Freedom, Responsibility, and Terrorism – The Farcical Ferguson Report

Freedom, Responsibility, and Terrorism – The Farcical Ferguson Report


     Freedom suggests unregulated uncontrolled behavior. Obviously, true freedom is a myth or a perception erroneously subscribed to by those who ignore reality. The Framers, Founders, and the generations of men and women who gave birth to these United States of America clearly understood that “true freedom is bound by God’s intention”. Using such words as “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights”; or “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, those patriots clearly evince and define an understanding of the immutable truths of science and history ignored in our time.


     Law, be it natural law – all order we are incapable of creating or instituting, and laws of worldly origin – norms, political laws, all laws of human invention, gives order while necessarily limiting unjust freedom. Understanding that law bound by justice enables successful and constructive human interaction, it was the Framers’ intention that government establish justice.


     Contrary to and countering that intention is any behavior that is unjust violating the definition of justice imposed by immutable Law. Again, law bound by justice offers all obedient to law the only true freedom accessible in reality. Because freedom is bound by law, truth or the valid expression of law is inextricably linked to the fulfillment of the best of the human experience.


     In a spectrum from terrorism to legalism, we encounter the political manifestations of human arrogance and failure. What transpired last night in the darkness of 11 March, 2015 in Ferguson, Missouri, was the full manifestation of the absence of justice. Whatever the cause or motivation, the shooting of innocent police officers doing their job trying to protect those “unalienable Rights” of law-abiding citizens bore witness to political failure. Carried out by criminals shooting the officers, those aiding and abetting the criminals – the “protestors” were complicit in their crime and injustice. Whether blocking the street in clear violation of Missouri state law, or protesting that which is contrary to the truth, all those in the crowd are no better than, and should rightfully be called, terrorists. Willful knowing violation of the law seeking to disrupt, deny, subvert, or hinder justice for all is what terrorists do. Perhaps lesser in degree, by ignoring truth and subverting justice, all those lending their presence to those violating the law and ignoring justice should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Along with the looters and arsonists preceding them, those blocking the street robbed those lawfully using the thoroughfare. Just being in the mob stole the “domestic tranquility”.


     Perhaps the unspoken tragedy of the night’s terror was the unjust disparagement heaped on working men and women of race or color. These were the members of the churches and civic organizations in Ferguson and surrounding communities who seek to be judged by their helping the victims of the terror caused by the prior political failure without discrimination. These are the friends and neighbors comprising the vast majority of Ferguson embarrassed by the politicians falsely claiming to represent them. This is no different than the disgust and contempt Moslems wanting goodness and justice for themselves and their families hold for ISIS, al Qaeda, or any terrorist group.


Freedom is never free!


     The NBA consists of 76 percent black players. But blacks are just 13 percent of the country. Clearly, the league engages in racial discrimination against whites. Silly, right? Well, this is exactly what the sleight-of-hand Department of Justice pulled off to find that the Ferguson Police Department engages in “implicit and explicit racial bias”!


The report insults anybody who’s ever studied the statistics ?- or logic.


The 105-page report concludes: “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular.”


The Washington Post immediately put out an article headlined “The 12 key highlights from the DOJ’s scathing Ferguson report.” Per the Post, the “scathing” statistic first listed is this: Ferguson is 67 percent black, but blacks comprised 85 percent of the traffic stops and 93 percent of the arrests. Incontrovertible proof that the Ferguson PD engages in institutional racism! Reporters, in describing the Ferguson report, used adjectives that include “shocking,” “stunning” and “eye-popping.”


But if Ferguson’s numbers are “eye-popping,” what adjective applies to the New York City Police Department. New York City is 25 percent black. However, of the traffic stops, blacks comprise 55 percent. The statistical “gap” is 30 points. In Ferguson, as stated, the black population is 67 percent, but 85 percent of the traffic stops. The statistical “gap” is 18 points — far smaller than New York’s 30-point “gap “.


Why aren’t Messrs. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Eric Holder marching on Times Square?


The answer is that the liberal former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who governed for 12 years, defends the aggressive policing of the NYPD — and the resulting “statistical disparities”. Bloomberg says: “Unlike many cities, where wealthy areas get special treatment, the NYPD targets its manpower to the areas that suffer the highest crime levels.


