The Terrifying History of Community Policing

And an Alternative Way to Do It

Well, of course, this is a bit of hyperbole. I figured modern policing doesn't really begin until 1829, when Sir Robert Peel established the first modern police force in England. His policemen were called peelers and their tactics were kind of rough sometimes. Prior to that the role of keeper of public order fell to soldiers of the local lords and dukes and barons, though a few large cities did have some rudimentary police force. In smaller communities the community simply had to put up with it, hide their valuables and their children when the local robber bands showed up. It was either passive defense which amounted to no defense at all or local citizens ban together and try to kill the invaders. You couldn't leave them alive or they'd be back to get revenge. Gangs of criminals would ride between little towns and villages and loot and pillage. In earlier times, knights in armor would ride around righting wrongs, saving damsels or executing brigands. Or in the case of "black" knights, would go the other way, committing wrongs and bullying the locals. It was all very medieval.

The French Revolution: The Reign of Terror

One of my favorite early attempts at anarchist created community policing is the French Revolution. The mob took over Paris, killed the king and queen and an assortment of nobles to clean house. Once that was done their leaders expanded the role of the so-called Committee of Public Safety to in essence police Paris. Their concept of policing focused on ferreting out those who did not subscribe to the wisdom of the mob. There were actual police in Paris, but they were quickly swept aside by the mob.

It was not long before the chaotic factions,, each jockeying for power, started turning on each other. Robespierre tried to use the terror of the guillotine to control the mob and bring his own faction to power. The mob that the French government had become, however, quickly turned on him and he wound up under the guillotine himself. 

The Soviet Revolution: The Red Terror

Here the Chinese do "community policing" as promised.

Significantly, the leaders of the Soviet October Revolution and the Red Terror raised up the ghost of Robespierre as a model revolutionary figure. Lenin even built a  monument to him out of concrete and plastic tubes. It crumbled and fell down after a few days and was never rebuilt.

The Chinese Revolution: The Great Leap Forward

The Chinese Communists under Chairman Mao decide the revolution needed a boost. The "People's Army" went round to the villages. They gathered everyone together one day and explained that now that they had reduced crime and prostitution, there was no need for the people (many of them former communist soldiers) to have guns. They asked the people to pile their weapons up in the town square as a symbol of confidence in the new communist government. The soldiers gathered up the weapons and left. The next day the soldiers returned to do a little community policing. They gathered up teachers, intellectuals, and anyone who owned more than one oxen, marched them out and executed them as counter-revolutionaries.

The Nazi Revolution: The Brownshirts

Hitler's Brownshirts

As Adolph Hitler pushed his way to the front of the Nazi Party and the chancellorship of Germany in the early 30s he was aided by a more disciplined group of thugs and bullies known as the Brownshirts. They ran around Germany burning books, smashing windows, looting stores and abusing Jews on behalf of the Party and in the name of establishing order in the community. The police, as usual, were bypassed and stood helplessly by. Once the party took power however, Hitler created his own more disciplined gang of hoodlums and on what was later called "The Night of the Long Knives" the Brownshirt leaders who were beginning to be troublesome were arrested and summarily shot while the rank and file were given a choice to sign up with Hitler's community policing solution, the Gestapo, or join their leaders in a ditch.

Mussolini's Blackshirts:

Mussolini's Blackshirts

The Blackshirts were the inspiration for the brownshirts. I think the shirts had extra thick pockets for holding all those medals up. The backshirts served as Benito Mussolini's enforcers until Italians heard the Allies had invaded and Benito soon found himself shot and hanging by his feet from a telephone pole. The blackshirts were kind of dilitantes wearing fancy shirts and insignia with ranks and organization derived from the Roman Legions. When the Italian government fell the blackshirts disappeared - summarily disbanded.

A Better Way to Do Community Policing

So much of what is happening now is a reflection of other chaotic revolutions of the past. There are more of them I could list, but the thought of all those thugs and bullies make me tired. The leaders inevitably maunder on about "the people" and their rights and promise some kind of Utopia. They often reject religion in favor of some new kind of religion or atheism (which by the way is a religion all in itself). Inevitably these revolutions become more Puritanical than the Puritans were. They seldom shrink from mass murder.  If a nation calls itself some variant of the Democratic People's Socialist Republic, you can bet it's neither Democratic, nor a Republic, nor of particular benefit to the "people".

