When Mayors And Police Collide

Back in December, following an incident in which the New York City grand jury failed to indict several police officers for the murder of Eric Garner (because there was no evidence to support a charge), New York City Mayor, Bill De Blasio, threw his entire police department under the bus, making it sound as if the entire department was made up of hate filled racists who targeted black citizens.

De Blasio told the American public that the Eric Garner case was “profoundly personal for me,” saying that because of “the dangers Dante (his biracial son) may face, we’ve had to literally train him . . . in how to take special care in any encounter he has with the police officers who are there to protect him.”

Interesting considering the mayor's son has NYC police officers to take him to and from school and drive him where he wants or needs to go. Did De Blasio teach his son to be afraid of those officers too - just in case?

The mayor went on to tell all New Yorkers, in so many words, that the police are racists and that black citizens should not only be afraid of them but should teach their children to be afraid of them as well. He lumped all officers into one large category and was unapologetic. Many officers were so angry they turned their backs on him wherever he went in the city.

Violent crime in New York began going up and city revenues began going down as police stopped giving 110% to the job. They did what they were required to do rather than putting their all into it. As of May 5th of this year, murders and shootings in New York City have increased by 20% each. (Note that another reason for this is the mayor's banning the "Stop and Frisk" program that was taking guns off the street.)

Police stopped writing parking tickets - the major source of revenue for the city. City revenues dropped by 90%. Oops.

As a mayor, it's probably not smart to throw your police force under the bus. But that didn't stop Baltimore Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, from doing it following the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody.

Apparently not paying attention to New York City's problems, shortly after Gray's death Mayor Rawlings-Blake threw her own police department under the bus, also making them sound like a bunch of racists. Six of her officers, three white and three black, were arrested on charges ranging from second degree murder to criminal negligence and false imprisonment. Ms. Rawlings-Blake then invited the Justice department "to investigate if our police department has engaged in a pattern or practice of stops, searches or arrests that violate the Fourth Amendment.”

Of the 2745 active duty officers on the force, 1445 (or 52%) are African-American, Asian, Hispanic or Native American. Four of the six top commanders of the force are either African-American or Hispanic. And the mayor wants the department investigated by the racially biased Justice Department for discriminating against minorities.

The mayor has apparently decided the outcome of the investigation and of the charges filed against the six officers. She spoke to Al Sharpton's National Action Network (certain an unbiased organization if there ever was one...) and said “We will get justice for Freddie Gray. If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different levels can’t get justice and healing for this community, you tell me where we’re going to get it in our country.”

Funny - I thought justice was supposed to be for everyone and that people accused of something were innocent until proven guilty in court. But what do I know?

Since Mayor Rawlings-Blake threw her police department under the bus the officers themselves say quietly that they are afraid to do their jobs.

“Officers are coming up to me and saying, ‘I’m afraid to do my job,’” Lt. Kenneth Butler, a president of a group for black officers, said recently. "Moral is low," he said, and "all officers, regardless of race, are upset."

And why wouldn't it be? Officers citywide are now afraid if they arrest someone and the charges don't stick they could be jailed for making a false arrest and/or false imprisonment. After all - when Freddie Gray was arrested for possession of a knife, which we now know was in his possession illegally, the prosecutor mistakenly declared the knife to be legal and charged the arresting officers with false arrest and false imprisonment. (She has since dropped those and added reckless endangerment to the list of charges.)

Now that the police are understandably afraid of making a mistake that could cost them their freedom they are not out there giving it 110%. As a result, violent crime has increased exponentially in Baltimore. Murders have increased by 40% and non-fatal shootings by 60%. 

It seems it doesn't pay for the mayors of large cities to disavow and demean their police departments. It's counterproductive to good policing. And the mayors will probably blame the police instead of themselves.

"Denial Of Climate Change Is Dereliction Of Duty"

On Sunday, at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduation ceremony, the commencement speaker told the young Chief Warrant Officers that climate change is currently the greatest threat to our national security and that if they deny that fact they are derelict in their duties. That speaker also said that climate change is also responsible for the rise in power of the terrorist group Boko Haram.

"Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.

After all, isn’t that the true hallmark of leadership? When you’re on deck, standing your watch, you stay vigilant. You plan for every contingency. And if you see storm clouds gathering, or dangerous shoals ahead, you don’t sit back and do nothing. You take action — to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. And so, too, with climate change. Denying it, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces."

That same speaker also said this.

“Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world, yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram,”

That speaker was none other than the President of the United States, Barack H. Obama.

Imagine a Republican President telling our military members "If you think for yourselves, if you don't believe exactly as I command you to believe, you are derelict in your duties." The liberal media would be all over it. Imagine a Republican President lying about factual global information(the polar ice caps have grown to record size since 2012). The media would be denouncing that President as dishonest, telling the nation and the world that he lies. Yet President Obama blatantly lies to a stadium full of graduating cadets and the main stream media says nothing.

I guess, when it gets really hot this summer here in Texas, I could go on a killing spree and kidnap a couple hundred young girls to sell as sex slaves and blame it on climate change. After all - President Obama said that's what fuels Boko Haram. If it's a good enough reason for terrorists to kidnap and murder shouldn't someone here be able to use it as an excuse?

In other news, the city of Ferguson, Missouri, has approved the placement of a memorial plaque for Michael Brown in the city sidewalk near where he was killed. 

I have no problem if Brown's friends and family want to dedicate a plaque to his memory. I really don't. They want to remember him as they saw him - whether or not their view of him is distorted by emotion. But for the City of Ferguson to memorialize and immortalize a man who was a criminal and who attempted to kill one of their police officers, on city property, is a disgrace. It dishonors the faithful service of Officer Darren Wilson to the people of Ferguson and dishonors the honest, hardworking people who live there.

The good people of Ferguson should tell the city council and the mayor that is not the way they want their city to be remembered - for a two-bit thug who tried to kill a police officer. I can't believe the city would do something like this which, in all honesty, makes them look like fools. But I guess there is no accounting for the logic and judgement of some people.

Why No National Guard In Waco??

On Sunday, in Waco, Texas, several outlaw motorcycle gangs got into a dispute at a restaurant and got into a physical scuffle. The fight spread, guns and knives were drawn, and the melee moved out into the parking lot. Nine gang members were killed, 18 wounded, and 175 people were arrested by the Waco police.

Police were already on the scene. According to the Waco PD, at least 18 plain clothes police officers were on the ground observing. They responded within seconds and were quickly backed up by patrol officers, only to face gunfire from the bikers. Police returned fire and it is currently being stated that at least four of the bikers were killed by police.

The incident was over within just a short time (not known exactly how long) when the bikers began laying down their weapons and surrendering. By mid-afternoon the entire thing was finished except for transporting and booking suspects and cleaning up.

Liberals and some black Americans across the nation began screaming about why the National Guard wasn't called in and why there was no curfew put in place following the incident. Some claimed that the reason is because the bikers are white and therefore not subject to "police overreaction." (They somehow miss the fact that police actually shot several of them - something that didn't happen during the rioting in Missouri and Maryland.)

The answer should be blatantly obvious to them but they see things through eyes clouded by racial animosity and misdirected political correctness. So I will try to explain it in simple terms:

The gunfight was over shortly after it began and the police took control of the scene.

That's it. That's the simple explanation. I could go on and explain how there was no rioting, looting, arson, or civil disobedience following the incident which made the National Guard and a curfew unnecessary but that should be obvious. I guess to those who wish to stir the fires of racism at any cost don't really care too much about the truth.

Written articles by idiots liberal critics say that gun control could have prevented the bikers from being killed and/or that only one gun was produced by a gang member (police say they confiscated over 100) and that undercover SWAT officers began shooting when that single gun appeared and killed all nine of the bikers.

Sure - let's make the bikers the victims of police and ignore the fact that they are outlaw organizations with long histories of illegal activity and violence, including drug and firearm trafficking. Telling the truth would destroy the conspiracy theory that the police were at fault for the whole thing.

There are so many people in this country today looking for racism that it is now being invented. Most people don't actually know the real definition of racism which Merriam-Webster says is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Today the term has come to mean any disparaging or politically incorrect actions or words based on someone's skin color, ethnicity, and now their religious affiliations (as in comments, ridicule or distrust of Islam. Islam is not a race.)

The common word for most of what is happening today is bigotry, which Merriam-Webster defines as "persons who are obstinately or intolerantly devoted their own opinions and prejudices; especially those who regard or treat the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

Bigotry, not racism, is responsible for most of the differences between races, cultures and religious organizations in this country today. Bigotry is the cause of most of the hatred that is occurring in this country today. And like racism, bigotry is the fault of the person who hates. If you're intolerant of the thoughts and opinions of another simply because they disagree with yours, guess what? You're a bigot.

Don't misconstrue what I said - not all people who disagree with others are bigots. People often have good reasons to disagree with someone based on factual information, as in Christians disagreeing with the teachings of Islam or even conservatives disagreeing with liberals. But if you become intolerant and hateful because of it you might be in the realm of bigotry.

Finally, the police response to the Waco incident had absolutely nothing in common with the police responses to the rioting in Ferguson and Baltimore. Those who try to acquaint the two are misguided and are misleading others. Facts are important. Details are important. Unless, of course, one seeks to mislead others to suit their own purpose.

Prosecutor In Baltimore Asks For Removal of First Amendment Rights

In Baltimore last week Antonio Gioia, a deputy state's attorney, filed a motion on behalf of Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby, asking for a gag order on the six police officers, their attorneys, court personnel and witnesses in the Freddie Gray case. The motion says "The efforts by defense counsel will have the necessary effect of undermining both the state's right to present the investigation to a fair and impartial grand jury in this matter and tainting the pool of potential jurors who may ultimately decide this case in a court of law."

All well and good, right? The prosecutor's office is simply trying to protect the integrity of the trial by preventing the defense from tainting the jury pool. Except the gag order doesn't pertain to them - which means they can say anything they wish about the case to the media or private audiences.

On the day the charges were announced, Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby made a 22 minute speech about the charges and the horrible behavior by the six accused police officers. And while she didn't take any questions that day, she had her chance to convince the public that the officers killed Freddie Gray and needed to be punished for it.

Attorneys for the officers, along with the police union, immediately went public and said that Ms. Mosby rushed to judgement, that the evidence in the case doesn't support the charges, and that Ms. Mosby should recuse herself from the case because she has political ties to Freddie Gray's family (as in Gray's family donated major funds to her election campaign.)'

Michael Davey, an attorney for one of the officers, says he believes Ms. Mosby, who is married to a city councilman, made "an egregious rush to judgment," because of the violent protests that were taking place in Baltimore at the time.

"We have grave concerns about the fairness and integrity of the prosecution of our officers."

After watching Ms. Mosby's announcement and listening to legal experts across the country talking about the known evidence vs the charges, I tend to agree with the defendant's attorney. We shall see if Ms. Mosby can validate the charges with provable evidence or not. In the meantime, taking away someone's First Amendment right to freedom of speech while at the same time maintaining your own seems a bit underhanded to me. If Ms. Mosby maintains the right to taint a jury the defense should have the same right.


In other news, President Obama has announced that certain surplus military equipment will be restricted from local police departments nationwide. The equipment banned includes tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft, bayonets, grenade launchers, large-caliber firearms and some camouflage uniforms.

Let's look at those individually for a second. I'm not sure why a police department would need an armored vehicle with tank-like tracks. It's not like they'll be using it to chase down bad guys on all sorts of terrain. So that one isn't a big deal. Weaponized aircraft? It seems only Obama can have drones to use against civilians in the United States. I wonder if, when he takes over certain police departments in the country in the name of improving relationships with the community, he'll allow the new federal police force to have drones. After all - they'll be doing his bidding.

Bayonets. I can't really see any reason for police officers to carry bayonets - particularly bayonets fixed to their weapons. That's a bit over the top. Grenade launchers. That depends on what they'll be used for. Police often need gas guns in riot situations. If a grenade launcher can be adapted for tear gas cartridges I see no problem with the police having them. If not - if they can only be used for launching explosives, I don't see much need for them. Cops shouldn't be using grenades in citizens.

"Large caliber firearms" is too vague. Exactly what weapons are we talking about? I don't think a police force needs a 50 caliber machine gun. Is that what the President means? Or does he define it better in the paperwork?

Finally, some camouflage uniforms will be restricted - because everybody knows camouflage is dangerous since the police can become invisible if they wear the correct things...  Right.

The President also said there will be "more stringent controls on other equipment including "unmanned aerial vehicles, some specialized firearms, explosives and riot gear."

Again with the drones. I stand on what I said above. "Some specialized firearms" is again too vague. Which specialized firearms? AR-15s? The Los Angeles Police in 1997 learned a valuable lesson about being outgunned when two bad guys robbed a North Hollywood bank armed with an illegally-modified fully automatic Norinco Type 56 S-1s (an AK-47-style weapon), a Bushmaster XM15 Dissipator, and a HK-91 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating vehicles and police Kevlar vests. They were both wearing full body armor that made them immune to small arms fire from the police, who at the time had only 9mm and .30 caliber handguns and a few shotguns.

The police couldn't get close enough for head shots and several officers were wounded in the melee. S.W.A.T. officers were called in and, seeing the need for more firepower, went to a firearms store in the neighborhood and acquired AR-15 rifles. Did that bring the shootout to an end? We don't really know since the first robber killed himself with his own gun and the second went down after being shot in the legs (with an AR-15) by a cop who was on the other side of an escape vehicle shooting under the vehicle. Could a 9mm pistol have taken him down? Possibly - although the damage caused by a .223 or a 5.56 round does a lot more damage than a 9mm round. The second suspect died on the scene from his injuries before the ambulance arrived.

Fast forward to 2015. The Obama administration and the left in general believe that AR-15 rifles, "assault rifles" as they call them, should be banned and believes even the police shouldn't have them because it makes them appear to be "militarized." They also believe the the police shouldn't have armored vehicles for the same reason. Now it seems the President doesn't want the police to have riot gear.

“We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there’s an occupying force, as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them,” the president said Monday in Camden, N.J. “We’re going to prohibit some equipment made for the battlefield that is not appropriate for local police departments.”

One cannot help but wonder if the President is trying to level the playing field so next time there is a major riot somewhere in the country the police no longer have an upper hand when it comes to force. What kind of birdbrain concept is that? Does he really believe the rioters only burn, loot and destroy because the police look intimidating? That's the most stupid thing I've heard in a long time. In Baltimore the police stood down. How did that work out?

I can see it now....  "There is a large protest planned for tonight beginning at 6:30. In preparation for violence all officers report to the armory and draw your rocks and bottles with which to defend yourself. Do not - I repeat do not don protective gear as the protesters won't have any and the President said we have to keep things fair and equitable."

Yeah - that'll work.

President Obama knows as much about proper armament of a police force as he does about what a surgeon needs to perform a surgical procedure. His committee to look into this topic included none other than Stephanie Rawlings-Blake - the now infamous mayor of Baltimore who not only watched part of her city burn but gave the rioters permission to do it and told her police force to do nothing. Yeah - she's a great choice to decide what weapons and gear are needed by the police.

President Obama's attitude and actions will probably get cops killed. Oh wait - his repeated allegations that cops are racists have already gotten a couple of cops executed in New York by a man who sought revenge for Eric Garner a Michael Brown. Since the President decided to demonize police and stick up for the suspects - even though his own Justice Department said Michael Brown's death was justified - Obama bears some responsibility for the two officers' death. I can't help but wonder how many more police officers will die because of Obama's new rules.


Finally, speaking of drones - it seems our neighborhood is changing. Last evening my wife and I were outside in front of our home and kept hearing a sound like a small motorcycle revving up and then fading away into the distance. Then it would return and do it again. My wife happened to look up and lo and behold - there was a four engine drone about 80 feet above our street. Facing West, it seemed to be looking down on us. It sat stationary for about a minute then turned South and moved away fairly quickly. I thought about getting in the car and following it but didn't have my keys at the time and by the time I went inside and got them it would have been gone. 

It could be coincidence but it seemed as if, once we saw it, the operator decided to move away. Perhaps I should put my shotgun (that I don't really have... wink, wink) next to the front door in case one day it returns....

Does Obama Even Believe Himself?

On Tuesday, during a panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University, President Obama criticized people who send their children to private schools as ignoring the less fortunate.

“Part of what’s happened is, is that elites in a very mobile, globalized world are able to live together, away from folks who are not as wealthy, and so they feel less of a commitment to making those investments,” the President said.

"We don’t dispute that the free market is the greatest producer of wealth in history -- it has lifted billions of people out of poverty. We believe in property rights, rule of law, so forth. But there has always been trends in the market in which concentrations of wealth can lead to some being left behind. And what’s happened in our economy is that those who are doing better and better -- more skilled, more educated, luckier, having greater advantages -- are withdrawing from sort of the commons -- kids start going to private schools; kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks. An anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together. And that, in part, contributes to the fact that there’s less opportunity for our kids, all of our kids."

Let me get this straight... a man who went to the best private schools as a child, then went to the best Ivy League universities as an adult student, who is now President of the United States and who only plays golf at exclusive, private golf courses, who married a woman who also attended private schools as a child and who also attended Ivy League schools, and whose two daughters have always attended private schools and have probably never set foot in a public school in their lives, is criticizing others who send their kids to private schools for separating themselves from others who are not as wealthy and contributes to "less opportunity for our kids, all of our kids."

All of our kids. Except yours, huh, Mr. President?

In other news, liberal Democrats across the country are calling for more spending for Amtrak following a horrific derailment and crash of one of their trains in Philadelphia yesterday. Even though the investigation is still underway, various Democrats indicate that a lack of federal funding for Amtrak and infrastructure was at least partially to blame for the tragic accident. 

Amtrak, the only federally owned passenger train line, has been losing money for years. Republican lawmakers are reluctant to increase funding to an agency that is consistently losing money. Arguments by Democrats that lack of funding caused the accident are weak, at best. From Amtrak's public website: "Seventy-two percent of the miles traveled by Amtrak trains are on tracks owned by other railroads. Known as "host railroads," they range from large publicly traded companies based in the U.S. or Canada, to state and local government agencies and small businesses."

Amtrak only owns 28% of the track on which it runs. If they don't own the particular track in Philadelphia where the train derailed that means any federal funds going to Amtrak wouldn't be used for repairs in that section anyway. It would be up to the owning corporation to maintain it. 

The investigation so far has shown the train was traveling at 106 mph in a zone where the track curves and the posted speed limit was 50 mph. (According to all reports, the engineer isn't talking to investigators and has hired an attorney.) Apparently the lack of federal funding for Amtrak caused the engineer to be careless and/or to ignore the 50 mph signs. Perhaps he wasn't getting enough money in his federal paycheck to maintain the posted speed limit. 

Finally, in news completely unrelated to the federal government, two Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (MDPSCS) officers have been suspended without pay and are facing felony and misdemeanor charges of burglary and theft. The two women, who both were working at the downtown facility of the Baltimore Division of Corrections, were seen on surveillance video allegedly looting a 7-11 store during the rioting in Baltimore last month. 

It seems, in this case, that sometimes it's true - you can't trust law enforcement officers. I hope what they acquired from the store was worth what they're facing now. On the bright side - at least if they go to prison for their (alleged) crimes they'll have a pretty good idea what to expect. They should adjust well to the routine.

The Controversy Over Desecrating The American Flag

There has been a lot of controversy across the USA about the new fad called the Eric Sheppard Challenge - the challenge for people to walk on the American flag in disrespect of our nation, support for a wanted college student who associates with the New Black Panther party and, frankly, sheer idiocy.

By walking on our flag these people seem to think they're protesting white privilege. What they're really doing is disrespecting the very nation and laws that give them the freedom to say and do whatever they wish - good or bad, right or wrong.

Most people in the United States, particularly those who have worn the uniform of our armed services, do not sympathize with these "protesters" nor respect their actions. In fact - most of us who have served see this as a treasonous act that should be punishable by imprisonment, at the very least.

These people wan sympathy and support for their cause (whatever that is - it's difficult to understand) but they go about it by disrespecting America and her people. Their actions gain about as much support as those of the protesters in Ferguson and Baltimore, who seek to gain sympathy through arson and looting. It makes no sense whatsoever and doesn't really conjure up a lot of sympathy.

But is it legal?

There has been controversy over this topic for a long, long time. In 1907 , the first case concerning disrespect for the flag made it to the Supreme Court. In the case of Halter v. Nebraska, the state of Nebraska had prohibited two businessmen from selling beer with an American flag on the label. They sued and lost. They appealed and lost. The case made it to the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the state. Over the years 48 of the 57 - sorry, my bad 50 states passed laws against desecrating or burning the American flag.

In 1931 the Supreme Court took a step toward making the flag a free speech item when they struck down a California law that made it illegal to display a red flag as a sign of protest against the government.

In 1968, Congress passed the Federal Flag Desecration Law after Vietnam protesters began regularly burning flags in protest to the war. That law was in effect until 1989, when the Supreme Court heard the case of Spence v. Washington, in which they ruled it was legal for a person to use tape to put a peace sign on an American flag. The court majority decided that this type of action was protected as free expression, offensive or not.

Another case that brought about a Supreme Court decision allowing the desecration of the flag was Texas vs Johnson. In 1984, in protest of the administrative policies of then-President Ronald Reagan, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas, Texas, City Hall. He was promptly arrested and convicted and was sentenced to one year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Johnson appealed. Johnson, claiming First Amendment rights, appealed the decision and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in his favor and said Johnson's freedom of speech was symbolic.

Then Texas appealed. The case made it to the Supreme Court, who ruled 5-4, in 1989, that Johnson's actions were indeed symbolic of free speech whether or not they were offensive to others.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision.

“The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result,” Kennedy said. “And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases."

“Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt,” he said.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the dissent saying “the flag is not simply another ‘idea’ or ‘point of view’ competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.”

“I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag,” Rehnquist said.

Congress moved immediately to pass the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which made it illegal for citizens to burn an American flag in protest.

But the Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional with Justice William Brennan saying “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

So far the Supreme Court has held that people do have the right to desecrate our flag if they wish. I don't like it much but it's the law.

The topic is still controversial. As recently as 2006 Congress attempted to pass another law against flag desecration. It failed in the Senate by one vote. I'm not sure why they believe the Supreme Court won't again strike down the law but they're still trying.

As a military veteran, a 30 year employee of the federal government and a patriot who loves my country, if I see someone walking on our flag I will most likely be going to jail. Because I'm going to do my best to take that flag from those who would disrespect it. I served in the military to help protect your right to express your ignorance any way you wish. and I would do it again today. But I won't stand idly by and watch you do something that disrespects not only our flag but every American like me. I'll lose the case in court - as it should be since your rights are protected by law. But I'll make you think twice about it next time.

News For A Saturday

For most of the last two weeks all eyes have been focused on Baltimore, Maryland, and their horribly brutal, racist police force that kills innocent black men. The media put the story out there. Some people in Baltimore (and others who came from outside Baltimore) reacted with violence (and with the mayor's permission) and rioted, destroying property and injuring at least 15 of those dirty, dishonest cops.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has now called for the Eric Holder in a dress Loretta Lynch Justice Department to investigate her police department for a number of different problems she believes exist including excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests.

But just two months ago, before the death of Freddie Gray, President Obama and his "Task Force on 21st Century Policing" said Baltimore's police department with its black chief was doing a great job. They were "implementing national best practices for policies and training," including "use of force" reforms. The task force quoted Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts, who said he changed "outdated procedures" that "put officers at odds with the community."

Either Mayor Rawlings-Blake didn't get the Memo or the changes just didn't happen quickly enough it seems. I was wondering why President Obama called Mayor Rawlings-Blake when the riots kicked off. Now perhaps I know. The death of Freddie Gray and the resulting rioting made him look bad. After all - he had just praised the Baltimore PD for being an example to follow and look what they went and did. How dare they have an incident that makes them look like they're not as good as he said they were!

In other news, anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller is being attacked by the media and political pundits - even some on the right, for holding a free speech rally in Garland, Texas, where two Muslim terrorists showed up with semi-automatic rifles and began shooting. The theme for the rally was "Draw Your Best Mohammed Cartoon," in shear defiance of the Muslim terrorists who shot up Charlie Hebdo Magazine in Paris a few months ago. Geller was not only  exercising her right to free speech but telling the terrorists she and the others were not going to be intimidated by them or anyone else when it came to free speech. Personally, I applaud her for that and agree with her wholeheartedly.

There are those who say that Pam Geller caused the terrorists to attack; that she brought it on herself because of her actions. That's frighteningly similar to those who say that a woman who is raped brought it on herself because of the way she was dressed. We have the right to express ourselves in this country without fear of being killed. At least we used to. Now it seems if you criticize Islam or draw a cartoon of Mohammed that offends Muslims some of your fellow Americans think it's OK for the Muslims to kill you. After all - you offended the Muslims.

Of course, those who say that don't care one way or the other if your Christian beliefs are insulted or if someone makes fun of Jesus Christ. That's somehow different in their eyes. But then - Christians don't run around killing people who disagree with them. If they did perhaps those same people would tell others not to criticize or insult Christians and their beliefs.

The amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech was only necessary to preserve the right to offend others. If no one ever said anything that offended or insulted others the change to the Constitution would not have been necessary. But the founders knew that ultimately, if it was not a law, sooner or later the government would step in and prevent people from saying what they wanted - particularly about the government itself.

Every American has the right to disagree with, criticize, insult and/or draw cartoons of Muslims, Mohammed, the Pope, Jesus, the President, or anyone else. That's the law. And those Americans who criticize Pam Geller instead of the terrorists who would kill her for making fun of Mohammed are... how do I say it...  misguided idiots. 

By the way - I know the meme above isn't quite accurate since the police officer who killed the terrorists wasn't carrying a weapon because of the Second Amendment but because he was on duty. But you get the idea...