• 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.



  • Who Are They to Lecture Us about Guns?

    Whenever the left argues about their “support” for the 2nd Amendment, they argue they are only interested in “common sense” gun laws. This is funny. No, really. Think about it. People who know nothing about guns attempt to lecture (and legislate) about guns to people who know a lot about guns.

    One “common sense” gun law the left promotes are “assault weapons” bans. Liberals say, “No one needs military-styled, automatic combat weapons for personal or home protection.” Unless you are federally licensed, you are not allowed to own an automatic weapon (machine gun). Still, many “common sense” politicians have no clue which end of the gun you hold and which end the bullet thingies come out. Still, they lecture us.

    Former New York Mayor, and anti-gun zealot, Mike Bloomberg gave a seminar on the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons: “a pistol, you have to pull the trigger each time. An assault weapon (AR 15, et al) you pull the trigger and it goes (insert childlike machine gun noise here).” Nope! So-called assault weapons (semi-automatic rifles that “look” like badass military automatic rifles) shoot pretty much the same way as common hunting rifles—one trigger pull, one bullet.

    When talking about an “assault weapon,” California Senator Kevin de Leon used his expertise in firearms using this terminology, “…can shoot a thirty-magazine clip in ½ a second.” Hmmmm, I always thought a clip was another word for a magazine—you know, the thingie that you put the bullets into. At any rate, he’s about as clear on automatic vs. semi-automatic as Mayor Bloomberg. And Senator de Leon was flip flopping terms all the while handling the rifle as if he were a six-year-old child holding a fifteen-pound lobster by its claws.

    Diane Feinstein tells us that it is, “legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.” Maybe she meant “clips.” She appeared upset people can only use three rounds to hunt ducks. I know I’ve been retired a couple years now, but last I checked, it wasn’t legal to hunt humans with even one bullet. She must be thinking of the Black Lives Matter claim that police (I think cops still qualify as humans—maybe) are hunting young black men in the streets, so…

    Not to be outdone, the Executive Branch needed to make its own profound contribution to the great gun debate. Infamously, Vice President Joe Biden once advised his wife to scare intruders off by firing a shotgun off their back porch. In another brilliant stream of genius, Biden also advised that if people want to “keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Holy moly, Batman! Get a shotgun!

    So, if non-gun people ever wonder why gun people get so frustrated with liberal politicians claiming they have cornered the market on “common sense” gun laws, just do a quick internet search on some of the intellectual luminescence emanating from the liberal side of the gun argument. On second thought, if you value your sanity, don’t. Or better yet, have a few sips of your favorite alcoholic beverage first.

  • Does Hillary Hate Cops? Duh!

    I was listening to the Todd Herman Show on KTTH 770 AM yesterday, and he gave Donald Trump sound advice: Pick only a few of Hillary’s “difficulties” (out of an untold number) and hammer her on those.

    For me, Hillary Clinton sparks a paraphrase of noted French philosopher Jean Rostand: break one law, you’re a criminal; break a thousand laws, you’re a corrupt politician; break all the laws, you’re a goddess.

    One of the subjects Todd suggested was Hillary’s disdain for American law enforcement. I agree, Todd. Great idea—mostly because it’s so true. And it’s not hard to find examples of her cop-hating ways:

    Alicia Powe writes in DailySurge.com, “The incident [Freddie Gray] is just one of a number of controversial police-involved deaths of African-American men. Clinton attributed to their[Brown, Garner, and Gray] deaths to a racist criminal justice system and said their deaths were a part of a pattern.” She quotes Secretary Clinton, “From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable.”

    Hillary’s statement is baffling when you consider two of the examples: The DOJ ruled Ferguson a justified shooting relegating “hands up; don’t shoot” to myth status. And, except for one officer’s trial which resulted in a hung jury, a black judge acquitted all of the officers who had been charged by a politically partisan, overzealous prosecutor. Even in Eric Garner’s case, there were extenuating and exacerbating circumstances brought on by Garner himself. These are Hillary’s examples of an “undeniable” pattern of police systematically harming black men?

    Just her opinion, right. So, what’s the big deal? Well, only that she may be our next president…. Thump! (Sorry, passed out for a minute. I’m okay now.)

    Anyway, I’ve been against leftists for a long time, so I opposed Hillary, going into this election. But I’m no huge Trump supporter, either. However, the amount of trivial crap I have to ignore to vote for Trump compared with the voluminous and serious crap Hillary supporters have to ignore to vote for her is stark (come on… the FBI told us she lied, U.S. secrets were compromised, and people died!).

    Moving on…

    The DailyCaller.com’s Derek Hunter quotes Hillary at the “Brown and Black Forum” in Iowa earlier this year, “I think that when you have police violence that terrorizes communities, that doesn’t show the respect that you’re supposed to have from protecting people in your authority.” Is she kidding me? “police violence terrorizing communities??? How insulting is that to American law enforcement?

    There’s more…

    John Hayward, writing in Breitbart.com quotes former Secret Service Officer Gary Byrne’s, speaking about his experiences with Hillary Clinton: “And the truth is that Hillary Clinton has become so angry—you mentioned about the security detail at the State Department trying to get away from her. Like you said, I talk about it in my book Crisis of Character, she gets so angry one day, sitting in her limousine, she strikes a Secret Service agent in the back of the head with a Bible. That’s not normal behavior. That’s bizarre behavior, and it’s criminal behavior. And that’s the real Hillary Clinton.”

    The officer has found it difficult to get the attention of the mainstream media. Hayward writes, “Byrne said the media blackout of stories damaging to Hillary Clinton was frightening, ‘because you’re never going to know what the truth is’ under a new Clinton Administration.” Mainstream media helping Hillary? Say it ain’t so.

    Byrne also talked about the broader issues of how law enforcement from local to federal view Hillary. He believes that FBI agents are upset about the way the agency handled the email investigation. Byrne believes agents and other employees of these agencies will continue to leak materials about Hillary that will vindicate the “stuff you hear in my book.” Byrne finishes with this: “Anybody that doubts what I say about Hillary Clinton: read George Stephanopoulos’ book, and read Dee Dee Myers’ book. They say the same things.” And those two are hardly right-wingers.

    And how about what was said today just before the debate…

    I have enormous respect for Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. In fact, I’ve said if he were Seattle’s police chief, I might still be working today (Anyone else just feel that collective shudder from Seattle’s liberal politicians).

    This morning on Fox and Friends (from: www.infowars.com, Sheriff Clarke made no bones about what he thinks about Hillary’s view of law enforcement officers: “Hillary ‘is a straight up cop hater.” He continued, “She has made it clear from the convention that she is all in with the criminal element, she doesn’t care about victims of crime, she’s a straight up cop hater, and so she is, like I said, rolling the dice on not having support of law enforcement. The problem for her is that middle America, mainstream America does not share her sentiment in having sympathy for criminals.”

    Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani backed Clarke’s assertion: “The Democratic Party has become an anti-law enforcement party. And this [Hillary refusing to even seek an endorsement from the National Fraternal Order of Police, but supporting anti-police groups such as Black Lives Matter] is the best demonstration of it.”

    Like Todd Herman says, if Trump can stay disciplined in tonight’s debate and limit his points to a few strong ones, such as Hillary’s disdain for American law enforcement, we can avoid allowing a lying, criminal security risk to contaminate the White House—the American people’s house.

  • Gunpoint

    It’s no longer enough that a suspect has a gun before a cop can use lethal force. Now, apparently, armed criminals pose no lethal threat to cops until they actually point their guns at police officers.

    In fact, Charlotte-Mecklenburg NAACP President Minister Corine Mack said, “In my mind, and in most of the community’s mind, it really doesn’t matter if he had a gun.” Really, reverend? What chance do police officers stand in this surreal environment of yours?  

    Okay, now that my head has stopped spinning from the gross negligence of such thinking, let me put on my teacher’s cap. I’m always railing about how the cop leaders are guilty of their own gross negligence in their failure to educate the public about what cops do. So, here goes…

    When cops are dealing with a suspect and an officer sees that a suspect has access to a gun, no matter where the gun is, you’ll hear the officer shout, “GUN!” at the top of his or her lungs. No, the cop won’t wait until the suspect pulls the gun out and points it at one of them before yelling to warn other officers of the imminent—yes, imminent—danger.

    Try this experiment: Tuck an object into your pocket or waistband as if it were a gun. Have another person hold an object in his hand—maybe a book—as if it were a gun.

    Okay, you are the “police officer.” Your “gun” is in its “holster.” The other person is the “suspect.” He or she is holding a “gun” but is not pointing it at you at the moment.

    Now, stand about ten feet apart, facing each other. Okay, here’s how it works: The officer, you, may not draw your gun until the suspect points his or her gun at you.

    How long did it take the suspect to point the gun at you? One second? Less? Did you even touch your gun before he pointed his at you? Bang! You’re dead.

    Even if you already had your gun out of your holster, how quickly could the suspect turn his gun on you? Would you get your shot off before the suspect could shoot you? Maybe? Is maybe good enough for your spouse and kids?

    If the standard for using deadly force changes so cops have to wait until suspects point their guns at officers before officers can shoot, we’re gonna have a bunch of dead cops.

    Oh, wait. That’s the point for some people, right? What was that Black Lives Matter chant during a march in New York City last year?

    “What do we want?”

    “Dead cops.”

    “When do we want them?”


  • It Doesn’t Matter.

    Having just returned from a motorcycle trip, I’m catching up on the news. Once again, a cop shoots a black man (in Milwaukee), and insanity and destruction reign. Did the police shoot some innocent young man just walking down the street minding his own business? You’d think so based on “community activists'” reactions. But, no, of course this is not what happened.

    The suspect the cops shot was a known bad guy with a long criminal history. Armed with a stolen handgun, he ran from the police. The gun was stolen in a burglary during which the suspects also took 500 rounds of ammunition. Think about it. The suspect had a gun and reportedly either pointed it or shot at police before an officer shot him. Do these facts matter to anti-cop factions? Not a whit. 

    The current administration, as well as left-wing political groups across America—including the Democrat Party—have given these anti-cop groups tacit approval to riot and pillage our cities, providing legitimacy by meeting with groups that promote the myth that cops are actively “hunting and shooting black males in the streets.” Today, this insane reaction occurs any time a cop shoots a black man, even if the man is an armed criminal.

    This warped perspective is offensive to police officers, and it should offend all Americans. 

  • For Whom the Bell Tolls: American Law Enforcement

    President can’t un-ring a bell

    Seems that President Obama has been busy trying to un-ring a bell he’s been ringing with enthusiasm since his first day in office. However, he’s finding out that you can’t un-ring a bell—even a political bell. The bell I’m talking about is the one chiming a condemnation of American law enforcement. The clamor began early in his presidency when he divined without any investigation that the Cambridge police officers investigating a burglary acted “stupidly.” Other examples of his apparent dislike of the police are myriad and well known.


    The “Hands up, don’t shoot,” myth

    President Obama knows that the Ferguson trope, “hands up, don’t shoot,” never happened. He knows because his own Department of Justice (DOJ) under his fellow cop-hater, former Attorney General Eric Holder, told him it never happened—following an overwhelmingly thorough investigation.


    President Obama fails to set the record straight

    So, anyone think it might have been helpful in quelling the social animus against the police, which is bolstered by such myths, if he’d personally announced that “hands up, don’t shoot” was a lie? Instead, Obama has tacitly supported the lie, first, by failing to denounce it, and second, by inviting the group primarily responsible for spreading this myth, Black Lives Matter, to the White House.


    Bestowing presidential legitimacy

    Our president has bestowed a vicarious legitimacy on cop-haters, including those who have chosen to act out violently. The president doesn’t even have to be overt; his lack of support for the police is obvious from his past actions and comments: He said, if he’d had a son, he’d have looked like Treyvon (Martin), anti-police, race activist Al Sharpton has repeatedly visited Obama at the White House, Obama restored relations with communist Cuba without an agreement to take custody of a cop-killer who’s enjoyed sanctuary in Cuba for decades, and he nominated to head the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ an attorney a man who voluntarily took the case of a notorious cop-killer. Most recently, the president spoke negatively about American cops while on a visit to Poland.


    According to Obama, a rainbow doesn’t include a blue hue

    There are so many other examples of his animosity toward police officers. However, one of the most poignant anti-police displays, after having bathed the White House in rainbow colors following the Supreme Court decision establishing recognition of gay marriage, was his recent refusal to light the White House in blue, following the massacre of five Dallas police officers. I’m not saying the rainbow display should not have occurred, but what could possibly be the president’s resistance to such a “uniting” gesture between cops and their communities?

  • The Right Should Stop Getting Suckered by the Left on Police Issues

    The right falls for it every time.

    There is another insidious, political tactic the left employs, and too many on the right fall for it. The left perpetuates myths such as the Michael Brown “hands up, don’t shoot” fairytale and perpetrate frauds such as the federal consent decrees the DOJ has slapped on more than twenty of the nation’s major police departments including Seattle in a move to quasi-federalize American law enforcement. It was the perennial cop-critic Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ (through FBI investigators) that found that Brown never put his hands up in surrender and plead for Officer Wilson not to shoot him. A Seattle University professor proved the data used by the DOJ to extort Seattle into its consent decree was bogus. Regardless of these circumstances, many on the right often concede “a significant problem with the practice of racial bias in the criminal justice system, particularly by police officers, generally, exists.” Why do we do this? Because most people don’t understand police work because the cops’ leaders, largely, suck at teaching society what it does and how and why.


    White cops hunting black men? Black Harvard professor says, “No.”

    Does it bother anyone when the left asserts that police officers are racist and are “hunting down black men in the streets” when the statistics don’t even approach supporting it? In fact, no one was more surprised than the black, Harvard professor who conducted a newly-released study, which delved into whether or not police officers were killing black men at an inordinate rate. According to the study by Professor Roland Fryer, “Black suspects are actually less likely to be shot than other suspects.” Fryer and his students spent 3,000 hours studying ten major U.S. police departments before arriving at their conclusions.


    Why does the left eschew perspective and context?

    Does it bother anyone when President Obama and others cite the discrepancy in the rate at which black suspects are shot by police versus white suspect, but they fail to put this statistic into proper context by simultaneously citing the massively lopsided murder rates for black men compared to white and Hispanic men?  Heather MacDonald, in her new book The War on Cops, points out that ProPublica published the results of a study that found, “young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot dead by police than are young white males.” However, MacDonald also points out how misleading this statistic is when not put into the proper perspective—as Paul Harvey might have told us, “…the rest of the story.” MacDonald writes, “…young black men commit homicide at nearly ten times the rate of young white and Hispanic males combined.” Is it any wonder these young men will have lethal contact with police at a disproportionate rate? Why won’t the president put this issue into proper context by supplying both sides of a statistical equation? Could it be that he is more beholding to party and social justice politics than he is to being the president of all Americans?


    The left excels at perpetuating myth and fraud.

    Regardless of the existence of perception-correcting, contextual data, the myths and frauds continue because the left is deft at corralling the right into accepting a portion of their false premises. The right stipulates to 10% of the left’s argument, thus tacitly quasi-validating the remaining 90%. I just heard one of my favorite radio hosts, Michael Medved, concede that the Minnesota shooting of Philando Castile was “questionable,” and Castile shouldn’t have been shot. The suspect, Castile, is a known criminal with a long record, had reportedly already threatened another person with his gun, which precipitated the 911call, refused to comply with the officers’ instructions, and reportedly still had the gun in his pocket. Michael questioned whether or not the officers were in imminent danger. Well, after over two decades on the streets, I can tell the good talk show host that the danger doesn’t get much more imminent than a suspect armed with a gun. It seems that if Castile had his way, Minnesota would be joining Texas in mourning dead cops.


    Stop getting suckered in by the left.

    Let’s not get suckered into conceding ground that is ours and on which we should stand firm. While all cops and police departments can always improve, this does not automatically mean that the police, generally, are doing anything wrong. Just because the left doesn’t like the way law enforcement is conducted does not automatically make it bad. Of course, cop-haters don’t like the way law enforcement is done. Even some good citizens don’t like police work when they’re on the violating end of it. When discussing use-of-force policies, I’ve had cop-critics who know me say, “well, you’re not like them (other cops who use force).” I tell them that I’m exactly like the vast majority of cops who used force sparingly but aggressively enough to achieve my law enforcement and officer/public safety goals—before someone shoots me.   


  • Not Anti-Police Brutality, Just Anti-Police

    Not divided? According to who???

    My iPhone just tingled, alerting me that President Barack Obama just made the statement the United States is “…not as divided as some have suggested.” I suppose he has to say this following his apparent indictment of police officers involved in the recent shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota. It strikes me that before preliminary investigations are conducted, never mind the comprehensive ones necessary to arrive at legitimate conclusions, America’s president and attorney general, along with several other well-known politicians and political activists, have summarily condemned the officers as “racist murderers.” They don’t even treat radical Islamic terrorists in this manner.

    Psychic Governor!

    Minnesota’s governor, Mark Dayton (D) made the clairvoyant pronouncement that if the driver had been white, the officer would not have shot him. No wonder the people of Minnesota elected him, possessed of such awe-inspiring psychic powers.

    There is a difference!

    President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch can’t seem to mention the Dallas police officers and civilians killed and wounded without mentioning (seemingly on equal footing) the two men who were recently killed by cops during law enforcement incidents. Anyone think this is not divisive for traditional Americans who generally, and rightly, trust the police and give them the benefit of the doubt they deserve? It brings up another point in the elevating of the black men shot by police to automatic “hero-victim” status. Anti-police critics tend to talk about the statistics of suspects shot versus police officers shot as if they’re supposed to be equal as if it’s not “fair” that more suspects are killed than cops.

    I don’t know what happened and neither do you.

    Now, the Minnesota shooting is not clear as to what negative behavior, if any, led up to the officer shooting the driver. The shooting of Philando Castile may be as heinous as critics say, or there may be other factors not yet known. The Facebook video taken by his girlfriend shows only the aftermath and nothing that led up to the shooting. I don’t know what happened and neither do you. However, it’s pretty clear from the video of the Baton Rouge incident that Alton Sterling was resisting the police officers. Whether or not the shooting was justified, I don’t know what happened and neither do you. It’s also clear from so many of these “controversial” police shootings that the majority of the people shot were involved in suspected law breaking at the time. Even Walter L. Scott, the South Carolina man who a police officer inexplicably shot in the back, had violated a traffic law and then committed a felony when he ran from the police officer. I don’t know what the officer, who’s been charged with murder, was thinking. Scott was clearly a victim. However, is it right for the left to elevate him to the rank of some sort of hero as if he’d been shot while leading a civil rights protest?   

    Myth: Hands up, don’t shoot.

    What is it about these anti-cop groups, continually ranting about their constitutional rights, who then fail to allow for police officers  the same fundamental constitutional right to the presumption of innocence all other Americans have? They want to be judge, jury, and executioner. They see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, and if evidence is discovered that doesn’t fit their narrative or prove their conclusions, they simply dismiss or ignore it. The “hands up, don’t shoot” myth is a perfect example.

    A legal lynching?

    As a result of these two shootings, we hear supposedly responsible people saying irresponsible things: Reverend Jesse Jackson called the Alton Sterling shooting, “a legal lynching.” What does he know that I don’t? Lynching is a historically powerful word, especially to black folks, and with good reason. However, it seems that Rev. Jackson’s employing it so irresponsibly and frivolously doesn’t do history, race relations, or intellectual honesty any service.

    Obama: Race relations worse.

    I’ve written before that the one thing I expected from President Obama’s election would be, at least, an acknowledgment of America’s admirable work toward redemption from its dreadfully racist past. However, this is obviously not the case. Race relations have gotten worse under Obama despite the president’s previously stated view that America is not as divided as some people suggest. A vague statement to be sure, but where is the evidence for that view?

    The knee-jerk president.

    President Obama is an intentionally divisive political figure. He actively works to divide people. His continual slams against Republicans and conservatives, and his signature legislation are good examples. Obamacare was passed solely by Democrats and is loathed by Republicans—as well as most Americans. He is a one-term senator, community agitator elevated by a historical, harmonic convergence of circumstances to the highest office in the land. His knee has repeatedly jerked, as he made statement after statement, many later proved wrong, that worked to divide Americans. Anyone remember how “stupidly” the Cambridge police acted while investigating a possible burglary at a black professor’s house or his sending administration officials to attend assault and robbery suspect Michael Brown’s funeral?

    Why racist if a black liberal president?

    Recently CNN did a report on the state of race in America. The story’s main gist came from a statement made by First Lady Michelle Obama: “I didn’t know how racist America was until it elected its first black president.” To arrive at this conclusion, the story pointed to incidents where Republicans had publicly chided the president, such as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s finger-wagging at Obama on an airport tarmac and South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson’s blurting “You lie!” during a state-of-the-union address. Of course, we all know how respectfully Democrats treated President Bush.

    Why not racist if  black conservative president?

    Let me ask you this: The Democrats deem some Republican politicians racist because they dared to challenge a politically divisive president who happens to belong to the primary opposing political party, right? Well, then, how many of you think Republicans would have been “racist” if America had elected a black conservative president?    


  • Seattle-ist Utopia

    It’s all about government control

    Totalitarian and other coercive regimes, such as Communism, Fascism, and Nazism; Democratic Socialism, Fabian Socialism, and Progressivism, by definition, are all infamous for their desire to control of the populace to one point or another–the former trio, to the point of extreme violence. They prove that government equals force, which is necessary when reasonable.


    In some cases, with intrusive big government, it simply usurps the means of production by directly taking over and controlling industry. In other cases, such as in Seattle, the government takes over industry simply by (over) regulating it. The Seattle City Council provides us with apt examples that demonstrate how to use government force against one group of citizens ostensibly for the benefit of another group of citizens. At best, this is akin to leveling the proverbial three-legged stool. At worst, it is, as Alexis de Tocqueville called it, “soft tyranny.”



    Seattle’s city council has cloaked itself in self-righteousness and armed itself with its interpretation of appropriate government actions and set out on a regulatory pogrom against the city’s business community. Rather than protecting its citizens rights, providing a positive business environment, and safeguarding against fraud, theft, and violence against the city’s merchants, Seattle would rather use the force of government to coerce city businesses to comply with its singular, socialist version of the world.


    No free market in Seattle

    In Seattle, no longer are supposedly free Americans allowed to conduct their own business affairs in a free market. The Seattle City Council has legislated sick time standards, a fifteen-dollar minimum wage, and now plans to legislate and regulate how employers schedule their employees. A recent Seattle Times article lists the various employees of Seattle businesses whining. I recognize the whines because I’ve had them myself about businesses I’ve worked for in the past. All employees have them. Last I checked, no one is forcing anyone to work for Starbuck’s or Amazon, which are hardly sweat shops.


    Seattle City Council’s very own Monopoly Board

    When the manufacturers of the board game Monopoly produced a “Seattle” Version, who knew it would come to life. How nice it must be to play with the city’s businesses as if it’s your very own Monopoly game, moving pieces around as you see fit regardless of a lack of business acumen all in the name of “worker’s rights.” Hmmm, why does that have a familiar ring? Oh, right. That’s the same tack Socialism and Communism uses.


    Seattle City Council knows best

    As reported in the Seattle Times by Daniel Beekman, “Washington Restaurant Association President Anthony Anton said Thursday in a statement: “We are concerned about what a mandated restrictive scheduling policy could mean to our employees and our businesses. We want to ensure restrictive scheduling policies won’t defy a crucial cornerstone of restaurant employment — flexibility.”


    Bubble won’t last forever—especially with Socialist City Council.

    Seattle is currently benefiting from being in an economic bubble compared to many American cities. However, history tells us the bubble will not last. In fact, Seattle seems to be doing a good job making sure it doesn’t. I don’t know about you folks, but when my family decides to go out, we no longer choose Seattle. Why? To list just a few, the parking, the tolerance for aggressive bums, the Draconian parking rules, and the tolerance for crime—just to name a few.


    Still aiming for Socialist Utopia

    As Seattle’s leftists are demonstrating, they will never stop in their quest for a socialist Utopia. Who thinks that once they get this regulation that they will be content? No, they’re on a mission to force the world to conform to their view of how life should be lived.


    If I get my way, you get your way

    To reiterate a point I’ve made in the past that gives me comfort that my political view is enlightened and superior to the leftists—liberals, progressives, statists. If I get my way, everyone lives their lives as they choose is best for them without infringing on others’ rights to do the same. If they get their way, everyone lives life as they choose is best for others using the force of government.


    As a Seattle billboard proclaimed in the 1970s…

    It seems Seattle’s leftist government will not stop until it has forced every last business out of town. To reiterate the message from a 1971 billboard displaying an infamous message, “Will the Last Person Leaving SEATTLE — Turn Out the Lights.”