Posts

Keith Ellison: ‘Blacks don’t have an obligation’ to obey government

he Muslim Brotherhood-linked Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, also has past ties to the Nation of Islam — a black Islamic supremacist, anti-white, anti-gay, anti-Catholic and virulently anti-Semitic group. He conveniently denounced his involvement with the group when it suited him in 2006, after it became an issue during his first run for Congress.

It would seem that no matter how much hatred Ellison has spewed against the U.S. and Israel, his documented Islamic supremacist ties, and his facilitating of the crudest divisions in racial politics, he is still a trusted and influential Democratic leader, and likely soon to be the Chair of the DNC.

“Keith Ellison Once Said Black People Don’t Have ‘Obligation’ To Obey Government”, by Peter Hassan, The Daily Caller, February 23, 2017:

Democratic congressman and DNC chair front-runner Keith Ellison once said that “black people don’t live in a democracy” and “don’t have an obligation” to obey the government.

Ellison made the comments at a 1992 protest after white police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. At least 63 people died in the racially charged riots following the verdict.

Minnesota newspaper the Star Tribune quotes Ellison as telling a group of protesters in Minneapolis that “Black people do not live under a democracy.”

“You don’t have an obligation to obey a government that considers you to be less than human,” Ellison said.

Ellison, the nation’s first Muslim congressman, has come under fire for his history of making racially inflammatory comments, as well as his past association with notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, whom Ellison has since renounced. (RELATED: Democratic Donor: Keith Ellison ‘Clearly An Anti-Semite’)

Ellison once called for American blacks to have their own nation and called the U.S. Constitution “best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

While speaking to an atheist group in 2007, Ellison compared the Sept. 11 attacks to the Reichstag fire, stopping just short of accusing then-President George W. Bush of having a hand in the attacks.

“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that,” Ellison said of 9/11, according to reports at the time. “After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.”

Ellison went on to say he wouldn’t suggest the U.S. had a hand in the attacks because “you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you,” before later walking back his comments…

RELATED ARTICLES:

DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) Hides from his Radical Anti-gun Record

NYPD commissioner to officers: Defy Trump’s immigrant deportation order

UK: Man who renounced Islam forced to move after harassment from Muslims

Trump phones Trinidad PM to stem Islamic State recruitment

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Who is Ira Madison III and why does he hate Asian children and America?

Daily we see the fringe become more fringe. The latest example is a MTV News reporter named Ira Madison III. Madison, who is black, hates America, loves Obama and takes cheap shots at the grandchild of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions. Katie McHugh from Breitbart reports:

Culture writer for MTV News Ira Madison III attacked Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and his Asian-American granddaughter as a “prop” to distract from his “racism.”

ira-madison-iii1

Ira Madison III (left).

In the article “Ira Madison III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know” by  from Heavy.com describes Madison’s background:

Madison was named in the piece as a “young activist-writer” who was “deeply entrenched” in “identity politics.”

[ … ]

According to his LinkedIn page, Madison is a gradaute [sic] of Loyola University of Chicago where he studied theater and NYU where he studied dramatic writing.

[ … ]

When asked about racism in America, Madison said, “I think at this point, the world has changed so much where I don’t afford people the right to have “different perspectives” if they’re damaging to others. Like, if you’re an asshole and homophobic and racist now, you were the same when you were younger and you knew it was wrong then.”

[ … ]

The day after Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States, Madison posted this throwback photo on Facebook. Madison regularly posts photos of the first family on his photostream. A few days later on his MTV.com column, Madison wrote, “This week, all of America needs to get deleted. You made Barack Obama utter the words “President-elect Donald Trump” and I will honestly never forgive my country for this.”

Here is Madison’s tweet, which has since been taken down:

iramadison-tweet-sessions-granddaughter

Can you feel the hate and anger in this black man for an innocent Asian child?

ira-madison

Ira Madison III

After taking down the above tweet Madison attempted to justify himself by Tweeting, “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans https://t.co/sZitqzLBS4.” The link is to a Think Progress article about a 2013 U.S. Senate committee meeting on comprehensive immigration reform, of which Senator Sessions was a committee member. When you go to the link you find that Senator Sessions was not arguing to discriminate against Asian Americans at all. Rather Senator Sessions asked the President of the Asian American Justice Center Mee Moua “if a country should legitimately decide that it wants to admit one productive family member, but not another, less motivated individual.” Sessions noted:

It’s perfectly logical to think there are two individuals, let’s say in a good friendly country like Honduras. One is a valedictorian of his class, has two years of college, learned English and very much has a vision to come to the United States and the other one has dropped out of high school, has minimum skills. Both are 20 years of age and that latter person has a brother here. What would be in the interest of the United States? …

Clearly it would be in the best interest of the United States to only grant a visa, work permit or citizenship to those who benefit the host country, in this case the United States. Immigration is a key issue for Americans and impacts the economy, jobs, security of the homeland, education, public policy and the criminal justice system.

As the U.S. Attorney General Senator Sessions will be dealing with law and order issues and enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Laws that make it illegal for someone to come here without permission.

That is something Madison, Obama, Democrats and others fail to understand. When you lose elections, just as when you break the law, there are consequences.

Ignorant Judge Lets “Trans” Man Legally Change His “Sex”

In an unprecedented move, an Oregon judge has allowed a so-called “transgender” man to legally change his sex from female (he had previously been allowed to choose female) to “non-binary.” It’s newsworthy enough to have made it to Drudge, but even that fact doesn’t do justice to the grave threat presented by Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Amy Holmes Hehn’s ruling.

I’ll cut to the chase. Even if you accept the legitimacy of “transgender” status (more on this later), here’s what must be understood:

Psychologists and transgender activists do not say “sex” and “gender” are synonymous.

Rather, they often take pains to point out — sometimes quite dogmatically — that “sex” is a biological distinction while “gender” is a psychological one. As MedicalNewsToday.com wrote in March, “In general terms, ‘sex’ refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. ‘Gender’ is more difficult to define but can refer to the role of a male or female in society (gender role), or an individual’s concept of themselves (gender identity).” You can find essentially the same definitions at Monash University’s website and numerous other places.

