Alleged, Anonymous Ferguson Testimony Corroborating Darren Wilson in Shooting of Mike Brown

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

Here it is, second, third, fourth, etc.-hand. I am posting it because of the flagrant politicization of bystanders’ remarks, from Al Sharpton, to MSNBC, to Barack Obama.

The point is counterpoint. We don’t know this happened exactly as it is described below, but neither do we know it did not happen, justly, in just this way.

Here is a transcript of what really happened with the altercation between Michael Brown and police officer Darren Wilson. This tells a very different story than what the criminals who are rioting and the news media are saying happened. This is why I say to stop using rubber bullets to control the crowd of thugs and use real bullets.

“He [Darren Wilson] said that … they [Mike Brown and another guy] were walking in the middle of the street. He [Darren] pulled up, rolled the [car's] window down and, um, the two guys out in the street, they refused to and they were yelling back … there was cussing involved. He [Darren] kept rolling up and pulled over … He pulled up ahead of them and was watching.”

“Then he [Darren] got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery, and they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them [Michael and friend] and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he [Darren] goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he [Darren] said Michael did. And, then he [Darren] opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up.”

“And then Michael just bum-rushes him [Darren] and shoves him back into his car, punches him in the face. And then Darren grabs for his gun. Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off.”

“Well, then Michael takes off with his friend and gets to be about 35 feet away. And Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael was taunting him, ‘Oh what you’re gonna do about it. You’re not going to shoot me.’”

“And then all of a sudden he [Michael] just started to bumrush him [Darren]. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he [Darren] just started shooting. And he [Michael] just kept coming. So he [Darren] really thinks he [Michael] was on something because he just kept coming. It was unbelievable. So he finally ended up, the final shot was to the forehead. And then he [Michael] fell about two, three feet in front of the officer. So that’s why the story’s going around that [Michael was shot in the back]. Of course, ballistics will prove he wasn’t shot in the back.”

Comments welcomed.


UPDATE: “Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source,” FoxNews.com, August 20

Ferguson: Ochlocracy (Mob Rule) in Action,” Brent Parrish, August 20

BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack,” The Gateway Pundit, August 19

BREAKING: Autopsy RELEASED! Contrary to Eyewitness Accounts, All Shots From the FRONT!” Soopermexican, August 17

A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer,” Soopermexican, IJReview, August 17



Image from video at “BREAKING: Autopsy RELEASED! Contrary to Eyewitness Accounts, All Shots From the FRONT!” Soopermexican, August 17


Watcher’s Council Nominations – Drunk And Out Of Line Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Ethics, you know… after all, if a DA can’t try and use her position to muscle herself out of a DUI, who can?

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the two best posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

The Council In Action!!

Terresa at The Noisy Room scored when her entry this week, Communists and the New Black Panthers Gin Up Violence and Racial Conflict in Ferguson was cited by DC Clothesline and Infowars… where it subsequently got picked up by Drudge!

This week, Blazing Cat Fur, The Political Commentator and Gates Of Vienna earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning.

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have for you this week…

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that! And don’t forget to tune in Friday for the results!


Ferguson Update: 30 Arrested Overnight as “Protesters” Hurl Rocks, Bottles, Molotov Cocktails at Police

Hat Tip: BB

RUSH: Obama Prejudging Everything Up Until Ferguson

Q&A: Is It Legal to Use the National Guard in Ferguson?

*UPDATE* St. Louis Media REPORT – Dorian Johnson Recants Media Statement ? – Tells Authorities “Big Mike” Did Try For Officers Gun – Grand Jury Charges “Unlikely”… *UPDATE* – But Special Prosecutor Might Be Assigned Anyway


#Ferguson: Ochlocracy (Mob Rule) in Action

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

Our Founders called it “mobocracy.” And mobocracy is synonymous with democracy. But isn’t democracy synonymous with freedom? No! Not unless one defines “freedom” as mob rule.

