The only thing standing between lots of crime and a total breakdown of society in their neighborhoods are armed police officers
(The Blaze) A group calling for the immediate disarmament of the New York Police Department plans to burn American flags in a Brooklyn park on Wednesday, just days before the Fourth of July holiday.
“Disarm NYPD†announced the “Burn the American Flags†event on Facebook, inviting individuals to join the organization at Fort Greene Park to “set fire to this symbol of oppression.
Organizers said accused Charleston shooter Dylann Roof wasn’t an “isolated actor,†but a “product of a consistent pattern of state-sponsored terrorism and radicalized dehumanization in America.†The event originally was aimed at burning the Confederate flag, but later changed to focus on the stars and stripes.
“There will be no peace until we tear down this system of oppression,†the group wrote on Facebook. “It isn’t enough to take the flag down; we must put an end to white supremacy once and for all.â€
“We find it a sign of the times that people can care so much about a piece of cloth, while at the same time be so quiet about black churches being burned all over the country,†a post on Facebook said. “Perhaps this is the great difference between us and the so-called ‘patriots’. While they express their loyalty to symbols, we express our loyalty to the lives of the oppressed.â€
If it wasn’t for armed police officers, their neighborhoods would look like a war zone. Perhaps they should care more about why there is so much crime, both the violent type along with property crime, in their neighborhoods. Worry why their kids are doing their best to avoid an education. Why their neighborhoods are very poor, with huge amounts of citizens on government assistance. Armed cops aren’t in the neighborhoods and schools because the want to oppress.
It continued, “We do not believe the ideals of America are anything to be revered. We are building something that will be much better than America. While the so-called patriots yell that we should just leave, we instead choose to dream. We dream of what real freedom looks like: freedom from paramilitaries occupying our communities, beating and killing our sons and daughters; freedom from our communities being destroyed by the speculative capital of gentrification; freedom from mass surveillance; and freedom from systemic racism.â€
Let’s see: they have no problem with members of their own communities beating and killing their sons and daughters. And then they go racist by complaining about gentrification, before complaining about racism.
According to the “Disarm NYPD†Facebook page, the group’s mission is to “take away power from the powers that be.†The group calls for the immediate disarmament of the NYPD and demands the “demobilization of the police form our neighborhoods.â€
I say the NYPD agrees to their terms and refuses to patrol the neighborhoods. They would be nuts to enter without weapons. Then they put up checkpoints for all those leaving the neighborhoods, checking for guns, weapons, and drugs. Leave the Disarm NYPD to its own devices, let them provide, or attempt to provide, law and order, see how that works out.
If they want to do away with what is oppressive, shouldn’t they want to discontinue the welfare and other government programs, since they do nothing but keep people tied to a gov’t that views them not as people but commodities? Shouldn’t they want to do away with the Democratic Party, which treats them as simply a voting block rather than individuals? A Party which has utterly failed them?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
The Democrats drug of choice is POVERTY. Keep em poor and keep offering them more and more welfare as long as they vote for democrats.
But this is right out of the progressive communist far left playbook……..Burn American flags(Denigrate Nationalism) and disarm the police.
As Stalin Said:
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.
Im afraid we are in very real danger of becoming a communist country….as this bullshit continues more and more people will be swayed by the promise of freebies. Look at what its done for every communist country….they are the epitome of poverty…..Now Greece in their march to communism is defaulting on loans because they pay their workers so much and give so many benefits that its simply unsustainable.
The Goal of Socialism is Communism….Lenin.
If “Dylann Roof wasn’t an “isolated actor,†but a “product of a consistent pattern of state-sponsored terrorism and radicalized dehumanization in America,— wasn’t he also arrested by armed policemen?
Our host suggested:
Chicago.
Baltimore.
Foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia.
Camden.
Newark.
Trenton.
Wilmington, Delaware.
Oakland.
Need I go on?
