Apr 21, 2012

Why U.S. Foreign Policy Must Change from Global Democratic Jihad to National Self-Defense

She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.... 
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
        --John Quincy Adams, Independence Day Address 1821
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
       -- President George W. Bush, Inaugural Address 2005.
It is more than ironic that while Republicans appeal to America's Founders (most justly) that they fail to heed them when it comes to foreign policy.  George Washington warned of "entangling interests" or alliances as dangerous and Presidents like Adams above extolled America's restraint in interference.  Their view was not that America should be a militaristic global policeman (and they never extolled "democracy" as ideal) but only an example of freedom and liberty.  It's time for the Founder's view of Foreign Policy to be given a fair hearing.

In this regard, Pat Buchanan, a Republican with credible expertise in several Presidential administrations, is a breath of fresh air compared to both the Republican Establishment's and Democrats' "utopian view" (as he calls it) on foreign policy and alleged "necessary" wars, none of which are for the self-defense of America. His views are seldom permitted in either conservative debates and forums or in the liberal Mainstream Media. So listen to him here for at least an alternative, and in our opinion more rational view, about war.

He condemns American involvement in "regime change" started by the neoconservatives (which too many republicans applauded without just cause) in the Middle East since 2001 during the Bush administration.

He condemns American involvement in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime (which Obama and the democrats, and republicans like Rep. Shelly Moore Capito applaud) and articulates why it is stupid and actually supports radical Islamic groups that are bound to be no better.

He explains why the American Empire in foreign policy (which actually began during the Civil War when Washington invaded the Southern States to consolidate power by force) is a foolish "utopian view" for changing the world (really toward global government, abolishing sovereignty) for the pretense of "making the world safe for democracy" (as democrats W. Wilson and F.D.R. used) or to "end tyranny in the world" (the phrase George W. Bush invoked on his Second Inaugural Address).

He also is adamant that if this course is continued, especially in backing any attack on Iran, it will bring terrible consequences to "my Country" (now here is a better view of American patriotism demonstrated by judicious self-restraint instead of war-mongering) as well as to "the whole world". Indeed, both America's economy would be greatly ruined (i.e. the consequences on oil prices, which would harm the entire economy, as well as national debt) and a probable world war in the Middle East would result.

It's time that a more sober view of foreign policy and its consequences should be considered, before it's too late, as AIPAC and radical pro-Israel and radical "world democracy" revolutionaries continue to drown out Americans' influence in our own Congress.  What America needs is a true National Defense instead of a National Offense policy, which takes us to war without constitutional declarations of war, per the historic Christian 'Just War' Theory of self-defense alone, by Congress.  Until America changes this it is engaging in Global Vigilantism and supporting what could be called justly a Global Democratic Jihad, with terrible consequences on our own nation. 

A history of the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire and its aggressive PAX ROMANA should suffice to be a most conspicuous example to any naysayers against our criticism of this dangerous bipartisan foreign policy toward a global PAX AMERICANA or PAX DEMOCRATICA which has been in progress for 150 years now.  Who would deny that the Isles of Great Britain once fought against the tyranny of the Roman Empire?  After all, one type of "tyranny" is often replaced by another, always under the pretense of "liberation" (or things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom").  Doesn't this all, then, look so familiar, from a historical perspective?  "American exceptionalism", frequently invoked to cloak all American wars as moral and just, should not blind anyone to this truth and republicans and democrats ought to heed the speeches and examples of America's Founders and early Presidents once again.

Apr 17, 2012

Propaganda vs. The Truth about the (Unconstitutional, Communistic) Income Tax

Until 1913 there was no Income Tax on Americans (taxation based upon your earnings and income from labor).  It was unconstitutional to have such a tyrannical individual income tax because it was contrary to private property rights and basic civil liberty as a free American, i.e. that you own your own labor and income derived from it.  (Taxes are a necessity of all governments, but not a demanded tax on personal income!).  In order to force this ruse on Americans, which was ruled "unconstitutional" in 1895, Congress had to amend the Constitution with a 16th Amendment and there is legitimate controversy as to whether it was properly ratified by the states.  It is also common knowledge that a graduated income tax is a communist principle, whereby everyone works for the common government by their labor.  It is in fact a key plank in the Communist Manifesto (see plank 2)!  That's right, slavery was not abolished in America, everyone was merely given universal equality in the Government's Plantation.  Everyone's labor is now owned and claimed by the government.