Even the man who petitioned Judge Hehn for the “sex change,” a fellow going by the name “Jamie” Shupe, has in so many words acknowledged the above. As The Oregonian reports, “I was assigned male at birth due to biology,” Shupe said. “I’m stuck with that for life. My gender identity is definitely feminine.”

Judge Hehn is clearly operating far above her pay grade. Like most people, she apparently views “gender” as a synonym for “sex,” oblivious to the evolution (or devolution) of the term and concept.

Up until relatively recently, “gender” was mainly used in grammar, pertaining to the categories into which words are divided, such as masculine, feminine and neuter. It was not traditionally used in reference to people.

This started to change with the now discredited quack psychologist Dr. John Money. In 1966, he originated the debunked “gender neutrality” theory and appears to have been the first person to popularize the application of “gender” to people. Even so, such usage of the term didn’t really catch on until the last 20 or 25 years.

And what was the purpose of this language manipulation? You couldn’t convince people many decades ago that there were more than two sexes, because that there are only two was rightly cemented in their minds. The biological distinction was the only thing people conceptualized and accepted. But “gender” was the perfect term as it included more than two categories: masculine, feminine and neuter. And thus did we see an attempt at the 1995 Conference on Women in Beijing to adopt language stating that a family could comprise up to five “genders”: male heterosexual, female heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian and bisexual (the attempt failed owing to Vatican opposition). Of course, that’s now old hat — the shape-shifting libertines now define scores of “genders.”

But no matter. Once the term caught on and most everyone accepted that a person could have “gender” — and once a minority had accepted that there could be more than two — the next step was to add to the concept the notion that a person could be “transgender” and transition from one to another. It’s incrementalism; step by step, inch by inch.

And now that even more people have accepted the fluidity of “gender” and virtually everyone confuses the term with “sex,” we’re witnessing the next step: the attempt to eliminate the concept of the biological distinction itself. The idea is that there will only be “gender,” and “sex” will just be a term describing what you do with a sentient biped (in most cases) who, hopefully, won’t transition in the middle of the act.

So first was just the correct concept of “sex” (biological), then the introduction of a new concept, “gender” (perception of what a person is). Then there was the confusion of the two terms attended by the expansion of the new concept and advent of another new concept, “transgender.” Now, with the terms long viewed as synonyms, we’re seeing the attempted elimination of the concept of “sex.” And just as the man on the street mindlessly adopted the term “gender,” expect to see a concerted effort to eliminate the term “sex’s” use in the legal realm.

And the proof is in the pudding. Note that among the more than 60 “genders” now imagined by the sexual revolutionaries is “cisgender,” whose definition is, “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their [sic] biological sex; not transgender.” In other words, normality is now listed as just one of scores of flavors of the day along with abnormality. In this way of “thinking,” it’s no better to be a normal woman than a cross-dresser masquerading as a woman. So the first step was to try to normalize the abnormal, and now the effort is on to “denormalize” the normal.

Do you now see why I and a few others warned, for years and years and years and years, that we shouldn’t use the word “gender” in reference to people or embrace any aspect of the Lexicon of the Left? The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate.

As for Judge Hehn, I doubt she’s sophisticated enough to understand any of the above. She likely was just operating on misconceptions and emotion. But as former “transsexual” Alan Finch said in 2004, “You fundamentally can’t change sex. … Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.” No, you can’t change sex. You don’t have “gender” unless you’re a word. And you shouldn’t be able to change sex in legal documents, either. You are what you are.

Judge Hehn’s ridiculous, destructive ruling should be overturned if possible, and she should be removed from the bench. Judges who can’t separate fact from fiction, emotion from reason or, even, boys from girls, need to be playing with blocks, not with our laws.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Civil War: America’s Enemies Hiding in Plain Sight

Russian born American writer and novelist Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Janie Johnson posted the above photo of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors on her Twitter page. Janie wrote, “On [the] bottom of the signs is the inscription: revcom.us. To see who printed them, go to: .”

The organization that printed these BLM posters is the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP-USA). The stated strategic approach of the RCP-USA is to:

“Fight the Power, and Transform the People, for Revolution…to take up a revolutionary viewpoint and revolutionary values and morals as they join with others to resist this system’s crimes and build up the basis for the ultimate all-out revolutionary struggle to sweep this system away and bring in a whole new way of organizing society, a whole new way of being…to become emancipators of humanity.” [Emphasis RCP-USA]

The RCP-USA signs brought to mind several banners carried by BLM protestors in Ferguson, Missouri.

FergusonPalestine

Robert Spencer in his November 2014 column Islamic supremacist groups connect their jihad to Ferguson riots wrote:

In the photo above (thanks to Kay), Leftist demonstrators relate the strife in Ferguson to the “Palestinian” jihad. And Pamela Geller has a great deal of information on how Islamic jihadists and supremacists, including the Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR, have tried to co-opt the Ferguson riots as part of their own jihad. Most noteworthy is the active presence in Ferguson of “Palestinian” jihad activist Bassem Masri.

The connection between Ferguson and “Palestine” (and the global jihad in general) is clear: both the Islamic supremacists and the Ferguson rioters think that the American system is corrupt and must be brought down.

isis banner ferguson

Islamic State banner carried by Black Lives Matter protestors in Ferguson, Missouri. Photo: CNN

In a November 2014 column Ferguson: The beginning of an American Intifada I wrote:

This spiral of death and destruction scenario is used across the globe to incite riots, mayhem and violence. It is used to recruit those with real or perceived grievances against those in authority. It is being used by the Islamic State to recruit in Ferguson, Missouri.

Ferguson is the beginning of the American intifada in the black community. This same strategy is being used by terrorist organizations like HAMAS, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and al Qaeda. Grab the headlines and make your point via political violence. The problem is the narrative is routinely false, even based upon lies, but by the time the facts are presented it is too late. The damage has already been done.

Lessons learned from Ferguson:

  1. Appeasement of the protesters leads to more violence.
  2. Coalitions of outside organizations including radical homosexual, Muslim and minority groups makes for a deadly mix.
  3. The targets are the law and law enforcement. The demand is for two legal systems, one for minorities and one for whites.
  4. The creation of no-go zones where police and firefighters cannot or will not go due to the threat of violence.
  5. The manipulation of the media in the name of “equality” and “social justice” to create a scenario where a radical agenda may be furthered that denies both.
  6. The use of violence even when blacks, like President Obama, call upon their fellow blacks to be non-violent.
  7. The creation of a atmosphere where law enforcement officers will hesitate to enforce the law or ignore the law in order not to become a target.
  8. Lawlessness with an anarchist’s political objective – to destroy the status quo.

