Reflections From a Murky Pond

Yes, the wolves are in the fold. They came in wearing sheep’s’ clothing while we manned the gates, ready for an enemy not of our own blood.

And wolves in sheep’s clothing is exactly what those “moderate” Liberals who engage in logical-seeming, safe-sounding apologetics for #BlackLivesMatter and #DefundThePolice are. They are simply trying to convince people that “nobody wants to remove law enforcement. They just want to make things better for everyone.”

OK, to be fair, I might be giving some of them too much credit. Some number of these sorts are probably Useful Idiots rather than wolves in sheep’s clothing.

One need only look to the rest of the rhetoric and manifestos of those who want to reduce police presence to see that all these apologetics are lying or deluded. The goal, never particularly hidden, is to curtail, reduce, or largely eliminate law enforcement in America.

And none of the above even takes into account that their supposed premise is already long-proven to be unsustainable.

An Unsustainable Premise For The Big Lie

One of, possibly the key, pillars of #DefundThePolice’s agenda is that Law Enforcement should not “be tasked” with dealing with situations that are better handled by- and more clearly under the purview of social services. And, honestly, this is very logical-sounding; it’s completely intuitive. It’s also so completely unsustainable as to be false.

I hail from a state where this was already put in place decades ago. It failed. It didn’t take that long before, due to the dangers encountered, social services – Health & Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in that state – refused to send operatives out on most calls without a police escort.

Simply put, after a few were injured and at least one killed, HRS decided rightly that responding to such calls was not really their job since they didn’t have the training to deal with what they might encounter.

Tags: #BlackLiesMatter | #BlackLivesMatter | #DefundThePolice | America | Blacks | Crime | Criminals | Law | Law Enforcement | Lies | Police

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 26th, 2020 at 12:01 pm and is filed under Politics, Society. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

So, Mayor “Cop Killer” de Blasio releases a horde of 1500+ prisoners because of COVID-19 and brags how the city is safer. Meanwhile, inexplicably, murder rates and other crime rates soar immediately afterward.

It truly begs the question, safer for whom? Certainly, it’s not safer for those in NYC who actually pay taxes.

Tags: America | Coronavirus | COVID-19 | Crime | Criminals | de Blasio | Democrats | Liberals | Murder | New York | NYC | Pandemic | Prison | Prison Reform | Progressives | Race Riots | Race War | Riots | Safety | War On Whites

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 23rd, 2020 at 3:52 am and is filed under Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Sometimes you’ve got to wonder about Bernie Sanders – wonder to the point of thinking long and hard about revising one’s opinion of Hillary’s DNC stealing the 2016 Democrat Nomination from him. This is one of those times since Bernie made it clear that he wants the Felon Vote.

The question was stark: Would you support enfranchising incarcerated people like the Boston Marathon bomber or convicted rapists?

The answer Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont gave was starker: Yes.

“I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy,” Mr. Sanders said during a town hall-style event on CNN this past week. “Yes, even for terrible people.”

It was a response that seemed designed to appeal to criminal justice advocates, to say nothing of people of color, who are disproportionately incarcerated.

It also immediately touched off the latest policy debate of the Democratic primary: Among the candidates asked about the issue recently were Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Kamala Harris of California and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., all of whom signaled, with varying levels of intensity, that they did not agree with Mr. Sanders.

— Bernie Sanders

Yes, that is Bernie’s Folsom Pledge – to grant convicted murderers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and any all other felons the “right” to vote while they’re imprisoned for their various and sundry heinous crimes.

Then, Bernie has always had a problem with the Black Vote and this is the sort of implicit pandering that might be needed to get him some of it.

What Could Go Wrong?

Let’s forget for the moment that allowing the worst and most vile individuals who have been rightfully cast out of our society to have a say in our society is deeply offensive to America’s normative majority. Let’s also forget for the moment anything and everything about federal elections. While important, the impact of the convict vote on these things is secondary to other, more critical concerns.

No. Focus instead more firmly upon where and when these convicts – overwhelmingly (73%) Democrat – could have a real impact and cause real harm. Focus on the State, County, and Local elections.

Imagine, if you will, the great harm that incarcerated felons could do in those elections, especially ones for: Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, District Attorneys, Prosecutors, and/or Judges. Remember, these are elections with a much smaller electorate and, hence, the population of a prison there could and likely would greatly impact the outcome(s).

Bernie Needs To Stay In His Lane

Voting, be it for offices within each state or for elected federal offices is a matter that is wholly within the purview of each state. The federal government can only step in to prevent certain broad abuses, e.g., denying the “right” to vote based on race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), or advanced age (26th Amendment). As such, it is grossly inappropriate for any Presidential candidate to weigh in on this matter and to use it as a plank in his campaign’s platform.

Tags: 2020 Elections | America | Bernie | Bernie Sanders | Crime | Criminals | Democratic Primary | Democrats | Felons | Politics | Voting

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 1st, 2019 at 10:33 am and is filed under 2020 Elections, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Who’s To Blame?

Yes, it’s in our nature to seek out who or what is to blame for any crisis – sometimes so much so that common decency is left by the wayside. Of course more consistently and less hypocrisy when it comes to blame would be nice. It’s a shame that the hoplophobic Left can’t manage that. Then, consistency and probity aren’t in their natures.

Tags: 2nd Amendment | America | Blame | Constitution | Crime | Criminals | Feminists | Firearms | Gun Control | Gun Grabbers | Gun Rights | Hoplophobes | Hoplophobia | Law | Liberals | Mass Shootings | Murder | Politics | Progressives | Rape | Society

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 11th, 2017 at 6:02 am and is filed under Politics, Society. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

If Americans though it was horrific that your business and life could be destroyed for not baking a cake or not printing a tee-shirt that one found offensive was bad, they really need to see where this sort of thing is going and what the Obama Regime is doing.

Forget cakes and tee-shirts for queers. The Obama Regime is demanding that landlords rent the apartment to criminals if those criminals are non-White, especially Black.

Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population. Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability).

~*~

A housing provider violates the Fair Housing Act when the provider’s policy or practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, even when the provider had no intent to discriminate. Under this standard, a facially – neutral policy or practice that has a discriminatory effect violates the Act if it is not supported by a legally sufficient justification. Thus, where a policy or practice that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class, such policy or practice is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, or if such interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.

— Office of General Counsel, HUD

And of course, if the non-White criminal files a discrimination complaint, the landlord or “property provider” is the one who must shoulder the burden and expense of proving that they had a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest in not renting property the non-White criminal, that such interest was neither hypothetical nor speculative, that not renting the property to the non-White criminal in question would achieve that interest, and that not renting the property to the non-White criminal was the only way to achieve that interest.

Yes, in this case as it is in every single case involving “disparate impact,” “discriminatory effect,” and “protected classes” there is a presumption of guilt upon the presumably White defendant – guilty until proven innocent. This is because the accused, if White, is considered guilty not due to his or her actions and motives but because the complainant is non-White and the effect upon the complainant is negative.

To further degrade any hope for true, unbiased justice in these matters, consider the qualifications needed for the landlord’s interests – substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and neither hypothetical nor speculative. All of these are completely and utterly subjective. These are metrics decided upon solely so that the government is the final arbiter of what any case’s results will be.

Cracka, you will rent the apartment to that Black or Hispanic thug or you will be destroyed.

Tags: America | Blacks | Crime | Criminals | Ghetto Thugs | Government | Hispanics | HUD | Law | Minorities | Obama | Politics | Property | Property Rights | Protected Classes | Racism | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 17th, 2016 at 1:38 pm and is filed under Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.