Category Archives: Liberals/Democrats/Left

City Officials Order Black Couple to Perform KKK Wedding .

Now All I can say is this is a beautiful thing. In the “Immortal” words of That trailblazer of Racial Harmony , Rodney King…

Can’t We All Get Along?

—————————————————————————————————-

Posted on October 20, 2014 by
http://godfatherpolitics.com/

A black couple that owns a wedding chapel has been offering their facility to couples for years. People from around the country visit the charming chapel set in a beautiful wilderness area to get hitched.

But a few months ago, a couple came in wanting to do a KKK-themed wedding. At first, the couple, Roy and Esther Black, thought it was a joke, something from a David Chappelle comedy routine. They wondered where the hidden cameras were.

To their surprise and shock, however, they found out that the couple was serious. They wanted to dress in their KKK garb and have the Blacks perform the ceremony. The best man and maid of honor would also be dressed in KKK attire but, like the couple, without hoods.

Very Charming Chapel.

Very Charming Chapel.

Umm, now this is uncomfortable.

Umm, now this is uncomfortable.

How Dare you discriminate against me?

How Dare you discriminate against me?

As nicely as they could, the Blacks said they couldn’t do it. They were opposed to the beliefs of the KKK. They suggested that if they really wanted a KKK-themed wedding that they should go elsewhere.

The couple was irate and decided to file an anti-discrimination lawsuit against the Blacks.

“The chapel was open to the public,” Blake Atkinson told a reporter for KLKA TV, “and since the chapel is advertised for weddings, the Blacks should be forced to perform our wedding. Public accommodation laws demand it”

“City officials told the Blacks, both ordained ministers who run The Chapel in the Pines, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its ‘non-discrimination’ ordinance requires the Blacks to perform wedding ceremonies for anybody that asks no matter what their beliefs are regarding the people who are asking to be married.”

Civil rights groups around the country are outraged over the decision of city officials. How is it possible for a couple like the Blacks to be forced to perform a wedding for a couple whose lifestyle and belief system they abhor?

Good question. The same can be asked of people who oppose same-sex marriage.

The above story is fictional but based on a true account related to same-sex marriage. It is designed to show the absurdity of new laws being passed and enforced to mandate that the owners of places like the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, perform weddings for same-sex couples or go to jail or face stiff fines.

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“‘The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,’ explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. ‘The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.’”

What’s next? How will the tyranny be expanded? Look what’s happening in Houston, Texas. If the government can force the Knapps to go against their beliefs, then they can force others to do the same.

Homosexuals and the civil officials of Coeur d’Alene will argue that there’s no law protecting the KKK, and that’s the point. If the government can make up laws protecting one class, it can make laws to protect any class or any belief or nay group and make us pay dearly for any opposition.

~Steve~
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/

 

U.S. bishops betrayed the unborn, fearing Catholics would leave Democrat Party

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”
-2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Mark Gallagher had worked with the Government Liaison Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Washington from 1974 to 2007. He was mainly responsible for lobbying Congress on abortion and programs for the poor.

In a stunning article for Crisis Magazine, Oct. 22, 2014, Gallagher gives a first-person account that after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling opening the floodgates to the killing of unborn human beings by legalizing abortion in the name of women’s “right to privacy,” Catholic bishops — putting “social justice” before the right to life — made a collective decision not to aggressively warn and inform the laity because they feared doing so would drive American Catholics away from the Democratic Party into the GOP.

Our Lord Jesus the Christ had warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-16)

These bishops have nothing less than the blood of innocents on their hands. They will be called to account for their grave sins before God.

Here is Gallagher’s article in its entirety.

