• For Radical Leftists, Anti-racist = Anti-police

    The Left is adept at Orwellian manipulation of language. For example, they’ll tell you they are not “anti-police.” Then they’ll use euphemisms: “anti-police abuse,” “anti-excessive force,” etc.

    Well, in a rare act of honesty and a rage against the adage, “it’s better to be thought a fool and remain silent than to speak (write) and remove all doubt,” the title of this article proclaims a true belief: Defunding Police—How Antiracist Organizers got Seattle to Listen (Unlike leftists, I’m not going to throw a tantrum or a riot in an un-American attempt to keep you from hearing a message with which I disagree. Please, read it—no, really; you have got to read this crap). It’s important to remain aware of their destructive social message and how radical leftist politicians aid in their successes to the detriment of a free society.

    Antiracist? Not anti-police? Using “anti-police” would have been more honest.

    So, in the radical left’s world, Anti-racist = Anti-police.

    The only thing surprising about this equation is the lack of obfuscation—which is almost refreshing. Like Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, at least this publication, almost, says what it means: being against the police is the same as being against racists because the police are racist. I suppose I could be accused of putting words in their mouths, but how could anyone arrive at contrary conclusion? 

    Police equating to racist, of course, is insulting to cops, but the Left doesn’t like the police. Remember, they aren’t simply opponents who are fed up and have finally gotten up off the couch to protest tyranny; they are the enemies of a civil society. They just hate cops. That seems clear. They fight for policies that put police officers at higher risk because they have no respect for what cops do. They don’t care about police officers most of whom are among the finest citizens of any community. The cop-hater’s warped equation also insults people who think critically rather than ideologically. People who come to conclusions based on empirical facts rather than selecting “facts” that conform to a predetermined, ideological narrative.

    Still, I hesitate to bring attention to such ignorance. But, the sad thing is, political leaders, such as the leftist collective running (ruining) Seattle gives racialist groups such as BLM and BTB (Block the Bunker) far more clout than their destructive ideas deserve. The radical left may riot to shut down their opponent’s right speak, but we truly need to listen to what the Left says, so we can oppose their ideas more effectively. Oppose their collectivist, Utopian myth whenever possible.   

  • Illegal Immigrants: All Lawbreakers Reluctant to Cooperate with Police

    My head hurts—again!

    On a recent news analysis program, a local politician, I think from upstate New York (doesn’t matter; it’s a cookie-cutter, leftist trope), repeated the threadbare, Democrat talking point that illegal immigrants won’t report crimes to police if they’re afraid of being deported. That may be true, but the issue deserves critical thinking to better understand it.

    This politician cited there are “many examples of illegals not reporting crime due to fear of deportation” but listed none. He also said where jurisdictions have a policy of not assisting the federal government with enforcing immigration law, crime goes down. REALLY? WHERE? Certainly, not in sanctuary city Chicago. Again, he mentioned no examples—not one.

    Is he arguing, where the law goes unenforced, crime goes down? Well, having completed a career in law enforcement, I must ask, why do we have any laws? By his logic, get rid of all the laws, and there will be no crime. You know, when I think about it, there is a sick logic here. If murder is not illegal, police won’t be arresting any murderers. This could extend to all crimes, right? Legalize EVERYTHING!  

    As much as I scoff at this notion, mostly because it’s so scoff-worthy, there is merit to the argument that people in the country illegally will resist reporting crime. However, this is a waste of fear for illegals. Otherwise law-abiding, border trespassers have no idea just how safe they are from their local constabulary. Forget the municipal edicts, such as in Seattle, where cops are prohibited from even asking a person about their immigration status. When cops take reports from crime victims, they are interested in the crime, the criminal, and the apprehending of that criminal for that crime.

    In my over two decades on the streets I can’t recall even once asking a victim, or a suspect for that matter, about their immigration status. It never came up. In fact, to those who exhibit, through words or actions, obvious anxiety about their immigration status, cops are much more likely to say, “Don’t worry; we’re not here for that.” Then officers investigate the crime as they investigate any other reported crime.

    Again, those who’ve entered the USA illegally might be hesitant to report crime due to their illegal immigration status. Proponents of this argument have a point. I mean, people wanted for other crimes, murder, bank robbery, rape, assault, fraud, and theft aren’t too interested in reporting crime for the same reason. Okay, entering the country illegally is not a felony, not even a misdemeanor, just a civil infraction (which blows my mind, by the way. Just driving a car with an altered temporary trip permit is a gross misdemeanor, but I digress). So, let’s stay within the civil infraction realm: People with outstanding arrest warrants for failure to respond to civil infractions—traffic tickets, etc.—also might not want to report crimes, either. Right?

    And stop with the berating a criminal justice system that would separate a parent who crossed the border illegally (a violation of federal law) from an American-born child. It happens everyday. Do you think crimes are committed only by childless people? Of course not. Many criminals have children and we don’t see marching in the streets because the mother who wrote fraudulent checks is being “separated” from her children, having been sentenced to eighteen months in prison. What about the dad who was convicted of burglary and will be separated from his children for three years. Guess he should have thought about that, eh? Again, it happens all the time.

    I understand there are nuances here because the crime is considered a minor one. But there’s another part of the problem. Can anyone imagine attempting illegally to cross the border of Russia, China, or even Mexico and not believing you’d be in a great deal of trouble if caught? I can’t. Why should our country be any different. Just because everyone wants to come here. Well, no kidding. But what makes our country so attractive will gradually dissipate if our borders are left wide open. Why is this not common sense? How nice would your house be to live in if you allowed anyone who wanted to (because you have a warm and inviting home) to move in? Not very, comes to mind.

    Let’s use common sense and give our cops a break. I can understand the resistance to the federal government inserting itself into local affairs–they do it too often, and often at the request of the left. But, that’s just it; immigration is not a local affair. United States immigration policy and control is primarily a federal responsibility.

  • Not Everyone Gets a Trophy.

    The leftist activists’ perpetual and obnoxious attempts to impersonate the Tea Party movement bring something to mind. I wonder if the left’s inability to accept an election result stems from the recent decades-long phenomenon hammered into our kid’s psyche: Everyone-gets-a-trophy

    The problem for the left is in an election you must keep score: Whoever wins the most electoral votes becomes president—gets the trophy. There is no trophy for second place. The left didn’t get a trophy, but, it seems, they still feel they deserve one. But, like Democrat President Obama told Republican Senator McCain, “The election’s over.” In that quip, President Obama told us, elections have consequences, losing has consequences. He may have been arrogant, but he was right.

    The left is throwing one big, I’m-taking-my-ball-and-going-home, tantrum. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, for example, doesn’t seem interested in participating as a part of a loyal opposition. She employs vicious hyperbole and irresponsible disengagement, preferring to not even work with the President. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so damaging to the political and social health of our great nation. 

    Democrat leaders want you to believe the leftist malcontents, engaging in violence during demonstration after demonstration, are a minority. That’s true. However, if the Democrats continue to recognize these groups officially despite their violence and disrespect for the First Amendment rights of others, and if the mainstream media continue to project this leftist minority as ordinary citizens who finally got fed up, got up off the couch, and hit the streets to protest some catchall oppression, then this minority of violent agitators, and the so-called “peaceful demonstrators” who provide them cover, will be viewed as more influential and legitimate than they merit. 

    The current administration hasn’t had time to create anything—to do anything–to cause any reasonable person to be “fed up.” To this date, President Trump’s cabinet hasn’t been fully staffed due to Senate Democrat delays.

    Why is the left so upset? What significant thing has the Republican administration done to them, other than win an election? Nothing. Could it be they’re angry they lost and didn’t get a trophy?

  • Liberal Contempt for Others.

    Libertarianism has been a part of me for so long sometimes I forget just how beautiful a political philosophy it is and how good it makes me feel to be a part of the continuing American Revolution. The left likes to lay claim to being the “radicals and revolutionaries” in this modern era. However, it is the original libertarians (classical liberals) such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other founding fathers who remain the true radicals, standing in opposition to tyranny whether from a monarch like King George III or the modern progressive left movement. And so are we also true radicals who accept the gift of being our Founders’ political progeny. Leftists are simply monarchists whose sovereign, rather than a king or queen, is the large, oppressive welfare state. They prefer subjects beholding to a welfare state to free citizens engaged in voluntary cooperation with a limited government conducted under the social contract.  

    Libertarianism is beautiful in its trust in humanity—in ordinary human beings—in others. To the contrary, the ugliness of the left that demonizes its political opponents as “evil” and dismisses others as too “stupid” to manage their own lives. The problem is when the left says others are, “too stupid to run their own lives,” “stupid” means anyone opposing the left’s political view.

    I have Democrat friends and family who argue others simply can’t be trusted to run their own lives and need government to make decisions for them. I’m in jaw-dropping awe of such audacity–such contempt for others is frightening. I reply, “What about you? Should you be able to make your own decisions?” Most of them, of course, answer, “Yes.” But some concede it might be worth losing some liberty so that “stupid” others are protected from themselves. Remarkably, many on the left would rather lose their own liberty than allow others to retain theirs.

    The left abdicates the gift bestowed by nature’s God, fought, bled, and died for by our forebears, and enshrined in our founding documents: Liberty! Think of the beauty of not only being able to live one’s life free from excessive government intrusion–to strive for human flourishing–but also of acknowledging others’ liberty.

    Since the inception of civil society human political progress has been measured by its recognition of individual liberty. The history of the free world venerates the birth of democracy in Greece, the signings of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, and the framing of the U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). Personal liberty has been at the core of the history of the evolution of civilized society.

    The miserable history of leftist progressivism is written in the economic and social destruction wrought by socialism and the murders of a hundred million others committed by communism. And where did Marxist-Leninist communism find itself? As Ronald Reagan said, “On the ash heap of history.” And where is American liberty still found? “On a shining city on a hill.” America!

    I side with the beautiful: individual liberty and personal freedom. I like that if my side gets its (political) way, others can live as they choose—pursue their happiness. This view makes my political philosophy morally superior, anathema to the leftist philosophy where others do not live their lives as they choose—are prevented from pursuing their happiness. Like Jack Nicholson’s character in the film As Good as it Gets says, “The fact that I get it makes me feel good, about me.”

    In conclusion, allow me to prove me point: if libertarian concept’s, with its sublime and egalitarian benefits and attendant free (fair) market capitalism, reign politically (even in a Republican-populist administration), leftists may live as they choose. Libertarianism may not be perfect, but it points humanity in the right direction.      

  • If Milo Yiannopoulos was Looking for Freedom of Speech, Why Would he Look for it on America’s College Campuses?

    A lot of folks on the political right, in a sincere but misplaced attempt to understand their political opponents, make excuses for their bad (sometimes criminal) behavior.

    “They just don’t understand.”

    “If they only stopped to think about their position…”

    “They don’t know what they’re doing?”

    Sadly, yes they do.

    Last night at the University of California Berkeley we saw the disgraceful behavior of ant-democratic, anti-free speech, anti-American radicals infringing on conservative/libertarian writer, Milo Yiannopoulos,’ First Amendment rights–destroying property and abridging the rights of those who came to hear him speak.

    These people (term applied loosely) are not mere political opponents the leftist media would have us believe. These are militant malcontents who know exactly what they’re doing: attempting to use violence to disrupt our civilized, democratic republic. One sign read, “Be Ungovernable.”  

    Think about it. Conservatives and libertarians often point out that the left needs the right because without the productivity of the right the left would have nothing to redistribute. Conversely, the constitutionalist right does not need the leftist activists, especially the radical left because they contribute nothing. The radicals don’t produce; they consume. These violent lefties don’t create, they destroy. And yet the national media put them forth as rank-and-file Democrats.

    As a retired police officer my heart went out to those Berkley officers obviously restricted from acting appropriately. They were complying with the incompetent direction of political leaders who cling to some romantic notion of the protest culture a la 1960’s. Tacitly or overtly, they allow left-wing crybabies to crush an invited campus guest’s civil liberties and then blame the guest rather than those who infringe on constitutional rights and destroy property.

    Here’s the leftist equation:

    Free speech does not include Hate speech.

    What is hate speech?

    Whatever the left says it is.

    The left blames Yiannopoulos for the threats, violence, and destruction by referring to him as controversial, radical, and divisive; inflammatory, provocative, and of using “hate-speech.” Isn’t this like blaming the rape victim rather than the rapist for being sexually assaulted?

    All of this occurring at the birthplace of America’s campus Free-Speech Movement made famous at Berkeley half-century ago. Many leaders of America’s college campuses have become despicable in the eyes of liberty. It seems Berkeley is now in contention to be the birthplace of the Restricted Speech Movement.     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Bellevue School District: Contempt for Cops Day

    It’s a wonder SNL hasn’t done a skit about the perpetual lefty demonstrations. Talk about a target-rich environment for comedy. However, the protesters are politically left, so… Try turning on the news these days, local or national, without seeing a leftist protest held against… whatever!

    New day, new cause. Just reverse the signs. “Hooray for liberal women!” Switch! “Down with conservative women!” Switch! “Sorry, we meant, ‘Hooray for Liberal WOMXN” (Note: Don’t try to find it in the dictionary).

    Reminds me of Marlon Brando in the Wild One: A girl ask Brando, “Hey, Johnny. What are you rebelling against?” Brando answers, “Whadda ya got?”

    My police career at the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct was punctuated by left-wing demonstrations: APEC, WTO, Anarchists; Communists, Socialists, Labor Unions; Marijuana, Illegal Immigration, Occupy Wall Street, and… whadda ya got.

    The last couple years were marked by nearly weekly, sometimes daily, marches by lefty agitators dissatisfied with… whadda ya got. As long as it went against traditional American values, the specifics didn’t matter. Didn’t even matter if most protesters knew nearly nothing about the issue at hand—as long as “their team” said it was right. 

    Today, yet another demonstration: The Bellevue (WA) School District is sponsoring a “Day of Action,” encouraging its students to wear Black Lives Matter (BLM) t-shirts, thus honoring a blatant anti-police, leftist (Marxist) organization. This from a public school district paid for by ALL American taxpayers.

    Think about it: supporting BLM, an organization that continues to promote the “hands up, don’t shoot” mythology and perpetuate the lie that there exists an epidemic of American law enforcement officers wrongly shooting young black men. It is also an organization that continues to disqualify some victims, such as those innocents gunned down in Chicago’s—truly epidemic—gang/drug violence, whose black lives do not seem to matter. At least, not to BLM.

    Rather than sponsoring support for Black Lives Matter why don’t they call it what it is? Contempt for Cops Day.

  • A Seattle Liberal Attacks City’s Protest Culture

    The other day I read something fascinatingly waggish and oh, so very Seattle in its irony. The source of my amusement came from an opinion piece: “Stop protesting Seattle Asian Art Museum renovation” (Seattle Times, January 13, 2017).

     

    First, a preface: I have affection for the SAAM. The museum is in the precinct I patrolled during my over two-decades-long career. I enjoyed the beautiful building and speaking with many wonderful patrons. I also agree with the writer of the piece, Glenn Nelson, that people should stop protesting SAAM renovations, although I acknowledge (and announce) their right to do so. Renovations are overdue, appropriate, and will enhance Seattle’s cultural resources.  

     

    But where exactly does Mr. Nelson, obviously a liberal/progressive, acquire his moral authority to ask others to stop protesting anything? Has Mr. Nelson forgotten in what city he lives? Seattle has planted, cultivated, and harvested its current protest (crop) culture for many years. Oh, before continuing, I should modify my contention for clarity: Its liberal/progressive protest culture.

     

    Years ago, I remember protesters descending on SPD’s East Precinct to protest…wait for it… the U.S. Navy bombing uninhabited islands for training in… again, wait for it… Puerto Rico!!! I can’t count the number of protests I’ve worked: APEC, WTO, and the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade; Critical Mass, anarchists, and Black Lives Matter, and no such list would be complete (though this one is far from complete) without Occupy Wall Street’s 99%ers. During the last years of my career, leftist demonstrations were a monthly and many times weekly occurrence.

     

    Mr. Nelson, who dutifully introduces himself in his first sentence, “as a person of color,” provides his liberal/progressive bona fides and curriculum vitae throughout the article. He cites his Asian American heritage, green space, the ADA, diversity, inclusion, and Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative.

     

    It seems that his fellow Seattleites’ objections are not worthy of protest because, according to Mr. Nelson, he has determined that “The ‘encroachment’ on green space [and impact on neighborhood traffic] is too negligible to be considered a source for opposition.” Just like so many liberals, Mr. Nelson finds no problem dismissing other people’s concerns when they fail to fall in line with his preferred narrative–his desires. Remember, Mr. Nelson did not simply write that he disagrees with the protesters; he declares they, “stop protesting….”

     

    Now, I do not wish to make light of Mr. Nelson’s heart-felt plea on behalf of himself and people he loves and cares about. He obviously believes his perspective is correct. But it seems there’s a lesson here for Seattle’s liberal/progressive activists with their emerald green penchant for protest: opposing points of view are not always, in every way, and every circumstance wrong, and certainly not racist or otherwise evil just because they’re put forth by the “another side” of an argument. Opposing political perspectives, ideologies, and issues are simply that: positions held by people who simply oppose your view. They are due the same respect you feel you deserve, not slander, libel, and demonization.       

  • Pew Releases Results of Police Survey that Should Surprise No One.

    I was pleased to see the January 11, 2017 Pew Research Center results of a comprehensive survey of police officers’ views on the current anti-police (my words, not theirs) state in America and its effect on cops. Listen, this is not a new phenomenon, especially in big liberal bastions such as Seattle. This alleged “abuse of force” and “bias policing” controversy and animus toward cops by the left has been with us for many years. It’s just that now we have a nationally-known, alliterate tag for it: the “Ferguson Effect.”

     

    Since the Ferguson incident, in which a police officer shot and killed a robbery suspect who’d assaulted and attempted to disarm him, gave rise to Black Lives Matter, activists and media have selected that event as the inception of the anti-police culture in America. But it’s not—not even close. Anti-police lefties have been chipping away at the integrity of law enforcement officers for a long time. Now, after eight years of enjoying support from one of two major political parties, the United States Department of Justice, and from the President, the fruits of their onslaught are being harvested on America’s streets. 

     

    The environment in which police work today allows for an officer to act entirely according to the tactics and policies instructors taught in the police academy or advanced training unit yet still suffer consequences as if the officer had acted improperly. This recently happened to a friend of mine. In fact, despite the department’s lead defensive tactics instructor describing the officer’s actions during the incident in question as “perfect,” Seattle’s police chief fired him. How do you think that affects future actions of other police officers?     

     

    One positive aspect of this increased attention is that sane America is finally taking notice of this attempt at societal suicide. Marginalizing—demonizing—our cops when our nation is so vulnerable to lawlessness in our inner-cities and from potential terrorist threats is insane. 

    No matter how many times FBI statistics and Ivy League studies inform us of the reality that cops are not gunning down young black men in the streets—other young black men are, the Ferguson myth persists. Mind numbed miscreants still thrust their hands in the air, chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot” regardless that the DOJ, of all agencies, debunked that lie.

     

    Look at the recent controversy over a painting displayed in Congress depicting police officers as pigs. In fact, in the painting, a young man in the background has his hands up. The controversy has resulted in a, put-it-up-take-it-down, game between offending Democrat and defending Republican lawmakers.  

     

    But this is not game. This blatant insult to America’s police officers is occurring in the U.S. Congress. We have American leaders, the Congressional Black Caucus, exhibiting a painting which portrays police officers as pigs. The Democrat who hung the painting, Rep. William Lacy Clay, still cites Michael Brown as an example of so-called police abuses against Americans of African descent.

     

    Clay is an intelligent man. He can read as well as any other person. He knows what the FBI statistics show. But this issue is not about knowing; it’s about not wanting to know, and it seems the good Congressman and his compatriots simply do not want to know the truth, or they ignore it. They’d rather perpetuate ideology-fabricated myths befitting their chosen narrative. 

     

    Now, I don’t like what the painting represents, but it’s doing part of what art is supposed to do: it’s making us think and discuss. But that doesn’t change the inappropriateness of the venue–on display in the U.S. Congress. The painting also does something else: It demonstrates what some schools are apparently teaching our children. I don’t know the young artist, but It’s obvious his view of police is colored by the anti-police mythology “taught” by many teachers and community activists. I don’t blame the young artist; if you’re told lies every day by people you respect, you’re likely to believe them.

     

    Regardless of the controversies listed above, contributing to what Pew’s research found about American cops, this anti-police trend has been with us for a very long time. First in liberal localities and then eight years ago when Americans elected a president who holds police officers in contempt and who has no problem showing it.

     

    Don’t believe me? Aside from incidents such as the well-known Cambridge police incident and President Obama’s Eric Holder-led DOJ pogrom against American law enforcement, I’ll leave you with this: A few days ago, on Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, despite the many murders of police officers in 2016, including the single-incident slaughter of five Dallas police officers, and despite having swathed the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate gay marriage, President Obama again refused honor the nation’s police officers by illuminating the White House in blue.   

     

  • Seattle Police Chief Insults Her Own Police Officers.

    Here we go again. In a speech given at Princeton University, Seattle’s police chief, Kathleen O’Toole, called on police departments to “embrace reform.” She elaborated: “Everybody wants to talk about guns and drugs, and, yes, we need to talk about crime and crime rates, but my most complicated issue right now is first of all equity and social justice in our policing, in our community. And also it’s the intersection of public safety and public health.” At the risk of appearing puerile, gag me

    Anyone espousing “social justice” in law enforcement exposes themselves as a left wing ideologue and displays contempt for constitutional equal justice. Social justice, as defined by liberal government, cannot coexist with equal justice because it treats people not as individuals but according to which “victim” group(s) they belong.

    Take Seattle’s race-based enforcement of Driving While License Suspended 3rd degree. For years, unlike other citations issued directly to offenders, officers must forward these tickets to the city attorney’s office so they can determine who “merits punishment,” according to social justice criteria, including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. (Yes, no kidding) Check it out for yourself.

    In her speech at the Woodrow Wilson (well, there’s one problem, right there) School of Public and International Affairs, Chief O’Toole cites a focus on the relationship of trust between the police and children. She said, “Without that trust we as police fail.” Answer this: How does perpetuating lies about cops and what cops do engender trust? 

    To give you an idea of the false premises under which Chief O’Toole and other leftist leaders view police officers, the article’s writer used this springboard: “More than two years after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, law enforcement and government officials, scholars, student leaders and community members gathered to address the issue of “Racial Justice and Policing in America.” Ferguson? Michael Brown? In the article, the writer cites the Ferguson incident twice as if it’s an important anchor in this discussion of a false police excessive force epidemic—talk about fake news.

    Did I miss something? Wasn’t it Eric Holder’s U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that established Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson acted properly after robbery suspect Michael Brown assaulted him and attempted to take his gun? The writer is highlighting Ferguson as an apparent precipitating incident regarding the police “problems” discussed by Chief O’Toole. The writer is emphasizing a lie. The Ferguson “hands up, don’t shoot” never happened.

    According to the article, “She [O’Toole] described the past two years in Seattle as a very difficult period, with the department under a federal consent decree, required to curb excessive force and biased policing.” 

    Well, the left fabricated this “difficult period” over the past several years through an alliance between Seattle’s liberal government, anti-police community activists, and President Obama’s DOJ. The consent decree never should have occurred. What happens when you try to fix something that isn’t broken? It breaks. I point you to Seattle University Professor Matthew J. Hickman’s Seattle Time’s article and his study debunking the DOJ’s “conclusions” and advising Seattle to, “Call the DOJ’s bluff and demand an apology.” 

    Following a bogus study by the DOJ and its resultant sham conclusions, the feds enacted a consent decree against a police department that didn’t deserve it. Has anyone asked how the Seattle Police Department went from being considered a model American law enforcement agency one day, sought after by other departments for examples of “best practices” in policing, and the next day deemed a veritable American law enforcement disaster? I remember training with German police officers who traveled across an ocean and continent just to benefit from SPD’s superb knowledge base and training. But to leftists the ends justify the means, right? So sacrificing an excellent police department on the alter of liberal, political correctness was just business as usual. To hell with all of the good police officers negatively affected by their anti-police, political agendas.

    The DOJ’s result was no surprise. The DOJ hasn’t met a police department it didn’t find to be racist and abusive. Former U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy laid out the DOJ consent decree formula: From a Newsmax.com article, “McCarthy cited a string of federal civil-rights investigations into some 20 police departments, including Ferguson, Missouri’s, which he said the Justice Department has approached with a presumption of racial guilt.” Precisely what happened in Seattle.

    Could the SPD be improved? What organization couldn’t? Just because an organization must keep abreast of developing policies, strategies, techniques, and technologies doesn’t mean that organization is broken. Just because an individual officer violates policy or law, doesn’t mean all officers need “new” training. Especially when the liberal’s “training” is more about leftist, political indoctrination disguised as law enforcement training than it is true police instruction.  

    None of that matters to Chief O’Toole. She said, “Not only did the department [SPD] deserve that consent decree, it is a much better place as a result of that decree. We need to embrace reform as a good thing. Change is not bad.” Well, change is bad if it’s based on lies.

    SPD is “better” now? Oh, I want to say bad words!

    How does O’Toole know? She came to Seattle after the phony decree was implemented. She’s had to rely on the left wing ideologues permeating Seattle’s halls of “social” justice for her information. I retired from the SPD a month or so before she was sworn in to office. I was optimistic. On paper, she seemed a stellar selection. Also, we’re from the same state, Massachusetts, so I felt a kinship. No longer. While she is a nice person—in person, as with all of Seattle’s police chiefs, regrettably, she is a marionette whose strings are manipulated by Seattle’s leftist government. Drink the Kool-Aid or you’re out

     O’Toole boasted, “We’ve reduced our use of force by 55 percent just in the last year and a half.” Well, duh. Proactive policing is virtually nonexistent. Out of career preservation, officers can’t do nearly as much as they used to or want to—can you say, de-policing? How can they when their leaders will not back them if things go wrong, even when they act in good faith?

    Here’s a question: How can you do the job when even if you do it correctly, even if the department’s lead defensive tactics instructor says your use of force was “perfect,” the chief still fires you? I suppose it could be worse. An officer could be tried, convicted, and sent to prison for doing his or her job. Just ask Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes who’s tried and failed several times to prosecute Seattle police officers.

    The Princeton article noted that, “Ms. O’Toole also commented on the importance of hiring officers who reflect the communities they serve, and ‘not people who think that policing is all about the gun fighting and car chases they see on television, but people who understand that policing is a vocation.’” Oh, help me… I really, really, want to say bad words!

    Just look at what Chief O’Toole thinks about the type of people, prior to her administration, who’d become police officers and their motivations for serving. What a profound insult to police officers. This is the person responsible for leading Seattle’s Thin (and getting thinner by the day) Blue Line? Officers are persecuted (not to mention executed) enough these days without having a chief who seems to hold her veteran officers in such low esteem.

    “‘We’ve hired young responsible, articulate, idealistic people from very different backgrounds with very different professional and personal experiences,’ she continued. ‘It’s very exciting to see. They’ll make our department so much more effective.’” Gee, thanks, Chief. And good luck with that Utopian social experiment.

    Hey, all you old, stammering, realistic people [cops] from homogeneous backgrounds with very similar professional and personal experiences. You SPD dinosaurs who’ve dedicated your lives to making Seattle a safer place, just step aside. Salvation has arrived. No, really. The liberals have come to save the day. I mean, the left is well known for its commitment to “law and order,” right? 

    Does it sound like Chief O’Toole has a legitimate, objective view of her veteran Seattle police officers? No, Chief O’Toole describes the ideal police officer as, apparently, different from current officers who’ve served Seattle for many years and decades. Her perspective comes from a left wing, social justice ideological one—and that’s putting it politely. 

    “‘Princeton Police Chief Nick Sutter [appointed by liberals], who applauded the ‘excellent forum,’ echoed Ms. O’Toole’s message, observing that her proposals have been implemented in Princeton and are consistent with best practices as outlined in President Obama’s report on 21st Century Policing. Mr. Sutter summed up the comments made by Chief O’Toole… that ‘the police are the public and the public are the police. Without collaboration and trust, neither can be successful.’” This is so profound, I think my head might just implode from the dazzling brilliance of these people.

    Sounds like Chief O’Toole’s Princeton speech was another successful liberal echo [literally: see above paragraph] chamber. Leftists back-slapping each other, congratulating themselves on yet another brilliant forum about how to fix problems that don’t exist (or that they created or imagined), exacerbated by lies that won’t die, and delivered by ideologues who won’t quit.

     

     

  • It’s Coming Undone–Hopefully.

    This is an essential premise of conservatism (and libertarianism): If liberals get their way, conservatives must live their way. If conservatives get their way, people can live peacefully as they choose. Conservatives are much more live and let live than liberals, and libertarians certainly reflect this idiom. This philosophical dichotomy sounds simple—it is, but it also marks a huge difference between America’s two current major political philosophies. Conservatives tend toward an America that espouse the individual liberty, limited government virtues expressed in the U.S. Constitution. Liberals want a different America. An America unrecognizable to our Founders.

    Think about it. Liberals (progressives, democratic-socialists) have spent the last eight years “doing” stuff to America. The Democrat’s leftist administration has forced Americans to follow ever-increasing, intrusive, success-crushing government rules and regulations (IRS, EPA, OSHA, EEOC, FCC, FTC, FDA, ICC, NLRB, SEC, and so on). This includes, for the first time in history, the government forcing Americans to purchase a commercial product—healthcare. Liberals tend to suffer from the “do-something” disease more than do conservatives. To feel accomplished in our lives, the left says we need government. As Col. Potter used to say on M*A*S*H, “Horse Hockey!”

    Consider this: Today, First Lady Michelle Obama, in response to Trump’s election, told Oprah, “See now we are feeling what not having hope feels like, you know. Hope is necessary. It is a necessary concept.” So, people only have hope if it comes from the federal government? When her husband was elected, the right felt little hope—especially in government, but they went on with their lives as best they could despite the increased government interference. Then when their chance came to change things–really change things, they did. Mrs. Obama added, “What do you give your kids if you can’t give them hope?” Again, she conflates government with hope. How sad is that?

    Now, I don’t dislike the First Lady. She seems nice, intelligent, is obviously a good mother, and genuinely appears to care about her issues. Still, the enormous chip she seems to carry on her shoulder bothers me. She has had one of the most privileged lives any American can hope to have, yet she never seems to acknowledge this as an American blessing. America always falls short: “For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of my country.” Really? It’s like something almost biological is blocking her ability to experience any heartfelt appreciation for her country. I mean, give me a freakin’ break: America elected her African-American husband president of the United States of America—TWICE! 

    Lately, I’ve heard folks reminding people about this equation: Free-market capitalists (conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans) don’t need big government—they don’t need socialism. On the other hand, big government leftists (progressives, socialists, and Democrats) need capitalism. The left needs wealth producers or else there is nothing to redistribute. Remember, government can either hinder your access to success—your pursuit of happiness, or it can get out of your way.

    The conservatives and libertarians primary message this presidential election was not for the government to “do” anything. The hue and cry from the right (and the middle) was to undo the damage the left has done. Undo Obamacare, undo unnecessary rules and regulations, undo an overbearing IRS, undo radical EPA “global warming” policy, undo harmful immigration policy, undo America’s unsuccessful foreign policy—undo, undo, and undo.

    Initially, Americans will not judge the new administration in Washington D.C. by what it does but by what it undoes.