The trouble is that when we reject God, when we set ourselves or some charismatic leader up in God's place, we find ourselves automatically under the influence of the Prince of Chaos. I remember a rock song from back in the 60s or 70s that had a line in it that went something like, "Satan, Satan is my name. Confusion is my game."

Bike cops build relationships.

The idea of community policing is actually a good one. With the healthy kind of community policing Cops in uniform walk or ride bicycles to patrol beats. They interact daily with the whole community rather than rolling around inside a car and only interact with the criminal community. That more "professional" approach to policing skews a cops perspective on his community.

Back in my home town in Texas, our local police department tried out beat cops on bicycles in neighborhoods where gangs were tagging bridges, overpasses and buildings. The cops, especially the ones right out of cop school loved it. They got to know the people in the neighborhoods they were responsible to. The neighbors came to view the beat cops as "their policemen". The kids began to see the police as part of the community - people they could trust if they got in trouble. The trouble-makers tended to move away from the beat cops. Unfortunately, bicycle cops made the "professionals" uncomfortable. For one thing they were all in good shape. The old-fashioned overweight "doughnut" cops couldn't keep up and, I think, they were afraid someone would put them on a bicycle too. For others, it was a new system that they didn't really understand. Some had difficulty believing that cops on the beat were being 'productive' since they were spending more time socializing with people in the neighborhood than they were fighting crime.

One thing we did notice was that people started ratting out the local hoodlums to the bike cops. The cops were able to identify problem individuals and stepped up surveillance on those folks. We discovered that you could remove 4 or 5 bad eggs from a town and dramatically reduce the crime rate in a mid-sized town.

I believe in community policing, but not in the sort being pushed by BLM and Antifa and leftist Democrats. Sending social workers into a crisis situation is a very very bad idea. I say that having worked in a large treatment center working with angry, delinquent and mentally ill youth. I learned how to talk enraged adolescents and kids down. I learned how to successfully restrain an out-of-control kid. A key part of the strategy for managing difficult youth was building a relationship between the staff who acted as safety officers and the troubled kids. If the kids see you as a friend and member of their community, the job is a lot easier.

Properly done, this sort of approach requires police to learn some psychology, crisis management and transactional negotiation techniques. This is very hard to do from a cop car. Don't get me wrong, cop cars are necessary to transport police to crisis situation in a hurry. But I think the primary emphasis in policing should be on placing neighborhood cops in communities. One thing I've seen done, especially in smaller towns, is placing cops to live in the communities they patrol. This makes policing something that takes place beyond the 7 to 3 shift. It becomes about cops making themselves a part of community life - doing youth work on the side, spending time talking to neighbors, doing volunteer works. This also reduces the risk the cop will face in doing his patrols.

If the community sees a police officer as their community's personal cop, they will protect him or her, warn the officer of dangers and will be more likely to come to his aid if bad guys threaten him. One of the problem with "professional" policing is the problem with the old-fashioned doctor/patient relationship.  The medical community has learned to do a better job of communicating with patients. The old doctor-as-god approach where the doc comes in, spends a few minutes, pronounces a diagnosis and leaves is badly outdated. Doctors are learning to spend more time with patients in and out of the office that was lost when doctors quit doing house calls and became more "professional".

ANTIFA does "community policing".

In the same way, when cops move in their community and during their service hours invest time in getting to know the community they are responsible for. When they participate in community life, show up for the science fair, attend football and basketball games down at the school both in uniform and out, drop by a neighbor's garage sale and show the flag all over the community, the community's attitude toward their cops changes. It's more time-consuming and police departments should reward officers for taking time to be a neighbor. If the beat cops knows that the communities they serve are their responsibilities, it changes the relationship in his or her mind. That's community policing done right, not this mob-coerced abolition of the police in favor of the sort of community policing that saw multiple shootings in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (or CHOP or whatever catchy name they were calling it) within just a few weeks. Rioting that led to a mob storming city hall and demanding the resignation of the same Democrat Mayor, who had been praising their behavior for weeks, calling it a "summer of love." Given the massive outpouring of unfocused rage, I don't see a whole lot of love in it.

The current state-sponsored looting, rioting and anarchy has already seen the mob turn on "supportive" Democrat mayors in Seattle, Portland, New York and Atlanta.  Historically, mob/state relationships tend not to be long-lasting ones. There tends not to be a big separation of mob and state, until the mob accomplishes the state's goals and then it's up against the wall..... Well, you know the rest.

Shades of Robespierre!

© 2020 by Tom King 
 
 

The El Paso Walmart Shooting - Who Ya Gonna Blame?

Vigil for the victims of the El Paso Walmart Shootings

From the first moment after the El Paso Walmart shooting, leftist media began blaming Trump and all us anti-immigrant conservatives for the rhetoric which supposedly inspired this lunatic.

When are you guys on the left EVER going to get it. We're not ANTI-IMMIGRANT. What we are against is millions swimming the rivers, and crawling through the snake-infested deserts with their babies to get into the country. We object to coyotes, drug mules, terrorists and sex traffickers coming with them. We object to illegals being exploited by agribusiness, farmers, ranchers, dairymen and chicken processors, forced to live in colonias without running water, electricity or sewer system on slave wages. If we can close the borders and insure that immigrants and refugees cross over legally, they will be protected by our laws. Exploiters can't treat them like slaves and bully them into submission with threats of deportation.

Trump's already got agreements with Guatemala and Mexico to stem the tide and funnel them through US run refugee centers at the Mexican and Guatemalan southern borders. That way actual refugees can be identified and can come to the US by bus, plane, car and train instead of in the back of trucks and on foot with dangerous people. It would reduce the number of corpses, drugs and filth littering US border ranch land and posing a threat to Americans that live along the Mexican border.

The catch and release policies the Democrats support will only lead to expanding poverty and virtual slavery for these poor people. I get that they are desperate, but entering illegally only takes them from one cruel master to a whole new set of cruel masters. In 1860 Democrats whined that they couldn't get their crops picked without slaves. In 2019, they say we can't get our crops picked, concrete poured or chickens plucked without illegal alien labor. Anybody else see a pattern that seems ingrained in the party of Jim Crow and the KKK?

By the way, this year under President Trump we've had more immigrants become citizens than we have for decades. It's taking time, but the president is doing more than just talking about helping immigrants. He's doing it. We have to stop illegal immigration for the sake of the innocent. They should cross at immigration ports, not through the desert with their babies in the company of sex traffickers, drug smugglers, terrorists and criminal gangs.

Instead of being part of encouraging the enslavement of desperate refugees, how about being part of the solution. Immigrants and refugees should not have to begin their life in America by committing a crime. They should enter as law-abiding would-be citizens with a clear path to citizenship and under the protection of police, the Dept. of Labor, OSHA and other US law enforcement agencies. If they do that, then they can be protected.

The only reason any politician wants to protect illegal immigration is to continue to receive graft from the employers who abuse illegal immigrants.

So who really hates immigrants?

The sick bastard who shot up the mall in El Paso is a product, not of rhetoric by the president, but of the relentless shrieking leftist harpies who bully people who are made afraid by the vitriole coming from the left. Mentally ill kids, and psychologically damaged adults pick up on the seeming don't-care attitude of leftist elite politicians who sit behind their own walls and gated communities and abuse people who see the consequences to neighborhoods of an apparently out of control invasion of their homeland. And they are afraid and lash out. I've seen the colonias and I've attempted to help those people trapped there.  But I'm here to tell you that unless we can cut off the inflow of illegals, we'll never be able to fix the problem. Build the wall, close the border, fix the problem - in that order. And don't trust Democrat promises. Do it in that order. President Reagan agreed to a Democrat proposed solution by agreeing to an amnesty bill. In exchange Democrats promised to close the border. They talked about building a wall.

But they never did. They reneged on that promise, just like Democrats always do. It is not to their advantage to fix immigration. Illegal aliens are just too useful to the DNC.

Shame on them!