It might surprise some to learn the United States is not a democracy. Article 4, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution clearly states the United States “shall have a republican form of government.” Our form of government, as required by the Constitution, is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy, despite what the so-called “constitutional scholar” who now occupies the Oval Office claims. (Barack Obama has stated in the past that the U.S. is the world’s oldest constitutional democracy, which is patently false.)

The Founders warned, from the very beginning, that pure democracy is one of the worst forms of government that exists. Pure democracy is simply the rule of the majority, i.e. mob rule. But a constitutional republic is based on the rule of law, which protects both the majority and the individual.

“Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.”

—E.B. White

The term “democracy” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or in any State constitution.

Even in the Federalist Papers, “democracy” is rarely mentioned. But there are a few places in the Federalist Papers where democracy is discussed–specifically, in Federalist Papers #10, #14 and #48.

On democracy, from Federalist Paper #10, my emphasis:

… From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended….

On democracy, from Federalist Paper #14:

… The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory….

On democracy, from Federalist Paper #48:

… In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions….

Still, many people nowadays believe democracy and republic are just interchangeable terms–meaning, they are one and the same. Well, that is just what the purveyors of democracy would like you to believe. Nothing makes the democracy enthusiast happier than to hear individuals on both sides of the political spectrum refer to our form of government as a democracy. And, quite frankly, it is quite dangerous; and one of the reasons, I believe, the United States has moved so far toward pure socialism.

Granted, the concept and influence of democracy has a long history in the history of American politics, stretching all the way back to the founding of the nation.

The modern Democratic Party was founded in 1828, and traces its origins back to the Democratic-Republican Party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. According to WikiPedia: “The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name primarily used by political scientists for the Republican Party or the Jeffersonian Republicans.”

The first U.S. president who successfully ran as a Democrat was Andrew Jackson, who served from 1829 to 1837. The modern Democratic Party was formed in the 1930′s from factions of the Democratic-Republican Party.

The term democracy also came heavily into vogue during the Woodrow Wilson Administration, whose famous slogan “making the world safe for democracy” has become a mainstay in the American lexicon. Wilson served two terms from 1913 to 1921. It was around this time that democracy was heavily sold as being synonymous with republicanism and representative government … it has been sold as such ever since.

One constitution where “democracy” appears numerous times is the Soviet Constitution of 1977. Additionally, the term democracy is commonplace in the writings of countless Marxist writers—such as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Josef Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Antonio Gramsci, and many others. If you would like to confirm this for yourself, visit the Marxist archive at Marxists.org and enter the search term “democracy.”

Granted, Marxian socialists make a distinction between what they call bourgeois democracy versus proletarian democracy, i.e. social democracy. But “democracy is indispensable for socialism,” as Max Shachtman wrote in 1943 in a piece entitled “Trotsky on Democracy and Fascism” (New International, Vol.IX No.7 [Whole No.74], July 1943, pp.216-217).

Another example of the importance direct democracy plays in Marxian socialism appears in the Communist Party of Great Britain’s (CPGB) program from 1951 entitled “The British Road to Socialism.” Section V of the CPGB’s program is titled “People’s Democracy—The Path to Socialism.”

Communism is brought about in stages, and it all starts with pure democracy. Vladimir Lenin once said, “The goal of socialism is communism.” But, as Ivor Thomas wrote in The Socialist Tragedy (1954), there really is very little difference between socialism and communism in practice, despite some of the objections by modern-day Marxist theoreticians to Thomas’ conclusion regarding the ultimate failure of socialism-communism. Pure democracy is a form of collectivism—it readily sacrifices individual rights to majority wishes (a.k.a. mobocracy).

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Dr. Benjamin Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation by a woman who asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Dr. Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”



“Nixon’s the One” for Media Hypocrites

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Our media were so fixated on the “militarization” of the police in Ferguson that most of them failed to highlight the fact that Democratic Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s decision to call in the National Guard was another and more potent form of militarization.

Wynton Hall of Breitbart noticed the irony: “Democratic Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D-MO) said on Sunday he was ‘thunderstruck’ by the ‘over-militarization’ of the police in responding to the Ferguson riots and looting. Hours later, he ordered in the U.S. military in the form of the National Guard.”

