Connect with us

Guns and Crime

College professor wants Trump to use troops as police to end gun violence in Chicago

Published

on

Earlier this week, I wrote an article about how school shootings could lead us to the creation of a nationalized police force. In that piece, I documented how groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and race-baiting activists like Al Sharpton teamed up with Barack Obama to lay the foundation for the federal government to assume power over local police using the DOJ and a Police Czar.

Always willing to use the color of a person’s skin as a basis for creating policy, Obama had some limited success in moving the country toward a police state, but he stopped short of using America’s armed forces to accomplish his goals. However, if a professor of philosophy at De Paul University in Chicago has his way, Donald Trump may end up going where Barack Obama has never gone before.

In a public plea to Trump, published at TheHill.com, Jason D. Hill—whose specialties as a professor include ethics, social and political philosophy, and the philosophy of education and race theory—wants to bring an end to “genocide among black Americans” in Chicago.

To do this, Hill wants Trump to send in the military to “quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.” Hill is suggesting that Trump “use his powers to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act” to free up the military resources “necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.”

“I implore you to use your powers to suspend the dated Posse Comitatus Act, which unfairly limits your ability to use domestic militarization to respond to crises, and send in the resources necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.

“Posse Comitatus makes no mention of the use of the militia, the National Guard, the Navy or the Marines. You can suspend this law and send in the forces necessary to quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.”

The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law signed in 1878 by Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes, designed to limit the power of the federal government to use the military to enforce domestic policies within the US. Though updated since its inception, and even though there’ve been a few tweaks since 911, the original intent of the act remains in effect.

Can Trump override PCA? Yes and no. It can be suspended for things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but it can’t be overridden for the purpose of enforcing state laws. This question is secondary, however, to the disturbing suggestion that we create a militarized home front.

By the way, Trump has already shown a willingness to use federal power to deal with gun violence in Chicago.

Besides being inconsistent with the values of liberty and freedom we enjoy as a Constitutional Republic, Hill’s request perpetuates a growing acceptance in America that we should voluntarily surrender our Constitutional rights to the federal government in exchange for safety.

Additionally, Hill holds a position of power as a teacher where he is free to spread Democratic-Socialist ideals such as this to the next generation—a situation made more dangerous by Washington politicians who have made destroying the Constitution standard operating procedure in order to increase their power over us.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. John

    May 26, 2018 at 10:12 pm

    Why is it that every local problem requires the President to “do something to fix it”! People can’t wipe their own behind without a Federal guideline telling them how to do it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment and Sports

Missouri poacher ordered to repeatedly watch ‘Bambi’

Published

on

Missouri poacher ordered to repeatedly watch Bambi

OZARKS, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri poacher has been ordered to repeatedly watch the movie “Bambi” as part of his sentence in a scheme to illegally kill hundreds of deer.

David Berry Jr. was ordered to watch the Disney classic at least once a month during his year-long jail sentence in what conservation agents have called one of the largest deer poaching cases in state history, the Springfield News-Leader reports .

“The deer were trophy bucks taken illegally, mostly at night, for their heads, leaving the bodies of the deer to waste,” said Don Trotter, the prosecuting attorney in Lawrence County.

Berry, his father, two brothers and another man who helped them had their hunting, fishing and trapping privileges revoked temporarily or permanently. The men have paid a combined $51,000 in fines and court costs — but the judge ordered a special addition to Berry’s sentence for illegally taking wildlife.

Court records show he was ordered by Lawrence County Judge Robert George to “view the Walt Disney movie Bambi, with the first viewing being on or before December 23, 2018, and at least one such viewing each month thereafter” while at the county jail.

Berry was also sentenced to 120 days in jail in nearby Barton County for a firearms probation violation.

His father, David Berry Sr., and his brother, Kyle Berry, were arrested in August after a nearly nine-month investigation that also involved cases in Kansas, Nebraska and Canada. The Missouri Department of Conservation said information from the investigation led to 14 Missouri residents facing more than 230 charges in 11 counties.

Investigators say David Berry Sr.’s other son, Eric Berry, was later caught with another person spotlighting deer, where poachers use light at night to make deer pause and easier to hunt.

The investigation into the Berrys began in late 2015, when the conservation agency received an anonymous tip about deer poaching in Lawrence County.

___

Information from: Springfield News-Leader, http://www.news-leader.com

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Economy

Daniel Horowitz says what most lawmakers hope you won’t find out about the First Step Act

Published

on

Daniel Horowitz says what most lawmakers hope you won't find out about the First Step Act

When people hear that something has “bipartisan support,” they usually assume it’s a sign that it represents common-sense legislation that made all sides happy. The First Step Act, the latest iteration of criminal justice reform, isn’t one of those. It gives many lawmakers, especially those in the mushy middle, a campaign tool they can use to target minority voters.

This is a tactic often used by the left, but even some on the right are embracing it in hopes that it won’t be as bad as some experts believe. They’re betting on enough distance between the signing of the bill and the first instance of avoidable violent crime perpetrated by one of the criminals released under the new law. Their hope is that the “good” that comes from the bill overshadows the negatives and modern day mainstream media is likely to give them the cover they need.

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz posted an article today pointing out the many foibles of this reform bill. It’s likely to pass despite opposition from some on both the far right and far left (for different reasons, obviously), setting the stage for dangerous criminals to be let back out on the streets sooner rather than later.

But it isn’t just the dangers that will be unleashed as a result. There’s a clear fiscal irresponsibility attached to the bill that nobody’s wanting to discuss. We should be accustomed to both Democrats and Republicans failing to safeguard the nation’s financial future, but doing so while simultaneously putting American citizens in danger is a bold new normal.

Here’s a poignant quote from the article:

“More crime, more gangs, more drug traffickers, more strained federal and state law enforcement, and we are all left with the tab for the welfare and increased crime.”

Read the whole thing. It’s worth it:

CBO: First Step Act will release dangerous criminals … and add to the deficit

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/cbo-first-step-act-will-release-dangerous-criminals-and-add-to-the-deficit/Even if one believes there are a few individuals here and there who can and should be released early, there is no denying that if you cast such a wide net of early release on such a sizeable portion of the most advanced felons in the country, it is a recipe for a public safety and law enforcement nightmare. As a group of police officer associations, narcotics officers, and federal prosecutors noted in a joint letter to the Senate, it will “have serious consequences upon public safety and the capacity of law enforcement to effectively respond” because the “releases will involve twice as many federal prisoners as those whose sentences were selectively commuted by President Obama throughout the entirety of his presidency.”

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Social media and internet searches could cost you your gun rights

Published

on

Social media and internet searches could cost you your gun rights

If you look up the word “deviant” in the dictionary, you’ll find it defined as “straying or deviating especially from an accepted norm” or “someone or something that deviates from a norm.” It’s an accurate word to use when describing the behavior of people whose actions are markedly different from what is or has been considered normal or acceptable.

This is why I often use it to describe the LGBTQ-WXYZ movement. However, did you know that using it to describe homosexuals is considered “defamatory” hate speech? In fact, even the word “homosexual” has been labeled offensive by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

If you’re wondering where I’m going in today’s article, here it is: Under a recently introduced bill, using the words “deviant” or “homosexual” on social media or in an internet search would cost me my Second Amendment gun rights if I resided in New York.

Specifically, the bill (SB9191) would give state and local police the green light to investigate for “commonly known profane slurs or biased language to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.”

Under the measure introduced by state Senator Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), gun-permit applicants would be required to provide user names and passwords to the state so that they can search 1-3 years of the applicant’s search histories and social media accounts.

The measure requires, “social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms.”

So, why should we care what the Democratic Socialists in New York are doing? Because every bad federal law was at one time a bad state law resulting in unintended consequences.

According to Assemblywoman-Elect Jamie Romero, this bill is an obvious extension of the “red flag” laws sweeping the country, where guns can be seized from citizens without due process. In other words, it’s an unintended consequence of so-called reasonable gun-control.

I’ve written in the past about how federal red-flag laws — aka Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) — have been proposed in the Senate and how such laws enjoy the support of Donald “Take the guns first, go through due process second” Trump.

With ERPO laws already in the Washington bloodstream, it’s simply a matter of time before a bill like this latest one in New York becomes law, catches fire, spreads across the nation, and eventually becomes a national law.

One last thought.

Many will resist this assault on gun rights by claiming that social media and internet searches are protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech. However, Trump once referred to free speech as “treason” and the GOP has proposed laws to restrict free speech they don’t approve of. I don’t think they’ll let one right they don’t respect get in the way of voiding another right they don’t respect.

Besides, thanks to renewing laws like FISA702, the federal government already has access to your computer records, so resistance is futile.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report