So the government has always had to portray it as "patriotic" to pay Income Taxes which is setup as some kind of sign of moral righteousness to be a "good American".  The propaganda used to sell this is a proof that natural objections must be overcome to brainwash Americans into believing that it should be a thing of pride instead of subjugation and shame.

The following two videos in this regard are very enlightening and illustrate two contrasting views.  The Income Tax was introduced primarily as a means of financing an American war machine as an "arsenal of democracy" leading toward a system of world government with the ideals represented by the United Nations (also led by FDR, in context with the first video).   Republicans in particular should recall the great opposition they had historically toward FDR's New Deal (socialist) policies, also ruled as unconstitutional; a type and pattern that President Obama has followed almost preciselyThe truth is that both republicans and democrats have supported this same utopian global military vision of expanding "democracy" through wars for "regime change" which the Income Tax has been used to fund and support.

The Propaganda:  From the Federal Government (and Donald Duck, 1943)

Message:  "Be Patriotic!"  Income Tax represents "liberty and freedom".
The "axis" enemy just has a different name now:  Fascism Terrorism.

This kind of propaganda, making use of a cartoon to persuade Americans is frankly insulting, demeaning, and represents the stupid and childish mentality of the American mind.  It is also worth noting that the U.S. united and allied with the Communist Soviet Union to join Great Britain in the war against Germany (which the vast majority of Americans opposed until Japan, which was allied with Germany, bombed Pearl Harbor), which this propaganda film alludes to.  (See our previous article about President Herbert Hoover's opposition to WWII as well as a book by Pat Buchanan, where both claim that American freedom was "betrayed").

The Truth:  From Former Asst. Secretary of Treasury during Reagan Administration

Message:  The Government Owns Your Labor, Income Tax represents Slavery, Not Freedom

Apr 16, 2012

The Price Americans Are Paying at the Pump for Iran Sanctions

This is a quick follow up per our previous article about U.S. and Israel Middle East foreign policy driving high gas prices.   If you look at the gas price chart in that article you will see the steady rise in gas prices since Congress (i.e. both parties, as well as Obama) authorized AIPAC's plan of economic sanctions on Iran (which began in the last half of 2011).

The Christian Science Monitor recently posted this article just over a week ago providing more evidence that supports our article, citing experts, and also explaining those sanctions.  Are you sure you want Congress to impose those sanctions now?  Are you willing to bear the economic consequences of sanctions imposed due to pure propaganda and fear-mongering by the Israeli lobby (just as the neoconservatives did to sell you the Iraq war), when Iran has no nuclear weapons capability any more than Saddam Hussein did?  There is economic "blow-back" to all Americans due to this, and surely more to follow.  Think about it and let Congress know what you think!

What do Iran sanctions cost you? About 25 cents a gallon, experts say.

While consumers may support sanctions on Iran to dissuade it from pursuing a nuclear weapon, a foreign trade advocate says, they should also be told how sanctions impact Americans.

Then there is this good article too from Juan Cole:

Obama, GOP won’t Tell Americans that Iran Sanctions drive Gas Prices

Oh, and for good measure, to prove our analysis is unbias, even Fox Business has reported this, so it must be true [sarc]!   We just report, you decide:
 Experts To Congress: Iran Sanctions Fuel High Gasoline Prices

Apr 12, 2012

U.S.-Israel Middle East Foreign Policy Behind High Oil and Gas Prices


If you listen to talk radio, whether national or local, you will probably only hear about supply and demand influencing oil and ultimately our gas prices.  The purpose of this article is to provide summary proof that our high oil and gas prices over the last decade are not only, or even primarily, linked to supply and demand (as Economics 101 teaches us), nor solely to Big Oil (as others claim, albeit they play a role), but by other factors considered by market investors, which some call "speculators", on Wall Street who ultimately set the price of oil through market trading.  They of course take into account supply and demand, output in millions of barrels produced, imports and exports, etc.  But a large part of speculation is entirely driven by what they forecast for the oil business climate particularly in the Middle East too. The headline states the conclusion up front, but let us walk through the analysis to demonstrate how we got there.

