When we see people persecuted by others, what is the right response? If we support our shared Universal Human Rights, we must be consistent in our respect for this for all people, including those who are persecuted and the identity groups that persecutors belong to.
The most important equation in human rights is that Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right.
The basic concept applies to any of those where we have such conflict between rights, safety, tolerance, and justice.
We cannot improve the rights of African-Americans by calling for violence against whites. We cannot help women in the world get their just role as equal partners in society by spreading hate against men. We cannot respect gay rights by seeking the destruction of religious houses of worship which reject homosexuality. These are broad examples, but of course, they apply to any group dynamics where such conflicts exist.
This may seem to be a convenient philosophy of pacifism, for those whose identity group is not in dire jeopardy. It is easy to call for such moral balance, when it is not your family’s life, your friends’ lives being threatened. When you are not on the front line of a war against your people, many will rightly question your morality and your right to respect a human right process based on peace. After all, some may say, “what did even your Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. achieve?” “Was he not killed too?” they might ask? “Did his peaceful approach solve the human rights problem in America?” These are fair and reasonable questions in simply a logical argument.
It is hard to be exposed to such grave injustices and see violence against your neighbors and even your loved ones and not call for a forceful response. Some would even view it as essential for self-preservation. It is understandable that frustrated individuals would want to form their own groups and take action to change the behavior of persecutors. But to those who take the path of force and violence, they need to understand the cost of that path.
There will always be those who will rationalize violence and hate as a method to “fight for human rights.” They will make what they consider to be logical arguments, and they may even present factual evidence that without such violent activity others will suffer even worse. They will state that “militant” behavior has long been the basis for freedom in the world, and is necessary for human rights. Around the world, they will point out to the American justice system (as flawed as it is) does not exist in many parts of the world, and using the efforts of human rights activists in America is unfair comparison to the struggles of people in other parts of the world. They will state if they don’t use force, they have no chance for justice.
Frustrated people understandably give earnest attention to such messages. They do not want to wait another year, another decade for halting human rights campaigns for freedom, while their families suffer. There is only so much patience, so much tolerance, that one can have, as it will be argued. Perhaps something more is needed, some will say. Heads will nod at the logic of such arguments.
But human rights and human rights campaigns are not based simply on logic. If that were the case, any tyrant with skilled debaters can readily argue for and against human rights using logical arguments as it suited their needs.
Human rights are primarily based on our EMPATHY for one another as fellow human beings, and the connection that our hearts have to one another. When we hear the words of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “injustice everywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” it is not just our minds that were in unison on this – it is our hearts, our conscience, and our empathy for one another as brothers and sisters in humanity. This empathy for our fellow human beings goes to the very essence of every human rights campaign. Hearts Matter. We must reach hearts, and even change hearts to truly succeed.
We need to learn to cherish and honor our hearts as much as we cherish our minds, for it is in our hearts that the greatest hope for humanity truly lies.
“Injustice everywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” speaks to us beyond any argument of logic, beyond debater, because we simply know that this is RIGHT. Our empathy provides a moral compass to guide us to this true path for human rights.
We need to LISTEN to that MORAL COMPASS. There may be a cacophony of many words, many voices, many sounds of destruction, many sounds of injustice that we hear in the world. But as the seas of life turn stormy, we must grasp and hold tight to that MORAL COMPASS to guide us through the tragedies and difficulties our human family must face.
Our MORAL COMPASS will keep us on the right path of human rights for all. We can not defeat persecution by becoming persecutors. We can not defy hatred by promoting hatred of others. We can not stop unjust violence by seeking a path of violence ourselves.
We support human rights against persecuted because it is UNJUST – not simply to our laws, not simply to some rules, but most of all because it unjust to our HEARTS AND SOULS.
We gain public support to challenge such persecution because much of the world truly does have an inherent rejection for injustice towards our fellow human beings – no matter what their race, religion, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, or other identity.
We believe this because our shared universal human rights are for one human family, who are all our brothers and sisters in humanity — even when we reject and denounce the actions of extremists among them. If we have human rights campaigns based on our hearts, we cannot and we MUST NOT spread hate and violence against our fellow human beings, even those who persecute us.
We believe this because it is not simply in our laws or in minds, but most of all in our HEARTS – that we know together – we must be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.
For years, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) has stood in compassionate support for the human rights of those in Balochistan, whose human rights and dignity have been abused by the persecution from Pakistan extremists both outside and inside the establishment. However, R.E.A.L. wants to be perfectly clear that our support for Baloch people is for PEACEFUL, NON-VIOLENT support for human rights. R.E.A.L. rejects, without qualification, all militant organization efforts as well as acts of violence. Newsmediareportson the August 30, 2015attack on the Jewani airport (aka Jiwani airport) in Balochistan’s Gwadar District have been very disturbing and inconsistent. However, some Pakistan media are attributing this act to a militant group. R.E.A.L.’s position is and will always be in support of PEACEFUL, NON-VIOLENT support for human rights and rejection of militant and violent acts.
It was just less than four months ago that R.E.A.L. was reporting on the violent terrorist attack and murder of Balochistan human rights activist and social NGO worker Ms. Sabeen Manhmud. Our call for PEACEFUL, NON-VIOLENT progress in human rights is the same now as it was then, as it will always be.
Our MORAL COMPASS will keep us on the right path of human rights for all. We can not defeat persecution by becoming persecutors. We can not defy hatred by promoting hatred of others. We can not stop unjust violence by seeking a path of violence ourselves. If we have human rights campaigns based on our hearts, we cannot and we MUST NOT spread hate and violence against our fellow human beings, even those who persecute us.
R.E.A.L. has rejected, continues to reject, and will always reject the actions of ALL terrorist organizations, including the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). We do not, will not, and can not accept their actions of violence, terrorism, and killings as any part of a cause to promote or advance human rights, justice, or liberty.
As most of you know, I spent my early years supporting Law Enforcement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and much of my adult life I have supported and continue to support law enforcement as a top priority.
But our Police Unions in America are OUT OF CONTROL.
Their repeated defending of police officers murdering unarmed citizens in this nation is a disgrace to this nation, a disgrace to law enforcement, and a disgrace to the justice system.
It is time for America to reassess the extreme power and influence our police unions have in our cities and towns. People do not want to criticize police unions. But once again today, we see another police union actively defending a police officer charged with murder.
— Baltimore Police Union: Defends Murder of Freddie Gray (6 police charged with crimes ranging from “depraved heart murder” to assault)
— Fairfax County Police Union: Defends Murder of John Geer — says “we all could be Adam Torres” (charged with 2nd Degree murder)
— University of Cincinnati FOP Police Union: Defends Murder of Samuel DuBose (Ray Tensing charged with murder and voluntary manslaughter)
— NYC Police Union: Defends Strangulation of Eric Garner (I can’t breathe)
— Cleveland Police Union: Defends Shooting Tamir Rice (Child)
— Ferguson Police Union: Defends Killing of Michael Brown
— McKinney FOP Police Union: Defending Beating Little African-American Children at Pool Party
— San Francisco Police Union: Defends Beating Homeless African-American Man in the street with one leg
— Etc.
If the leaders of this nation’s police unions no longer understand the difference between right and wrong, the law and crimes, then it is time for serious change for police unions in this nation.
America is BETTER than this. The American people deserve better than this. Our justice system and our Constitution deserves more support than this. The LAW is THE LAW – for EVERYONE.
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) terrorist plotter Glendon Scott Crawford of Galway, New York was convicted on August 21, 2015, for terrorist activity in a Ku Klux Klan plot to kill Muslim-Americans in the Albany, New York area. The KKK terrorist also plotted to attack the New York governor’s mansion. The anti-Muslim terrorist Glendon Scott Crawford sought to modify an industrial-grade radiation device intended to be used to kill Muslims in the Albany area. He was convicted of attempting to acquire and use a radiological dispersal device (count 1), conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (count 2), and distributing information relating to weapons of mass destruction (count 3). The KKK terrorist Glendon Scott Crawford plotted to use “the device against Muslims, and he scouted mosques in Albany and Schenectady and an Islamic community center and school in Schenectady as possible targets. Crawford also suggested the Governor’s Mansion as a potential target.”
ALBANY, NY—A jury convicted Glendon Scott Crawford, 51, of Galway, New York, today after a 5-day trial on all charges relating to his efforts to acquire a weapon of mass destruction, announced United States Attorney Richard S. Hartunian of the Northern District of New York, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, and Special Agent in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Albany Division.
Crawford was convicted of attempting to acquire and use a radiological dispersal device (count 1), conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (count 2), and distributing information relating to weapons of mass destruction (count 3). He faces at least 25 years of imprisonment on count 1, up to life on counts 1 and 2, and up to 20 years of imprisonment on count 3. He also faces a $2 million fine on count 1 and a fine of $250,000 on both counts 2 and 3.
Crawford is scheduled to be sentenced on December 15 at 9 a.m. by the Honorable Gary L. Sharpe, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of New York.
Crawford is the first person to be found guilty of attempting to acquire a radiological dispersal device, a statute Congress passed in 2004.
“Glendon Scott Crawford is a terrorist who would have used a weapon of mass destruction to kill innocent members of our Muslim community were it not for the good judgment of citizens who quickly alerted law enforcement to his diabolical plan and the outstanding work of the Albany FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force,” said United States Attorney Richard S. Hartunian. “This case illustrates how vigilance, the shared values of Americans of all faiths, and vigorous investigation can defeat dehumanizing bigotry and hatred.”
“Glendon Scott Crawford, a self-professed member of the Ku Klux Klan, was convicted of offenses relating to his deadly plan to use a radiological dispersal device to target unsuspecting Muslim Americans with lethal doses of radiation,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin. “The National Security Division’s highest priority is counterterrorism, and we will continue to pursue justice against those who seek to perpetrate attacks on American soil.”
“Today’s verdict is a testament to the tremendous efforts of our Joint Terrorism Task Force in uncovering Crawford’s plot and the dedication of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in bringing justice to an individual who sought to inflict terror and harm on our innocent citizens,” said Special Agent in Charge Andrew W. Vale. “This verdict is a victory for us all, but we must continue to remain observant; it is only with the assistance of our community members and law enforcement partners that we can be successful in thwarting these violent plots.”
In April 2012, the FBI received information that Crawford, who was employed as an industrial mechanic with General Electric in Schenectady, New York, had approached local Jewish organizations seeking people who might help him acquire a radiation-emitting device to be used against people whom he perceived to be enemies of Israel. During a 14-month investigation, the Albany FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force learned that Crawford was attempting to solicit funds to purchase, and then weaponize, a commercially-available industrial-grade X-ray device so that it could be used to injure or kill others by exposing them to lethal doses of radiation.
During the investigation, Crawford, with help from accomplice Eric J. Feight, took steps to design, acquire the parts for, build and test a remote initiation device that could have activated the radiation machine, and acquired (from an undercover FBI Agent) the X-ray device that he planned to modify into a weapon of mass destruction. The X-ray device that he planned to use had been modified so that Crawford could not have used it to hurt anyone.
Feight pleaded guilty on January 22, 2014 to providing material support to terrorists. He is scheduled to be sentenced on September 17, 2015 by Chief Judge Sharpe, and faces up to 15 years of imprisonment.
Crawford, a self-professed member of the Ku Klux Klan, wanted to use the device against Muslims, and he scouted mosques in Albany and Schenectady and an Islamic community center and school in Schenectady as possible targets. Crawford also suggested the Governor’s Mansion as a potential target.
With undercover agents, Crawford discussed placing the radiological device within a van or truck, parking the vehicle near the entrance to the target location, and then remotely activating the device so that it would direct lethal doses of radiation at people coming in and out of the target location.
A central feature of Crawford’s completed X-ray device was that its targets would be exposed to dangerous and lethal doses of X-ray radiation without being aware of the exposure, the harmful effects of which would likely not be immediately apparent.
This case was investigated by the Albany FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes FBI Special Agents as well as members of the New York State Police, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Albany Police Department, Troy Police Department, and New York City Police Department.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Stephen Green and Richard Belliss of the Northern District of New York, who represented the United States during the trial, and Counterterrorism Section Trial Attorney Joseph Kaster with support from the National Security Division and Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington.
In a human rights campaign in the United States of America, the question is being raised should we bother to try to “change hearts” on issues such as racial supremacist hatred and persecution? This question goes to the very root of our stand on our shared universal human rights for persecuted people in nations around the world.
The volunteer human rights group Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) holds the position that not only can we “change hearts” regarding persecuted people, but also that we MUST “change hearts” and reach the conscience of the majority public source of persecution – whether it is white Americans or it is any other majority group around the world. R.E.A.L. believes that practical steps for concrete change by legislation and resources cement these “changed hearts.”
But if we think we can simply “legislate” an end to hate and discrimination – history shows us that we are missing the most important part of the struggle, which is the struggle for the hearts and conscience of our fellow human beings. If we no longer believe that we can “change the hearts” of those who persecute against our fellow human beings in America or anywhere in the world, we need to ask ourselves – are those the cowardly half-measures that we would want to hear, if our identity group was being persecuted? Is this all that we would want done for us, if we were persecuted?
We need to remember that first and foremost – our shared universal human rights begins with our hearts.
Our Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) begins with reaching out to the world “conscience” of our fellow human beings, which has been outraged by the “disregard and contempt for human rights” resulting “in barbarous acts.”
In this UDHR and the world’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the world nations speak of a “human family,” they promote “universal respect,” and address the essential nature of respecting the “inherent dignity” of one another as human beings.
The founding declaration of the United States of America itself begins with a call for a “respect to the opinions of mankind,” and rights for equality, life, and liberty that it promotes, including the “pursuit of happiness.” This is more than unfeeling call for governmental change. This is based on compassion. This is based on respect for each other as human beings.
Human beings use our reason and our knowledge to guide our daily, routine actions, as do societies within our human family. But coherency in our society calls for more than simply cold reason and pragmatism, it also calls for a conscience, for respect, for dignity, and even for the happiness of our fellow human beings, and in the United States, for all of our fellow Americans.
Our shared universal rights depend on the compassion of our conscience to understand that our fellow human beings are unique, special, and have value – not for what they can do – but simply for who they are as our brothers and sisters in humanity.
Too frequently, the calls to seek widespread change in the persecution of minority groups (race, religion, ethnic group, gender, other identity groups) are readily dismissed by leading politicians. Too many politicians believe human rights groups, such as the Black Lives Matter group, should only protest to target the achievement of specific changing of laws or resources, rather than seeking to “change hearts” for those who have hatred against such persecuted groups.
The pragmatist politicians can tell us “I don’t believe you change hearts.” These politicians we need to set our expectations lower – to get the persecuted group more political power, more economic capability, more educational opportunities, a greater public voice. Then the political argument goes, if we achieve all of these things together – then we don’t need to “change hearts,” because we will have changed laws, resources, and systems that make “a real difference.”
The intent is no doubt to offer “pragmatic advice” to persecuted minorities to come away with some incremental accomplishment in decades of struggle against those majority identity groups persecuting them. But in America, it is nothing short of astounding that political leaders would ask African-Americans to set their expectations lower, after literally centuries of African-American patience in seeking equal treatment and justice in the United States.
When we try to simply legislate all of our human rights issues away, what is the result?
What happens when we don’t make our human rights goals to “change hearts” on an equal footing with seeking to “change laws”? Throughout the world, we see halting, inconsistent change. We see persecuted minorities constantly hitting “walls” or “ceilings” where they are not permitted, not accepted, and not tolerated – because there are areas where our legislation and our laws had not been clever enough to challenge systemic persecution yet.
Our persecuted minorities are then told, well, shouldn’t you be “glad with the progress you have,” after all things are “not as bad as they used to be.” From the majorities, our legislators and public make such comments without any embarrassment or shame. We create new laws to combat human rights abuses, but deceive ourselves that we don’t have to do the hard work of still challenging the consciences and the hearts of our fellow human beings.
We really do not build human rights simply through infrastructure and grants. We really do not build human rights simply through legislation and rules. Majorities may deceive themselves that such “practical” changes are all that we need, but the truth is that these only succeed where we have already gotten the hearts of our fellow human beings to change.
This issue of conscience and human rights may have been brought up in America, but this is a global issue, and it affects global minorities persecuted around the world, such as: Pakistan Christians, Rohingya Muslims, ethnic minorities in Darfur, Falun Dafa in China, and many, many other groups. This global issue affects all persecuted people of different races, religions, ethnic groups, and identity groups. Do we believe that these human rights abuses will be solved by a few laws, and not concern ourselves with changing hearts?
This global issue of conscience especially affects the persecuted WOMEN of the world. Although women are half of the world’s population, they continue to have less rights than men, and women continue to face such walls and ceilings in their lives around the world. Do we really think we can simply legislate these abuses against women away? Do we believe that ending the persecution of women does not require also changing hearts?
We don’t have to look around the world to see if an approach to legislating human rights is sufficient. The history of African-Americans in the United States of America provides a clear precedent and an example of the challenges we face when we think we can change laws, but not hearts. Changing laws and changing resources are clearly NOT ENOUGH – we can and we MUST change the hearts and awaken the conscience of the majority. The argument for persecuted minorities to “be patient” and seek “incremental progress” can really be taken to the point of absurdity. Surely Americans should know this.
An African-American slave shows his scars from being whipped, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1863. (Source: Blakeslee Collection photograph)
150 years ago, the United States of America legislated the END of the abomination of slavery of African-Americans. This massive legal change was announced in the Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863) by President Abraham Lincoln. President Lincoln – the executive of the United States of America – declared in a proclamation that “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, andforever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.” This was then legally defined in the U.S. Constitution in Amendment XIII (December 6, 1865), which stated “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Surely such commanding and unambiguous legislation, after the death of 400,000 U.S patriotic Union soldiers who lost their lives fighting Confederates who sought to preserve “the institution of slavery,” should have been sufficient for any reasonable and rational mind, yes?
American Patriot Union Soldiers Gave Their Lives to Fight White Supremacy Slavery (Shiloh Cemetery)
But sadly, even that was not enough legislation against white supremacy. The American people had to issue another Constitutional Amendment XIV to stop ensure citizenship of African-Americans born in the nation: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Then the American people had to issue yet another Constitutional Amendment XV to guarantee African-Americans the right to vote (February 3, 1870). African-American women had to wait to have the right to vote guaranteed for them, along with all other American women, another 50 years after that, until August 26, 1920, when the government certified the ratification of Constitutional Amendment XIX, which granted women the right to vote. In between these, the first Civil Rights Act of 1871 was created to help stop white supremacy terrorist persecution against African-Americans.
Still, as students of American history know, even 95 years ago, a massive Civil War, and three Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were not enough. We still had not sought to primarily “change hearts.” In Washington DC, during the administration of President Woodrow Wilson (March 4, 1913 – March 4, 1921), racial segregation was being practiced throughout federal government office buildings, and in too many parts of the nation, racial segregation was common.
Those who decided to find ways around the laws for equality still did so. In many states, they enacted “Jim Crow” laws to prevent African-Americans from voting and other parts of life in American until 1965. They were challenged by court cases, and finally by theCivil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But yet, this still was not enough, because even with all laws in place, America needed yet another Civil Rights Act of 1968 , which included theFair Housing Act, as well as laws to legislate against actions by Ku Klux Klan and white supremacy terrorists who would seek to prevent violence against persecuted minorities in federal protected activities, under 18 U.S. Code § 245 – Federally protected activities.
(NOTE: when R.E.A.L. recently contacted the Ferguson police chief on the legal protections on the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 18 U.S. Code § 245 Federally Protected Activities, the chief was not educated on this – 47 years later – and had no idea these laws existed.)
After the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr. and other political leaders of that time, John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, that generation of Americans certainly would like to believe that by the time of the 1968 Civil Rights Act — four Constitutional Amendments and five major Civil Rights Acts later — that we had legislated an end to white supremacy public discrimination against African-Americans. If just “changing the laws” were all we needed to do, then surely we had that done by 1968, 47 years ago. But history has shown us, without a doubt, that just changing the laws, and not changing hearts, has never been enough.
Many Americans, myself included, have searing and visceral memories of the shock and shame to see segrationists seek to have separate housing and restaurants to keep “whites” and “blacks” apart. My own hand tightens into a fist of frustration as I remember the shameful signs that read “White Clientele Only,” which I saw with my own eyes, in America. As small children, our young voices of conscience cried out in those days, as they must still today, when we are responsible adults who can make a difference. The dream of many Americans — that the routine respect and dignity of African-Americans as fellow citizens could be achieved in our lifetimes — has been clearly shattered when we see the atrocious behavior over the past year.
White Supremacy Business Sign Common in Parts of America in 1960s
Repeatedly in the past year, Americans have seen MILITARY VEHICLES IN OUR STREETS used against our OWN CITIZENS calling for the rights of African-Americans, as the African-American public rightly has had enough of “patience.” The outrageous behavior by those extremists in law enforcement has been a disgrace to our nation as we have seen case after case of such intolerable behavior.
With the advent of new technologies for citizens to readily record and share such injustices, the American public has now had its eyes opened to a seamy persecution of African-Americans throughout our nation by those extremists who claim they have “the right” to do so by their law enforcement authority, which our representative democracies have given them. Once again, we have seen that our legislation has not changed hearts, even by those who claim to serve justice.
Shooting of African-American Walter Scott by White Police Officer Michael Slager – Charged with Murder (Source YouTube)
And the response by our government leadership to these disgraceful acts? “We need another law.” Really? You mean the four other Constitutional Amendments, the five Civil Rights Acts, and all of the endless individual laws that have flowed out of these acts, really are not enough? Or maybe we could start actually enforcing some of the laws we currently have? Maybe we could provide some national leadership and national government outrage at those in authority who abuse the laws we have now.
Instead, the next response by our federal government has been yet even more of the same regulatory incrementalism. After Ferguson, Missouri was burning last summer after persecution of African-Americans, and several other cases of unarmed African-Americans were killed by police, the “answer” was that our police would start to wear body cameras, and this would stop police brutality, and would stop extremists in law enforcement from killing African-Americans in the street. But even while this was only slightly implemented, we have also seen this summer, that regulatory solution still wouldn’t make a difference. The problem is you can have all the laws and all the technology you want. But if your police don’t understand the difference between right and wrong, and if your leaders have no intention of seeking to change the hearts of those who seek hatred against those in another identity group – then all the stopgap measures won’t work.
ENOUGH
While wearing a camera, a police officer at the University of Cincinnati recently shot an unarmed African-American man Sam Dubose at a traffic stop and killed him in his automobile. We know – the nation (and the world) saw this all recorded on video. The police officer was not stopped or even slowed by his body camera to make judgments that would respect the life and human dignity of Sam Dubose – the only difference was that he was caught. But many others are “caught,” and nothing happens.
Sam Dubose Shot on July 19, 2015 by University of Cincinnati Police Officer Ray Tensing, who will Charged with Murder
We see videos of such atrocities against African-Americans all the time. Too frequently, we have seen white police extremists beating, degrading, and killing African-American men, women, and children: Sam Dubose, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, Eric Harris, Natasha McKenna. The white supremacist terrorist attack in Charleston, South Carolina resulted in the murder of nine African-Americans: Rev. Clement Pinkney, Cynthia Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lance, Rev. Depayne Middleton-Doctor, Twanza Sanders, Rev. Daniel Simmons, Sr., Rev. Sharonda Singleton, Myra Thompson.
Nine African-Americans Murdered in Terrorist Attack on Charleston Church by Nazi/Confederate Dylann Roof
Confederate Stormfront Members Support for White Supremacist Terrorists
Once again, our government leaders and politicians think “regulation” will solve this problem. But how many new regulations will it take? How many more laws will it take? What type of “resources” and “infrastructure” do we need to stop the human rights ethnic cleansing of African-Americans in this nation? What is going to TAKE for patriotic Americans to say ENOUGH?
Our politicians tell people to “be patient” and don’t try to “change hearts,” but “change laws.” But we already have many, many laws. We don’t have a shortage of laws at all. We have a shortage of conscience and hearts that respect African-Americans as human beings. That is the honest, painful truth, not a pleasant one for the politician, but one that patriotic Americans must face and address.
Sam Dubose’s mother Audrey Dubose
But for 239 years, African-Americans have been suffering from persecution in one form after another in the United States. We believed that “legislation” would work start solving this problem 150 years ago. Then we believed “legislation” would work to solve this problem 95 years ago, then 45 years ago, etc., etc.
Honestly, how many CENTURIES do our American political leaders REALLY expect African-Americans to be “patient”? How much irreversible damage to a nation, it’s trust and respect for one another, and its commitment to a shared culture and laws, is done by a policy which believes we really only make “change” by changing LAWS? Certainly, we must challenge the HEARTS and CONSCIENCE of majority of white Americans to defy the ideology of white supremacy, which is at the root of all of these human rights atrocities and systemic persecution!
If the past year of well-publicized atrocities by extremists in law enforcement and white supremacy terrorists against African-Americans hasn’t been horrifying for white American political leaders, what exactly will it take to make them realize that a policy of “more of the same” – is simply enough? We cannot effectively change our laws and change our societies, until we CHANGE OUR HEARTS.
History shows that real change and real support for our shared universal human rights begins with our commitment to our conscience to the hearts of our fellow men and women – of all identity groups. Changing hearts matters, when we seek to end persecution and oppression. No new law, rule, or institution can solidly stand through time, if we don’t first do the hard work of reaching the conscience, the integrity, and the hearts of those who must follow and respect such societal changes.
We would want the “golden rule” to be used for us. We should do unto others as we would have others do unto us. If our society’s conscience and hearts don’t understand this, we need to change enough consciences and hearts to ensure that human rights changes have a lasting effect.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Speaking to Audience (Source: Charlotte News-Observer Video Screenshot)
We know that changing hearts, for persecuted people anywhere and everywhere in the world, is the most important step to be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.
On August 17, 2015, a terrorist improvised explosive device (IED) bomb was used to attack an area in Bangkok, Thailand near the Erawan Shrine, a Hindu shrine. The 3 kilogram bomb caused an explosion near the Rajprasong intersection. Bangkok Post has reported the “scale of the explosion set motorbikes and taxis ablaze inside the intersection and bowed the iron fence of the Hindu shrine outward. Casualties were immediate, with body parts scattered across the area, leaving broken glass and the smouldering wreckage of burned-out motorcycles behind. ”
The latest reports on the terrorist attack state that 20 were killed and 125 wounded, including foreign tourists, and a 5 year old Chinese boy.
Terrorist Attack in Bangkok – August 17, 2015 – near Hindu Shrine – CCTV at the moment bomb went off
Bangkok Post reported: “Police said the IED that exploded inside the shrine area was composed of three kilogrammes of TNT stuffed in a pipe and wrapped with white cloth. Its destructive radius was estimated at 100 metres. Its destructive radius was estimated at 100 metres. Authorities quickly recovered an electronic circuit suspected to be part of the device about 30 metres from the blast scene.” National police chief Somyot Pumpunmuang told the Bangkok Post that he “condemned the bombing and said it was apparently intended to kill people and damage property because it was set to detonate when the shrine was crowded.”
Update: On August 18, 2015, the Thailand police released a photograph of a man that they have identified as the person who placed the terrorist bomb. The suspect was dressed like a tourist, wearing yellow T-shirt, shorts and sandals. In the CCTV footage, he is shown taking off his backpack and leaving it underneath a bench at busy area. Royal Thai Police spokesman Lt Gen Prawuth Thawornsiri said: “The yellow shirt guy is not just the suspect. He is the bomber.” Reports indicate these terrorist attacks are not consistent with those in the Thailand south, which lasted over a decade and left 5,000 dead. In addition, Sky News reports that “As police hunted the attackers Bangkok had a new bomb scare as a man threw a small explosive device from a bridge on the city’s Chao Phraya river, but it landed in a canal and no-one was hurt.”
Person identified by Thailand police as behind the Bangkok terrorist bombing of August 17, 2015Terrorist Attack in Bangkok – August 17, 2015 – near Hindu Shrine
The Bangkok Post reported that the “Ratchaprasong intersection where the bombing occurred has been the site of massive political protests in the past decade and a target for bombers. Two bombs on the Ratchaprasong Skywalk outside the nearby Siam Paragon shopping mall in February injured two people and are believed to have been politically motivated. A car bomb exploded in the parking garage a Central Festival Koh Samui in April.”
Terrorist Attack in Bangkok – August 17, 2015 – near Hindu Shrine
The Bangkok Post also reported “Bangkok police detectives said ball bearings possibly packed with the explosive as shrapnel were found in the explosion area. They were six millimetres in diameter, the same size as those found at the scene of the botched bomb explosion set off by Iranian suspects on Sukhumvit 71, Bangkok, in February 2012.”
The United Nations issued a statement: “Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and all of us at the United Nations were shocked to learn of the explosion in Bangkok today close to the Erawan shrine in Rajaprasong. The Secretary-General and the entire United Nations Country Team in Thailand as well as all United Nations personnel join together to expresses our condolences to the bereaved families and to the people and Government of the Kingdom of Thailand. We wish those injured a quick recovery. The United Nations is appalled at the loss of life of innocent civilians and hope that those responsible will be brought to justice. The United Nations in Thailand stands strongly with the Thai people during this difficult time.”
Terrorist Attack in Bangkok – August 17, 2015 – near Hindu Shrine
CNN reports that the “shrine houses a golden statue of Phra Phrom, the Thai representation of Brahma, the Hindu god of creation.” “Thousands of worshipers visit the site each day, praying for everything from to good health to sporting results. They light incense sticks and wai (bow slightly with palms pressed together) to each of the four faces of the statue. For extra luck, worshipers pay respect and money to the shrine’s Thai dancers.”
Hindu Shrine before attack
Terrorist and extremist violence which seeks to deny our universal human rights, our human dignity, and religious freedom has no boundaries. It can strike anywhere against anyone of any faith. Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) urges people of all faiths, all races, all ethnic backgrounds, all nationalities, all genders, and all identity groups to stand together united for our shared Universal Human Rights and defy those terrorists of every kind who would deny us the inherent freedom that we share together.
U.S. Immigration Defense Lawyer Raha Jorjani writes in Washington Post: “Could black people in the U.S. qualify as refugees?”Raha Jorjani makes the case that such persecution of identity groups would justify others who came to America as protected refugees. It is a powerful and important argument that human rights activists in America and around the world need to hear and understand. Our support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not simply for foreign nations, but it is for all nations, including the United States of America. We cannot ignore such the epidemic of identity group persecution in America and believe we are doing good for human rights in the world.
“Suppose a client walked into my office and told me that police officers in his country had choked a man to death over a petty crime. Suppose he said police fatally shot another man in the back as he ran away. That they arrested a woman during a traffic stop and placed her in jail, where she died three days later. That a 12-year-old boy in his country was shot and killed by the police as he played in the park.
Suppose he told me that all of those victims were from the same ethnic community — a community whose members fear being harmed, tortured or killed by police or prison guards. And that this is true in cities and towns across his nation. At that point, as an immigration lawyer, I’d tell him he had a strong claim for asylum protection under U.S. law.
What if, next, he told me he was from America? Black people in the United States face such racial violence that they could qualify as refugees if they lived in this country.
Over the past decade, I’ve represented and advised hundreds of noncitizens facing deportation. Many feared persecution in their home countries and sought protection in the United States. To win them asylum status and the right to stay, I showed that my clients had a well-founded fear of future persecution by the government or by groups that the government was unable or unwilling to control. In one case, I successfully argued that if my client returned to his home country, he could be unjustly imprisoned and physically harmed on the basis of his religious beliefs. Black Americans know the risk of unjust imprisonment and physical harm all too well.
According to U.S. asylum law, that persecution must be on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. In many cases, courts have said that violence by police officers, unjust imprisonment, rape, assault, beatings and confinement constitute persecution. Even nonphysical forms of harm, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage, psychological harm, or the deprivation of food, housing, employment or other essentials, help make the case. In one instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that an individual who had been arrested, held for three days and then falsely accused of a crime had been persecuted. In another case, it ruled that persecution included ethnic discrimination so severe that the petitioner was unable to find a job in his chosen field.
Does this sound familiar?
The United States claims to be a country that protects refugees, not produces them; a country that chastises nations with poor human rights records. But what of our own human rights record, which shows how far we still have to go in eradicating racial injustice and violence?
To make an asylum case for black persecution, I wouldn’t have to reach back to 400 years of slavery, lynching, segregation and Jim Crow. I would focus, instead, on the current prolific system of racist policing, mass incarceration and selective prosecution.
I might start by telling the story of Albert Woodfox, an African American man who has spent more than 40 years in solitary confinement as a result of a conviction that was recently overturned. The United Nations has called for an “absolute prohibition” on solitary confinement beyond a couple of weeks. Yet prison officials keep Woodfox locked away. While data on solitary confinement is notoriously hard to come by, a study from the University of Michigan shows that the practice disproportionately affects people of color.
African Americans make up just 13 percent of the U.S. population, but they accounted for 31 percent of people killed by police in 2012. According to a ProPublica analysis, black teenagers were 21 times more likely than white teens to be shot and killed by the police between 2010 and 2012. In the United States, there are 1.6 million black men in prison, on probation or on parole, double the number who were enslaved in 1850.
I’d remind the court that in 1985, the Philadelphia police dropped an actual bomb on the headquarters of MOVE, a black political organization, killing 11 black citizens, including five children, and destroying 61 homes, an act for which not one city official was prosecuted. That more recently, the subprime mortgage scandal — which for the most part has also gone unpunished —disproportionately victimized black communities. Blacks and Latinos weremore than twice as likely as whites to get those risky, high-cost loans.
I would cite the Justice Department’s findings that in Ferguson, Mo., courts engaged in intentional racial discrimination while administering the law. I would point out that black men receive prison sentences that are, on average, 20 percent longer than those of white men who committed the same crimes. That in some cities, police officers engage in racial profiling and unconstitutional stops on a routine basis. I would raise the fact that since 2010, 22 states have passed new voting restrictions thatdisproportionately affect black voters. While I probably wouldn’t need to, I’d also throw in that in 2013, the median wealth for white households was about $141,900, whereas for black households it was about $11,000.
This country is dangerous for black people. Black parents live with an ever-present fear that their children will become victims of state violence and terror on the basis of race.
Had they remained alive, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Malissa Williams, Timothy Russell, John Crawford, Rekia Boyd, Michael Brown, Akai Gurley, Walter Scott, Ezell Ford, Mya Hall, Dontre Hamilton, Tamir Rice, Tanisha Anderson, Miriam Carey, Yvette Smith, Samuel Dubose and so many others would be able to demonstrate that they had more than a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of their government or individuals whom their government was unable or unwilling to control.
Black Americans should not have to flee this country to seek refuge.”
The global terror group ISIS has been extending its acts of depravity to include a pattern of brutal rape against women, as part of its war on women.
The ISIS terrorist group’s war against the human rights of women has included a brutal campaign of rape and degradation of women’s dignity.
On August 14, 2015, NBC News reported that former ISIS hostage Kayla Mueller who died while being held captive by ISIS, was repeatedly raped by the ISIS terrorist group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Kayla Mueller was taken captive in August 2013 in Aleppo, Syria, while leaving a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital. She had been assisting Syrian refugees in southern Turkey in December 2012
The New York Daily News reported that:
“A Brooklyn ISIS wannabe whose Plan B if he didn’t make it overseas to become a jihadist included killing President Obama or detonating a bomb in Coney Island pleaded guilty Friday. Abdurasul Juraboev faces up to 15 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization. Juraboev, who was indicted this year along with four co-defendants in the chilling plot, is the first of the would-be terrorists to plead guilty.”
Earlier today, Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev, a citizen of Uzbekistan and resident of Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Today’s plea took place before United States District Judge William F. Kuntz, II. At sentencing, Juraboev faces up to 15 years in prison.
The guilty plea was announced by Acting U.S. Attorney Kelly T. Currie of the Eastern District of New York, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, Assistant Director in Charge Diego G. Rodriguez of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Glenn Sorge, Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, Homeland Security Investigations, New York Field Office (HSI) and Commissioner William J. Bratton of the New York City Police Department.
According to previous court filings, in August 2014, Juraboev posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIL. In subsequent interviews by federal agents, Juraboev stated his belief in ISIL’s terrorist agenda, including the establishment by force of an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Juraboev stated that he wanted to travel to Syria to fight on behalf of ISIL but lacked the means to travel. He added that, if he were unable to travel, he would engage in an act of martyrdom on U.S. soil if ordered to do so by ISIL, such as killing the President or planting a bomb on Coney Island.
During the next several months, Juraboev and a co-conspirator discussed plans to travel to Syria to fight on behalf of ISIL, culminating in Juraboev’s purchase on December 27, 2014, of a ticket to travel from John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York, to Istanbul, Turkey, departing on March 29, 2015.
“The defendant planned to travel to Syria to wage jihad on behalf of ISIL, and was prepared to commit a terrorist attack on American soil if he were not able to make that trip,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Currie. “The defendant’s guilty plea today is a testament to the hard work of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York to prevent local residents from becoming foreign fighters in Syria or launching terrorist attacks at home.”
“Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev admitted that he conspired to provide material support to ISIL, and that he was prepared to commit violence overseas or here in the United States,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin. “The National Security Division’s highest priority is counterterrorism, and this case reflects our commitment to finding those who wish to provide material support to ISIL and to fight on behalf of the terrorist organization, either at home or abroad, and preventing them from doing so.”
“Juraboev clearly expressed the desire to commit violence, either domestically or abroad, on behalf of a terrorist organization. His failure to carry out this desire is a testament to the tireless efforts of FBI New York’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. We will continue to work day and night, with our law enforcement partners, to ensure the safety of all Americans,” said Assistant Director-in-Charge Rodriguez
“Today’s guilty plea is the culmination of just one of many efforts to arrest and prosecute individuals who wish to join terrorist organizations in order to do harm to Americans both here and abroad,” said Acting Special-Agent-in-Charge Sorge. “As a member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, HSI will continue to use its unique customs and immigration authorities to root out these evil individuals and bring them to justice.”
“Abdurasul Juraboev was quite clear that he wanted to provide material support to ISIL by fighting in Syria, if not, by his offer to assassinate the President of the United States, or by carrying out a terrorist attack in Coney Island,” said Police Commissioner Bratton. “This case is another example of the reach that ISIL has within the United Sates through social media, and the fact that some are willing to follow that call. I commend the work of the agents and detectives of the Manhattan based Joint Terrorism Task Force.”
The government’s case was prosecuted by the office’s National Security & Cybercrime Section. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alexander Solomon, Douglas M. Pravda, and Peter W. Baldwin of the Eastern District of New York are in charge of the prosecution, with assistance provided by Trial Attorney Danya Atiyeh of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.
November 27, 1962 – Initial “I Have a Dream” Speech – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Booker T. Washington High School, Rocky Mount, North Carolina
(Before the August 28, 1963 March on Washington)
“So my friends of Rocky Mount, I have a dream tonight. It is a dream rooted deep in the American Dream.
I have a dream that one day down in Sasser County Georgia, where they burned two churches down a few weeks ago because Negroes wanted to register and vote, one day, right down there little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and little white girls and walk the streets as brothers and sisters.
I have a dream that one day right here in Rocky Mount North Carolina that sons of former slaves and sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down at the table of brotherhood, knowing that of one blood God made all men to dwell upon the face of the Earth.
I have a dream.
That one day men all over this nation will recognize that all men were created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
I have a dream tonight.
One day the words of Amos will become real: let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I have a dream tonight.
One day, every valley shall be exulted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low.
Crooked places will be made straight, the rough places will be made strange, the glory of the Lord will be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.
I have a dream tonight.
One day, men will do unto others as they would have done unto them.
I have a dream tonight.
One day, my little daughters and my two sons will grow up in a world not conscious of the color of their skin but only conscious of the fact that they are members of the human race.
I have a dream tonight.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Speaking to Audience (Source: Charlotte News-Observer Video Screenshot)