JesusHoldingBabyClose

The Bishops’ Fateful Decision Respecting the Unborn

Mark Gallagher – Crisis Magazine – Oct. 22, 2014

In 1973 the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. It was projected that the decision would not just replace illegal abortions with legal ones, but that the total number of abortions would dramatically increase (it turned out by approximately a million a year). It was clear that there were only two remedies: the Supreme Court reversing it; or a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress and ratified by the states to overturn it. This required the election of presidents who would nominate Supreme Court justices not interested in creating constitutional rights to legal abortion, and the election of pro-life members of Congress to confirm the justices, and to propose a constitutional amendment. Elections were the key. How were the bishops to proceed?

The bishops’ conference staff provided two conflicting recommendations. As their pro-life lobbyist, I recommended that the bishops conduct a major campaign to educate and correctly form the consciences of American Catholics to their responsibility to elect candidates who support the Common Good, which is protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God (including the unborn). And those candidates who refused to support the Common Good would be morally unacceptable for public office. The laity’s responsibility included being involved in their political party so that Common Good candidates would be recruited and nominated for office.

The Social Development and World Peace staff at the bishops’ conference disagreed with this approach. They dealt with the economy, poverty, food policy, housing, human rights, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy, and felt their goals and prudential judgments were more reflected by the Democrats in Congress. I was told sometime later of their concern that Roe v. Wade would cause Catholics to seek the protection of the unborn by voting for Republicans (most were pro-life [90+ percent]) instead of Democrats (about 2/3rds were pro-abortion then [94 percent now]). This shift in the Catholic vote would necessarily hurt their legislative agenda. So a campaign should be undertaken to convince Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. Their view prevailed and they pursued with the relevant bishops’ committees the first-ever Catholic voters guide published in 1976, called the “Political Responsibility Statement” (now called Faithful Citizenship). It would be the primary tool to achieve their objective. The document:

(1) Did not call upon Catholics to vote against a candidate who opposed the Common Good by supporting abortion. It cited no intrinsic evil that if supported would render a legislator morally unacceptable for office. And It did not include relevant Catholic moral theology: (a) that the constant teaching of the Church is that there are “certain choices that are always intrinsically evil” (i.e. abortion: … if one could eliminate all poverty in America at the cost of permitting the killing of one innocent person, that cost was too high and morally wrong); and (b) the applicability of proportionalism. According to one authoritative source, it holds that “the moral quality of an action is determined by whether the evils brought about by proposed action are proportionate to the goods the action effects. If the goods effected by the action are not in proportion to the evils caused, then the action is evil, but if they are, then the action is morally good.” First, there are no proportionate goods achieved by the killing of a million unborn each year. Second, voting American Catholics are not faced with any moral evils equivalent to abortion that might warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Voters have never been faced with the dilemma of choosing between a pro-abortion candidate and, for example, a rival candidate that would permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Or, by way of another example, Catholic voters do not have to choose between a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons. Voting for pro-abortion candidates in America has never been, and still cannot, be justified under the principle of proportionality.

(2) Listed everything they hoped a legislator would support (at least a dozen). This marginalized protecting human life by making it just one of many important issues. The candidate who supported abortion could say (and routinely did), that they supported 90-95 percent of the bishops legislative agenda.

(3) The current voter guide explicitly permits Catholics to vote for candidates who support intrinsic moral evils. It says, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” like abortion, “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” But what if a voter supports a pro-abortion candidate for some other reason? “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” The moral reasons must be “truly grave,” yet as I have argued, there are no grave moral reasons that trump protecting the unborn. Also would it really be far fetched to imagine that a Catholic voter, following the guide’s exception, might support a pro-abortion candidate because, for example, his position on “climate change” echoes that of the bishops who have said that saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions was a moral obligation?

In addition to this voters’ guide, the national Social Development and World Peace staff, as well as their diocesan counterparts, informed Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. This education campaign included workshops to persuade the laity that it was better to use their vote to achieve a good (helping the poor) rather than to oppose an evil (abortion).