© 2019 by Tom King

Would Regulating the Media Stop Mass Shootings?

Mass shootings should be illegal, except where
the population has been safely disarmed first..

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN PRESENTS GUN CONTROL PROPAGANDA AS "SCIENCE"

A guy who commented on a Scientific American article complained that he didn't get enough of a "reaction" to his suggestion that we create laws to limit media coverage of mass shootings and suicides in order to reduce the number of mass shootings and suicide. To be fair, there is some research that seems to say that coverage of such events creates a kind of "contagion" that stimulates others to emulate the behavior. And it's true. Right after the recent Parkland High School shootings in Florida, police stopped four potential mass shootings and/or bombings aimed at high schools by disgruntled kids. The media pundrity's reaction was predictable. They covered the guns. They didn't cover the bombs. And they didn't give much time to the story if no one died. In the media, if it bleeds it leads they say.

In the wake of the Parkland High shootings, even the venerable "Scientific American" put up a pro gun control article entitled "Why are White Men Stockpiling Guns?" It was a blog to be sure but it lacked any pretense of being anything more than a politically motivated anti-white male hit piece with a lot of gun control and racist talking points. It made little effort to maintain the pretense that the article's conclusions were based on science. Some might object to my calling the article racist, since the racism was aimed at white guys. It could be considered sexist too as it absolved blame from women as well as non-whites placing the blame for gun fever directly on males. The blog was an incredible bit of white guy shaming for having been published in an ostensibly serious scientific journal. It basically intimates that white guys are (1) less intelligent (2) are fraidy cats and (3) racist and that's why they are stock-piling guns, a fact that should make you very afraid. That is to be expected. It's the progressive narrative after all. The guy who suggested muzzling the media is at least closer to a method of solving the problem than the traditional hand-fluttering gun control lobby.

The truly ironic thing about the guy suggesting that media were exploiting acts of violence to get attention was that his big complaint was that he wasn't getting enough attention for his comment, especially from the conservative right. He is, in point of fact, trying to get the same kind of attention he's complaining about the media getting. He utilizes a subtle kind of bullying hoping people will pay attention. Okay, he wanted a reaction from the right? Here I go, though not in the way that he'd probably hoped as it won't get him many likes on facebook or hits on his comments on Scientific American..

First off, mass shootings and suicides cannot be solved by making more laws. Both behaviors are already against the law. No one who commits a mass shooting or kills themselves cares what the law says about it. While I myself have railed against the media for encouraging copycat behavior with their nonstop coverage (i.e. glorification) of those who kill others and/or themselves, writing laws to prevent media coverage of these events will not solve the problem. At least it won't solve the problem without causing a whole bunch of those dreaded "unintended consequences" that central planners almost always cause when they try to create top-down solutions.

As soon as you begin to restrict the freedom of the press, you set in motion some very bad things. The rights retained by the people are not permitted to be infringed by the government. These rights are, according to the Constitution, rights we hold first and foremost. The government we formed is expressly forbidden to touch those inalienable rights. Touch one right and you set a precedent to infringing them all. Remember, lawyers and judges are very big on precedents.

Here's the deal. The US murder rate is dropping steadily in the United States (Except, of course, in stronghold Democrat Party run cities), but we are told we have a "gun problem" and need to "do something about it." In other words make some more laws. But the problem is not a legal problem. It's a cultural one, a social problem and even a religious problem.

In embracing progressivism's assumptions, we've wound up in a trap of our own making. While our attention-starved commentator is right, the media does exacerbate both suicides and mass shootings, if we as Americans (especially millennial-Americans didn't feel entitled to be catered to and paid attention to by our fellow citizens, we wouldn't feel the need to shoot them in large numbers. You could have said romantic poetry in the 17th century led to more suicides. It probably did. It's likely that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet led to more teenage suicides. The Bard went a long way toward making suicide attractive to teenaged star-crossed lovers. 

That said, this would not have been so had the cultures of the time not embraced certain foolish ideas about the relative value of emotion over reason. The old Renaissance romanticism had a pernicious effect on culture. It made us too trustful of our own emotions and far too easily swayed by emotion-based propaganda. Emotion became a tool for adjusting the beliefs of the gullible ignoramuses that make up the unwashed masses - Marx's "proletariat". So now the propagandists are suggesting that gun control laws, which make us feel good and morally superior about ourselves for supporting them, will somehow solve the mass murder and suicide problem.

