Truth, Justice, and Domestic Tranquility

Truth, Justice, and Domestic Tranquility

      With the horrendous violation of the fundamental, Constitution-protected, civil rights of the citizens of Ferguson by the rioters, looters, and other criminals, at the least encouraged by the liberal media’s reporting of the lies and deceptions always attending injustice, and with that injustice augmented by the mishandling of the anarchy by the liberal politicians adding their voices to that of the media, this Committee for the Constitution felt it imperative to respond with the truth. A member of this Committee “put boots on the ground” to gather the information for this article. It has been corroborated and validated.

Justice is absolutely and critically dependent on truth. Domestic tranquility similarly has as its prime requisite, justice for all. Reading the Preamble to the Constitution, “justice for all” is the primary directive controlling the intention of the Constitution. From and by it all other intentions are enabled. In the Framers understanding, validated by all human history, justice is defined not by the laws of mankind, but the “Creator” of immutable law. Confirmed in the ratification documents of the States, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and every writing of the Framers and Founders, justice has been lost because a satiated public majority duped by the propaganda of the liberal media has enabled the “domestic” enemies in our midst to hold positions of “honor and trust” at every level and in every jurisdiction of government. Aided by the injustice perpetrated by the unauthorized army of the administrative state, America is under attack violating the very original intention of the Constitution that made America great.

At the onset, without one shred of evidence, the liberal media began disseminating the lies of Brown’s accomplice in crime. Fomented by Obama, McCaskill, Clay, Nixon, and other of like ideology encouraging the protestors, anarchy ensued as the police’s hands were tied behind their backs. Rather than enabling law enforcement to control the protestors, criminals were allowed to throw Molotov cocktails committing felonious assault on the police. As the details of the composition of the anarchists has become apparent, only a handful from Ferguson were involved. The law-abiding working citizens of Ferguson were the true victims of these terrorists set upon a 150 year old, peaceful suburban community of St. Louis by those violating their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Missouri.

In stark contrast to the tainted corrupted portrait broadcast to the world, the people of Ferguson responded with a sense of responsibility and justice. With schools, grocery stores, businesses of every description that provide critical needs, services, and supplies for the very basic activities of daily living forced to close because of the uncontrolled looting and destruction, black and white church congregations working together began distributing food and water. Holding joint services together, they prayed for peace and justice. Teachers volunteering their time excluded from the public schools opened classrooms in the Ferguson Public Library. Local citizens of every color contributed to assist Officer Wilson financially and otherwise as he was crucified and vilified by the media. With all the above examples, and untold numbers of others not listed, the citizens of Ferguson responded despite the betrayal of those elected to represent them.

Expanding and reiterating our prior articles, when is the public majority, particularly the black community, going to recognize that even those of like color committing genocide focused on them, enslaving them in the injustice of undeserved welfare, permitting those addicting them to have nearly free access to our borders, taking their jobs, taxing them without representation, and on and on are really their enemy? Tolerating the destruction of the traditional nuclear family, the child without a father’s care and justice rejects all just authority. Shouts of “Kill the cops!” resounded from the mobs.

All that said, the make-up of the mobs, apart from the obvious opportunistic criminals, race baiters, and troublemakers from New York, Chicago, L.A., etc., were made up, in the vast majority, of those with nothing better to do, youth, and so forth. These were people, for the most part, living in HUD housing without regular jobs, and youth not able to attend school. The citizens of Ferguson were under attack from terrorists looting and burning their businesses because the police were instructed by politicians to let it happen. It is no wonder that store owners and businesses were forced to take up arms to defend their property. Where would the innocents impacted by the riots and crimes have been if these same liberals had been able deny or limit their Second Amendment rights?

