Sen Tom Cotton on crime and injustice in the Obama administration

Please, I implore you, watch the video. 39-year-old Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton is refreshingly open, concise and honest about crime and justice — precisely the things that Barack Hussein Obama and his so-called “Justice Department” were not. We can never afford to relive these times and Senator Cotton makes a necessary summary.

If you’re uninterested in 28 minutes of video, then please read the transcript.  From Hudson.org:

Senator Tom Cotton’s Remarks on Crime and Justice in America

This past Sunday, thousands of law-enforcement officers, their families, and other supporters gathered at the Capitol to observe Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Every speech given, every tribute paid, and every prayer offered was a poignant reminder: public safety and order in our country often come at a high cost.

Law and order in our communities doesn’t arise spontaneously; men are not angels, after all. Police officers put the badge on every morning, not knowing for sure if they’ll come home at night to take it off. Dedicated prosecutors toil long hours in our courts. Corrections officers and other professionals do the thankless work of administering punishment and, hopefully, providing a path for redemption. And neighborhood-watch groups and civic organizations take it upon themselves to raise standards of conduct in their communities.

During this police week, I also want to take a moment to also remember Deputy Sheriff Sonny Smith, one of Arkansas’s own. Deputy Smith was an 11-year veteran of the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office, and he also proudly served in our nation’s Navy. He was killed in the line of duty last year while responding to a burglary.

Deputy Smith’s story is a sad reminder that preserving the peace takes vigilance. It takes hard work. And it takes sacrifice—sometimes, the ultimate sacrifice.

This may seem obvious to those who dedicate their lives to keeping our streets safe. But it’s no longer so clear to some in these times of historically low crime.

We’re currently reaping the benefits of one of the great public-policy achievements in modern times: a dramatic, generation-long drop in crime. Violent crime is at a 40-year low. Property crime is at a 50-year low. Even more remarkably, this drop in crime followed a decade-long spike in crime arising out of the drug epidemic of the 1980s and early 1990s. That epidemic turned streets into literal battlefields, teenagers into foot soldiers, and too many citizens into casualties of the drug wars.

It may seem like a distant nightmare now, but make no mistake: 30 years ago, our cities were slowly dying.

Maureen Dowd, then a young metro reporter, described the ravages of the drug trade through the eyes of children living amidst it. She quoted a 10-year-old girl who called her neighborhood “the murdering area.” Other children chimed in as well: “Two days ago on the corner they stabbed a man,” said one. Another young boy confided in Dowd: “[T]he…raping, kicking, fighting. To death it scares me.”

At the peak of New York’s crisis, the city had 2,245 murders in one year—that’s over six murders every single day. In Los Angeles, a city half the size of New York, there were 1,094 murders. Nor was the crisis limited to the biggest cities. I have several family members living in Little Rock. At one point, Little Rock had the highest per capita murder rate in America, as memorialized in Gang War: Bangin’ in Little Rock, an HBO documentary.

This was the context, I would add, in which Hillary Clinton warned about so-called “super predators” while championing her husband’s crime bill, which is now much maligned by pro-leniency activists.

Many people in those days doubted whether our society could turn itself around. Maybe Central Park would forever be a no-go zone for law-abiding citizens. Maybe women would never be able to ride the subway alone again. Maybe drug gangs would always outgun the police.

These fears were understandable, but they were also wrong. We turned our society around and we made our streets safe again. But this didn’t just happen by accident; it happened because of policy changes like broken-windows policing techniques, mandatory-minimum sentences for violent criminals, 3-strikes laws, and other reforms. These sweeping changes to criminal-justice policy were championed by scholars like Jim Wilson, elected leaders like Rudy Giuliani, and tough police like Bill Bratton. These policies helped to take back our streets.

Too many people, it would seem, have forgotten these hard-learned lessons. They take our historically low crime rates for granted, acting as if safe neighborhoods are the natural state of man. They often speak and act as if criminals are victims, too.

This disturbing amnesia also comes with a policy agenda as ambitious as it is wrongheaded. Some members of Congress would reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers and other violent felons, while giving liberal judges more discretion in sentencing again. Others want to prohibit employers from inquiring about criminal history in job-application forms; some states have already done so. Just last month, one governor restored voting rights to more than 200,000 felons, regardless of the offense committed or evidence of rehabilitation. And, of course, a nationwide movement is afoot to stigmatize law enforcement and the proven policing strategies of the last 25 years.

These policies are not merely wrong. They are dangerous. They threaten a return to the worst days of the 1990s, when law-abiding citizens lived in fear of their lives. Indeed, we may be living through the leading edge of a new crime wave. Over the last two years, murders across 56 of our largest cities are up 17 percent. The numbers are even more shocking in some cities. In Chicago, murders jumped 70 percent in the first quarter of this year alone. In Las Vegas, 81 percent. In Long Beach, 125 percent.

