Month: September 2016

In the first chapter of this Black Lives Matter series, we examined BLM’s manifesto and core values. Naturally, the next step is to evaluate the claims and grievances made my BLM and evaluate their validity.  It’s time to face the facts.

BLM’s claims, while evoking a lot of emotion and hyperbole, have little basis in any fact and BLM does not do much to refute that.  Nowhere on the site does it outline any particular evidence in support of their outrageous grievances.  If their claims were true, why not add news stories or links to statistics, or anything that demonstrates tangible evidence and not just rambling emotional diatribe?  Furthermore, the one claim they made which has at least some basis in fact, regarding the number of Blacks incarcerated, is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent.

According to studies done by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Blacks make up 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population in the United States.  Even if this study does not count those individuals who are on parole or probation as “incarcerated” (and some studies do), this hardly equates to their description of 2.8 million Black people locked in cages as described on BLMs “about us” page.  In the manifesto, BLM then changes the number to the more accurate estimate of 1 million.  The inconsistency  is unprofessional at the least and troubling at the most.

Either way, it is critical to also mention the U.S. has one of the overall best records in the world in regards to humane treatment of its incarcerated population.  However, including these kind of facts mitigates the raw emotional power of grossly inaccurate (or inconsistent) statistics and inflammatory language which seems to be the basis for accumulating support of BLM.

It is true Blacks make up an overall larger proportion of the incarcerated population than any other racial/ethnic groups in this country.  However, no evidence exists to show the reason for this has anything to do with direct persecution of the Black population by “the state,” much less state sponsored genocide, as BLM suggests.  There is a simple reason for the high rate of incarceration.  Statistics have consistently proven the number of crimes committed by Blacks is far higher proportionately than any other single racial/ethnic group, and it is not racist to say so.  Any second grader can do the math: more Black crime = more Black incarceration.

Though Blacks make up only about 13% of the population of the United States, they commit almost half of homicides nationwide.  Over 90% of the time the victim is also Black, usually a male.  Blacks commit over 50% of robberies, 30% of burglaries, 34% of aggravated assaults, 25% of vandalisms, and 67% of illegal gambling.  Collectively, Blacks committed 38% of violent crimes and 29% of property crimes nationwide in 2012.  Most of these figures have been documented in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report.  Though, as an establishment of “the state,” perhaps BLM does not give the FBI credit.

The numbers only get worse for Blacks when crime statistics for individual cities are examined.  Take a study by Chicago Police Department in 2011 for example.  Despite comprising about 33% of the Chicago population,  71% of all homicides in the city were committed by Blacks and 75% of the victims were Black.  It is important to note only 29% of Chicago homicides for 2011 had a corresponding prosecution.  This is ironic considering BLM’s charge that the state system is rigged against Blacks.

Strangely absent from BLM website, is the grievance we often see their supporters making on the major cable news networks; that the Black population in the United States is being hunted down by various Law Enforcement agencies in the country.  Various studies have been conducted, including one by the Center for Disease Control in 2012, one by the Washington Post in 2015, and another published by a Harvard University professor in 2016.  All of them concluded White people were about twice as likely to be shot by police as Black people.  

Why is there a disparity between percentage of Blacks shot by police, contrasted to the proportionately lower percentage of other racial/ethnic groups?  Just as is the case with Black incarceration, the disproportionate rates are due to the fact Blacks commit a proportionately higher percentage of crimes.  One would also be hard pressed to find any legitimate study concluding that a majority of officer involved shootings of any racial/ethnic group, were unjustified, much less racially biased.  At the very least, the statistics of police shootings of Blacks hardly reflects any form of genocide committed by the state, as BLM would suggest.

The problem this poses for BLM is these facts completely undermine the inflammatory claims they have made.  Their grievances are based more in emotion than logic or fact.  If BLM wants to be taken seriously, they need to make some important changes to their focus, overall organization, and to the behavior of their supporters.  That is a subject for the next article.