The “striking contradiction,” as he put it, reflects the media mentality. The idea that the police have been “over-militarized” was a big theme of Radley Balko, the journalist whose book, Rise of the Warrior Cop, and writings have been highlighted for their gross distortions and exaggerations.

Some commentators, such as Kirsten Powers on Fox News, tried to insist that the initial show of force by the local police had somehow provoked the demonstrators. That seemed to be Nixon’s line as well. In addition, he claimed that the release of the videotape showing Michael Brown robbing a convenience store—before he attacked a police officer and was shot—was provocative.

In the end, however, the “militarized” local police were no match for the organized criminal elements egged on by the racial agitators. Bigger guns were called in.

The real story out of Ferguson is that a national network of agitators is ready, on a moment’s notice, to arrive on the scene to cause violence and mayhem. On Monday night, as the violence continued, Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson identified some of the protesters as coming from New York and California. Two “protesters” were shot by other “protesters.” This is a classic case of communist political agitation, as documented decades ago by a report released by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.

Rich Lowry of National Review commented, “So now Governor Nixon is calling in the National Guard, or in other words, ‘militarizing’ the response. What Ferguson needs is the restoration of basic order, and the absence of it has never been the fault of the police, but of a small, lawless fringe of protestors bent on mayhem.” But this small group seems to be growing day by day.

The Defense One website ran a story headlined, “So Much for Demilitarizing Ferguson, Here Comes the National Guard.”

Despite all the talk about the “militarization” of police, the threat to people and property in Ferguson required a more substantial response. Nixon ordered the National Guard in, even while claiming to be surprised by the need for a military response. It was classic double-talk.

In fact, despite his “thunderstruck” comments, Nixon’s Missouri Department of Public Safety has been part of the program to accept surplus military equipment for local police agencies. It is called the Department of Defense Excess Property Program (1033 Program).

The director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety is former St. Louis County Police Chief Jerry Lee. He was installed in this position on October 18, 2011, by Nixon.

If there has been the “over-militarization” of law enforcement in Ferguson, state authorities have made it possible. And that includes Nixon.

Melissa Quinn of The Daily Signal reported that Nixon “signed off as recently as January on statewide participation” in the program. She added, “Should Nixon, a Democrat elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, have been surprised? Participating jurisdictions, including agencies in St. Louis County, received weapons and equipment as early as 2010 and again in 2012, 2013 and this summer. Ferguson is a St. Louis suburb.”

So why is Nixon surprised by this? He’s not. But this has become the fashionable thing to say.

Still trying to drive the national conversation, Radley Balko is now excited that Attorney General Eric Holder has announced “a broad, national review of police tactics.” He adds, “The Holder Justice Department has been great about investigating and fighting police brutality.”

Ferguson has become a “war zone” because of outside agitators, and yet the Obama/Holder Justice Department has decided to investigate and punish the police.

There was a time when Congress had internal security committees investigating attacks by communist and other groups on law enforcement. Those panels were dismantled by liberal politicians. As a result, the cop who protected himself against Michael Brown is living in fear and hiding while the mob runs wild in Ferguson. Police Officer Darren Wilson could be indicted by a grand jury under the influence of the Obama/Holder Justice Department.

Obama and Holder have a record of leniency toward criminals, terrorists and cop-killers. Weather Underground terrorist Marilyn Buck was given early release from federal prison by Holder, who was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and involved in pardons for members of the Weather Underground and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorist group at that time. Holder also intervened last year to release terrorist lawyer Lynne Stewart from a federal prison.

More recently, Obama nominated Debo Adegbile, who had filed a legal appeal on behalf of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, to head the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Several Democrats in the Senate joined with Republicans to defeat his nomination.

This is the same Civil Rights Division that Holder has ordered to help lead an investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson.

Reacting to the defeat of Adegbile, Radley Balko wrote in The Washington Post that “Frankly, we need more people with criminal defense experience in policy-making positions. We certainly need more of them sitting on the bench, particularly at the appellate level and on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

On his Twitter account, he denounced the vote against Adegbile, saying, “The U.S. Senate has just demonstrated some ugly ignorance about the role of a criminal defense attorney.”