First, let's look at the clear and non-partisan history of gas and oil prices.  (Click on any chart for a clear and enlarged view).


During the Bush administration they were as high as 4.19 per gallon nationally.  We are close to 4.00 per gallon under Obama, projected to pass over that threshold in May of this year.

High gas prices during both administrations; sharp drop during Nov. 2008 elections

So the highest and lowest marks have been shared by both administrations, respectively.  But Americans have grown way too complacent about and used to this.  Note that during the elections of 2008 we were only paying about $1.79 per gallon!  Yet that was still high compared to about $1.29 per gallon when Bush took office in 2001 (not shown in these graphs). 

So what changed gas prices so dramatically?  The "elephant in the room" that no one talks about, as each party tries to portray their own talking points, is foreign policy and middle east wars.  The history of oil and gas prices shows that it was after 9/11 in 2001, and primarily when President Bush, influenced by the Israeli-neoconservative propaganda and persons within his administration (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the PNAC group), moved America into a decade long war with Iraq under the false pretense of WMD and mythical images of "mushroom clouds".   That had a direct and immediate impact upon oil and gas prices as the following charts will show.

POINT 2:  WARS AND 'FEAR PREMIUM' TRUMPS SUPPLY & DEMAND--Middle East Activity, U.S. Foreign Policy and Wars, Drive Up Oil Prices 

Look over this graph very closely (click to enlarge) and try to refute or disbelieve that that wars and Middle East tensions are the most significant factor behind high oil prices.  Look and see what the norm of oil prices was prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11:

High crude oil prices began during Bush administration, invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq.
Now notice on this graph the volatility of price compared to growing, steady supply.

Supply has been steadily increasing yet oil prices fluctuate dramatically.
First note after Bush was in office, and even after 9/11, oil was still trading well under $30 per barrel.

Second, that oil prices only rarely crossed $40 per barrel before 2002 (i.e. note too the CIA fomented the Iranian Revolution, which led to the Iran/Iraq War on chart), when the war on Afghanistan began and the war on Iraq became inevitable to the investors/speculators, and oil prices have never recovered since war in the Middle East has continued to this day.  It is NOW THE NORM for oil prices to be over $80 to $100 per barrel through the decade long wars for "regime change" in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still to be completely ended.  And now Iran is in the cross hairs.  Thus the Bush administration's unnecessary war on Iraq has "reset" oil prices, with over a decade of Middle East wars now, including Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Syria during the Bush administration, per the market prices on oil.  Would not ramping down Middle East wars and tensions reverse oil prices?  Yes, just ask the traders who trade in oil.

POINT 3:  Growing Global Demand Does Not Account for the New Level of High Oil Prices

This article (with graph) shows that global demand (consumption) has indeed been increasing steadily and lately somewhat greater than supply, which does account for some upward pressure on oil prices.  But that does not explain the oil prices' dramatic fluctuations and much higher averages and spikes that this demand could account for.  In fact, recently the Saudis (who know quite a bit about oil supply and demand) called the present high oil pricing "irrational".  They mean that there is no limit of supply vs. demand that justifies the current market price of crude oil.   Note too that the Saudi oil minister spoke of "irrational fear" of shortage of supply versus that demand, affecting the spot price set in the market by investors and "speculators", which is a direct reference to the "fear premium" we have alluded to before, including regarding fears due to wars in the Middle East, past and present (Iraq, Iran, Syria, et al).  Already oil experts say that this year supply is catching up with demand while there is a price elasticity in gas prices--i.e. U.S. demand (consumption) has dropped during higher pricing.

POINT 4:  U.S. Oil Companies Are Not Helping with Supply--Cutting Refining, Increasing Exports

First, while just complaining about government hindrance of drilling refinery capacity has deliberately been reduced--to increase profits through efficiency, which puts a bottle-neck on supply!  I bet you have never seen this graph about their inventories as demand has increased.