~AD

Share This:

I would be remiss to let this week go by without mentioning the recent attacks on our nation by Radical Islamic Terrorism.  By now everyone should be familiar with the knife attacks in St. Cloud, Minnesota and the bombings in New Jersey and New York.  If you are not familiar, do your duty as an American and get familiar real quick because all Americans face this common threat; whether you feel threatened or not.  There is a lot about the initial fallout from these incidents that is bothersome so let’s get right into it.

To begin with, the responding authorities to each incident deserve considerable praise.  The swift and commendable response of Officer Falconer to the attacker in the St. Cloud mall should not be taken for granted, trivialized, or criticized.  Nor should the excellent investigative work of the various police/intelligence agencies that led to the capture of the N.J./N.Y. bomber.  Both responses are deserving of the highest praise and recognition from the Americans these peace officers protect and serve.

Yet, immediately after such events, there is always the search for why such attacks occurred and who failed to see them coming.  In the case of the bombings, muckraking journalists flocked to any sign of a controversial existence of previous knowledge police/intelligence agencies had in regard to the attacker(s).  Any prior knowledge of the attacker is often blown way out of context.  This is because the context in which the muckrakers find the info is always post-attack.  The original context, as viewed by law enforcement/intelligence, was pre-attack.  There is a considerable difference between the two.  

In any case, the police/intelligence agencies are scrutinized by all these journalists and newscasters; sitting around their comfy couches, drinking lattes and discussing how, in retrospect, they would have done things differently.  Journalists suffering from a Walter Cronkite complex pass over a few hastened notes and statistics in front of them and then pass judgment on intelligence and law enforcement agencies.  Their ignorant, uninformed, and biased comments often cause Americans to question the very legitimacy of our policing institutions.  Once again, everyone is quick to judge and evaluate the justice system, while demonstrating a pitiful ignorance in regards to how it works.  Maybe they should consider the following, as a simplified example:

The FBI probably receives thousands of calls a year in regards to potential terrorist threats.  A few of these (very few by number) may even be legitimate threats.  Maybe the FBI is able to stop a few potential threats this way, even though they may not be recognized for it.  Overall the FBI, like the majority of police agencies in the United States, lacks the manpower and resources to devote all energy toward every single incident, call, or tip off.  Nor would it be an efficient use of resources if they did, as police agencies get a lot of calls and tips that are complete garbage.  

Some tips are from legitimately concerned citizens.  A lot are from crazies or simply from over worried, nosey, too-much-time-on-their-hands, chicken littles.  The problem is, police (local and federal) have to respond to ALL tips and calls no matter what…maybe American’s do not understand that.  The more people you have crying wolf, the less credence is given to each caller, and the fewer resources are available for police to give adequate attention when the wolves really attack.  Hopefully readers can understand how this applies to both the Orlando and N.J./N.Y. attacks.  If not, think about it awhile later because we are moving on for now.

Something else is troubling in regard to these incidents: both seem to be lacking in serious recognition from many Americans.  This might be due to the fact nobody died in either attacks, thankfully. Or it could be due to the relatively swift and effective response by law enforcement and intelligence officials.  Either way, it seems like many Americans have quickly gone about their daily lives without giving enough thought to what these attacks might truly indicate.  To do so is not only disingenuous to those casualties of the attacks, but to us as Americans.

For example, it was reported all over the news how New Yorkers continued about their daily lives in the hours and days following the attacks.  This is a good thing if it is a result of Americans having a true understanding of the danger they face, and being resilient in the face of that danger.  Many Americans do possess this quality.  After the attacks, many New Yorkers put on a tough face and went on about their business and there is nothing wrong with that.  However, it is more likely a response by a people too coddled in our relatively peaceful nation to truly understand the meaning of terror.

