When the Left Protests

Protesting is very common way we Americans display dissatisfaction in our democracy. Protests have resulted in widespread change and social movements such as the Civil Rights Movement, women’s right to vote  or abolitionist movement of the 19th century.

However, with all the good of protesting,  there have been times that have caused more damage than good.  Protesting loses its viability when those marching resort to violent or criminal means to accomplish their ends. Many protests have resulted in criminal behavior such as looting and arson which can easily be escalated to massive social unrest.  How do you know when the protest has gone too far? When the National Guard or local law enforcement has to intervene for extreme problematic behavior.

This scene is frequently replayed by modern day left wing protests far too common.

Far too often at liberal sponsored events or causes, do we see protesters not engaged in peacefull assemblies stating their opinions. The type of protests the left has managed to start all revolve on common trends of screaming obscenities, damage to property,  and leaving the environment in disaster. There is absolutely no peaceful assembly when extremism is tolerated and applauded.

Take this recent example at the Women’s March 2 weeks ago that hosted big name celebrities such as Madonna.  The famed pop singer made a shocking and criminal comment about having , “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” This quote shows the level of misconduct and indecency the standard is for the left’s obsession with all things protest. What good does it profit some one to utter such a nefarious charge against a sitting president. Further, this proves how liberal protest are just events that espouse varying degrees of violence.

Madonna later stated her comment  was taken out of context. Really? This back tracking on her part ties into a larger philosophy of the left that says we don’t have to take responsibility for our words or actions but can freely say or do anything we want without any consequences. Words are just random accidents.

Also at the Women’s March was Ashley Judd who took to the stage to read a poem by a 19 year old. In this poem she stated “I am nasty like my bloodstains on my bed.” We all know women have menstrual cycles, men didn’t need a rant to remind us. I don’t know a single woman that has ever willingly made known the details of their periods. If anything thing they keep this too themselves. But feminist don’t look through the lens of valuing what it means to be a woman, but instead look for ways to portray themselves as victims of biology. The uniqueness of being a woman becomes secondary when feminists exploit their bodies to justify gender and class inequality against the patriarchy.

Moreover,  to describe yourself as “nasty” has several negative connotations. It creates a feeling or idea of being mean spirited, bitter hearted, and angry. A stereotype that woman have fought hard in recent decades to break.

When it comes to property damage caused by protest,  in recent years the left has managed to occur some hefty damage for their riots. One doesn’t have to look far to find a left wing violent protest responsible for hundreds of thousands (some in the millions) in damages. For instance, the recent protest over Milo Yiannopoulos attending UC Berkeley to deliver a speech turned ugly quickly.

At the heart of the protesting, students were vehemently opposed to Milo’s college speaking tour because they believe he spreads hate speech.  The prominent gay conservative Trump supporter had to be escorted off campus due to students tearing down barricades and violently engaging in civil unrest which led to throwing molotov cocktails, damaged windows, and even threw rocks at police. It has been estimated that the damages done by these protesters costs about $100,000.

Property damage because the left applauds itself on tolerance, but displayed intolerance to the slightest of differing views in a setting where critical thinking should  be embraced.

Further, the Baltimore related protest inresponse to the death of Freddie Gray had a devastating impact on the city. Many protesters burned down local business and looted shops. President Obama even condemned the civil unrest and criminal activity in a press conference. An estimated $9 million dollars in damage was committed.

Yes the death of anyone is worth grieving about but to commit crimes against the community and those that depend on local commerce for their livelihood is really selfish.

When democrats create these protest, they’re only selfishly motivated in pursuit of their own standard of social justice. Some of these rallies aren’t charitable, loving, or kind. And that seems to be the biggest missing puzzle piece. Its fine to protest, but to blatantly condemn others and destroy a community bears no charity but cloaks itself in hate.

Prudence revolves us being careful about the decisions and judgments we make. The lack of this virtue in speech and conduct by some liberal protesters is needed. Keep in mind, the left has managed to transcend the standard of what it means to protest. In their own post-modern universe, the old methods of peace and patience have been supplanted by extremism and social unrest. In order to be heard, they have to make the most noise.

Yes you can protest but embrace charity. Even conservative protest and events at times fall victim to their lack of decency. And not all liberal protests are chaotic, and communities and law enforcement appreciates those.

A playbook of charity has to be the annual March for Life event that happened last week. There was an absence of hatred , no civil unrest between law enforcement,  and as far as I know no property damage. As a result,  many people were gathered there in true solidarity for two purposes: love and dignity to all people.

When we bring back love to the forefront, lives are changed, minds are renewed, and serious conversations happen about the nations toughest issues.

Not love in the sense of some touchy feel good tolerant approach, but true love that seeks the good for all individuals,  not groups.

Trump the New Obama

President-elect Donald Trump is making a transition to the White House before his January 20^th inauguration. So far, Mr. Trump has been on the hunt for a cabinet and SCOTUS appointments. Recently, he has released some big names such as Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo as key cabinet members in a Trump office. Between now and January 20^th, there are tons of talented men and women that will have the opportunity to serve in a Trump Administration.

Since Trump’s election victory, numerous left-wing advocacy groups, politicians, and commentators have begun the start of a non-stop information blitz that is projected to last 4years. For the selection of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has condemned the pick and has asked Trump to rescind his decision . In addition, the ACLU has already released a statement regarding President-elect Trump saying “ If President-elect Trump tries to turn his unlawful and unconstitutional campaign promises into policy, we’ll see him in court.” Therefore because Trump will be president, his administration is already shaping up to be plagued by resistance on the left.

As the new administration gears to be sworn in, the old administration leaves out the door. President Obama came into office 8 years ago. Just like every president before him, he had had a transition period and picked talented men and women to serve in his administration. Similarly, as Democrats are criticizing Trump’s picks, so did the Republicans do the same towards President Obama. Republicans pushed back against Kathleen Sibelius, Eric Holder, and Timothy Geithner nominations for different agencies. Also, who could forget Mitch McConnell boldly declaring to make President Obama a one term president.

These partisan parallels are evident between the president and his successor. Considering that his negatives are high amongst the American people, he will still likely enter the White house with a high unfavorable view. Consequently, expect many Americans to develop an Anti-Trump mantra similar to the Tea Party movement in 2010 in response to President Obama. Furthermore, some Democrats will resist common ground with President Trump. AZ US Rep. Ruben Gallego recently decried any effort to work with a Trump administration. Whoever wins the DNC Chair position, think of him or her as the new Reince Preibus for Democrats aka the person who throws red meat to the base and criticizes  the presidents every step. Currently, it looks like Minnesota US Rep. Keith Ellison is in the running for DNC chair and is already hinting at hesitancy toward embracing Trump.

However you decide to look at Trump’s administration, don’t look at it through lenses of optimism in regards to media coverage. President Obama had the news media on his side to highlight policy and emphasize his administrations positions. The same can’t be said for Donald Trump. To date, the major news networks have been covering the fear mongering aspect of the Trump apocalypse since he has been elected. Donald Trump will literally have to fight his way through four years of the media to make a point.

The era of Trumpism has arrived. Despite Trump saying he wants to be the president of all Americans, I anticipate the Trump effect to worsen. Similarly to the populist organizing of conservatives who demanded a limited government in the Tea Party, the wave of people demanding a big entitlement government will increase. Those that see republicans as the party of “turn back the clock” will certainly be in outrage over the repeal of Obamacare, DACA, and Trump’s immigration policy. All of these strike a blow to the left’s belief in an inclusive government. As noted this previous weekend by the creators of the Broadway hit Hamilton, liberals expect the government to “work on behalf of all of us.” The belief that the government should cater to the people will ultimately be a dividing line for many Americans in the Trump administration/Republican congress priorities.

There are more parallels that will happen between Trump and Obama. The potential cyclical approach of both administrations will likely keep us engaged and fascinated.

The Body Camera Debate Revisited

Written by  E.Bryan

There have been numerous incidents regarding law enforcement officials and police body cameras. Some demand that the requirements aren’t stringent enough to prevent all police brutality or misconduct but are a good step in the right direction for a better law enforcement system. However, some think that body cameras aren’t needed on public officials, especially those that are hired to protect us. It’s supposed to be a matter of trust, but unfortunately the law enforcement system has caused mistrust and disparagement amongst many people in the country. Far too often, many people generalize about police officers and lump all officers in the same classification. The heart of a collective approach is to not see people as individuals but as a group with similar beliefs, practices, and ideals. With this approach, it’s easy to justify the use of monitoring of police officers since all are near identical upholders of oppression.

Naturally, body cameras seem to be the remedy to a system that is not representative of many Americans. The great fix to restore public trust in an institution that suffers “systematic” discrimination doesn’t happen by local accountability, but often gets resolved by state legislators that enacts bills to allow police to be scrutinized. Some local police departments, not under state laws, have developed recommendations and policies governing body cameras too.

In an effort to become safer, we as nation have become too preoccupied with the business of others. What better way to become a busybody than to have people under surveillance. Ranging from the street public safety cameras, the NSA phone tracking program, or numerous other ways, monitoring others has become a part of the American ethos arguably since 9/11. Many forfeit their rights with the assumption such as “we have to give up some of our rights in order to live in a safer country.” Assuming that certain rights can be forfeited, who and what system or scale determines which rights should be given up or protected? And how much of our rights should be given up? If it’s the government that determines our rights, then that’s problematic because we’re mere Play-Doh in a politician’s hands.

The surveillance of police is problematic because it creates an arbitrary system of which occupations deserve to be monitored. Who’s to say that other public officials shouldn’t be monitored to ensure corruption, crime, or any other incredulous behavior doesn’t happen. There are literally decades worth of research on poor teacher across the nation that have contributed to the school to prison pipeline. There are numerous incidents of teacher sexual misconduct or ethics complaints. In addition, parents entrust their children to strangers for almost 8hrs daily. Shouldn’t teachers have body cameras or surveillance in their classrooms across all major districts? Moreover, what about government employees that are funded by tax payers. If voters or politicians came to a consensus and decided to have a referendum or pass legislation on monitoring local, state, or federal agencies, shouldn’t that be permissible?

Most importantly on the hierarchy of potential scrutiny should be drivers of large trucks and busses. There have been an immense number of incidents that happen with truck/bus drivers falling asleep or negligence behind the wheel and causing fatal accidents that left many permanently injured or dead. In fact, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA) reported in 2014, 3,978 large trucks and busses were involved in fatal crashes. Furthermore, they state that property damage and injury related crashes increased between 2013 and 2014. This perhaps is one of the deadliest occupations, and in my opinion deserve far more scrutiny than law enforcement.

Why does law enforcement have to bear the burden of public scrutiny when other occupations aren’t treated fairly using the same or near standard. Creating an arbitrary scale only creates a snowball effect of anti-privacy and surveillance preferences. Consequently, it increases the size of government. Already on the trajectory of a government that extends in all aspects of everyday life, handing over another aspect of life to an already amassed government leads to less liberty.

Black and Brown Americans have had an estranged relationship with irreconcilable differences with law enforcement officials in the past. Ranging from the Civil Rights Movement when law enforcement was a medium for oppression or the injustice of racial/citizenship profiling, there has been room for mistrust to grow. Although improvements and advancement in community policing have strengthened ties to these communities, there’s still work to be done. Discriminatory practices by some law enforcement officials do exist and must be handled when they arise. These are colossally significant issues and no doubt that there may be some who perpetuate the principles of hate and discrimination. However, restoring trust in law enforcement is essential. The chasm must be bridged in order to foster a society where those that are hired to protect and serve aren’t degraded and shamed.