Ferguson Is What It Is

Photo Credit: Twitter/Ray Downs

The nation has long anticipated the St. Louis grand jury decision regarding the fate of Officer Darren Wilson after the controversy that followed him fatally shooting Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, last August.

But even now that it has been decided that Officer Wilson will not face indictment, in this current local and national environment, few if any are left at ease with the fallout now present in the wake of the decision.

Personally, as I listened to St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s public statement Monday, it all seemed to fall into place for me as an unfortunate outcome resulting from a police officer simply doing his job. It still appeared to me that the situation was trumped up to be an example of white police violence against black victims.

Then I hung on McCulloch’s account that the likely final shot fired at Brown struck him over 100 feet away from Officer Wilson’s police cruiser, and that the blood evidence from that shot was found over 20 feet further behind Brown.

I thought to myself, “Wait a minute! Isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t the final shot have been within the window of Wilson’s cruiser, instead of that shot being the first close-range shot to Brown’s hand?”

Then I remembered that the autopsy reports agreed that all of Brown’s wounds were to the front of his body. I also realized that, as a cop, if a confrontational man had already attacked you through your car window, flees, and then turns around to return in your direction, you can’t afford to take any chances.

If you flee the scene, you not only shirk your responsibilities as a police officer; but you also make yourself look terribly guilty. And we should also remember that, in spite of the details of the initial altercation, there was no way for Officer Wilson to absolutely justify in his mind that this very large, angry, and violent young man was not armed.

I then realized that my initial reaction to these details provided for a personally teachable moment.

Just as easily as I had looked at one or two details of this case—and at first thought I had found an anomaly—how much easier would it be to run with these first assumptions if I had already wanted Officer Wilson to be an evil, guilty man of the system?

Unfortunately, in this upside-down world, no one wins in any part of the aftermath of this incident.

A family has lost a son; a police officer has lost his identity, freedom, and safety; the city of Ferguson lies in ruins; and the nation’s race relations are further strained, in spite of the facts of the case.

Although the fallout destruction in Ferguson is not as severe as some had projected and many had feared, with at least 4 burning buildings, 2 burning police cruisers, looting, and multiple shots fired, this predominantly black St. Louis suburb is obviously not Mayberry. The violent protests have also spread to other major U.S. cities.

It’s interesting that St. Louis County Prosecutor McCulloch is a white Democrat, and it would be even more interesting to know his private thoughts about the success of Obama’s and Holder’s intervention in Ferguson for race relations as ever benevolent representatives of the federal government.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Attacks On National Morale And Morality In America Continue…

Family 3 SC

Though it should now be painfully obvious that the policies of those in our government’s highest offices are initiating a decline in America’s national security and economy, increasing evidence suggests that these concerns are only subsidiary effects of a much deeper, more sinister attack that is being unleashed upon the country.

As evidenced through social media and public polls, a growing number of Americans believe that this national erosion of prosperity and personal liberties cannot be explained away as the result of rampant incompetence in poor leadership–but instead that it is all a part of an intentional attack on the fundamental makeup of our country.

What’s worse is that the heart of the attack is focused upon social issues, and more importantly, the traditional family unit.

Throughout a decades-long gradual slope, the size, scope, influence, and power of our federal government has grown by leaps and bounds at the expense of the individual liberties of private citizens.

The progression of this slippery slope has only accelerated, at unprecedented levels, under the direction of the country’s current leadership.

While it was founded by noble but imperfect men, America’s entire system of government, a new republic, was originally based upon Judeo-Christian precepts that became the foundation for our nation’s laws.

A recurring theme in our Declaration and other founding documents was a recognition of Almighty God as the sole proprietor of this new nation, with “We The People” as it facilitators and an honor system of good will toward our fellow man as we endeavored to build the greatest nation on earth, bound and motivated by a universal pursuit of coexisting freedoms and patriotism, and preserved by our Creator with honor given to him and the founding documents that He inspired.

America’s framers were learned men who took into account the lessons provided by history.

As a majority, they conceded that a democracy, however attractive to the citizenry, could never survive as a system of government that both allowed for personal freedoms, as well as to adhere to an unwavering rule of law.

That is why they decided instead that a republic was a more fitting system for this new government. They knew that it could stand the test of time, so long as the federal government, state governments, and private citizens continued to share their vision and worked in cooperation among themselves to ensure the nation’s survival in the form in which it was originally intended.

As we have witnessed, our government no longer represents the will of the people according to the fundamental laws of the land, but simply finds loopholes in laws, ignores them altogether, and/or works in unison with activist judges and slanted media outlets that have been bought and paid for to help them carry out their dishonest agenda.

