far and wide. She might be a left-liberal Democrat, and she might not share libertarian values across the board, but when she said, “no one is above the law,” she was echoing Bastiat and the entire liberal tradition.

What are the social consequences of having a different sets of laws, one for state agents and one for everyone else? Bastiat believed that the result is lawlessness:

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.

In this case, the law becomes a perpetual source of hatred and discord. It even “tends to destroy society itself.” Whether this destruction takes place in the controlled environment of a legislature, the routine quietude of the bureaucracy, or on the streets through looting does not change the essentials of what is happening.

What does this say about abuse at the hands of the police? According to Bastiat’s standard, the law should regard such abuse as the violation of another’s rights. Period.

The passion, the fire, the relentless logic of Bastiat’s monograph have the power to shake up any reader. Nothing is the same after you read The Law. That is why this essay is rightly famous. It is capable of shaking up whole systems of government and whole societies — a beautiful illustration of the pen’s power.

It is a habit of every generation to underestimate the importance and power of ideas. Yet the whole world that we live in is built by them. Nothing outside pure nature exists in this world that did not begin as an idea held by human beings. That’s why an essay like Bastiat’s is so powerful and important. It helps you see the injustices that surround us, which we are otherwise inclined to ignore. And it helps provide the response to them.

Seeing and explaining are the first steps to changing.


Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.

Baltimore Lawmakers, Not its Citizens, Are the Problem

Sadly, what’s happening in Baltimore shouldn’t surprise anyone.

You cannot have an environment where the political leaders leverage chaos for personal political gain and expect those on the side of law and order to sweep in and win the day. The real tragedy here is the growing fear now residing in the hearts of the good citizens of Baltimore, those being subjected to daily threats of deadly violence because of the disturbing and irresponsible actions of its political elite.

Baltimore Shooting Stats
Baltimore Arrests Stats

By now, most of us know the name Freddie Gray. But how many of us know the name Eladio Bennett or Kester Browne? And, how many of us have heard the name Shaquil Hinton? These are but a few of the more than 50 lives taken before their time since the death of Freddie Gray, yet their lives and untimely passing have drawn but a sliver of the attention paid to Freddie Gray.

We can’t help the good citizens of Baltimore, and America’s many struggling inner cities, if we are afraid to shine a spotlight on the real problem. The problem is an organized far-left cabal, which has hijacked the party of JFK, and an opposing political party with few leaders willing to confront them. The organized far-left has accurately calculated that they can leverage chaos and use it to place blame, and divide us into their (not our) pre-selected racial, cultural, religious, gender, and sexual preference silos. They also use this blame strategy to highlight the fictitious failings of our system of government, bed-rocked in freedom and individual liberty. Then, once the division and blame propaganda has set in, with few in the mainstream media willing to fight back against this narrative, they propose a better way “forward” where, conveniently, they are empowered, not you.

The new “way forward” relies on more of your money going to them through higher taxes and expensive government programs. It takes away your ability to make basic health care decisions for your family, and it orders your child to attend the school they choose, not the one you choose. If you were designing a system to fail then you couldn’t design it any better than this “way forward.”

It’s not just the political penalty we pay, where we lose control over our money through their relentless push for government empowerment subsequent to a crisis, we can also lose our lives. The complete lack of leadership in Baltimore and the constant apologies for lawbreakers who were given “room to destroy,” while ensuring an expedited rush to judgment for the police officers involved in the Freddie Gray incident, has broken what has made this country the global, historical exception; fidelity to process. Process, and the rule of law and order, has enabled us to prosper economically and become a global example for freedom and liberty. When this process breaks down and we become a country of rule by discretion, rather than rule by law, the entire system breaks down and it filters down to the police officers on the street.

Having been a law enforcement officer with the N.Y.P.D. and the U.S. Secret Service I have seen first-hand the dangers law enforcement officers knowingly face every day for little money, and even less accolades. All these men and women ask is that the cities and towns they have pledged to protect and serve grant them the same process and legal rights as the citizens they protect. I don’t know what happened behind those doors of the van Freddie Gray was placed in and, if it turns out that the officers involved committed a crime, then they should be prosecuted. But, when far-left legal scholars and conservative thought leaders agree that the charges leveled against the police officers by Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby were political, and not firmly based on evidence, then we have a serious problem.

Police officers are an intelligent lot and they see this street justice prosecution as a direct attack on their ability to fight crime. Police officers are given tremendous discretion to combat crime and do their jobs and they are not legally mandated to arrest every person for every violation of the law they witness. I can imagine a scenario where many of these formerly discretionary police actions for non-violent, nuisance-crime-type activities, are not happening because the officers feel that the city of Baltimore will not be on their side if a police action for public urination turns into a use-of-force scenario. Sadly, it is this man or woman, who is engaged in this nuisance crime, and who is not confronted by law enforcement, that is typically the one who walks out of the alley and robs, rapes or kills someone.

