Government agents must avert their eyes from potential Islamic terrorists

The-9.11-terrorists

The surprisingly Muslim 9/11 terrorists.

If America survives long enough for historians to write books about this period in her history, surely Eric Holder’s recent directive (issued in response to pressure from Democrats), holding that federal agents may not consider Islam as a factor in terrorism or Latinos as the most likely illegal immigrants will surely rank as Exhibit A in the decline of a once great nation:

The Justice Department will significantly expand its definition of racial profiling to prohibit federal agents from considering religion, national origin, gender and sexual orientation in their investigations, a government official said Wednesday.

The move addresses a decade of criticism from civil rights groups that say federal authorities have in particular singled out Muslims in counterterrorism investigations and Latinos for immigration investigations.

The Bush administration banned profiling in 2003, but with two caveats: It did not apply to national security cases, and it covered only race, not religion, ancestry or other factors.

I agree completely that not all Muslims are terrorists, just as only an idiot would claim that the only illegal immigrants are Hispanics.  To focus only on those two groups, without reference to any other potential terrorists or illegal immigrants is foolhardy.  (Although I’m unclear about the whole illegal immigrant thing anyway, considering that Obama is already violating the law — without Republican push-back — by refusing to enforce immigration laws.)  Still, one would have to be equally idiotic to pretend that the vast majority of terrorist attacks don’t involve Muslims and that the greatest number of illegal immigrants don’t come from South of the Border.

Occupy’s profoundly evil face revealed

We knew Occupy was a turfed up protest.  We knew that Occupy quickly degenerated into drug-fueled, dangerous debauchery.  We knew that Occupy is ugly.  But I don’t think any of us realized in the beginning quite how ugly Occupy would prove to be.

It turns out that it’s so ugly that it supports child sex slavery.  That is not a typo.  It’s a fact.  As best as I can tell, the Occupy mindset is that law enforcement is inherently evil.  Law enforcement opposes child sex trafficking and slavery.  Therefore Occupy, as part of its “principled” stand against all law enforcement, supports child sex trafficking and slavery.

No matter how jaded one gets, it turns out that it’s impossible to anticipate the directions in which completely evil people will travel.

Giving police respect *UPDATED*

I’ve been following with interest the discussion about police power.  I agree with OldFlyer completely that police authority versus identity politics is not the main issue here, especially because of the fact that all evidence surrounding the Gates arrest is, to date, self-serving ex post facto data.  Instead, OldFlyer is completely right that the important issue is Obama’s strikingly divisive and unpresidential behavior, followed by his narcissistic inability to admit that he erred.  Nevertheless, the discussion about police power is an interesting one.

Thinking about it during the night (insomnia is a great spur to deep thought), it occurred to me that I have no problem giving police respect because I don’t see the relationship between civilians and police as a demeaning “they have power, I don’t” situation.  Instead, I give police respect because they’re doing a difficult and necessary job.  I don’t deny that police officers have a great deal of power, but I recognize the necessity of that on-scene power because they’re willingly entering dangerous situations most of us would flee.  Without power, they’re just fish in a barrel, waiting to be shot.  Ultimately, I am grateful for their service, and I admire what they do.  More than that, I appreciate that we’re lucky enough to live in a country in which most police officers carry out this job with dignity, decency and honesty.

Unlike me, people who show respect to police officers only because the latter are in a power position don’t actually respect them at all.  Instead, they hold them in contempt.  Rather than viewing cops as an admirable front line against anarchy (“thank you for taking the time to make my world safer, even if it means casting a suspicious look on me”), they view them as power-hungry control freaks (“you’re just holding this job because you like to feel important, but I’ll make nice because I’m scared of your power”).  It is these civilians who, when they get obstreperous, find themselves hauled in on “disorderly conduct” charges — and this happens because the police recognize the contempt motivating the behavior.

UPDATE:  It turns out I’m not the only one who approaches law enforcement with genuine respect.  (Not that I speed, so I haven’t yet had to talk myself out of anything!)

Non sequiturs are us (or are Obama)

Isn’t the first advice of being in a hole to stop digging?  Someone needs to remind Obama of that, because he’s still out there making enemies of police officers throughout America.  He’s also saying utterly ridiculous things to justify his position.  How’s this one?

The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an “outstanding police officer.” But he added that with all that’s going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, “it doesn’t make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he’s not causing a serious disturbance.”

If police offers were responsible for health care, the economy and foreign wars, that might make sense. As it is, though, their job is to protect the public at home, and to ensure that citizens cooperate with them in keeping communities safe.  What Obama said isn’t even a straw man argument.  It’s just nonsense.

You know it’s a really bad guy…

…When his defense attorney approves of the fact that that a policeman shot him to death:

A man accused of killing his girlfriend was shot to death in a Stockton courtroom Wednesday after he attacked the judge presiding over his murder trial, officials said.

David Paradiso, 28, was shot by a police detective after he left the witness stand and began attacking San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Cinda Fox during a break in proceedings, said Dave Konecny, a spokesman for the sheriff’s department.

Paradiso took the stand to testify around 2 p.m. and was quickly asked by prosecutors why he killed his girlfriend Eileen Pelt.

He responded: “Cause she deserved to die.”

[snip]

Karen McConnell, a county spokeswoman, said witnesses reported seeing Paradiso lift the judge and begin punching and possibly stabbing her when bailiffs ran to her aid and shots rang out. Lodi Police Det. Eric Bradley has been placed on administrative leave while the shooting is being investigated, city spokesman Jeff Hood said.

“He was going after her jugular, just as he did to the victim in this case,” his [that is, Paradiso's] attorney, Chuck Pacheco, told the Lodi News-Sentinel. “He was not stopping stabbing her, going for her neck. Bradley did the right thing.” (Emphasis mine.)

Do you get the feeling that this attorney was afraid of his client?