 Second, though the U.S. is a leading oil producer (i.e. refining crude into petroleum products), it has recently become a greater exporter than importer!  Why?  Hoppy Kercheval should have asked this with the oil exec recently on Talkline.  Yes, more drilling is needed, which the current administration is hindering.  However, U.S. oil companies are not helping us either where they are able. 

U.S. Produces More Oil Than Iran

U.S. Companies Now Export More Oil Products Abroad
POINT 5:   Value of Dollar and Inflation Do Not Account for High Oil and Gas Prices

Look and compare this inflation adjusted chart to the ones above (noting differing date range).

Note again the same pattern, while considering these significant dates about foreign policy and regional tensions in the Middle East:

1.  The only prior high peak was during the 1979-80 Iran/Iraq War, which was in part sparked by the CIA's prior covert ops sparking the Iranian Revolution, which ran up prices immediately.  This is when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and the U.S. was supplying WMD to Iraq and Saddam Hussein (ironically).

2.  Oil prices hit $60 per barrel during U.S. military ops against Iraq in Kuwait in 1991 under Bush I.

3.  Late in 2001 after 9/11 was a price spike as talk of war and invasion of Afghanistan began.

4.  Late 2002 was war-mongering moves by the U.S. and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.  The steep climb in prices began.  The war on Iraq continued officially for over a decade until 2011.

5.  Prices consistently escalated as the U.S. and Israel expanded the "war on terrorism" and violence in Iraq, along with a "surge" of more troops.  Note oil prices continually increase in the trading markets (while supply continues its normal growth, per previous graphs).  Israel bombs Lebanon in 2006 and bombs a site in Syria and also bombs Gaza against Hezbollah.
    Prices also rose after Hurricane Katrina which pinched some U.S. refining capacity for a time.

6.  As the U.S. and Israel increased war talk about Iran as a "threat to Israel" toward the end of Bush's 2nd term oil prices spiked dramatically into 2008.

7.  Elections Nov. 2008 showed a sharp drop in oil prices as talk of ending the Iraq War was entertained and a softer Middle East policy was hinted at by candidate Obama.

8.  Oil prices began to rise quickly in 2009 as Obama talked about a "surge" of his own, appointed the same Bush-generals in war operations and violence surged up into 2010.  (See, no matter the administration; "it's the war policy, stupid").  Granted, this is also when the Gulf Spill changed Obama administration's policy on off-shore drilling, but with no immediate effect upon supply.

POINT 5:  It is Economic Suicide for the U.S. to Increase Conflict with Iran

Do you think this chart shows the potential for such a conflict to inflate oil prices from a "fear premium" on Supply?  Experts think so: See here in regard to Economic Sanctions already begun (though propaganda Op-eds from pro-Israel groups are now attempting to downplay this, to protect their policy on Iran).

Does anyone want a repeated spike of oil prices like during the Iraq-Iran War (see graphs previous)?  Prices of over $200 per barrel have been mentioned if there was an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, because of certain retaliation by Iran, and immediate inflammation of war in the Middle East.   TELL CONGRESS TO BACK OFF THE WAR-MONGERING AND SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN UNLESS YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT, LITERALLY, IN YOUR GAS AND CONSUMER PRICES.  (It is irrational to believe Iran would attack Israel without provocation).

POINT 6:  Oil Prices Influence All Consumer Prices, The Whole American Economy


If foreign policy affects oil and gas prices, then foreign policy affects the entire U.S. economy, of which oil and gas prices is a key factor.  Isn't that what we have seen since the invasion of Iraq?  The price of all consumer goods has gone up, and stayed up, along with oil prices.  This pattern is undeniable and will continue.