In short, politicians and government are the problem in Baltimore, not the citizens. Nothing will change in Baltimore until the political leaders, who worship at the altar of big government are replaced by those who believe that the future of Baltimore is in the hands of the liberty of its citizens, fidelity to the rule of law, order and process, and not the permission of its government.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of the Mayor of Baltimore is by Patrick Semansky | AP Photo.

Baltimore: From Charm City to Deadly City

Baltimore’s 40th murder in May set a new record for homicides in one month.

My friend wrote…

Lloyd,

The American Legion National Convention is scheduled for late August through early September, 2015 in Baltimore City.

Sad to say, I have canceled my reservations as I do not think the Convention is worth the risk to my life as I was very much looking forward to the Convention. Many others of American Legion are canceling due to high risk of being shot and/or killed.

I would very much appreciate your thoughts as you grew up there. No doubt , is a terrible shame to see a great City, Baltimore, go down due to liberal Democrats being in charge for the past 4 decades

Keep the Faith, Brother”

My reply…

Hey Brother, You are wise for staying away from sin city (Baltimore). Baltimore police are reluctant to do their job for fear of being arrested. Clearly, the mayor is allowing the inmates to run the asylum. The only thing the vile local Democrat government cares about is protecting their liberal narrative. Baltimore’s mayor considers lives and businesses acceptable collateral damage. It is shameful and evil.

God bless,

Lloyd

My wife Mary said perhaps Baltimore will come to it’s senses upon realizing the financial consequences (at least $20 million) of allowing the thugs to wreck havoc. I said to her, you are mistaken oh wise and beautiful one. The liberal zealots running Baltimore do not give a rat’s derriere about consequences financial or otherwise. All that matters is furthering their liberal socialist/progressive big government controlling everything and everyone agenda. If Leftists are nothing else, they are persistent, patient and unshakably focused on achieving their goals.

For crying out loud, the Baltimore Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby is running around acting like an anti-police pit bull, giving speeches in churches to rally the black community against the police. Dear Lord what evil has overtaken my former home town? What has so emboldened Leftist Democrats to dismiss all pretense of fairness and legality, openly displaying their liberal bias and intentions?

Before I moved to Florida fifteen years ago, Baltimore was promoted as “Charm City”. I received a citation from former Mayor Kurt Schmoke for the song I wrote about my beloved city. A CD of my song “Hello Baltimore” was included in the city’s Bicentennial time capsule.

Visiting Baltimore five years after I moved, a black Baltimore cop friend told me crime had gotten much worse. He said metal detectors were installed in public schools and almost every black nightclub. This does not support the Left’s claim that cops are the problem.

My brother said his white girlfriend won tickets for a show at the famous Hippodrome theater. The riots made her afraid to venture to downtown Baltimore. My brother dropped her and a female friend off at the theater door and picked them up immediately after the show.

Folks, there is a pony hidden in the pile of excrement which is Baltimore politics. The dire consequences of full blown liberalism are exposed for all the world to see.

Here’s a music video of my song “Hello Baltimore” illustrating my hometown then and now.

Biker Shootout: Libs Going Wacko over Race in Waco

Leftists are upset about what they view as a double standard with respect to the Baltimore/Ferguson affair and the recent Waco gang shootout. They’re right, too — there sure is a double standard.

And, as usual, it’s their own.

Consider, for example, an Associated Press piece by one Jesse J. Holland titled “Differing perceptions of Waco, Baltimore bothering some.” Holland starts out writing that the “prevailing images of protests in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, over police killings of black men were of police in riot gear, handcuffed protesters, tear gas and mass arrests. The main images of a fatal gun battle between armed bikers and police in Waco, Texas, also showed mass arrests — carried out by nonchalant-looking officers sitting around calm bikers on cellphones.” The idea is that while the black thugs in Baltimore and Ferguson received harsh treatment and coverage, the primarily white thugs in Waco were, relatively speaking, handled with kid gloves.

But pardon my tongue, this brings us to another complaint. Holland cites people who say that while Barack Obama and other politicians called the Baltimore miscreants “thugs,” no such descriptive is applied to the white Waco punks. He mentions in particular radio and TV commentator Roland Martin, who tweeted, “So the mainstream media refuses to talk (hashtag)WacoThugs, huh?” And Martin has a point: While the black Baltimore rioters and looters were called thugs, no white Waco rioters and looters were thus characterized. I wonder, why might that be?