A race war is upon America because some minorities want it more than they want to be Americans.

I fear that these groups will once again come together in Cleveland to disrupt the Republican National Convention and Donald Trump’s nomination. This Red/Green/Rainbow alliance has already showed itself at Trump rallies. The Red/Green/Rainbow alliance is emboldened and becoming more violent.

These protestors want to bring a civil war to America in order to fundamentally transform the country. 

America is a land of laws and requires order. Protest if one wishes but to become violent demands police action and people, organizations and institutions to be held accountable.

We shall see what happens in Cleveland. Stay tuned.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Conservative Lessons of ‘Captain America – Civil War’

An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism

RELATED VIDEO: Walter Williams on the Rise of Socialism | The Daily Signal

VIDEO: How to Stop Violent Crime

In a strongly worded five-minute video, National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre is calling on Barack Obama and other politicians to help stop violent crime by focusing on prosecuting violent criminals—not further restricting law-abiding gun owners.

“We’ve lived through the Clinton administration’s utter lack of federal gun prosecutions, and the Obama administration is following suit, while the country suffers,” LaPierre said. “And we know that a second Clinton administration will just mean more of the same.”

LaPierre added that gun-banners—whether politicians or media—won’t silence the men and women of the NRA.

“No organization has been louder, clearer or more consistent on the urgent need to enforce the federal gun laws than the NRA,” he said. “And in the face of mounting political and media pressure to demean, shame and silence us … we will fight.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Georgia Became a Haven for Violent Illegal Immigrants

Congress Shouldn’t Ground Air Marshals Amid Current Threats, Their Boss Says

Florida: Open Carry Bill Passes 1st House Committee

Tuesday, October 6, 2015,  the House Criminal Justice Committee held a hearing on  HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz.

The bill PASSED by a Vote of 8-4.

HB-163 is a bill to allow persons with a Concealed Weapons & Firearms License to carry firearms concealed or openly.

Sheriff Wayne Ivey (Brevard) and representatives of Sheriff Charlie Creel (Wakulla) expressed support for the bill at a press conference with bill sponsors Sen. Don Gaetz and Rep. Matt Gaetz, before the committee meeting.  Among other sheriffs who have expressed support for open carry are Sheriff Gordon Smith (Bradford) and Sheriff Chris Nocco (Pasco).

Voting FOR the bill were Republican Reps. Carlos Truijillo, Dennis Baxley, Jay Fant, Gayle Harrell, Ray Pilon, Scott Plakon, Ross Spano and Charles Van Zant.

Voting AGAINST the bill were Democrat Reps. Randolph Bracy, Dave Kerner and Sharon Pritchett — Rep. Clovis Watson did not vote.

The only Republican to vote against the bill was Chris Latvala (R-Clearwater).

BACKGROUND:

This bill will prevent CW license holders from being charged with the crime of violating the “Open Carry” law because a concealed firearm, being legally carried, accidentally or inadvertently became visible to another person.

According to our attorneys, allowing license holders to carry openly is the only way to truly keep them from being arrested and/or prosecuted for violating the open carry ban if firearms are accidentally and unintentionally exposed.

IT IS UNFORTUNATELY TRUE that anytime you are carrying a concealed firearm you are in danger of being charged with a crime and treated like a criminal if your firearm accidentally becomes exposed to the sight of another person and law enforcement is called.

In 2011, we attempted to fix that problem.  We supported language that clearly says it is NOT a violation of the open carry ban “for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.”

Not only did that language NOT stop the abuse.  It has gotten worse.

In one case, a young man was arrested when his firearm was accidentally and unintentionally exposed.  Someone saw it and called 911.  It took law enforcement 5 minutes to arrive.  They arrested him because they said 5 minutes wasn’t brief.  It didn’t matter that it was accidental and unintentional.  He was prosecuted and convicted.

In another case a man was arrested, and convicted because the accidental and unintentional exposure of his firearm was for only 2 minutes.

Further, it has been reported that State Attorney Angela Corey’s office in Jacksonville says that exposure isn’t brief, if it is more than an instantaneous glance before being covered up again.

And to make matters worse, there is a case pending on a motion for review before the Florida Supreme Court — because a lower court didn’t think a young man was dressed appropriately to hide a gun when it accidentally became visible.

Concealed Weapons License holders whose firearms are seen by others seem to be targets in some jurisdictions.

This bill will only allow persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm to carry concealed or openly.  All of the provisions of the concealed carry law apply to those who chose to carry openly. Including:

  • You must have your license on you at all times when carrying and you must show it to a law enforcement officer who asks if you have a license.
  • You cannot carry a long gun — rifle or shotgun — concealed or openly under this law.
  • You cannot carry concealed or openly onto private property of any business or person who chooses to prohibit it.
  • You cannot carry openly in any place where concealed carry is prohibited.

THANK YOU for your email and phone calls to Committee members.  Taking a few moments to communicate with Legislators is very important.

Email addresses of the Committee members are below.

carlos.trujillo@myfloridahouse.gov,
charles.vanzant@myfloridahouse.gov
,
dennis.baxley@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Jay.Fant@myfloridahouse.gov
,
gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Chris.Latvala@myfloridahouse.gov
,
ray.pilon@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Scott.Plakon@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Ross.Spano@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Randolph.Bracy@myfloridahouse.gov

Dave.Kerner@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Sharon.Pritchett@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Clovis.Watson@myfloridahouse.gov

UPDATE: Rep Gaetz is holding an Open Live Forum Conference on the “Open Carry Bill” that he proposed which passed in the subcommittee. The live event will be
Thursday, Oct 8th at 6:15 pm via telephone. Below is the link to “subscribe” to be able to participate.

https://vekeo.com/event/representativemattgaetz-19481/

Florida: A Day in Court for Marise London, an Elderly Jewish Woman

Marise London

Marise London

It was much better than a breath of fresh air or a refreshing swim in the sea; for I could see real jurisprudence.  Dissecting the word into its meaningful units, “juris” means judging, and “prudence” means with wisdom; but how often are the two actually combined into one?

