What Are Our Today’s Black Racist-Fascists UP TO? BLACK RACISM!!!

Celebrating Derek Chauvin’s conviction is not enough. We want to live

Derecka Purnell at the extreme leftist, THE GUARDIAN:

We cannot expect police convictions to save anyone’s lives, because they didn’t even save George Floyd’s life

‘If we want to live, then we must continue to join, support, and create social movements and protests to end policing.’ Photograph: Darryl Dyck/AP

Wed 21 Apr 2021

• Ajury has found Derek Chauvin guilty of all charges against him for killing George Floyd, including unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. A judge remanded Chauvin in custody after the verdict and a cop quickly cuffed the dazed defendant to carry him out of the courtroom. Chauvin will remain in jail until his sentencing hearing in two months.Chauvin verdict: DoJ announces sweeping investigation into Minneapolis police – as it happenedRead more

Presidents did what presidents do after the criminal justice system seems to work for the people who it exploits, but this time with a twist. Neither Obama nor Biden considered the verdict justice, but rather accountability and “a step in the right direction”. Obama emphasized eliminating racial bias in policing and implementing concrete reforms for change; Biden explained that the verdict was a giant step forward towards justice in America.

There are two fatal flaws with these statements. The first is that reforms cannot fix racial bias in policing because police was formed as a system of racial and economic control, and remains so. As I’ve written before: if Derek Chauvin were the kindest cop in Minnesota and did not have a biased bone in his body, he still would have been able to arrest George Floyd for any number of alleged illegal acts. Because of capitalism, racism and ableism, the darkest and poorest peoples in the United States are relegated to live precarious lives where they do what they can to survive, sometimes including breaking the law. Rather than eliminating the unjust conditions, cities and the federal government send in police to manage the inequality.Advertisementhttps://9c78e70f44e6d9049f816ce0e038c1f9.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Additionally, even if we could remove racial bias from police, this would not solve the underlying problems of inequality and exploitation. If it did, then there wouldn’t be so many poor, white people in prison. Last week, I watched a video of three cops arresting and slamming a 73-year-old white woman with dementia who was picking flowers on her way home. She’d forgotten to pay for her groceries at Walmart. Police dislocated her shoulder, and tied her hands and feet like a hog. She repeatedly cried that she wanted to go home and they chuckled at her. If removing racial bias in police is supposed to ensure that that Black people will be treated like white people under the law, then equal protection is completely insufficient for anyone’s freedom and safety.

Additionally, we cannot expect cop convictions to save anyone’s lives because prior cop convictions did not even save George Floyd’s life. Thousands of cops have killed more than 10,000 people of all races between 2005 and 2017; only 82 cops have been charged with murder or manslaughter. According to criminologist Phil Stinson, only 19 cops were convicted and mostly on lesser charges in that time period. A judge sentenced former South Carolina cop Michael Slaeger to 20 years in prison in 2017 for shooting Walter Scott several times in the back. A judge sentenced former Chicago PD officer Jason Van Dyke in 2019 to a little over six years in prison for fatally shooting Laquan McDonald 16 times. Despite the increasing convictions, the police nationwide still kill about three people a day. Just a few years ago, Minnesota convicted a cop for a murder while on duty for the first time. Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor was sentenced to about 12 years. Why didn’t all of these convictions save the thousands of people who were killed after them? Why didn’t Chauvin get the message?

The celebration of the conviction as “accountability” or “justice” that will send chills down the spines of police simply doesn’t comport with the law, which protects the police’s right not to think before they act. The US supreme court opined in Graham v Connor that cops “are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation”. This means that police currently have the constitutional authority to quickly decide when to use force. Every now and then, a conviction will slip through the cracks and people will celebrate, similar to how slave patrols were punished and sometimes sent to prison for their mistreatment of slaves. But, the underlying power to be violent will remain virtually unchanged and many more people will die because of it.

Tragically, we witnessed this on Tuesday. As the nation awaited the jury verdict’s reading against Chauvin, a white cop in Columbus, Ohio killed Ma’Khia Bryant, a 15-year-old Black girl. According to Bryant’s family, the teen reportedly called the police for help because older kids were trying to assault her. Police arrived during the altercation and shot Bryant four times.Advertisement

There will be calls for justice for Ma’Khia, just as there were calls for justice in the recent police killings of Daunte Wright in Minnesota and 13-year-old Adam Toledo in Chicago. Clearly cops did not get the message about justice because all of these victims were killed in the course of the Chauvin trial. But we will never know what accountability or justice means for George, Daunte, Adam or Ma’Khia because justice requires the participation of the people impacted by it. The dead cannot participate. Convictions only provide relief for the living, and they surely do not save lives. The question is: do we want convictions or do we want to live?

If we want to live, then we must continue to join, support and create social movements and protests to end policing. Police abolition is not mere police absence. It is a political commitment and practice to recreate the society that thinks it needs police in the first place. People must avoid repeating the same tired reforms in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act which does not undermine police power, and look to more transformational demands, such as those in the Breathe Act. We need abolition. Organizations like Critical Resistance, the Movement for Black Lives, Dream Defenders and various “defund the police” campaigns across the country are articulating ways to make change. We have to decide whether we have the will and imagination to join them.