Addressing the facts involving Michael Brown that precipitated this tragedy, the one thing that is abundantly clear is the overwhelming fact that the truth was not initially heard because of the liberal media and the liberal activists/politicians. In summary, the details of which are included in the attached articles, Brown was tragically shot in a just manner by a police officer justly and correctly preforming his duty. Despite the undeniable proof of Brown’s criminal activity, Officer Wilson was assaulted sustaining multiple facial and head injuries. After initially escaping after the assault, Brown then turned shouting epitaphs and ran toward the officer approaching him within several feet with his head lowered as if intending to head-butt him and continue his assault. Autopsy results and at least twelve witnesses have confirmed the officer’s account.

Here it is necessary to digress from the facts of the shooting of a criminal to look at the facts concerning the validity of the circumstances that are being put forth in an attempt to excuse and erroneously justify the failure to deal appropriately with the unlawful protesters. Unfounded allegations of profiling and the racial disparity of the Ferguson police must be linked to truth, not to what people say without evidence. As to profiling, objections to profiling are always raised by those subject to the alleged profiling to attempt to, in some way, justify their own injustice, or for the innocent fitting the profile to be excluded. Searching 80+ Caucasian females in a wheelchair when Moslem transportation terrorists are almost exclusively male under the age of 40 impacts all travelers but may be necessary. On the positive side, profiling most certainly allows security personnel to more adequately focus their efforts. Similarly, if a crime has been committed by a white female with a specific description, it is ridiculous to include an Oriental male in your focus. In reality, all police departments are required to submit monthly statistics to avoid and prevent unjust profiling. In Ferguson, in such things as traffic stops, law enforcement activity is totally and verifiably consistent with the demographics of the area. Looking at the racial disparity of the police force, there is significant disparity, but the reasons for the uneven distribution must be considered. First, minorities want to find excuses for high incidences of criminal activity in their demographic, even if it is unbiased fact confirming the incidence. If 30% of criminal activity is perpetrated by white females in a community, it is only reasonable to expect correctional institutions or court dockets to reflect the fact. Secondly, because of past injustices, discrimination, the erroneous promulgation of allegations of profiling, socialization in single parent families, etc., law enforcement is not an identity that the majority of the African-Americans are willing to assume. Thirdly, most of the qualified candidates seek the highest paying, most desirable employment. With the scarcity of suitable candidates, disparity is unavoidable if protection is to be afforded. This is the case in Ferguson as confirmed by our research.

Finally, and directing the reader to the facts enumerated in the attached articles, we must also do as the Framers meeting in Independence Hall did over two centuries ago. Fearful of the public majority, they met in secret to study history to 500 years before Christ to learn from the past and give birth to a “Nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”. This attack on America must be learned from. Appeasement and the tolerance of injustice never work. Those with Molotov cocktails in their hands should have immediately and summarily dealt with in a manner to protect law enforcement from burning and death. Peace protesters must be allowed to protest in a manner so as not to interfere with any activity of law-abiding citizens. Not allowing citizens safe normal access to their homes, businesses, and any other daily activity should not be permitted.

As any grieving mother wanting to believe the best and innocence of their children might be expected to do in the terrible emotion of such a tragic loss, a police officer, who deserves commendation, who sustained serious injury in the line of duty, was condemned and blamed for her loss. As to any person with authority over the less powerful, there is always going to be injustice and abuse of power. Specifically, police unfit for duty are unfortunately, not infrequently, not dealt with appropriately. Missouri maintains a type of registry where conduct unbecoming is reported. As in any bureaucracy or circumstance, justice unenforced is no justice. Again, as a specific relevant example, a white policeman who unmercifully beat a white male in a holding cell so severely that an investigation by the FBI took place was rehired by a different minority populated St. Louis suburb. Neither the FBI or local authorities prosecuted the man despite the fact that numerous witnesses came forward who were willing to testify as to the repeated multiple instances of violation of their civil rights. Instances of police illegally trespassing and threatening to shoot those challenging their illegal behavior, incidents of police threatening to shoot dogs confronting them on their trespass, unnecessary force, other violations of civil rights, etc. were uncovered. Whether injustice is encountered through judicial activism or police brutality, justice for all is necessary for there to be peace. Unable to recruit qualified police officers, Ferguson is likewise financially unable to afford the placement of dash cameras to record police actions. Perhaps some of the money Obama and Holder spent in providing the guns to kill Americans in “Fast and Furious” would have been better spent on devices to insure the public safety. Criticizing giving surplus military equipment (“militarization”) to law enforcement to protect themselves only adds to these politicians’ failures and lack of credibility.