As a result, more and more Americans are worrying about the impact criminals are having on their communities. Last year, a Gallup poll showed that 53 percent of Americans say they personally worry “a great deal” about crime and violence, a 14-percent jump from 2014. That’s the highest figure Gallup has recorded in 15 years.

The ill-considered policies of criminal-leniency advocates and the resulting increases in crime reflect a badly misguided mindset. Criminals are not victims. Criminals are criminals. Victims are victims.

Now that may seem harsh to those who have security details and live in gated communities. From those comfortable perches, one can easily miss the silliness in the notorious old New York Times stories by Fox Butterfield with headlines like: “Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops.” It’s easy, after all, to feel virtuous about being soft on crime when you live in Chappaqua or McClean or Woodside. But when you live in Osceola or Trumann or Pine Bluff—working-class towns in my state where crime has been increasing lately—you can’t afford such woolly-headed abstractions.

What’s ironic is that this supposedly “new” and enlightened way of thinking about criminal justice isn’t new at all. The specious theory that responsibility for crime lies not with the criminal, but with society or the criminal-justice system is, in fact, very old. In the 1960s and 1970s, many academic criminologists believed that criminals commit crimes because the criminal-justice system works to “label” them as “deviants.”

The policy implications of this theory were, to say the least, unorthodox: legalize prohibited activity, reduce prison sentences, close prisons, restrain the police, and swiftly restore all rights and privileges of citizenship upon release from prison. Sound familiar? This kind of thinking created the crime waves that got us to the point where Hillary Clinton worried publicly about “super predators.” Yet all that’s old is new again, I suppose.

Now, let me stipulate that many reformers have the noblest of motives. They see crushing poverty, broken families, and struggling communities—and they want to help. Out of Christian charity, humanitarian fellow-feeling, or even their own brushes with the law, they’re seeking solutions.

Yet they’re looking in the wrong places. Modern sentencing law and policing techniques have reduced these social problems, not created them. Far from the source of the problems, our criminal-justice system is a key part of the solution. Yes, it could be reformed here and there, but wholesale criminal leniency would not only be ineffective, it would also lead to more crime, more poverty, and more lives lost. Ultimately, the criminal-leniency agenda will end up hurting the very offenders, families, and communities the reformers want to help.

Let’s consider this agenda in more detail.

As you probably know, there’s a bill in Congress now that would sharply reduce mandatory minimums for a slew of federal crimes, grant judges wider discretion to depart from these minimums, and apply reductions retroactively so that duly convicted felons will be released early. The bill’s advocates contend that we’re locking up too many offenders for too long for too little, we can’t afford it anyway, and we should show more empathy toward those caught up in the criminal-justice system.

These arguments, put simply, are baseless. They’ve been proved wrong by hard facts and by history.

Take a look at the facts. First, the claim that too many criminals are being jailed, that there is over-incarceration, ignores an unfortunate fact: for the vast majority of crimes, a perpetrator is never identified or arrested, let alone prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. Law enforcement is able to arrest or identify a likely perpetrator for only 19 percent of property crimes and 47 percent of violent crimes. If anything, we have an under-incarceration problem.

Furthermore, the federal prison population is already declining. The Sentencing Commission has already granted 32,000 felons early release from prison since 2007 because of earlier sentencing-guideline revisions, with another 38,000 to be released. This has reduced the federal prison population to 196,000 inmates, down from 214,000 in 2014 and on track for its lowest level since 2005.

And of this inmate population, only a fraction of a percent are imprisoned for an offense like mere drug possession. Even if you assume that these prisoners didn’t plea down from a more serious offense—and, believe me, most of them did—we’re talking about fewer than 500 prisoners here. If these are the so-called “low-level, non-violent, first-time” offenders that pro-leniency senators have in mind, why does their legislation extend to thousands of felons? Releasing a flood of these violent felons into our streets would surrender the hard-won gains of the last generation.

That generation started with short sentences and soft-on-crime judges. In the last crime wave, judges had vast discretion in sentencing. This meant that drug dealers often returned to the streets just days after arrest. In fact one police officer admitted to a reporter in 1984 that the majority of dealers he arrested would pay a $50 fine and be released within four days. He stated, “For us it’s cosmetics, cleaning the streets briefly. For [dealers], it’s just the cost of doing business.”

Well, the cost of doing business for criminals needed to go up. Two main factors affecting the cost-benefit calculus of criminals are the severity and certainty of a sentence. Increasing both in the 1980s contributed significantly to the massive drop in crime—as much as 35 percent of the drop according to some studies.

The truth is you cannot decrease the severity and certainty of sentences without increasing crime. It’s simply impossible.

The bill’s sponsors rarely speak of this trade-off. They don’t answer the concrete questions that matter to citizens, families, and communities: How many more crimes will be committed because of sentencing reductions? How many more lives lost? How many lives ruined and communities at risk? Let me tell you, with a recidivism rate of 77 percent for released felons, the answer is a lot, no matter how much we improve rehabilitation programs.

Instead of answering these questions, advocates for leniency often point to admittedly large government budgets for law enforcement, courts, and corrections. To which I would respond: And? After national security, what government priority is higher than law and order? Moreover, this perspective is particularly short-sighted, especially for conservatives. Put aside the cost of crime to our governments; what about the cost of crime to our society?

As for the claim that we should have more empathy for criminals, I won’t even try to conceal my contempt for the idea. I empathize first and foremost with the victims of crime and their families. We ought to give criminals a shot at rehabilitation and redemption, but primarily because it’s in our interest as a society, not because they deserve more empathy.

Now, all that said, I don’t discount the the possibility of a manifestly unjust sentence, one so out of proportion to the crime that it shocks the conscience. But that’s why the Anglo-American system of justice gives the pardon power to the executive. I support the use of pardon and commutation as a precise scalpel to identify and remedy such cases. But what we should not do is use the blunt instrument of releasing thousands of violent felons and major drug dealers because of a handful of such cases, many spurious or hypothetical at that.

I believe the criminal-leniency bill in the Senate is dead in this year’s Congress. And it should remain so if future versions allow for the release of violent felons from prison. I will, though, happily work with my colleagues on true criminal-justice reform—to ensure prisons aren’t anarchic jungles that endanger both inmates and corrections officers, to promote rehabilitation and reintegration for those who seek it, and to stop the over-criminalization of private conduct under federal law. But I will continue to oppose any effort to give leniency to dangerous felons who prey on our communities.

A second priority for the criminal-leniency movement is the so-called “Ban the Box” initiative, which would prevent employers from inquiring about criminal history on job application forms.

Ban the Box has a praiseworthy goal, which I share: helping offenders become productive members of society again. Aside from the small number of criminals sentenced to death or life without parole, all convicts will eventually return to society. It’s in their interest and ours if they leave prison a changed man or woman, turning away from a life of crime and toward productive citizenship.

But Ban the Box is not the right way to go about this. Let’s be clear: if the government dictates hiring decisions, if it seeks to deprive employers of information instead of giving them more, and if it threatens severe punishment on employers for failing to do what is allegedly “good for them,” you can be pretty sure the government’s policy is harmful and unworkable.

Some companies have already removed the Box from their forms. That’s their decision, of course, and I applaud their intentions. But for many others—particularly smaller businesses—Ban the Box regulations will increase the costs of compliance and the processing of job candidates who will ultimately prove unqualified for the work. And employers face greater litigation risks, from lawsuits filed by unsuccessful applicants and from enforcement actions brought by state and federal authorities who presume their moral superiority to benighted employers.

No doubt, ex-cons face longer odds in the job market, odds that are understandably frustrating to them. But is it any less frustrating to make it to the end of a hiring process only to lose out? Because even under Ban the Box regulations, that will be the outcome a majority of the time.

Ban the Box, in other words, is an attractive solution because it seems like a tidy solution—a quick fix that will allow us to declare victory and move on. But the truth is improving the post-prison lives of released felons requires a lot more. The policy changes we need cannot start at the point where an offender applies for a job. By that time, it’s usually too late.

We need to start earlier, while felons are still in prison. They need more educational and vocational-training opportunities to develop the skills they’ll need outside prison. When offenders are asked about their criminal history, they should be frank, but also proud of the plumbing skills they honed, or the GED they earned, or the book-keeping courses that led to a training certification. And we want them to point to the college kids who mentored them and the ministers who saved their souls as job references.

Here’s the simple truth: it’s not a job that makes ex-con a contributing member of society. It’s the skills he’s gained, the work ethic he’s developed, and the commitment to an upright life that help him get a job in the first place.

Another post-incarceration priority is the movement to automatically restore the franchise to felons upon completion of their sentences. Whether and how felons can earn back their voting rights has always been a decision left to the states—where it should remain, without federal interference.

But as states are pressured to reconsider their felon-voting rules, those advocating for automatic restoration of voting rights shouldn’t throw around irresponsible charges that disagreement with this policy is illegitimate, un-American, or racist. The principle that felons surrender their voting rights when they commit a crime is embedded in our Constitution, after all.

Unfortunately, advocates for felons like to throw around these poisonous accusations. Now, it’s true there were felon-disenfranchisement laws that deliberately targeted blacks after Reconstruction. Each of those laws has been justly struck down by the Supreme Court or amended to rid them of their original racial animus.

But that sad chapter in our history doesn’t undermine the logic behind modern felon-disenfranchisement laws. Should murderers, rapists, and others whose behavior fall so far outside the norms of our society be immediately accommodated? Given recidivism rates, should we create an automatic pro-crime constituency in our society? Should felons be trusted to elect legislators who make the law, prosecutors who enforce it, and judges who apply it?

As with many charges of racism, we ought to reject the heated rhetoric and instead acknowledge the realities, in this case the costs associated with the immediate restoration of voting rights to felons. An offender who automatically obtains the franchise will have little reason to buy back into the social contract and no motivation to re-learn the responsibilities of citizenship.

I personally believe most felons should ultimately be eligible for restoration of their voting rights, but a much better approach is to provide felons with a roadmap of rehabilitation. After relatively modest periods of demonstrated obedience to the law and lawful employment, for instance, states could reinstate voting rights upon individual application by a felon. This approach would be far preferable to immediate, automatic restoration, especially when ordered by erstwhile political operatives for the electoral benefit of their political paymasters.

Finally, I want to turn to policing techniques and the growing assault on law enforcement. In the past two years, our country has seen several high-profile use-of-force incidents: the shooting of Michael Brown, the suffocation of Eric Garner, and the death of Freddie Gray, among others.

I’ve spoken with police officers about these incidents, and I can report that they feel about abusive cops the way most soldiers feel about misconduct in the ranks: they’re among the first who wish to see them disciplined. And if there are systemic problems in certain districts, it’s the law-abiding police departments that wish to see them reformed, and quickly.

That’s why full investigations of use-of-force incidents should occur and all the facts must be considered. That’s why the Department of Justice is collecting reliable national data on use-of-force incidents for use in developing training and protocols to help officers distinguish and handle situations involving the mentally ill, the substance-addled, and the truly threatening.

After all, no officer wants to be involved in a justified use of force proven unnecessary after the fact, any more than soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan wanted to make what proved to be the wrong decision in a shoot-don’t-shoot situation. Those decisions, even if justified, live with you forever, believe me.

But what should not and cannot occur is a rush to demonize law enforcement whenever force is used. In the absence of facts and hard data, we’re vulnerable to heart-wrenching images, to our own biases, and to cheap demagoguery.

This is dangerous. We’ve already seen one retaliatory attack fueled by misguided rage. In New York, a gunman claiming to seek revenge for Ferguson ambushed and killed Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.

And at a broader level, anti-law enforcement sentiment is fueling a movement to roll back vigilant policing methods, the very techniques that are responsible for the historic drop in crime since the 1980s. In the very city where these methods originated—New York City—there’s an ideological mayor who campaigned against these policing methods and pointed to New York City’s Finest as part of the problem, rather than the solution. No wonder they turned their backs on him. I would too.

This anti-cop sentiment is surely driving the so-called “Ferguson Effect,” as FBI Director Jim Comey has called it. When professional protestors stigmatize the police as racist knuckle-draggers, when their vigorous enforcement of the law is constantly and unfairly criticized and undermined, a chilling effect on policing is nearly unavoidable. And the result is the disturbing increases in violent crime of the last two years. President Obama and others in the criminal-leniency movement are in denial about this. But it’s something more and more criminologists and law enforcement officials are confirming.

Let me make something clear: black lives do matter. The lives being lost to violence in America’s cities are predominantly those of young black men, with devastating consequences for their families and their communities.

But the police aren’t the culprits. In nearly every case, the blood is on the hands of criminals, drug dealers, and gang members. Bill Clinton recently exclaimed to protestors, “You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter.” For once, he was right. And it’s the police who are trying to protect those lives and prevent those murders. We shouldn’t stigmatize them; we should thank them.

And that’s what most people do. What critics of vigilant policing miss is that communities—including minority communities—overwhelmingly approve of “broken windows” tactics. They want low-level crime stopped. They want street corners cleared at late-morning hours so that school kids don’t have to walk among used needles and the lingering smell of urine and marijuana. They want safe neighborhoods.

In northeast Arkansas, there’s a town called Blytheville. Blytheville has faced some tough times. Its population has fallen by 40 percent, especially since the Air Force base closed. Blytheville is also majority African-American. It’s faced a serious drug and crime problem. Last year, in a major operation, hundreds of FBI agents raided the town in the dead of night to arrest 70 drug dealers.

What was the reaction of the community? It wasn’t anguish. It wasn’t fear. It wasn’t indignation that law enforcement used aggressive tactics.

The reaction was unalloyed gratitude. One woman ran up to an FBI agent. She cried tears of joy. The operation, she said, “was the answer to [her] prayers.”

There’s another Blytheville resident, a woman named Vivian Harrison. Two years ago, her son Justin was shot and killed in a senseless murder. She awoke the day of the FBI raid, and she praised it. She said she’d like to see the town rid of crime to the point where “decent, hardworking people can go on with their lives without being in fear.”

I’ll conclude with what I wish were a joke, but unfortunately it’s not. The Obama administration has become so solicitous towards criminals that we’re not supposed to call them criminals at all. Now the new term is “justice-involved individual.” I’m not joking, this is the administration’s new term for criminals: “justice-involved individual.” That alone is a crime against the English language.

But it’s much worse: it reflects the dangerous mindset that criminals are victims, that the justice system somehow happened to them. They didn’t commit a crime, they became “involved” in the justice system.

Let me say again: Criminals are not victims. Criminals are criminals. Victims are victims.

When we talk about crime and justice, we should never forget the actual victims of crime: people like Vivian Harrison, her murdered son, and the other residents of places like Blytheville. These are the people I have in mind when we make criminal-justice policy. So pardon me if I err on the side of being a little too tough on crime, rather than a little too soft on crime. It’s only innocent lives hanging in the balance, after all.

For their sake, we ought not make radical changes to a justice system that has delivered so much hope to so many communities since the crime wave of the last generation. We ought not discard proven strategies for political fashions. And we ought not care for criminals more than we care for victims and their families and communities.

I agree primarily, and disagree on one point.

Criminals are not victims. Criminals are criminals. Victims are victims.

However, I disagree with Senator Cotton on one small point.  Black lives do not matter.

He cannot say that, but I can, because I am running for nothing nor must I be “politically correct” in any way.  I am the most free person ever: one who has retired, owes nothing to a job or the government, has no supervisors, and answers to no one but my own conscience and knowledge of history, predicated upon my training, education and experience.

In truth, black lives don’t matter.  They sure as hell don’t matter to politicians locally, at the state level or in DC.  And they don’t matter to the American Media Maggots.  Black urban male lives are useful only as tools to angles on various stories for the AMM.

Black lives don’t matter to Demorats.  Black lives don’t matter to Leftists. Again, they make perfectly useful implements with which to bash certain other GOWP segments of society over the head. This country will begin to parse out respect to young urban black males when they begin to respect themselves and thusly others. Children. Women.

What was that adage about giving someone a fish or teaching them to fish?

BZ

 

To Colin Kaepernick, from a LE officer

Blacks In America - 3 TypesFrom the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, on Facebook:

PLEASE do your best to SHARE this post, since it needs to be read.

By Chris Amos, a retired Norfolk Police Officer who wrote the following: An Open Letter to Colin Kaepernick

Dear Colin, Guess you have been pretty busy these last few days. For the record I don’t think any more or less of you for not standing for the National Anthem. Honestly, I never thought that much about you, or any professional athlete for that matter, to begin with. I’ve read your statement a few times and want you to know I am one of the reasons you are protesting. You see I am a retired police officer that had the misfortune of having to shoot and kill a 19-year-old African American male. And just like you said, I was the recipient of about $3,000 a month while on leave which was a good thing because I had to support a wife and three children under 7-years-old for about 2 months with that money. Things were pretty tight because I couldn’t work part time. Every police officer I’ve ever known has worked part-time to help make ends meet.

You know Colin the more I think about it the more we seem to have in common. I really pushed myself in rehab to get back on the street, kind of like you do to get back on the field. You probably have had a broken bone or two and some muscle strains and deep bruising that needed a lot of work. I just had to bounce back from a gunshot wound to the chest and thigh. Good thing we both get paid when we are too banged up to “play”, huh?

We both also know what it’s like to get blindsided. You by a 280- pound defensive end, ouch! Me, by a couple of rounds fired from a gun about 2 feet away, into my chest and thigh. We also both make our living wearing uniforms, right? You have probably ruined a jersey or two on the field of play. I still have my blood stained shirt that my partner and paramedics literally ripped off my back that cold night in January. Fortunately, like you I was given a new one.

Speaking of paramedics aren’t you glad the second we get hurt trainers and doctors are standing by waiting to rush onto the field to scoop us up. I’m thankful they get to you in seconds. It only took them about 10 minutes to get to me. By the grace of God, the artery in my thigh didn’t rupture or else 10 minutes would have been about 9 minutes too late. We also have both experienced the hate and disgust others have just because of those uniforms we wear. I sure am glad for your sake that the folks who wear my uniform are on hand to escort you and those folks that wear your uniform into stadiums in places like Seattle!

I guess that’s where the similarities end Colin. You entertain for a living, I and almost 800,000 others across this country serve and protect. Are there some bad apples within my profession? Absolutely and they need to be identified and fired or arrested! But you know what, the vast majority do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason. Did I mention that seconds before I was shot, an elderly African American gentleman walking down the sidewalk, turned to my partner and I as we rode past and said, “Get them.” Get who you ask? The thugs terrorizing an otherwise good and decent neighborhood, home to dozens of good, decent African American families trying to raise those families in communities not protected by gates and security guards. No these folks and families depend on America’s Law Enforcement Officers.

Colin I have buried 7 friends, killed in the line of duty and three others who have committed suicide. I have attended more funerals than I care to remember of neighboring departments who have lost officers in the line of duty, during my career. Law Enforcement Officers with different backgrounds, upbringings, and experiences united by their willingness to answer the call to protect and serve their fellow citizens.

Colin I am sorry for the endorsement deals you may lose and the dip in jersey sales, but please know you will NEVER lose what these men and women and their families have lost. And so whether you stand or sit during the National Anthem or not means very little to me. As for me and the men and women on whose team I was privileged to serve, we will put on our ballistic vests, badge, and gun, kiss our loved one’s goodbye, for some tragically for the last time, and out into a shift of uncertainty we will go. We will continue to protect and continue to serve and we will be standing at attention Colin, not just for the playing of our National Anthem, but far more importantly for the playing of Taps.

