Archive for the ‘Obama and crime’ category

« WarSclerotic home page

Obama’s Obscene Exploitation of the Dallas Massacre

July 13, 2016

Obama’s Obscene Exploitation of the Dallas Massacre, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 13, 2016

Obama obscene

Not only had Obama’s actions led to the murder of police officers, but he was determined to whitewash their deaths and exploit them as weapons in his war against the police.

****************************8

In Dallas, Obama mentioned the name of dead sex offender Alton Sterling more times than those of the murdered police officers whom he was pretending to memorialize. After quickly dispensing with the formalities of eulogizing the slain officers, Obama demanded that “even those who dislike the phrase ‘black lives matter’” should “be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family”.

Alton Sterling was a convicted sex offender, burglar and violent criminal who was shot while reaching for a gun. His family may mourn him, just as every criminal’s family mourns their own, but it was obscene to class him together with five police officers who were murdered by a violent racist while doing their duty.

It is even more obscene when Obama’s favorite sex offender displaces the murdered police officers.

And yet that was Obama’s theme in Dallas. Murdered police officers were contrasted with dead criminals. The proper thing for Americans to do, as Obama told us, was to mourn both officers and criminals, to respect the sacrifices of the police and the anti-police accusations of #BlackLivesMatter.

Obama did not come to Dallas to mourn the murdered police officers, but to defend the ideology that took their lives. And this is what he has done from the very beginning.

Before the shootings, Obama expressed his “condolences for the families of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile” and insisted that the criminal justice system was racist. His statements and speeches after the shootings echoed the same talking points and spin complete with the claims that accusing the police of racism is “not to be against law enforcement”.

“When people say ‘Black Lives Matter,’ that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter”, he famously said.

That’s true. Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean that blue lives don’t matter. It means that blue lives are evil. As Ta-Nehisi Coates, an author on Obama’s reading list, wrote of the dead police officers who gave their lives on September 11, “They were not human to me.” That’s the kindest thing that the black nationalists whose cause Obama has championed have said of the police.

In a more recent article titled, “The Near Certainty of Anti-Police Violence”, the MacArthur Genius Grant recipient and son of a Black Panther suggests that black resentment of police makes their murder predictable.

“Sanctimonious cries of nonviolence will not help,” Coates writes. “The extent to which we are tolerant of the possibility of more Walter Scotts and Freddie Grays is the extent to which we are tolerant of the possibility of more Micah Xavier Johnsons.”

It’s the core black nationalist message made more palatable for liberal audiences. Underneath the word games, the attempt to treat the ideological justifications for the mass murder of police as inevitable, is the same message delivered by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, the #BlackLivesMatter supporter who assassinated two NYPD officers, who had posted, “They take 1 of ours…Let’s take 2 of theirs”.

Obama’s message was even more polished than Coates, but not really so very different. Coates had polished up the radical black nationalist message for liberal audiences. Obama’s speechwriters shaped his for a national audience. But underneath the religiosity and praise of the police was sheer contempt.

In one of the nastily cynical moments, Obama claimed that “to honor these five outstanding officers who we lost” we would have to act on “uncomfortable” truths such as his claim that the police are racist. “Insisting we do better to root out racial bias is not an attack on cops, but an effort to live up to our highest ideals,” he spun.

While the media applauded his “healing”, Obama was just recycling his speeches from before the Dallas shooting. The talking points had not changed. They had only been moved around a little to exploit the police officers murdered by a #BlackLivesMatter supporter in order to promote #BlackLivesMatter.

Indeed this had always been Obama’s first and foremost priority.

After the shooting, his initial response was to emphasize that the anti-police protests were “peaceful”. At Dallas, in his praise of the police officers, he insisted on inserting that same description of a “peaceful” protest “in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota”. The choice of words, ‘killing’ rather than ‘death’, is significant.

The “shootings in Minnesota and Baton Rouge” were equated with the murders of police officers in Dallas in a breathtaking bit of moral equivalence. Americans were encouraged to grieve for sex offender Alton Sterling and the murdered police officers at the same time. And, just in case there was any ambiguity about which side he was on, Obama warned that “we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.”

It was a defense of #BlackLivesMatter at a memorial for their victims.

Obama’s spin was that he was calling for unity when in reality he was pushing the divisive agenda of the hate group whose rhetoric helped lead to the killings. He was not a healer, but an arsonist.