This was more nonsense from a discredited “expert.” The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) had noted in a letter to Obama that Adegbile, working at the time for the Legal Defense Fund of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, “volunteered” to represent the cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal and that “His just sentence—death—was undone by your nominee and others like him who turned the justice system on its head with unfounded and unproven allegations of racism.”

FOP National President Chuck Canterbury wrote in the letter, “We are aware of the tried and true shield behind which activists of Adegbile’s ilk are wont to hide—that everyone is entitled to a defense; but surely you would agree that a defense should not be based on falsely disparaging and savaging the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer. Certainly any legal scholar can see the injustice and absence of ethics in this cynical race-baiting approach to our legal system.”

But Radley Balko is perfectly content with Holder’s race-baiting approach.

Balko may have started out his career as a libertarian, but he is quickly showing his true colors—as an apologist for the anti-police agenda of the Obama/Holder Administration. He has set the stage for the media’s failure to hold the double-talking Democrat Nixon responsible for failing to stem the violence and the chaos in Ferguson.


No, Tor.com, GenCon Isn’t Racist. A Fisking.

By: Larry Correia — Happy bday Larry!!
Monster Hunter International

I read this article before arriving in Indianapolis, so I was able to ponder on it a bit as I observed the gleeful masses at GenCon enjoying themselves and having a fantastic time proudly flying their geek flags high. Little did those poor gamers realize that they were actually engaging in racist-cismale-patriarchal-micro-aggressions and invisible privilege. Luckily for us Tor.com has once again swooped in to suck the fun out of everything.


As usual, the original article is in italics and my comments are in bold. Before I get going, let me just skip ahead a bit and say that the author of this article says he wanted to have a conversation on race in gaming. Okay. Here you go. Be careful what you wish for.

First off, so you know my preexisting biases, here is my opinion on GenCon: http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/08/18/gencon-2014-report/ In short, it is friggin’ awesome.

Gaming’s Race Problem: GenCon and Beyond



Tomorrow I will be attending GenCon, the biggest table-top gaming convention in the United States. Held in Indianapolis, Indiana, it is four fun-filled days in celebration of the art and hobby of role-playing. There is something for everyone there: games, films, seminars, workshops, dancing, music, and parties. It’s an annual event where people from all over the world come to let their hair down and their inner geek out. As a lifelong gamer, I am excited to go to GenCon.

This is standard operating procedure with Tor.com articles, start out with an intro about how something everyone enjoys is great fun before they helpfully explain how it is actually horrible, and thus you should feel bad. They even did the same thing explaining how Guardians of the Galaxy hates women, minorities, and gay people. http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/08/guardians-of-the-galaxy-we-need-to-talk

As an ethnic minority, I am apprehensive about going to GenCon.


For all that GenCon offers, it lacks in minority gamers.

Huh? Not particularly, but we’ll get back to that.

Last year was my first GenCon, and as I explored the convention, I saw almost no one who looked like me.

Why? Are you physically fit?

Continue reading


Facts compiled and reported so far justify the shooting of Michael Brown.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