Ferguson shooting proves wisdom of Solomon

At some point Brown stopped, turned around, and confronted Wilson with angry epithets. And then apparently after taunting Wilson, he charged him.

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” ~ Proverbs 18:17


Bryan Fischer, August 19, 2014


    The Bible warns us to be sure we hear from both sides and collect full information before we make up our minds. This ancient wisdom of Solomon has been validated again in Ferguson, Missouri.

    The early narrative, spun by racial grievance mongers, was that Michael Brown, a harmless teddy bear of a boy, was shot by a racist officer because he was black, that he was shot for jaywalking, and that he was shot in the back execution style.

    Riots, mayhem, violence and looting ensued, so unremitting that Gov. Nixon has finally been reduced to calling in the National Guard (after complaining all week about the “militarizing of the police.” (Missouri Democrats, by the way, including Gov. Nixon and Rep. Clay, did not call Eric Holder in to “investigate,” they called him in to “prosecute.”)

    But cracks are starting to appear in the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/Black Panther narrative.

    A caller to a local talk radio program in St. Louis, who claimed to be a friend of officer Darren Wilson’s significant other, gave what she said was the officer’s version of events. This account goes as follows: Wilson stopped Brown and his friend because they were walking in the street. The officer told them to get on the sidewalk.

    They responded belligerently. The officer tried to exit the vehicle, at which point Brown slammed the door shut to prevent him. Sometime during the stop, Wilson learned via police radio that someone matching Brown’s description was a suspect in an armed robbery at a nearby convenience store, a burglary that had happened just minutes before. He observed what looked like the contraband in Wilson’s hand.

    Now dealing with a criminal suspect, Wilson ordered Brown to stop so he could be detained, at which point apparently Brown stuck the upper half of his body into Wilson’s squad car and lunged for the officer’s gun. In the tussle over the weapon, it was discharged one time inside the vehicle.

    Following the shot and his apparent inability to wrest control of the gun from Wilson, Brown took off. Wilson, as police protocol dictates, pursued him. Officers, of course, cannot simply allow a criminal suspect to run away. With gun drawn, Wilson pursued Brown and ordered him to stop.

    At some point Brown stopped, turned around, and confronted Wilson with angry epithets. And then apparently after taunting Wilson, he charged him. Wilson then fired six rounds, each of which hit Brown, the last of which entered his skull and killed him. According to the radio caller, he fell dead practically at Wilson’s feet.

    This account has been inadvertently corroborated by a conversation between an eyewitness and a bystander, caught on tape by a man using his phone’s video recorder. The eyewitness twice said he saw Brown charging Wilson. He said Brown “doubled back toward him” (that is, toward the officer) and “he kept coming toward him” even though the officer was firing at him in order to get him to stop.

    The account of Wilson’s friend indicates that Wilson thought Brown was hopped up on something, from the way he was charging and the fact that not even five bullets could slow him down. (This will make the toxicology report extremely important, which likely won’t be released for a week or so.)

    Now this woman’s account is a third party account, and obviously requires confirmation. But that evidence is slowly trickling out.

    The first autopsy, for instance, performed on Brown at the direction of his own family, reveals that all six shots that hit his body entered from the front. Not a single entrance wound was found on his back. This destroys the testimony of Brown’s accomplice in the cigar heist who claimed that Brown was shot in the back as he was fleeing.

    The autopsy report is consistent with the accounts that Brown was shot while he was charging the officer at full speed. Even the Brown family’s pathologist, Dr. Michael Baden, admitted this morning (Monday) at a press conference that the fatal wound on the top of Brown’s head is consistent with the possibility that he had his head down and was closing on Wilson in an effort to spear him.

