<!–

–>

November 30, 2022

The trial of Darrell E. Brooks for the intentional vehicular homicide of six persons and the injuring of 61 other persons at a Thanksgiving/Christmas parade on November 21, 2021 is now concluded.  Brooks was found guilty of all counts and has been sentenced to six consecutive life sentences plus about 1000 years for the death and suffering his atrocious act caused in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Under Wisconsin law, there is no death penalty, and Wisconsin in fact was the first state to abolish the death penalty in 1853. Additionally, though the defendant’s mother and grandmother suggested that the defendant’s mental health afflictions were the cause of this horrible event, four forensic psychologists examined the defendant and found that although he had anti-social personality disorder, this diagnosis was not sufficient to relieve him of personal responsibility for the crimes that were committed on that horrible day. Judge Jennifer Dorow summarized the psychologists’ conclusions prior to pronouncing sentence.  Additionally, she noted that Brooks, who chose to be his own counsel during the trial, often made cogent objections, and seemed to grasp some of the legal subtleties of the case as the trial proceeded.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); }

Nevertheless, during the trial, Brooks on multiple occasions had to be removed to a separate courtroom where he could hear and see the proceedings but could not speak and interrupt anyone because his microphone was controlled from the courtroom where the actual trial was taking place.  He took off his shirt, turned his back to the camera in the separate courtroom, rummaged through papers as if indifferent to the proceedings, rolled his eyes, and tried to communicate in every way possible — even when in the separate room — his disdain for the trial.

When he was allowed to be in the actual courtroom where the trial was taking place, he constantly interrupted the prosecution, the witnesses, and Judge Dorow, and continuously throughout the three weeks of the trial insisted that the court had no jurisdiction to try the case.  He also stated repeatedly that he was not to be referred to by name as the defendant, and that he believed in Jesus Christ and the Bible (which was open on the table where he sat). 

Video excerpts from the trial continue to appear on Facebook even though the trial is now over.  This writer believes that interest remains intense because of the symbolism of the case as well as the case itself.  You see, at present so many hideous, anti-social behaviors are being justified and rationalized by various persons in our society that we see mirrored in Brooks’ rants and justifications.  It seems that no amount of testimonies of suffering, of life disruption, and of condemnation of the intentional wrongs of his behavior and of the consequences of that behavior can deter this individual’s self-justification.  We see the same heartless defense of hideous and morally unjustifiable positions in our society promoted by the Left.  Evil, self-justifying spirits keep mouthing off, mouthing off, mouthing off and disrupting the peace and tranquility of society. Like Brooks, sometimes they will say something legitimate or intelligent, but they are justifying the unjustifiable.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

“Unjustifiable according to whom?” one may ask. The answer is: unjustifiable according to the moral law that has been handed down for thousands of years. The answer is: unjustifiable according to conscience which is an inborn understanding of the Golden Rule of do unto others as you would have others do unto you.  The answer is: unjustifiable in terms of universal moral practices regardless of race, religion, or national origin. 

We see the incessant communist rantings of Bernie Sanders for decades.  Once a marginalized member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate although he self-designated as a Democratic Socialist [euphemism for communist], Sanders has steadily gained in popularity over the decades until he reached a high point of signing a 110-page pact with the Biden wing of the party in July of 2020.  Of the eight sections in that pact, six sections appeared with slightly different wording shortly thereafter in the 90-page Democratic Party Platform.

He says that he is “non-authoritarian” but that is bull. He honeymooned in Moscow in 1988, and his visible enjoyment revealed that he felt he was at home-sweet-home.  More importantly, the socialists in the USA starting in 1912 included ownership of the means of production in their platform and this same principle is expressed in the Communist Manifesto of 1848.  The progressives who were both Republicans and Democrats at the beginning of the 20th century preferred expanded regulation of certain industries (for example, the pharmaceutical industry through the FDA and the railroads through the ICC) rather than ownership.

In 1948, Pres. Harry Truman refused to join forces with Henry Wallace, a communist fellow traveler ensconced in the Democrat Party who had served as Pres. Roosevelt’s secretary of commerce at one point.  Though the Democrats at that time and subsequently tolerated the far left in the midst of their party, there was a chasm between mainstream Democrats and the communist wing.  

This new alliance between the mainstream Democrats and the far-left communist Democrats (still claiming like Bernie to be Democratic Socialists yet accepting some private ownership – a mealy-mouthed subversion of the truth) is something new. Sandy O, Ilhan “the anti-Semite dream girl” Omar, Rashida “the biggest mouth in the Midwest” Tlaib, and others now mouth off in the public square similar to Brooks’ mouthing off at his trial.  Their policies are destructive of the social order, of prosperity, of a better standard of living for the poorer people, the promotion of social order and cohesion (the “cohesion factor” is often ignored in today’s hyperventilation about the needs of various sub-groups), and of the stability promoted by having police and courts arrest and prosecute people who commit crimes and, yes, have criminal lifestyles.  

Years ago, I had an 11th grade student who was a troublemaker. His father was impossible to talk with. I threatened the student with calling child protective services if he did not change his classroom behavior.  He told me he was upset by my saying that.  After discussing the matter with a dedicated man of God at my church, I decided not to contact child protective services, and told this recalcitrant student.  He seemed relieved, but then did not show up in class for about seven days. When he returned to class, he announced that he was turning over a new leaf and was going to finish high school and become a fireman.  It was amazing to hear.  Yet, three weeks after that, he and three friends were arrested for beating and robbing a man on the street. They were sentenced to prison.