Democrats discover that 'defund the police' is political poison
by Jeff Jacoby
AS NEW YORK headed into the home stretch of last week's mayoral primary campaign, progressive New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg considered the prospect of a victory by Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president running as the most unabashedly pro-police, anti-crime candidate in the race.
"For New York Democrats to choose a law-and-order mayor now," Goldberg wrote in the New York Times, "would be seen as a rebuke to progressives all over the country."
Four days later, it appeared that Adams had come in first in the June 22 primary. The final tally hasn't been released, but it seems more likely than not that the next mayor will be an outspoken Black former cop who for months has rained contempt on progressive demands to "slash the Police Department budget and shrink the police force." Such asinine proposals, he says, threaten the lives of "Black and brown babies" and are promoted primarily by "a lot of young, white, affluent people."
It was indeed a rebuke to the nation's progressive elites and woke activists. And not a moment too soon.
All decent Americans were horrified last year by the pitiless murder of George Floyd, and hundreds of thousands were roused to march and cry out against racial injustice and police brutality. But on the hard left, that reaction soon morphed into something more destructive: relentless demonizing of law enforcement, political pressure to defund police departments, and disdain for any reminder that "blue lives matter" too as racist, cynical, or antisocial. As cities across the country erupted in riots, theft, and arson, progressives sang the praises of "unrest in the streets," defended looting as "reparations," and insisted again and again that the upheaval — which caused dozens of deaths and at least $1 billion in damage — was "mostly peaceful."
Unlike other countries, where the COVID-19 pandemic led to less serious crime, violence in US cities has soared. The murder rate in New York exploded by 45 percent in 2020 and another 17 percent so far this year. Homicides increased sharply in Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Miami. In Portland, Ore., which slashed its police budget and shut down three law enforcement units, murders skyrocketed by 255 percent. Oakland police chief LeRonne Armstrong, speaking to reporters Monday about the loss of $17 million in funding, was reduced almost to tears as he described his city's devastating rise in murder, robbery, shootings, and carjackings.
America has been living through its deadliest crime wave in more than a generation. Yet for much of the past year, honest discussion of violent crime was so taboo on the left that it went unmentioned at the Democratic convention. In the meantime, police morale has plummeted and cops have quit in droves.
Now the political chickens have come home to roost. Murders have spiked in US cities from coast to coast. The victims have included dozens of children.
Democrats are realizing that the progressive message on crime and policing is electoral poison. The "defund the police" movement is "nuts," former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis recently told The Hill. "My God, what the hell is going on here?... You have folks screaming and yelling about getting rid of policing, which makes no sense at all." As crime reaches levels not seen in decades, trust in Black Lives Matter has been sinking in the polls, while support for police has been gaining.
Progressives' anti-police rhetoric didn't help Democrats among minority voters, it hurt. Data analyst David Shor told New York magazine that the "defund the police" campaign drove Hispanic voters away from Democratic candidates last fall. "We raised the salience of an ideologically charged issue that millions of nonwhite voters disagreed with us on," he said. he said. Polling by the Manhattan Institute finds that among Black New Yorkers, only 17 percent want to decrease the number of police officers in their neighborhoods, while 62 percent would like to see stepped-up policing of quality-of-life issues, such as graffiti and public urination.
"Large numbers of Black and Latino voters," reports the New York Times, reject the left's approach to "the very issues — race and criminal justice — that progressives assumed would rally voters of color to their side."
At least some progressives are getting the message. Consider crime-weary Cleveland, a minority-majority city where former mayor and congressman Dennis Kucinich, a lifelong Democrat from the leftmost wing of his party, is running to once again lead the city he presided over in the 1970s. His signature issue: Hiring 400 new police officers. Kucinich says he wants to "send a message loud and clear to violent felons: A strengthened Cleveland police force will pursue you. You cannot escape. You will be caught."
A year ago, few Democrats — and no progressives — would have dared speak that way. But a wave of devastating riots and the largest murder spike in more than 60 years have a way of clarifying the political stakes. Which is why a law-and-order hardliner is in the lead to be New York's next mayor, and why the "defund the police" movement is about to expire.
****************************************
Supreme Court Upholds donation confidentiality
What would it take for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Independent Women’s Law Center, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Gun Owners of America, and the Human Rights Campaign and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund to be found in the same trench fighting the same opponent? Nothing less than the right to the freedom of association, which the Supreme Court has held is implicit in the First Amendment.
In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Supreme Court on Thursday held by a 6-3 majority that California violated that right by demanding that charitable organizations disclose their major donors as a condition of fundraising in the state.
Charitable organizations in California that solicit contributions are required by state law to register with the state and provide reports that include their federal IRS Form 990. While most Form 990 information is public, federal law requires that “Schedule B,” which lists an organization’s “substantial donors,” be kept confidential.
Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Law Center refused to provide their Schedule B’s to the state, and instead sued California. The risk of public disclosure of this sensitive information, they argued, violates the right of association, especially when California does not actually use it to investigate charitable misconduct.