You know, New York used to be the same sort of crime-ridden cesspool as those other cities. Then, Rudolph Giuliani was elected, and he cracked down on crime, making sure that petty criminals were treated harshly, before they became big-time criminals, and the place was cleaned up.
My daughter and I once went on a sort of architecture tour of New York, and she wanted to see the Episcopal Cathedral of St John, which is around 113th Street. Well, we missed our subway stop, and got off at 125th Street, which is in Harlem. We walked, in broad daylight, south along cleaned up streets, with not a second’s problem.
The thugs would like to take things back to the way they were before the clean up.
In the meantime, Philadelphia treated small-time criminals like fish, with a catch-and-release program if the crooks weren’t important enough . . . and would up with a series of police officers killed, shot by punks who would have been in jail had they been in New York City, but out on the streets in Philly.
One was the son of a corrections officer. He was out after a slap on the wrist (probation) and no harsh treatment following drug arrests, when he decided to knock over a doughnut shop. Police Officer Charles Cassidy just happened to walk in, and this too-small released fish, a punk who should have already been in jail, shot him stone-cold graveyard dead.
If heavily armed police in large concentrations is the answer then why are so many places with little police safer than these big cities??
I don’t think security of a society has anything to do with government and police, it has to do more with less handouts and more private gun ownership.
But if you guys think police should roll around in tanks with machine guns in order for a society to be safer then don’t complain at the military dictatorship you have because that is where we are heading… Communism has already been here and it’s sad I have to point that out.
Dana you sound like some character on National Geographic talking about a trip to wild Africa
Violent crime nationwide has been going down before Gulliani became mayor.
Teach the single largest block of people receiving food stamps are children.
Since 1996 there has been a Federal limit of 5 years for welfare.http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_607.pdf
You say that you think that the police should not perform their sworn duty?
Now Teach any comments on the 6 Black churches burned down since that isolated incident where 9 blacks were murdered in while in church?
And again Teach instead of acting like one of those “warmists” who tell others to do something about a problem yet fail in their own personal lives, why aren’t you personally trying to do something about this problem that you see? Why not try mentoring black youth and show them how they might have a better future? Or perhaps even scholarship one to your old prep school?
John wrote:
I’m not Mr Teach, but I’d suggest that, if there is some connection, it might be due to the reaction from the left to ban the Confederate battle flag.
This is the kind of thing that can happen when y’all try to politicize an isolated crime; you piss off people who had nothing to do with the crime.
It wasn’t the right reaction, but I can still see it having happened that way.
This is what passes for “logic” from the left:
john doesn’t seem to realize that he has admitted that warmists tell people to do one thing while doing something else in their lives. john seems happy with the hypocrisy.
He then makes the very bad mistake of trying to turn that around onto Teach.
So let’s see…..
Teach advocates not living a “thug life” (a clumsy shorthand, but it fits) and he follows that advice by not living a “thug life” himself. Teach has advocated going to school and getting an education and Teach has done that. john’s comment about where Teach was educated is ironic because it is the left that prevents voucher systems for education which Teach has advocated for. Teach has advocated getting a job – any job – because even basic, minimum wage jobs teach work skills that translate in the future. Teach lives up to that ideal by working at a job.
In short, john admits that warmists are hypocrites and yet tries to take our host down because Teach is doing what he says others should do.
You can’t make that kind of crap up.
BTW – there is nothing dumber in the world of blogging than having some hackneyed commenter telling the owner / author of a blog what they should write about. One can make suggestions but to demand a blogger write something is ridiculous. People don’t realize the time and expense of blogging. While some blogs to make money, most don’t. If you want to see an article on something, go out, get the software, spend hours making the theme, register the domain name, pay a hosting fee and write your own articles.
Telling a blogger what they must write about is akin to walking into someone’s home and demanding they decorate a certain way.
It is just more idiocy from the left.
We had a series of arsons against historically black churches where I live. People rushed to the conclusion that it was racists groups and all that.
Turns out that when the arsonists were caught, they were a group of radical gay rights advocates that were upset with the churches’ stance on gay marriage.
Furthermore, the community banded together and said “you ain’t doing that here,” and helped the churches rebuild. Materials and labor were donated by people and businesses to get the churches back up.
Dana,
And you say you’re not a very good white supremacist. You’re an excellent white supremacist!
A white supremacist terrorist murders nine innocent Black people ’cause Negroes are raping white girls. One societal response is to question the proprietary of the STATE flying the confederate flag (a symbol of white supremacy and treason) and you understand that the “patriots” of the Nation of South Redneckistan sneak around at night burning predominantly Black churches?
It’s not the “right reaction”? Were the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore not the “right reaction”, or were they worse than that?
Sure. One of them was actually a white church, which was struck by lightning. Only 2 are confirmed as being arson.
Your party shouldn’t have created the KKK and lynched Blacks, John. When will the Dem party apologize and pay reparations?
No matter how many times this lie is told by those on the left doesn’t make it true.
BTW Jeffery, how many people who fought for the south were convicted of treason?
Don’t let the facts get in your way.
Well of course white southerners deny the flag is a symbol of white supremacy and treason! Duh. But of course it is. What other southern heritage are they celebrating? Biscuits and gravy? Grits? Pick-ups?
The US did not press charges against the southern traitors for two reasons: pragmatism and leniency. Trying millions would have been too much a burden. Hanging millions of white traitors would have been counterproductive.
It’s the same reason the US did not press war crime charges against Cheney and W.
Teach typed:
You’re right! Conservative, white supremacist Democrats should not have joined the KKK and lynched Black Americans. But of course, the Democrats gave up conservatism and white supremacy long ago. Why did Republicans feel compelled to take it up? Strom Thurmond was a racist Democrat before he became a racist Republican.
As the current, new, neo-Republican Party tries to divorce itself from the monster it nurtured, where will you far-right, Black-hating, gay-hating, Muslim-hating, Mexican-hating, pseudo-Christian extremists go? Back under the woodwork I guess. It seems your hate is less welcome in America than it was just a year ago.
Dylann Roof thought he was starting the definitive race war but actually just shone a light on the worst of America. And America responded.
So take down your silly flags and come back to America. Or not. I actually expect more violence from the far-right as the realization sets in that it is no longer 1950, and Black guys can tell you to F yourself, gay men can hold hands, and nearly everyone will mock your confederate flag wife-beater shirt.
Dana thinks criticizing the confederate flag explains burning down churches, yet doesn’t think the STATE shooting Black kids explains riots and protests.
There you go again, putting your racist spin on lies.
That idea that you have to ask that question shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
If that is the case, why not press the charge of treason against the leaders of the Confederacy?
While there was a pragmatic element to the decision not to go forward with treason charges, the fact is that the Confederates were not guilty of treason any more than the colonists were guilty of treason.
It’s the same reason the US did not press war crime charges against Cheney and W.
Ohhhhhh Jeffery goes off on a tangent. Of course the reason might be the same. Bush and Cheney were not guilty of treason so there was not case to press. Obama and Hillary on the other hand, may have a very strong case against them for treason. But you won’t want to lift a judicial finger about them because they are as corrupt and ignorant as you are.
In short, you tried to make something up and got caught at it.
The only thing we were caught in was your web of bullshittery – an Escher painting with no end – a Mobius strip of deceit.
Your attempted (and it’s not even original) parallel of the southern traitors with the colonists collapses under it’s own inanity.
If the rebels were fighting for freedom why did they ever stop? Did they get what they wanted? Are you quietly organizing another revolt against the United States of America? The colonists would have fought to the last man, woman and child. Were the rebels less dedicated?
No, they stopped because their cause wasn’t FREEDOM!, since they had freedom. Their cause was slavery, and the state’s right to practice slavery. They didn’t believe in it enough to die for. The Yankees were fighting to preserve America.
It would have served no purpose to hang Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens and Robert E. Lee, and would have made the situation worse.
Run along and practice your mental masturbation on someone else. You bore us.
Jeffrey really needs to get a gravitar; might I suggest that this one would be appropriate?
The reason that there were no “war crimes charges” against President Bush and Vice President Cheney is because no war crimes were committed by them . . . except in the little minds of the left.
What President Bush did was both perfectly legal and the right thing to do. Things would have been better if his father hadn’t called a halt to the first Persian Gulf War, and had our troops go into Baghdad and hang Saddam Hussein in 1991.
Don’t tell me, let me guess: Jeffrey is also a 9/11 Truther? :)
Jeffrey earns his dunce cap:
They stopped because they were defeated. And had the British been more successful, the American colonists would have stopped, too; there’s a point at which your side has been beaten, and you can’t fight any more.
Do you really believe that the American colonists “would have fought to the last man, woman and child?” First of all, we still had loyalists in the colonies; they wouldn’t have fought to the last man, woman and child. Would our four year olds and twelve year olds have fought the British until death stopped them? As glorious as we hold our cause to have been, General Washington’s armies were relatively small, and the various militia not all that large, either. There were many times in which the colonial army was outnumbered by the British forces that they faced; if every colonist would have fought to the last man, woman and child, we could have easily overwhelmed the British with sheer numbers.
Sitarcarver gets it slightly wrong:
To be fair, Jeffrey said “war crimes,” not treason. Since the President sets American policy, he really can’t be guilty of treason.
As for war crimes, let’s be honest here: war crimes are simply the excuses of the winners to hang the losers. General Curtis LeMay once said that if Japan had won, he’d have been the one on trial for war crimes, for orchestrating the bombing campaign against Japan. Had the Third Reich won, well, the Nazis would never have bothered with trials, but just hanged General Eisenhower and every other Allied commander with stars on his shoulders. Der Führer and Reichsmarshall Goering and Dr Goebbels and Adolf Eichmann would all be the glorious heroes of the past.
President Bush is an honored man, while it was Saddam Hussein who got his neck stretched.
Wow, I really thought the civil war was covered in a past post.
First off the south was withdrawing their consent to the union, and Lincoln’s election further solidified that separation. Lincoln was one of those corrupt Illinois politicians which has yet to change today.
The war was regarding the southern states considering themselves a newly formed nation that held a constitutional convention of their own and the money hungry US government and Newly elected Lincoln who did not recognize succession and instead labeled the southern state politicians and generals as insurrectionists.
The story is almost exactly the same as the revolutionary war except for a few differences.
1. The states were not colonies under a crown national government but rather free and independent states in a consensual Union or agreement. You know, the consent of the govern being the only legitimate power per the Declaration of Independence?
2. The U.S. Government refused to withdraw their troops from a newly formed country and instead insisted on starting a war because over 90% of its revenues came from the south.
3. The U.S. Government were neighbors with the south and didn’t have to travel across vast oceans to provide troops and supplies.
4. The U.S. Government had three times more troops than the new Confederate Government had, which are over whelming numbers compared to what the colonists had to face during the revolutionary war.
And remember, we are talking about the U.S. Government invading a newly formed government that broke away over money and sovereignty issues….the VERY SAME reasons we declared ourselves separate from the British monarch.
It’s very naive to say it was only about slavery.
And as I always tell others, we have not been a free country since leaving it became illegal. There is nothing consensual about these “United” States.
In the meantime, where the police in Baltimore have been emasculated:
But, but, but the solution is to disarm the police, right?
Dana,
True. I guess I was still baffled by Jeffery’s lack of history and his sad, pathetic, common tactic of diverting the conversation.
My bad.
Gitar wrote:
There’s a great deal I find baffling about Jeffrey! :)
Michael,
And while I know you aren’t saying this, it is very naive for some to say that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
History is often nuanced. People at the time of the Civil War often had their own varied reasons for fighting. People also skip over the loyalty people had to their home state rather than to the country as a whole. (Something that was true during the founding of the country.)
To say the causes of the Civil War are numerous and complex is an understatement.
“It’s the same reason they didn’t press war crime charges against Cheney and Bush.” Total B.S., but of course I’m shocked our Jefferywould say such a thing. What war crimes would they have been charged with, J? But anyway, at least you stayed on topic.
Right-wing authoritarians actually believe that their leaders are above the law.
Here’s some light reading for this crowd. The hazard is that some of you may not know of Stormfront or Vanguard (unlikely, though). It’s a slight risk given how unpersuasive you have been proven to be.
http://projects.kansascity.com/2015/domestic-terrorism/#/story/19374360
sitarcarver suggests the recent church fires were set by killer fags, not his white supremacist allies.
Jeffrey has a problem with simple English:
Given whom the current President is, you’d think that I’d not have said that, if all I was looking at was right-wing and leftist. However, even you would recognize that it is the President who sets our foreign policy; even if he took an action which was contrary to his stated policies, it would be an action within his authority, and the action would reset our policies. I don’t see how the President could commit treason.
Another example: the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services. If the Congress declared war on Lower Slobovia, but the President ordered the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to stay in their bases and not fight, he would still be within his authority as Commander-in-Chief. The Congress could impeach and remove him, but that’s the only way they could force prosecution of the war.
Wow.
The point of the post Jeffery is that people will do things to get sympathy for their position or to try and heap blame on people or groups that had nothing to do with it.
I have made no comment on the church burnings other than to condemn them and note how the community has rallied around the churches and the congregations. The actions of the community are contrary to what you want people to believe – that every white person south of the Mason Dixon line is some sort of radical white supremacist.
Unlike you, who don’t give a crap about the churches or the congregations, I want the person(s) caught and prosecuted. You want the violence to continue because you like the idea of a race war – even if that was is based on false narratives and perceptions.
After all, you blamed Hispanic Zimmerman for defending himself and called Zimmerman white. You blamed the cop in Ferguson from the start and continued to blame him after the witnesses and actual evidence cleared him. ‘
You are ready and almost giddy at the prospect of throwing people under the bus without evidence or legal certainty.
I, on the other hand, am more willing to wait and see what happens. This goes to show a fundamental difference between you and I. I am more than willing to blame those and hold them accountable for illegal actions. You want to only blame those who you hate in your demented little world. Truth doesn’t matter to you. Decency doesn’t matter to you. Honesty doesn’t matter to you. Integrity doesn’t matter to you.
It is so bad that everyone here but you knows that you are a sad, pathetic little man who has even said his own wife is delusional, threatened people in the forum and can’t handle ideas and facts that are contrary to yours.
We ask Jeffery what war crime charges should have been brought against Bush and Cheney, and he can’t answer the question. Another shocker.
The last formal declaration of war took place on June 5, 1942, when Congress added Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania to the list of enemy nations. All wars fought since 1945 have been undeclared wars, entered into through presidential decisions and actions.
All of the congressional resolutions outside of the Constitutional restrictions placed on both congress and the president when it comes to war powers has been unconstitutional and both the congress and the presidents have been practicing treason of Constituional Law.
But when you have a two party system, each party allows the tresspass of the law by their own members when it’s their turn to steer the ship and so you have a country in perpetual war with the world because neither side only cares about Constitutional restrictions when they are not in power to protect against violations.
So essentially both Republicans and Democrats have done a great job of screwing the rest of us over and sadly we will be the ones who will have to clean up the mess that both your houses have made.
The Iraq war was much more than a “presidential action and decision”, as the Iraq War Resolution was passed by a joint session of congress authorizing the use of military force.
The administration made the decision to invade.
Sorry to burst your partisan fantasy but George W. Bush persuaded Congress to pass a resolution (H.J. Res. 114) explicitly delegating to him, “as he determines to be necessary and appropriateâ€, the power to begin a war. This is not in any format a proper Declaration of War as required by Constituional Law.
The restrictions on government were established for a reason. Just because you don’t understand the reasoning behind it, does not invalidate its political importance.
Our founders carefully constructed restrictions based on historical perspective and analysis.
The problem with our government is not the government itself, but partisans who ignore or justify unconstitutional actions either out of ignorance and/or denial of written restrictions.
J-“The administration made the decision to invade.” You mean the Commander-In-Chief of the military made a decision that, no matter who first put the thought forward, would have to make anyway? You mean it worked like it was supposed to work? Who was supposed to give the decision, Nancy Pelosi? And still no word on the war crimes. “Sorry to burst your partisan fantasy..” Don’t worry, my fantasy hasn’t burst at all. “George Bush persuaded Congress to pass a resolution..” You mean the poor little darlings didn’t know what they were doing? Sure. Anyway, you said “all wars since 1945 have been entered into through presidential actions and decisions”, but that’s not totally true with the Iraq War, as congressed passed a resolution authorizing it. So it wasn’t just “presidential actions and decisions”, but presidential actions and decisions along with an approval from congress. Which is what I said.
And you got you wording a little twisted around in your “necessary and appropriate the power to begin a war.” It gave the authorization to Bush “to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States.” Funny, I didn’t see the “power to begin a war” part. And any war, whether through a “Proper Declaration of War” or through congressional action, always gives the CIC the ability to use necessary and appropriate action to defend the US. He’s CIC. That’s his job.
However you would like to spin around the restrictions and rules on government into non existence is what you and many others seem to want to do, both republican and democrat.
There were very specific reasons every single word was placed on that piece of parchment.
But hey, I guess you and the rest of them are so smart, why have a constitution at all, right? After all, who will save the children?
Like Bush said, the constitution is just a piece of paper.
And that’s why I don’t believe in government anyways… Because in the end everyone just ends up using it for their own gain and abuse of others…
So thanks for making my point.
j,
Torture. It was in all the papers.
“Thanks for making my point..” Well, no. Your initial point implied that wars, including the Iraq War, were solely “presidential actions and decisions” after 1945. I said that in the case of the Iraq War, that wasn’t the case, as a joint session of congress passed an act authorizing military action. So in Iraq we had presidential “actions” plus we had congress involved. Sorry, but that’s all I said and it’s still true. I said nothing to the effect that it was technically legal or not under the Constitution.
Whatever justifications you make for the government to not follow the written restrictions within the constitution without a proper amendment by the people themselves is exactly making my point.
Let me explain something to you..
The constitution of the USA and all the constitutions of all the states cannot be changed or amended by the government without the explicit consent of the people themselves through ratification process/referendum.
The constitutions are the property of the people and the government, in any branch or department has no authority or legit power to unilaterally alter or deviate from it in any shape or form.
Congress must follow the letter of the law. All resolutions and acts are to be in accordance to the instructions of the constitution. Any act or resolution that is not in alignment to the constitution is not law and if there is any indication that there is intent rather than ignorance, then it can be considered treason or insurrection.
The president must follow the instructions of the congress so long as it is not in violation of the restrictions of the constituion. A resolution to write the president a blank check is not congress exercising proper restraint on the executive as intended.
Judges, including the Supreme Court cannot rewrite the law using case law and rulings. That is not the proper purpose of the judicial branch. If case law can amend the constitution it would have been written as such.
The words and meanings in the constitutions are not hidden or impossible to find and understand. All the documents supporting and explaining the constitution and their intent are available to anyone in the world.
Ultimately, the constitution acts to form and restrict government…. When we start making excuses or exceptions regarding these restrictions, for whatever reason without a proper amendment of the people themselves, we undermine the integrity of the constitution and render it “just a piece of paper”.
Nothing more….
Michael-Your problem seems not to be history but reading comprehension. Again, I made no “justustification” for anything, rather I simply mentioned what happened in the lead-up to the Iraq war. One would think that saying “I said nothing to the effect that it was technically legal or not under the Constitution” in my prior post would be self-explanatory. I said congress authorized military action in the case of the Iraq War, and that’s all. That was true and still is true.
J-WMDs were found. It was in all the papers.