It won't!  The solution to reducing mass murders and suicides is not to change people's feelings but to restore a cultural that values reason. Restoring reason to its former glory is something today's intellectuals really don't want to do though. Most of our post-modernist intelligentsia seem to firmly believe that cultural attitudes are going the right way. All is according to the progressive plan for re-inventing America. It is no surprise we've raised millions of youth to believe their feelings are of far more value than their reason. Obiwan Kenobi even told kids to "Trust your feelings, Luke!"

Perhaps if we could somehow address the cultural imperative that says your Facebook post needs to have a lot of likes lest your feelings be hurt, maybe kids wouldn't feel so deprived if they weren't the center of attention all the time. Perhaps if we created a culture where truth was valued above approval by your peers, where work yields rewards far better than just showing up for a participation trophy, then perhaps we might eventually get to the point where we have a media that values the truth above ratings.

Take the White Men story in Scientific American. The author makes this startling statement:

• A white man is three times more likely to shoot himself than a black man—while the chances that a white man will be killed by a black man are extremely slight.

Okay, let's examine that. FBI data show that while 500 black-on-white killings and 229 white-on-black killings were reported in 2015, 2,574 homicides were committed by whites against other whites, and 2,380 by blacks against blacks. Somehow the author made it look like black-on-white killings were "extremely slight". And few of us will notice this pretty heavy shading of the truth. This is truly remarkable given that more than twice as many black men shoot white men as the other way round. The author leaves out the fact that these kill rates he dismisses as "extremely light" are not adjusted for the percentage of the population represented. Black men make up less than 8% of the US population. White men make up a good 31% and total white people more than 60% if you don't count Hispanics as white, which they kind of are.

So black men murder white men at a rate of more than two to one in actual numbers while being less than 1/4 as numerous in the population as white men. The narrative our kids are getting from the media, though is that white men are cowards (that's why they have guns in the first place), that they are slaughtering black people with their nasty guns and that they are pretty much more dangerous and more stupid than anyone else, especially if they own guns.

The truth is that it's the education system that needs to be "fixed", both at home and in schools. In CS Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", old Professor Kirk complains, "What are they teaching in schools these days?" Lewis himself pointed out the dangers of teaching young people that truth was about how they felt about it in his essay  "Men Without Chests". In looking at "modern" education Lewis complained that while the old system was a kind of propaganda, men teaching boys to be men. The new system is entirely propaganda, substituting a subjective standard of "whatever I feel about a thing" for objective reason. “Another little portion of the human heritage," says Lewis, "has been quietly taken from them (children) before they were old enough to understand.” 

If parents and educators will not teach children to think for themselves as individuals, if we role model slavish devotion to the herd in our own daily lives, we raise children to be lemmings and not American individuals. When that process becomes complete, the proletariat will become a tool for government to manipulate as it will. We will have exchanged one form of relatively ineffective mass murder for another form far more powerful and effective at slaughtering people in large numbers. Check the history of collectivist proletariats in just the past century. It's not a pretty picture. The rate of slaughter in these progressive collectivist states puts American school shooters and mass murderers in the shade. And I bet the Russians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Venezuelans didn't think it could happen in their countries either.*

© 2018 by Tom King

* And by the way, in all those nations the media was regulated BEFORE the mass executions got to rolling along and usually after the citizenry had been disarmed.

Full Tinfoil Hat - Why Do Relatively Intelligent People Go There?

 

 

Okay, the answer to that question is "I don't know." It's like people get so thrilled thinking they have some kind of secret knowledge that everyone else is too stupid to understand, that they will overlook glaring truth to accept the most outlandish conspiracy theories. Well, the truth is that in 99% of cases, your secret knowledge is a hodge-podge of rumor, innuendo and facts twisted beyond reconition and you are more than a little naive to swallow that stuff uncritically.