Over time, we’ve lost the help of would-be patriots to a lack of overall education (especially an accurate instruction in American and World histories); and they have slowly been brainwashed by these united destructive forces to believe the opposite of what is true, as well as reversed definitions of right and wrong.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Getting Along In The GOP

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Recently, I’ve heard some resounding influential voices of the Republican Party repeating that tired old line that we must, as a party, all get along, regardless of our differences.

To a point, I would agree that this is true. We of the GOP do need to be careful not to “strain on a gnat, to swallow a camel,” as the old expression goes.

That said, if we are still a party that believes in the traditions of our founding and the Constitution, we do need to hold true to these principles that are still overwhelmingly held as standards among the party’s voting base.

These days, though, it seems that many who brand themselves with our party’s name believe that it is more important for them, as politicians, to get along with each other than it is to get along with those who vote them into, or out of, office.

In recent months and weeks, surely unrelated to their aspirations for election and re-election, some politicians have reiterated these talking points.

Just among the Texas politicians I’ve personally voted for, there is one gentleman in Washington who continues to paint himself as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative in spite of his voting record that has, of late, increasingly proven otherwise. Then, there is a local politician who votes with his conservative base 97% of the time, but is often afraid to consider himself a conservative Republican. In his view, it seems that labels such as “Mainstream Republican” or “Moderate Republican” are safer bets in pleasing the masses.

In my view, I’m not sure which is worse.

The latter of these two examples has personally related to me that we need to discontinue the usage of labels such as “R.I.N.O.” (Republican in Name Only) when describing those with whom we disagree on key issues among our party’s ranks.

I couldn’t help but notice this line of thinking, as it was recently repeated by Governor Mike Huckabee on his regular Fox News show.

He likewise expressed his disdain for the term “RINO,” saying that “I’d rather go to battle with someone who isn’t perfect than with someone who thinks he is.”

He went on to say that we shouldn’t waste our time quarreling with those we agree with 90% of the time, but that we should unify against those forces that stand in stark contrast to our convictions.

I continue to believe that Mike Huckabee brings presidential material to the table in any election cycle, especially when compared to the one who currently holds the office; but these words from him struck a negative chord with me.

When there is no other choice, such as in the conclusion of a recent campaign, I tend to agree with Mr. Huckabee on his point.

However, it occurs to me that there are only two ways by which any two disagreeing individuals or groups of individuals ever come to agreement: You must either compromise your convictions for those of others, or you must convince the other to compromise his convictions for yours.

Either of these two scenarios can be realized through sincere conviction or coercion.

I’m not a one (or even two) issue voter, but I believe that disagreement on a single issue should be a deal breaker within our party when the decision on that issue stands to either follow or disregard the U.S. Constitution.

If you haven’t noticed by now, I’m on the side of the Constitution.

Compromise is a double-edged sword. When you’re right, you’d better be sure that the sharpest edge is the outer rather than the inner.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)


Sports Broadcaster And Former NFL Player Fired For Christian Beliefs

Craig James SC Sports Broadcaster and Former NFL Player Fired for Christian Beliefs

Former ESPN sports broadcaster and onetime New England Patriot Craig James was fired by Fox Sports Southwest a few weeks ago for his public declaration of his Christian views in opposition to same-sex marriage.

As unlikely as it may seem, this termination, only days after his hiring, was not based upon any on-the-job infraction, but upon statements he made last year during his bid for a Texas U.S. Senate seat that was ultimately won by Ted Cruz.

Among his statements during that campaign, James said that “People choose to be gay. I think it’s a choice, I do. Same-sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that’s done, and God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they’re going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions.”

It’s hard to imagine that a major network, such as Fox, would not have known about James’ political and religious stances prior to his hiring. In fact, in an August 30, 2013 announcement from Fox Sports Southwest (that has since been removed), executive producer Mike Anastassiou declared that, “We’re excited to add Craig to the Fox Sports Southwest team. He’s a talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

Apparently, that sentiment was soon lost as a network spokesman recently told a Dallas Morning News reporter that “we just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

James maintains that in his 24 years of broadcasting, he’s always been respectful of his colleagues regardless of their personal beliefs or lifestyles, and that “it is essential in our business to maintain professional relationships with people from a diverse background and have tolerance for those of different beliefs.” He also stated, “I have never discussed my faith while broadcasting, and it has never been an issue until now.”