Well, the liberal news media, that so often slant and hide the facts, managed to get it half right when they described Michael Brown, the Ferguson, Missouri thug killed by the police. Hardly the “gentle” sort, the 6’4″ 292 lb. man was a giant, but the liberal news media all decided to call him a gentle giant because it sounded so nice. And Michael Brown proved what he was capable of doing when he lifted and tossed a convenience store clerk during a robbery that was caught on video shortly before his encounter with the police. And before getting shot, Michael Brown inflicted serious injury on Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson. Gateway Pundit reported, ” Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.” Furthermore, describing the slanted news coverage, according to the Media Research Center, the various stories coming from the Associated Press describing Michael Brown as a “teen” and “teenager” are in stark contravention with the AP’s own Style Book that requires reporters to refer to a person 18-years old or older as a “man” or “woman” and not a teenager.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is as much of a black racist as Malik Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panthers and any of those who traveled to Ferguson, Missouri to incite the riots that have engulfed the city since the August 9th shooting. Holder, who previously ordered his DOJ attornies to squash the complaints aginst the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, has ordered his Dept. of Justice to conduct a third autopsy on Michael Brown. Hoping to find some hidden clues that can be used to challenge the facts already revealed. Eye-witnesses to the shooting say that Michael Brown and his friend were walking down the middle of the street when Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson pulled up in his police cruiser and told him to get off the street. The initial fight between Brown and Police Officer Wilson began when Officer Wilson tried to get out of his cruiser and Brown shoved him back inside. CNN reported “When Wilson tried to get out of his cruiser, Brown first tried to push the officer back into the car, then punched him in the face and grabbed for his gun before breaking free after the gun went off once, the caller said.” It is not clear if that first shot struck Brown or not. The Medical Examiner did not say if any powder burns were found on Brown or his shirt which suggests that Brown was some distance away when he was hit by Officer Wilson’s bullets.

Then Michael Brown began to run away but stopped when Officer Wilson ordered him to freeze. But then, with all of his huge size, Brown turned around and lowered his head and charged full speed some 30-50 feet at the police officer. It was then that Officer Wilson shot him six times. The first two autopsies showed Brown received four bullet wounds to his right arm and two bullet wounds to his head. One of the head wounds was straight down indicating Brown’s head was in a lowered, charging position, not unlike the position of a front line football player.

The complete toxicology report on Michael Brown hasn’t been completed or released yet but it was revealed yesterday that Brown had marijuana in his system which could further explain his belligerent attitude.

The liberal news media immediately sprang into action as they did in Florida when George Zimmerman, a volunteer neighborhood watch captain shot Trayvon Martin after he was viciously attacked. The police were labeled as racists and Michael Brown was bemoaned as an innocent gentle giant who was loved by everyone and who wouldn’t hurt a fly. None of the liberal news media coverage was substantiated by facts and what little information came to light was leaked out in dribs and drabs by local officials. It was the conservative bloggers who began to uncover the real story. Here is the account as posted on the IJReview blog. Go read the entire story there.

A previously unnoticed detail in a background conversion of a video taken minutes after the Ferguson shooting could change the course of the investigation into Mike Brown’s death.

The original video poster appears sympathetic to the narrative that Mike Brown was shot unarmed with his hands in the air. But he unknowingly picks up conversation between a man who saw the altercation and another neighbor.

An approximate transcription of the background conversation, as related by the “Conservative Treehouse” blog, who originally discovered the conversation:

@6:28/6:29 of video

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck


#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him


#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –

So after being wounded by the not so gentle giant, and now seeing him charging back to renew his attack, Ferguson Police Office Darren Wilson began firing his weapon in self defense. The last of the six shots were to Michael Brown’s head which were the killing shots so the first shots must have been to his arm to stop him but were ineffective. Michael Brown finally fell to the ground dead only a few feet away.

I have never sympathized with the overly militarized tactics of local police forces or their use of the armored tanks brought into Ferguson to quell the riots but this incident was clearly a case of self-defense.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.


Listen to the American People: Secure Border, No Amnesty

By: Michael Johns

“He was tortured, beaten to death, strangled and then set on fire,” Laura Wilkerson said earlier this month in McAllen, Texas. She was recalling her beloved 18-year-old son Josh, who was brutally murdered by illegal alien Hermilio Moralez in November 2010.

The details of Josh Wilkerson’s murder are gruesome: Moralez, in the United States illegally from Belize, violently kicked Wilkerson in the stomach, slicing both his liver and spine and rupturing his spleen. The illegal alien then proceeded to beat Wilkerson over the head with a closet rod with such force that the rod ultimately shattered in four pieces. With Wilkerson defenseless and motionless, Moralez then took two dollars from Wilkerson’s wallet, purchased gasoline, and set Wilkerson’s motionless body aflame. His mugshot reveals a young man smiling smugly. Later, at Moralez’s trial, the illegal alien would speak from the stand about how he was a “trained killer” and that his “killing instincts” had taken over. There was no remorse.

Young Josh Wilkerson is just another life lost and another cost paid in a long list of lives lost and costs paid because Washington, D.C. policymakers continue to fail to do what logic and all sensibility dictate should have been done decades ago: Securing the United States border with Mexico so that illegals are not afforded illegal access to the United States.

The U.S. federal government’s multi-decade failure to secure its 1,989-mile border with Mexico might well stand as the most glaring example of both parties’ ongoing refusal to be responsive to the American people’s overwhelming belief that American border security (as Josh Wilkerson’s murder demonstrated) is now perhaps the most critical issue facing the nation, presenting increasingly grave economic, security and other threats.

It’s worth asking the obvious question: With more than 35,000 illegals monthly now crossing the border into the U.S., why exactly has this border not been sealed? Laughingly, the Obama administration has said that the border with Mexico is more secure than it has ever been. It’s a sentiment shared by Congressional Democrats. “The border is secure,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid absurdly stated last month. Other policymakers acknowledge the obvious, but obfuscate the issue, speaking wrongly of supposedly insurmountable challenges associated with keeping illegals from entering the country illegally.

The reality, of course, is the very opposite. The U.S. border with Mexico is consciously not secure because (for decades now) both parties have seen a political self-interest in ensuring it is left unsecured. Democrats, envisioning ultimately granting citizenship to these illegals, see the influx as politically advantageous: Millions of largely government and benefit-dependent illegals who, once afforded amnesty, will (Democrats believe) represent a groundswell of additional votes for their party and its candidates, possibly ushering in generations of Democrat victories in national and regional elections. Similarly, some Republicans, influenced by the desire of some private sector forces to attract cheap, illegal and sometimes sub-minimum wage labor resources, see the influx as a means to breaking organized labor and serving as a deflationary force in the largely blue collar and labor positions these illegals are likely to assume. Never stated openly, the reality is that the U.S. does have a policy on the border, and it is–scandalously–to keep it open.

In many respects, it is exactly this sort of unresponsiveness of elected officials to the concerns of the American people that gave birth to America’s Tea Party movement in 2009. Five years later, the practical reality of Washington’s unresponsiveness is such that this crisis may now well be left to the Tea Party movement to solve. Should the Tea Party embrace this cause, as it must, the movement likely will be largely shunned by Washington elites, but they will have an ally in the American people, who see the seriousness of it, resoundingly support logical conclusions and importantly believe this administration has been at least complicit and possibly even a force behind the latest influx of illegals that now threatens the nation.

Support for border security and opposition to amnesty is broadly popular. In a Rasmussen Poll taken last month, on July 17, a clear majority of likely voters (59 percent) were clear: They want those who have entered this country illegally to be returned to their home countries. And the American people are under no illusions about who holds the blame for the current border crisis: Another Rasmussen poll, also taken last month, found that nearly half of likely voters (46 percent) believe the Obama administration, through its policies and statements, has contributed to the crisis. An overwhelming majority of Americans (58 percent, according to the same poll) believe the top priority in the crisis is for the U.S. to gain control of its border.

The arguments for urgently securing the border with Mexico and opposing Washington’s amnesty initiatives are extensive and they strike at the very heart of the issues that most concern Americans:

1.) National security. The American people have patiently undergone extensive and intrusive governmental measures since the September 11, 2011 attacks, ostensibly designed to protect the country against an al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-aligned terrorist attack. They can be forgiven for asking a reasonable question: What point exists in prohibiting American citizens from boarding U.S. airlines with, say, 3.5 ounces of non-flammable liquid, as opposed to the mandated 3.4 ounces, when literally any non-citizen–including the bloodiest of terrorists–can simply walk across our southern border?

As it is today, our government cannot answer basic questions about the flood of illegals across our border. How many illegals exactly have crossed the border and are in this country? There are only estimates (more than 12 million and as many as 20 million). Where in the U.S. are these illegals located exactly? Answer: Just about everywhere, but no government agency can say exactly. And how many of these millions have crossed the border illegally with malicious intentions for this country? We do know that they have included members of a broad range of global terrorist movements, violent gangs (including arguably the most violent, MS-13) and felony criminals, including murderers, violent criminals, rapists, and sexual offenders. And even when (by good fortune alone) they have been detained, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have released thousands of these illegal felons into the general U.S. population. As evidence of the utter lack of border security to criminals and potential terrorists, videographer James O’Keefe last week released video of him crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into the U.S. dressed as Osama bin Laden. What barriers did O’Keefe encounter in entering the U.S. dressed as the infamous al-Qaeda terror leader? None.

2.) Jobs. America’s job crisis is vastly worse than what one might gather from the numbers released monthly by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, which systematically exclude the many millions of Americans who comprise the long-term unemployed and those who have simply given up looking for work. Including these, there are roughly 102 million working-age Americans without jobs as of August 2014, an all-time high and growing. A stunning study released by the Center for Immigration Studies this past June found that all of the net gain in American jobs created since 2000 has gone to illegal and legal immigrants—that is, there has been no job growth for 14 years for native U.S. citizens.

It is absurd that we must state the obvious: Basic supply and demand economics indicate that granting amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegals now in this country will only further exacerbate the U.S. employment crisis, both adding to the existing number of jobless Americans and also contributing to wage deflation (lower pay) as a greater number of Americans compete for a fewer number of existing jobs. As such, it should not prove surprising that sealing the border and opposing amnesty are agenda items very high on the agenda of traditionally progressive constituencies, including labor unions and African-Americans, both of whom correctly see amnesty and a failure to secure the border as a recipe for higher unemployment and wage deflation, especially in traditional blue collar and lower wage occupations.

3.) Public resources. It is perhaps the greatest irony of all that progressives who clamor for vastly greater federal and state funding for health care, education, transportation and other public services are also those spearheading the opposition to border security initiatives and amnesty support. The influx of millions of illegals has only made all of these mounting problems worse as illegals consume these resources (and, of course, pay no offsetting federal or state taxes in exchange for them).

4.) Fairness. Many millions of foreigners from all over the world are, right now, legally seeking U.S. citizenship. The legal process to obtain U.S. citizenship is largely cumbersome, bureaucratic and lengthy, but many follow this process exactly and patiently as required. Under amnesty proposals, however, these foreigners, those we might call “legal immigrants,” continue waiting in their foreign lands as those who crossed our southern border in violation of U.S. federal law are rewarded with U.S. residency, access to many of our country’s public benefits and infrastructure, and ultimately citizenship. These illegals will enjoy the backing of an entire U.S. political lobby that (motivated almost exclusively by its own selfish political and economic agendas) seeks to reward their lawless entry with the same highly-coveted U.S. citizenship denied those now following the process legally.

5.) Will of the American people. There are few issues on which Americans are more united than the fact that the borders of the country should be secure and that those who enter this country illegally in violation of U.S. federal law should not, in turn, be rewarded. The American people remain understandably compassionate towards those fleeing tyranny, but they are united in their logical, on-target conclusion that open borders and amnesty are harming the U.S. in multiple ways. Indeed, perhaps never before in the modern history of the conservative movement, has there been such an enticing opportunity for conservatives (and now the Tea Party movement) to build political alliances with unions, minorities and low-wage workers than there is right now in supporting an urgent securing of the U.S. border and opposing amnesty, showing that the Tea Party and conservative movements stand with working Americans and the rule of law.

Of course, all of these are facts lost on most Washington policymakers who are increasingly disengaged from the sentiments and concerns of the American people they purport to represent. Americans in 2014 are hurting. Failing to secure the border and granting amnesty to millions of illegals stands to further inflame these problems: damaging the already anemic U.S. job market, increasing crime and the demand on public resources, and perhaps even opening the door for what Americans have feared most since September 11, 2001: a coordinated terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland. These are deadly serious problems. But a political movement that can, right now, understand and communicate these facts with the urgency they require is likely to find broad support among the American people.