Ninety percent of all people killed in our city — and 90?percent of all those who commit the murders and other violent crimes — are black and Hispanic. It is shameful that so many elected officials and editorial writers have been largely silent on these facts.


“Instead, they have argued that police stops are discriminatory because they do not reflect the city’s overall census numbers. By that flawed logic, our police officers would stop women as often as men and senior citizens as often as young people. To do so would be a colossal misdirection of resources and would take the core elements of police work — targeting high-crime neighborhoods and identifying suspects based on evidence — out of crime-fighting. …”


“That the proportion of stops generally reflects our crime numbers does not mean … that the police are engaged in racial profiling; it means they are stopping people in those communities who fit descriptions of suspects or are engaged in suspicious activity.”


The National Institute of Justice is the research and evaluation agency of the DOJ. In 2013, the NIJ published its study called “Race, Trust and Police Legitimacy.” Unlike when responding to dispatch calls, police officers exercise more discretion when it comes to traffic stops. Thus, the supposedly “racial profiling” cops can have a field day when it comes to traffic stops, right?


But according to the NIJ, 3 out of 4 black drivers admit being stopped by police for a “legitimate reason.” Blacks, compared to whites, were on average more likely to commit speeding or other traffic offenses. “Seatbelt usage,” said the NIJ, “is chronically lower among black drivers. If a law enforcement agency aggressively enforces seatbelt violations, police will stop more black drivers.” The NIJ conclusion? Numerical disparities result from “differences in offending” in addition to “differences in exposure to the police” and “differences in driving patterns.”


President Obama, backed by research from the left and from the right, said, “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”


Richmond, Virginia, is a city of 214,000, with a black population of 50 percent. Eighty-six percent of black Richmond families are headed by a single parent. Of Ferguson’s 67 percent black population, how many kids grew up in fatherless homes?


Whatever the answer, isn’t this a far more relevant statistic?


Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at


Religion and the Birth of America – The Threat of Islam to Liberty and Christianity

Religion and the Birth of America – The Threat of Islam to Liberty and Christianity


Our article entitled Christianity and the Birth of a Nation, published on 6 November, 2003, makes the point that the Framers and Founders were realists. The fact that their understanding of the truths of science and history which provided the foundation of a new political experiment untried in human history was clearly expressed in their Biblical worldview only helps define their reality.


Immutable truths validated in the scientific method and affirmed in the historical record are distilled and purified in the crucible of time. The Constitutional intention is that those truths bound by justice for all guide and direct all government. Simply, that original intention has been lost in the attack on America by enemies, foreign and domestic. Because it is the failure of those who we elect to represent us and lead us that has brought us to the disasters and crises destroying “this one Nation under God”, it is we, the people, who are ultimately responsible.


The following article highlights the tolerance of the lies and deceptions fueling the ideology motivating but one of our enemies. Wars and conflicts arise when those holding the political reins of power are motivated and directed by untruths and act with injustice.


We are engaged in a great civil war“! It is for us now to “take increased devotion to [the] cause” of liberty and justice for all so that “this Nation” “shall have a new birth”, “and that government, of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth”.




The Threat of Islam to Liberty and Christianity

Stephen McDowell

After viewing the presentation by Stephen McDowell on “The Threat of Islam to Liberty and Christianity” you may ask “What can we do to combat this great threat?” Following are a number of actions we can take, both personally and nationally.

What Should We Do?

    One’s view of the nature of man will affect how leaders deal with Muslim terrorists today. If you think man is basically good and wants to live in peace, but his social-economic environment causes him to act bad – that is, you believe violence begets more violence – you will think changing external things will stop his evil action. People with this view say “we must stop the cycle of terror.” (It’s a cycle, according to them, because America’s actions caused the terrorists to respond with attacks.) Such leaders will speak peace, repent of all the bad their nation has done toward them, and try perpetual negotiations (thinking their great wisdom can bring resolution), all the while giving concessions to terrorists thinking that once they get what they want then we can all live in peace. (This sounds a lot like President Obama’s policy toward Iran and other terrorist nations. He has even invited extremist Muslim leaders to a White House summit to solicit their opinions on terrorism.[1])


Such a view discounts the Christian idea of man, the history of the spread of Islam, and the teachings of the Muslim faith. The response that works (as seen at Tours in 732 AD, Vienna in 1529 and 1683, and with the Barbary Pirates) is for civil government to use the sword as mandated by God to restrain evil and protect the righteous.