In a 1958 landmark decision titled NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court unanimously held that requiring disclosure of a group’s members “may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other] forms of government action.” Not surprisingly, the NAACP joined an amicus brief defending the same principle in today’s case.
An important issue in the case was the legal standard that should be applied in such compelled disclosure cases. The tougher the standard, the closer the connection must be between what the government wants to do and its reason for doing it.
The district court applied a standard called “exacting scrutiny,” which requires that government action be “substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest.” This standard, according to the district court, further requires that the action be “narrowly tailored” for the government’s purpose.
This is a rigorous standard, meant to minimize the possibility that government actions deter people from exercising their First Amendment freedom of association.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the district after applying a more lenient version of the “exacting scrutiny” standard that did not require this “narrowly tailored” connection. The Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the state’s action must “be narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”
The Supreme Court found a “dramatic mismatch” rather than a close connection between California’s “dragnet for sensitive donor information” and its claimed objective of preventing charitable fraud. California had not only previously failed to enforce its Schedule B disclosure requirement, but did not actually use that information when it investigated charities.
Instead, the Supreme Court found that California’s real reason for demanding this information was convenience, to simply have the information “close at hand, just in case” it might be useful. That was not nearly enough to justify the risk that the donor information might be disclosed.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, wrote in dissent that the majority had actually abandoned, rather than applied, the court’s precedents. She argued that, under those previous decisions, “reporting and disclosure requirements do not directly burden associational rights.”
Rather than the majority’s holding that an up-front disclosure requirement automatically violated the First Amendment, the dissenters would look at whether particular plaintiffs’ freedom of association had actually been affected.
The majority took note of the hundreds of organizations, “span[ning] the ideological spectrum,” that had filed briefs supporting the plaintiff groups in this case. They emphasized the “gravity of the privacy concerns” that any advocacy group would face from disclosure of donors.
“The deterrent effect feared by these organizations,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “is real and pervasive.” The district court had cited evidence of “pervasive” Schedule B disclosures by the state as well as “ample evidence” that these particular organizations, their employees, and supporters could face hostility, intimidation, or harassment upon such disclosure. California’s “assurances of confidentiality,” the Supreme Court said, “are not worth much.”
Roberts concluded the court’s opinion with this important admonition: “When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough.”
That’s a freedom we all can share.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/01/supreme-court-upholds-the-freedom-of-association/
*************************************‘You Should Be in Prison’: Critics Slam Washington Post Article Encouraging ‘Kink Culture’ for Children
A Washington Post op-ed published Tuesday celebrates and encourages exposing children to “kink culture,” such as explicit performances at pride parades.
“Yes, kink belongs at Pride,” reads the headline of writer Lauren Rowello’s Washington Post piece. “And I want my kids to see it.”
Rowello, a “gendervague” person who is married to a transgender woman, described how the couple attended a pride parade where their children were confused to see “a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes.”
The term gendervague appears to refer to a person whose gender identity is “inextricably related” to being autistic.
“The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog,” Rowello wrote. “‘What are they doing?’ my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on.”
The Washington Post writer said that though the children “were too young to understand the nuance of the situation,” Rowello told them that “these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do.”
“Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid—no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren’t bad or wrong, and that they aren’t alone in their experiences,” Rowello wrote.
“Kink visibility is a reminder that any person can and should shamelessly explore what brings joy and excitement,” the writer added. “We don’t talk to our children enough about pursuing sex to fulfill carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment.”
“Sharing the language of kink culture with young people provides them with valuable information about safe sex practices—such as the importance of establishing boundaries, safe words and signals, affirming the importance of planning and research and the need to seek and give enthusiastic consent,” Rowello wrote.
The post quickly drew fire from commentators on social media.
“If your ‘principles’ prevent you from running this sickness out of your country, your principles are garbage,” tweeted “I’m Right” host Jesse Kelly. “Nations do not remain stable, healthy nations with this behavior becoming acceptable.”
“In a sane society, CPS would already be on the way,” The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro tweeted.
***************************************
California Boycotts America
It doesn’t take much for California to boycott you.
75 years ago, Winston Churchill warned that an iron curtain had descended over Europe. But a silicon curtain has been descending over California which is boycotting 100 million Americans.
The state lost a House seat for the first time while Florida gained a seat. California Democrats responded by adding Florida to a list of states that their army of government employees may not visit on government business. It’s not an honor unique to Florida. These days the People’s Republic of California is boycotting 17 states and keeps banning more states every year.
Californians can still go see Oklahoma, the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, but the state is on the banned list. (The musical, which has been accused of “unbearable whiteness” and (violent, homophobic racism” will probably soon be on the banned list.) Dorothy could travel from Kansas to Oz, but Hotel California’s government employees are banned from Kansas.
After 5 years, California is boycotting 103 million Americans across 1.2 million square miles.
Beyond Florida, California is boycotting Texas, the second largest state in the country, and which picked up two House seats. That’s because while California Democrats may be boycotting Texas, the state’s residents and some of its biggest companies are fleeing there.
Along with Texas, Florida, Kansas, and Oklahoma, Democrats are also boycotting Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, both Carolinas and Dakotas, Tennessee, and West Virginia. American children may memorize lists of states while California State University students have a list of “banned states” to memorize that Democrats believe they shouldn’t visit.