Recently, in a Breitbart News report, James also said, “I was shocked that my personal religious beliefs were not only the reason for Fox Sports firing me, but I was completely floored when I read stories quoting Fox Sports representatives essentially saying that people of faith are banned from working at Fox Sports. That is not right, and surely someone made a terrible mistake.”

During his 2012 Senate campaign, James offered his testimony of personal faith in a video posted at YouTube.

James’ legal counsel at the Liberty Institute recently sent a letter to Fox Sports Southwest demanding an ultimatum that he be reinstated within 48 hours, or that they will be met with further legal action.

As a former NFL player and broadcaster for CBS, ESPN, ABC, and now Fox Sports Southwest, Craig James has arguably more than proven himself as an able and professional expert in his field. In spite of this, though, he seems to be one of the latest victims of political correctness and DC agendas that seek to strip American citizens of their First Amendment constitutional rights to freedom of speech, religion, and religious expression.

Photo credit: Bexar Republican (Creative Commons)




More Human Than Humane?

abortion is murder More human than humane?

Throughout recorded history, one stark reality remains: humans must dehumanize other humans in order to condemn them to an inhumane institution.

Otherwise, the backlash from such an objective would surely be halted in its tracks within a single family unit or circle of friends. It would definitely never receive public support.

This phenomenon proved true in the context of slavery in America. Subjected to their own and/or others’ consciences, most slave owners could not bear to consider their subjects as being as human as themselves and continue to engage in this historically worldwide practice. Preserved documents and life wills of the period bear out this proof, often referring to male slaves as “bucks” and female slaves as “house wenches.”

The same has proven true with the practice of abortion. Proponents of abortion on demand always refer to an unborn child, not as a child or a baby, but as a fetus. Accepted definitions of the word “fetus” with consideration toward its origin vary, but among their descriptions are the words and phrases “little one”, “young one”, “young child”, and “offspring”. So where’s the argument here?

The reality of abortion is that the practice usually consists of the murder of unborn babies as a matter of convenience, enabled by a society that has offered it acceptance and legality.

Abortion has become a big business in our country, with the misleadingly-named Planned Parenthood at its core. Millions upon millions of dollars are made each year through the willful murder of innocent unborn children (and as recent developments have shown, even in the latest period of their human development.)

We have probably all personally known of young people who have been faced with the reality of unplanned pregnancy. Most of us probably even know those who would choose to kill their unborn child rather than face the embarrassment and scrutiny of their parents and peers that would come with the admission to this growing life.

Those involved in the big business of abortion are very aware of these individuals and their situations as well. That’s why the proponents of abortion fight tooth and nail against any legislative measure that would require the parental consent of minors before they are legally allowed to have an abortion.

These proponents would also rather that we the public did not realize that their go-to Roe v. Wade court decision left to the public and the courts the final say as to what point in the human condition life begins. Historically, the people of the world have always recognized conception as this point where human life begins.

This tradition is lost on those of the majority of abortion supporters who also believe in the “right” of individuals to be subjected to late-term abortions. In varying levels of intensity, this fight is raging across our nation.

Recently, in Texas, state legislators vied for a vote on a bill that would outlaw late-term abortions and place additional restrictions on abortion-on-demand. Democrat State Senator Wendy Davis presented a 13-hour filibuster last Tuesday, June 25, in hopes to thwart this bill.

Although her filibuster was finally disqualified after a decision that she was guilty of three infractions against the rules of the floor in her filibuster, she still managed to run down the clock to the point that a final vote on the bill could not be reached. As always, it seems that yet another liberal politician would readily sacrifice their own honor and reputation for a larger cause.

All private opinions of Texas Governor Rick Perry aside, all should realistically admit that he does often speak the truth. Recently, liberals, including the subject of his statement, have attacked his words and his position concerning abortion legislation in his state. The most notable content of his statement went as follows: “…The fact is, who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can’t go on to lead successful lives? In fact, even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances. She was the daughter of a single woman. She was a teenaged mother, herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas Senate. It’s just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own examples: that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential, and that every life matters.”

Among us as American Christians (not in the loose definition of the term), we recognize the travesty of abortion as a sign of the times, given to us as a warning from the God-inspired prophets and apostles of the Word of God in such passages as the first chapter of Romans. We, as those who truly know the God upon whose principles this nation was founded, realize that we are now witnessing the time in human history when because “…they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,” as outlined in Romans 1:28. We also realize that we are living in the time when the majority of the world’s inhabitants are “…Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them,” as verses 31 and 32 go on to explain.

Photo Credit: -nanio- (Creative Commons)