The far-left city council and mayor of Austin, which is sort of becoming the Portland/San Francisco of Texas, just voted to slash the police department budget by $100 million – despite the fact that Austin is by far the #1 city in America for increase in homicides.
At the link, City Council member Greg Casar boasts that “We won,” although I have to assume he’s speaking for criminals, gang members and homeless people because business owners, homeowners and the law-abiding are about to lose big-time. The number of police protecting the public is about to be severely reduced, such as a 50% cut in the property crimes unit and a 60% cut in the DWI unit. Some units will be eliminated entirely, including the street gangs unit and the parks police.
To be crystal clear: the entire six-member city council of Austin are Democrats, and all of them voted for this suicidal insanity. Austin has been working to lure high tech firms from Silicon Valley, and it’s obvious they’ve been successful. Unfortunately, it appears they’re bringing their idiotic leftist politics with them and recreating the California hellholes they fled from.
It’s sad to see it happen to a beautiful city like Austin, but luckily, Austin is still an island of liberal craziness in an ocean of sanity, so the Texas Legislature is considering a bill to remove oversight of the Austin PD from the city. Also, if enough people turn out at the polls in November to throw the bums out (I mean the bums at city hall, not the ones now sleeping in every restaurant doorway), the nightmare can end. The voters certainly have plenty of choices: as the article notes, about 20 candidates have lined up to challenge them. I’m sure there are at least six excellent replacements among them, but then, I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly be worse.
And speaking of crazy leftist city councils voting to do away with police, in Minneapolis, where this lunacy started, the council was going to let citizens vote on whether to eliminate the police department. But it turns out the Charter Commission voted against putting that on the ballot because the city council never came up with any other plan to protect public safety once there were no more police. Now, the Star-Tribune reports that the council’s push to eliminate the police has “lost momentum.” Isn’t it sad when reality messes up your utopian liberal fantasies?
As blogger Lawrence Person puts it at the link, this now makes the Minneapolis City Council, in addition to being insane and incompetent, “a bunch of d*** liars.”
And finally, just to pound the last nail into the coffin of this sub-moronic idea of eliminating police, guess who just condemned it? Al Sharpton!
The Rev. Al said that defunding the NYPD is “something a latte liberal may go for as they sit around the Hamptons discussing this as an academic problem, but people living on the ground need proper policing.”
As I’ve been writing here for months, the people most harmed by the cuts in police are black residents in high-crime urban areas. They are disproportionately victims of crime and gang violence, and since the BLM/Antifa riots started, their neighborhoods and businesses have suffered the most from rioting, arson, and looting. Spoiled white college students burning down black-owned businesses to demonstrate how much they hate racism are just one reason why a recent Gallup poll found that 81% of black Americans either want the police presence in their neighborhoods unchanged (61%) or increased (20%.)
It’s no wonder that Joe Biden has gone from “absolutely” endorsing defunding police to claiming he never said he would defund police to ludicrously claiming that Trump wants to defund the police. When even Al Sharpton is telling the Democrats they’re crazy, you know they are Daffy Duck-level loco. Their campaign slogan should be “Give the people what they don’t want!”
WARNING! GRAPHIC IMAGES!
Warning! Graphic images! Pro-life activist Tayler Hansen shows off the results of the brutal beating he took at the hands of “peaceful protesters” in Portland after (and this is an especially interesting part of the story) a member of the media identified him to the violent Antifa thugs. Why, it's almost as if the objective journalists have picked a side or something...
This is an excellent article by Rav Arora, a young man from Canada who is only 19, but he could give lessons to about 99% of our professional “journalism” class, and a fair number of our politicians, on due process and withholding judgement until you actually know the facts.
This is a lengthy and well-documented recounting of the major police shooting incidents of recent months that have resulted in widespread looting and societal upheaval, and how so much of what is taken for granted about them is unproven or contrary to facts that later emerged. Not that being completely mistaken about what actually happened has prevented anyone from burning down a neighborhood, making a cringeworthy public pronouncement or demanding revolutionary action – or, as we’ve come to expect from Joe Biden, repeating with self-righteous, quivering-lipped conviction urban legends that have been long disproven.