What should we do as a nation?

  • Aggressively defend our nation against Muslim terrorists, here and abroad, with ample force.
  • Build a strong military to be able to provide overwhelming force against evil-doers.
  • Restrict immigration of Muslims and others who do not embrace our Biblical constitutional principles. New citizens must agree to the principles in our founding documents.
  • Prosecute treasonous actions of citizens and deport non-citizens.
  • Close the border to allow only legal immigration.
  • Stop welfare programs, especially any that would support illegal aliens and those who oppose America.
  • Encourage and support pro-liberty movements in oppressed nations.
  • Support allies fighting against terrorists (with various aid and assistance).
  • Promote freedom and self-government through example and words, with aid, through the Voice of America radio, etc.
  • Educate Americans in schools and media on:
    • American exceptionalism – unique government, unique founding principles, unique liberty
    • The nature and history of Islam (as well as other oppressive ideologies)
    • Truth about Christianity so that everyone can see its great liberating principles, which are in contrast to the oppression of Islam.

What should we do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

  • We went to war in the early 2000s in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Sound arguments could be made that both engagements satisfied just war criteria with the primary purpose to defend Americans. (Just war criteria must of course be considered before we engage with military force. Since we did decide to engage these nations, we must now act in the best possible way to see liberty as the outcome.)
  • After victory, President Bush’s goal of attempting to establish democracies in these countries was good and right. (This was done in Japan, a non-Christian nation, after World War I with good success.) Being free nations would benefit their citizens and economies, it would reduce the potential for future aggression toward America, it would diminish the rise of terrorists groups within their boundaries, and it would be a good means of changing other Muslim nations who would see the fruit of liberty and prosperity. (However, seeking to build democracies in nations ruled by tyrants is not a right reason for going to war.) Some progress toward liberty and democracy was made, but commitment to remain in these nations was abandoned by President Obama, hence great turmoil now exists, with war with ISIS and other terrorists groups, and Iran having a growing influence in Iraq.
  • Was this goal ever going to succeed? Not likely, given the history of Islam, but with God moving among Muslims, there remained some hope. Moreover, we have to defend ourselves against terrorists who will never give up; therefore, we should at least work to see liberty grow in those nations, using Biblical methods.
  • Without long-term commitment to defend and help, there is almost zero probability of success.

What about military force against ISIS and terrorist groups?

  • Yes, if there is direct threat to US citizens.
  • Yes, if liberty-loving allies are threatened.
  • In Iraq: Since we were already engaged, Obama should have kept sufficient troop strength until proper transition could occur. If we had done so, ISIS would not have grown and Iran would not have increasing influence in Iraq. Now it is much harder to deal with both problems. We should: Strengthen good civil and military leaders in the country; build a coalition of Iraqis and Kurds, along with other nations, to drive out ISIS and militant Iranians (all the while promoting the spread of truth, freedom of worship, etc.).
  • In Syria, Libya, and other oppressive nations, let the oppressors fight it out with terrorists.

What should we do about Iran?

  • Since 1979 when militants took control, Iran has been the primary supporter of terrorism in the world. Their stated goal is to wipe out Israel and destroy the great Satan, the United States. They have not lived up to any verbal agreements in the past regarding development of nuclear arms. There is no reason to expect they will in the future. Aggressive economic sanctions must be taken by all freedom-loving nations. We should support resistance movements in the nation (unlike Obama in 2009 when protests arose over the corrupt re-election of Ahmadinejad). As a last resort force should be used to prohibit nuclear weapons getting in the hands of the radical leaders.

What should we do in other Muslim nations?

  • Encourage the promotion of the peaceful aspect of Islam, while realizing the seed of the religion is false and destructive, both for personal salvation and societal well-being.
  • Establish free trade because free flow of ideas will follow.

What should we do as individuals and in the private sector?