A final step that helped pro-abortion Catholic candidates was the bishops giving them, or permitting them to receive, Communion. Many laity concluded that these legislators’ votes for abortion were morally acceptable, and that Catholics could vote for them in good conscience. Regular reception of Communion in the Catholic Church conveys that the person is a practicing Catholic, in the state of grace, in good standing, in communion with the Church.

All of these actions decreased the number of churchgoing Catholics voting pro-life, and this prevented (and still prevents) achieving sufficient votes to legally protect the unborn.

From a political science perspective the division of the Catholic vote (those voting for pro-life candidates and those voting for pro-abortion candidates) has severely limited if not completely neutralized the effect of the Catholic vote for good. If a significant majority of Catholics were united in only supporting Common Good candidates, as the Jewish community is largely united in only supporting candidates who support the State of Israel, then Catholics would legislatively achieve protection for the unborn and many other goals. When a group can decide the outcome of elections on one issue, then it will command serious consideration of whatever it pursues. The divided Catholic vote has prevented this.

The bishops have continued on their failed course for forty years, with fateful, disastrous results. If the bishops would change course, the legal killing, now at 56 million, could be stopped. The bishops need to teach that: (a) Legislators have the compelling moral responsibility to pursue the Common Good, protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God, born and unborn. And those who do not, are morally unfit for office; (b) “Catholic” legislators who support abortion are not in communion with the Church and they will not be given Communion until they are; and (c) Catholic citizens cannot in good conscience elect legislators who support the killing of the unborn (for there are no proportionate reasons to justify it).

H/t California Catholic Daily

~Eowyn

Russia begins large-scale militarization of the Arctic

Dr. Eowyn:

While Russia is systematically preparing and positioning itself in the Arctic region by militarizing, the Obama administration has done nothing to implement U.S. National Strategy on the Arctic.

Surprise! Not.

At a House hearing on “Implementing U.S. Policy in the Arctic” in July 2014, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chair of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, said “The National Strategy calls for a strong U.S presence in the Arctic, but the Implementation Plan that accompanies it fails to identify what specific infrastructure or capabilities are required to meet those goals, or how or when they will be funded.”

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

A new frontier is becoming a center of great power rivalry.

It is the Arctic, believed to have vast untapped natural resources and increasingly is at the center of disputes between the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark in recent years, as rising temperatures lead to a reduction in sea ice, opening up access to lucrative offshore oil and gas deposits.

ArcticResourceBasinArctic Resource Basin

Ed Adamczyk reports for UPI, Oct. 21, 2014, that Russia has begun a large-scale militarization of the Arctic Ocean region, after recent discoveries of oil and natural gas reserves under the ocean floor, as well as the possibility that a potential Northern Sea Route — an alternative to the Suez Canal — could soon be established as global climate change causes melting of Arctic ice.

The Russian news agency RIA reports that Russia is planning to build a military command structure in…

View original 762 more words

The many accomplishments of Hillary Clinton

Dick Morris was a friend and long-time adviser to Bill Clinton, beginning when Bill was Governor of Arkansas. Morris became a political adviser to the White House after Clinton was elected president in 1992, and the campaign manager of Bill’s successful 1996 bid for re-election.

In other words, Dick Morris knows the Clintons very very well.

In an email, Morris has written an analysis of a Bill Clinton TV ad for Hillary who is, though unannounced, widely believed to be a candidate for the presidency in 2016. (God help us!)

Hillary's accomplishments

Morris writes:

I hope everyone who receives this e-mail understands why it is being sent, because we have already seen what damage a President can do by suppressing the facts and twisting the truth; we don’t need another self-centered politician to follow on in those footsteps.

If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background … beware, as I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I offer a few corrections:

Bill says: “In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”

The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: “Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.”

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: “Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.”

The facts are: 

  • She flunked the DC bar exam, yes, flunked; it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar.
  • She had no job offers in Arkansas, none, and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there.
  • She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.

Bill says: “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.”

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.”

The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: “Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994, but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.”

