http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2020-10-21 06:51:122020-10-21 07:01:33VIDEO: Retiring Police Officer Gives His Badge to honor President Donald J. Trump
Periods of civil disorder, like elections, are a time for choosing sides. Democrats have chosen their side — against police, against safety and against the rule of law. On November 3, the American people will choose whether to join them.
For more than three months we have witnessed riots, lawlessness and political violence instigated by antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) radicals — cities burned, stores looted, police officers and citizens attacked and even killed. Vicious mobs felt emboldened to “occupy” our streets, block traffic and invade our neighborhoods.
While Democrat mayors, governors and prosecutors refused to stop the violence, President Trump refused to surrender to the mob, standing up for our police and for the safety and security of American families.
Their rhetoric now seeks to rewrite history, but when the moment came to pick sides, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats cast their lots with the mob, not the law-abiding citizens being terrorized in their homes. Their silence — and in some cases outright support — allowed our cities to descend into chaos. The Democrats denied the violence and tried to convince us that the arson, looting and beatings were actually just “peaceful protests.”
But we all saw the truth with our own eyes.
In Portland, the mob dragged a man from his truck, then beat, stomped, savagely kicked him in the head before leaving him for dead in the street. In New York City, violent radicals attacked three NYPD supervisors, opening a huge gash in one officer’s head. One of the attackers was arrested, only to be immediately set free to continue rioting under New York’s radical “bail reform” law — the same policy of eliminating cash bail that Kamala Harris hopes to implement nationwide. In Kenosha, Wisconsin, a 71-year-old man defending his business was viciously beaten by a group of thugs, suffering a broken jaw at the hands of the “peaceful protestors” who then stepped over him to loot and burn his store.
This mob violence spread and intensified because Democrat mayors prevented the police from confronting it, and even gave the rioters moral sanction to run wild.
Another mob set upon peaceful citizens departing the Republican National Convention. Among the victims were U.S. Senator Rand Paul and his wife. Surrounded and in fear for their lives, the couple only escaped the possibility of serious injury or death thanks to the extraordinary action of four brave police officers, who kept the antagonists at bay until Sen. Paul and the others made it to safety. Biden and the Democrats refused to denounce the mob — after all, the violent rioters are their base, and they hoped to ride that kind of “enthusiasm” into the White House.
No Democrat official has acted more shamefully than Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler. For 104 days and counting, he has allowed mobs to riot, destroy public and private property, and even attempt to burn police officers alive. Wheeler has openly supported the violence, literally standing with the mob while law enforcement officers were being attacked. Even when rioters threatened a federal courthouse, Wheeler refused President Trump’s offers of assistance while his prosecutors continued to let those responsible out of jail without posting a cent of bail. His tolerance for violence reached its inevitable result on August 29 with the assassination of a Trump supporter.
This dramatic politically-motivated violence grabs headlines, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Toleration of violence and disorder by those tasked with maintaining public safety and order only breeds more violence. Predictably, violent crime is going through the roof in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other Democrat-run cities.
New York City has seen a 166 percent increase in shootings and a 34 percent rise in murders from August 2020 compared to the same period last year. In Chicago, shootings have increased by 52 percent and murders by 49 percent, with 2,152 people shot and 503 murdered already this year. During July and August alone, 1,087 were shot and 168 killed in the Windy City.
As demonstrated in Chicago and Minneapolis, Democrat mayors have legitimized the activists’ belief that looting is an acceptable response to any perceived injustice involving the police. Inevitably, Black Lives Matter interpreted that as permission to go even further. “No justice, no peace” has now evolved into a belief that looting is justified as a form of reparations for slavery.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are the official, acknowledged leaders of their party. They could — and should — have exercised real leadership and condemned these radicals. But at the Democratic National Convention, neither Biden nor Harris, nor any other Democrat uttered a word condemning the riots and mob violence that had already been going on for months by that point. Instead, they used the anti-American lie of “systemic racism” as a central theme of the convention, making common cause with activists who believe America is evil, illegitimate, and inherently racist.
They approved a Democratic Party platform that enshrines the false and dangerous myth that police are “systemically racist,” slandering the brave men and women of American law enforcement and giving their imprimatur to radical rhetoric likening federal agents to the Ku Klux Klan and police officers to Nazi “stormtroopers.”
The violence we are seeing now is a direct result of the false narrative about systemic police racism. Democrats may just be trying to win an election, but in the process they have dealt a significant blow to the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of many citizens, and law-abiding Americans are suffering mightily for it.
American civilization rests upon the will of the people, not the fury of the mob. If we lose the rule of law, we lose our country. Democrats have shown how they run cities — in the process making it clear that our families will not be safe if they are allowed to run our country. They have chosen their side, but it’s not too late for us to choose President Trump’s — and our own.
Maurice Richards is the former Chief of the Martinsburg Police Department in West Virginia. He served as Chief from 2015 to 2020 after 24 years as an officer and lieutenant in the Chicago Police Department. Richards holds a doctorate in Adult Education from Northern Illinois University.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2020-09-15 05:36:482020-09-15 07:42:42FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE MAURICE RICHARDS: In A Time Of Violence, Americans Must Take A Stand Against Lawlessness
Despite the occasional looting, chaos, property damage, trespassing, rioting, graffiti, assaults, arson, and general mayhem, the media consistently assure us that Antifa “protesters” are “largely peaceful.” And since the majority of buildings in Portland, Seattle, and Denver haven’t been looted yet, who am I to argue?
Of course, it takes only a sliver of the population to transform downtowns into a mess and create quality-of-life issues for thousands of law-abiding citizens. And the mayors who surrender parts of their cities to left-wing “protesters” are tacitly endorsing lawlessness themselves.
There’s little doubt that if alt-right activists had occupied a few city blocks in Seattle or tried to firebomb a federal courthouse in Portland, we’d be in for feverish wall-to-wall media coverage, engulfed in a national conversation about the perils of right-wing radicalism. Every elected Republican would be asked to personally denounce the extremists to make sure they take implicit ownership of the problem.
When a few hundred angry tiki torch-carrying Nazis marched in Charlottesville, you would have thought the Republican National Committee had deployed the Wehrmacht. Those who led the riot were even asked to opine on CNN.
Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today. But what side are you on? And how can you sharpen up on how to defend your position? Learn more now >>
On the other hand, left-wing rioters—the people Chris Cuomo and other journalists compared to GIs landing on Normandy—are immediately transformed into apolitical actors, rogue “anarchists,” as soon as any violence starts.
Who knows? Perhaps the majority of citizens and businesses in Portland, Seattle, and Denver want their elected officials to let Antifa act with impunity. Or maybe some of those citizens and businesses will begin fleeing those cities. Whatever the case, it’s a local concern.
WATCH: Journalist Andy Ngo exposes the violence of the left:
To a point. If mayors do nothing to stop anarchists from tearing down federal monuments or from defacing, vandalizing, and attempting to burn down federal buildings, the feds have every right to dispatch teams of agents to restore order.
None of which is to deny that there are legitimate concerns about how law enforcement is conducting itself. I’m sympathetic to criticisms of the federal officers who operate in camouflage and in unmarked vans. Cops should display badge numbers and identification—if they truly aren’t doing so right now—otherwise civilians have no real way to hold those in authority accountable for their actions.
But the claim that Pinochet-like secret police have begun snatching Portland protesters off the street and making them disappear amounts to the arrest of one man, who refused to speak without his lawyer and was released a little more than an hour later without any charges.
If it were up to me, I’d leave Portland to the anarchists and their political accomplices. But federal law enforcement—including agencies such as the FBI; the Drug Enforcement Administration; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the Department of Homeland Security; the Marshal Service; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—regularly operate across the country. Sometimes they make arrests, and sometimes they do so after going undercover.
This happens under every administration, every day, and it often happens for far less compelling reasons. As far as we know, cops haven’t broken any laws in the streets of Portland. The protesters who cover their faces have broken tons.
With this in mind, it’s been instructive watching many of the same characters who cheer on governors who take undemocratic emergency powers and shut down houses of worship without the consent of the people—and who sometimes arrest Americans for playing whiffle ball, attending church, or cutting hair—act as if policing portends the end of democracy.
The same people who incessantly clamor to empower the federal government when it suits their purposes now act as if protecting a federal courthouse is the Reichstag fire.
MSNBC’s John Heilemann says that President Donald Trump sending federal police into Portland is a “trial run” for using “force” to “steal this election.”
In a piece titled “Trump’s Occupation of American Cities Has Begun,” Michelle Goldberg, somehow still allowed to freely opine at The New York Times, says that “fascism” is already here.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the police “stormtroopers” who are “kidnapping protesters.”
All of these contentions are ugly conspiracy theories, hyperbolic allegations meant to fuel partisan paranoia before an election. Even if we accept the criticisms of law enforcement, the driving problem, and it’s been happening to various degrees in a number of major cities, is that mayors are allowing “protesters” to trample on public and private property. They allow it because they share the same left-wing sensibilities.
But protesting should never be a license for anarchy.
These are trying times in our nation’s history. Two regimes are fighting an ideological war in America today, with polar opposite viewpoints on public policy and the government’s role in our lives.
Our friends at The Heritage Foundation asked world-class speaker, educator, and researcher David Azerrad to walk you through his research and outline the differences between the “two regimes” in our society today—conservatism and progressivism—and their primary differences.
When you get access to this course today, you’ll learn key takeaways like what it means to be a conservative, what “modern progressivism” is, how a conservative worldview differs from a progressive one, and much, much more.
You will come away from this online course with a better understanding of the differing points of view, how they align with your principles, and how to defend your beliefs.
Don’t wait—start taking “The Case for Conservatism” course online now.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2020-07-25 04:53:062020-07-25 04:55:21VIDEO: The Problem in Portland Isn’t the Law—It’s the Lawlessness
NBC and Fox News said on Monday morning that they would no longer air an immigration ad from President Donald Trump that has been widely derided as racially divisive.
“After further review, we recognize the insensitive nature of the ad and have decided to cease airing it across our properties as soon as possible,” said Joe Benarroch, a spokesperson for NBC’s advertising sales department.
The article included this statement:
Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, tweeted that NBC, CNN and Facebook “have chosen to stand” with undocumented immigrants.
By standing with illegal aliens, these “news” organizations that refuse to make a clear distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens have turned their backs on lawful immigrants and have harmed their reputation in the eyes of the American public.
We may be a “nation of immigrants” but we most certainly are not a nation of trespassers.
I urge you to watch the video. It simply references an illegal alien who killed two police officers in the United States and, in court, laughingly laments that he did not kill more cops! The commercial then shows the caravan heading to the United States and ends with President Trump promising to stop this invasion.
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
The local CBS radio station in New York City covered the report about the Trump ad by claiming that it reinforced negative stereotypes about immigrants.
On November 3, 2018 that local radio station (News Radio 880) posted an article, “Migrants In Caravan Respond To Trump: ‘We Are Not Killers,’” which reported on how many in the caravan were fleeing poverty in their home countries and gang violence.
One of the members of the caravan, identified as Marta Cuellos, a 40-year-old from Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, was quoted in the article:
Cuellos said she owned a cantina back home in Honduras but left because she could no longer make rent and was being harassed by police. She persuaded her 35-year-old sister to join her on the trip, and said the only thing they want is work and a better life in the United States. It’s her second attempt. She first crossed into the U.S. seven years ago but was deported last year.
The article blithely ignored that under the provisions of federal immigration statute 8 U.S. Code § 1326 an alien who is deported from the United States and then returns without authorization is committing a felony that carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. However, if that alien has committed serious crimes, the penalty for unauthorized re-entry carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. Cuellos never explained the grounds for her previous deportation, but in any event, what the media neglected to report was that she was heading to the United States to commit a crime, the crime of illegal re-entry.
Cuellos is certainly not the only alien in the caravan who was previously deported. In fact, on November 2, 2018 I was a guest on Dana Loesch’s, NRA-TV program Relentless to discuss the supposed “caravan of migrants” heading north from Central America to the United States.
My segment on Dana’s show began with an alien in the caravan being interviewed, during which he confessed to having been previously deported from the United States because he had been convicted of attempted murder in the third degree. He claimed that his purpose for joining the caravan was to come back to the United States to seek a pardon!
Nearly a year ago I wrote an article, “New York City: Hub For The Deadly Drug Trade”, wherein I discussed the fact that the only reason that the Mexican drug cartels had decided to make the City of New York their central hub for their drug trafficking operations on the east coast was due, in large measure, to the sanctuary policies of New York City.
My article focused heavily on the drug smuggling activities of the Mexican Drug Cartels, particularly El Chapo’s Sinaloa Cartel, and how NYC’s “Sanctuary” policies emboldened the cartels to turn NYC into a major hub for drug trafficking notwithstanding the fact that the NYPD is the largest, best-equipped and -trained police departing in the United States.
Ironically, even as NBC and other mainstream news outlets derided President Trump’s ad and his public statements about the threats that illegal immigration pose to the United States, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the alleged leader of the highly violent Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel, was brought from his jail cell in lower Manhattan to the federal courthouse in downtown Brooklyn to begin the process of jury selection for his trial for a laundry list of felonies pertaining to drug trafficking and violent crimes he is alleged to have committed in the United States in furtherance of his criminal enterprises here.
The November 4, 2018 NBC report, Notorious ‘El Chapo’ Trial Begins in NYC Monday, begins with this excerpt:
He is accused of having a hand in dozens of murders, of using his drug cartel to smuggle more than 200 tons of cocaine into the United States, even pulling off running the massive operation from behind bars. That’s when he wasn’t busy escaping from jail — twice.
The almost-mythical criminal pedigree of Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who was extradited in 2017 to face U.S. drug conspiracy charges, has sparked security concerns at his upcoming New York City trial that at times have drawn as much attention as the case’s sensational allegations.
The article also reported:
FORTIFYING THE COURTHOUSE
At pretrial hearings leading to the trial, heavily armed federal officers and bomb-sniffing dogs patrolled outside. Anyone trying to attend the hearings was put through airport-style metal detectors at the courthouse entrance and at the door of the courtroom itself.
The judge also agreed with prosecutors that the jury for the case should be kept anonymous, a measure typical in terrorism or mob cases where jury intimidation is a concern.
No one’s hiding the ominous nature of the case from potential jurors. Questions for them on an initial screening form ask if they’ve ever heard of “El Chapo” along with, “Have you, or has anyone close to you, ever felt fearful of or threatened by people who you thought were associated with drug crimes?”
Jurors also will be escorted to and from the courthouse by federal officers and sequestered from the public while inside. As a reason, the judge cited prosecutors’ contention that Guzman’s cartel “employs ‘sicarios,’ or hit men, who carried out hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, assaults and kidnappings.”
There are clear and well-founded concerns that cartel hitmen or “sicarios” have been able to infiltrate the United States to do El Chapo’s bidding. It is almost a certainty that any such criminals would have entered the United States by running the U.S./Mexican border and entering the United States without inspection.
All of the cocaine and other drugs “imported” into the United States by the Sinaloa Cartel were smuggled here by various means. However, the most likely means would be to smuggle them across the U.S./Mexican border.
Yet when President Trump insists that our borders, particularly the dangerous U.S./Mexican border, need to be secured to prevent the entry of members of the drug cartels, transactional gangs and international terrorist organizations, he is accused by the media as well as by his political adversaries of creating bad stereotypes about “immigrants.”
The media and politicians who refuse to make a clear distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens are actually responsible for discrediting lawful immigrants who patiently wait their turn on line and submit themselves to scrutiny in the lawful immigration process that, each and every year, generously admits approximately one million new lawful immigrants and immediately places them on the pathway to U.S. citizenship.
As I have noted on many, many occasions for the sake of clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.
RELATED VIDEO: Illegal Immigration: It’s About Power – Prager University.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The featured image by S_Salow on Pixabay.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/burglar-3718381_640.jpg439640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2018-11-07 05:34:082019-03-07 08:29:12ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA NIXES TRUMP AD ABOUT DANGEROUS CARAVAN: Is there really no difference between a house-guest and a burglar?
When is President Obama going to stand up and lead on the issue of violent rhetoric directed at our nation’s police officers? Although a direct connection between many of the recent assaults on police officers and the Black Lives Matter movement is still tenuous, it’s difficult to argue that chants of “Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon” are helping diffuse community tensions with the police. Yet, President Obama has still refused to publicly denounce the group.
This should infuriate every law enforcement officer in the country at the local, state and federal level who bravely stands on the demarcation line between law and order, and street chaos. It also begs the question, what does a left-leaning group have to do, or say, to earn President Obama’s condemnation? We know from experience that just being a Republican is enough to generate condemnation from President Obama in many cases but, calls for assaults on police officers have earned Black Lives Matter activists not condemnation, but an endorsement from the President’s party.
If the Democratic Party insists on endorsing, rather than condemning, a movement that has some of its members declaring open war on our police officers then they have made the politics of this fair game. If President Obama continues to cower on this issue and continues to avoid condemning the dangerous rhetoric of Black lives matter, then law enforcement should openly boycott the Democratic Party. There is power in numbers and if a major, national political party, led by the current President of the United States, cannot gather up the courage to condemn what’s evolving into an openly violent movement, then the Democratic Party should suffer politically for it.
Police investigate the scene where two police officers were shot outside the Ferguson Police Department Thursday, March 12, 2015, in Ferguson, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)
Leadership and judgment are two qualities we look for in a President and, with regard to the Black Lives Matter movement, and their calls for violence against police officers, President Obama has shown neither of these traits. But, Mr. Obama still has an opportunity to redeem himself. He could take the path chosen by Bill Clinton in 1992 when he was given the opportunity to take a stand against inflammatory, and divisive, racist rhetoric when he refused to appear at a Rainbow Coalition event because activist Sister Souljah was speaking there. Sister Souljah—who infamously stated to a Washington Post reporter “If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?”—gave Clinton an opportunity to show sound judgment in distancing himself from this type of nonsense, and he took it.
I’m no fan of Bill Clinton’s politics, and I cannot dive deep into his thoughts to uncover what his real motivation was for calling out Sister Souljah, but actions matter and talk is cheap. President Obama is all talk, and no action, on the extremely violent rhetoric being directed at the police.
President Obama was quick to be seen on camera in the Henry Louis Gates incident claiming, without a full grasp of all of the circumstances of the interaction, that the police officer acted “stupidly.” He was quick to be seen on camera after the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, stating that it “stains the heart of black children,” while failing to responsibly describe to the America people the full context of the interaction between police officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. He was quick to issue a statement after the grand jury’s decision not indict the police officer involved in the death of Eric Garner stating, “It’s incumbent on all of us as Americans…that we recognize that this is an American problem,” despite not having the facts presented to the grand jury in the case.
It’s interesting that the President was so comfortable indicting the country and talking about police use of force incidents as an “American problem” but he still refuses to stand publicly in front of the cameras and give a forceful speech defending the good cops out there and condemning the dangerous and violent rhetoric employed by the Black lives matter movement as an “American problem.” How many more police officers are going to have to die before the President acts on this?
Finally, playing word association games is a terrific way to get past the clutter and find out what people are really thinking about. The recent word association results from a Quinnipiac University poll are devastating for the Hillary Clinton campaign as the word mentioned most often in association with Mrs. Clinton was “liar.”
I made the case in my August 4 Conservative Reviewpiece that the ongoing email scandal regarding Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server was clear evidence that she is missing the two qualities most important to the presidency—leadership and judgment—and the association of Hillary with the word liar is further evidence that the public doesn’t trust her anymore. If President Obama doesn’t change course with his attitude towards police officers in America the first word that’s going to be associated with President Obama on the lips of our nation’s police officers is going to be “opportunist.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ferguson-obama-e1416743541976.jpg400640Dan Bonginohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDan Bongino2015-09-09 07:01:322015-09-09 07:01:32Responding to 'Black Lives Matter' & What Obama Can Learn from Bill Clinton
Thanks to an infection and the antibiotics taken to rid myself of it, I have had several days of being able to do little more than watch the news on television, listen to it on the radio, and reading about it in my daily edition of The Wall Street Journal. If there was anything else happening in the world, you would not know it because it was 24-7 Baltimore, Baltimore, Baltimore.
Specifically, it was about the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, a known drug dealer and user with an extensive rap sheet. There are different descriptions of the manner of his death, but the details of the autopsy are still obscure beyond a reference to having received a blow to his spine. This is attributed to having been placed in the police van, shackled hand and foot, but not having a safety belt applied.
The response from a certain element of Baltimoreans was to begin to loot, vandalize and set fire to their own neighborhoods by way of protesting alleged police brutality. This followed his funeral on Monday. The Mayor’s response was to tell the police to stand down and let the protesters have their way. When that predictably did not work, the National Guard was called in and a curfew imposed.
Capping these events was the indictment of the six arresting officers by the State’s Attorney General, Marilyn Mosby that included charges of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. That seemed to appease the mob that passes for Baltimore’s citizens.
I wish I could say I have sympathy for Freddie Gray and his family, but I don’t. I wish I could say that I feel sorry that Baltimore has been a state of decline and decay since the last riots in 1968, but no one asks why the trillions of dollars poured in comparable cities since the days of Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” hasn’t demonstrated any results.
I wish I could say that the connecting factor between Baltimore, Detroit, and other Democrat-controlled cities was the primary reason that their citizens suffer unemployment, why their children attend schools that fail to teach them even fundamental skills, but what has evolved in these distressed cities is a culture that does not emphasize the traditional family, demand better education, and replaces the work ethic with the “entitlement” check. The Baltimore mother who chastised her son to keep him from participating in the riot is single and has five other children.
These cities are daily crime scenes. The riot was a crime scene.
And who is accused of Freddie Gray’s death? Members of the Baltimore Police Force who initially spotted Gray, a 25 year old with a criminal record, and went to investigate what they had observed. He ran. They ran after him. That’s what we want and expect our police to do.
The indictment, a purely political act intended to quell the angry mood of those Baltimoreans who protested by committing crimes, is an attack on every police officer in America. Most are good men and women, but like any other profession, there are some bad ones. The legion of police who protect us do not go around murdering suspects indiscriminately.
Tell that to State Attorney Mosby. Then consider that Freddie Gray’s attorney, William H. Murphy, Jr. donated $5,000 to her campaign. Consider that her husband, Nick Mosby, is a Baltimore city councilman with lots of reason to see the riots quelled.
What these cities and the decades reaching back to the 1960s all represent is a vocal resentment of police authority. Back then they were called “pigs.” America has been drifting away from the traditional respect and regard we have had for our police.
The problem isn’t the police.
It’s liberal notion that raising taxes and heavily regulating businesses large and small will somehow attract them to our cities. It doesn’t work that way. Our cities have become great dumping grounds for people who interest the Democratic Party only around election time.
And that is a problem for the police. It will be a growing problem for everyone if we cannot return to a decent respect for our police.
So, for now, a pox on Baltimore and on all the politicians from the President on down who keep telling us the police are the problem, not the world of Freddie Gray’s roaming our city’s streets.