Someone recently posted this monumentally snarky video about how stupid we were to believe the "official" story about what happened to 9/11. These guys are the same ones that in the past few days have been saying the terrorist attack in Orlando was a false flag operation too.

 

Puh-leeeease! You people make me sick!
So I challenge the video's reasoning and I immediately get this snarky post back from someone calling himself "Steve Forbes". Yeah, right. He's a billionaire ex-presidential candidate.

• So let me get this right you believe that 19 Muslims who barely spoke English !! High jacked airline jets with box cutters flew around for an hr without being shot down by one of the most heavily defended air spaces in the world , flew at speeds that would have ripped those planes apart , into two high rise buildings that eventually brought them down in there own foot prints ? Oh boy

Yeah, I do - Occam's razor, dude. The simplest explanation is the most likely. It frightens some people to think we're that easy to kill, but the truth is we are. So, since I don't want to have to keep repeating myself to the beanie-with-propeller crowd, here's my response.

1. The planes did not fly at speeds that would have ripped them apart. That part is made up. It's just an out and out lie.
2. High rise buildings aren't difficult to hit. After all, the twin towers weren't that hard to hit. They were sticking way above the rest of the city AND the planes were banking like all get out because they evidently lined up wrong on approach. 
3. They actually did know how to fly - just not to land. And they spoke English. Couldn't have taken the flight courses if they didn't. The fact that they didn't stay for the bit about landing the plane should have triggered some alarm bells, but nobody wanted to be thought of as anti-Muslim so everybody kept quite, except for a couple of guys who were thought to be paranoid and anti-Muslim, who were promptly ignored. All the terrorists had to learn how to do was steer the plane and they took enough training for that in Florida. 
4. No one on the plane challenged them over the "mere" box cutters because, at the time, we had all been trained to not resist. That training lasted right up until the folk on the plane found out they were crashing planes into buildings. After that the folk on the Pennsylvania flight figured out that this was not a good way to survive and they attacked the terrorists, who promptly dived the plane into the ground so they'd have at least a plane load of virgin credit in Paradise. 
5. The vertical collapse of the twin towers happened because the top floors pancaked into the lower floors and the buildings were designed to resist side force hurricane winds so they really were weakest only straight down. Building 7 caught fire from falling debris and firefighters were so busy at the WTC that it too burned out and collapsed, it's structure weakened by falling debris from the WTC towers.
6. As to how they attacked us in our so-called "heavily defended" airspace - the USAF doesn't make a practice of shooting down airliners. The Air Force shares that "defended" airspace with some 102,700 aircraft per day, defending it with a handful of fighter aircraft which are prohibited from approaching civilian airliners except when called to do so. Radio silence (at the time) was not considered enough to scramble fighter jets.

So let ME get this right again regarding the motivation for this expensive and massive plot you think you've uncovered: 

1.  You believe everybody kept quiet. That 4 or five thousand people cooperated with the president of the United States to murder 3000 people by taking them off airplanes and killing them in cold blood.
2. You believe the CIA did some magical special effects trick that make David Copperfield look like a schlub. The CIA or somebody in some secret agency created some kind of optical illusion to make tens of thousands of New Yorkers and hundreds of millions of television viewers think they saw two airplanes hit the WTC towers?
3. Then, you're telling me the buildings were imploded with people in them. You're saying that in the weeks before 9/11 (and it would take weeks if not months to do this), a clandestine team of building demolition experts sneaked into the WTC towers every night and rigged them to implode without anybody noticing the explosives attached to every support column on all 150 some-odd floors. 
4. Meanwhile back in Washington DC, the CIA fired a rocket into the Pentagon. And then, what? Hypnotized all the people in Washington to believe they didn't see a rocket fly into the Pentagon? That they saw a plane instead AND these geniuses were too stupid to realize that people would expect to see the marks of the wings on the 12 foot thick concrete walls.
5. Then they scattered all these airplane parts and jet engines and stuff all around the site of both "attacks" in what? Invisible trucks? Jet engines and wheels and stuff are pretty large and heavy. So nobody noticed that they were trucking in this phony evidence while they were doing it.
6. Then the conspirators were able to convince all the people on the planes to call up their loved ones and tell them an elaborate phony story. This all happened right before the planes were landed, the people taken off and murdered in cold blood by evil government minions?  And what? They paid wives and mothers and 911 operators to record this stuff so they'd have plenty of phony evidence?
   
