Share This Article with a Friend!

Assault on America, Day 546: To Democrats, police reform is all about grift and naked politics

Senator Tim Scott
Should Congress “act boldly” to vastly expand anti-police lawsuits?

Whenever a “woke” liberal Democrat politician -- or even worse, two of them -- says Congress should “act boldly” -- every responsible liberty-loving citizen should run for the hills, because what comes next can’t be productive or promising.

Such was the case for Democrat Senators Cory Booker (New Jersey) and Kamala Harris (California). In an op-ed published in the all-too-respected politically neutral (cough, cough) Rolling Stone magazine, the two liberal African-American upper chamber members claimed to know exactly what the federal legislative body should do to help save black lives. Booker and Harris wrote last Friday, “[F]or too long, Congress has failed to require accountability and hold officers who do wrong responsible for their actions to prevent the killing of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement from occurring again, and again, and again…

“The bill from our Republican colleagues would have created commissions, reports, and studies on the problem of police violence. It would not have reformed the impossibly high standards by which police can be held criminally liable for use of force, or given the American people the right to hold law-enforcement officers accountable in civil cases for misconduct. It would not have created a national use-of-force standard. It would not have created a public national police-misconduct registry. It would not have banned the deadly practices of chokeholds, carotid holds, and no-knock warrants in drug cases.

“It would not have saved Black lives. We recognize that there is no one singular policy prescription that will fix or erase the centuries of systematic racism and excessive policing that have created this unjust reality. We need a holistic set of policy reforms to reimagine our entire criminal-justice system.”

Hmpf. No doing things one at a time for Democrats. Like with immigration “reform,” it’s got to be passed in one huge bundle (lest senators and representatives actually think about what they’re voting on individually) or it ain’t good enough!

The former 2020 Democrat presidential candidates (though Harris is widely rumored to be one of, if not the leading contender in Grampa Joe Biden’s short-list veepstakes) admit there’s no singular policy that will solve the problem they describe yet they still propose to virtually bring the entirety of policing under a national umbrella, including opening up the federal courts to brutality cases. And, of course, they further want to expand potential civil penalties for law enforcement “offenders” as well.

It’s the latest iteration of a liberal utopian pipedream where every minority Democrat voter lives in perfect “woke” harmony with pockets full of transfer-payment cash, dwells in a federally paid-for palace (some might say slum) and crime doesn’t exist except when instigated by police. People don’t need guns, either, because everyone knows, if given the chance -- and enough dollars -- that crime will disappear and it’ll be hunky-dory for people of color everywhere.

Decades of experience has shown LBJ’s “Great Society” worked swimmingly, didn’t it?

Good luck getting any sane person to join a police force. Imagine you’re a young guy or gal who’s fresh out of the military (where a lot of police recruits come from these days) and dreamed of being a police officer your whole life and the minute you walk through the academy door you’re told that everything you (and your family) owns will be at the mercy of the trial bar should you manage to complete training and be sworn-in. “Sign here, dude!” No rational citizen in this -- or any other -- world would do such a thing. So, in essence, Booker and Kamala are proposing to effectively defund and end policing, just as the lefties commanded them to do!

Logically speaking, this doesn’t stop here either. If Democrats succeed in federalizing policing, next they’ll demand to turn military authority over to international bodies to determine whether U.S. forces stationed abroad might be liable to claimants of color in foreign lands. Imagine the hilarity in some seedy Afghanistan cave as a U.N. tribunal cashiers an American serviceman for getting a little too rough with a terrorist during a special forces op in the Middle East.

This simply cannot happen. The Republican bill Booker and Kamala referenced -- mostly the brainchild of African-American South Carolina Senator Tim Scott -- would’ve fostered reform in local police departments while keeping accountability close to where it belongs: in the community and cities. Democrats torpedoed the proposal because they couldn’t have a black Republican get credit for police reform, could they? Say it isn’t so!

At its core, policing is a local matter. Whereas the Founding Fathers created a federal system where so-called “police powers” were mostly left to the states and localities, the recent nationwide #BlackLivesMatter movement (funded largely by leftist billionaires and now, stupid meek and compliant corporations like Walmart as well as “woke” athletes, celebrities and idiots of all races and income strata) has changed the focus to America as a whole, not just a nucleus with many different independent parts.

One rogue cop malfunctions in the upper heartland and Democrats now seek to bring the entirety of the criminal justice system under the guiding hand and influence of Congress. It’s not as though the national lawmaking body efficiently handles every other vexing problem thoroughly and competently. They’re really great at “getting things done,” aren’t they? Democrat senators in particular have proven especially skilled at filibustering, blustering, pontificating, preaching and… mooning(?) traditions and common sense.

Everyone who’s paid attention to the news knows the federal court system already is jammed to capacity with caseloads beyond what anyone could’ve ever conceived of back when things were quieter. Creating new causes of action (both at the state and local and federal level) will result in a huge additional burden on a system that is at its breaking point. It’ll mean a business boom for lawyers and law schools, though, as they practice to shape arguments before juries bent on sympathetic and vindictive punitive damage awards.

What about insurance? Will individual policemen and women need to purchase “malpractice” coverage to shield themselves against runaway ambulance chasing attorneys? What happens then? And will municipalities help cover damage awards? It’s not like a huge pool of excess cash will magically materialize after cities pay for burned-out rioted areas. It’s pathetic.

Will the Democrats’ legislation provide additional “protection” for illegal alien claimants, too? How many MS-13 gang members in prison right now are hankering to get their government paid-for attorneys to file suit in federal court against the police officers who arrested them? They may not even speak English, but all they’d have to do is accuse the cops of racial slurs -- and bingo, some scumbag lawyer will come a knockin’!

This whole kerfuffle isn’t about protecting lives -- black lives, Hispanic lives, Asian lives, Eskimo lives, Native American lives, white lives, Arab lives, sub-Saharan tribal lives, etc. It’s about power, plain and simple.

It's been argued a lot lately, but is racism truly systemic in America? A casual glance at the partisan governing balance shows nearly every major U.S. city has been controlled by Democrat mayors and city councils for decades, if not more. If anti-color bias crept into policing it did so under the noses of liberals who allowed it to do so. Where were the movers and pushers of “woke” policy when they had the chance to do something about chokeholds, etc.? It’s not like “deplorables” Republicans forced them to maintain the practice. Nonsense.

And haven’t there already been dozens, hundreds or thousands of “studies” on policing and its connection to racial relations over the years? This isn’t a new problem. Members of the black community have complained (in a great many cases, justifiably) about bias in the system but the people they’ve elected over and over to protect them from lawbreakers haven’t done a darn thing to make their lives better.

Further, in their piece, both Booker and Harris claim their parents were “woke” sixties rejects who instilled in them all the “values” from their own cultural awakenings. But factual reality shows they were both raised in middle to upper middle-class homes where they could hide safely behind the protective benevolence of police forces. Put it this way, it’s not like there were baton-wielding vengeful racist cops waiting outside each of their front doors before school every morning.

Victor Davis Hanson exposed the ruse last summer during the Democrat primary campaign, “Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., often poses as a spokesman for the African American inner-city and is hoping to gain the nomination on the strength of his minority bona fides. But Booker grew up in the affluent and nearly all-white suburbs of New Jersey, the child of two IBM executives who sent him to Stanford, after which he became a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School graduate.”

And, “Sen. Kamala Harris… briefly lived in [the well-integrated city of Berkeley, CA] as a child before migrating to Canada. A local school district, not a federal court, instituted the busing program she joined. Both of her parents have Ph.D.s, one a former Stanford professor, the other a scientist who often flew the young Harris to India to visit relatives.”

In other words, it’s not as though Booker and Kamala were resigned to snatching scraps from the floor before rodents and pets could eat them first. What a crock.

In contrast, Senator Tim Scott (likely known to his Democrat colleagues as “Uncle Tim”), grew up working class poor and in a rough neighborhood in North Charleston. From a life experience standpoint, who’s more qualified to set a new standard for police? Scott’s bill was plenty “bold” enough -- but not for the all-politics-all-the-time Democrat senators hoping to engender sympathy just because of their non-white skin color.

(Click here for Scott’s Senate floor speech. Who’s more credible?)

It's fairly obvious both Booker and Harris have alternative motives

The scenario isn’t complicated. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris see what’s going on and they’re all over it before the opportunity ceases to be.

Maybe it’s like this:

Democrat consultant to Booker and Kamala, seated opposite him: “Hey, the country is going nuts over #BlackLivesMatter. You guys are black, so your lives matter more than most now! Your opinions, therefore, count more than any others’ on the hottest issue of the day, too. Let’s milk it for all it’s worth. Kamala is the perfect black chick to be Grampa Joe’s number two (primarily because Stacey Abrams is a total grandstanding idiot and Val Demmings, well, she was once a police chief! Susan Rice? Who the heck is that?) Cory will be in prime position to demand a high cabinet position, and who knows, maybe he can be president himself after Harris is done!”

Neither Booker nor Harris did anything in the presidential race primarily because the establishment had already settled on Biden and neither one of them possesses the Barack Obama-like quality of being sufficiently angry at racist America while coming across as a great guy (or gal). Harris is where she is today because she’s a minority female at the perfect point in Democrat history. Booker isn’t married and isn’t particularly noteworthy as a visionary. His “I am Spartacus” speech fell flat during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.

They’re poster children for identity politics. Why else would Rolling Stone -- and Grampa Joe -- give them the time of day?

At least Booker and Kamala remembered who George Floyd was

It should be a requirement in “woke” circles that a Democrat politician remember at all times who they owe their current surge in power to, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader “Chucky” Schumer couldn’t seem to get it straight recently. Valerie Richardson reported at The Washington Times, “Democratic House and Senate leaders want to honor the memory of George Floyd with sweeping criminal-justice legislation, even if they can’t always remember his name.

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Friday that Democratic legislation on police reform needed to be worthy of the name — of George Kirby (George Kirby was a Black comedian, actor and singer who died in 1995). ‘And I said I’ll recommend that to the Judiciary Committee and to the Congressional Black Caucus, who have shaped the bill, but I only will do that if you tell me that this legislation is worthy of George Kirby’s name,’ said Ms. Pelosi at a press conference.

“Ms. Pelosi wasn’t alone. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer needed three tries before getting Mr. Floyd’s name right. ‘Who do you believe when it comes to civil rights and police accountability: Mitch McConnell, or the lawyer for the families of Floyd Taylor, of George Taylor, George Floyd — and Breonna Taylor?’ said Mr. Schumer.”

Gaffes are what they are -- just ask Grampa Joe Biden. But if you’re a politician and hope to change the entire government because of one man’s death, at least you’d better get his name right. Everyone knows both Pelosi and Schumer are for sale to the highest bidder. No matter.

Even if times are changing, Democrats in Congress don’t seem to alter their approaches any. If there’s a way to clog up the system with additional bureaucracy and litigation, they’ll find it. The liberal party rejected Senator Tim Scott’s police reform bill purely due to political reasons -- and because the South Carolinian is an African-American Republican. Shameful.

Share this