Why does neither party bring the "war premium" or "fear premium" or "foreign policy" about oil prices?    Because they don't want to offend the powerful Israeli Lobby, AIPAC, which holds a hammer over every member of Congress and causes presidents to tremble.  It's all about wars for Israel and/or "democracy" in the Middle East; regime change by force.  But President Obama, being provoked, finally let the truth slip out, for which he was quickly hit with broadsides from all propaganda cannons for.  But he was partially right.  See the article:  Obama Administration blames Israel for high oil prices.  That was frankly a breath of fresh air to even read the headline (even though we are against his entire philosophy and most of his policies).  

The truth is often not politically-correct and particular interests groups are always pressuring others to prevent free public debate.  But it is blind beyond belief not to talk about Middle East and Iran foreign policy when discussing oil and gas prices and the U.S. economy.  It needs to be brought into the discussion immediately as even the graphs show that oil prices began their increase immediately as sanctions on Iran and war-mongering by Israel and the U.S. surged last year.  Market investors in oil, who indirectly set our gas prices by consequence, pay attention to all of that.  So why shouldn't we in the social and political arena?  It is stupid to ignore it.

This also demonstrates that unjust wars (e.g. Iraq, potentially Iran) have "blow-back" effects on the U.S. domestic economy.  It is a Biblical axiom that "you reap what you sow".  There is a Law of Consequences.  "What goes around" has effects that "come around".  It's time to pay attention to this, and talk openly about it, including in Congress and on talk radio.  If you think this argument has merits, then by all means pass it on for the benefit of all Americans, irregardless of party. 

Apr 8, 2012

More 'Economic Sanctions' or War With Iran? Sen. Rand Paul Calls Out Congress

What's driving up gas prices, everyone asks?  The very real 'fear premium' (a fear of potentially restricted supply due to regional tensions) on oil that investors/speculators include in trading in the oil marketIt is therefore impossible to divorce Foreign Policy from America's Economy and National Debt.  (This was acknowledged briefly by the oil expert interviewed last week by Hoppy Kercheval on Talkline).  Yet seldom do politicians, or talk radio hosts, address such things together.

More economic sanctions on Iran is a clever way of walking (by the lobbyists' manipulation) the U.S. toward war and drives up the 'fear premium' about supply in the oil trading markets.  Limited Government (Tea Party) type people like Sen. Rand Paul understand how aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East not only endangers a casual, unconstitutional attitude toward war (particularly undeclared wars by the Executive Branch, by both Bush and Obama) but also has economic consequences for all Americans. In other words, there will and is already economic "blow-back" on Americans of economic sanctions on Iran!  Ironic, isn't it?

Remember, it was sanctions on Iraq that began that war.  Sanctions are economic warfare and an economic precursor to it.  AIPAC (the Israeli lobby, the most powerful in Washington) as well as Israeli PM Netanyahu, and a lot of false religious propaganda (i.e. Christian Zionism theology, prophecy) used to support the secular (not Biblical) state of Israel, is pushing American foreign policy with Iran.  The majority of Americans by far now know that Iraq was (at least) a "mistake" and want us out of Afghanistan now and out of the "nation building" (read "regime change") business altogether.  Yet under Obama we have proceeded, without Congressional approval or declarations of war, to use military campaigns in Libya for regime change while Syria and Iran are now entering the cross-hairs (and have been since the neoconservatives in the Bush administration used 9/11 as their pretense).

Tell Senators Rockefeller and Manchin, as well as Reps. Capito, Rahall, and McKinley to listen to you instead of AIPAC.  Economic sanctions on Iran are directly, already, increasing our gas prices and the price of all consumer goods will soon follow by consequence.  After all, do AIPAC and Israel care about the U.S. economic consequences of higher oil and gas prices from increased Middle East tension and wars?  No, not one bit.  And the elite in Washington that vote for sanctions do not feel the economic consequences like you and I do.  So make Congress listen to you instead.  Or, do nothing but don't complain about high gas prices or when groceries and consumer goods go up again as they did already during the Iraq campaign. When will everyone wake up to this!  Why not tell them what you think now instead of complaining about even higher gas and grocery prices later?

Listen to Sen. Rand Paul's objection on the floor (video below) and read about his reasonably offered amendment to the Sanctions bill which was intended to be a wake up call to Congress to think about the careless path they are being pushed into and complying too readily with.  What an excellent and persuasive speech!

War With Iran? Sen. Rand Paul Calls the Question

Apr 3, 2012

Gazette's "Trayvon" Bias in Charleston Double-Murder Case: Daughtery Freed, Two White Victims Forgotten

Teenager acquitted of killing 2 people
James Daughtery spent 2 years in jail after his arrest
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Seventeen-year-old James Daughtery embraced his lawyer as a judge read from a verdict form Friday afternoon, declaring him innocent of two brutal homicides that have kept him in prison for more than two years. ...
Several of Daughtery's family members stifled cheers and sobs as Stucky read the verdict Friday, and excused themselves from the courtroom as the boy exchanged a long hug with his lawyer, Rico Moore.
"Happy is not a strong enough word," Moore said of his client.
Prosecutors alleged that on Feb. 10, 2010, enraged that Daughtery had allegedly sold them fake crack, Duling and Pontier left several messages on his phone, calling him racial slurs and demanding their money back.
Prosecutors said Daughtery, then 15, arranged to meet the two near the Fas-Chek in Kanawha City. He jumped into the back of Duling's car, pulled out a .22 Peacemaker revolver, and shot both Pontier and Duling in the head, prosecutors said.
During the trial, prosecutors relied on testimony from Daughtery's friend, Mark Artez "Ace" Johnson, who told investigators that Daughtery had bragged to him about the crime soon after he committed it, claiming that he had "earned his stripes" as a drug runner.
On the witness stand, though, Johnson asked the judge several times if he could "plead the Fifth," or decline to answer questions for fear of self-incrimination -- especially when prosecutors asked him if he had used the phone he shared with Daughtery to make drug deals.
Johnson mumbled most of his answers to prosecutors and to Moore on cross-examination....

Thus, Charleston has its own case of a controversy in justice which is being overlooked.  It is a Trayvon-type case, but in reverse and twice as bad, while the public and media are too quiet about the outcome.  It was the double-murder of two white men while the only probable and potential perpetrator was Daughtery, a fifteen year old black male (at the time), who was declared "not guilty".  The Gazette, in the typical fashion of the agenda-driven national liberal media, has contributed to the injustice of the case by inserting their own very slanted and bias report.  Zac Taylor's article ascribed that Daughtery was declared "innocent" (a distortion and reporters misrepresentation, very different than what the judge said) while also painting him as the victim instead of the two deceased.  More than that, any reactions of the real victim's families were either omitted or redacted, neither of which reflects objective journalism or the whole truth about the verdict for unbias readers.  Why?  
While "happy is not a strong enough term" for Daughtery the reporter's back was turned away from any cries of the true victims' families (whether they were present or not).  Emotions expressed, as police know too well, are not indicative of any righteous judgment, but only reflect personal self-interest. Imagine if you were a family member of the two murder victims what your reaction might be as contrasted to that of Daughtery and friends.   

The damning fact is this, that the police have no other suspect "at large".  The key witness "Ace" Johnson ("Daughtery's friend" reports Zac Taylor!) no doubt perjured himself in his "mumbling" testimony in order to stay alive (the drug cartel would certainly avenge the conviction for murder of their young drug "mule", which Daughtery could threaten him with to coerce him to shut up in court) while the defense looked the other way and the Gazette bought the whole story as an exoneration since they see it their duty to help in perpetuating the myth of white prejudice against blacks in crime, as if color instead of behavior were criminal evidence.  (Certainly if the suspect is white and the victim black the Gazette is likely to see the suspect as guilty, no jury trial needed; e.g. Zimmerman vs. Trayvon).  

What if a white guy who had a witness that said he "bragged" about a murder, of two black men, and that he had "earned his stripes as a drug runner"--but then the witness suddenly reversed himself, two years later, in court?  What, pray tell, would have been the Gazette's reaction then!!  Al Sharpton would have come to town, with all national networks in tow, with one voice crying "injustice", would they not? 