7. I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying about the media coverup now. You believe that the entire news media went along with this gigantic coverup - a news media by the way that hated George W. Bush and would have drowned their own grandmothers for a chance to discredit a Republican president.
8. And you believe that all these thousands of people did this, so that George W. Bush's buddies at Halliburton could make some money? Money that was essentially a pittance; pocket change compared to the other things Halliburton does for money. Bush, whom you all consider to be the stupidest president every, somehow knew he could squeeze a few no-bid contracts out for Halliburton during the Iraq war he planned to start because he knew Americans would be angry enough to let him do that?
9. And the CIA and the other intelligence serviced HELPED him do it. Let's remember that the Clinton-built and staffed CIA at this time positively hated George W. Bush, so why would they cooperate with him? And George didn't replace Director Tenet till the end of his first term and Tenet really did not like Bush being so nosy about CIA intel. The CIAs doctoring of data was one of the reason Bush never heard about possible terrorist hijackings in the weeks leading up to 9/11. The CIA was telling him what they thought he wanted to hear. He gave them a good raking over the coals for that.

So tell me which scenario makes more sense?

Of course, the giant conspiracy stimulates these people's bulbous naughty places and makes them feel less vulnerable. After all, who doesn't want to believe the only way you can be killed is with the help of some vast government conspiracy? Who knows, Alex Jones might even have time to warn you before they punch paid to your increasingly wacky ticket.

So here's video of the plane hitting the second tower which these people want you to believe didn't really happen and nobody really saw it happen despite it's being filmed live from ten different angles.

 

The truth is there are evil dragons out there and you are crunchy and taste good with a nice white garlic sauce and hummus.

By all means, don't forget the hummus.

© 2016 by Tom King

Would Mohamed Approve of Mohamed's Behavior?

A knife-wielding student stabbed four people on the campus of UC Merced a couple of days ago. He was identified Thursday as 18-year-old Faisal Mohammad from Santa Clara, California. Why is it so many of these terrorist incidents are committed by people named Mohammad or some derivation thereof? Mohammad apparently never developed a standard spelling for his name.


I got called on the carpet for saying that - apparently it reveals my bigotry, but that's not what I'm trying to incite here. A guy shot another guy in Lakewood and as my friend points out, his name was "Jesse". That's not the same thing at all. In that case a disturbed soldier with some serious issues shoots one guy. Single murders happen all the time and murderers have all kinds of names ranging from Bob Johnson to John DuPont. A knife attack in a school where the guy is stabbing everyone in sight? Not so much. Just seems an awful lot of mass killers (or attempted killers) of late share a common name. Even the kid with the "clock" dressed up as a bomb, who got himself arrested, invited to the White House and then moved to Qatar - home of terrorist training central, shared that same name. 

Here are a few others, just to show you what I mean:

• Chattanooga Terrorist - Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez
• Jihadi John (DC Sniper) - Mohammed EmwaziFirst Trade Towers bombing -  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
• Twin Towers pilot - Mohamed Atta, (surprisingly the only one named Mohammed in the bunch)
• Khobar Towers - Abdelkarim Hussein Mohammed al-Nasse along with 5 others named Mohammed
• Beltway Sniper - John Allen Muhammad
• Kenya Garrissa University - Mohamed Mohamud
• Navy Yard Shooter - Mohammed Salem
• Arkansas Recruiting Center - Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
• Paramatta shootings - Farhad Jabar Khali Mohammad
• Nashville drive by - Mohamed Almahmmody
• Shreveport shootout with police - Mohamed Ibrahim.
• Kansas City Freeway Sniper - Mohammed Pedro Whitaker

I'm not condemning all Muslims here, but the folk involved all come from a common place. I have had good relations with my Muslim colleagues that I've worked with in the past. They are, in my experience, a peace-loving folk, so I have no experience of Muslims who chant death to America an hate us enough to blow themselves up. Still, given the rising tide of terrorist activity, I do have a problem with the fact that we as a nation are ignoring a group, whose members all share a common ethnic and religious orientation, that has declared war on us and that apparently hate us and the horse we rode in on. And I don't think it's an accident that there are an awful lot of "Mohammeds", "Abduls", "Husseins" and "Achmeds" in that group.  Might give you a hint where to look for them.

 My suggestion would be to band together with Muslims who wish to live with us in peace and declare all-out war on the forces of darkness who use that religion (or any religion) as an excuse to terrorize, murder and force others to submit to their will. I think the Muslim community would go for that. It would certainly leave a lot of empty seats in the halls of power that could be filled by honest, peace-loving Muslims. That's really the only way to do it. You have to remove the killers and give the power to honest, peaceful leaders and then you have to back them to the hilt.  You can't just pull out. Every time a terrorist organization rises up, you have to go after them with everything you're got until they are eliminated. You do that by partnering with people you know believe in peaceful coexistence. We did it in Germany and in Japan after WWII and we stood by the South Koreans after the Korean conflict. We didn't do that in Vietnam and hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were slaughtered when South Vietnam fell to the communists.  You can't get away with destroying your enemy and then leaving a hole in the ground. You have to stay with the job and you have to assure those who help you that you are not going to go off and abandon them.

It's time for the Muslim world to choose sides and for us to make a commitment to those that choose to be with us.
 
I do realize that a comment like mine can incite bigotry in the weak-minded and that, for that reason, I probably shouldn't point out that all those killers were named Mohammed. HOWEVER, that said, we are in a war that the president is ignoring if not abetting. It's never a good idea to pretend your enemy isn't shooting at you.

One bunch of mass murderers we've seen lately are certifiably insane, and there's plenty of talk about what to do about that. Recommendations from strict gun control to loosening the laws on committing folks with severe mental illness have been put forward. This is good. We should talk about ways to prevent severely ill people from shooting their neighbors and families.

BUT, we should, also be dealing with the second problem, which is that there are terrorists among us and they are being recruited and dispatched from specific organizations who have declared war against our country. Pretending there is no war is just stupid. These organizations occupy ground throughout the Middle East and claim to be acting as the leaders of their religion. During George W. Bush's tenure, there were no Muslim attacks on the homeland after 9/11. We took the battle to them so they had no resources to send weapons and recruits here when they were barely staying alive over there.  We did a lot of good, taking out tens of thousands of jihadis and their leaders in the process. We did not, however, finish the war. President Obama simply left Iraq. It's no accident that ISIS is now set up in Iraqi territory.  I like Ben Carson's suggestion for solving the problem - to prosecute war against these people until absolute victory is won. We go to fight a real war; not a ten year police action but an all out attack with the full might and power of the free nations of the Earth.

Also, to a person, every non Muslim mass murderer in the US in the past couple of decades I have found in my research, seems to be a registered Democrat or an avowed progressive socialist, save one notable paranoid schizophrenic whose family had been trying to get him committed for years and the government wouldn't cooperate. Perhaps we need to look at the mental stability of that group instead of training our police and military incessantly to subdue an imaginary terrorist threat from the Tea Party.

In pointing out the Mohamed thing, I'm just saying that some folk out there are making Mohamed look bad.  And in case you want to point out that the Roseberg Oregon college shooter wasn't named Mohamed, that's true. Interestingly by the way, the kid hated Christianity and lined up and shot anyone who admitted he or she was a Christian in the head. So he had that whole "kill Christians" thing in common with the Jihadis who are exterminating Christians across the Middle-East. 

The thing is there are a couple of common threads in these mass shootings that it would do us well to pay attention to and to explore with the whole problem of mass murder. If we're going to reduce the incidence of this sort of violence, we're going to need some tools besides political correctness, denial and bending over backwards not to offend anybody to address the problem.  

Gun-free zones surely aren't working.

And by the way - Mohamed, if his actions and statements in the Koran are to be believed would thoroughly approve of the actions of all those Mohameds out there engaging in terrorism. I've read it in their own book. It's true that the Koran is all about peace - peace, that is, once all us infidels are dead or have submitted to Shariah law. These guys have a different definition of peace than I do.

Tom King
(c) 2015