Posted on

TABLES TURNED: Protesters Show Up Outside Maxine Waters’ Home To Harass HER

While I don’t really care for any form of harassment, this is funny and ironic.

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

Two days after President Donald Trump warned unhinged Rep. Maxine Waters to “be careful what you wish for,” protesters congregated outside the California moonbat’s home to give her a taste of her own pro-harassment medicine.

Watch, and be prepared to laugh:

LOL!

The protests reportedly occurred Tuesday evening, only days after the left-wing lunatic began calling for her constituents to harass and intimidate Trump administration officials.

Here’s a reminder of what that looked like:

In response, the president tweeted, “Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!”

Look:

And now, wouldn’t you know it, the California Democrat is getting a taste of her own medicine. Sad!

In an ideal world, nobody would harass others, particularly over mere political disagreements. But since we live in an unideal world brimming with left-wing insanity and irrationality, you can’t be surprised when some conservatives decide to give the left a taste of its own medicine.

Note that this harassment, which I don’t sanction, comes less than a week after White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was booted from a Virginia restaurant by a liberal manager, Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was driven out of a restaurant near the White House by angry liberal protesters and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was driven out a film screening for “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” by unhinged leftist protesters.

While I’m not too fond of the notion that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” (principles say that one side should strive to BE BETTER), I can’t help but bluntly ask Maxine Waters, how ya like them apples!?

H/T The Liberty Daily (best news source for conservative news, bar none!)

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Posted on

Extreme Poverty Has Dropped From 94% of World Pop. to 9.6% Thanks to Capitalism

Capitalism improves people’s lives and has changed the world for the better — but you won’t find many leftists admitting it any time soon.

Instead, free-market economics are often blamed for causing the world’s ills, instead of curing them. Take one look at how close openly socialist Bernie Sanders came to being the Democrats’ nominee in the last presidential election to see that capitalism is bizarrely demonized instead of celebrated.

It’s the same story in many European countries, while even our neighbors in Mexico appear poised to elect a far-left and socialist-leaning candidate as president on July 1.

“The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer,” is the claim of anti-capitalists everywhere. But is it true?

Not according to the facts. It turns out that worldwide poverty is declining at an incredible rate, and Western-style capitalism is the main reason.

TRENDING: Former Astronaut and American Legend Buzz Aldrin Files Disturbing Lawsuit Against Children

“The speed of poverty alleviation in the last 25 years has been historically unprecedented,” explained the Foundation for Economic Education, a pro-freedom think tank.

“Not only is the proportion of people in poverty at a record low, but, in spite of adding 2 billion to the planet’s population, the overall number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen, too,” FEE continued.

The numbers speak for themselves.

“In 1820, 94 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty,” pointed out Alexander Hammond, a researcher for HumanProgress.org. “In 1990, this figure was 34.8 percent, and in 2015, just 9.6 percent.”

Do the media and liberals unfairly attack capitalism despite the evidence?

We think of the 1800s as “olden times,” but in the large scheme of history and human events, it really wasn’t that long ago.

Most of human history, if we’re being honest, was marked by poverty and suffering by the vast majority of people on Earth. Lifespans were short and existence was brutal. Death, frustration, and sadness was the norm, not the exception.

Just 200 years ago, almost all of the world’s population was resigned to live in poverty with no way out. There were a handful of elites — mainly the aristocracy — who were able to live relatively well, but even that “luxury” living was rough and uncomfortable by our modern standards.

Then something changed — capitalism spurred advancement, and it wasn’t limited to just the elite.

“In the last quarter century, more than 1.25 billion people escaped extreme poverty. That equates to over 138,000 people being lifted out of poverty every day,” FEE explained. “If it takes you five minutes to read this article, another 480 people will have escaped the shackles of extreme of poverty by the time you finish.”

RELATED: Feminist Bookstore Closes From Lack of Sales, Blames White Men

“In order to help the poorest, consider the impact free-market capitalism has had in the last 200 years in alleviating extreme poverty,” the foundation continued. “The Industrial Revolution turned the once-impoverished Western countries into abundant societies. The new age of globalization, which started around 1980, saw the developing world enter the global economy and resulted in the largest escape from poverty ever recorded.”

To put it simply, the rich may be getting richer … but the poor are also getting richer.

The foundation pointed to India as a prime example of how Western principles and capitalism are accelerating people out of poverty at a rate that is historically unprecedented.

“Since its economic liberalization reforms in 1991, India’s average income has increased by 7.5 percent per year,” FEE explained. “That means that average income has more than tripled over the last quarter century. As wealth increased, the poverty rate in India declined by almost 24 percent.”

“It is the people at the very bottom of the social strata who are getting richer faster,” the foundation summarized.

At a time when it’s in vogue to bash capitalism and embrace disastrous socialism, it’s important to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Life is getting dramatically, measurably better in almost every part of the world, and Western capitalist principles are at the center of that renaissance.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Posted on

Schumer Demands Congress Wait Until After Midterm Elections to Confirm Kennedy Replacement (VIDEO)

Schumer Demands Congress Wait Until After Midterm Elections to Confirm Kennedy Replacement (VIDEO)

Cristina Laila
by Cristina Laila
June 27, 2018


Cryin Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he will be retiring from the bench at the end of July.

Kennedy, 81, has been a noted swing vote on the court with his decisions often determine the deciding vote on a court split 4 to 4 between liberals and conservatives even though he was considered a conservative, having been appointed by President Reagan in 1987.

President Trump is reportedly choosing Justice Kennedy’s replacement from a list of 25 judges – the same list he chose Justice Neil Gorsuch from last year.

ABC News reported President Trump’s teams intends to push to get a nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy confirmed before the midterm elections.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer immediately pushed back on Trump’s plan to get his nominee to replace Justice Kennedy confirmed before the midterm elections.

Schumer demanded Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) abide by the ‘Biden Rule’ when deciding to confirm a Supreme Court Justice.

The ‘Biden Rule’ essentially calls for confirmations to be halted during an election year.

McConnell cited the ‘Biden Rule’ when deciding not to consider Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, before the 2016 election. Thankfully, McConnell opened the door for Justice Neil Gorsuch to be nominated by President Trump.

The Republicans should not acquiesce to the Democrats’ demands. Confirm President Trump’s next Justice nominee as soon as possible.

Schumer laughably said if the Senate confirms a Justice during the election year, it would be the “height of hypocrisy.”

Presidential election years are different from midterm election years. Obama’s second SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan was confirmed in August of 2010, an election year.

VIDEO:

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

SCOTUS ruling on Janus is about to change the American political landscape

Justice Alito wrote the decision and it followed along with the expectations of those who watched the case play out before the court. Also as expected, this was a 5-4 decision, split along partisan lines. At the heart of Janus was the question of whether or not unions can forcibly extract dues from workers’ paychecks without the worker proactively volunteering to contribute. In parallel to that, the court had to determine whether or not those extracted fees, being put toward lobbying efforts, constituted involuntary political speech on the part of the worker. The ruling answers both questions definitively.

You can read the full decision here but I’ve extracted a couple of the key points from the syllabus. First is the issue of whether the previous ruling in Abood (which went in the unions’ favor) erred in allowing the forcible extraction of dues. Alito leaves no room for doubt.

The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled.

The second question was the one about subsidizing the speech of others when it runs contrary to your personal beliefs. Again, Alito is definitive.

Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. E.g., West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633. That includes compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers.

A union official, Paul Shearon, the IFPTE Secretary-Treasurer, put out an immediate statement saying that this was based on, “a bogus free speech argument.” He went on to say that the justices voting in the majority “are little better than political hacks.” That was followed up by a threat to take it to the streets.

In the short run, the Janus decision may hurt some unions financially, but in the long run it will serve to make unions and their members more militant and force a stronger culture of internal organizing. The recent statewide teacher strikes demonstrate that when public sector workers face limitations on their bargaining rights they take their case to the streets.

This is going to send shockwaves through not just the unions, but the Democratic Party at large. The amount of money that the unions flush into Democratic coffers every year is likely more than most of you imagine. This was a point being driven home in advance of the decision by Hugh Hewitt this morning. He was reminding everyone precisely what this decision was going to mean to the unions if it went against them.

Liberals have been bracing for this result for a while now. Back in February, the WaPo seemed to see the writing on the wall here and tried suggesting a “compromise” where the unions could collect a smaller amount of money for a more “focused purpose.” This is a silly suggestion, of course, since money is fungible. Even if the collected dues are narrowly applied to a different purpose, that simply frees up funds to be moved over to political activism. (Which is the majority of the business the unions engage in to begin with.)

Democrats were predicting a “fiscal crisis” if Janus prevailed. (Of course, it’s primarily just a fiscal crisis for the unions.) How serious that crisis becomes won’t be known for some time. But the important point is that a new precedent has been set and workers are still free to join unions or make voluntary, proactive payments to them if they feel it’s a worthy cause. But the unions will no longer be able to reach into their pockets without permission.

The post SCOTUS ruling on Janus is about to change the American political landscape appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Posted on

Primary defeat of fourth-ranking House Democrat a portent of the radical left takeover of the Democratic Party

The architecture of the 20th-century Democratic Party is slowly dissolving before our eyes, as identity politics and socialism replace the old center-left coalition.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Bernie Sanders organizer and endorsee of the Democratic Socialists of America, resoundingly defeated Rep. Joe Crowley, a ten-term incumbent who hadn’t faced a primary opponent in 14 years, and who spent at least ten times as much money in the race.



Ocasio-Cortez’s face at her campaign victory party reveals the extent of the shock:



Ocasio-Cortez will almost certainly win election to the House in November, running in a district that gave 78% of its vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is 49.8% Hispanic and about one fifth white.  She will replace Minnesota’s Keith Ellison as the radical socialist-identity politics standard-bearer in Congress.




(Via New York Times.)


Crowley was an old-style machine boss and, like Nancy Pelosi, an insider’s insider. New York Daily News quipped:


The King of Queens has been dethroned. …


[A]s the head of the Queens County machine, he is essentially the definition of a candidate with all of the institutional support.  He had raised $3.35 million in the race – compared with just over $300,000 raised by Ocasio-Cortez.


Among those New Yorkers absorbing the shock this morning is Democratic incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo:


On hand at her victory party was Cynthia Nixon – who is hoping to pull off a similar upset against Gov. Cuomo in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in September.


“She ran an amazing campaign.  She really spoke to her community,” Nixon said.  “If you give them the chance, they will embrace a female leader who really speaks to them.  If you give them a chance, they will buck the status quo.  They will elect a female leader who will really speak to them.”


The New York Post agrees on the magnitude of the shock:


Crowley’s defeat is a political earthquake in New York City politics where political machines dominate low-turnout elections and incumbents often go unchallenged. …


Ocasio-Cortez was endorsed by the New York City Democratic Socialists of America and recently told Vogue she was a member of the group because: “When we talk about the word socialism, I think what it really means is just democratic participation in our economic dignity, and our economic, social, and racial dignity.”


Such piffle about socialism is shocking from a Spanish-speaker who should know what socialism has done to Venezuela, where people literally are starving in the country with the world’s largest oil reserves.


A comparison of Crowley’s defeat to that of Eric Cantor, also a member of his party’s congressional leadership, is reasonable.  Both incumbents grew out of touch with their constituents and focused on internal party politics and maneuvering.  CNN quoted Ocasio-Cortez harping on one theme similar to that used by Rep. Dave Brat to defeat Cantor:


“This is not an end, this is the beginning.  This is the beginning because the message that we sent the world tonight is that it’s not OK to put donors before your community,” Ocasio-Cortez told roaring supporters on Tuesday night.


Crowley also made a huge error in declining to participate in a debate with his challenger.  Bridget Bowman in Roll Call:


[Crowley] had received criticism from back home last week.  The New York Times published a scathing editorial criticizing him for skipping a debate with his opponent.  The pair had debated days before, and met again for a debate shortly after the editorial published. 


Ocasio-Cortez said in a phone interview last week that her campaign had caught fire in the final weeks leading up to the primary.  She was backed by national liberal groups including MoveOn.org and Democracy for America.


Like Brat, she focused on grassroots organizing and was not taken seriously by the party establishment.


From the beginning, her campaign was focused on field organizing.  She said she shocked local leaders when she turned in more than 5,000 petition signatures, roughly four times the required amount.


“I don’t think I’ve been actively dissuaded by any political operative,” Ocasio-Cortez said of challenging Crowley.  “But largely it’s because nobody took me seriously until it was too late.”


She said she also benefited from supporters across the country phone-banking and writing postcards to voters in the district.  Ocasio-Cortez said her campaign had five core staffers and a couple of hundred volunteers.


Bowman also points out the explicitly racialist appeal she made:


A video detailing her story caught some attention, in which she pointed out that the district’s representation did not reflect its majority-minority population.  The district is 49 percent Hispanic, 9 percent African-American, 16 percent Asian-American, and 22 percent white.


Ocasio-Cortez, like President Trump, did not spend money on the old guard political consultants and had a lean campaign.  She also has a good visual sense, as her campaign graphics were striking and appealed to non-English speakers:



As a visually striking, young embodiment of the New Democratic Party of minorities seeking socialism while denying the reality of its practice, Ocasio-Cortez will attract national attention in the campaign and when she is seated in Congress.  In the immediate prospect, she may help the GOP.  But if her version of the Democratic Party ever holds power, God save the United States.


The architecture of the 20th-century Democratic Party is slowly dissolving before our eyes, as identity politics and socialism replace the old center-left coalition.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Bernie Sanders organizer and endorsee of the Democratic Socialists of America, resoundingly defeated Rep. Joe Crowley, a ten-term incumbent who hadn’t faced a primary opponent in 14 years, and who spent at least ten times as much money in the race.


Ocasio-Cortez’s face at her campaign victory party reveals the extent of the shock:



Ocasio-Cortez will almost certainly win election to the House in November, running in a district that gave 78% of its vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is 49.8% Hispanic and about one fifth white.  She will replace Minnesota’s Keith Ellison as the radical socialist-identity politics standard-bearer in Congress.




(Via New York Times.)


Crowley was an old-style machine boss and, like Nancy Pelosi, an insider’s insider. New York Daily News quipped:


The King of Queens has been dethroned. …


[A]s the head of the Queens County machine, he is essentially the definition of a candidate with all of the institutional support.  He had raised $3.35 million in the race – compared with just over $300,000 raised by Ocasio-Cortez.


Among those New Yorkers absorbing the shock this morning is Democratic incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo:


On hand at her victory party was Cynthia Nixon – who is hoping to pull off a similar upset against Gov. Cuomo in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in September.


“She ran an amazing campaign.  She really spoke to her community,” Nixon said.  “If you give them the chance, they will embrace a female leader who really speaks to them.  If you give them a chance, they will buck the status quo.  They will elect a female leader who will really speak to them.”


The New York Post agrees on the magnitude of the shock:


Crowley’s defeat is a political earthquake in New York City politics where political machines dominate low-turnout elections and incumbents often go unchallenged. …


Ocasio-Cortez was endorsed by the New York City Democratic Socialists of America and recently told Vogue she was a member of the group because: “When we talk about the word socialism, I think what it really means is just democratic participation in our economic dignity, and our economic, social, and racial dignity.”


Such piffle about socialism is shocking from a Spanish-speaker who should know what socialism has done to Venezuela, where people literally are starving in the country with the world’s largest oil reserves.


A comparison of Crowley’s defeat to that of Eric Cantor, also a member of his party’s congressional leadership, is reasonable.  Both incumbents grew out of touch with their constituents and focused on internal party politics and maneuvering.  CNN quoted Ocasio-Cortez harping on one theme similar to that used by Rep. Dave Brat to defeat Cantor:


“This is not an end, this is the beginning.  This is the beginning because the message that we sent the world tonight is that it’s not OK to put donors before your community,” Ocasio-Cortez told roaring supporters on Tuesday night.


Crowley also made a huge error in declining to participate in a debate with his challenger.  Bridget Bowman in Roll Call:


[Crowley] had received criticism from back home last week.  The New York Times published a scathing editorial criticizing him for skipping a debate with his opponent.  The pair had debated days before, and met again for a debate shortly after the editorial published. 


Ocasio-Cortez said in a phone interview last week that her campaign had caught fire in the final weeks leading up to the primary.  She was backed by national liberal groups including MoveOn.org and Democracy for America.


Like Brat, she focused on grassroots organizing and was not taken seriously by the party establishment.


From the beginning, her campaign was focused on field organizing.  She said she shocked local leaders when she turned in more than 5,000 petition signatures, roughly four times the required amount.


“I don’t think I’ve been actively dissuaded by any political operative,” Ocasio-Cortez said of challenging Crowley.  “But largely it’s because nobody took me seriously until it was too late.”


She said she also benefited from supporters across the country phone-banking and writing postcards to voters in the district.  Ocasio-Cortez said her campaign had five core staffers and a couple of hundred volunteers.


Bowman also points out the explicitly racialist appeal she made:


A video detailing her story caught some attention, in which she pointed out that the district’s representation did not reflect its majority-minority population.  The district is 49 percent Hispanic, 9 percent African-American, 16 percent Asian-American, and 22 percent white.


Ocasio-Cortez, like President Trump, did not spend money on the old guard political consultants and had a lean campaign.  She also has a good visual sense, as her campaign graphics were striking and appealed to non-English speakers:



As a visually striking, young embodiment of the New Democratic Party of minorities seeking socialism while denying the reality of its practice, Ocasio-Cortez will attract national attention in the campaign and when she is seated in Congress.  In the immediate prospect, she may help the GOP.  But if her version of the Democratic Party ever holds power, God save the United States.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

O-BUMMER: Even South Africans Want NOTHING To Do With Barack Hussein O.

Sucks to be you, bro.

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

Thanks to an invitation from the Nelson Mandela Foundation, former President Barack Hussein Obama is slated to travel to South Africa next month to deliver a speech to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the anti-apartheid revolutionary’s birth.

There’s just one problem: Some South Africans want nothing to do with him because of his administration’s “War on Terror.”

In an open letter sent earlier this month, the Cage Africa advocacy organization accused Obama of being a warmonger whose administration oversaw the “torture, arbitrary imprisonment and rendition, and extrajudicial killings through indiscriminate drone and air attacks” of “thousands of innocent” Africans.

“Giving this man a platform would be tantamount to condoning the commission of the
international crimes linked to him and his administration,” the organization wrote.

“Obama himself has even conceded that he took the lives of innocents and yet neither
he nor his administration has taken a step to apologise or compensate the victims of his
army’s killing sprees, torture programme or rendition networks. None of them have been
held accountable. Such arrogance is reminiscent of our apartheid abusers, and your
Foundation surely cannot condone this.”

Obama arrogant!? What you talkin’ ’bout, Willis!?

Cage Africa Letter To Nelson Mandela Foundation About Barack Obama by Vivek Saxena on Scribd

Oumar Ba, a professor of international relations in Atlanta, told the media that Obama would be remembered for “the militarization of US foreign policy on the African continent, his use of drones, his immigration policy and his disastrous intervention in Libya.”

And also for having the tendency to lecture the African people, according to Al Jazeera:

In a 2015 speech at the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia, Obama called on some of the continent’s elder statesmen to step down. But critics said the president of the US had “no moral right to lecture Africans”, dismissing what they said appeared to be a tone-deaf message given his country’s continued support for some of the continent’s autocratic leaders.

“Obama pursued the same predatory and criminal policies that provoked international anger and hatred under his predecessor George W Bush,” Ibrahim Vawda, of the South Africa-based Media Review Network, said in a statement also calling the Nelson Mandela Foundation to withdraw its invitation.

“His stated theme of promoting ‘democracy’ in Africa was absurd and hypocritical.”

Na’eem Jeenah, the director of the Johannesburg-based Afro-Middle East Centre (AMEC), told Al Jazeera that he expects the opposition to Obama’s speech to grow as July approaches.

“The argument is that Obama, through his actions as president, most certainly does not represent Mandela’s legacy … [and] the past decade of Obama’s life does not suggest to us that he has the credentials to talk about renewing Mandela’s legacy or that he has been active in promoting active citizenship — either in his own country or abroad,” he said.

“At the very least, they [critics] believe that the speaker, especially on Mandela’s 100th birthday, should be someone who actually does represent Mandela’s legacy, and it should preferably be an African,” he added.

H/T The_Donald

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Posted on

CNN Touts Town With All Black Criminal Justice System, But There’s One Glaring Problem

Uh oh …………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

CNN ran a story over the weekend about a Georgia town where eight black women “hold the reigns of power.” Why does anyone care that black women happen to command political power in this town? Beats me …

Especially since the composition of South Fulton’s judicial system makes perfect since given the town’s demographics: Almost 90 percent of its residents are black. So of course blacks comprise the majority of its government!

Nevertheless, CNN and a boatload of other outlets enthusiastically ran stories about these eight women and how they run their court system. Much like former President Barack Obama, they strongly believe in leniency for suspected criminals:

So is justice really any different in South Fulton compared to the rest of the country, where it’s mostly meted out by white men?

Yes, the women say. Being both black and female means they see things a little bit differently. Being black means they have empathy for many of the defendants who end up in police custody or appear in the courtroom, and they understand the fear that the criminal justice system will be biased against them because of the color of their skin.

They also say that as women they are natural nurturers, so they care deeply about the citizens they meet and want to help them succeed in life.

Does anyone else find it disturbing that these powerful women believe in glaring lies about America’s criminal justice system? Or that they assume white courtroom officials lack empathy?

As Manhattan Institute fellow and criminal justice expert Heather Mac Donald noted back in 2008, “The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.”

Speaking in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee seven years later, Mac Donald again reiterated this point, saying, “The most dangerous misconception about our criminal justice system is that it is pervaded by racial bias.”

“For decades, criminologists have tried to find evidence for that bias, and they have always come up short. In fact, racial differences in criminal offending account for all of the racial disproportionality of blacks in prison.”

Fast-forward to the 2:03:00 mark below if you want to hear her for yourself:

The eight women who run South Fulton clearly believe otherwise, and I suspect this could potentially be a problem.

Mind you, interim police chief Sheila Rogers is adamant “that being black and a woman doesn’t change the way she enforces the law,” according to CNN. “But she believes her empathic point of view and nurturing tendencies do influence how she treats people, and that trickles down through her 91-person department.”

But is policing about being empathetic or about enforcing the law? And what about courtroom justice — is it about being empathetic or is it about doling out proper justice?

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com