There was nothing unifying about his exploitation of a memorial service to push anti-cop messages or to call for gun control. Neither message is in any way, shape or form unifying. They are as divisive as can be.

Obama did not come to Dallas to mourn, to heal or to unify. His sole purpose was to protect his #BlackLivesMatter hate group from the consequences of its rhetoric. Americans were fed lies about peaceful protests featuring armed members of hate groups who had called for the murder of police.

#BlackLivesMatter draws its inspiration from a cop-killer. It has deliberately targeted white people in much the same fashion that Micah X. Johnson did. The only real difference between Johnson and the black nationalist hate groups frantically trying to distance themselves from him in much the same way that mosques do from the latest Islamic terrorist is that he followed through on a lot of their rhetoric.

Johnson was not trying to get a job writing Black Panther comics or making YouTube videos. He actually did the sort of thing that #BlackLivesMatter role models like Assata Shakur did. He killed police officers.

For Obama, Dallas was a bump in the black nationalist road. It was, like every Islamic terrorist attack, an unfortunate incident from which we shouldn’t draw any conclusions, except perhaps that guns are bad. The goal is to redirect our attention to the next set of #BlackLivesMatter protests or the next celebrity tweeting about gun control and how mean those men with guns who aren’t on their payroll are.

He did not come to Dallas to praise the dead, but to enlist them in the service of his anti-police agenda.

Not only had Obama’s actions led to the murder of police officers, but he was determined to whitewash their deaths and exploit them as weapons in his war against the police.

Categories: Black Lives Matter, Dallas killing of police, Obama and Black Lives Matter, Obama and crime, Obama and police, Obama and racism, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

American Fascists and delicate little snowflakes

March 26, 2016

American Fascists and delicate little snowflakes, Dan Miller’s Blog, March 26, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Fascists want to take away our freedom of speech. So do the delicate little snowflakes infesting our institutions of “higher learning.” How much worse will it get over the next few years? Substantially worse, I fear.

In the above video, Bill Whittle recounts numerous Fascist attempts to shut down those with different ideas. I’ll not repeat what he says. Instead, I’ll point out a few other Fascist efforts.

Islamist Fascists

In line with its “misconception” that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, the Obama administration has consistently courted the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which do everything they can to shut down all discussion of whether Islam is peaceful and tolerant and whether it should change. The Obama administration, following its lead, has ignored Muslim voices for reform.

What does Hillary Clinton think? Apparently that Islam is fine the way it is.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a different view.

220px-ayaan-hirsi-ali-vvd-nl-1200x1600

As I noted here, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim. She had been scheduled to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University in April of 2014. However,

Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty.

The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.

“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” [Emphasis added.]

Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”

Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree.

. . . .

More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of Tuesday afternoon.

“This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.

“But it’s not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs,” she said. “A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.” [Emphasis added.]

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also got into the act:

“It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views.”

The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.

“This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. “They feel unwelcome here.” [Emphasis added.]

On September 15, Hirsi Ali spoke at Yale University. The usual suspects did not want her to speak.

WFB Program president Rich Lizardo tells the story of events that followed the WFB Program’s public announcement of the event in the Yale Daily News column “We invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak at Yale–and outrage ensued.”

Following the public announcement, the Muslim Students Association at Yale went through its usual routine, first seeking to have Ms. Hirsi Ali disinvited (though it disputes this), then to limit the subject matter of her speech, then to impose conditions on her speech that would stigmatize her. In the spirit of WFB himself, Lizardo stood firm.

The MSA routine worked at Brandeis; at Yale, not so much. Not this time.

Poor delicate little snowflakes. Isn’t it a shame that they might be exposed to new ideas that are alien to them? That they were not required to attend and listen to those ideas is, apparently, inconsequential. They did not anyone to listen to them.

Here’s a video of her remarks. The introductions are a trifle long and add little value. The questions she was asked at the end and her answers are, however, interesting. They begin at 55 minutes into the video.

When I posted the video here, I observed that

She seemed to be speaking less to the “choir” and more to a broader audience which she was trying to convince. To that end, she was as conciliatory as she could be without abandoning her thesis that Islam is the religion of repression, submission and death, not peace; that it is highly dangerous to Western civilization, including our concepts of freedom and democracy. “Radical” Islam is rising, becoming even worse and it must be defeated.

Even to try to defeat Islam, we need to defeat the increasing efforts to eliminate freedom of speech at home in favor of speech that is politically and multiculturally correct and therefore not free. [Emphasis added.]

On April 7, 2015, Hirsi Ali spoke at the National Press Club. Here’s a video of her remarks on the Clash of Civilizations, largely based on her book Heretic, which I later reviewed here. There, she writes optimistically of the possibility (but not the probability) of an Islamic revolution, someday.

There is a clash of civilizations. Muslims in Western countries generally refuse to help the police prevent Islamic terror attacks, such as recently occurred in Brussels.

There is a reason why Israel razes the homes of terrorists. It is because Israelis know that a terrorist cannot plot and carry out an attack without the knowledge and help of his or her immediate relatives, and further, the entire community. Punitive home demolition is meant to serve as a deterrent, the idea being that a would-be terrorist’s family will fear losing their home and thus persuade him or her against the attack.

In fact, knowing that it “takes a village” to aid and abet a terrorist is precisely why the terrorists responsible for the Paris and recent Brussels bombings could operate “right under the noses” of their victims. And it is why some are calling for heightened scrutiny of Muslim communities across the West, and right here in the U.S., despite cries of Islamophobia.

The MailOnline reports that police in Molenbeek — a district known for spawning jihadis like the France and Brussels attackers — have pleaded with local Muslims for help in finding the terror suspects only to have their pleas rebuffed.

Western nations which welcome and care for them are spit upon. “See something, say something” did not work before the San Bernardino Islamic attack. Perhaps those who saw something but said nothing remained silent because they feared being characterized as Islamophobes.

Here is a recent video of an interview with a teenage Yazidi girl who escaped the Islamic State. Is Islam the religion of peace and respect for females? For people of other religions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhFcV3Q2ejM

In the unlikely event that any delicate little snowflakes watch it, will they be offended by its presence on You Tube, by the “lies” told by the Yazidi girl or by the truth of her statements?

Multicultural Fascists

Europe has many multicultural Fascists and Obama’s America has fewer. However, those who propagate the multicultural fantasy are winning. In the past, we sought immigrants who brought with them cultures compatible with ours. Now, Obama demands that we accept immigrants whose cultures of violence, drugs, gangs, crime and the like are not compatible. We have sanctuary cities where gang, other violence and drug smuggling and use are endemic. Although state efforts to enforce Federal immigration laws which the Obama administration refuses to enforce have been struck down by the judiciary, the Obama administration somewhat impotently challenged the sanctuary cities this year, only following pressure from the Congress.

Here is a video of remarks made by Victor Davis Hanson about one year ago on the travesty of “illiberal illegal immigration.” Illegal immigration breeds illegality across the board.

https://vimeo.com/122160603

A transcript of his remarks is available here. Here’s just a short snippet:

[I]t’s a controversial topic.  If I had said to you 20 years ago, 10 years ago, we’re going to get in a situation in the United States where 160,000 people are going to arrive at the border and break immigration law and we’re going to let them all in at once without any prior check, medical histories, you would think I was a right-wing conspiracist.  If I had said to you, we’re going to have a president who is going to not only nullify existing federal immigration law, but on 22 occasions prior to that nullification warn us that he couldn’t nullify it, or, if I had said, he’s not only going to nullify federal immigration law, which he said would be unconstitutional, but that he is going to punish members of ICE, the border patrol, who follow existing law rather than his own unlawful existing order, I could go on, but you’d all think this was surreal, Orwellian, it couldn’t happen.  Yet that’s the status quo as we look at it today.

Our borders are worse than porous; they are open and little effort is being made to keep criminals, drug dealers, gang members and other violent people out. While Obama has many “top” priorities, doing that is not among them.

As noted in a post at American Thinker,

Cultures are either consciously abandoned, or consciously enforced. The theory of multiculturalism has always been a tonic for simpletons, since it celebrates the perpetuation and imposition of an incompatible culture, still being practiced by those who carry it, upon a host culture with which it is mutually exclusive. Multiculturalism is entirely subversive. It is intended to force one or more cultures upon the hosts who do not want or need them. Since both cultures cannot successfully coexist within the host, which has its own successful working culture, the purpose of the exercise has always been fraudulent. The “melting pot” concept worked not because of the concept of multiculturalism, but as testament against it. Those who came here in our parents’ and grandparents’ generation consciously chose to abandon the cultures they left in favor of the American culture. They became Americans, embracing one culture.

If one was being less generous than to call multiculturalism a tonic for simpletons, it would be more accurate to say that modern leftist multiculturalism is actually a weapon. Its purpose is not to enhance the host, but to consume it. If the host’s culture is peaceful, it has no use for malcontents who insist upon the dominance of their native culture. Malcontents, in the form of angry and entitled guests, foment chaos and disorder. And yet, the leftists insist that we demonstrate our cultural superiority by abandoning the superiority of our own culture and importing incompatible languages, traditions, practices, and morals.

Here’s a snapshot of our current Southern border by Sharyl Attkisson:

Conclusions

The delicate little snowflakes who demand safe spaces from reality in what were once institutions of higher learning seem to be increasing in number. They are our next generation and will soon begin to elect those with whose milquetoast views they agree. It will be a sad day for America when our nation mirrors those “educational” institutions. Solutions? I have none to offer, other than the development of backbones by their university administrators and teachers; perhaps even by their own parents. Perhaps some little snowflakes will be told, “If you don’t want to be exposed to views inconsistent with those you already hold, don’t come here.”

Living in America should be an honor not granted those who despise and abuse her by coming illegally, by illegally bringing crime and violence or by supporting those who do. Falsely characterizing Islam as the religion of peace and tolerance should not be “who we are” as Obama claims. Most of us are not deluded fools, I hope.

Oh well. Somehow we got Obama as the Commander in Chief. Twice.

This message was posted just eight days before the recent Islamic attack in Brussels, Belgium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNXmQQSSp0

 

Categories: Academia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brussels terror attack, CAIR, Europe, Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, Iran - human rights, Islam - the religion of war, Islam and girls, Islam and human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamic reformation, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Mecca Islam, Medina Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and crime, Obama and Islam, Obama's America, Reform Islam, Saudi Arabia, Sisi, Supporting Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Behind the anti-Trump Disruptors, the Fine Hands of Alinsky and Obama

March 21, 2016

Behind the anti-Trump Disruptors, the Fine Hands of Alinsky and Obama, American Thinker, Jeannie DeAngelis, March 21, 2016

Recently, when disrupters showed up at a Trump rally in Chicago, the first thing that came to mind was that America’s most notorious community organizer could be the wizard behind the curtain orchestrating what was being sold as an organic occurrence.

In Saul Alinsky’s 1971 book Rules for Radicals, the late author could have been describing Obama’s last seven years in office when he wrote that an efficacious organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.”

The father of community organizing taught that once people are “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” the agitated could be directed to participate in rowdy demonstrations. By employing those techniques on the international level, Alinsky’s star pupil, Barack Obama, has successfully managed to whip up global chaos.

Back in Chicago, in the early 1980’s, Greg Galluzzo taught student Barack Obama to avoid the spotlight because the fundamental goal of a grassroots activist is to lead “indigenous” communities to believe they were taking action independently.

As 2016 election protests continue to gather steam, it appears as if Galluzzo’s street-smart pupil is having trouble hiding his preoccupation with the Republican candidates.

Granted, thus far, Obama has not acknowledged Weather Underground bomber buddy Bill Ayers protesting Trump in Chicago.  In addition, the president has been low key about Black Lives Matter Chicago leader Aislinn Pulley visiting the White House for Black History month a few weeks before #BLM shut Trump down in Chicago.

Obama has even managed to remain mum about his associations with Soros-financed MoveOn.org, Chicago’s Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the Communist Party USA, all of whom have also caused disruptions at recent Trump rallies.

In addition to some of the president’s dearest friends, the motley crew of community-organizing characters on the march also includes like-minded Bernie supporters who have promised that if Donald J. Trump wins the Republican nomination, mass civil disobedience is scheduled to take place that will make Chicago’s 1968 “Battle of Michigan Avenue” seem like a block party.

That’s why, despite a poor attempt at keeping a low profile, if Obama believes that Alinsky-style “direct action” possesses the power to keep a Republican billionaire populist or a “tea bagging” Constitutionalist out of the White House, it’s doubtful he will be able to sit back and let the skills he honed in Chicago go to waste.

After years of observing this president’s partisan bullying, one thing is certain, try as he might to hide it, over the last two terms, Barack Obama’s intrinsic dedication to Alinsky tactics has never wavered.

Remember when the New Black Panthers intimidated white voters with billy clubs at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 election?  Then, remember how the Tea Party was targeted and harassed by the IRS prior to the 2012 election?