Today, sitting in a Sarasota County, FL court as a spectator and an elder advocate for a lonely Jewish woman locked in guardianship in Florida year after year without due process that it rightfully due to her, I heard her new Probate judge press and press the battling lawyers in her case, drumming up thousands of dollars per hour in legal fees, to put her fate into perspective.  While the lawyers, at least seven of them in the courtroom on August 6, 2015, were preoccupied with rules and laws, the presiding judge kept a keen eye on the greater purpose of the hearing, that being what best serves the needs of Marise London, artist, mother, and beloved elder to so many advocates who stand with her in her ardent quest for dignity and freedom from the human bondage of guardianship.

What else could you call a system in which precious human beings are deprived of their most basic rights in life and to life?  A Ward of the State of Florida, where guardianship has become a major asset to the State and a tragic liability to the lives of its elders, is mentally, physically, and emotionally trapped in a network of professionals loyal to their livelihoods often more so than to the lives they are sworn to protect.

Guardianship is, in many respects, human trafficking, in which an elder is most commonly isolated from family and deprived of her rights to move and communicate freely according to her own choices.  She cannot marry or write a check.  She cannot contract or decide where she wants to live.  She cannot select her doctor or refuse a specific medical treatment, psychotropic, or narcotic.  She lives in isolation, subject to the will of her guardian, not of herself.

In a courtroom packed with Marise’s supporters, some of whom traveled hundreds of miles to advocate for her with their feet, a patient judge listened to lengthy proclamations of law for over an hour and then rightfully turned the entire focus of the hearing to Mrs. London, asking three crucial questions, the only ones that really matter: “Does Marise really need a guardian at all?” “Is there a less restrictive circumstance instead of guardianship that will meet Marise’s needs?” “Is there a better guardian available for Marise’s needs than the one she has had for years?”

The questions repeated by the judge a number of times were songs in my head because they were judging the fate of Marise prudently that she may face her future as the free woman she so truly deserves to be.

Supreme Court: No More Lifetime Appointments by Doug Bandow

Democrats and Republicans alike have turned Supreme Court appointments into a partisan slugfest. No wonder: while the judiciary has long been described as the least dangerous branch of government, the court has become instead a continuing constitutional convention. Just five votes can turn the Constitution inside out.

The latest Supreme Court term was seen as a shift to the left. The high court rewrote Obamacare to save the president’s landmark legislation to socialize American health care and completed a social revolution by nationalizing gay marriage. These decisions set off a flurry of promises from Republican Party presidential candidates to confront the judiciary.

Extreme Measures

Jeb Bush said he would only appoint judges “with a proven record of judicial restraint,” even though previous presidents claiming to do the same chose Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and John Roberts, among many other conservative disappointments.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for judicial retention elections. Such a change at the federal level would require a constitutional amendment, though it would mimic the practices of some 20 states. Even more controversially, Cruz suggested that only those whose case was brought before the justices had to respect Supreme Court rulings.

Extreme measures seem necessary because a simultaneously progressive and activist judiciary has joined the legislature and executive in forthrightly making public policy.

Should Justices Serve for Life?

The influence of judges has been magnified by their relative immunity from political pressure. Although the courts sometimes follow the election returns, in many cases — such as abortion and gay marriage — judicial decisions have short-circuited normal political discourse.

That fact alone makes judicial appointments important. Their significance is magnified by judges’ life tenure.

Lose the battle over filling a Supreme Court slot and you may suffer the consequences for decades. Gerald Ford’s unelected presidency merits little more than a historical footnote, but his Supreme Court legacy long persisted through Justice John Paul Stevens, a judicial ideologue hostile to liberty in most forms. Republicans going back to Dwight Eisenhower publicly lamented the evolution of their appointees, and every one of them made at least one choice that ultimately advanced a big-government agenda. Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts fill that role today.

Lifetime tenure has other consequences. The appointment process is endlessly arbitrary, as judges hang on, irrespective of advancing age. Although instances of obvious infirmity are few — the last clear Supreme Court case was William O. Douglas, who served more than 36 years before retiring in 1975 — outcomes should not be affected by actuarial tables. A gerontocratic court differs dramatically from the society on behalf of which its members purport to speak. The lack of turnover also may deaden court debate, reinforcing established patterns of thinking.

Life tenure is enshrined in the Constitution and rooted in history. The justification for lifetime appointment is to insulate the courts from transient political pressures. Some such protection is necessary if judges are to feel free to make unpopular decisions upholding the nation’s fundamental law.

Yet, judicial independence does not require lack of accountability. Judges are supposed to play a limited though vital role: interpreting, not transforming, the law. The dichotomy of activism versus restraint is the wrong prism for viewing judges. They should be active in enforcing the law, striking down legislation, and vindicating rights when required by the Constitution. They should be restrained in substituting their policy preferences for those of elected representatives.

When jurists violate this role, as do so many judges, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, many of the proposed responses are more dangerous than the judges themselves. For instance, limiting court jurisdiction or impeaching errant jurists, oft proposed in the past, provides obvious opportunities for abuse. Worse is Cruz’s idea that most people should ignore the Supreme Court. Where government branches collide, someone must have a final say, or else the result will be enduring political conflict and limited legal legitimacy.

Ignore the Court?

More important, Cruz would presumably not want politicians to ignore court rulings with which he agreed. After all, as originally conceived, the judiciary was tasked with the critical role of holding the executive and legislative branches accountable, limiting their propensity to exceed their bounds and abuse the people. For instance, Alexander Hamilton imagined independent courts playing a “peculiarly essential” role to safeguard liberties and being an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.” Indeed, he contended, the judiciary would “guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals” from “the people themselves.”

Thomas Jefferson argued that judges would provide a “legal check” on political majorities. James Madison, often viewed as the father of the Constitution, predicted that

independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of [Bill of Rights guarantees]; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.

Of course, all too often the judiciary fails to fulfill this role today. No less than the presidents and congressmen, judges have become avid advocates of statism. Jurists as well as politicians should be held accountable. Unreviewable power is always dangerous.

Throw the Bums Out?

Some 20 states have implemented Cruz’s second idea, of retention elections. Few judges are defenestrated, but on occasion, the results are dramatic. Three decades ago, California voters ousted three state supreme court jurists who had effectively repealed the death penalty. In 2010, Iowa voters defeated three state supreme court judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage.

National judicial elections, however, would be far more problematic. Should the decision be made via national vote or by a majority of state votes? Moreover, it is hard to believe that Americans who today choose their president based on 30-second television spots would pay serious attention to esoteric legal issues and make the fine distinctions characteristic of legal and constitutional analysis. Worse, judicial votes might reinforce the reigning political consensus, allowing majorities to remove justices most prepared to enforce the constitution against those in power. Unfortunately, further politicizing the judiciary would be an uncertain means of counteracting the problem of a politicized judiciary.

There is a better alternative.

The Solution: Fixed Terms

The Constitution should be amended to authorize fixed terms for federal judges. Perhaps one term of 10 or 12 years for Supreme Court justices, though Federalist Society founder Steve Calabresi suggested 18-year terms. Another option would be a renewable term of 6 or 8 years. Staggering terms would ensure every president at least a couple of appointments. Mixing short and long terms would expand diversity.

Such an approach would offer several advantages. While every appointment would remain important, judicial nominations would no longer be as likely to become political Armageddon. The new justice’s service would be bounded with his exit from office already set, and another appointment would be due a couple of years later.

Term limits also would ensure a steady transformation of the court’s membership. New additions at regular intervals would encourage intellectual as well as physical rejuvenation of the court. No longer would justices attempt to desperately hang on in order to outlast a president of another party. Law rather than health would determine the pace of judicial appointments.

Most important, fixed terms would establish judicial accountability. Justices still would be independent, largely immune to political retaliation for their decisions. Thus, if so inclined, they still could “resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.”

Nevertheless, abusive judges would no longer serve for life. Elective officials could reassert control over the court without destroying the judicial institution. There would be no court-packing, a la Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as transformation would take time, over two or three presidencies.

The Supreme Court has become as consequential as the presidency in making public policy. Indeed, contrary to their originally envisioned role, judges have become as likely as politicians to push to expand state power and limit individual liberty. It is necessary to find a way to impose accountability while preserving independence. Appointing judges to fixed terms would simultaneously achieve both objectives.


Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of a number of books on economics and politics. He writes regularly on military non-interventionism.

Florida: Appeals Court Upholds ‘Docs vs. Glocks’ Gun Law

In 2011, at the urging of the NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida, the Florida Legislature passed  HB-155 by Rep. Jason Brodeur & Sen. Greg Evers  to stop doctors from interrogating patients about gun ownership and entering gun ownership information into medical databases — thereby creating a de facto database of gun owners.

Simply put, physicians interrogating and lecturing parents and children about guns is not about gun safety. It is a political agenda to ban guns.

Parents do not take their children to physicians for a political lecture against the ownership of firearms, they go there for medical care.

The final version of HB-155 passed both the House and Senate with more than two-thirds majorities.

However, numerous national level organizations (known to be anti-gun) filed a lawsuit to stop enforcement of the new law, creating a four year legal battle.  Yesterday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

Below is a news report that is reprinted with permission:

APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS DOCTOR-PATIENT GUN LAW

By JIM SAUNDERS
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, July 28, 2015………. For the second time in little more than a year, a federal appeals court Tuesday upheld a controversial Florida law that restricts doctors from asking questions and recording information about patients’ gun ownership.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was a victory for the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates and a defeat for medical groups that argued, at least in part, that the law infringed on doctors’ First Amendment rights.

The appeals court last July also upheld the 2011 law but issued a revised ruling Tuesday. After last year’s decision, medical groups continued challenging the law, including asking for a rehearing before the entire Atlanta-based appeals court.

Dubbed the “docs vs. glocks” law, the measure includes a series of restrictions on doctors and other health providers. As an example, it seeks to prevent physicians from entering information about gun ownership into medical records if the physicians know the information is not “relevant” to patients’ medical care or safety or to the safety of other people.

As another example, the law says doctors should refrain from asking about gun ownership by patients or family members unless the doctors believe in “good faith” that the information is relevant to medical care or safety. Also, the law seeks to prevent doctors from discriminating against patients or “harassing” them because of owning firearms.

A federal district judge in 2012 sided with opponents of the law and issued an injunction against it. But the appeals court last July and again Tuesday overturned the injunction.

“The purpose of the act, as we read it, is not to protect patient privacy by shielding patients from any and all discussion about firearms with their physicians; the act merely requires physicians to refrain from broaching a concededly sensitive topic when they lack any good-faith belief that such information is relevant to the medical care or safety of their patients or others,” said the majority opinion, written by Judge Gerald Tjoflat and joined by Judge L. Scott Coogler.

But Judge Charles Wilson wrote a lengthy dissent arguing that the law violates the First Amendment rights of physicians.

“Simply put, the act is a gag order that prevents doctors from even asking the first question in a conversation about firearms,” Wilson wrote. “The act prohibits or significantly chills doctors from expressing their views and providing information to patients about one topic and one topic only, firearms.”

The Republican-dominated Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott approved the law after hearing accounts of doctors unnecessarily asking questions about gun ownership or even refusing to continue providing care if such questions were not answered.

In Tuesday’s majority opinion, Tjoflat repeatedly pointed to instances in which doctors can continue justify asking about firearms, such as in the case of a patient considered at risk of suicide.

“Thus, a physician may make inquiries as to the firearms-ownership status of any or all patients, so long as he or she does so with the good-faith belief — based on the specifics of the patient’s case — that the inquiry is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or the safety of others,” the majority opinion said. “If, for example, the physician seeks firearm information to suit a personal agenda unrelated to medical care or safety, he or she would not be making a ‘good-faith’ inquiry, and so the act plainly directs him to refrain from inquiring.”

But Wilson’s dissent raised questions about whether the law stemmed from anecdotal incidents. He also argued that doctors should have the right to ask questions about guns in addressing the well-being of patients.

“There is nothing to suggest that the doctors’ inquiries or messages regarding firearms were not genuinely believed to be in the patients’ best medical interest when given,” Wilson wrote. “But there is evidence in the legislative history to suggest that the harassment provision (of the law) is designed to prevent these conversations from taking place in the future. That is certainly the result it will achieve. Doctors will largely cease inquiring into and counseling on the topic of firearms, lest they be accused of crossing the line between providing life-saving preventive medical information and promoting an anti-firearm political agenda.”

–END–
7/28/2015

© 2015 The News Service of Florida. All rights reserved. Posting or forwarding this material without permission is prohibited. You can view the Terms of Use on our website. Independent and Indispensable http://www.newsserviceflorida.com

Oklahoma Supreme Court: The Ten Commandments Suck!

635713507058167020-AP-Oklahoma-Capitol-Ten-CommandmentsLook, this ain’t hard. Once a person abandons the solid moral foundation of the Ten Commandments, that person will have complete and continual instability in his life.

Extrapolating from there to a social context indicates that this principal of moral instability follows a society which abandons the solid foundation of the 10 Commandments in exchange for the illusion of a foundation built on the shifting sand of cultural relativism.

On today’s show we illustrate this critical element of humanity by using the 10 Commandment controversy in Oklahoma and how it relates to each American.

Important stuff, tune in.

Shariah Law: A Major Threat to American Civilization

Since the founding of the United States of America, Liberty has been one of the great hallmarks of our beloved republic.  It is one of the unalienable rights recognized in and protected be the U.S. Constitution.  The blessed right to Liberty or (freedom with responsibility) entails the ability to believe, express, and practice one’s faith according to their own conscience.  There liberties, however, are not absolute and must operate within the bounds of the law.  So for the most part even today, when disagreements and controversies arise in the United States, they are battled in the free marketplace of ideas or resolved in a court of law governed by the laws enacted Congress and state legislatures.  Those laws indiscriminately govern people of all races, religions, and social classes now living throughout America.  They are required to comply with the United States Constitution.

One of the great stories of American history is how until recently, millions upon millions of legal immigrants came into this country and quickly assimilated themselves into the population.  Growing up in Cleveland I saw firsthand the results of the grateful teeming masses who poured unto our shores.  It is called Little Italy, where generations of a community of sovereign citizens whose ancestors came to America seeking a better life.  To this very day their descendants are grateful that their grandparents and great grandparents chose to come to America.

Unfortunately, America is now being plagued with growing dedicated Muslim neighborhood bunkers that are increasingly ruled by shariah law.  First of all, Shari’a law is a brutal war on women concept that is foreign to our society.  The war on women shariah law way of death is not legally approved by most American authorities (although officials in Dearbornistan, MI have been rumored to look the other way while shariah law has been practiced there.)  But it is still generally thought to be incompatible with the existing law of this land and, in numerous respects, contrary to natural justice.

Brutal, uncivilized, dedicated Muslim-shariah law was started approximately fourteen hundred years ago.  The bitter illiterate prophet Mohamed is credited with the origins of Islam.  He spread his dogma at the end of a sword.  One thing that sets the Muslim-shariah concept apart from most other religions is that it not only covers one’s spiritual walk with a deity, but it is a vicious and cruel legal system.  It entails a comprehensive code of law governing the total social, political, and economic lives of all Muslims that must be enforced by the state.

To this day, many Americans still stupidly believe there are moderate and so-called radical Islamic organizations.  All the while, I have and still believe that a Muslim is either dedicated or non- practicing. Simply because the so-called moderate Muslims fully agree with their “radical” friends that using the freedoms we hold dear in America in order to gain control of America is the way to go.  Muslim groups and communities in the U.S. the U.K., France and elsewhere have become bastions of bigoted bullies, who are by any means they deem necessary to gain more and more control of our republic.

I have no doubt that the Islamists are conspiring to overthrow our Constitutionally limited republic way of life.  It is the goal of all dedicated Muslims to take over every society, including the United States of America.  Every dedicated Muslim is waiting for the time to strike the unbelieving infidel, as they are instructed many times in their Qua-ran.  To often, people in the media and in the judiciary do not understand or don’t desire to recognize the alarming threat the dedicated Islamists pose to our nation that has grown too soft for it’s own good.

The worldwide threat of brutal, political Islam now fully ensconced in the United States has become a major danger to our often gullible citizenry.  The Islamic brutes have already begun forcing their insane ideology to force submission to Allah) not only in our America, but in numerous nations throughout the world.  There are reams of documented evidence of the racist proclivities of the Islamists who as of this reading hold thousands of black slaves under the most horrid conditions imaginable.  I find it ironic that the progressive American racist hunters don’t seem to be willing to target the racist Muslims for rebuke.  I label them racist because dedicated muslims are instructed in their Quran to view black people as slaves and raisin heads.

In future columns I will feature more history regarding those who tell the world about the peaceful religion of Islam, while raping, beheading, drowning people for not being Muslim or for being black.  In the meantime, my fellow Americans, drop political correctness like the bad habit it is and help rescue our republic from those who would kill us for sport.  That is their way of spreading the message of the twisted mind of their long dead pedophile-prophet.   If you are so inclined, please pray for the forgiveness of God almighty for the role any of us may have played in opening the door to the massive assault on this, still the greatest nation in the history of the world.

America Has Lost Its Identity

There is no example in the history of the world of a civilization, culture, or country that has survived without an intact family unit.

Historically, this has meant father, mother, sister, brother, grandparents, and sometimes other extended family members.  With the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution came what we now know as the nuclear family-father, mother, brother and sister.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, immigrants flooded into America in an effort to flee oppressive governments back home or to pursue greener pastures here.

It was implicitly understood that English was the de facto official language, being a good citizen was expected, and contributing to the betterment of America was one’s civic and moral obligation.

Children were taught to go to school, get a job, get married, and to raise a family.  These principles served us pretty well as a nation until recently.

Now, I no longer know what it means to be an American.

People come to this country, legally and illegally, and refuse to speak English.  Judges and politicians are redefining the family unit; gender is no longer determined at birth; the government is invading every aspect of both our public and private lives.

How is it possible for mankind to be so arrogant as to say their gender is no longer determined at birth, based on the anatomical features present when they are born?

Now that Mother Nature is getting up in age, she is beginning to make all sorts of mistakes.  Boys born with penises are claiming to be girls; girls born with vaginas are now claiming to be boys.

Some are even going so far as to say there is no longer a thing called gender; there is no male or female; but rather one can “self-identify” from moment to moment as to what their gender is.  Even President Obama has demonstrated his belief in this foolishness.  A few months ago, he made bathrooms in the White House “gender neutral.”  Bathrooms are no longer labeled as male or female. You can now choose which one to use based on how you “self-identify” at that moment.

I can’t help but be reminded of the Greek philosopher, Protagoras.  I studied him while attending Oral Roberts University.  He is considered the father of relativism, which basically said there are no absolutes.

Protagoras is best known for his statement, “Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not.”  So this insidious notion of “self-identifying,” is an extension of Protagoras’ philosophy.

According to this view, there is no God or any higher power.  Each individual is the all and be all of their existence.  There is no common moral framework by which man should live by; every man lives by his on individual moral code.

By believing thus, a society loses the very glue that keeps a people united.  Typically, language, moral values, and patriotism are some of those common threads that make a society cohesive.

I currently stand at five foot eight inches tall; but I currently self-identify as six foot eight inches tall, therefore, I should legally be recognized by that which I believe, regardless of whether it’s based on facts.

As crazy as the above sounds, is this not what Rachel Dolezal did.  She is the White woman who is the head of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the NAACP.  Last week she admitted that she was born White, but now she self-identifies as Black; thus, making her Black.  Even on legal documents she has been listing her race as Black, though her own birth certificate states that she is White.

She should be prosecuted to every extent of the law and the NAACP should have fired her immediately.

But, as usual, the NAACP’s leadership showed why no one takes them seriously as an organization.  Here is what their national office had to say about Dolezal, “One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership.”  So, I guess lying is now a permitted quality for a leadership position with the NAACP.

Since there are no longer any absolutes, we now have a country where sex is no longer determined at birth and race is no longer determined by genetics or ancestry.  I can claim to be seven feet tall, though I am only five foot eight; but yet have the legal standing of being a seven footer simply because I say it’s so.

Would you go to a medical professional who only “self-identifies” as a physician; having never attended medical school?

A society without rules is a society in chaos.  You have little kids thinking they are homosexual; you have people in the country illegally who think they have a constitutional right to be here; entertainers like Kanye West and Omar Epps think it is OK for them to wear dresses.

Values are the DNA of a society and America has lost its values in the name of individual freedom.  Freedom only works within the context of shared rules or beliefs.

The game of basketball is a good example.  Everyone that plays the game agrees to a common set of rules by which the game is played.  Within these rules are opportunities for individual players to express their uniqueness.

But without a common acceptance of the rules of the game, basketball cannot exist.

So it is with America; without common acceptance of rules dealing with sexuality, morals law & order, we will no longer exist as a society.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Lie Obama Keeps Repeating About the Poor in America

What Bastiat Had to Say about Police Abuse by Jeffrey A. Tucker

When it comes to being employed by the government, membership has its privileges. How far do these privileges extend? It’s a question that is central to political philosophy. It is most poignantly addressed by one of my favorite pieces of writing, Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law (1850).

The same question is being debated on the streets in every U.S. city today. Videos of citizen abuse at the hands of the police are everywhere. It seems the cops have been empowered to do to us what we would never be allowed to do to each other. Some cases have made it to grand juries and trial juries. People are asking pointed questions regarding the relationship between the state and its citizens.

From the mainstream media to the courts, disagreement usually revolves around questions of the motivation, the character, and the behavior of police officers. Are they following the regulations? Abusing their authority? Motivated at some level by racism? Some would like to confront the related question: What level of citizen noncompliance justly prompts the police to use extreme force?

But there’s a question everyone wants to avoid here: Are the laws themselves just?

Many of the most famous beatings and killings at the hands of the police began with small infractions such a selling contraband cigarettes, evading criminal prosecution for the failure to pay child support, carrying knives, or small-time dealing of illegal substances. Then there are the many cases of asset forfeiture that never make it to YouTube, ongoing acts of plunder that aren’t flashy enough to inspire mass protests.

If the debate stays centered on police actions alone, we will never reach the core issue.

What is the law — and what should it be?

These are the bigger questions that are not yet part of public consciousness. Every law and regulation, no matter how small, is ultimately enforced by the threat of violence on the part of public authority. Laws are not “nudges”; they are mandates enforced by the legal use of coercion against person and property.

Bastiat tried to get people to think hard about what was happening and how the law had become an instrument of plunder and violence, rather than a protector of property and peace. If the law itself is not just, the result is social division and widespread discontent. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled becomes distorted, and a sense of systemic injustice pervades the culture. Bastiat observed this in horror in his time, and it’s a good description of our own:

The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

Further, and most poignantly in our time: “Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal.”

Indeed.

Whether this happens at a traffic stop, at the arbitrary hands of an angry cop, or due to a tax or regulation passed by a legislature doesn’t change the nature of what is happening.

Bastiat’s essay asks fundamental questions that most people go through life never having thought about. The problem is that most people accept the law as a given, a fundamental fact of life.

As a member of society, you obey or face the consequences. It is not safe to question why. This is because the enforcement arm of the law is the state, that peculiar agency with a unique power to use legal force against life and property. The state says what the law is — however this decision was made — and that settles it.

Bastiat could not accept this. He wanted to know what the law is, apart from what the state says it is. He saw that the purpose of law is, most fundamentally, to protect private property and life against invasion, or at least to ensure that justice is done in cases in which such invasions do take place.

This is hardly a unique idea; it is a summary of what philosophers, jurists, and theologians have thought in most times and places. It’s what most of us think, intuitively, that the law should be about. What makes Bastiat different is that he takes that next step, the one that opens the reader’s eyes as nothing else does. He subjects the state itself to the test of whether it complies with that idea of law.

He takes notice, even from the first paragraph, of the corruption that ensues when the state turns out to be a lawbreaker in the name of law keeping: the state does the very thing that law is supposed to prevent. Instead of protecting private property, it invades it. Instead of protecting life, it destroys it. Instead of guarding liberty, it violates it. And as the state advances and grows, it does these things ever more, until it threatens the well-being of society.

Even more tellingly, Bastiat observes that when you subject the state to the same standards that the law uses to judge relations between individuals, the state fails. He concludes that when this is the case, the law has been perverted in the hands of the governing elites. It is employed to do the very thing that the law is designed to prevent. The enforcer turns out to be the main violator of its own standards.

The law, wrote Bastiat, is supposed to protect property and person from arbitrary attack. When the law becomes a tool for providing legal cover for such attacks, as it has from Bastiat’s time to our own, its whole purpose has been turned upside down and inside out.

What Bastiat was seeking, as the embodiment of justice, was a consistent ethic of public life. The law should be the same for everyone. We should all obey the same rules. Neither the state nor any of its functionaries can be exempt from the rules they purport to enforce.

We cannot permit the state to judge itself by a different standard. Indeed, when Marilyn Mosby, Maryland’s state attorney, announced that the she was prosecuting the cops who beat and killed Freddie Gray, she struck a chord that resonated far and wide. She might be a left-liberal Democrat, and she might not share libertarian values across the board, but when she said, “no one is above the law,” she was echoing Bastiat and the entire liberal tradition.

What are the social consequences of having a different sets of laws, one for state agents and one for everyone else? Bastiat believed that the result is lawlessness:

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.

In this case, the law becomes a perpetual source of hatred and discord. It even “tends to destroy society itself.” Whether this destruction takes place in the controlled environment of a legislature, the routine quietude of the bureaucracy, or on the streets through looting does not change the essentials of what is happening.

What does this say about abuse at the hands of the police? According to Bastiat’s standard, the law should regard such abuse as the violation of another’s rights. Period.

The passion, the fire, the relentless logic of Bastiat’s monograph have the power to shake up any reader. Nothing is the same after you read The Law. That is why this essay is rightly famous. It is capable of shaking up whole systems of government and whole societies — a beautiful illustration of the pen’s power.

It is a habit of every generation to underestimate the importance and power of ideas. Yet the whole world that we live in is built by them. Nothing outside pure nature exists in this world that did not begin as an idea held by human beings. That’s why an essay like Bastiat’s is so powerful and important. It helps you see the injustices that surround us, which we are otherwise inclined to ignore. And it helps provide the response to them.

Seeing and explaining are the first steps to changing.


Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.

Baltimore Lawmakers, Not its Citizens, Are the Problem

Sadly, what’s happening in Baltimore shouldn’t surprise anyone.

You cannot have an environment where the political leaders leverage chaos for personal political gain and expect those on the side of law and order to sweep in and win the day. The real tragedy here is the growing fear now residing in the hearts of the good citizens of Baltimore, those being subjected to daily threats of deadly violence because of the disturbing and irresponsible actions of its political elite.

Baltimore Shooting Stats
Baltimore Arrests Stats

By now, most of us know the name Freddie Gray. But how many of us know the name Eladio Bennett or Kester Browne? And, how many of us have heard the name Shaquil Hinton? These are but a few of the more than 50 lives taken before their time since the death of Freddie Gray, yet their lives and untimely passing have drawn but a sliver of the attention paid to Freddie Gray.

We can’t help the good citizens of Baltimore, and America’s many struggling inner cities, if we are afraid to shine a spotlight on the real problem. The problem is an organized far-left cabal, which has hijacked the party of JFK, and an opposing political party with few leaders willing to confront them. The organized far-left has accurately calculated that they can leverage chaos and use it to place blame, and divide us into their (not our) pre-selected racial, cultural, religious, gender, and sexual preference silos. They also use this blame strategy to highlight the fictitious failings of our system of government, bed-rocked in freedom and individual liberty. Then, once the division and blame propaganda has set in, with few in the mainstream media willing to fight back against this narrative, they propose a better way “forward” where, conveniently, they are empowered, not you.

The new “way forward” relies on more of your money going to them through higher taxes and expensive government programs. It takes away your ability to make basic health care decisions for your family, and it orders your child to attend the school they choose, not the one you choose. If you were designing a system to fail then you couldn’t design it any better than this “way forward.”

It’s not just the political penalty we pay, where we lose control over our money through their relentless push for government empowerment subsequent to a crisis, we can also lose our lives. The complete lack of leadership in Baltimore and the constant apologies for lawbreakers who were given “room to destroy,” while ensuring an expedited rush to judgment for the police officers involved in the Freddie Gray incident, has broken what has made this country the global, historical exception; fidelity to process. Process, and the rule of law and order, has enabled us to prosper economically and become a global example for freedom and liberty. When this process breaks down and we become a country of rule by discretion, rather than rule by law, the entire system breaks down and it filters down to the police officers on the street.

Having been a law enforcement officer with the N.Y.P.D. and the U.S. Secret Service I have seen first-hand the dangers law enforcement officers knowingly face every day for little money, and even less accolades. All these men and women ask is that the cities and towns they have pledged to protect and serve grant them the same process and legal rights as the citizens they protect. I don’t know what happened behind those doors of the van Freddie Gray was placed in and, if it turns out that the officers involved committed a crime, then they should be prosecuted. But, when far-left legal scholars and conservative thought leaders agree that the charges leveled against the police officers by Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby were political, and not firmly based on evidence, then we have a serious problem.

Police officers are an intelligent lot and they see this street justice prosecution as a direct attack on their ability to fight crime. Police officers are given tremendous discretion to combat crime and do their jobs and they are not legally mandated to arrest every person for every violation of the law they witness. I can imagine a scenario where many of these formerly discretionary police actions for non-violent, nuisance-crime-type activities, are not happening because the officers feel that the city of Baltimore will not be on their side if a police action for public urination turns into a use-of-force scenario. Sadly, it is this man or woman, who is engaged in this nuisance crime, and who is not confronted by law enforcement, that is typically the one who walks out of the alley and robs, rapes or kills someone.

In short, politicians and government are the problem in Baltimore, not the citizens. Nothing will change in Baltimore until the political leaders, who worship at the altar of big government are replaced by those who believe that the future of Baltimore is in the hands of the liberty of its citizens, fidelity to the rule of law, order and process, and not the permission of its government.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of the Mayor of Baltimore is by Patrick Semansky | AP Photo.

VIDEO: Minneapolis Muslims prefer Sharia, want blasphemy laws in U.S.

Note the unanimous opposition to the freedom of speech and support for criminalizing criticism of Islam — and even for murdering those who insult Muhammad. All freely and openly expressed on a sunny day in Minneapolis.

Video thanks to Ami Horowitz.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Freedom, Provocation and Targets

Islamic State has 30,000 foreign jihadis from over 100 countries