Americans have never been faced with the kind of terrorism the Israelis experienced during both Intifadas.  The Intifadas involved attacks on public places day after day, week after week.  Buses, schools, streets, homes; nothing was off limits under those circumstances.  It is crucial Americans do not underestimate the chance of something similar happening in our own backyard.  Thus far (fingers crossed) our intelligence community and law enforcement have been largely successful in preventing such a thing.  However, make no mistake; it could happen here if the U.S. is not diligent in its response to terrorism.  Americans may think they are tough because they survived a fumbled bombing attempt but they have yet to be seriously hardened against true terrorism.

Overall, Americans were lucky this last week.  We were lucky the bomber in question was not very adept with explosives.  It is that much more fortunate the bomber was captured alive very shortly after the attack.  We were also lucky an off-duty peace officer was present, aware, and had the means to stop a knife-wielding terrorist in his tracks.  Radical Islamic Terrorism is on the rise.  The evidence is right in front of us.  The enemy has given us fair warning.  They are uncaring, brutal, and would like nothing more than to see Americans suffer to their deaths.  It is time for our nation to rise up to the challenge and destroy our enemy with extreme prejudice.  Americans can only effectively do so if we recognize these terrorists for what they are, and support those who serve and protect us from them.

~DA

 

Share This:

United States Congress has recently passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).  This bill would theoretically provide a channel for family members of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for its involvement in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  President Obama is expected to veto it.  This might be the first time I agree with our president on something.  I do not know President Obama’s personal reasons for vetoing and, for the purpose of this article, it does not matter.  The reason this legislation should be vetoed is because it will eliminate the already eroding sovereign immunity that exists among western nations.  It is just another extension of globalization.  As much as I would love for the victims’ families of 9/11 to see some form of justice, this is one of the most ridiculous ways to pursue it.

Most of Obama’s supporters on the issue cite two concerns regarding the issue.  First, the concern that if it becomes “legal” for United States citizens to pursue civil lawsuits on the international level, it will reciprocally open up the U.S. government for civil lawsuits by citizens from other nations.  Furthermore, there is the concern it will lead to retaliatory attacks or kidnappings of U.S. Citizens in nations where such lawsuits are in progress.  Then of course there is the concern over Saudi Arabia freezing its assets in the U.S.

My own reasons for disliking this legislation go beyond worries over fiscal matters, counter-suits and kidnappings.  It is not a matter of whether foreign citizens will choose to sue the U.S. government, because someone surely will.  It is a matter of who is going to prosecute such lawsuits and who enforces the verdict.  The Supreme Court of the United States has no jurisdiction in Saudi Arabia.  Will it be an international court linked to the United Nations?  Hopefully not, because the United Nations cannot provide an objective platform for such a thing.  As it stands, the U.N. already exercises way too much influence over the U.S.  The success of such legislation could lead to a further disregard for U.S. authority, power, and sovereignty.

At best, such lawsuits will go nowhere.  Just because the U.S. or the U.N. says it is okay for citizens to sue Saudi Arabia, does not mean Saudi Arabia will care, and why should they?  After all, the whole logic behind suing them is because they bear some burden for the lives lost on 9/11.  If they cared about American lives the Saudi government would have done something about Al-Queda in the first place!  There is no way, outside of war, to force the Saudi government to pay.  An international body judging such lawsuits would have to be formed.  By the way, the U.N. already attempts to enforce international law and it does a deplorable job.  Most nations outside of western civilization ignore international law at their convenience.  But let us assume for a minute that such a body could successfully enforce such a thing.

At worst, such lawsuits will succeed in being prosecuted.  A few American families may get a little money but what about the overall impact to our nation?  Should this happen, where does it stop?  You are not likely to find one nation on this planet without a citizen who carries a grievance against the U.S. government.  Who will determine the criteria for prosecuting cases against the U.S. or other nations and will there be any regulation of frivolous lawsuits?  Globalization already has the U.S. tied in with every nation and global company on the planet.  This will only tie up the U.S. with more international red tape, and all Americans will feel it in one way or another.

