Michael Brown’s Criminal Past Revealed To Journalist By St. Louis Authorities

Photo credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com<br />
a katz / Shutterstock.com

Journalist Charles C. Johnson of Got News confirmed earlier this month that he was told by multiple St. Louis area authorities that Michael Brown had a substantial criminal record as a juvenile – including a second-degree murder charge.

Since then, he has worked to facilitate the posthumous release of his records.

Brown, whose death in a police shooting sparked ongoing protests in Ferguson, Mo. and across the country, has been portrayed by some as an innocent victim of a racist officer. Subsequent reports have cast doubt on that depiction, and Johnson hopes to shed even more light on the man’s past by releasing details from his prior arrests.

KMOX spoke to a lawyer currently suing to have Brown’s juvenile records released.

“What we’re arguing is that since he is deceased, those documents revert from being confidential,” Johnathon Burns said, “they revert back to the public sphere. Missouri common law applies, and under Missouri common law, court records and virtually all other documents are open to the public.”

Others see the situation differently, including Tricia Harrison, an associate law professor at Saint Louis University.

“To suggest that the general public has a right to know what any juvenile does in any situation is ludicrous,” she asserts.

Of course, the actions of minors are made public for a variety of reasons on a regular basis; and as Johnson notes, it is telling that even legal scholars are unaware of the law in regards to his request.

Johnson wrote that, as part of the suit to gain access to Brown’s records, Burns is citing another case that bolsters his claim. In 1984, he explained, an 18-year-old was beaten and ultimately died after stealing a pack of cigarettes. During a subsequent wrongful death lawsuit, the victim’s parents pleaded for the court to keep his juvenile record private to no avail.

H/T: IJ Review

Photo credit: a katz / Shutterstock.com


Is Barack Obama Using The Riots In Ferguson For Political Gain?

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

Exposed: The Bloodstained Hypocrisy Of Hollywood’s Violence Profiteers

Photo credit: Mat Hayward / Shutterstock.com<br />
Mat Hayward / Shutterstock.com

Did you miss Tinseltown’s latest political correctness powwow? Preening celebrities showed their solidarity with Ferguson, Mo. at the MTV Video Music Awards show this week. Rapper Common led the convocation, preachifying about the positive impact of hip-hop music on society as a “powerful instrument of social change” and “truth.”

Cameras showed drug-addled gangsta rapper Snoop Dogg bowing his head and flashing a peace sign during a “moment of silence” for Ferguson. MTV President Stephen Friedman aired public service announcements plying social justice messages. “It’s a call to action to our audience that we have to confront our own bias head-on before we can truly create change,” Friedman pontificated.
Spare me the shizzle and hypocri-dizzle.

While these Hollywood do-gooders gnash their Zoom!-brightened teeth over violence in the black community, they turn their Restylane-filled cheeks from the bullet-riddled violence glamorized by their own industry.

The night before the VMAs, a gunman barged into the 1Oak nightclub in West Hollywood and shot rap mogul Suge Knight six times. He survived.

It wasn’t the first time Knight had been targeted for apparent revenge. And it wasn’t the first time the VMA party scene had been rattled by violent gunfire. In 2005, Knight was shot at a pre-VMA party in Miami hosted by rapper Kanye West.

Knight, founder of the Death Row Records empire and possessor of a mile-long rap sheet, reportedly refuses to cooperate with L.A. police, who are investigating the roles of the infamous Bloods and Crips rival street gangs in the crime. The Bloods-affiliated Knight’s reign of criminal terror has been well documented by law enforcement and rap aficionados. A climax: the still-unsolved shooting deaths of rappers Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls, which multiple insiders believe the record executive ordered.

Fellow thug rapper Chris Brown (who remains on probation for beating up former girlfriend/pop queen Rihanna) was at the West Hollywood party last weekend, reportedly throwing Bloods gang signs. Also on scene: gangsta rapper and Bloods-promoter The Game.

Fun fact: The last time “Game” was in the news, he had released album artwork depicting Jesus as a Bloods gang member — complete with gold chains and the signature red bandana of the Compton Piru Bloods gang.

Not to be outdone, Crips-affiliated Snoop Dogg — a marquee Death Row Records “artist” with Dr. Dre before their falling out with Knight — boasts his own vicious criminal gang history ranging from felony drug possession to assault and multiple deadly weapons possessions charges. And that’s not including a deadlocked jury outcome on voluntary manslaughter charges after rival Crips gang member Phillip Woldermarian was gunned down by shots alleged to have come from a car Snoop and two fellow gang members were in at the time.

Corporate Hollywood liberals have made billions of dollars off of hardcore, gang-promoting, gun-toting, cop-bashing, misogynist rap. The corrosive effects on the black community are incalculable. Grandstanding about Ferguson is a convenient distraction from the rank hypocrisy of violence profiteers.

As you might expect, MTV didn’t call for a “moment of silence” about the latest Suge Knight shooting. There was no need for one. When it comes to holding themselves accountable for fostering black-on-black violence, Hollywood’s gangstas have adopted a systematic code of silence.

Photo credit: Mat Hayward / Shutterstock.com

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 Gender Identity Crisis Of America

Photo Credit: Sharon (Flickr)

All Rachel Pepe wanted was to be treated like one of the girls. There is one major problem, however. She’s a boy.

Gender identity and sexual preference is a huge issue in America today. If you’re like me, your natural reaction may be, “TMI!”

NJ Governor, Chris Christie, may have felt similarly when he swiftly shut down the whole notion of children working through their sexual identity issues with a licensed counselor, in August of last year. But when dress codes and gender specific restrooms become a matter of ambiguity, what’s a school administrator to do?

I regret the abuse and ridicule that too many of our youth must endure – whatever the reason. But I also believe we must not overreact or overcompensate in meeting the tender emotional needs of the conflicted child.

I do believe children should be supported and loved in expressing the inner conflict and emotional pain they may be experiencing on account of some deep-seeded gender conflict, real or perceived. A full-court gender-conversion press may do more harm than good. But everyone should have a safe place they can go where frustrations and distresses can be revealed without fear or shame.

We may not agree with the choices of our neighbor, but may we never willfully mistreat or cause emotional harm to another human being. On the other hand, nobody should exploit a distraught child for their own personal gain (or agenda).

I personally believe Jesus is bigger than any trumped-up sexuality fixation in our day.

Every single soul in society should be treated with a level of compassion and regard (nobody is disposable). No one deserves to be written off. We should conduct ourselves in such a way that we naturally produce a positive response from others (despite our differences).

But ultimately, we must instill in our children a strong sense of dignity and self-respect (and reflect those same qualities ourselves). We may not be perfect now, but with God on our side, we can know that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

May the desires of the soul be cultivated above and beyond that of the “psyche” and the “libido.”

Photo Credit: Sharon (Flickr)

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

Obama’s Segue From Constructive Tax Proposals To Low-Grade Demagoguery

Photo credit: ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com<br />
ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

“The tax system should be simplified and work for all Americans with lower individual and corporate tax rates and fewer brackets.”

That’s from the Obama administration’s 2009 proposals for tax reform, straight from whitehouse.gov.

“Because our corporate tax system is so riddled with special interest loopholes,” the document goes on, “our system has one of the highest statutory rates among developed countries to generate about the same amount of corporate tax revenue as our developed country partners as a share of our economy.”

That is still accurate except that, now that Japan has lowered its corporate tax rate, the U.S. is not “among the highest” but is the highest among developed countries.

The first step in establishing good public policy is identifying problems with and weaknesses in current policy. On the corporate tax, President Obama and his administration started off on the right foot.

Unfortunately, they haven’t moved any further.

Not while Democrats held supermajorities in both houses of Congress in 2009 and 2010. Not in the so-called grand bargain negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner in 2011.

And not in Obama’s second term. Acting apparently on the belief that he voiced on the campaign trail, that the Republicans’ “fever” would break once he was re-elected — evidently, he regards opposition to his policies as sickness — Obama upped the ante.

His previous proposals for corporate tax reform were revenue-neutral. Rates would be cut and preferences eliminated so as to maintain the same revenue stream.

But his 2013 proposal was different. Corporate tax reform would have to increase revenue. More money to spend on infrastructure or food stamps or crony-connected solar panel subsidies.

Coupled with that was the appointment of Jack Lew as secretary of the Treasury. Participants in the 2011 grand bargain discussions reported that Lew was the most partisan and obdurate of administration negotiators. His appointment was a signal the president wanted no deal.

Even so, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat, and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, a Republican, engaged in extensive negotiations with a view to overall tax reform.

They recognized that the high corporate tax rate handicapped U.S.-based firms. They understood as well that the U.S.’s near-unique worldwide taxation policy hurt them further.

Other countries tax only profits made domestically. The U.S. taxes profits made abroad minus any foreign corporate tax paid.

As a result, U.S. corporations leave trillions in profits overseas because they get taxed if they bring it back home to do nefarious things such as create new jobs.

All of this is, or should be, in the news this week because of the proposed acquisition of U.S.-based Burger King by the Canada-based Tim Hortons donut chain. The new company would pay U.S. rates on profits made here, but less on profits made elsewhere.

This is what the administration calls an “inversion” and which its cheerleaders denounce as “unpatriotic.” Several U.S.-based pharmaceutical and medical device firms have made similar transactions with a view to reducing total tax liability.

But, as Judge Learned Hand wrote long ago, “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.”

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

You Won’t Believe What Obvious US Terror Threat The FBI Leaves Out Of Its Annual Assessment


You might think that the terror threat from Islamic extremism in the United States would be high on the FBI watch list — the national threat assessment, as the bureau calls it. But, remarkably, it’s NOT high on the list. In fact, the threat of attacks inside the U.S. from Muslim extremists is NOT ON THE LIST AT ALL.

According to an article in the Washington Free Beacon, the newly released internal FBI report:

…makes no reference to Islamist terror threats, despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.

Instead, the internal FBI intelligence report concluded in its 2013 assessment published this month that the threat to U.S. internal security from extremists is limited to attacks and activities by eight types of domestic extremist movements—none motivated by radical Islam.

The groups we need to watch out for, says the FBI, include:

…anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists.

The Free Beacon report points out that Islamic terror groups are not included on the FBI’s watch list, despite the fact that there were specific, violent, fatal attacks by domestic terrorists inspired or motivated by Islamic extremism:

The report left out all references to the April 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon, which killed three people and injured some 264 others. Two brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who were motivated by Islamist extremist beliefs, carried out the bombing. They learned the techniques for the homemade pressure cooker bombers from an al Qaeda linked magazine.

The fact that the FBI leaves terror threats by Islamic radicals off its list draws sharp criticism from law enforcement experts:

Former FBI Agent John Guandolo said…“It should not surprise anyone who follows the jihadi threats in the United States that the FBI would not even include ‘Islamic terrorism’ in its assessment of serious threats to the republic in an official report.

“Since 9/11, FBI leadership—as well as leaders from Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council—relies on easily identifiable jihadis from the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, al Qaeda and elsewhere to advise it on how to deal with ‘domestic extremism.’”

Patrick Poole, a domestic terrorism expert, also was critical of the report’s omission of U.S. Islamist extremism, blaming “politically correct” policies at the FBI for the problem.

“At the same time we have senior members of the Obama administration openly saying that it’s not a question of if but when we have a terror attack targeting the United States by ISIL, we have the FBI putting on blinders to make sure they don’t see that threat,” Poole said. “These politically correct policies have already allowed Americans to be killed at Fort Hood and in Boston,” he added.

In considering why the FBI would omit Islamic terrorism from its domestic threat list, one must consider who runs the Department of Justice…Eric Holder.

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