• Derecka Purnell is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Becoming Abolitionists: Police, Protests, and the Pursuit of Freedom

“Bipartisanship is Rare in Washington” With a Screwball in the White House, SO??

Senators Cornyn and Simena to introduce bipartisan bill on migrant surge

KAREN TOWNSEND at HotAir……Apr 22, 2021 5:01 PM

(AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) will introduce a bipartisan bill today to target the migrant surge on the southern border. Bipartisanship is rare in Washington but the crisis on the southern border may be one area where both sides of the aisle can come together.

Sinema is a different kind of Democrat in the Senate. She goes her own way and often sides with Republicans in how she votes. She is a rare moderate Democrat when most of the party is more interested in lurching to the far left. So, she is probably a good person to lead the Democrat response to the border crisis. Few Democrats have spoken up against what the Biden administration is doing – mostly denying there is a crisis – and none of the Democrats in the Senate have done so. On Wednesday night, Senator Cornyn’s office tweeted out the news that the bipartisan bill to “address the surge of migrants along our southern border” will be introduced. It is described as “a serious, thoughtful solution from two people who know the border.”

The bill, according to a statement from Cornyn’s office, seeks to improve capacity for surges and resolve asylum claims in a “timely manner.”

It also would seek to deter those unlikely to be approved for asylum from traveling to the United States and “protect unaccompanied migrant children.”

Last month Cornyn and Sinema sent a letter to Biden asking him to use his “full authorities” in response to the surge of migrants flooding the southern border. Immediate action was requested in two areas – resources and facilities along the border and improving the asylum process.

“It is critical that our nation take aggressive steps to secure our border, protect our communities and ensure migrants are treated fairly and humanely,” Cornyn and Sinema wrote, according to a Sinema press release. “We pledge to work with our Congressional colleagues to develop bipartisan and commonsense responses to the surge of migrants at the border, and hope to collaborate with you, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and the rest of your Administration to tackle this challenge.”

You would think that Biden would be more proactive in border security and working to stop the still increasing surge of migrants at the border. His handling of the crisis and immigration matters, in general, is the one area in which his poll numbers are really low. Look for immigration to be a big topic in the mid-term elections, especially in Republican campaigns. GOP politicians see this as a huge weak spot for Democrats.

Quinnipiac University poll found that only 29 percent of Americans approve of how Biden is handling the situation at the border, while 55 percent disapprove.

Forty-eight percent also told Pew that they view illegal immigration as a “very big problem,” up 20 points from a year ago.

Since Biden has been so slow in acting to secure the border, border state governors have to be more aggressive in protecting their states. Governor Abbott deployed 500 Texas National Guard to the border in March and yesterday Governor Ducey announced he will send Arizona National Guard to the state’s southern border. Ducey also declared a state of emergency in” four border counties — Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz and Yuma — as well as in Maricopa and Pinal.”

“The U.S. Border Patrol is overwhelmed. Local law enforcement and mayors are calling out for help,” Ducey said in a video outlining his rationale.

“Citizens in our border communities are concerned for their safety, and nonprofits, left to pick up the pieces of broken federal policies, are strained … and yet we still haven’t received an adequate response from the (Joe) Biden administration.”

Ducey blasted Biden and Kamala Harris last month for their lack of action on the southern border, not even bothering to come and see the crisis with their own eyes.

The governor for weeks has held Biden solely responsible for the migrant surge, pointing to the Democrat’s decision to reverse a series of aggressive immigration policies implemented by his predecessor.

During a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border last month, Ducey blasted Biden and his administration for being “totally divorced from the reality on the ground.”

Upon his return, he slammed Vice President Kamala Harris as the “worst possible choice” to lead the administration’s response and requested federal funding to dispatch National Guard troops.

That money apparently did not come through.

The troops Ducey will send to his state’s border will likely deploy in a few days. The state will provide up to $25 million for the deployment and will involve up to 250 Guard members, according to Ducey’s office. The Guard will be tasked with supporting local law enforcement, installing and maintaining security cameras, monitoring and collecting camera data, and providing analysis of satellite imagery of the border. They may also assist with medical operations in detention centers.

In a separate action on Wednesday, Cornyn called for a federal investigation into allegations of child abuse at a migrant facility in San Antonio. Texas Governor Abbott launched a state investigation into the claims earlier this month.

Both of Arizona’s Democrat senators support Governor Ducey’s move to deploy the National Guard to the southern border.

“I welcome the Governor’s action to provide logistical support to Arizona communities, and look forward to hearing more details about how the National Guard will assist,” Sinema said in a statement. “I will continue working closely with Arizona leaders and organizations to support our border communities, secure the border, prevent the spread of COVID-19, and treat all migrants and unaccompanied children fairly and humanely.”

Governor Ducey made the same observations that have been made by Governor Abbott – the border crisis is as bad as it has ever been. The border patrol is overwhelmed, as are local mayors and law enforcement. All are crying out for help. Residents in border towns are concerned about personal safety for themselves and their families and there is a public health threat from COVID-19. Whether or not any of these actions will move the needle with the Biden administration and bring more resources to the border is the question.

The Federalist TV Report on TEN ITEMS!

The above ‘ten’ words were sent by Mark Waldeland.

Why Will This Article And Others Be Made to DISAPPEAR At This Site?

Amazon Is Still Censoring America’s Most Dangerous Black Man

By Christian Whiton at American Greatness:

April 21, 2021

In March, Amazon censored a well-produced and popular documentary, dropping it from its digital video offerings. Yet the company still sells Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung: The Little Red Book. And rightly so: sunlight is the best antidote to bad ideas and free people are capable of critical reasoning.

But not so for the most dangerous of media, which featured Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Upon hearing that Amazon yanked the Thomas documentary without explanation, I assumed it had to be a humdinger of a partisan political product, full of red meat and ideology. When I actually watched the film, I realized it was far more radical and effective than that.

“Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” brilliantly directed by Michael Pack, consists primarily of Thomas walking the audience through key parts of his life, juxtaposed against interesting historical footage. But far more than his mere biography, the ideas and views he calmly conveys, derived from a remarkable life led overcoming immense challenges, fundamentally undermine the critical race theory-driven society into which the Left is attempting to cram the American people.X

In 1948, Thomas was born in rural poverty in Pin Point, Georgia. When he came home one day to find the shack he was living in turned to ashes, his family moved to living in urban poverty in Savannah. He learned the word “circumnavigate” because blacks had to walk around Forsyth Park.

Thomas was a promising student, but he abandoned seminary when the Church was silent on racism and one of his fellow students expressed satisfaction that Martin Luther King, Jr. had been shot. Thomas reasoned: “And for the first time in my life racism and race explained everything. It became, sort of, the substitute religion; I shoved aside Catholicism and now it was this, it was all about race.”  

From there, it was on to radical politics, the Black Students Union, and participating in a drunken riot in Harvard Square. So far so good: had the story ended there, Thomas would be held up as an admirable figure by today’s woke mob.

But then the twist: “I had let myself be swept up by an angry mob for no good reason other than that I, too, was angry. I stopped in front of the chapel and prayed for the first time in nearly two years. I asked God, I said ‘If you take anger out of my heart, I’ll never hate again.’ And that was the beginning of the slow return to where I started.”about:blankabout:blank

That led to the further apostasy of putting one’s child above ideology when the Left was embracing forced busing: “I’d been to South Boston, and I was scared to death to be over there, and the schools were as bad as the schools in Roxbury where the black kids were from. So why were you sending a kid through all that trouble, to go to a school that’s as bad, or worse? That didn’t make any sense to me . . . But I knew one thing, nobody was going to have some social experiment and throw my son in there.”

You may recall from Kamala Harris’ short-lived presidential campaign when she insinuated Joe Biden was a segregationist during a Democratic debate because he, too, had opposed busing in some forms. For a black Supreme Court justice to share this view is beyond the pale for the Left.

Further mortifying to progressives, Thomas candidly disclosed that he ceased to believe that most black criminal defendants were political prisoners when he got to the Missouri attorney general’s office and realized black crime victims overwhelmingly were attacked by criminals of the same race. That is a very inconvenient fact to convey in America today.

Joe Biden appears prominently in the documentary. He comes across poorly—especially in the footage of the circus of a confirmation hearing Biden ran as chairman of the Judiciary Committee for Thomas’s 1991 nomination—which likely is another problem with the film for the censors at Amazon.

In response to Anita Hill’s unsubstantiated sexual harrassment claims again him, Thomas looked dead at Biden and gave the most important Senate testimony of the second half of the 20th century:

And from my standpoint, as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that, unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.

Americans at the time believed Thomas over Hill by about 2-to-1.

Then in the documentary, Thomas brings his views into the present, grousing at those who condemn him for not thinking in a manner expected of blacks: “How is that different from being told ‘you can’t walk across that park’? ‘Oh, you can’t think those thoughts.’ How is that any different? You know what? I’d prefer to be excluded from the park because I can live my life quite freely without having set foot in a park. But you can’t live it freely without having your own thoughts.”

These views are all crimethink in the woke oligopoly that Amazon helps govern. Blacks are victims of institutional racism despite legal reality and decades of history to the contrary. Whites are guilty of privilege and bias no matter how they actually conduct themselves. To disagree is racist, or so the story goes. In that sense, Amazon chose its target of censorship quite wisely. Clarence Thomas is the most dangerous black man in America.

How, When, Why Did All of the Fascism Arrive at NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, ABC, etc?

NBC Cherry Picks Facebook to Discredit Our Republic’s Ultimate Defenders

By Matt Rowe at American Thinker:

I read a recent NBC story — In secret Facebook groups, America’s best warriors share racist jabs, lies about 2020, even QAnon theories — in which the writer, Carol Lee, alleges radicalization, extremism, and significant racism among US Special Operations Forces (SOF). Lee bases this over-the-top declaration because she gained access to four “secret” Facebook groups. She also approached some DoD officials with questions about extremism, leading to some run-of-the-mill responses. This is at best shoddy journalism and at worst a leftist hit piece on our most elite and dedicated military professionals.

To begin, these so-called “secret” groups are really “members only” groups that anyone can create on Facebook. No group or page on Facebook is truly private, let alone secret. One can only assume Lee uses the word “secret” to imply that something nefarious is going on and, by Lee’s definition, my members-only neighborhood group page is also secret and should invite media scrutiny.

I am a Special Forces (SF) disabled veteran and I belong to both groups mentioned in the article, “The Special Forces Brotherhood PAC” and “The Special Forces Team Room.” I belonged to others too, though admittedly, I spent relatively less time in the much smaller “Team Room.”

These are “members only” groups. The moderators require proof that you served in the US Army Special Forces to join. That these groups are Army only is important because Lee misleadingly implies that they are indicative of all SOF forces, which include units of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, and that would not be allowed into these two Amy SF groups.

Lee also implies that there are some 70,000 other SOF troops and tens of thousands of SOF veterans who could become radicalized by participating in these groups. First, the overwhelming majority of SOF troops, some 80-90%, aren’t core fighters but are, instead, in critical supporting roles, like pilots, clerks, supply managers, intelligence, etc. They are not the Green Berets and would not be allowed in these two groups either. This is a blatant exaggeration on Lee’s part.

Currently, these two Army SF groups have about 5,000 members, most of whom are retired and former Special Forces soldiers. They — not active-duty troops – did most of the posting. Active-duty troops rarely have time or incentive to devote to posting their thoughts on Facebook.

In my experience, only about 60% of the members post anything regularly and only a tiny handful espouse any of what Lee defines as extremist views, such as believing in Q-Anon. More members believe that there was election fraud in 2020, and some of those believe completely that the election was stolen, views that Lee and the political Left believe are extremist. If that’s the case, you can lump in 75-80% of these group members along with the conservative half of our country.

What about that handful of extreme views? Some of them are pretty bad, and by that, I mean the overwhelming majority of group members see them that way too. The…ah…feedback to someone who posts an extremely crazy, mean, or even thoughtless statement is brutal.

Granted, we do tend to say what we think in ways that the politically correct crowd might find shocking, but I never saw anything like an “extremist call to action” that would be taken seriously by anyone else in the group. Don’t confuse relatively extreme language with extremist or radical intent.

In my experience, group members immediately attack and discourage any truly racist comments. Moreover, the original post is more likely to have been the result of a careless choice of words than truly racist beliefs. Recently, the group passionately debated whether racism is systemic in our country or not. This is a debate more Americans should have and it’s not racist to have it, though I am sure some people will interpret it that way.

I won’t deny that we may have a tiny handful of racists, as is true for any other group, and I’m pretty sure somebody at some time may have posted something to that effect. Nonetheless, if there were genuine race haters in our midst, they knew to keep their mouths shut to avoid the wrath of the rest of us.

Lee states that she showed some selected posts from the groups to Garry Reid, Director for Defense Intelligence at the DoD for comment. Reed’s response was, “This is very disturbing material…that in no way would mirror the behavior expected of persons employed by the Department of Defense, and…U.S. military.”

I’m quite sure Reed lacked time to delve into Facebook and read hundreds of posts for their context or to assess the responses from the general group members. He may have simply reacted to whatever little he saw. Of course, Lee did not indicate which posts she shared with Reed.

Lee added that “…in terms of race, there are expressions of frustration in multiple posts that white men are being targeted.”

Does that belief make one a racist? The media certainly does not condemn black Americans or any other identity group as racists for saying that they feel targeted. On the other hand, all one needs to do is look at news reports on how CIGNA, the huge US health insurer, made it clear that white men should not be hired. Coca-Cola recently urged its employees to be “less white”. These are not fringe elements of society, but mainstream corporate America loudly proclaiming that white men are the problem. They are not the only ones either, and if that isn’t racist and reason to feel targeted, what is?

As for QAnon, I never paid much attention to it. Why? Because it was coming from what I saw as a handful of extreme conspiracy theorists. Many people who responded to those kinds of posts were either ridiculing them, or asking questions, or commenting out of curiosity. I can’t say whether anything they posted was right or wrong, all I can guess is that, like everyone else in our groups, they tended to mirror the makeup of the conservative half of our society.

It appears to me that Lee may have taken the worst posts as examples of how everyone in these groups thinks and acts, which isn’t true. Lee implies that there are much greater numbers of potentially radicalized personnel associated with these two groups as well. Her reporting is either shoddy or a purposeful hit on all our SOF personnel, who tend to be much more conservative than not.

If the left is genuinely afraid of anyone who might ultimately stop the move toward socialism in this country via force of arms, then professional SOF forces would certainly constitute the final threat. Who better to try to tear apart using the same old identity politics than the most constitutionally loyal and professional military forces?

The author training Colombian Counter Narcotics Police in 1990.

It should comfort readers to know that Special Forces are specifically recruited for a number of characteristics, which include an intelligent and open mind, and the ability to work closely with, fight alongside, and possibly die for our foreign military counterparts. Racists wouldn’t last long since most of our work is done with different races around the world.

Special Forces soldiers tend to take their jobs very seriously. They train intensively, believe in things like honor and loyalty, and believe absolutely in their oaths to the US Constitution. On active duty, the operations tempo and deployment intensity simply allow no time for Facebook types of distraction. Despite Lee’s anecdotal reasoning, extremists who threaten Special Forces’ effectiveness on the battlefield or the safety and security of our nation would be weeded out of the regiment very quickly.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

Minnesota’s Been a Dem State for FIFTY YEARS, Fascistic Crooks and Obama For the Last Twenty!

BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:

THE LATEST IN ANTI-LAW ENFORCEMENT THEATER

We live in a bizarre hellworld in which many are now opposed, in principle, to law enforcement. It is hard to see how this can end well, but in the meantime we are being treated to plenty of absurdity. Like this story: Minneapolis Park Board votes to expel State Patrol from shared office space.

A divided Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board passed an emergency resolution to kick the State Patrol out of park headquarters, where troopers would take breaks and eat lunch.

It was an emergency!

Commissioner Londel French, who authored the resolution, advocated ending the Park Board’s relationship with the State Patrol due to its role suppressing protests and riots over police brutality.

How dare they suppress riots? After all, the riots were mostly peaceful:

Nightly demonstrations have taken place in front of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. While most demonstrators have been peaceful, some lobbed bricks and fireworks over the department’s security fence. … Brooklyn Center shopping centers were looted in recent unrest, with some incidents in north and south Minneapolis, as well as Uptown.

So what Park Board facilities, exactly, has the State Patrol been using?

Since 2012, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has had a license agreement allowing State Patrol troopers to use its headquarters at 2117 West River Road as a rest area for free, where they can work on reports as long as they use their own equipment.

They also can use the bathroom. But the Minneapolis Park Board considered any association with law enforcement to constitute an emergency, so the State Patrol had to go.

It is all theater, obviously. One Park Board Commissioner responded candidly:

Commissioner LaTrisha Vetaw objected. “This seems like political grandstanding to me,” she said. “It’s my understanding that they use the parking lot and the toilet.”

But a majority of the Park Board couldn’t stand to be associated with law enforcement any longer.

Because America IS ALREADY LEFTIST FASCIST…WHERE TRUTH NO LONGER MATTERS WITH BIDENITES, UNIVERSITIES AND THE PRESS!

A Troubled Rule of Law

The pervasive sense that cities would burn if Derek Chauvin were not convicted raises questions about whether the jury’s verdict was reached dispassionately……

by HEATHER MACDONALD

The pervasive sense that cities would burn if Derek Chauvin were not convicted raises questions about whether the jury’s verdict was reached dispassionately.Heather Mac DonaldApril 21, 2021 Public safetyPolitics and lawThe Social Order

America’s cities did not burn last night. But the terrified preparations in Minneapolis and elsewhere in anticipation of the George Floyd verdict—the razor wire and barricades around government buildings, the activation of the National Guard, the declaration in Minnesota of a “peacetime emergency,” the fortified police presence, the curfews, the cancellation of school, the boarded up businesses—raise serious questions about the rule of law in the United States. Had the jury failed to convict Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin on all three counts of murder and manslaughter, the ensuing riots would likely have made the conflagrations of 2020 look like a Girl Scout campfire.

This likely outcome was evident long before Congresswoman Maxine Waters encouraged such violence over the weekend. Last year’s precedent, the ensuing 12 months of wildly inaccurate rhetoric about white supremacy, and the recent looting in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, over a fatal police shooting made such rioting a virtual certainty. That inflammatory rhetoric poured forth from every institution in the country—from the presidency, Congress, corporations, law firms, banks, tech companies, academia, and the public school system. The mainstream media pounded home the narrative about unchanging black oppression. And even after the verdict, the White House (perhaps that name will be gone in another year) and the press have doubled down on the systemic racism conceit, despite the coordinated effort to convict among Minnesota’s public officials and the state’s most prestigious members of the private bar.

Going forward, it is an open question whether any police officer can receive a trial free from mob pressure, should he be prosecuted for use of lethal force.

The Chauvin jury may have pondered not just the destruction of American cities following any acquittal but its own safety. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune had published profiles of jury members minus their names on Monday, during closing arguments in the trial.

Contrary to the prosecution’s assertions, this was not an entirely open-and-shut case. The defense had at least arguably raised reasonable doubt about whether Floyd died of a Fentanyl overdose, aggravated by his preexisting heart disease and the stress of the arrest, and about Chauvin’s requisite intent to cause serious bodily harm. Floyd had been complaining about not being able to breathe before he was put face-down on the ground under Chauvin’s knee. The medical examiner had said that had Floyd been found dead at home in the same condition, the cause of death would have been identified as a drug overdose. The speed of the verdict and the absence of any questions to the judge may suggest that the jury had a broader set of issues on its mind than exclusively the evidence before it. Further complicating the process, as jury selection was underway, the city of Minneapolis had awarded civil damages to Floyd’s family.

In short, the criminal justice system did not behave like an institution shot through with anti-black bias.

Yet President Joe Biden took the occasion of the conviction to recycle his favorite “white supremacy” themes from his allegedly “unifying” inaugural speech and campaign rhetoric. Floyd’s murder “ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see the systemic racism . . . that is a stain our nation’s soul; the knee on the neck of justice for Black Americans; the profound fear and trauma, the pain, the exhaustion that Black and brown Americans experience every single day,” Biden said from the White House. The “summer of protest” had sent the message, according to Biden: “Enough. Enough. Enough of the senseless killings.”

Biden was not referring to the senseless killing of seven-year-old Jaslyn Adams, gunned down in a Chicago McDonald’s over the weekend. He was not referring to the four dozen black children who were killed last year in their beds, front porches, back porches, at barbecues and family birthday parties, and in their parents’ cars. He was not referring to the dozens of blacks killed every day in drive-by shootings—more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined—even though blacks are only 12 percent of the nation’s population. Those thousands of black deaths get no attention from the Black Lives Matter movement and its most fervent press acolytes because the homicide perpetrators are other blacks, not the police or whites.

Biden, rather, was referring to a phantom idea: that blacks have to “worry about whether their sons or daughters will come home after a grocery store run or just walking down the street or driving their car or playing in the park or just sleeping at home.” This would be an accurate statement if it referenced the terrorism of neighborhood gangs and their stupefyingly mindless retaliatory shootings. It is a falsehood, however, directed at the police. In 2020, the police fatally shot 18 allegedly unarmed blacks (unarmed being defined extremely loosely to include suspects grabbing an officer’s gun or fleeing in a car with a loaded pistol on the seat). That represents 0.2 percent of all blacks who died of homicide in 2020, and an infinitesimal percentage of the 40 million blacks in the U.S. If the police ended all fatal shootings tomorrow, it would have a negligible effect on the black death-by-homicide rate, which is 13 times higher than the white death-by-homicide rate for decedents between the ages of ten and 43.

Yet immediately after the verdict, Barack Obama repeated the same fiction, one that he in fact had pioneered during his presidency: that black Americans rightly “live in fear” that their next encounter with law enforcement will be their last. Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan’s tweet that Minnesota is a place where it is not safe to be black (because of the police) is an equal betrayal of the truth.

The idea that blacks are frequently and disproportionately gunned down by the police is an optical illusion created by selective media coverage. If the press chose to ignore police shootings of blacks and focus exclusively on police shootings of whites (which are twice as numerous), Americans would think that we are living through an epidemic of racially biased police shootings of whites. A 2016 case from Dallas involving a white man named Tony Timpa almost exactly adumbrated the Floyd arrest and death, but no one has heard of Tony Timpa.

Last week, the Biden administration rescinded guidelines put out by former U.S. attorney general Jeff Sessions establishing commonsensical preconditions for when the Department of Justice can open a so-called pattern or practice investigation of police departments for systemic civil rights violations. Those investigations almost invariably result in costly, bureaucratically clotted consent decrees. As Harvard economist Roland Fryer has shown, police consent decrees have resulted in thousands of additional deaths when preceded by anti-police agitation. Now Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, has announced the initiation of a pattern or practice investigation of the Minneapolis Police Department, signaling the start of increased federal control of police departments.

Last year, the United States saw the largest percentage increase in homicides in the nation’s recorded history, thanks to depolicing. The crime wave has continued unabated in 2021. It will worsen. The Minneapolis verdict will not change the poisonous narrative about a racist criminal-justice system. That narrative ensures that encounters between black suspects and the police will remain fraught. Black suspects will continue to resist arrest, increasing the chance that officers will escalate their use of force. If a suspect death ensues, more riots will follow.

The victims will initially be, as always, the thousands of law-abiding blacks in vulnerable urban neighborhoods who yearn for more police protection. But the power of riot ideology—the blackmailing of American institutions with the threat of black rage—is too advantageous to give up.

Americans should be deeply concerned about the future of the rule of law.

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of the bestsellers The War on Cops and The Diversity Delusion.

Nothing Quite Like a PRO-Basketball HERO?!

LeBron James: The cop who shot Ma’Khia Bryant is “next”

ALLAHPUNDIT Apr 21, 2021 5:16 PM ET Share Tweet

I blacked out the cop’s face in the screencap. The actual tweet showed it.

The most famous athlete in America, with 50 million followers on Twitter. And he’s putting a target on this guy’s back because he stopped one girl from stabbing another to death.

Black lives matter. Except for the life of the girl whom Bryant nearly murdered, I guess.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=eyJ0ZndfZXhwZXJpbWVudHNfY29va2llX2V4cGlyYXRpb24iOnsiYnVja2V0IjoxMjA5NjAwLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfSwidGZ3X2hvcml6b25fdHdlZXRfZW1iZWRfOTU1NSI6eyJidWNrZXQiOiJodGUiLCJ2ZXJzaW9uIjpudWxsfX0%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1384954065331838977&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fallahpundit%2F2021%2F04%2F21%2Flebron-james-the-cop-who-shot-makhia-bryant-is-next-n384971&sessionId=5094e97014bd73d34a23c0a2dc4017eef1e1cf24&siteScreenName=hotairblog&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ff2e7cf%3A1618526400629&width=550px

I’m willing to give James the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wouldn’t have said what he did if he had watched the bodycam footage first. But that only makes his “next” comment more irresponsible.

Social-media mob justice is rancid even in the best circumstances. But what kind of cretin would sic 50 million people on someone without at least first checking to make sure that person was guilty of wrongdoing?

Remember, this is the same guy who accused Daryl Morey of being “misinformed” when Morey tweeted support for Hong Kong’s democratic protesters. Morey wasn’t misinformed about China, though. LeBron was, just as he’s misinformed about the Bryant case.

Wait until he finds out about how the police in China behave. Hashtag: ACCOUNTABILITY.

After an avalanche of criticism for his tweet, he deleted it at around 4:45 ET. Whether he realized his error himself or was muscled into disappearing it by panicky NBA press flacks calling him up and telling him to abort, I don’t know. We’ll find out. But this is the most prominent example yet of people absolutely losing their g-ddamned minds over the Bryant case. I understand why progressives are eager to remind the country that convicting Derek Chauvin doesn’t in and of itself solve every problem of policing but demagoging this cop for intervening in a fight that could have turned deadly at any moment to try to serve that point is insanity. And insanely dangerous for the cop himself, needless to say.

With the Exception of President Trump, Which Republicans Aren’t the Greedy, Dishonest DEM or Big Tech Wussy Kind?

Not Dead Yet

By Tom McAllister at American Thinker:

As we approach the hundredth day of the Biden “presidency,” any logical, patriotic American has to wonder what more would someone do if they were trying to systematically destroy every ideal and virtue our nation has stood for in its history. From porous borders to suppressed citizen freedoms, unbridled spending yet throttled economic growth, inciting divisiveness while promoting untethered morality, our enemies must imagine themselves in an Old Milwaukee commercial, “It doesn’t get any better than this.”

We’re a long ways from 1776, Toto. Our nation began with an initial declaration of independence and now every law and executive order from this administration is leading us toward dependence — debtor dependence, energy dependence, and government dependence for the begged permission to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The list of grievances and offenses are staggering and too numerous to mention and if one does, they are censored or banned by the government’s confederate oligarchs of Big Tech.

It’s a depressing situation and the truth of the matter is a sobering one. The diagnostic is that in the predawn darkness of the morning of November 4, 2020, the American Republic flatlined. The nefarious and somewhat dubiously defined Deep State does not want it revived.

We’ve got some work to do.

Our nation was founded upon these principles recognizing God as Creator and Supreme Judge of the world. Our Constitution recognizes Jesus Christ as our Lord. Our nation has an official worldview that aligns with the psalmist who wrote “blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD.”  The inspired beauty of our First Amendment is that the American people do not need to hold this official national viewpoint but are free to believe whatever they choose without the fear of government oppression, incarceration, and re-education camps. (Well, at least not yet). Our Founders also professed faith in God as Divine Providence. Has God given up on America?

Judging by our moral condition, we have little to argue in our defense. The slaughter of 55 million unborn is more than sufficient to condemn us and our depravity and insolence to God goes much deeper.

However, God is not dead despite our culture’s increasing trend to shun Him. If conservatism is grounded upon the Divine, then conservatism is not dead either. Even if it was, then we have a God who can raise it back up. The guiding principle and solution to our current dilemma is the same as it was written roughly three thousand years ago: “If we the people, who are called by God’s Name will humble ourselves and pray, seek His face and repent of our wicked ways, then God will hear our prayer, forgive our sin, and restore our land” ( cf 2 Chron 7:14). If conservatism is truly anchored upon God, then it’s time to turn to Him in prayer, repent and like true patriots, act.

The situation is dire and the enemy is strong. The Deep State is a foreboding, modern-day Goliath. Yet, we have the weapon of truth for all truth is God’s truth. Instead of fear and intimidation of the giant before us, our God-dependent, conservative response should be, “For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” That’s the heart and mindset we need to guide our actions if we want to revive our Republic.

Fortunately for us, it takes a little while for a republic to die.

It is in that spirit of pursuing truth that all eyes, as well as thoughts, prayers, and support should be focused on the brave group of individuals and legislators who have taken action to conduct a forensic audit in Maricopa county, Arizona. This will be the first application of the paddles to try to shock our nation’s heart back to life. Those who do not act in the best interest of our nation are apoplectic over this. The smell of fear on their side is palpable. Truth is a sword forged with a metal no falsehood can withstand.  These brave actions and initiatives must be followed by the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada as well as the efforts in New Hampshire, Virginia, and others. All states should investigate themselves. What is there to hide? The pursuit of truth is never wrong. The discovery of truth may be shocking and its findings even disgusting. We may uncover a stunning level of deceit and depravity. Many suspect that corruption has metastasized throughout our institutions and agencies and fatally so. That is dire, but we have the cure as described above. As Ronald Reagan noted, “If we forget that we are a nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.” We are at that moment of remembrance and our Republic’s life hangs in the balance.

Has God given up on the U.S.? Never. Have we given up on God? If so, then conservatism as well as America is dead. If not, then it’s time to humble our hearts, put God first, and get to work. We need to gather five truth stones; we’ve got a Goliath to kill.

Tom McAllister is a business strategy consultant and author of the book, Short Strolls in Faith.

It is a POWER within the Human Female Animal to BE DITSY……FEELINGS OVERWHELM TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES

Chicago Mayor: Police should get permission before chasing anyone

by JAZZ SHAW…..at HotAir:  Apr 22, 2021

AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh

So is this what “police reform” looks like in Chicago? Hot on the heels of both Derek Chauvin’s conviction and the shooting of knife-wielding teen Ma’Khia Bryant, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot believes she’s identified a starting point for getting some of these out-of-control cops to toe the line. Lightfoot has apparently noticed that suspects who are confronted by law enforcement don’t always quietly follow instructions and cooperate with law enforcement officers. In fact, some of them turn and flee to avoid being arrested. (Can you imagine?) During such pursuits, police are often put in a position where they have to use physical force to bring the suspect under control. To add another layer of protection to the suspects, Lightfoot is proposing that the police first contact a supervisor and obtain permission before giving chase. Really, people… you just can’t make this stuff up. (NY Post)

Police officers in Chicago may soon require permission from a supervisor before pursuing a suspect on foot, Mayor Lori Lightfoot said Tuesday.

Lightfoot promised to disclose details “soon” about a police policy change, Fox 32 Chicago reported.

“No one should die as a result of a foot chase,” the mayor said.

Police methods have faced new scrutiny recently following the release last week of video footage from the March 29 police shooting death of 13-year-old Adam Toledo. The case has sparked new debate on police use of deadly force.

You don’t need to be a graduate of the Police Academy to immediately understand the implications of this suggested policy. If the police see a perpetrator in the act of committing a crime or identify an individual with an outstanding warrant who flees when they see an officer in uniform, by the time that officer can radio into the dispatch desk and they locate a supervisor to give permission, the suspect will be long gone. (Unless the wanted individual is in a wheelchair or on crutches, I suppose.) Once word of a policy such as this reaches the gangs on the streets of Chicago, nobody is ever going to simply put their hands up and cooperate with the police again. Why would you when you know that the cops can’t chase you down?

One member of the Chicago City Council who agrees with Lightfoot is Alderman Brian Hopkins. He told journalists that the police already need permission to begin a vehicular chase of suspects, so this would just be an extension of that policy to cover foot chases. As to the fact that pretty much every suspect who is on foot will escape, Hopkins said, “the point would be moot then.”

Having previously dealt with the issue of car chases by the police in New York (which can frequently result in traffic accidents), I can tell you how that works. It’s true that many states require officers to get clearance for a vehicular chase from the dispatch center. But in virtually all cases, by the time the police have identified a vehicle that needs to be pulled over and they radio in the request, they’re already following the subject’s car. They’ll probably hold off on going Code 3 (lights and siren engaged) until they’re cleared for pursuit, but they’ll be keeping the subject’s vehicle in sight until then. The two situations are not at all the same.

As for the situation being “moot” once the suspect has fled the scene, I suppose Hopkins is correct. After the perpetrator has gotten away there’s probably not much use in bothering to call the dispatch desk at all. So apparently the Alderman is fine with nobody being arrested. (Which may have been the point all along.)

Even the Mayor seemed to understand the silliness of this proposal, at least to some degree. When a reporter asked her about the obvious result of making the police wait before giving chase, she said, “I don’t want people out there who are dangerous to think, ‘Well, if I just run, then I’m safe. I can continue to wreak havoc. We can’t live in that world, either.”

Not for nothing, your honor, but this is pretty much a binary choice. Your police are either going to try to arrest the bad guys or they aren’t. You can’t have it both ways.

The problem with nearly all of these efforts to “reform” the police is that you can’t always have inflexible rules for how an encounter with a suspect is handled. Almost everything in policing is situational. Probably 99 out of 100 times, when a patrol car turns on its lights, the driver of the suspect vehicle will pull over and get out their license and registration. It’s that hundredth time when they punch the gas and pull a Glock out of their waistband when decisions have to be made in a split second and things can go badly awry in either direction. The same goes for the apprehension of suspects on foot.

The bottom line once again is that people with little or no experience in law enforcement shouldn’t be making up the rules for police procedures. When that happens, you wind up with nonsensical headlines such as this one.