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton & Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: “Hillary was the face of America all over the world.”

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely tourism and symbolic, and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

Bill says: “Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.”

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation.

Share this with everyone you know. Ask them to prove Dick Morris wrong. Think about it – he’s said all of this openly, thus if he were not factual or true, he’d be liable for defamation of character.

Hillary April 2014

And here’s my addendum to Dick Morris’ list of Hillary Clinton’s non-accomplishments.

This is Hillary’s sole “accomplishment” as Secretary of State under the POS:

On Sept. 11, 2012, despite their desperate pleas for help, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left four Americans — Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department Information Officer Sean Smith, ex Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty — to die in Benghazi, Libya.

As Secretary of State and therefore head of the State Department, Hillary was the boss of Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Smith. But she left them to die. The woman has a heart of stone.

She then compounded her evil deed by lying about the jihadists’ siege on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — that it was a reaction to a little video that’s critical of Muhammad. Until Hillary and the Obama administration told and retold this lie, the world had never even heard of or known about this obscure video.

Then she further compounded her evil deeds by saying, when she was grilled about her lie about the video in a Congressional hearing on Benghazi, “What difference does it make now?”

To those who tout Hillary Clinton as America’s next President (God help us), I challenge you to name one, JUST ONE, accomplishment of her tenure as secretary of state. 

I dare you.

The latest from the Daily Mail:

Hillary’s granddaughter, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, isn’t even a month old, but grandma is already exploiting the baby as a campaign tool. In the four weeks since Charlotte was born, Hillary’s already made reference to her granddaughter in several speeches, including at a rally yesterday for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Now I know whose idea it was to have Chelsea blatantly, shamelessly mimic Duchess Kate like this:

Chelsea Clinton mimics Kate Middelton

It’s Hillary’s way to implant in the minds of lo-info sheeple that the Clintons are American royalty.

svomit_100-121Hand me a barf bag!

See also:

~Eowyn

Now There Can Be No Doubt: Obamacare Has Increased Non-Group Premiums In Nearly All States

obamacare

Forbes: Remember this categorical assurance from President Obama?

“We’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year. .  .  . We’ll do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States”

OK, it’s probably a little unfair to take some June 2008 campaign “puffery” literally–even though it was reiterated by candidate Obama’s economic policy advisor, Jason Furman in a sit-down with a New York Times reporter: “‘We think we could get to $2,500 in savings by the end of the first term, or be very close to it.” Moreover, President Obama subsequently doubled-down on his promise in July 2012, assuring small business owners “your premiums will go down.”  Fortunately, the Washington Post fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, honestly awarded the 2012 claim Three Pinocchios (“Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions”).

Unfortunately, this has never settled the debate. When the Society of Actuaries estimated spring 2013 that the ACA would result in increasing claims costs by an average of 32 percent nationally by 2017, such estimates could be dismissed as “projections” since at the time of this study, actual premiums in the Exchanges had not yet been announced.  A subsequent plethora of studies showed there had been double-digit increases in premiums (when comparing actual Exchange premiums to previously-prevailing premiums in the non-group market). However, virtually all of these studies focused only on Exchange premiums rather than premiums in the entire non-group market (only half of which consists of Exchange coverage). As a consequence, Obamacare proponents tended to dismiss these studies either as partisan attacks or methodologically limited, making what amounts to apples-to-oranges comparisons.

However, a new study from the well-respected and non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research (and published by Brookings Institution), overcomes the limitations of these prior studies by examining what happened to premiums in the entire non-group market. The bottom line? In 2014, premiums in the non-group market grew by 24.4% compared to what they would have been without Obamacare.  Of equal importance, this careful state-by-state assessment showed that premiums rose in all but 6 states (including Washington DC).  It’s worth unpacking this study a bit to understand the ramification of these findings.

Non-Group Premiums Rose in 45 States Due to Obamacare

The non-group market can only be accurately assessed on a state-by-state basis. Obamacare. The law creates a single risk pool in each state for non-group coverage. That is, health insurers can sell policies inside or outside the Exchanges but they all are part of the same risk pool.  Unlike virtually all other studies that have been conducted to date, this new study examined premium data from both Exchange and non-Exchange plans, i.e., providing a picture of the complete non-group market rather than one segment.  This is crucially important since in nearly one third of states (16), Exchange coverage constitutes 40% or less of the entire non-group market (Table 1).

PremiumIncreasesKowalski

Of equal importance, unlike prior studies which simply compared pre-Obamacare premiums in 2013 to actual premiums offered on Exchanges in 2014, this new study isolates the causal impact of Obamacare statistically by using trend data in each state to figure out what non-group premiums in 2014 would have been in the absence of Obamacare. Thus, critics could dismiss many other so-called “pre-/post” studies by effectively saying “Well, premiums in the non-group have always gone up by a large amount, so what’s happening under Obamacare is no different.”  Such criticisms cannot be levied at this study. All of the percentage changes shown in the chart below represent the net change attributable to Obamacare after accounting for all the other factors that would have made premiums go up.[1]

Clearly, the adverse impact of Obamacare on non-group premiums varies sizably across states. The law is estimated to result in lower premiums in only 6 states. However, it should be noted that while the author presented premium estimates for California and New Jersey, the data for these two states is incomplete due to anomalous data reporting requirements. Thus, the large estimated premium decline of 37.5% in New Jersey likely would be different were full data available, but there is no way of telling by how much.

What is disturbing is to see premium increases in excess of 35% in 9 states, including some of the nation’s largest states (Florida and Texas). Remember, these are increases above and beyond normal premium trends.  No one can credibly claim that these massive premium increases would have happened anyway since the study was specifically designed to isolate the law’s impacts from all the other factors that have driven up premiums in recent years.

Taxpayers Will Pay About 24% More for Exchange Subsidies Due to Obamacare-induced Premium Increases

Of course, Obamacare enthusiasts will argue that I’m ignoring all the subsidies provided to Exchange members. It’s certainly true that for those lucky enough to qualify for such subsidies, the typical size of a subsidy in any given state would have been sufficient to protect such individuals from the premium increases shown in the chart above.  But that ignores the fact that out of an estimated 13.2 million people covered in the non-group market in second quarter 2014 (Kowalski’s estimate), only about 7 million qualified for subsidies.[2]  Thus, there were 6.2 million in the non-group market who had to absorb these premium increases without the benefit of any help from Uncle Sam.

Moreover, the fact that federal taxpayers were handed the privilege of having to offset such premium increases using their hard-earned tax dollars should in no way obscure the reality that Obamacare caused premiums to rise in the first place. Higher premiums are not what was promised when the law was enacted. Of equal importance, such subsidies represent a transfer that does not improve the welfare of the nation as a whole. A dollar given to an Exchange member to offset these higher premiums is simply a dollar taken out of the pocket of another American taxpayer. Indeed, had premiums not risen in the first place, the amount of subsidies required on the Exchanges could have been roughly 24% lower.  Increasing the tab that taxpayers had to pay for such subsidies by roughly one fourth certainly in no way increased the nation’s welfare.

In short, it is harder and harder for champions of Obamacare to ignore the plain truth that this misguided law has increased premiums in the non-group market, a burden borne by millions who have to buy coverage in that market without the benefit of taxpayer subsidies and by the taxpayers who must bankroll subsidies for those who qualify.  As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, this law creates many more losers than winners. The many millions in the non-group market who are having to pay higher premiums due to Obamacare are just one slice of a much larger pool of losers. But until this increasingly incontestable reality are acknowledged by the law’s supporters there is no prospect of changing a law that continues (quite sensibly) to be opposed by the majority of Americans.

obama

DCG

2014 election fraud has already begun in Chicago

India voter ID

And we call India a third world country?