Success of such lawsuits will only lead to the U.S. being less sovereign and more accountable to an international body which has no business directing U.S. fiscal or foreign policy.  This is the very concept which led to the British rejecting the European Union.  In fact, this is the very reason why the 13 colonies chose to revolt against the British Monarchy!  In both cases, neither group felt it was right to be regulated by a foreign entity imposing its regulations on them.  Globalization could force the U.S. to come full circle.  This legislation could very well be the first step on the last road leading to complete globalization.

Globalization is the whole reason why President Obama does not want to offend the Saudi government.  Globalization has tied us into Saudi Arabia in multiple ways; to the degree where one could argue our ability to seek justice for lost American lives has been compromised.  American lives are becoming expendable because it is too risky to respond with any real authority to a nation which trains terrorists to attack us.  Too many American oil companies are at stake and too many American’s do not want to wait in line for gas.

Either way, globalization has tempered the U.S. far too much.  If Congress truly wishes to do justice to the victims of 9/11 it could do so.  It could declare war on Saudi Arabia or endorse an embargo or sanctions.  It could vote to hold Saudi terrorists for ransom to raise money for the families.  It could pass legislation that could lead to the U.S. being energy independent so we could tell Saudi Arabia to go pound sand; then our options would be truly unlimited.  I too want justice for all those American lives lost, but this simply is not going to do a fair job.  A lawsuit is the kind of nerf ball response that our enemies now expect of us.

Neither are such lawsuits going to act as a deterrence to future terrorist attacks.  Radical Islamic Terrorists do not care if the Saudi, Iranian, or Syrian governments are going to pay out a couple million dollars to a few Americans.  They will still endlessly search for ways to kill Americans and destroy everything western civilization stands for.  Their ideology goes beyond material value and governments that fund terrorism will continue to fund it no matter how hard it hits their pocket books.  Pre-2003 Iraq and pre-Nuclear Deal Iran are perfect examples of this.

The U.S. risks setting a precedent it may not be ready or willing to follow up on.  If this bill is passed and all necessary channels for the victims’ families are established to take Saudi Arabia to court, the verdict is only as enforceable as the defendant wants it to be.  It would not do justice to the 9/11 victims’ families.  It is time to think outside the box in terms of pursuing justice for Americans.

Share This:

Last night Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were questioned in a Commander In Chief forum.  This has spurred a lot of conversation in the news in regards to America’s foreign policy.  So let me open up a huge can of worms because I have a feeling my views on the matter are shared by only a minority.

When it comes to foreign policy, the United States needs to act more like a modern day Roman Empire.  This is not to say the U.S. should look to expand its territory without limits, or attempt global domination.  Such things are costly and unnecessary to say the least.  What it means is the U.S. needs to act completely in America’s interest, just as every other nation on the earth acts in its own self interest.  It also means the U.S. should be respected for the authority it has.

I must preface this article with the following statement:  the United Nations and international laws are garbage.  The Geneva Convention and other such agreements are arbitrary and unrealistic by any real measure of human behavior and survival.  America’s enemies completely ignore such treaties and the U.S. is expected to abide by them, no matter how many American lives it costs.  This is a subject to elaborate on at another time.  Suffice it to say this article is based on the premise that the U.S. should play by the same rules everyone else plays by in warfare and conflict…no rules.  If you do not agree with this, stop reading right now because what follows will probably upset your delicate sensibilities.

Here is a short history lesson that could aid American’s greatly when considering warfare and conflict:

During World War Two, the Americans and the British ran a very extensive bombing campaign against the Germans, particularly in the German homeland.  Initially, bombing runs were designed to be conducted primarily at night to reduce Allied casualties.  German casualties were not considered too much because the goal was to win the war, not reduce enemy suffering; what a concept.  At some point, the Allied command discussed conducting more bombing runs during the day.  They came up with the idea of a Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO).  This CBO plan involved the Americans conducting bombing runs throughout the day, and the British conducting night time runs.  The concept behind this was to deny the enemy of even one minute of rest from warfare and carnage.  Germany’s military, economy, and people were to be subjected to this around the clock to diminish their ability to wage war.  In other words, complete submission and unconditional surrender of the enemy was the goal.  That is how you fight and win a war.

This is an important concept to embrace.  As the saying goes, “war is hell.”  There is absolutely, unequivocally no way around it.  For 30,000 years of human existence on this earth, mankind has played, and played to win.  This recent obsession with being more concerned over collateral damage than one’s own casualties is absurd.  I am sick and tired of all the bleeding hearts promoting the asinine concept that “America is better than that.”  This is yet another topic for another article.  Suffice it to say for the past 50 years, Americans have lived under this foolish idea that there is a nice and pretty way to conduct war, and we are somehow subhuman if war is waged in any other fashion.

Here is a hypothetical situation: a quartet of Iranian gunboats harasses a U.S. Naval vessel.  Three of those Iranian boats should be blown out of the water.  The fourth boat should be boarded and captives taken.  Any dead bodies recovered should be hung from the yard arm (if modern ships have such a thing) and that boat should be cast adrift into Iranian waters, bodies included.  Iran should then have to pay for the ransom of the captive sailors.  Do you think Iran would try this again?  It certainly would not be so quick to disrespect the U.S. Navy if this was the response.

Vladimir Putin understands this way of thinking and Donald Trump knows it.  This is important to discuss because lately even the most hawkish of Republicans have turned to mush over Trump’s regard for President Putin.  For instance, Bill O’Reilly criticized Trump for praising Putin, saying Putin is not deserving of praise.  Mr. O’Reilly is badly mistaken.

Credit should be given where credit is due, especially to ones enemies.  One is not ready to battle or negotiate with ones enemies unless they have a clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses.  An integral part of understanding your enemies comes from appreciating their strengths.  Additionally, if America wants to be respected by foreign powers, it needs to understand what it is those powers respect.  The reason why Russia and Iran have repeatedly gotten away with threatening the U.S. Navy is because they know President Obama is a pushover, and he has proven them correct.  They do not respect him or the U.S.

Trump says he will have good relations with Russia.  Under his administration the U.S. will act more hegemonic, which he knows Putin will more likely respect.  Trump admires Putin’s nationalism.  He admires the fact that Putin will tell the international community to go screw themselves; Russia is going to take care of Russia.  At the very least, one has to admire Putin’s directness and predictability.  Now, I would never trust Putin to run a fair presidential election or provide due process, but that is completely beside the point.  Why do so many people have such a black and white view of this?  It is perfectly logical to acknowledge Putin’s strengths and condemn his behavior at the same time.

In all reality, most leaders act primarily in their own nation’s best interests; Putin is just more honest about it.  Why should it be any different for them or for us?  This brings me to my final conclusion.  We live in a world where the power structure is built around nation-states.  No matter how much globalization ties nations together, we are still a collection of nation-states of varying size and power.  All nations have separate identities, goals, and concerns and there is no reason it should be any other way.   I therefore say, let nations do as they will and the U.S. should do the same.  It does not mean the U.S. should conquer indiscriminately, but it also does not mean the U.S. should be afraid to assert its authority.  The U.S. can live and let live; but if the enemy does not let live, annihilate them like a hawk devouring its prey.

 

~ AD

Share This:

Black Lives Matter is quickly becoming a nation-wide movement; unfortunately recognized as legitimate by seemingly an increasing number of Americans.  Well, BLM is a complete farce.  A whole book could be written on this, however I will attempt to cover the issue in a short series of posts.  This first post will primarily focus on the manifesto and basic beliefs espoused by BLM.  Who are they? Who are they to tell Americans whose lives matter and whose do not?

Let us be clear from the outset: in no way does BLM have the kind of credibility worthy of attention or acknowledgement from any average American, much less major cable news networks and well-respected politicians.  If the irony of the racially exclusive moniker is not enough to demonstrate this, then let us take a closer examination of BLM.