In a touch of East Germany in the West, traveling can require filing a "Request for Approval of Travel to Prohibited States". California State University notes the “restrictions apply to all CSU employees, officers, or members, as well as non-employee travelers, including students.”
Escape From California is now a documentary.
California’s boycott of America began with Assembly Bill No. 1887 which was supposed to protect gay rights and the sacred right of grown men to shower with young girls. But, like most government legislation it quickly went off the rails. And considering that it started out more off the rails than California’s mostly imaginary but hideously expensive high-speed rail, that’s an accomplishment. Like most of the state’s current accomplishments, from bringing back typhus to spending tens of thousands of dollars per homeless tent, it’s of the horribly bad kind.
The People’s Republic of California just added Florida and three other states to its hit list for protecting women’s sports. It’s a strange world in which California is going after West Virginia to stop teenage girls from having their own sports teams, but that’s only the start of the madness.
Governor Doug Burgum in North Dakota had panicked and vetoed a bill protecting girls by preventing men from competing on female teams. But that wasn't good enough because he didn't also veto a campus free speech bill which banned schools from disciplining students for their personal opinions and abusing security fees to bar conservative speakers.
The North Dakota free speech bill also stated that student organizations could limit membership to those who share their beliefs. The Human Rights Campaign, Harvey Weinstein's favorite civil rights charity, claimed that this "law is nothing more than a harmful attempt by Gov. Doug Burgum and North Dakota legislators to discriminate against LGBTQ".
And despite Burgum's defenses of gay rights, California decided to ban North Dakota.
It’s not enough to refuse to protect women if you don’t also go ahead and also punish, censor, and suppress anyone who disagrees with the official dogma of the Democrats.
Other states have also ended up on California’s hit list for allowing religious freedom in schools.
Kentucky’s 4.5 million people and 40,000 square miles are off limits because of Charlie Brown.
W.R. Castle Elementary School in Johnson County, Kentucky struck out Linus reading passages from the New Testament in A Charlie Brown Christmas. The Charlie Brown Bill was introduced and signed to protect the religious freedom of students in Kentucky schools.
California's Attorney General Xavier Becerra, now Biden's HHS secretary, claimed that the bill "could allow student-run organizations in colleges and K-12 schools to discriminate against classmates based on their sexual orientation or gender identity."
“I’m highly disappointed that the man would be so stupid,” a Kentucky state senator said of Becerra. “He can read it and he can see there’s absolutely no discrimination in that bill.”
California Dems are in favor of limiting the right to work, conduct investigative journalism, or post opinions on the internet to those who share their beliefs. That’s why they oppose religious freedom, not because they oppose discrimination, but because they impose discrimination.
Attorney General Rob Bonta is now carrying on California’s sacred anti-religious crusade.
As Charlie Brown can tell you, it’s easy for states to fall afoul of California. Iowa was added to the list because it wouldn’t cover transgender surgery under Medicaid. North Carolina banned men from using the ladies room in 2016, but then Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat who ran on the right of men to urinate where they want to appease the NCAA, repealed the bill in 2017.
Governor Roy Cooper just celebrated Pride Month, but California still refuses to relent and North Carolina remains on the list of “banned states” usually maintained by Communist dictatorships.
California is boycotting a state that celebrates Pride Month for gay rights.
But once a state is added to the list of the enemies of the People’s Republic and the Human Rights Campaign, it must stay there until Google, Amazon, and Facebook officially annex it.
South Carolina was banned by California because a 500-page appropriations bill briefly protected the religious freedom of adoption agencies to “decline to provide any service that conflicts with, or provide any service under circumstances that conflict with, a sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction of the faith-based child placing agency.”
“The State of California strongly stands against any form of discrimination,” Attorney General Xavier Becerra declared, while discriminating against his tenth state.
The Supreme Court just issued a ruling essentially saying the same thing as South Carolina and protecting the right of a Catholic adoption agency to follow the values of its own faith.
If California were consistent, it would immediately ban all travel to the United States.
But if California Democrats were consistent, they wouldn’t be trying to eliminate all sources of reliable power while insisting that everyone drive an electric car, or refusing to arrest criminals and then condemning the muggings of elderly Asian people by those very same criminals.
While California claims to be fighting discrimination in every other state, the Supreme Court repeatedly slammed it for discriminating against Christians and other religious believers.
And while California State University employees are warned against traveling to banned states on the money stolen by state Democrats from taxpayers, CSU's new College of Ethnic Studies appointed a dean who supports Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, and hates Jews.
As more states move to protect women’s sports, religious freedom, and Charlie Brown, California might soon end up boycotting every state except New York and Oregon.
While California Democrats add millions more Americans to their list of 100 million banned, millions of their own people are fleeing the state to some of these same banned states. Like East Germany, the People’s Republic of California is watching in dismay as millions flee California for Florida and Texas despite their support for women’s sports and religious freedom.
If only there were some sort of wall to stop them.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/07/california-boycotts-america-frontpagemagcom/
***********************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment