Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Will school shootings be the next step toward a nationalized police force?

Published

on

The recent shooting at Santa Fe High School outside Houston, TX, that resulted in ten dead and thirteen wounded is fueling another round of demands by liberals in Congress to pass more anti-gun laws “to protect our kids” with some blaming the NRA for preventing such laws from being passed.

While conservatives and those who claim to be conservative willingly point fingers at the Democrat side of the aisle, the sad fact is that many Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of gun control.

For example, after blaming local police for the Parkland, FL. high school shooting in February, Trump held a bipartisan meeting with members of congress where he openly supported the idea of seizing guns from Americans who committed no crime, even if it violated their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Weeks later, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos wrote an opinion piece praising Trump for signing the disastrous Omnibus bill because it contained over $700 million to fund the STOP School Violence Act to pay for so-called mental health services designed to prevent school shootings. DeVos’ rhetoric aside, Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) stated in an interview with Conservative Review at the time that the STOP SVA essentially nationalized public-school safety.

I think that nationalizing public-school safety is the ultimate goal of big-government progressives. It’s been building for quite some time now, and I think the hype over recent school shootings will be the thing that puts it over the top.

The desire to create a nationalized police force began gaining traction under the Obama administration. Consider the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In a letter to then-president Obama, the CBC demanded the appointment of a Police Czar to give the feds control over the local police. Not long afterward, Al Sharpton called for a march on Washington to demand the DOJ to take control of the police nationwide.

Though neither of these efforts came to fruition, Obama succeeded in laying the groundwork for a nationalized police force by leveraging a series of tragedies into policies giving the DOJ control over local police forces in several communities across America.

Trump has bought into the idea of federal control of local police since becoming president, threatening to “send in the feds” in January, 2017 to clean up Chicago after a FOX News report about gun violence in the Windy City.

Shortly after the Santa Fe tragedy, Trump demanded action “at every level of government” which is exactly what he said following the FL shooting. This led to the creation of a host of anti-Second Amendment proposals by Republicans and Democrats designed to disarm Americans and place armed security in every public school.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with working to make schools safer, but with Washington working 24/7 to limit our Constitutional rights, should we give the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security that power?

Before you answer, do you remember how George Bush and a fully compliant Congress federalized airport security and created The Transportation Security Administration in the name of “safety” following 9/11? Besides creating tens of thousands of lifetime unionized government jobs, and the likely violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, these “transportation security officers” have been an abysmal failure.

Federal control of school security essentially creates a type of nationalized police force. Doing it “for the children” doesn’t change that.

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

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Not even close: Socialism isn’t about social media, being social or ‘sharing’

Published

on

By

Not even close Socialism isnt about social media being social or sharing

Leftists would like their label for organised evil to mean something other than subjugation and mass murder.

We tend to avoid making light of America’s favourite socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [aka ‘AOC’] from the rationale that when someone is making a mistake it’s best to just get out of their way. However in this case, this is not about the women whose antics will cause her ideology of organised evil to be laughed from the pantheon of practical governmental forms. This is about an adorable 8-year-old and perfect her impression of Ms. Cortez, specifically the point that socialism isn’t about being ‘social’, ‘social media’ or ‘sharing’.

For those who haven’t seen this viral video, it’s a perfect rendition of ‘AOC’ and her ruminations on climate change and socialism.

In light of this adorable impression, we will take this occasion to eviscerate what seems to be a very odd understanding of some basic words on the part of the National Socialist-Left.

Socialism is not about being ‘social’

No doubt this partially arose from certain elements who like to weaponize words to maximum effect. First principles hold that politics can be considered to be of the two basic forms: Individualism or Collectivism. With priority given to either the Individual or the collective.

Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians favour the rights and freedoms of the Individual. Certain civil Liberties such as the common sense human right of self-defence stems from this first principle.
Even though it may at first blush seem counterintuitive, the individual striving to improve themselves and their lot always tends to do the same for everyone else. As stated in The Wealth of Nations:

‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.’ – Adam Smith

Conversely speaking, Collectivism is the other basic form whereby the group is favoured over the Individual. In point of fact, since a group is merely an arbitrary aggregation of individuals with no true form, the result is that it cannot have any true civil Liberties. This is exemplified by the treatment of the common sense human right of self-defence. Whereby the principle ‘collective’ rights is applied, meaning there is no Liberty in this regard.

Individualism is vastly superior to Collectivism

Collectivists like to phrase their construct of one of the labels of their base ideology as simply adding the suffix ‘ism’ to their idea of ‘social’ or group dynamics to make ‘social+ism’. Even though this word has come to signify the worst excesses in authoritarianism.

The problem is that when the ‘rights’ of group are prioritized, the rights of the individual disappear. Despite the window dressing of supposedly being ‘Liberal’, the Collectivist-Left only sees the group as having importance. Individuals become disposable to the whims of the collective. This is how the Left terms idea of self-defence as unimportant and how they end up will millions of dead individuals.

Socialism is not about ‘sharing’

Despite being extremely late to the party of collectivist ideological thought, Karl Marx did imbue one of the lines that epitomises it’s base principles with the saying: ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’

Sharing has to be a voluntary process. Such is not the case with socialism where that ‘From each according to his abilities’ is done at the point of a gun. This is why the Collectivist-Left obsesses over the disarming of individuals with Liberty control aka ‘Gun Reform’.

The Takeaway

Leftists love to exploit the language to hide their true base ideological intent. This is why they use words like ‘socialism’ or ‘Liberal’. They cannot be honest about what they truly want: control over everyone.

Thus, they have to pretend that ‘socialism’ means being social or sharing instead of an ideology that is truly organised evil at its core.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Possible hate crime draws yawns from media as Oghaleoghene Atuno allegedly targets white children with vehicle

Published

on

Alleged hate crime draws yawns from media as Oghaleoghene Atuno allegedly targets white children wit

Have you heard the news report about a 21-year-old African-American male, Oghaleoghene Atuno, who targeted two white children with his vehicle? Unless you’re watching brief clips on local Denver news, you probably haven’t.

Atuno has been charged with attempted murder and child abuse while his alleged victims have been hospitalized after the brutal attack. Surveillance video shows him circling a cul-de-sac several times near Falcon Middle School in Aurora, Colorado, before driving his vehicle onto the sidewalk to strike the two children, age 11 and 12. One of the young boys, Josh Piazza, is still in the hospital with a fractured skull.

The circumstantial evidence seems to point to this being a textbook example of a hate crime. Atuno appeared to be circling the cul-de-sac near a school searching for a victim. When he spotted two Caucasian children, he drove his vehicle towards them onto the sidewalk. After hitting them, he drove off immediately. He claims he didn’t know the victims and his reason for fleeing the scene immediately was because he was scared, according to police.

Attempted murder against children he didn’t know after circling a cul-de-sac several times near a middle school – the math seems to add up to only a few possible conclusions and hate crime would be the most obvious. Yet this isn’t getting any attention from the media and prosecutors have thus far declined to use the “hate crime” tag for enhanced sentencing should he be found guilty.

Hate crimes of all types are hideous. When a person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation are used as determining factors prompting a crime against them, it’s a hate crime. Whether or not Atuno was motivated by racial hatred is currently unknown, but we may never know because it is not being treated as a potential hate crime by prosecutors or law enforcement. Imagine if a Caucasian man had circled around an African-American neighborhood searching for targets before running over two African-American children. The press would be clamoring all over itself about it being a hate crime.

As our nation becomes increasingly divided, it’s necessary that we put an end to bigotry from every side. Caucasians are not immune from being victims of hate crimes by law, but media narratives refuse to accept it as a possibility.

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Sign the petition demanding an investigation of the investigators

Published

on

Sign the petition demanding an investigation of the investigators

Now that Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 election has been completed and the investigation’s report has been released, we have more questions than we have answers.

Why was it started in the first place? It seems circular reasoning and opposition research were the only pieces of “evidence” used to justify extensive spying on the Trump campaign and the subsequent investigation. This does not clear the threshold of viable suspicion necessary for FISA warrants and clearly was not an appropriate starting point upon which to launch an investigation.

Why was it allowed to continue for so long? The report indicates early on, the investigation saw it was extremely unlikely they would find evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Moreover, the report demonstrates the Russians were acting of their own accord to “hack” the elections, but were unsuccessful in generating enough manipulative propaganda to sway a significant chunk of voters.

Were political motivations at play? At this point, the answer seems obvious. From President Obama’s administration to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to left-leaning elements within the FBI itself, it’s conspicuous that attempts to not only manufacture wrongdoing by candidate Trump but also to hide wrongdoing by candidate Clinton were in full effect.

Two years and $30 million in taxpayer dollars should have yielded answers. It did not. The reason isn’t that there were no answers to be found. It’s that they were looking in the wrong places. It’s time to look in the right places. Sign this petition.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report