Oh, yeah, that’s right: there are no white rioters and looters in Waco.

Minor details such as this seem to escape the notice of two-brain-cell journalists in search of a story, but a prerequisite for having “police in riot gear” is actually having, you know, a riot. The incident in Waco was an unforeseen event, meaning, the cops had no time to don any kind of special gear.

Perhaps they don’t teach proper analogizing in journalism school, but the Waco biker thugs aren’t analogous to the Baltimore rioter thugs; rather, they’re analogous to the person the latter were rioting over: drug dealer Freddie Gray. And no one went out of his way to call Gray a thug.

Martin also lamented that we won’t have a “panel discussion on their [the bikers’] childhood” or on “fatherless homes”; no doubt, as the media will soon drop the story. This is largely because they don’t have a black-on-white racial angle to play up, but also for another reason:

Whites won’t be rallying to the defense of the biker thugs.

Matters are proceeding as they should. The police went to the scene of the crime, fired on the thugs when necessary (perhaps killing some), brought matters to a conclusion and they made arrests — 170 of them. Moreover, all people, including whites, want to see justice done. In fact, no small number of whites would no doubt say that more of the thugs should have been shot.

Oh, as for the adjectives, it’s self-evident that the Waco criminals are thugs. The reason why the point had to be made in Baltimore is that politicians, media propagandists and race-baiting activists had euphemized the rioters as “protesters” who cared about Freddie Gray (whom they would have knifed in a second for 50 bucks) and had legitimate grievances. So even Obama, in a rare and fleeting moment of lucidity, pointed out the obvious: get off it — they’re just thugs.

The irony of the Lamestream Media’s reporting on what’s a flawed conception of a double standard is that it was created by their own exercise of a true double standard. As black pundit Larry Elder reported, police shootings of black suspects are down 75 percent over the last several decades, but you wouldn’t know it from cherry-picked reportage that seems designed to incite racial unrest. Consider the following list of perspective-lending realities the media refuses to cover:

  • As Elder also wrote, “In 2012, according to the CDC, 140 blacks were killed by police. That same year 386 whites were killed by police. Over the 13-year period from 1999 to 2011, the CDC reports that 2,151 whites were killed by cops — and 1,130 blacks were killed by cops.”
  • Of course, blacks are only 13 percent of the population. So far more significantly and as this recent Washington State University study shows, police are actually more willing to shoot white than black suspects. Why? Because police know that, as Ferguson officer Darren Wilson’s experience illustrates, shooting a black criminal can mean media crucifixion, career destruction, death threats and, basically, the end of your life as you know it.
  • Black suspects are as likely to shoot at police as to be shot at.
  • Relative to whites, blacks are shot by police at a lower rate than their involvement in crime would suggest. As sociologist and ex-cop Professor Peter Moskos writes, “Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks [to] die at the hands of police. Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”
  • According to FBI statistics, 46 percent of those who’ve murdered police officers during the last decade have been black.
  • Blacks commit more than half of all murders nationwide. And 93 percent of all black homicide victims are murdered by other blacks.
  • Stories of generally “unarmed” white suspects being shot by minority police abound but are never reported nationally. There was 20-year old white man Dillon Taylor, who was shot by a Hispanic cop last year; Iraq military veteran James Whitehead, shot by off-duty black police officer Robert Arnold in Texas in 2011 after a verbal altercation; white teen Gil Collar, shot by a black officer at the University of Alabama in 2012; and 46-year-old white man John Geer, shot with his hands up (according to four police officers on the scene) by a Hispanic cop with “anger issues.”

This isn’t to imply that all the above shootings were unjust, but such a standard is hardly necessary for the media to play the race card when reporting the rare white-on-black shootings. In fact, the media will trumpet the causes of obvious thugs, such as Ferguson’s Michael Brown, Baltimore’s Freddie Gray and Trayvon Martin, even in the face of evidence that thugs are precisely what they are.

Speaking of which, what do you think about the coverage of that unarmed 17-year-old shot by that grown man?

No, not cute little Trayvon.

Seventeen-year-old white kid Chris Cervini, shot by black martial artist Roderick Scott in Greece, NY, in 2009. Scott is built like a brick outhouse and admits Cervini never laid a hand on him, but says he thought his life could be in danger. He was acquitted by a mostly white jury, and I don’t question the verdict. But the verdict on the media is clear:

Guilty of using lies that have evoked hatred, fomented racial unrest, sparked riots, caused property destruction and led to innocent people’s deaths.

Guilty of gross malpractice and, by proxy, murder.

Guilty of being destroyers of civilization that have no moral right to exist.

Yes, #MediaLiesMatter.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com