Keep the game up, Colin Kaepernick.  You have every right to say what you want within the contract that you signed.  The 49ers and the NFL have every right to defend you verbally and in writing if they wish.

Just as I have the right to conclude you are an overpaid and under-thinking man who doesn’t deserve one cent of money paid to you, the 49ers or any of the products you endorse.

For my readers, those products would include.headphone-maker Beats by Dre — since acquired by Apple Inc — Tata Motors’ luxury car company Jaguar, MoGo Sport and nutritional supplement company MusclePharm Corp.

BZ

 

Obama golfs; Chicago bleeds

Obama Playing Golf

Mr Obama’s heart skips a beat on the beautiful links.

Don’t bother Mr Obama, he’s busy playing golf.  He can’t be bothered by those 13 people killed and tens of thousands displaced following the floods in Louisiana, or those blacks shot and killed on the mean streets of Chicago — even after it was those black votes he desired because of a certain melanin match or a certain Republican president Mr Obama accused of being “uncaring” during Katrina in NOLA.

You see, Mr Obama detests “fakery.”  He detests the “theater” of politics.

Obama Detesting Fakery 1Mr Obama detesting political fakery during Sandy.

Obama Detesting Fakery 2Mr Obama detesting political theater during campaign.

And then — what? — more shootings and death in Chicago?  Meh.  Not worthy of even a mention.  Those deaths and that carnage doesn’t serve to advance Mr Obama at all.  One must serve before one acquires a mention.

From Breitbart.com this past weekend:

Dozens Shot, Four Killed over Weekend in Gun-controlled Chicago

by AWR Hawkins

Dozens were shot–four fatally–over the weekend in heavily gun controlled Chicago.

This death and violence follows the 52 who were shot–nine fatally–during the previous weekend in Chicago.

According to ABC News, a 7-year-old girl was among the wounded. She was shot while attending “a vigil for another shooting victim.” A 36-year-old woman was also shot while attending that vigil.

At one point during the weekend — “an intense 14-hour stretch of violence that ran from Saturday into Sunday” — someone was shot in Chicago “every 33 minutes.” The Chicago Tribune reported the same portion of the weekend — “from Saturday afternoon to early Sunday” — was especially violent last weekend too. During that time alone, “five people were killed and at least 19 others were wounded.”

Forty-nine people were shot, nine fatally, two weekends ago, and “52 people were shot, seven of them fatally” the weekend before.

You know, in Chicago.  That Demorat/Leftist city controlled historically by Demorat/Leftist mayors (and Mayor Rahm Emanuel now), a pristine and shining example of Demorat/Leftist values where blacks are lifted from poverty, have jobs and are able to acquire their dreams in a Utopian atmosphere of understanding and funding, and guns are proscribed for a violence-free, clean environment.

I mean, there are gun laws in Chicago.  Real gun laws.  And gun laws stop criminals!  Right?

Of course they do.  Just ask a Demorat or a Leftist.

Obama Looking Out Window AF1The closest Mr Obama may get to Louisiana or Chicago this week.

That, of course, goes hand-in-hand or, perhaps, blood puddle-in-blood puddle with my prior post only a few days ago where 100 people were shot in Chicago on a single weekend as well.

If you want to stop gun violence, you’d best start with inserting the black father into the family equation and stop paying people for more children absent a father, embrace religion and churches, clean up schools and bring the trades back into them, lean on “stop and frisk,” demand the “broken windows” mindset from police, emphasize education with a focus on the basics and halt generational welfare.  Blacks in urban neighborhoods have just as much a right to be safe on their streets and in their homes as anyone else.

Let’s face it, Obama is “calling it in” and “checking out” as a lame-duck president.  I submit: he didn’t much care about the job in the first place.  He liked the perks.  Hated the bother of it all.

BZ

P.S.

The former FEMA director, Michael Brown, who accused Mr Obama today of fiddling while Louisiana flooded — boy, is he gonna get his ass audited.

Poor bastard.

Louisiana Floods

More black lives not mattering: 100 people shot in Chicago

Blood PoolBecause, in truth, black lives don’t matter to Leftists, they don’t matter to Demorats and they sure as hell don’t matter to other urban black males.

Ripped from today’s yawning headlines at the ChicagoTribune.com:

Nearly 100 people shot in Chicago in less than a week

by Alexandra Chachkevitch

Nearly 100 people have been shot in Chicago in less than a week, pushing the number of shooting victims so far this year to more than 2,500 — about 800 more than this time last year, according to data kept by the Tribune.

Between last Friday afternoon and early Thursday, at least 99 people were shot in the city, 24 of them fatally.  At least nine people were killed on Monday alone, the deadliest day in Chicago in 13 years, according to Tribune data. Among the wounded that day was a 10-year-old boy shot in the back as he played on his front porch in Lawndale.

The number of shooting victims in Chicago stood at 2,514 Thursday morning. At this time last year, 1,725 people had been shot.  The city has not seen this level of gun violence since the 1990s, a trend the Police Department has blamed on lax gun laws and feuding gang factions.

“Lax gun laws.”  What a load of horse-crap.  Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, on par with Los Angeles and New York.  Assault weapons?  Banned.  Go here.

If you want to stop gun violence, you’d best start with inserting the black father into the family equation and stop paying people for more children absent a father, embrace religion and churches, clean up schools and bring the trades back into them, lean on “stop and frisk,” demand the “broken windows” mindset from police, emphasize education with a focus on the basics and halt generational welfare.  Blacks in urban neighborhoods have just as much a right to be safe on their streets and in their homes as anyone else.

Yawn.  More young urban black males killed.  Meh.

Let us not forget it is Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat, Hero of the Left, the consummate personal opportunist and 36th president, who said — regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (as Senate Majority Leader) to Hubert Humphrey, “Hubert, it don’t take any genius to be for civil rights from Minnesota.  How many black people you got in Minnesota?  Humphrey said, about 12,000.  Johnson said to Humphrey, “you make me sick.”

Let us also not forget that it was LBJ who said “I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next two-hundred years.”

And so he has.  It’s nothing more complicated than this: I’ll respect black lives when Democrats respect them, and when they respect themselves.

I’m going to have a very long wait.

Hey, hand me a beer, would you?

BZ

 

No freedom of speech for cops

PPB, ORI retired a few months ago after having 41 years in law enforcement, working for the FBI, being a sworn US Marshal, and serving two local Fornicalia agencies.  If I had a son or daughter considering law enforcement I’d tell them to look elsewhere and to become a nurse, a plumber, an electrical contractor, mechanic, electrical engineer or programmer — a job that cannot readily be replaced by a robot.  And I’d stay away from law enforcement because more and more the job involves politics not service, and you have fewer rights than the citizens you serve.  That trend is growing, not receding.

Including freedom of speech.

People eschewing law enforcement will occur in any event, because Millennials are not used to or desire to serve, sacrifice or have their freedoms of speech curtailed.  The small group of Millennials who do understand about sacrifice and service for a higher goal or greater good are former military personnel — but their ranks are thinning as well.

From OregonLive.com:

Portland police officer removed from street after Twitter message about Black Lives Matter

by Maxine Bernstein

A Portland police officer who wrote a Twitter message complaining that he’d be stuck late at work Friday night “to babysit these fools,” referring to a planned Black Lives Matter-Not Black Friday march at Lloyd Center, has been taken off the street while an internal investigation proceeds.

Portland police Acting Chief Donna Henderson, filling in for Chief Larry O’Dea who is off until next week, announced the investigation Tuesday afternoon in a news release.

“I am highly offended, and I think other people should be,” said Teressa Raiford, a community activist involved in Don’t Shoot Portland. “I think it’s very unprofessional, especially someone in his position.”

Officer John Hurlman, a 24-year bureau veteran, removed the post from his Twitter feed, but a screen shot was caught by others.

His message read, “Black Lives Matter is planning to protest at Lloyd Center on black Friday. Oh joy, stuck late again at work to babysit these fools.”

Damn that officer for daring to state the obvious.  BLM activists are fools because black lives don’t matterYou may care to read this link, as well as this and this and this for my reasoning.

Further, the story doesn’t immediately reveal this salient fact: the officer produced that message on his own time, off duty, with his own account and not utilizing government resources.

But because of the community it serves, the ball-less Portland Police Bureau circled its own little Leftist wagons and, realizing that if a sympathetic take wasn’t promptly expressed, the BLM activists would soon be torching the sycophantic little purple-skied territory of Portland itself.  Precisely because BLM “activists” couldn’t give a fuck.  It ain’t their property they’d burn and loot and destroy.  BLM “activists” enjoy embracing lies for the “common good” of themselves only.

It is interesting, however, to read some of the comments below the article I linked, which include some of the following:

Why aren’t black lives matter going door to door where black people live spreading their message not to kill black people?

So does this mean if a neo-nazi group were to march, only those police officers who agree with the neo nazi’s could work the neo-nazi march that day?  

Oh yes, such a peaceful community group that chants:”What do we want, dead cops, when do we want ’em. NOW!” and “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon!”

Nothing like stomping on the man’s First Amendment Rights…  What’s next from the “Thought Police”?  Lie detector tests for anybody accused of having an alternative viewpoint or perspective contrary to the Left’s?  Give me a break… 

You are assuming that somebody being called a fool should lose their job?  Does that mean I should lose my job by calling you an idiot?  Just trying to understand your perspective of justice and equality…

Office Hurlman was correct in his personal opinion description of  BLM as fools, and I would submit that the even bigger fool is acting like a moron chief Donna Henderson.  Calling someone a fool is speech protected by the 1st ammendment.  The officer did not threaten or encourage any one to threaten or harm anyone.  The Portland PD admin is wrong on this one and should publicly admit such.

So I guess you feel that the officer has to take responsibility for expressing a personal opinion on a personal twitter account? A personal opinion that did not threaten anyone?  Is that what you are trying to say?  If so, you are one misguided soul.

These comments mostly reflect a rational response to ridiculous political correctness being exercised by the Portland police chief. The sane ones among us look at the BLM fools and state the obvious. The BLM fools falsely perpetuate the myth that Michael Ferguson had his “hands up” when he was killed, when the forensic evidence shows he did not. Even the Obama administration’s Justice Department investigation concluded he was justifiably killed by a police officer defending his life. But the BLM fools refuse to believe it and agitate for the sake of agitating. They, and you by extension, can’t be reasoned with. You’re too blinded by your grievance ideology.

There are more than 1,000 additional comments.

I spoke over the air earlier this week on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show to retired Congressman John Campbell (R, CA, 45th & 48th Dist) who was admirably filling in for Mr Hewitt.  The topic concerned the rise of homicide rates and overall crime in major cities and elsewhere.

I indicated there were any number of factors for this rise, but one of the major factors now is the lack of what law enforcement calls “self-initiated activity,” which translates to getting in there, digging, knowing your beat, district, precinct, area, community, and seriously working it.  Looking for crime, turning over the rocks and getting actively involved.  In other words, proactive vs reactive law enforcement.

Certainly, cops won’t shirk their calls for service.  Whenever the laptop or terminal beeps, or the radio beckons, cops will attend to their assignments.  But once there, it exists in their minds that they too could be another Darren Wilson.  Being “right” isn’t enough.  Being “lawful” isn’t enough.  And what law enforcement, the public and courts will soon realize: having a video body-cam isn’t enough.  Video is another tool — it is not the end-all panacea just as having the melanin-count match the neighborhood isn’t an end-all panacea.  Just ask Baltimore or New York or Chicago or LA, some of the most mixed race departments across the nation if not the planet.

Cops talk about officer survival.  The mindset that, “no matter what happens to me, I will prevail during a given critical incident.  I will survive to see another call, to help my partner, to see my family and fight another day.”

A few years ago in 2009 and 2010, besides officer survival my deputies faced budgetary survival.  My department eliminated over two-hundred deputy positions.

Cops are having to additionally consider political and career survival.

They are having to ask: just how deep into this call do I want to go?  Just how far do I want to dig into my beat or district or precinct?  Particularly in terms of political survival or career, officers are now asking: what is my career worth?  Where is the line where I’ll even remotely consider jeopardizing my family’s future?  The security of my wife or husband, my children, my retirement?

Even more important to officers is this: does my department have my back if I acted in good faith and within the “reasonable officer” mantra?

Darren Wilson was proven correct, he was completely acquitted on any number of levels by any number of investigative resources and separate agencies including — literally — one hundred FBI agents swarming over Ferguson and the case itself.

Yet Darren Wilson had to physically leave his department, had to take his family and physically leave the town where he was employed and, truly, will forever be unemployable by any law enforcement agency in the US.  He and his family received very serious death threats and his department had little interest in supporting or providing security for him.

You ask why crimes, homicides and the like are starting to increase?  The so-called “Ferguson Effect” is most definitely a factor no matter what any police administrator or spokesperson says.  I know this because my own deputies tell me so.  Quietly.  They are constantly having to weigh these thoughts on their calls.  They are doing the “balance test.”  How do I do my job while not jeopardizing myself, family or future?

And that is the truth.

Portland, Oregon is certainly the locus of Leftist thought in Oregon, right there with Seattle, and the Portland PB isn’t radically different from the Leftards it protects.

Ladies and gentlemen, Leftists, Demorats and Progressives alike, if you don’t like cops — they’re too judgmental — but instead wish to be involved in a Robocop future, monitored and arrested by mechanicals, you are well on your way.  You won’t care for it one bit when the human element is eliminated.  You can’t argue or reason with a robot.

Perhaps you’d just care to do away with your civilian police protection altogether.  Make sure, however, that if this is your choice you likewise surrender all your firearms, defensive or offensive materials such as slingshots, baseball bats, rocks and any sort of edged weapon.  Hell, any weapon whatsoever.  Live by your code.  Be honest and live your honesty.  Mark or placard your car, your house, your apartment, your tent as a WEAPONS FREE ZONE.  Be proud of your philosophies and take a real stand.  Show some courage.

There is a problem however: when you have fewer and fewer persons who desire to be Sheepdogs, your society is in greater and greater jeopardy from within and without.  Because the wolves, you ignorant and complacent sheep, are not reducing their numbers.

Your job is already being targeted for elimination by robots, Mr and Ms Millennial.  Your life, property and sense of security is already being target by criminals whose philosophy is generally “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine unless you have the strength to stop me.”  Gosh.  Just like Islamists or China or Russia.  Or any bully.

You think that won’t or can’t happen?  Just you watch.

BZ

P.S.

Officer John Hurlman, an extremely interesting article about freedom of speech and police officers can be found here, at the FraternalOrderof Police.net.

You may find it handy and applicable.  You also might wish to click here and here.