  • Elect leaders (especially the commander-in-chief) who understand the nature of Islam so they can act and educate appropriately.
  • Teach truth to those under our influence. This includes teaching the truth about Islam and Christianity in our homes, churches, and schools.
  • Demonstrate and preach the Gospel to Muslims everyone.
  • Pray for God to continue to move among Muslims throughout the world as He is doing.
  • God is moving among Muslims bringing a genuine awakening.

God is moving among Muslims bringing a genuine awakening.

Muslims are taught many false ideas about God. The brief contrast of Christianity and Islam presented in the above recording shows the great difference between the true God, who loves mankind and forgives those who repent and believes in Christ’s redeeming work, and the false god of Islam, who is neither personal, nor loving, nor has he provided a savior for fallen man.

We need to teach Muslims they do not have to kill the infidel to please God. Muslims do not have to blow themselves up to bring His kingdom. Muslim women do not have to live as slaves or be subservient to men to be in obedience to God. They do not have to marry before womanhood and possess little liberty. We need to teach Muslims that they can know God personally by repenting of the sins and believing in Christ’s redemptive work, and then as children of God they can live in great freedom. Where Muslims hear this message, millions are responding. Since many live where the Gospel is greatly suppressed, God is supernaturally revealing Himself and His salvation.

Pastor Tom Doyle has spent many years as a missionary to Muslims in the Middle East and recorded in his book, Dreams and Visions, how God has been supernaturally moving to convert multitudes of Muslims to Christ. He records scores of stories of God using extraordinary means to reveal Jesus to Muslims of all genders and stations in life throughout the Islamic world. Some of the hardest Muslims to reach are the religious leaders, or Imams. Doyle writes of ten Muslim Imams studying at Al-Azhar University in Egypt (the intellectual center of Islam) who had dreams about Jesus and became Christians. While remaining Imams these secret Christians became aware of each other over time and began to meet together to learn the Bible and pray for others to receive Jesus.[2]

Doyle and co-author Greg Webster write that “we believe more Muslims have become followers of Jesus in the last ten years than in the last fourteen centuries of Islam.”[3] In addition to anecdotal stories, there is objective evidence of a genuine move of God occurring today within Muslim lands. This revival has been documented by David Garrison in A Wind in the House of Islam. He records that across 29 nations where most of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims live, there have been 82 movements to Christianity from Islam, defined by at least 100 new churches or 1000 baptisms – and 84% of them have happened since 2000.[4] While it is difficult to get accurate figures, there have been perhaps 5-10 million Muslim converts in the last five years in the Middle East. There are 1-3 million Christians in Iran. Most have never been to church but are being reached by TV, radio, and internet.

Like Doyle, Garrison also records numerous stories of supernatural conversions to Christ and the great sacrifices many have made to follow Jesus. Garrison writes, “There are nine geo–cultural ‘rooms’ in the ‘House of Islam,’ and the Wind of God’s Spirit is blowing through every one of them.” His book presents how “God is at work through answered prayers; dreams and visions; 21st–century technologies such as Internet, satellite television, video and audio tools; and bold Christian witnesses who have often paid the ultimate price for the sake of reaching Muslims for Jesus Christ.”[5]

God is even using terrorist actions to awaken many Muslims as they see the atrocities of extremist Muslims and ask if this is really what Islam teaches. The militant verses are usually not taught by clerics to the general populace, Muslim and non-Muslim. Many nominal Muslims have begun to examine Islam’s teachings and have come to see Islam is not the religion they want; it does not produce liberty.


In conclusion, the history and teachings of Islam show it is a false, demonic religion. It has not brought life, but rather death, theft, and destruction. A small minority of Muslims, like many in the past, advance their faith with force, leaving death and oppression in their wake as they seek to fulfill their triumphant prophetic purpose. Freedom loving governments must crush these militants with superior force, while the church should pray and proclaim the Gospel in hopes that God will extend His gracious hand and save many.

