It is interesting to me to see how little the so-called authorities around the nation care about maintaining law and order in the face of current riots. Case in point:
Police in Fort Worth, Texas, are dropping criminal charges against dozens of people who were arrested and accused of rioting during protests against racism and police brutality. Chief Ed Kraus says the move is part of his reply to calls for police to change how they operate.
“On May 31st, Fort Worth Police arrested several dozen people for rioting during a protest,” Kraus said in a statement. “Since that time, the protests in the City have been peaceful. The protestors have expressed their anger over police misconduct and have demanded changes.”
The shift in Fort Worth is part of a national debate over how police and prosecutors should handle charges of curfew violations and rioting that in many cases were levied as police tried to curb looting and vandalism that stemmed from nearly two weeks of widespread protests. In many cities, demonstrators are calling for such charges to be dropped — adding it to a list of demands for changing police practices, or even disbanding police agencies altogether.
Go here to read the rest. Tarrant County is a mostly Republican controlled county, so I assume the decision not to prosecute was made by the local district attorney, probably in discussions with other political leaders. Thus the political leadership of Tarrant county has made the calculation that it is better to appease the rioters rather than to attempt to protect the citizens who elected them.
As a result of this I predict more riots. The malign forces behind the riots are reaping a windfall from these mass acts of lawlessness. Democrat politicans, as one would expect, are egging them on, and the Republican politicians, terrified of the race card, stand completely impotent to protect the people who elected them. I include President Trump, for all his bluster, among the impotent. This is the way countries fall into anarchy and dictatorship. I trust this will not happen in the end, but we are far closer to it than I would ever have imagined we could be. We live in perilous times, the skies grow darker and we are cursed with the worst politicians in our nation’s history.
“We live in perilous times, the skies grow darker and we are cursed with the worst politicians in our nation’s history.”
Tucker has it right. Enveloping is the darkness of our time. Even the hopeful light from our Church hierarchy grows dimmer. I believe only the Great Chastisement will have the necessary cleansing power.
https://twitter.com/Bookwormroom/status/1270569763090071558
This is either the beginning of the end, or a new beginning (counter-revolution). Witness: Jewish shops in LA (Fairfax, Beverly Hills destroyed); Seattle city center taken over by ANTIFA. I’m just glad we live 75 miles from anywhere.
Is secession by area possible? Flyover country from the urban centers?
I think there’s an argument to be made for turning cities with a population of a million-plus into states. The argument against it is you’d be handing the Democrats a near permanent advantage in the Senate.
The other option is you’ve got to get back basic principles of federalism. State Senates ought to be representing entities like counties, not people.
Ernst, that’s a great idea, turning metropolitan areas into states. And I don’t think it would hand the Senate over to the dems. PA would go to Philadelphia and the rest (including Pgh–I don’t think Pgh is over a million); flyover country would be Republican and have a voice that is lost now because Philly drives the politics. Illinois would be Cook County and the rest; seats now dem would be dem and republican. If a 200000 dead voters were counted in Philly and Chicago it wouldn’t matter any more, cause they’d already be counted for the left.
Spoke with a Seattle/Bellevue rioter and his 5 friends who are a) gay b) Bernie Sanders supporters c) affluent white – college educated and who listen to CNN and MSNBC and can quote these media outlets verbatim.
Here is what they say: 1) Sanders supporters have not been heard in the past two elections, so using the system to elect their candidate has failed. They feel they have not choice but to riot and destroy the system. They feel they didn’t get a chance to have a fair election twice now. b) Gay activists have no children, no heirs, in a society that doesn’t accept them and never will. The solution is destroy the society. c) they know they are risking getting the virus and spreading it to innocent people, but they don’t care since many of them will likely die of HIV and AIDS. They spout the medical community that has exempted protesters from the virus because it is a more worthy cause.
It struck me as a group that has experienced despair (who knows what the isolation due to the pandemic has wrought), and has no reason to maintain a society they view doesn’t listen to or care about them so they have chosen to actively destroy the society instead. Just passing this on.
Here’s the problem Bob: 3 of the 10 largest cities are in California: Los Angeles, San Diego and San Jose. That’s 6 seats to the Dems, and I’d I’m not sure there’s enough Republicans in the central valley to keep California’s two seats from remaining Democratic. Chicago, Philadelphia and New York City cancel out the Republican pick ups in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York State. I don’t know how Phoenix goes. Maybe the GOP and Dems split it? And the remaining three are in Texas, Dallas, San Antonio and Houston: How would they vote?
And then the other problem is what we can call the Detroit Syndrome: what happens to those city-states when 50 years of Democrat misrule drives their populations below the 1 million mark? Do they lose statehood? And if D.C. ever goes over a million, does their token representation finally get to vote?
Maybe the solution to the Detroit syndrome is if a city of million+ opts for statehood, and then at a later date falls to under 1 million, it becomes a district, e.g. Philadelphia, D.C.? They keep their federal representation, but they lose their votes. I think it would take a very specifically written constitutional amendment to provide for the admission of large metropolitan areas into the Union as “federal cities.”
But I agree that it would go a long way towards resolving the urban-suburban-exurban-rural tensions in states like Pennsylvania and Illinois.
1) Sanders supporters have not been heard in the past two elections, so using the system to elect their candidate has failed. They feel they have not choice but to riot and destroy the system. They feel they didn’t get a chance to have a fair election twice now.
I wonder if anybody on the left has the nerve to tell these spoiled crybabies that there concerns were heard –and rejected by the majority of their fellow Democrats. Speaking for myself, I find that hilarious, and unintentionally revealing. As in, whenever a leftist wants to have a dialog, what he really means is he won’t shut up until you agree with him, and if you refuse to agree with him, he’ll do everything in his power to see to it you’re denied your right to speak your opinion.
Gay activists have no children, no heirs, in a society that doesn’t accept them and never will. The solution is destroy the society. c) they know they are risking getting the virus and spreading it to innocent people, but they don’t care since many of them will likely die of HIV and AIDS. </>
I’m glad to see it confirmed the Niall Ferguson was right when he dismissed Keynes as a homosexual with stake in the future, therefore of course “in the long run, we’re all dead”. Pity he apologized for being right.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/america-begins-to-see-more-clearly-now-what-its-black-citizens-always-knew/amp/?taid=5ee21fc2cc071f00018dbbcd&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Speaking of enablers, did you catch this?
National Review‘s institutional purpose would appear to be sucking up donor and endowment income to provide inflated salaries to Richard Lowry and a half-dozen others. We could all do without it.
@Art – Never heard of that author before. So I looked at his bio on NR.
“Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice.”
Hm. have I heard of that before?
Wikipedia: “The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School is a non-partisan law and public policy institute that is sometimes seen as liberal or progressive.”
Ah.
The Brennan Center for Justice is an odious outfit. Who at National Review commissioned a piece from this man? It appears with the tag “NR PLUS”, so I think it’s part of the digitized print edition, not their website (which last is edited by Charles CW Cooke). So, it’s one of the 11 people with the title of ‘editor’ at their print edition. Of those 11, 1 appears to be a courtesy billing, another commissions book reviews. and another appears to be preoccupied with copy editing and layout. So, that leaves you with one of eight people. You want to bet it’s Jason Lee Steorts, the man who insisted Mark Steyn be cut from the masthead, or perhaps his ‘deputy’ Nicholas Frankovich, who slandered the Covington youths?
How is it a ‘conservative’ magazine employs these eight editors (and two more at it’s website), of whom three are inveterately hostile to the president, one appears to be a caviling pooftar, and one is the jack-wagon who slandered the Covington boys. Presiding over it all is Richard Lowry, who cut his best contributor to please said caviling poof. They’re really aiming for a tiny constituency, and we’re not in it.
@Art Deco
It appears the man has actually written for NR 5 times now.
https://www.nationalreview.com/author/theodore-r-johnson/
Does anyone take National Review seriously? Their big push in the 2016 election was to not only have Donald Trump lose, but to lose by historic margins so that his supporters would never dared question the likes of National Review again. The fact that Donald Trump won handily shows the powerless of the magazine in shaping public opinion.
They claimed that they wanted to stop Donald Trump from becoming president because he was utterly unconservative in areas like abortion or immigration. But after President Trump did more in those areas that any Republican in decades, did they change their tune? No, they doubled down. So even in the sense of “they may be powerless, but they have good points” they are irrelevant.
Endorsing riots is a new low for them, but it’s not really surprising and given how much of a joke they are, I have trouble caring.
Pretty sure people stopped taking National Review seriously sometime in 2016 at the latest.
You’ve confused National Review with a selection of their contributors, most prominently Jonah Goldberg and David French. The editorial policy of the magazine as we speak is one of multidirectional placation and some of their contributors favor the President. Now, that only begs the question as to why we have a ‘conservative’ publication which has no staff editors known to be partisans of the president, three known to be hostile, and two others hostile to important starboard constituencies. Where is the constituency for this?
While we’re at it, when Nicholas Frankovich isn’t slicing up the Covington boys, this is the sort of thing he has to say:
https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2020/02/20/Nicholas-Frankovich-Pope-Francis-and-Catholicism-beyond-left-and-right/stories/202002200037
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/mona-charen-cpac-comments-conservatives-should-listen/
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/users/nicholas-frankovich
Hadn’t notice Nicholas Frankovich was a contributor to Commonweal
https://twitter.com/TimAlberta?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
This guy used to work for Richard Lowry.
https://twitter.com/costareports?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Another NR alumnus. heckuva job, Rich.