    The surveillance video from the store – which Eric Holder did not want the public to see – reveals Brown – all 6’4” and 292 pounds of him – to be aggressive and violent, stealing a batch of cigars and shoving the store owner against a display rack. He was not the “gentle giant” the radical left wanted us to think.

    Holder has ordered a federal autopsy, likely because the family-ordered autopsy does not play into the racist narrative he intends to foster.

    It’s also possible that the grievance mongers had some awareness that the facts might challenge their meme. Not wanting “to let a good crisis go to waste,” they hurried to whip as many people into a frenzy as they could before the facts could challenge their version of events.

    So while at first blush this incident was painted as a racially motivated execution, fresh information reveals that this incident likely had nothing to do with race at all. It was about criminal behavior. It was about strong-armed robbery, assault, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, and physically coming after him with violent intent.

    Do we know everything at this point? Of course not. We do not, for instance, yet have Officer Wilson’s official account. But we do have enough evidence to begin thinking that the hyperventilating we have heard from the press (which actually printed a map to Officer Wilson’s home) and from race-baiters is unlikely to be true in any salient point.

    So it turns out the Bible has been right all along. “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

    Good advice for everybody, including the press, Eric Holder, the governor of Missouri and the president of the United States.


Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. He hosts “Focal Point with Bryan Fischer” every weekday on AFR Talk from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Central).

store robbery & clerk






4 pics-store

























The Christian Idea of Truth (Law)

One of Seven Ideas that Made America a Success

Stephen McDowell

    America is a unique nation in history; she is exceptional.  No nation has been as free, prosperous, charitable, and virtuous. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America, “The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.”

    American exceptionalism was not a result of some inherent value within the American people, but came from the valuable ideas upon which the nation was founded.  Christianity was the source of these ideas. Noah Webster wrote in the introduction to his dictionary:

   The United States commenced their existence under circumstances wholly novel, and unexampled in the history of nations. They commenced with civilization, with learning, with science, with constitutions of free government, and with the best gift of God to man — the Christian religion.[1]

    These liberating ideas were released in modern history when the Bible began to be printed in the common language of the people during the time of the Protestant Reformation.  The people who settled America carried this truth with them, planted it, and gave birth to this special nation.

    In recent generations America has been rejecting these liberating ideas. To preserve liberty and to advance, America must embrace the seven ideas that made her free and prosperous. For one, she must embrace the Christian idea of truth.[2]

The Christian Idea of Truth (Law)

    How do we know what we know? What is the basis for what we consider true and right? For Christians, the basis of truth is found in God’s Word. It is what the Bible proclaims. Jesus prayed to the Father: “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). His Word is not just true, but it is truth. Truth is what Jesus teaches, and He taught men must obey all the Scripture (Matt. 5:17-19). The Bible is God’s Word and the source of truth to all men. The degree to which men and nations have applied God’s Word to all of life, is the degree to which they have prospered, lived in liberty, and been blessed.

    A Christian worldview proclaims that there is truth, there is right and wrong, there are absolutes that we can know. The secularist has a much different view of “truth.” From a humanistic perspective there is no absolute truth. All so-called truths are relative. The relativist says: “Whatever I want to believe, I may believe. Whatever I think is true is true for me, and whatever you think is true is true for you. If you believe in a God as the source of truth, that’s okay, but I don’t believe in God or absolute truth; and you shouldn’t force your view upon me or upon society.”

    Relativism is the predominant view of those in academia, the media, and western governments. But such a view is completely illogical. When someone says “there is no absolute truth,” a simple question will reveal the absurdity of this position. Merely ask them, “Are you sure?” If they answer no, they have jettisoned their epistemology, acknowledging that they do not know for certain that there are no absolutes. If they answer yes, then they have affirmed the position that there are absolutes.

    After someone admits there are absolutes, the next point to consider is who is the source of those absolutes. For Christians, it is the Bible. For humanists, it is man, either as an individual or corporate man with the state expressing “truth” to society.

    The belief in the certainty of no absolutes is not logical. It contradicts itself. One who believes this is like the man who built his house upon the sand — it cannot stand up under pressure of storms (see Matthew 7:24-27). If a worldview is built on this presupposition, it will fall.

    A Christian worldview teaches there is absolute truth, where God is right about everything, and He reveals the truth that man needs to know in His Word. Relativists will condemn Christians who believe in right and wrong as narrow-minded and bigoted. They say, “You should not see things as right and wrong. It is wrong to do this.”

    What they are really saying is that they do not want to face the reality of the Creator God — Who is the source of all right and wrong — and His standard of righteous living. They want to live life on their own terms. Hence, their theology, or worldview, follows their morality.

    A pagan view of truth has captured the thinking of most of the world. Relativism is the dominant view of Americans today, even those Americans who claim to be Christians, as revealed in a poll conducted by the Barna Group in the spring of 2002. In a survey of adults and teenagers, people were asked if they believed that there are moral absolutes that are unchanging, or that moral truth is relative; 64% of adults said truth is relative to the person and situation. Among teenagers, 83% said moral truth is relative; only 6% said it is absolute. Among born-again Christians 32% of adults and 9% of teens expressed a belief in absolute truth. The number one answer as to what people believe is the basis for moral decisions was doing whatever feels right (believed by 31% of adults and 38% of teens).

    Early Americans, who were mostly Christians, held to the Christian idea of truth. Their laws and constitutions reflected that worldview. They believed fixed law applies to everyone and is always true. God reveals His law in nature (the laws of nature) and by special revelation in the Bible (the laws of nature’s God). The phrase Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence — “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” — had a well established meaning.[3]

    An early civics textbook, First Lessons in Civil Government (1846) by Andrew Young, reveals the Founders’ Biblical view of law:

   The will of the Creator is the law of nature which men are bound to obey. But mankind in their present imperfect state are not capable of discovering in all cases what the law of nature requires; it has therefore pleased Divine Providence to reveal his will to mankind, to instruct them in their duties to himself and to each other. This will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and is called the law of revelation, or the Divine law.[4]

    This is in great contrast to the secular or socialist view of law, as revealed in the French Declaration of Rights (1794): “the Law . . . is the expression of the general will. . . . [T]he rights of man rests on the national sovereignty. This sovereignty . . . resides essentially in the whole people.”[5] To the humanist, man is the source of law, of right and wrong. But if whatever man declares to be lawful is the standard for society, then everyone’s fundamental rights are threatened, for a majority, or ruling dictator, can declare anyone to be an outlaw. Tyrants have done this throughout history, and tens of millions of people have been killed under this worldview.

    The Christian view of law proclaims that all men have God-given inalienable rights, and the Bible states what those rights are. No man can take them away. All men are subject to God’s higher law, rulers as well as common people. No man is above the law, nor is man the source of law. Hence, the rule of law originated in the western Christian world where the Christian idea of law prevailed. This Christian view of law produced the unique nature of American constitutionalism and law.[6]

[1] Noah Webster, “Introduction,” An American Dictionary of the English Language, New York: S. Converse, 1828, reprinted in facsimile edition by Foundation for American Christian Education, 1980.

[2] To learn all seven ideas see Stephen McDowell, The American Dream, Jamestown and the Planting of the American Christian Republic, Charlottesville, Vir.: Providence Foundation, 2007.

[3] See Stephen McDowell, Building Godly Nations, chapter 11, “The Changing Nature of Law in America,” Charlottesville: Providence Foundation, 2004, pp. 183 ff.

[4] Andrew W. Young, First Lessons in Civil Government, Auburn, N.Y.: H. And J.C. Ivison, 1846, p. 16.

[5] Thomas Paine, “Declaration of Rights,” The Writings of Thomas Paine, Collected and edited by Daniel Conway, New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, Vol.3 , p. 129-130.

[6] See McDowell, Building Godly Nations, Chapter 7, “The Influence of the Bible on the Development of American Constitutionalism.”