Shame on America’s Demonrats!

But then how else can the Demonrats carry out vote fraud?

Speaking of vote fraud, the Great 2014 Vote Fraud has already begun.

In Illinois, early voting began on Monday, Oct. 19, 2014. So Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote at Chicago’s Schaumburg Public Library using a touch-screen voting machine. Every time he tried to vote for a Republican, including for himself, the machine registered his vote as for a Democrat. (Read more here.)

In the great DisUnited Corrupt States of Amerika, you’ll vote Democrat, even if you’re not.

And what will the Republican Party do about this?

Nothing! (See “Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud“)

H/t Rebel Mouse

~Eowyn

Autopsy of Mike Brown shows he did not have his hands up when shot

Turns out Ferguson cop Darren Wilson is right:

  • Michael Brown did NOT have his hands up when Wilson shot him, as some purported eyewitnesses had claimed.
  • Brown did struggle with Wilson in the cop’s car.
  • Brown was lunging at Wilson.

Color me surprised. Not!

Michael Brown (l); Darren Wilson (r)

Michael Brown (l); Darren Wilson (r)

Christine Byers reports for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 22, 2014:

The official autopsy on Michael Brown shows that he was shot in the hand at close range, according to an analysis of the findings by two experts not involved directly in the case.

The accompanying toxicology report shows he had been using marijuana.

Those documents, prepared by the St. Louis County medical examiner and obtained by the Post-Dispatch, provide the most detailed description to date of the wounds Brown sustained in a confrontation Aug. 9 with Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson.

A source with knowledge of Wilson’s statements said the officer had told investigators that Brown had struggled for Wilson’s pistol inside a police SUV and that Wilson had fired the gun twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Later, Wilson fired additional shots that killed Brown and ignited a national controversy.

The St. Louis medical examiner, Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, reviewed the autopsy report for the newspaper. He said Tuesday that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car.

Graham said the examination indicated a shot traveled from the tip of Brown’s right thumb toward his wrist. The official report notes an absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound that indicate a shot fired at relatively short range.

But Graham said, “Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke.”

The report on a supplemental microscopic exam of tissue from the thumb wound showed foreign matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.

Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown’s blood had been found on Wilson’s gun.

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.

The county medical examiner, Dr. Mary Case, could not be reached. The assistant who performed the autopsy, Dr. Gershom Norfleet, relayed word that he would not comment. [Both must be terrified of being accused of racism. ~Eowyn]

That post mortem, conducted the morning after Brown’s death, comports in most ways with the findings of a private autopsy arranged by Brown’s family and made public Aug. 18.

In that one, Dr. Michael M. Baden, a nationally known forensic pathologist, said none of Brown’s wounds appeared to have been from shots fired at close range.

Baden noted then that there was no gunshot residue on the body, so it appeared to him that the muzzle of the weapon was at least one or two feet away. He said, “It could have been 30 feet away.”

A third autopsy was ordered by federal officials as part of their separate investigation of the shooting. Results of that one have not been revealed.

The county and private autopsies agree on the number and location of the wounds.

The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the driver’s side of Wilson’s vehicle.

“Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car,” Graham said. “That fits with everything else that came out. There’s blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.

The toxicology test, performed by a St. Louis University laboratory, revealed tetrahydrocannabinol, THC for short, in Brown’s blood and urine.

Alfred Staubus, a consultant in forensic toxicology at the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, said that THC could impair judgment or slow reaction times but that there was no reliable measurement to make those conclusions.

States that have legalized marijuana have struggled with the issue of how to measure impairment.

“The detection of THC in the postmortem blood of Michael Brown really indicates his recent use of marijuana (within a few hours) and that he may or may not have been impaired at the time of his death,” Staubus wrote in an email.

***********

So, with these results from the official autopsy, will blacks in Missouri go on a rampage, as some have threatened?

~Eowyn