But we all know better and so does everyone else on the street along with the prosecutors and police we pay to enforce justice in Charleston.  The silence, along with the hypocrisy in context of the Treyvon controversy, is deafening.  But the blood of those two murdered victims, who were truly shot "execution" style (a proven fact in this case), cries loudly up to a God in heaven for avenging of their blood (though they are not to be compared to innocent Abel in Genesis whom Cain killed in history's first murder), for which government is to be a minister of justice for the Divine Judge, even in a state which has disarmed itself of the Sword of Justice (see Romans 13) for the death penalty.   

The fact that the police and prosecutors are not calling it an "unsolved" crime ("they had their man") underlines the injustice of the trial's outcome of which the public has every right to be highly suspicious about and unaccepting of it.  Juries, especially with the evident perjury of a key witness, with a high standard of proof required, are not and cannot be infallible when a key witness bails on the prosecution after two years of consideration.  (One wonders however about the prosecutor's case, whether physical exhibits, particularly ballistics or gun powder residue were ever found on the suspect's person or clothing, which would have been "beyond reasonable doubt" of guilt if available.  Is this where the police and/or prosecution failed the case?)   

But the Gazette has trumpeted the outcome between their very bias lines as "justice", painting Daughtery as if he were a victim of what is labeled "white justice", while the shedding of blood of two men by someone carrying out their own arbitrary "death penalty" for personal satisfaction (all murder is a 'hate crime') remains at large and free.  Though evidently the editor had Zac Taylor give due credit to the same prosecutor, Mark Plants, for not even charging a black man who shot two other white men in St. Albans recently in "self defense" (though we know others who said he left his property and went to confront the other men, packing a weapon with a permit, for their dangerous driving in the neighborhood with children present), the article's message implied a "white prejudice" mark upon the police and prosecution while the only probable perpetrator, with motive, means, and opportunity, walks free.  This is "Treyvon" media bias all over again, based solely upon age and the color of the skin instead of evidence which was, until the trial, as hard as concrete.  Where is the outrage?  What about "Ace" Johnson's sudden and incredible about-face in testimony? 

Anarchy and vigilantism based upon any prejudice (prejudging without evidence) will be the rule if the principles of jurisprudence are abandoned for irresponsible reporting and inflammatory racially charged, incindiary speeches before the public (e.g. Al Sharpton) and this type of media-fomented activism which is presently inciting civil disturbance, and even violence, in Florida.  Even in Charleston some have taken to the streets over the Trayvon case (this is political insanity and radical activism outside of its proper jurisdiction) while the double-murder of two white men, "execution style", locally by the only probable suspect, now released, is met with strange silence!  Is that not troubling?  Will West Virginia media do any investigative reporting?  Of course not.  The suspect was a black youth instead of a white man, and would be met with (unjust) accusations of "racism", which the cowardly media avoids at all costs. 

The High Court of heaven surely has judged differently than the hand-tied Judge and Jury on this double-murder case and so will any thoughtful public opinion.  Meanwhile we might need a new Paper for justice to make its case to the public.  While Justice is blindfolded to color certainly the Gazette is not, but portrays her as needing to peek in order to shift her balance and recalibrate her scales for a particular outcome.  It's almost as if a double murder never took place, as if to have no conviction of anyone is "justice".  

We know full well that not all 15 year old black youths (or white) are harmless and "innocent" but in fact are fully capable of murder, as news reports prove.  The gross presumption that a young black youth could not have pulled the trigger where the evidence is clear that drug-dealing was involved (where money and guns are always present) is to be selectively and deliberately naive.  Was Daughtery a drug-runner or not?  Did he sell to the two victims or not?  It will take more than a journalistic "hoodie" of an article to cover up his character and behavior!  Did the prosecution paint a rational scenario based upon facts or was it their own fantasy?  Let the unbias reader decide. 

The public should be alarmed and crying out that Justice has not been done in this case!  And that West Virginia certainly needs a death Penalty.   A cold blooded, double-murder cannot go unpunished, and the murder rate is going up. 

For now The Gazette and Zac Taylor need to take a lesson in objective journalism from this excellent reporter from the Miami Herald involved in the Trayvon case (see interview on CNN below), who has dared to report the uncomfortable truth from all angles, instead of their blatant partial coverage: