The Justice Department on Monday asked lawmakers for more time to gather evidence related to President Trump’s claim that former President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower’s phones during last year’s presidential campaign.
The House Intelligence Committee said it would give the Justice Department until March 20 to comply.
Current and former administration officials have been unable to provide any evidence of the Obama administration wiretapping Trump Tower, yet the president’s aides have been reluctant to publicly contradict their boss.
Continuing, there are additional sources tending to lend credence to the wiretapping, as revealed by Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”
One video I was told to watch was this, wherein Mark Levin sets an argument for the wiretapping of Trump.
Senator Rand Paul also happens to think it would have been relatively easy to wiretap Donald Trump.
I’d like to make this point obvious for those who may not know. The days of trying to access some kind of big closet or room with lots of copper connectors are over. You no longer have to physically access that room covertly and then attach any number of alligator clips and check your buttset. Most phone systems in business and agencies run VOIP, which is Voice Over Internet Protocol. Right. The internet. Go figure.
What about Mr Obama attempting to undermine and influence the elections in Israel, because he didn’t want to see Benjamin Netanyahu elected? It seems to me the Obama administration was playing politics with a presidential election.
What about Jason Chaffetz who, during the Obama administration, had Secret Service agents combing through his personal records in a politically-driven revenge attack?
What about James Rosen, an American journalist, who had his emails and calls on roughly 20 phones exposed as a result of Obama’s minion, Eric Holder? Obama claimed he never ordered surveillance on any American citizen — but Holder wouldn’t have conducted something of this import without keeping his melanin-related BFF updated.
We know, via Wikileaks, that Obama did in fact surveil and violate the rights and privacy of American journalists. Here is a copy of a search warrant indicating so.
In addition to the above list we also know now that Obama wire tapped various individuals in the US media that were reporting information not flattering to the Obama Administration. It is widely known that Obama’s Justice Department targeted journalists with wiretaps in 2013:
* In 2013 the liberal Washington Post expressed outrage after the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks. The reporter, Fox News’ James Rosen and his family, were part of an investigation into government officials anonymously leaking information to journalists. Rosen was not charged but his movements and actions were tracked. * Also in 2013, members of the Associated Press were also a target of the surveillance. The ultra liberal New Yorker even noted that “In moderate and liberal circles, at least, the phone-records scandal, partly because it involves the dear old A.P. and partly because it raises anew the specter of Big Brother, may well present the most serious threat to Obama’s reputation.” *Reporter Sharyl Attkisson said in 2014 that her personal computer and CBS laptop were hacked after she began filing stories about Benghazi that were unflattering to the Obama administration. A source who checked her laptop said the hacker used spyware “proprietary to a government agency,” according to an article in the New York Post.
Hell, the CIA spied on the United States SENATE under Barack Hussein Obama:
All Obama’s oppressive actions seem to be forgiven. Yet, now all the Demorats and American Media Maggots require to elevate an allegation to a fact, if it concerns President Trump, conservatives or the GOP is. . .
“A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”
What Lewis doesn’t do, however, is offer that same level of denial regarding the FBI or the DOJ. What Lewis specifically didn’t do is unequivocally state that Obama did not have Donald Trump tapped. It’s a proverbial non-denial denial. Gorgeous. Further, do you think Obama was so laissez-faire about his administration that he was unaware of what was occurring around him at all times? I do not.
On Sunday during Meet The Press, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI, a position above the CIA Director) James Clapper stated no agency operating under him — including the FBI — wiretapped the Trump concerns. Clapper added: “to my knowledge.” Equivocation.
Let us not forget this is the same James Clapper who lied nakedly to all of America when he testified under oath that the NSA never collected phone data on millions of Americans — when in fact the NSA Hoovered personal data like a baleen whale with krill. Clapper massages his pate and says “not wittingly.” Edward Snowden proved that Clapper was lying his political ass off.
But are these mere suppositions of wiretapping?
NO. THEY ARE NOT.
Fox’s Kimberly Guilfoyle spoke to a left-leaning journalist named Cathy Areu on Saturday the 4th, who told Guilfoyle that a source inside the White House said, about the tap:
There were concerns that Trump and his surrogates may have been colluding with the Russians as a possible bargaining chip to influence the election. Therefore a wiretap was conducted.
Areu’s female source said she was unsure who secured the warrant, but that it was granted. Areu said her female Obama administration source stated:
“The intelligence community did its due diligence given the threat of the Russian influence. The (Obama) White House was aware of it.”
Meaning two critically important thingies:
1. The wiretap occurred, and
2. The president had to know.
Let me repeat that at the risk of becoming a member of the Department of Redundancy Dept:
Because, after all, we don’t need anything more to substantiate an allegation of corruption or abuse against President Trump other than an “unnamed source,” do we? Of course not. Turnabout is fair play.
Also: there was in fact a FISA request by the Obama Administration in June of 2016 and then in October of 2016, to monitor communications involving Donald Trump, not yet president-elect.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton remarks to Fox’s Eric Shawn that James Comey should have been removed as FBI Director. I stated that myself back on February 17th: Trump should have ripped James Comey out of the FBI by his roots because Comey would do nothing but provide heartache. James Comey is a prevaricating hack whose opinions fluctuate with the prevailing political prairie winds. Let’s listen.
Who to replace the bereft-of-courage James Comey? Might I suggest John Bolton? Rudy Giuliani? Perhaps even Sheriff David Clarke? One does not have to be an attorney to be director. One must only have a keen managerial skill, fortitude and reverence for the law as opposed to naked politics.
Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals an important aspect of Obama’s presidential power.
“Because of the unique interpretation of a Ronald Reagan executive order, 13222, and because of the language in the USA Freedom Act, the successor to much of the FISA law, NSA now has the ability to capture in real time the digital copies of everybody’s phone calls. Everybody, cell and landline, everybody’s keystroke, mobile device and desktop.”
“All digital information going over fiber optics, into the US, out of the US or within the US. NSA works for the President. If the President asks for a transcribed copy of any of that, they’ll give it to him. As well, the FISA statute says in it, ‘not withstanding all of the rules above and below.’ The President of the United States can order surveillance on any person in the United States in conjunction with a certificate or a certification filed by the Attorney General.”
Napolitano admits that it’s legal but not constitutional from his point of view, describing it as “profoundly unconstitutional but it is legal because the statute says it. So think about this, if you’re Barack Obama and you have the ability by making a phone call to hear what Donald Trump is saying, are you going to bother with trying to get a warrant? Why would you get the warrant?”
Asked whether he believes the NSA is tapping Trump, Binney replied: “Absolutely. How did they get the phone call between the president and the president of Australia? Or the one that he made with Mexico? Those are not targeted foreigners.”
Please consider: how did anyone know the context of Michael Flynn’s phone calls from the Trump tower absent a wiretap? How did anyone know the context of President Trump’s phone calls to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull absent a wiretap?
The shoe is now on the other foot with regard to the Demorats, Leftists, American Media Maggots and, more pointedly, on Barack Hussein Obama.
All of this is occurring predominantly because President Trump fundamentally threatens the sinecure of all the DC bureaucrats making bank on jobs that produce nothing but yield financial splendor and fiscal independence for life. Mel Brooks, from the film Blazing Saddles, sums it up best.
In the midst of an incredibly-serious election, to wiretap the communications of the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States?
Remember, Captain Kirk’s last words on film were: “Oh my.”
Who says the actors responsible for the wiretapping went through a FISA court anyway?
[Note: I have been away from blogging and my various radio broadcasts since last Sunday, due to the fact that I was smacked with the flu. My apologies. I will be attempting to ramp things up as the days go on.]
When I voted for Donald Trump I did so with my eyes wide open. My vote was cast primarily because he was not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I also voted for Trump because I sensed he would make more sensible nominations for SCOTUS; first to replace Antonin Scalia then to fill what I suspect will be another two to possibly three additional jurists in the next four years.
I’ll be honest. I can only hope that SCOTUS truly is stacked with moderate or conservative jurists that will keep the court on a common sense track for at least another generation, perhaps two.
As an adult I knew Trump would do things with which I’d disagree. He has done so. From the WashingtonPost.com:
FBI Director James Comey to stay on in Trump administration
by Matt Zapotosky, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller
FBI Director James B. Comey was among the senior U.S. officials who had the unpleasant task of traveling to Trump Tower last month to inform the president-elect that Russia had interfered in the election process to help him win office.
Then Comey asked his colleagues — including the CIA director — to step outside so that he could discuss something even more awkward: a dossier in wide circulation in Washington that alleged that Moscow had gathered compromising financial, political and personal material about the incoming U.S. president.
That Comey was asked after that encounter, described by U.S. officials briefed on its details, to stay on as FBI director speaks to his survival instincts and ability to inspire confidence. But the meeting may also have provided a preview of the perilous position he occupies serving in the Trump administration while his agents pursue investigations that seem to lead to the president’s associates.
That was a poor decision, Donald John Trump, and I believe you’ll regret it. Director Comey allows politics to intervene in critical decisions where politics should be the very last consideration. Case in point: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Make no mistake. James Comey is a country-destroying weasel, first for not recommending the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and second for not placing Hillary Clinton under oath or recording her in any fashion when interviewed on the July 4th weekend of 2016. There is, thusly, no transcript of her interview. Though that’s general FBI policy, in this critical case, an exception should have been made.
To me it is quite clear that FBI Director James Comey, about whose probity I wrote quite a number of times on the blog, has dishonored his law enforcement oath, showing that he has no fidelity, no bravery and no integrity with regard to his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But in the July 2016 hearing with Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as documented at Politico, James Comey revealed his flawed and craven, cowardly political thinking when one is familiar with law enforcement prosecutorial thresholds as I am. First:
Director Comey determined a manner in which to weasel his way out of recommending the prosecution of Clinton. At one hearing he went out of his way — again, just like the previous day — to make his own case and then fall back on a position/decision that isn’t his to make.
FBI director: Clinton’s statements were not true
by Nick Gass
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton’s statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau’s investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.
During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI’s investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.
“That is not true,” Comey said. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”
Asked whether Clinton’s testimony that she did not email “any classified material to anyone on my email” and “there is no classified material” was true, Comey responded, “No, there was classified material emailed.”
“Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
Comey admits that Clinton lied. But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).
You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough. But you should not lie to the FBI. My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours. And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded. Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary. There is no record and it is not completely official. As the Church Lady would have said, “how con-veee-nient.”
Gowdy asked whether Clintons’ lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, “No.”
But here, ladies and gentlemen, comes the crux of the proverbial biscuit. Please read this carefully, though through Gowdy’s bit of humor:
“In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?” Gowdy inquired.
Wait for it.
“Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?” Gowdy asked. “Consciousness of guilt and intent.”
Please read the rest of the article here, because we are going to jump to another Politico article. Politico purposely does not let you make this link. You have to be smarter than Politico and make the link as I now display to you. We continue:
Comey: Clinton did not lie to the FBI
by Nick Gass
Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.
“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing’s opening exchanges.
Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI,” Comey said.
Weasel words. Mealy-mouthed. Word pablum. You cannot determine that Clinton lied to the public? You just made your best case that she did. If she didn’t lie to your agents under oath, and you’re unsure if she lied to the public, then why didn’t you simply say so? Instead, you went out of your way to say the opposite. Your statements are conflicting and make no sense whatsoever.
But the most insightful part has arrived. Comey outs himself:
Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.
“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “
And that was how James Comey attempted to rationalize his decision. He stated he did not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization. All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.” That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do. Their jobs. They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.
As I have said time and again, there are two kinds of crimes as written by statute: those of general intent and those of specific intent. Comey stated that HRC had to have possessed a very specific intent to commit her crimes. EXCEPT that the US codes applicable are not those of specific intent because they do not include the phrase “with the intent to.”
That is how a crime of specific intent is crafted. It is stated.
Even more disturbing: Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself from the final decision on whether to prosecute the case — nor did she give that decision to a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She instead prejudged the case by supposedly blindly accepting the FBI’s recommendation. She stepped back and placed the festering pile of shite in the lap of Comey.
FBI Director James Comey figured out how to cover his own ass by revealing some truths about Hillary Clinton whilst simultaneously making nice with those in DC power positions who could hurt him seriously. This is Comey’s false justification for his decision. And it is clearly wrong and damaging. He created his “out.”
Or did he just believe he “took one for the team”?
In my opinion: no. He dishonored his oath.
Agents were directed to identify exculpatory instead of incriminatory evidence in the Hillary Rodham Clinton illegal server email case “conducted” by the FBI.
And trust me: that grated in the craw of every good line-level FBI agent remotely connected with the investigation.
As it grates with regard to DOJ special agents and some of the attorneys who aren’t yet full Leftist sycophants.
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider
by Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
Read that again: “No trial level attorney, no agent working the case agree, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision.”
Precisely. That decision came directly from the Oval Office via a telephone call to Loretta Lynch and then a call to Director James Comey. It all dovetails and ties up neatly. I wrote about “connecting the dots” of corruption in the Obama administration here. Please take time to read the article — it explains most everything you’ve seen and heard.
Comey can’t stand political or personal heat. From anyone. He instead wants to please everyone, somehow keep his job, and does real justice no service whatsoever. If there ever were an indecisive, cowardly and misdirected man, it is James Brien Comey.
B) Under mounting pressure, on October 28th Director Comey indicated he was re-opening the investigation into more of Hillary Clinton’s emails — an estimated 650,000 of them, stemming from the examination of a case involving Anthony Wiener, husband of Huma Abedin, close assistant and confidant of HRC. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d in unison: “bad decision, Jim, bad decision.”
C) Following his determination to re-open the Clinton email case, the OSC (Office of Special Counsel) received complaints about Director Comey regarding violations of the Hatch Act, which is a “law designed to prevent federal officeholders from abusing their power to influence an election.” This complaint was filed Saturday, October 29th with the OSC by lawyer Richard Painter.
D) Nine short days later, armed with a team of miracle workers, FBI Director James Comey reaffirmed his original July decision: yeppers, nothing to see here. No corruption, no collusion, move along. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d again in unison: “great decision, Jim, great decision.”
You cannot convince me that James Comey can take political heat. He has instead bent and broken to whatever prevailing political prairie winds were coursing through DC at any given time. He is still sitting in a dark leather chair in his corner orifice whilst the bulk of his peers have left DC — including former AGs Holder and Lynch, as well as the former president. Comey, by appearing confused and/or conciliatory and utilizing his finest set of pablum-packed weasel words, is still standing.
Comey vacillates, he is a flawed thinker, and has proven that he is untrustworthy. Those are now his best qualities.
You keep Comey, President Trump, at your own peril.
Let’s first listen to America’s Sheriff, David Clarke.
Sheriff Clarke: Look, this guy continually for eight years has rubbed the stain of slavery, has rubbed white people’s nose in the stain of slavery. He’s done it for eight years. He’s about 150 years removed from slavery. Nobody said forget about it but you have to move on at some point and he will not allow America to do that. And until he leaves the White House we’re going to continue to have to put up with this nonsense. People are tired of it, they’ve proved it on November 8th that Latinos, black people, white people, and other ethnicities have said we’ve had enough of this racial divide in America, and they really want to move on from it. But this president will not allow them to do that.
Obama has consistently taken the immediate side of American blacks. From, first, 2009:
“But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 … that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
The part the American Media Maggots conveniently forgot to include:
“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played,” Obama said Wednesday night while taking questions after a White House news conference.
But that’s okay, the Divider-In-Chief had a job to do and a meme to follow. The American Media Maggots owed total obeisance and provided same, blindly and without question.
The President has acknowledged that he fueled the controversy when he said that the police “acted stupidly” for arresting Prof Gates after he protested vociferously about Sgt Crowley’s actions during a burglary investigation.
Van Jones: The right wing and the law enforcement establishment brought the wrath of God down on the White House. I was there, and suddenly he’s (Obama) forced to do a beer summit to sit eye-to-eye with a racist police officer. As a black man, even the most powerful man in the world cannot speak about race and, if he does, he’s then forced to sit humbly across the table from a racist police officer.
And therein the tone was set for eight extremely difficult and costly years. Barack Hussein Obama sought not to unite, but to divide on as many levels as he could construct.
As the Divider-In-Chief, Obama’s entire agenda revolved around striating people by class, sex, race, religion, earnings, region, state, city, county, clothing, music, laws, wages, bathroom, healthcare, culture, employment, family, mode of transport, piercings, energy consumption, food, cable channels watched, tattoos, light bulbs, media consumed, social settings, the way you view America, even your writings, statements and thoughts.
Few answers as Chicago hit with worst violence in nearly 20 years
by Jeremy Gorner
A persistent reality for some of Chicago’s toughest neighborhoods, violence unnerved far reaches of the city in 2016 as shootings and homicides soared. Not since the drug-fueled bloodshed of the mid-1990s had the city witnessed such a toll.
Some neighborhoods, already scarred and gutted by years of violence, suffered inordinately. But the danger spread into more neighborhoods, too, and randomness became an all-too-familiar element to many shootings.
Grim milestones added up: The deadliest month in 23 years. The deadliest day in 13 years. 4,300 people shot. As the year wound down, with the promise of a new year coming soon, a violent Christmas Day.
Perhaps it might be said that Leftist and Demorat policies are finally catching up with reality.
In 2016, about 91 percent of Chicago’s homicides were committed with a firearm, up from 88 percent last year, the study showed. When you compare that with 1998, the last time Chicago recorded over 700 homicides, about 76 percent of those victims were killed with guns, official Police Department statistics show.
Los Angeles’ homicides committed with guns averaged 72 percent from 2011 to 2015, and 60 percent in New York City, the study noted.
Then there is this.
Looking back to 1998, when Chicago recorded 704 homicides, the city was in the midst of a homicide decline from more than 900 earlier in the decade. The turn of the millennium saw a bottoming out, with homicides dropping to 453 at the end of 2004 — around the time the Police Department began relying on computerized data to know where to deploy officers where they’re needed the most. The tally rose again somewhat, then went down again in 2014, when the city recorded 416 slayings.
Continue reading. About this time you should be asking yourself one profound and fundamental question. Yet let us continue, from the AP.org:
1 of Chicago’s bloodiest years ends with 762 homicides
by Don Babwin
CHICAGO (AP) — One of the most violent years in Chicago history ended with a sobering tally: 762 homicides, the most in two decades in the city and more than New York and Los Angeles combined.
Please let that brain-soak a moment. More than NY and LA combined.
Violent crime in L.A. jumps for third straight year as police deal with gang, homeless issues
by Cindy Chang and Maya Lau
Violent crime increased in Los Angeles for the third straight year as police tried to stem a rash of homicides and gang-related shootings while dealing with a growing homeless population.
With more than 290 people killed in the city this year, homicides also rose for the third year in a row. Still, the city remains far safer than a decade ago, when 480 people were killed and there were 46% more robberies than this year.
Relatively speaking, Los Angeles doesn’t have shite on the major eastern high-rise, high-population, low-footprint, urban rat cages because it is so spread out. Except:
Overall, violent crime was up by 10% over last year and 38% over two years ago.
Imagine that. After the passage of AB 109, Prop 47 and Prop 57, Californians are shocked — shocked, I tell you — that crime is rising.
Marijuana is lawful. The threshold for property crimes amounting to a felony has risen from $400 to $950. Stealing a firearm out of a car is only — ho-hum — a misdemeanor. Property crime is therefore rising. Juvenile prostitution is now legal. California cities exist as social petri-dish experiments where actual citizen safety and common decency is secondary. Disdain for any form of authority is likewise rising.
A year ago, the Superior Court judges who hear such cases stopped issuing bench warrants for no-show defendants. And just last month, Judge Christopher Hite in the court’s traffic division — where quality-of-life citations are handled — flushed all 64,713 outstanding warrants that had been issued for such cases from January 2011 through October 2015.
The judge who did that, by the way, is a former public defender. Please commence with the “I didn’t see that coming” comments.
What might that make the officers issuing those citations think? Perhaps that their work is unvalued, completely disregarded? Perhaps law enforcement might be realizing that “if that’s the kind of law enforcement you want, that’s the kind of law enforcement you’re going to get”?
The anti-police climate is clearly emboldening criminals of all stripes, from murderers to anarchists to teenagers.
I can tell you unequivocally why crime in certain cities and areas is rising. There are currently over 20 agencies being monitored by the feds and operating under a consent decree. Law enforcement agencies nationwide are being told that they “over-police.” They are being told they cannot stop and frisk. Their administrations are, because of social politics, becoming indifferent. Support is vanishing. Cops are guilty first. Micromanaging is the norm. Discretion is removed. Public concern for the lives of LEOs is not as strong as its concern for the lives of suspects.
Additionally, ambushes of police are at their highest in over a decade, more than 20 deaths in 2016 due to ambush. This helps to create a climate where people feel justified in assaulting law enforcement officers. People are beginning to think they possess not just a right but a duty to resist any form of arrest or hands-on involvement by law enforcement.
A bulletin last week by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a federal agency that supports local police departments, counted the number of officers killed by ambush as 20 so far this year, up from six in 2015. Organizations that record police officer deaths, such as the FBI and the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, vary in their exact numbers, but all agree that fatal ambush attacks have reached the highest level in more than ten years.
Consequently, because of directives and the obvious, officers are pulling back from what is known as “self-initiated activity.”
Yes, officers are handling the calls to which they are dispatched with professionalism and integrity, but in terms of digging into the neighborhood or the community, they have withdrawn because they have been told explicitly to do so by their administrators, and/or via pressure from community leaders, societal pressure, and self-interest.
Crime rates and statistics are also trending up because of little follow-up by prosecutors on impolitical cases, and by recent propositions and laws that have decriminalized some acts, reduced them from felonies to misdemeanors, or eliminated them wholesale. I again point out AB 109, Prop 47 and Prop 57 in California. Property crimes and crimes involving drugs have skyrocketed because criminals are not stupid.
Law enforcement officers realize they are already targeted for ambush, injury and death. Their situations are to the point where they must recognize and handle not only officer survival but, examining the long run, career survival. Just like anyone else they have bills to pay, mortgages, families, children, personal obligations.
UNITED STATES – JANUARY 5: A controversial painting by Missouri student David Pulphus depicting police as animals hangs in the tunnel connecting the U.S. Capitol to the Cannon House Office building as part of the annual student art exhibit on Thursday, Jan. 5, 2017. The painting was selected as the 2016 Congressional Art Competition winner from Rep. William Lacy Clay’s district in the St. Louis area. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
I wonder why law enforcement thinks this painting, created by a black NFL player, might be offensive and denigrates officers nationwide?
I have always said that America gets the kind of policing it deserves. The Ferguson Effect truly does exist and was acknowledged by FBI’s Director James Comey.
Cops are human. They respond to pressure and directives. They also want to go home to their families and loved ones at the end of watch. Accused of over-policing? Yes, many are saying, we are responding to your demands.
Yes, there is a correlation. It pleases Leftists but, perhaps soon, they may not be quite so pleased.