While most Muslims today are moderates who practice their faith quietly, likely detesting the militant action of the radicals, they, nonetheless, carry the seed of an ideology that has nowhere produced liberty or life. As the population of Muslims has increased In the United States, they have gradually begun to exert a growing negative influence within society – from establishing local Sharia courts (thus subverting American Constitutionalism), to raising money through non-profit organizations that has been used to support terrorists, to influencing the content of public school textbooks presenting an idealized view of their religion, to sowing seeds through teaching in some Mosques that are anti-American, anti-freedom, and anti-Christianity. Their influence must be lessened by restricting immigration, requiring allegiance to the principles of liberty and law in our Constitution by all present and potential citizens, and teaching the truth about Islam, Christianity, and American exceptionalism in our schools and churches. The church must also fulfill its mission to proclaim the liberating message of the Gospel in order that God might continue to move mightily among those living in sin and deception.

To advance liberty, we must first recognize the ideologies that are contrary to the Bible and then take appropriate action. Islam is one of the greatest threats to Christianity and liberty in the twenty-first century. With God’s grace and our efforts, it will not advance but be pushed back and overcome, and multiple millions of those living in darkness will see the glorious light.



[2] Tom Doyle and Greg Webster, Dreams and Visions, Is Jesus Awakening the Muslim World?, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012, Chapter 2.

[3] Ibid., p. xiv-xv.

[4] From article by Mindy Belz in World Magazine, May 31, 2014, summarizing findings in A Wind in the House of Islam (2014) by David Garrison.

[5] David Garrison, A Wind in the House of Islam, 2014, book description.

How to Save the Supreme Court

How to Save the Supreme Court
Chuck Colson – 1996

     After nearly 40 years in Washington, I’ve noticed that two things happen to people who move here: First, their sinuses are shot. And second, even the most sensible people lose touch with the real world. They begin taking their cues from the so-called thoughtful part of the nation–that is, the elites who live inside the Beltway.

     That’s the only explanation I can find for the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Romer v. Evans, which invalidated Colorado’s Proposition 2. Sensible people come to the Court, and then issue irrational decisions. Now if only the Supreme Court were based in, say, Iowa, the justices might view issues like this differently.

     As I mused on this subject the other day, I fell asleep–and had the most amazing dream. I saw a multitude of people from every part of the country, marching on the Supreme Court.

     But these folks weren’t interested in making speeches. My first hint was the huge tractor they were hauling. It was the NASA crawler, the 3,000-ton platform used to carry the space shuttle to the launching pad. What are they gonna do with that? I wondered.

   I soon found out. A man in a John Deere cap said, “We decided that since there’s no way to get the ‘Washington’ out of the Court, we’d take the Court out of Washington!”

    “Where are you planning to put it?” I asked. “Ottumwa, Iowa,” he replied.

     “How are you going to get the Court into the crawler?” I asked.

     “Just watch!” the man answered.

Just then the justices came out.

“What gives?” asked Justice O’Connor.

“We’re moving the Court!” roared the crowd.

“Where to?” asked Justice Stevens.

“Ottumwa, Iowa!” the crowd answered.

“Where’s Iowa?” asked a bewildered Justice Souter. “And how are you going to get the Court there?”

“That’s easy,” said the man in the John Deere hat. “The American people have determined that the decision whether or not to obey the law of gravity is an intimate and personal choice central to our personal dignity and autonomy.”

“What claptrap is this?” Justice Kennedy asked.

Justice Scalia began to laugh. “It’s from your own Casey decision, you nitwit,” he said. And he added, “They’ve got us, so let’s give the Court the old heave-ho.”

The other justices shrugged and complied. They put their hands on the side of the court building–and solemnly declared the law of gravity unconstitutional. The Supreme Court building rose gently into the air.

“Westward Ho!” shouted the crowd. And away they went.

Along the route, citizens invited the justices to potluck suppers. They picked up the tab for clam strips at an Illinois Howard Johnson’s. They stopped into a Dairy Queen. They even invited the justices to sleep in their trailer parks.

     But just as the Court arrived in Ottumwa, my alarm clock went off. The traveling Court and the cheering crowds faded away in the morning light.

Yes, it was only a dream. But I’ve always believed that moving the Court to the heartland is a good idea. It would put the justices back in touch with ordinary Americans. And, it would be far more difficult to trash 200 years of American tradition – or declare big chunks of it unconstitutional – if the justices dwelt among people who actually live, and die, by that great moral consensus.