In 2008, Saul Alinsky’s son L. David Alinsky wrote the following about his father’s most dedicated former student:

Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

That’s why, if America is fundamentally transforming into an Alinsky playground, and if prior to a public demonstration Black Lives Matter Chicago just happens to suddenly drop in on the White House, Barack Obama is a suspect.

Think of it! Every time Obama disparages a Republican candidate, he’s merely exercising the Alinsky tactic of ridicule that served him well on the Southside of Chicago.

Recently, at a St. Patrick’s Day gathering Obama had this to say:

The longer that we allow the political rhetoric of late to continue, and the longer that we tacitly accept it, we create a permission structure that allows the animosity in one corner of our politics to infect our broader society. And animosity breeds animosity.

By choosing to forgo nibbling on Irish Soda bread and discussing his Moneygall roots,  Obama turned a luncheon into an opportunity to fuel street-level strife.  By doing what comes naturally, Alinsky’s charge purposely contributed to the “vicious atmosphere” he claims to reject.

And for those who tend to compartmentalize, those St. Patrick’s Day sentiments came from a verbally vindictive pol who, when not busy stirring up international turmoil, breeds domestic animosity by depicting white Americans as religious fanatic gunslingers looking to express “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

In keeping with that line of thinking, Barack Obama habitually panders to African Americans, Latinos, young voters, and women.  By doing so, this president confirms that the principal objective of everything he says and does is directly related to organizing communities to take action on behalf of the left’s interests.

Yet despite those and other not-so-well-hidden attempts to practice street activism, Obama does seem somewhat uneasy.

Recently, at a DNC event in Austin, Texas, Barack expressed apprehension when he pointed out that “Change doesn’t happen overnight…we never get 100 percent of change.”

Apart from the personal satisfaction this subversive enjoys from the extensive damage he’s already done to America, if ever there were a reason to drag into the middle of the Oval Office the infamous chalkboard young Barry used when marshaling the Chicago multitudes, fear that “Hope and Change” will be toppled by someone like Trump would be that reason.

Unconvinced? Let’s remember that prior to the failed Arab Spring it was Obama that helped to organize the Arab street.

So, as the “largest civil disobedience action of the century” looms on the American street, there is little doubt that deep in the bowels of the White House Barack Obama is organizing Democrats to usher in the Democracy Spring.

 

Categories: Alinsky, Donald Trump, Freedom of speech, Hate, Obama - rogue president, Obama and crime, Trump rallies
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Off Topic | Frontpage Magazine’s Man of the Year: America’s Sheriff

December 24, 2015

Frontpage Magazine’s Man of the Year: America’s Sheriff, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, December 24, 2015

(And Time’s Person of the Year is Frau Merkel. Oh well. — DM)

dd

There is a war on police.

It’s the post-Ferguson truth that every cop knows, but there is one man who has emerged as a passionate and articulate spokesman for law enforcement and is willing to call it a “war on police.”

“War had been declared on the American police officer led by some high profile people, one of them coming out of the White House, and one coming out of the United States Department of Justice,” he said. “And it’s open season right now.”

For decades, Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. put his life and his energies into protecting and serving the people of Milwaukee County. Though always a man of strong opinions, it was when the White House cheered a war on police and pushed through pro-crime policies, freeing drug dealers while locking up police officers that he emerged as a national figure of unquestionable moral authority.

When Attorney General Eric Holder met Sheriff Clarke he sneered, “What’s up with the hat?” Political opponents have mocked Sheriff Clarke as a “big cowboy.” And indeed, the Sheriff of Milwaukee County wears a cowboy hat and he can be seen riding a horse. He also preaches “cowboy values” like speaking frankly and telling people that they have to be ready to stand up to criminals.

“You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed or you can fight back,” he told his constituents. “You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.”

The meeting between Holder and Clarke was a clash of worldviews. In Holder’s social justice worldview, fighting crime only feeds the root causes of crime. The criminal is the victim. The crime victim is the perpetrator. Every arrest, whether of a drug dealer or a terrorist, only causes more crime.

Under Holder and Lynch’s social justice policing, the Ferguson Effect has crippled cops and juiced up crime. Cities are returning back to the bad old days when social justice reformers passed their pro-crime policies and some neighborhoods became nightmarish territories where the violence never stopped.

Sheriff Clarke started his career as a patrol officer. He was a Homicide Detective. Crime isn’t a theory for him. It’s a fact. Its victims aren’t faceless statistics. They’re mothers and daughters, fathers and sons.