You have to hand it to the woke snowflake crowd: they are nothing if not endlessly creative in the ways they find to be offended. I thought that a recent story about a college professor who was vilified because in teaching Chinese, he used a Chinese term that sounds kind of like a racial slur in English (but it isn’t; it’s a Chinese word) finally represented the absolute nadir of PC stupidity. But no, just when you think they’ve reached dead bottom, they shovel a little more dirt out of the hole and go deeper.
At this link, James Lileks relates the story of how a producer of the children’s cartoon “She-Ra” engaged in an embarrassing bout of online self-flagellation after using the word “sow” to refer to farming, and being criticized for racial insensitivity for not realizing how painful that term is to black people because slaves had to “sow” the fields (as do all farmers of all races everywhere on Earth since time began.) You have to read the hilariously lengthy Twitter thread of groveling this woman put herself through for her unwitting example of her white supremacy for using the word “sow.”
My response to the complaints would have been “Sow what?”
As you shake your heads at the funniest example of pointless self-flagellation since the monks who regularly smashed themselves in the face in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” I beg to remind you that these are the kind of people who create content that your children watch.
HERE IS WHY
For those who ask, “How can conservative Christians support Donald Trump?,” here’s a reason why. His Education Secretary Betsy DeVos just published the new final rule safeguarding free inquiry and religious liberty at public colleges and universities. Details are at the link, but among other things, it requires these schools not to deny student religious organizations any rights, benefits or privileges that other student groups enjoy, and it requires the schools to respect First Amendment rights or risk losing federal grant money. If we actually had professional journalists anymore, this would be frontpage news.
Those of you who are fed up with seeing lawlessness go unpunished will be happy to hear this story. Last month, a video went viral showing two young women attacking Trump supporters outside the Democratic convention space in Delaware. They stole signs and tore them up, then even more outrageously, took a MAGA cap away from a 7-year-old boy, cursed at him when he pleaded for it back, threw it over a fence and appeared to strike at his mother when she tried to intervene.
The two bullies got away, but their rotten behavior was captured on video and went viral on the Internet. The little boy, named Riley, received a call from President Trump and an autographed replacement MAGA cap. Meanwhile, the video helped identify the two women. Both are from Wilmington, and are 21, which is certainly old enough to know better. It’s also too old for them to just now be learning that there are consequences for such thuggish behavior.
Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings issued a statement saying that “harming another person — let alone a child — because of the expression of their views betrays the principles on which our country was founded.” So the two are now facing charges, and I don’t Portland-style tap-on-the-wrist-and-go-your-merry-way-to-do-it-again charges. I mean these charges:
Second-degree robbery, second-degree conspiracy, endangering the welfare of a child, third-degree assault, attempted third-degree assault, offensive touching and felony hate crimes (attempting to deprive someone of expressing their First Amendment rights.) It’s the kind of indictment that can lead to a lengthy stretch in the Graybar Hotel.
I would say that this news calls for doffing your MAGA cap to the Delaware Attorney General and throwing it into the air in celebration.
TWEET OF THE DAY!
Elon Musk takes Robert Reich to school. And it’s economics school, so it’s about time.
RULES FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR ME
This is a very informative article about some of the many reasons why nobody who isn’t blindly partisan actually believes the anonymously-sourced Atlantic magazine garbage piece by Jeffrey Goldberg accusing President Trump of bad-mouthing fallen World War I soldiers, the one that’s now been refuted by 21 on-the-record witnesses and the weather records. At the very end comes a tidbit you’ve probably not heard before:
Back when the New York Times’ David Samuels reported that Obama national security advisor Ben Rhodes created an “echo chamber” of ignorant young reporters to spoon-feed the Administration’s line to, that story also reported that Rhodes picked certain more high profile Beltway insiders to help “retail the Administration’s narrative” for extra validation. One of those insiders who was named in the story furiously responded, “I did not find this mention of my name amusing at all, because Samuels is making a serious, unsourced, and unsubstantiated allegation against me in an otherwise highly credible publication.”
And who was that reporter who was outraged that his character should be maligned by anonymous sources? Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic magazine.
I suppose he could argue that there’s a big difference: unlike with Trump, the anonymously-sourced slur on him was published in a “highly credible publication.”
Seen on Facebook and reported on Instapundit: “A woman who is 3rd in line to have access to our nuclear codes is claiming that she was duped by a hair salon. Let that sink in.”