Until recently I had no idea that Officer Daniels existed. You can find him here on his official YouTube channel, and you can subscribe to him.
First, of course, you must hurry, quick-like-a-bunny, to the SHR Media YouTube channel and subscribe to us there, give us a thumbs-up and such!
Officer Daniels:
More to come. Have a great and blessed Sunday!
BZ
This tears me apart. Brighton, Colorado Police Officer Nick Struck and a toddler.
From CNN.com in 2015:
Police officer soothes toddler with lullaby after deadly car crash
by Ann Colwell
(CNN) When a paramedic handed police officer Nick Struck a weeping toddler soaked in gasoline at the scene of a deadly car crash in Brighton, Colorado, his fatherly instincts kicked in.
Struck did the same thing he does when his own 2-year-old daughter is upset. He began to softly sing “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star.”Somewhere in one of the lullaby’s verses, a bystander snapped a photograph of Struck and the child. Her family’s white SUV lies upside down in the grassy field behind the two. A paramedic is seen treating another passenger in the background.Struck, holding the barefoot girl on his hip, points at something outside the frame. The child holds the fingers of one hand in her mouth, and clings to Struck’s shoulder with the other.
The best interview is here.
Humanity. This is what it means to be human.
BZ
What’s that?
Obey the law.
From Breitbart.com:
Texas House Passes Bill to Jail ‘Sanctuary’ Sheriffs, Police Chiefs
by Bob Price
The Texas House passed a tough anti-sanctuary bill containing provisions making it a crime for sheriffs and chiefs of police to refuse to cooperate with immigration officials. They could also be removed from office for providing “sanctuary” for the criminal illegal aliens in their jails.
How did this come to be such an issue? Predominantly when Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez (D) proclaimed her jurisdiction lawless insofar as her nestling arms became a sanctuary for illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico. Straw, meet camel’s back. Shake hands and come out legislating. So Texas did.
Senate Bill 4 finally passed the Texas House Thursday afternoon by a vote of 94-53 along party lines.
Following the bill’s final passage in the House, the Texas House Republican Caucus sent out a statement saying the bill ensure federal immigration laws that are on the books will be followed and enforced in Texas. The caucus stated the bill prevents local entities from creating policies that threaten public safety.
“The purpose of this legislation is to protect Texans from criminals who are here illegally. We are trying to make sure those bad actors are detained until we can determine their status, ” said House Administration Committee Chairman Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth). “This bill will not affect law abiding citizens, only those that are in trouble with the police.”
Of particular gall to Leftists and lawbreakers is this aspect of SB4, which provides penalties for those in law enforcement who fail to comply.
| SECTION 5.02. Chapter 39, Penal Code, is amended by adding | ||
| Section 39.07 to read as follows: | ||
| Sec. 39.07. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION DETAINER | ||
| REQUEST. (a) A person who is a sheriff, chief of police, or | ||
| constable or a person who otherwise has primary authority for | ||
| administering a jail commits an offense if the person: | ||
| (1) has custody of a person subject to an immigration | ||
| detainer request issued by United States Immigration and Customs | ||
| Enforcement; and | ||
| (2) knowingly fails to comply with the detainer | ||
| request. | ||
| (b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. | ||
| (c) It is an exception to the application of this section | ||
| that the person who was subject to an immigration detainer request | ||
| described by Subsection (a)(1) had previously provided proof that | ||
| the person was a citizen of the United States. | ||
Caucus Chairman Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound), said, “House Republicans have proven time and time again that we are committed to protecting the rule of law and keeping our communities safe. We will continue to work tirelessly to pass legislation that ensures the safety of Texans, such as Senate Bill 4.”
The crime imposed would be a Class A misdemeanor for not complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers.
The measure was passed by the Texas Senate in early February.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has steadfastly said that he would sign the bill and has pushed for its passage. It would go into effect on September 1.
So what was happening in Travis County at the behest of and with the support of Sheriff Sally Hernandez? From the TexasTribune.com:
Report: Travis County released dozens of undocumented inmates wanted by feds
by Julian Aguilar
Travis County officials declined dozens of requests from federal immigration agents to hold inmates in the days leading up to the county’s recent showdown with Gov. Greg Abbott over its new “sanctuary” policy.
And people say law enforcement isn’t politicized? Locally? Federally? Alphabet agencies?