Underneath that cowboy hat is a law enforcement professional with a degree in Criminal Justice Management¸ who has passed through training and leadership programs at Harvard and Quantico, the former Commanding Officer of the Intelligence Division of the Milwaukee Police Department, who knows both the theory of law enforcement and its grim reality at every level. Along the way, Clarke had earned a reputation for standing up for the men and women in law enforcement under his leadership.

When he fought back against the White House’s war on police, he was doing what he had always done.

“In the early days of this cop hating we didn’t have a voice to counter that message: we are racist, blood-thirsty. We didn’t have a counter narrative which is why I stepped up and tried to be that counter narrative,” Clarke explained. “I realized once I started taking on the attorney general and the president of the United States I was in the deep end of the pool. It is dangerous in the deep end of the pool.”

And Sheriff Clarke has stood up to smears of the White House and its billionaire allies and survived.

Michael Bloomberg threw six figures worth of ads at him and lost every dime of that money.  “I trust the voters. The voters can’t be bought,” Clarke said. The voters of Milwaukee County picked the big cowboy over the big city billionaire. They chose a man who would stand up for them over the powerful progressives who are determined to walk all over them and tell them that it’s for their own good.

Many police officers fear for their jobs and their lives while appointed urban police brass pander to radical leftists in public office. Police officers are being wrongly arrested to appease mobs while violent drug dealers and gang members are freed by the order of the White House. Meanwhile children are shot by gang members and ordinary people are beaten, raped and robbed on formerly safe streets.

Just as in his days as a patrol officer, Sheriff Clarke came running to the rescue as the courageous face of a beleaguered law enforcement community. In interviews and speeches, he spoke the hard truth without a hint of political correctness, fighting to keep Americans safe well beyond his own jurisdiction.

As he had always done.

Sheriff Clarke’s conservative worldview was formed by the influence of his father who was an African-American Airborne Ranger in Korea and guided him to law enforcement. As a boy, he lived in a housing project. He worked his way up through perseverance. He has seen a city where crime was a rarity take a turn toward the terrifying statistics of Detroit. And he is equally blunt about the causes.

“Parents have turned over their duty to raise their kids to federal and state government programs,” Clarke says. “These kids suffer from a lot of emotional baggage spawned by ineffective parenting, which is worsened by white bleeding-heart liberals who use these troubled kids for their liberal agenda. Social liberalism is a sadistic ideology.”

“White liberal social policies have become the new racism in America.”

Sheriff Clarke has been speaking out against the disease of government dependency for a long time. Ten years ago, he wrote, “Liberal elites and their interest groups have continued to deal with their own guilt of the legacy of slavery by pursuing the flawed strategy of creating more social service programs with little or no accountability and nothing other than anecdotal evidence of results.”

“Keeping alive programs that do nothing more than keep minorities mired in a culture of dependency is self-defeating and hurts the very people that liberals profess to want to help,” he had warned.

The pro-crime theorists of the left prefer to think of men like Sheriff Clarke as thoughtless proponents of brute force who are unwilling to consider root causes, but Clarke understands root causes far better than they do. When he warns that it’s the ghetto rather than the police that needs fixing, he can back the argument up with a wealth of statistics. When he shoots down the lies of #BlackLivesMatter about “genocide” or the ACLU’s false claims about “racial profiling,” he does it with hard numbers.

Sheriff Clarke is the left’s worst nightmare, a dedicated cop and a relentless thinker who can take apart their political and social failures with the same methodology that he used at crime scenes.

The left likes to castigate black conservatives as alien to the community, but Sheriff Clarke has proven them wrong by winning election after election. When he asks, “How do we go from Rosa Parks to Mike Brown as symbols of the Civil Rights Movement,“ he is speaking as the voice of a true civil rights movement which meets dependency with responsibility and victimhood with courage.

The war on police is really a debate about personal responsibility. And personal responsibility is the new and final civil rights movement. As weeping community organizers sell t-shirts decorated with photos of criminals, Sheriff Clarke rides tall with a call for personal responsibility and individual freedom.

That is why Sheriff Clarke is FrontPage Magazine’s Man of the Year.

While the media celebrates whining crybullies, we stand with the courage and commitment shown by one man. By taking a stand, Sheriff Clarke has become more than the Sheriff of Milwaukee County.

He has become America’s Sheriff.

His leadership is an inspiration to all of us to take a stand in our profession and in our community for our values, our freedom and our country.

Categories: Crime, Domestic policy, Obama and crime, Obama's America, Progressives, Racism
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment