“King’s X”

That’s what Progressive-Democrat-run cities are crying against the backdrop of the explosions in crime, including violent crime, that followed their loud and proud defunding of their police forces.

The article centers on Dallas, TX, but that center applies to the myriad other Progressive-Democrat-run cities that have moved to defenestrate their police.

I obviously don’t speak for others, but for my paycheck, I wouldn’t apply for, nor would I accept, a position as a police officer in any of those cities until there occurred a complete turnover of the men and women in those governments. The incumbents have shown themselves entirely untrustworthy, especially by cops.

Innocent people would continue to be hurt—the minority of voters who wanted different candidates elected but lost those elections? Perhaps. However, karma applies to those who sit on the sidelines, too, and the majority of those allegedly innocent minority of voters chose to continue as eligible voters and sit on the sidelines rather than bestir themselves to be voting voters.

Pericles, some years ago, said words to the effect of Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you. Those disinterested ones are experiencing the inevitable outcome right alongside those whose interest includes that defunding.

Migrant Voters

And no, I don’t mean illegal aliens as potential voters.

Last spring, before Texas’ cowards, no, flee-baggers, no, Progressive-Democrats ran away from Texas explicitly to block voting on new voting laws (!), the State’s legislature succeeded in passing a voting law that, among other things, prevented folks from renting a post office box, claiming residency from that in that PO’s district, and voting away. Instead, the law requires folks to have an actual street address at an actual residence—house, apartment, what-have-you—and actually live there.

Leftists object to that and have filed suit.

They don’t care (or maybe they do care; it’s the sort of thing Progressive-Democrats last fall openly contemplated during the runoff election campaigns for Georgia’s Senator seats) that establishing residency by getting a post office box—which shrinks the concept of mobile tiny houses to new levels of mobility and tininess—is simply an open invitation to setting up waves of migrant voters to be sent to key jurisdictions in order to swing elections.

Utterly Illegal

And the Progressive-Democrats don’t care. They have the power, so they don’t need any stinking authority, and they’re going ahead: with censorship of what average Americans are allowed to say, even allowed to know.

The White House announced their efforts with Facebook to take aggressive action on problematic social media posts. The administration said they would work to flag and censor anything they deemed to be disinformation about COVID-19.

Biden’s Surgeon General Dr Vivek Murthy:

We expect more from our technology companies. We’re asking them to operate with greater transparency and accountability. We are asking them to monitor misinformation more closely.

Biden himself, through his Press Secretary, Jen Psaki:

“There are also proposed changes we have made to social media platforms, including Facebook….

And

We are flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation[.]

And overt spying on private citizens’ personal communications to facilitate the censorship, per the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Democratic National Committee:

…plans to work with SMS carriers to monitor text messages and dispel misinformation about vaccines.
“If you send a text message to a friend or to a family member or to whoever and it includes whatever they deem as misinformation that somehow you’re going to get a message on your phone from the government,” David Rubin of the Rubin Report.

And the threat, from none other than President Joe Biden (D):

Mr Biden was asked what his message was to social media platforms when it came to Covid-19 disinformation.
“They’re killing people,” he said. “Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that—and they’re killing people.”

Never mind that the censorship is a blatant violation of our 1st Amendment and of long-standing and myriad case law:

As recently as 2019, the Supreme Court reasoned “‘a private entity can qualify as a state actor,’ subject to First Amendment protections….” Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (2019) …;
“When the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function,” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974);
“When the government compels the private entity to take a particular action,” Blum v. Yaretsky, (1982);
“When the government acts jointly with the private entity.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (1982).

The government doesn’t get to avoid censorship by farming out its censoring to third parties.

And there’s this: it’s well established in Civil Rights law and Supreme Court rulings that private enterprises that are public accommodations (of which diners are a canonical example) may not discriminate, under the 14th Amendment, on the basis of race. It’s an easy extension of that “may not discriminate” to include 1st Amendment speech, and it’s quite clear that Facebook et al., have become, if they weren’t created as, public accommodations.

Us average Americans need to keep this blatant disregard for our Constitution firmly in mind in November 2022.

 

H/t Grim’s Hall

A Brief Thought on Communism

The latest, and longest lasting, defense of communism is that it’s mismanaged (earlier defenses put it as “not done right, not implemented right.”

Stipulate that a problem with communism (and each of its socialist variants—socialism, fascism, social democracy, etc) is that it’s mismanaged.

That no communism or socialist variation has ever succeeded in all of human history is a clear demonstration that nations, or economies, cannot be managed successfully from the center. It’s just too hard, nations and economies are too complex to be…managed…from the center.

Finally

The distinction between the coward’s (or liar’s) leak and a whistleblower’s claim is being more broadly recognized. Jason Foster, Founder and President of Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research (EMPOWR) had this the other day via Just the News:

People misunderstand that “there is a difference between blowing the whistle, which is legal, and protected—and, arguably, your patriotic duty, right—and leaking,” Foster told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “Leaking is completely different … leaking is illegal, a lot of the time, or against policy of the agency. And it’s often the cowardly way out, as opposed to the patriotic thing to do.”

And now, once again, the press must stop hiding under its collective typing desk and answer the question (among others), because members of the press know full well that distinction:

If representing a claimed source as a whistleblower, what is their concrete, measurable evidence that this source has used up all of his employer’s internal whistleblowing channels before he decided to leak?

Along with that, the press must answer these questions related to the integrity of their claimed source:

If the source exists, then
–Why the source should be believed, given that by speaking publicly, even if anonymously, he’s likely violating his terms of employment if not his oath of office
–Why the source should be believed, given that by hiding behind anonymity, he’s displaying his cowardice—and cowards will always and only say what they believe will be personally beneficial