Upon visiting the website of BLM, one will find the movement is considerably vague in terms of what its goals and principles are.  The most specific answer you will get can be found on their “About Us” page where it states what Black Lives Matter Means.  There you will find what amounts to a list of grievances, primarily against “the state.”  These grievances include, but are not limited to, the following:

• “How Black poverty and genocide is state violence”
• “ How Black girls are used as bargaining chips during times of conflict and war.”
• “ How Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy, and that is state violence.”
• “How 2.8 million Black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence.”
• “How Black women continue to bear the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families and that assault is an act of state violence.”

These grievances are mentioned multiple times throughout their loosely defined manifesto.  The overall conclusion BLM makes is, “Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state.”  In other words, the United States intentionally targets Black people for persecution.  The states that make up our nation hunt down Black people to lock them up, enslave them (yes, this is mentioned in the manifesto), and outright murder them.  Genocide of Black Americans by the United States is the ultimate goal here.  What a crock.  Believe it or not, this is the basis on which BLM is formed.  It is important to mention at this point, for several reasons, that BLM has been invited into the White House.

BLM is entirely disorganized, hypocritical, and unscrupulous.  They seem to lack any kind of hierarchical or organized structure. Instead, they are based in a confederation of various chapters spread throughout the country.  BLM acknowledges each chapter has varying requirements for admittance into the group.  Collectively, BLM chapters give this disclaimer “before you contact a #Black Lives Matter chapter”:

“Please note that #BlackLivesMatter is a network predicated on Black self-determination, and BLM Chapters reserve the right to limit participation based on this principle.”

By stating this, BLM effectively admits they are potentially a racially exclusive group.  They rationalize it by stating, while all lives matter, it is Black lives that do not matter equally.  Little or no factual evidence is given to demonstrate their understanding of this, or to help others to understand it.  Ironically, BLM suggests that it is a bad thing to drop the Black and simply to say “Lives Matter.” BLM argues that if you do this, you are:

“intentionally or unintentionally, erasing Black folks from the conversation or homogenizing very different experiences.”  

Apparently BLM has a monopoly on all victimized minority claims and no other victims of prejudice could possibly relate to them.  Indeed, BLM says for a non-Black to try and relate their experience(s) of prejudice is to insult Black people and BLM.  This is racist in and of itself.  How does BLM expect to garner support from more than just Black people if they put their “suffering” on a pedestal and the suffering of others in a shoe box?  This goes to show how disorganized and narrow minded the group truly is.

None of this is to say BLM does not have at least a few mentionable and credible goals.  They seek to empower “Black queer women” (their words).  This is all well and good.  They also seek to empower Black transgender and disabled people.  Indeed, one could point out various legal and emotional obstructions these groups face, or have very recently faced.  However, all of this is overshadowed by the irrational claim that “the state” purposefully subjugates all groups listed by BLM.

It is further overshadowed by the overwhelming lack of credibility BLM possesses.  The first thing you will likely see on their website is pictures of Trayvon Martin, Philandro Castile, and Alton Sterling.  Trayvon Martin’s homicide was ruled justifiable by all fair and legal means.  The incidents involving Philandro Castile and Alton Sterling have yet to be fully investigated, yet BLM presumes their innocence.  All the while, they presume the guilt of “the state,” without affording the due process to the state that they would have done for themselves, if the positions were exchanged.

This is just a basic review of BLM’s basic principle and beliefs.  The disorganized nature of the group makes it difficult to go beyond this in terms of detail.  BLM demonstrations have been held all over the nation and internationally.  It is difficult to determine whether BLM officially embraces all demonstrations carrying the #BLM slogan.  What we do know is this group, its followers, and its mentality, has been embraced by many of our most important political leaders.  Thusly, it poses a problem for all Americans when such an irresponsible group is allowed to weigh in on national policy.  More to follow on this.

Share This: