"Of course, the real predictor is poverty and drug trade related violent crime. Not race."MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:26 pmAbsolutely, and that's borne out in the demographics of white violent crime. Poor whites do a heck of a lot more violent crime than middle class and up.
Pretty simple.
Gov Baker might not have like the rhetoric but he'd already heard the message (probably from Esper) & deployed his Guard the day before.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:32 pmKindly show us the words to which you refer.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:24 pmhmmm, I guess GOP Gov Baker must have been on a different call?old salt wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:04 pm Trump took a lot of grief for his conf call with Governors on Mon, when he told them to "dominate". If you want to really understand whats happening between the Fed govt & the states, take the time to read the transcript of the conf call --
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/politics ... index.html
lots of good details, positive stuff, which the MSM ignores or distorts.
Trump is repetitive, inarticulate & maddening, but his message is solid.
He's encouraging the Governors to use their Guard units, which DoD is prepared to help then do.
Note the specific feedback from the Governors & the positive things they say about the Guard.
Particularly good is Gov Walz (MN). I heard it on CSPAN radio. Bad connection, lots of (INAUDIBLE) drop outs.
Embedded in his text, but not labeled, is input from Gen Milley, who provides good info about the NG.
Gov Walz also praised Sec Esper for his support & advice.
Lots of good info from Gov Hogan (MD) too.
The MSM is painting a distorted picture on the use of the NG & Fed agencies.
And Trump really didn't tweet what he tweeted and he really didn't do that whole charade in front of the cameras and then create a campaign ad...no, you can't trust your lying eyes and ears...believe Trump...believe Salty...
Lots of images in this article of Mass NG troops rolling into Boston on the night of Mon June 1, after Trump's conf call pep talk with Governors earlier that same day. https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/ ... onal-guardold salt wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:40 pmGov Baker might not have liked the rhetoric but he'd already heard the message (probably from Esper) & deployed his Guard the day before.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:32 pmKindly show us the words to which you refer.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:24 pmhmmm, I guess GOP Gov Baker must have been on a different call?old salt wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:04 pm Trump took a lot of grief for his conf call with Governors on Mon, when he told them to "dominate". If you want to really understand whats happening between the Fed govt & the states, take the time to read the transcript of the conf call --
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/politics ... index.html
lots of good details, positive stuff, which the MSM ignores or distorts.
Trump is repetitive, inarticulate & maddening, but his message is solid.
He's encouraging the Governors to use their Guard units, which DoD is prepared to help then do.
Note the specific feedback from the Governors & the positive things they say about the Guard.
Particularly good is Gov Walz (MN). I heard it on CSPAN radio. Bad connection, lots of (INAUDIBLE) drop outs.
Embedded in his text, but not labeled, is input from Gen Milley, who provides good info about the NG.
Gov Walz also praised Sec Esper for his support & advice.
Lots of good info from Gov Hogan (MD) too.
The MSM is painting a distorted picture on the use of the NG & Fed agencies.
And Trump really didn't tweet what he tweeted and he really didn't do that whole charade in front of the cameras and then create a campaign ad...no, you can't trust your lying eyes and ears...believe Trump...believe Salty...
https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachuse ... n/32761601
He was distancing himself from Trump's rhetoric to avoid taking heat for having just deployed his Guard.
. ...me thinks Gov Baker doth protest too much.This is a heck of an article.Nigel wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:41 pm Quality article: The Need to Discuss Black-on-Black Crime
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine ... ack-crime/
Sounds like a line out of a Mel Brooks movie, but Mel wouldn't have been so gentle with the Negro word.Roosevelt expressed approval of the outrage, and one of the organizers of the mob, who later became the governor of Louisiana, wrote that Sicilian Americans were “just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in [their] habits, lawless, and treacherous.”
You saw the video, she said exactly what she wants them to do. Look for yourself.
And the man in the video gave you the answer to this suggestion: if YOU think that's a problem YOU go to Chicago or NE DC and fix it yourself. YOU are the one complaining and saying "BLM is a joke". You're demanding that this man do what you want...do you not see the problem here?runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:27 pmMaking a suggestion, that, hey, every once in a while, BLM marches for black on black murder.
Nope. And does she----or you---know a single thing about the marchers she was yelling at? So she's making the same mistake you are accusing me of here.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:07 pm again, AFAN, you make a statement, as if a fact. Do you know ANYTHING about this young woman?
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:07 pm I thought lobbyist wrote legislation. Once again, moving the TAATS goal posts. Such a good soldier, AFAN. Good boy.
Good Boy? BLM has been lobbying Congress in DC and other States since at least 2016.Simple. She's yelling at people who are actually getting off their *sses to get changes to how black citizens are being treated by the police. And neither you nor her can wrap your heads around the idea that what SHE wants them to protest and what THEY want to protest aren't the same thing. And because BLM isn't doing exactly what this woman is demanding, this woman is claiming that they are---in her words----hypocrites. This is absurd.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:07 pmWhy do you feel such a strong need to demean, disparage this woman? What, exactly, is she doing that is bothering you so much ?
I was there in the early 90's. So nope, I didn't hang with her. Know who I hung out with? My coworkers from the front of house at the Four Seasons Hotel off M street. My best friends at the time were coworkers from Nigeria and Brazil, first generation immigrants. Had a blast.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:07 pm Doubt you've hung with her and her friends, family, while in DC.
Fishing for virtue signaling, are we?
Nope. YOU don't get to lecture ME about not starting BLM-----I'm not the one who's calling them a joke. That's on YOU.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:07 pm Yes, easy to critique, if not willing to organize yourself. Perhaps. Did black lives NOT matter, prior to being formed during the murderous Obama years ? Or, is it hypocritical to point out, that at the time you lived in DC, it was the murder capitol of the USA? And it took another 15 years for BLM to form. Better question, why didn't YOU start BLM in the early 90's?
That's not as bad as you being okay with the police murdering people, Pete.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:18 pm The direct result of fanning racial flames. Anarchy. Congrats fellas, keep repeating to yourselves that it’s ‘peaceful’.
https://twitter.com/grantb911/status/12 ... 11785?s=21
I had a buddy in flight school who was a black guy. Notre Dame grad. We were envious. He could visit clubs in Pensacola where he wouldn't take us along. Did really well with the ladies. He always had a revolver under the seat of his car. We cautioned him that if it was found by Base Security or if he ever used it, he could probably say good bye to a promising career. Our warnings fell on deaf ears. He insisted he needed it where he went on liberty. He got his wings ok.DMac wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:03 pmThis is a heck of an article.Nigel wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:41 pm Quality article: The Need to Discuss Black-on-Black Crime
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine ... ack-crime/
Seems to me that people saying things like Peter Brown does below do more harm to race relations than anything else I can imagine. What could possibly be more offensive, insensitive and disgraceful?Peter Brown » Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:18 pm
The direct result of fanning racial flames.
In 88% of black homicides the perpetrator is black, in 82% of white homicides, the perpetrator is white. Getting a 6% reduction in Black on Black crime seems doable....get a 6% decline then those people can complain about police extrajudicial killings and justice reform.DMac wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:03 pmThis is a heck of an article.Nigel wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:41 pm Quality article: The Need to Discuss Black-on-Black Crime
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine ... ack-crime/
Gotta love this part:Sounds like a line out of a Mel Brooks movie, but Mel wouldn't have been so gentle with the Negro word.Roosevelt expressed approval of the outrage, and one of the organizers of the mob, who later became the governor of Louisiana, wrote that Sicilian Americans were “just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in [their] habits, lawless, and treacherous.”
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:18 pm The direct result of fanning racial flames. Anarchy. Congrats fellas, keep repeating to yourselves that it’s ‘peaceful’.
https://twitter.com/grantb911/status/12 ... 11785?s=21
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/ ... e-streets/
‘Dominating’ the Streets
Right now providing security must be a higher priority than law enforcement.
Since the revolution in policing that began in the early 1990s, we have had a generation of peace and prosperity. Without the rule of law — i.e., without order, without the presumption that the laws will be enforced — that kind of societal flourishing is not possible.
We are seeing now what happens when the rule of law breaks down. It is frightening, but it is hardly unprecedented, even in modern history.
...in 1972 alone, there were 1,900 bombings in the United States, carried out, for the most part, by domestic terrorist groups and enraged individual American citizens. Regrettably, the radical “small-c communists” were not ultimately regarded as the sociopaths that they were. They eroded public support for our war effort in Vietnam, wrote the history in which they were lionized as social-justice icons against racist America, and triumphantly marched into academe, where they have taught and influenced the sociopaths who are making mayhem today.
Throughout our 30 years of domestic tranquility, which seems to be in its twilight, we have had debates that are relevant to the rioting and looting now underway in American cities. Specifically, we have argued over the War on Terror, so-called.
It wasn’t really a war... The question at the heart of all this was: What is our default condition: peace, war, or some kind of hybrid?
In peacetime conditions, we proudly take the position that liberty is supreme. In any contest between freedom and order, we’d rather see the government lose — we’d rather see the guilty escape justice than see a single innocent person wrongfully convicted.
When the rule of law itself is vulnerable, however, we soon realize we may not have the luxury of that posture. If national security truly is at risk, if lives and property are threatened on a large scale, we cannot take the position that we’d rather see the government lose. We need government to prevail, because without order, our liberties are just parchment promises.
On Monday, before yet another night of rioting, President Trump and Attorney General William Barr both spoke about “dominating the streets” — i.e., the need for the government to restore order. It’s the kind of aggressive rhetoric that rubs some people the wrong way, but the point is not to be dictatorial. It is to reestablish the rule-of-law presumption.
This is going to be more difficult because of post-9/11 excesses and abuses... Progressive critics argued that War on Terror security measures were more a cause of than a legitimate reaction to anti-American terrorism; libertarians contended that these measures were wildly out of proportion to the threat, and that government power grabs would lead to ever greater abuses.
Almost 20 years later, with two wars having devolved into failed experiments in sharia-democracy building, it is hard to be mindful now that there really was a point to all of this. There has been no reprise of 9/11. Our military and intelligence services have done a spectacular job of keeping our homeland safe, notwithstanding that our enemies remain committed to attacking us.
Instead, what is most visible to us are the abuses, including the use of foreign-intelligence surveillance authorities to spy on innocent Americans, interfere in a political campaign, and hamstring an incoming administration.
So now, what I’ve long feared has happened: We have a real national-security crisis, but government officials have lost the trust of the American people to use security powers for their intended purposes.
...what’s happening on the streets right now is reminiscent of those Days of Rage. The violent radicals are Americans, and they are threading through crowds of Americans who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights to assemble and protest.
The first responsibility of government is not law enforcement, though the last 30 years may have lulled us into that misimpression. The first responsibility of government is to provide security. The rule of law is not just the result of law enforcement; it is a prerequisite of law enforcement.
Police organizations, even if we combined all federal and state forces, do not have the capacity to impose order. They certainly could not simultaneously impose it and investigate crime. When there is mass violence or insurrection, that is a security problem, not a law-enforcement problem. That is why police departments in major cities are on their heels at the moment.
This is the situation where we need government to win, not where we’d prefer for it to lose. If you are truly a peaceful protester, you grasp that — you don’t want to be running cover for violent radicals, regardless of your anger. Like every other law-abiding American with whom you agree or disagree, you have to understand that unless we have order, your rights, including your rights to assemble and protest, are illusory. It is said that the radicals are “hijacking” the protests, but that’s a cop-out. It couldn’t happen unless the protesters let it happen. Knowing that they are being exploited for violent ends, they continue, prioritizing their right to self-expression — which could be exercised many ways other than on the streets, alongside sociopaths — over our collective right to ordered liberty.
That is why the government has to dominate the streets, including by deploying the National Guard and any other armed forces to the extent that is necessary to restore order. The understanding that mass violence and insurrection will not be tolerated has to be revived.
In this, as in most things, the niceties of law are subordinate to political reality. Legally, the president has all the authority he needs to deploy federal forces — law-enforcement and security forces — to quell the uprisings, with or without the consent of the governors. For their part, the governors have the authority they need to call in the National Guard to fortify their beleaguered police. But as a practical matter, we are doomed to failure unless the president and the governors cooperate, unless they get beyond heated partisan politics and present a united American front against anti-American violence.
It is not hard for the radicals to read the pols. If the rhetoric of the president and Democratic governors continues to imply that they are setting each other up to take the political blame for failure, the radicals glean that failure is assumed, that chaos reigns. This must not be a matter of President Trump dominating the streets. It has to be the rule of law dominating the streets. It has to be the states and the feds together, facing down anti-American insurrectionists.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:56 pm Andy McCarthy explains why our governments can't afford to lose the battle for our streets & reminds us of an earlier period in our history which some of us vividly remember :https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/ ... e-streets/
‘Dominating’ the Streets
Right now providing security must be a higher priority than law enforcement.
Since the revolution in policing that began in the early 1990s, we have had a generation of peace and prosperity. Without the rule of law — i.e., without order, without the presumption that the laws will be enforced — that kind of societal flourishing is not possible.
We are seeing now what happens when the rule of law breaks down. It is frightening, but it is hardly unprecedented, even in modern history.
...in 1972 alone, there were 1,900 bombings in the United States, carried out, for the most part, by domestic terrorist groups and enraged individual American citizens ...
National Review is full of schitt.
When you talk about "terrorism", the first thing you need to mention is how the government betrayed the Constitution and committed treason against the USA as shown in the Pentagon Papers. This terrorism resulted in the needless deaths of 58,000 Americans with hundreds of thousands wounded. It also resulted in the death of millions of Southeast Asians because of corporate greed and Washington DC's treason.
The violence which happened on the streets (much of which was orchestrated by COINTELPRO) may more properly be called counter terrorism. Not one such act would have happened if traitors Johnson and Nixon lived up to their pledge to uphold the Constitution. Supporting them is supporting treason.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-n ... 1591225713
Our new nihilsm
This is not 1968. It’s worse.
The late 1960s were the heyday of modern American liberalism, which was then an ideology of hope. A bipartisan Congress passed landmark civil-rights legislation in 1964 and 1965. The precipitating event of the urban riots in 1968 was the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. New York, Trenton, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Kansas City, and Washington were on fire. Arguably back then, despite passage of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, not enough time had passed for liberal policies to ameliorate conditions in the inner cities.
Last week, George Floyd died after rough treatment from arresting Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin, who was arrested and charged with murder. Since then, there have been daily protests accompanied by riot and pillage in multiple U.S cities. A primary claim made repeatedly this week is that the U.S., which means the American people, are guilty of perpetual “systemic racism.”
It is evident from the coverage that most of the demonstrators were born after 1990. By then, the Great Society programs had been in place for 25 years, and now it is 55 years. Annual budget appropriations totaling multiple trillions of dollars on Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, public housing, rent subsidies and federal aid to public schools have produced . . . what?
Since the 1960s, essentially little has changed in the neighborhoods at the center of those long-ago urban riots. By current telling, they are about as poor, as crime-ridden, as under-educated and in poor health as they were when LBJ said he would change them. That means five decades of stasis and stagnation in America’s most marginalized places, virtually all of it under Democratic—now “progressive”—political control.
The failure of the liberal model is by now so embarrassing that the current owners of that model have created an alternative universe of explanations, such as blaming it on American settlers in the early 17th century or the nonexistence of “justice.”
It must be working because marchers in Paris and Berlin, of all places, are lecturing the U.S. on systemic racism. Thanks for the memories.
This is worse than 1968, because the political system is now engaged in a systemic act of forgetting. Let’s forget that this policy failure has happened or why. Let’s forget, for instance, that the people living in New York’s public housing are overrun with rats, unlit hallways and no heat in the winter. Let’s forget that many blacks have indeed been left behind—by a well-documented migration since 1990 of black Americans out of northern cities and Los Angeles into the South, where they have gone in search of economic opportunity. Let’s forget, despite a massive per annum outlay on Medicaid—some $593 billion in 2018—that black Americans still have a higher incidence of chronic disease.
Simply performing a cut-and-paste on 50 years of U.S. political history is an act of nihilism. Pummeled by activists and the media with constant accusations of “systemic racism,” as this week, and despite what many thought were 50 years of good-faith efforts on racial conciliation, people go numb, concluding that the solution being offered now is, literally, no solution.
This new progressive nihilism says the answer to inner-city crime is decriminalization. Because of New York’s new “bail reform” law, most of the looters arrested are being released, even as murders and burglaries were increasing in the city’s poorest neighborhoods before these events.
The new nihilism minimizes this week’s ideologically driven assaults on private property because it is “replaceable.” In fact, it is well-established that many of 1968’s burned-down neighborhoods have struggled to revive ever since.
The new nihilism says no matter how many reform police commissioners are appointed or black mayors elected, “nothing has changed.” That is the definition of hopelessness.
It is not hopeless.
One could, for example, give people a better chance at home ownership and home equity, as HUD Secretary Ben Carson has proposed, through reforms of the mortgage-lending market and reducing regulatory hurdles to urban housing construction. Get rid of those godawful public-housing prisons. But no, the public housing authorities are patronage mills, so it can’t happen.
Black parents love charter schools and voucher-supported private schools because they teach values, self-respect and hope. But no, this option for poor and lower-income parents has more Democratic Party opposition than ever. When will we see white college students marching in the streets over this moral abomination? Never.
One could argue that the job creation and rising incomes of recent years for young black Americans are more in step with the U.S.’s 244-year history of opportunity. But why bother? The nihilism of permanent guilt is easier because it substitutes sentiment for substance and absolves anyone of responsibility for past public-policy errors.
It remains to be learned how the American people, of any race, are processing the events of the past week. Media minimalism says the choice is between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. It’s a lot bigger than that.
Woke maximalism, de-platforming, suppression of speech, and intolerance of dissent has gone increasingly mainstream and national.