The White House’s first-ever report on local governments that don’t cooperate with federal immigration agents shows Travis County officials declined dozens of requests to hold inmates in the days leading up to the county’s recent showdown with Gov. Greg Abbott.
Between Jan. 28 and Feb. 3, Travis County sheriff deputies declined more than 140 requests – known as detainers – from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to hand over undocumented immigrants for possible deportation, according to the report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Travis County was far and away the Texas leader in declining ICE detainers, according to the report, which mentioned only two other Texas counties. Williamson County declined four recent detainers and Bastrop County declined three.
Last month, Abbott pulled state grant funding for Travis County programs after Sheriff Sally Hernandez, a Democrat, said after her 2016 election victory that she would only honor detainer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on a limited basis.
This is Sheriff Sally “Sanctuary Sally” Hernandez. She thinks the law is flexible and only a mere suggestion or hint.
Isn’t it odd that all the law enforcement officials who take the greatest umbrage to the enforcement of laws on the books and cooperation with federal law enforcement all have Mexican last names? I don’t see, for example, very many officials with the last name of “Martin” or “Washington” or “Vang” or “St George” or “Jackson” or “Nguyen.” I wonder why that might be?
Sheriff Sally Hernandez. Sheriff Ed Gonzalez. Sheriff Lupe Valdez. Chief Art Acevedo. Anyone besides me start to sense something of a theme here?
Yet: a recent poll reveals that Texans overwhelmingly support (by 93 percent), a police officer being able to check a person’s immigration status when they are arrested for a crime.
What is it with law enforcement in Leftist cities and some courts who seem to think the law does not apply to them, and that they may either selectively choose to flaunt it entirely or interpret it in a fashion that is not in keeping with precedent or the letter of the law itself?
What happens to a nation when those tasked with upholding the law are now those who break the very statutes they are sworn to obey?
What, then, becomes the true purpose of law enforcement or the judiciary?
To pick and choose? To tick off boxes on a sheet as if you were ordering a sandwich? “I’ll have ham but no pickles”?
“I’ll enforce rape laws but I won’t enforce drug laws or those having to do with illegal aliens”?
Gonzalez reportedly told those gathered at the rally that Senate Bill 4 will make local communities more dangerous and is bad public policy.
Bad for illegal Mexicans. Bad for illegal aliens. Bad for breakers of our laws.
When the enforcers of our laws decide which laws they will selectively enforce, how long will it be before the populace decides which laws it will obey?
Oh, right. That’s happening already, albeit on a smaller scale. I’m suggesting a national scale. A scale far, far beyond that of any law enforcement response. You are pushing, Leftists, for a Second Civil War.
What happens when citizens individually — like the government — arbitrarily decide what laws they will or will not obey? Then en masse?
I am watching American law enforcement disintegrate right before my very eyes. These so-called “law enforcement officers” dishonor their oaths and dishonor myself and those who put in years of service to our communities. They dishonor those who fought and died behind those laws and for those laws, from the soldier to the beat cop.
If you don’t care for laws, stay out of law enforcement.
But that would be too judgmental now, wouldn’t it?
BZ
That is by order of a rather ridiculous DC law and the ACLU themselves.
Let’s start with an article from Breitbart.com:
ACLU Warns Police to Turn Body Cams Off During Inauguration Protests but Encourages Activists to Video Cops
by Warner Todd Huston
As the nation prepares for the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States, activists and anarchists flooding Washington D.C. are preparing to do all in their power to destroy the historic day. But even as they encourage anarchists to video police, the ACLU has issued warnings to police to be sure to turn body cameras off during the protests.
Was this accurate? The ACLU says no. From the ACLU.org:
Why Are DC Police Keeping Their Body Cameras Off During Inauguration and the Women’s March?
by Jay Stanley
A lot of social media activity has come to our attention questioning why the DC police have been instructed NOT to turn their body cameras on during the president’s inauguration and the following day’s “Million Women March.” Many people seem puzzled by this.
It’s DC. Not too difficult to suss out the various reasons. Please.
It’s not an ACLU “demand,” it’s actually DC law. True, the ACLU of DC supported and encouraged adoption of that law, but the wider District of Columbia community as represented by its city council agreed with us. And that law is not absolute; in its full form it says that:
First, the ACLU’s convenient “out.”
MPD officers may record First Amendment assemblies for the purpose of documenting violations of law and police actions, as an aid to future coordination and deployment of law enforcement units, and for training purposes; provided, that recording First Amendment assemblies shall not be conducted for the purpose of identifying and recording the presence of individual participants who are not engaged in unlawful conduct.
Right. It’s all DC Metro’s problem.
We supported that law for very good reasons. There is a long history of law enforcement compiling dossiers on peaceful activists exercising their First Amendment rights in public marches and protests, and using cameras to send an intimidating message to such protesters: “we are WATCHING YOU and will REMEMBER your presence at this event.” For a vivid picture of how photography can create chilling effects, recall the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery Alabama in 1965, when Alabama state troopers viciously attacked and beat peaceful protesters.
That was then. Now, it is demanded by many community groups, agencies, authorities, cities and counties that law enforcement officers wear body cameras.
Note to the ACLU, Leftists, Demorats, liberal law enforcement administrators: you can’t have it both ways. You either have body cameras activated to record the activity of the police or you don’t. You don’t get to summarily pick-and-choose what activities shall be video’d or not, particularly in consideration of the fact that you are clearly biased towards activities where citizens potentially engaging in illegal activities could be hoisted on petards of their own making.
Let’s look at it this way. Historically, the past year, the bulk of the violence involved in the months leading to the presidential election, and beyond to today, has been committed by Leftists. Leftists wish to video what they wish when they wish, and further seek to handcuff law enforcement when it comes to their doing the same thing in public areas.
This is not like a sea of police officers walking into a call of domestic violence or child abuse and taking video of private events in private homes. These are officers, in open public spaces, ostensibly taking video of events occurring in the public. It’s lawful for the protesters to video law enforcement. The reverse should be true as well. And it is.
Therefore it is not unlawful for law enforcement to video their surroundings as, of course, this very act has been demanded of them nationwide. Advocates say it will keep cops honest and document their actions and the actions of those surrounding them.
I agree. Particularly in this instance.
Having been in law enforcement for 41 years, recently retired, I support law enforcement. I am a Sheepdog and always will be. But when cops are not logical or base their conduct upon political correctness I will call them out.
Interim MPDC Chief Peter Newsham, you have been provided a lawful exemption/opening as illustrated above by the ACLU. You are refusing to take advantage of same.
You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself, by placing your very own officers in harm’s way whilst simultaneously robbing them of an important modern law enforcement tool that, truly, groups nationwide insist they possess and could protect them — and your department — on many levels.
You sir, are a quisling.
BZ
I have been writing this blog since 2004.
From that very day I have resisted advertisements.
I understand their need, but I have been shafted twice by persons seeking to advertise on my blog; one with regard to a website distributing knives, and the second involving an individual who offered digital graphics.
Since then there have been others who wished to advertise on the blog but, if I don’t use the product personally, I’m not interested. In the past two months I have received six active solicitations for advertising involving products the likes of which I couldn’t care less.
I am a believer in not only talking the talk, but walking the walk. People ask: “so what have you done to actually support Conservative values?” If you were to read my blog, you might think this is where my support ends. You couldn’t be further from the truth.
I do support people where and when I can — who shall remain nameless because I have asked them to remain nameless — with various amounts. I also provide fiscal assistance to seven other Conservative blogs. You know who you are. I’m not looking for props. Doing what I do is good enough for me. I justify nothing to nobody.
That said, I would ask that you consider affirming an individual who is worthy of your support, in my estimation. And, in a way, this amounts to an advertisement. But an ad that advances not only a general ideal but a personal one as well. It’s not just “something for nothing.
Jersey Joe is selling a variety of now-popular survival bracelets They look great, people use them, and they have a purpose..
A bit about Jersey Joe. He is a former New Jersey firefighter who was injured on duty and worked on 9/11. Medically retired, he has good and bad days. He can be found on Facebook here and has a radio show, the Reaver of Common Sense, here. His shows are on YouTube here. His basic web site is here.
And he sells his Jersey Joe, Reaver of Common Sense products here.
Jersey Joe’s survival bracelets can be found here.
Please check them out. I suspect that you, like me, will find something to suit you. I found a bracelet not only for myself but my wife as well.
People ask: do you put your money where your mouth is?
I answer: yes, I do.
BZ