THE WAY I SEE IT
by Don Polson Red
Bluff Daily News 6/12/2018
On the role of district attorneys
We were fortunate to have had two commendable,
qualified candidates for District Attorney, Carolyn Walker and Matthew Rogers,
who handily won. It may now be passé to say “The best man won” when the runner
up was a woman and when so many women are running in, and winning, races up and
down the ticket throughout the American political landscape. It’s not at all
appropriate for Democrats to peddle their “Republicans hate women” trope when
so many principled, accomplished Republican women with conservative leanings
are successful.
We’ve seen in our own county how the complicated—by
state foolishness, by legal limitations, by court rulings and by the reality of
limited jail space—role of District Attorney can be a boon or bane to the
safety of our citizens. Perhaps a full accounting and unvarnished report on the
Rancho Tehama massacre will shed light on what, if anything, could have been
done differently, what local decisions were handcuffed, so to speak, by courts
and state policies, such that we can confidently say it won’t happen again.
Changes (to be) made may do just that.
However, I saw in California’s primary vote last week
some troubling activity (ref: “Soros-backed California county prosecutors fail
in 3 races” in Friday’s Daily News, AP). One of the world’s wealthiest
leftist/socialist activists, George Soros, attempted to financially pave the
way to victory for district attorney candidates of major counties that adhere
to his brand of internationalist radicalism. I’ll set aside my aversion to
assigning nefarious motives to influential, secretive players when we have real
political candidates using funds from someone committed to destroying so much
of what America is and stands for.
That doesn’t diminish the perfidy of “billionaire
philanthropist” Soros using his ill-gotten lucre (through hedge fund and
currency manipulation) to put in place county prosecutors who will use their
offices—and taxpayers’ nearly-bottomless resources—to further radical agendas.
The AP’s sanitized take emphasized the effort “to elect reform-minded
candidates sympathetic to reducing mass incarceration and prosecuting shootings
by police.”
First, note the journalistic trick of using (or in
this case, not using) “scare quotes” to prejudice words or phrases that are
meant to be questionable, debatable or partisan. In other words, it should have
been written “mass incarceration” to note that it is a highly questionable, even
just plain propaganda-driven, term used to connote a fallacious concept. It’s
typically used by “criminal justice reformers.” They want minorities arrested,
tried and convicted at rates commensurate with population ratios, not actual
proportions of crimes committed by, say, black or Hispanic offenders.
Translation: Minority law-breakers ought not be put in
prison if doing so creates a “disparate impact” of high rates of incarceration.
So, if blacks are 12 percent of the population, they should not constitute more
than 12 percent of inmates; such is the illogic of the racial justice warriors,
many of whom rarely encounter the ravages of crimes by minorities. They live on
campuses, in gated communities or well-off suburbs and ex-urbs.
They are literally oblivious to the facts of
criminality and recidivism due, not to poverty alone, but due to fatherless
homes, and urban gangs providing the substitute for said absentee fathers.
Include politicians, civic leaders and school systems that refuse to risk criticism
from the activists by stating what you just read. It never crosses their minds
that Asian and Jewish youth commit less crime per capita; stable, strong family
structure reduces crime whenever applied.
If anything, many of America’s cities and counties are
“under incarcerating” due to wrong-headed and soft-hearted—perhaps well
intentioned—laws and policies like what we suffer under in California, with
such syrupy, phony names like “Safe Schools and Communities Act.” The sick joke
of AB 109 needs no elaboration or statistical analysis; people have died, lost
belongings and health at the hands of convicts forced back onto the streets
through release programs promising rehabilitation and judicious application but
delivering property and personal crime waves.
Then you have the corollary crusade to “prosecute
shootings by police.” That simply translates to making it so legally dangerous
to law enforcement—out there risking their lives for us—to use lethal force
against violent scofflaws that they simply avoid doing what’s necessary to
protect law-abiding people.
I’ll never forget reading about two meetings in the
basement of a Washington, DC, church under Obama’s DOJ. In one room, moms,
grandmothers and working residents were addressed by, and pleading with, local
police representatives that they, the law-abiding innocent civilians, needed
cops to put pressure on the miscreant youth hanging around corners. The
harassment, drug dealing and petty crime flowing from such “yoots” was
avoidable with tougher policing. They wanted those most likely to commit crimes
to get the message: leave, get a job.
In another room were lawyers from Obama’s Justice
Department who, together with “the usual suspects” (in this case ACLU and
anti-cop types) were busy encouraging local “activists” (read: cop-hating BLM,
and self-appointed voices of the people) to use protest, outrage and lawsuits
to fight the very officers that the people in the first meeting were pleading
with for protection.
Other Soros crusades (showing why his millions
supported Hillary and other vote fraud apologists) are 1) to fight every effort
to clean up voter rolls and implement voter ID; 2) to maximize legal
immigration, facilitate de facto illegal immigration and reduce or eliminate
national borders and impediments to endless migration. That’s why his major
vehicle for “fundamental transformation,” of America and other countries, is
his “Open Society” foundation. Overlords to tell us how to think, live.
No comments:
Post a Comment