Wednesday, August 14, 2019

I'm supposed to allow myself to be disarmed when there are ideas like this floating around among law enforcement personnel?

"The Wall Street Journal on Saturday featured an essay by one Clint Watts, formerly of the FBI and West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center. Watts makes those proposals using the word 'white' 16 times in 18 paragraphs. The sociopolitical ideas rife among white people are the main matrix of terrorism in America, Watts contends. Racial profiling, anyone?"

Increasingly, we see leftist ideologues, both in and outside of government, trying to tie traditional patriotism and the defense of long-standing constitutional liberties to "white supremacy" and "terrorism". And, of course, we have a hyper-radicalized Democrat Party in an election year attempting to whip their voting blocs into a frenzy of fear and hatred of white Trump supporters (actually, Trump supporters in general, regardless of race; I guess Latino and black Trump supporters are honorary white supremacists).

No, I don't believe I'll be trusting to the tender mercies of people who hate me, thanks very much.

Meanwhile, although there are unfortunately millions of Americans who have forgotten, or perhaps never learned about, the blessings of liberty and constitutional law, protesters in Hong Kong (as do most people in other countries) know that when it comes to freedom, the USA is the gold standard: "Hong Kong Protesters Sing The American National Anthem".

5 comments:

JeffS said...

That would be racial profilng, yes. I expect that our, cough cough "betters" cough cough would consider that to be "good" racial profiling. Good for them, that is.

Along those lines, have you seen where the democrats are really coming out of the closets as bona fide communists, by demanding that SCOTUS "heal or be restructured"?

Paco said...

Oh, they're pulling out all the stops, alright, that's for sure. Somewhere, the ghost of Henry Wallace is muttering, "Damn! I was born before my time!" Although I wonder if even old Henry might not balk at advocating some of the stupid/scary/ridiculous proposals the current crop of donks are boosting.

rinardman said...

From Jeff's link: In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was "motivated by politics" more than by the law.

I would guess that most, if not all, of the 55% believe the problem is that Supreme Court was "motivated by RIGHT WING politics" more than by the law.

It's not that they think the SCOTUS shouldn't be motivated by politics, it's just that they think it needs to be motivated by LEFT WING politics.

It'd be funny, if the Republicans said, "Okay, but why wait till you're in charge? We'll make the changes now, while we're in charge and can control the results." They'd do a 180 so fast, it'd trigger a hurricane.

JeffS said...

Paco, Henry might balk, but only because, for all his faults, he wasn't bats**t crazy. Unlike the current crop of donks. At least he knew to not to poison his own well.

R-man, you are spot on. I expect that the authors of that atrocious letter meant to say "heel or be restructured".

And I will go further, and state that the commies are terrified that SCOTUS will be (at best) non-partisan or (at worst) genuinely conservative for the next generation. Their strategy has been to encourage and enable the rise of activist judges who rewrite laws in their favor. That's fading pretty quickly, with Trump appointing a lot of federal judges (in spite of the road blocks thrown out by the docks). The donks are pretty open about their concerns in that regard.

So this latest tactic of threatening SCOTUS (a clear shot shot across the bow of the Constitution, when you consider the separation of powers clearly stated therein) is their response to PDT's long term strategy. It stinks of fear and improvisation, not unlike the assault on the Electoral College. But that doesn't mean it won't work.

Paco said...

You're right about Wallace. He did believe, I think, in spiritualism, but he still wasn't as completely nuts as the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates.

Yes, the attempt to intimidate the high court is ominous. It's not only troublesome because certain members of the SCOTUS (I'm looking at you, Roberts!) have already shown signs of being susceptible to intimidation, but because it tends to cause squishy Republicans presidents (like the Bushes) to nominate "unknown quantities" who pretty inevitably turn out to be liberals, or at least, erratic in their approach to interpreting constitutional law.