Image 01 Image 03

Giuliani: Democrats Have Become Anti-Law Enforcement Party

Giuliani: Democrats Have Become Anti-Law Enforcement Party

“It comes right from the top, it includes Hillary.”

It’s hard to argue with Rudy Giuliani on this point. Democrats have embraced the Black Lives Matter movement which has an open dislike of police officers. He also points out that Hillary Clinton snubbed the largest police officer union in the country.

The FOX News Insider has the details:

Giuliani: ‘The Democratic Party Has Become an Anti-Law Enforcement Party’

Rudy Giuliani joined the “Fox and Friends Weekend” co-hosts today to react to the revelation that Hillary Clinton has “snubbed” the largest police union in the country.

Giuliani said the fact that Clinton isn’t seeking the endorsement of the National Fraternal Order of Police is indicative of a shift among Democrats.

“The Democratic Party has become an anti-law enforcement party,” Giuliani said. “And this is the best demonstration of it.”

He accused the Democrats of stoking the flames of anti-police sentiment across the country, leading to the rise of groups like Black Lives Matter and an increase in violence against law enforcement officers.

“It comes right from the top, it includes Hillary,” Giuliani said. “You don’t even go talk to and seek the endorsement of one of the major police unions in the country?”

He noted that Democrats didn’t allow uniformed police officers on the floor of the DNC, calling the party’s treatment of law enforcement “outrageous.”

“The Democratic Party, from Barack Obama down to Hillary Clinton, you name it, they are anti-police, anti-law enforcement,” Giuliani said. “And it is creating a terrible atmosphere in this country that is very dangerous to police officers.”

Here’s the video:

Sheriff David Clarke, who spoke at the Republican National Convention seems to agree with Giuliani.

The Washington Times reports:

Sheriff David Clarke: Hillary Clinton ‘a straight-up cop hater’

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said Monday that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is “a straight-up cop hater” who sympathizes with the “criminal element” of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Sheriff Clarke, an outspoken black conservative, appeared on “Fox & Friends” to address Mrs. Clinton’s decision not to seek the endorsement of the biggest police union in the country, The Fraternal Order of Police.

“It’s a huge miscalculation, a huge political miscalculation on the part of Mrs. Bill Clinton,” the sheriff said. “Look, everyone running for public office, at any level, knows that you want and you have to have the support of not only law enforcement but other first responders. But she has made it clear from the convention that she is all in with the criminal element. She doesn’t care about victims of crime, she’s a straight-up cop hater, and so she is, like I said, rolling the dice on not having the support of law enforcement.

“The problem for her is that middle America, mainstream America, does not share her sentiment in having sympathy for criminals,” he said. “You’re talking a potential 3, 4, 5 million votes that she’s willing to risk just to get in bed with criminals.

This is obviously one of the reasons Trump is describing himself as the law and order candidate.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I have not seen a societal chasm this wide in my lifetime. The 1960’s were little league compared to today’s societal fracture.

    objection in reply to legalbeagle. | August 9, 2016 at 10:44 am

    At least people had a definable cause to protest against in the sixties. Today I perceive just virulent anti-American nihilism emoted from insouciant and misinformed newly minted minorities.

      TX-rifraph in reply to objection. | August 9, 2016 at 11:12 am

      I lived through those times. I think the left only used some real issues to hide their anti-American nihilism. The left has been about the destruction of the USA as it exists under the Constitution for my entire life. They want to “transform the USA” into a socialist/communist state. To do that, you must first destroy it using those “revolutionary” tactics. Why else would Obama’s friends set off bombs back in the sixties? Why did the leftists attack Chicago PD violently in 1968? They have been patient but have stayed the course. The local cops have been and continue to be a problem for them.

        mariner in reply to TX-rifraph. | August 9, 2016 at 1:09 pm

        Yes to all that.

        Unfortunately those of us who see that are denounced as “conspiracy theorists” and “tinfoil hat wearers”.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to objection. | August 9, 2016 at 11:23 am

      We love America. You just hear what you would like to hear.

      You people are like a parent who can’t believe their kid isn’t perfect. You are indulgent. You can’t criticize anyone except those who offer constructive, valid criticism. You cannot love and still see the faults. Is America perfect? Do conservatives ever make mistakes?

      It is a lie to claim BLM wants to kill cops; as it would be a lie to claim conservatives want to suppress blacks. BLM isn’t responsible for the cop killings because some unhinged idiots misused their movement; anymore than all of you were responsible for David Duke or Timothy McVeigh. It is also been pointed out on this very site, that while blacks are not killed by cops at a higher rate, they are harassed and mistreated at much higher rates. Driving while black is not a lie.

      If there is a rift, YOU are causing it by refusing to see us as loyal, patriotic Americans who disagree with you, but are committed to the democratic process – and we are winning on the national level and on the cultural level. That we are winning is probably the most galling.

      Get over it and join us in a constructive dialog – unless you don’t think you can do that. Giuliani clear can’t do that. He has to demonize us. He is a demagoguery.

      BTW, if Hillary didn’t go to the police convention, it is possible that she felt she wouldn’t get a fair hearing. For years, republicans didn’t go to the NAACP for the same reason. I think her message is that most cops have a hard job and work hard, but there are bad apples and bad training. Denying the later is no constructive and unrealistic.

      I listen to the heads of police unions and they never, never, never have met a bad cop. Cops can get away with a killing by simply claiming the felt threatened. It doesn’t have to be true, but it is a free ride.

        “BLM isn’t responsible for the cop killings because some unhinged idiots misused their movement”

        “What do we want? Dead Cops”

        “Pigs in a blanket!”

        Yeah, there’s *no way* a reasonable person could take these a-holes at their word, huh?

        So how much are you paid by the Hillary campaign to post?

        If not you can call them and I be they will give you a free lunch.

        republicans didn’t go to the NAACP for the same reason

        You’re asserting an equivalence between the NAACP and the police?

        An America without police is almost inconceivable.

        An America without an NAACP? No problem. One less special-interest group wouldn’t hurt the country in the least.

        While I can’t speak for the Republican party, it’s obvious that it did its job when it defeated the Democrats in Congress and scuttled the Missouri Compromise, thus ending the spread of slave territory in the US. After that heavy lifting was done, boosting blatantly racist organizations was never in the Republican job description. And it still isn’t—that’s one of the party’s virtues.

        You’re seriously going to have to up your game if you want to play around here.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to tom swift. | August 9, 2016 at 2:05 pm

          “You’re asserting an equivalence between the NAACP and the police?” Damn right! Without the courage of the NAACP, SCLC and SNCC the south would still be legally segregated.

          Ever heard of Goodwin, Chaney and Schwerner? It was cops who detained them until the KKK could kill them. Those cops don’t count? History is irrelevant?

          MarkSmith in reply to tom swift. | August 9, 2016 at 4:02 pm

          Well, OnlyRightDissentAllowed

          “Without the courage of the NAACP, SCLC and SNCC the south would still be legally segregated.”

          Give me a break. We have put up with this line of thinking to long, just shove it. What about the founding fathers that “did” set things in motion? (obvious beloved Jefferson and his party that lives through the DNC did not help..nor did A Jackson who was not a founding father). What about Lincoln who lost his life over it? What about the 360,000 deaths (not to say the injured) fighting for the Union. What about the Republicans that were needed to pass the civil rights act in the 60? For too long we have been PC. This countries price for freeing the slaves is huge and we continue to pay the price for it, yet we are not responsible for it. Yes, NAACP, SCLC and SNCC get some credit for it, but it was more then them that made things happen. The biggest obstruction of eliminating slavery and blacks rights is a direct line from the DNC party today back to Jefferson and the south.

          Tell me more about have LBJ Great Society program put blacks on the reservation (project housing) and how it aligns with Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia resettlement. Tell me more about how the KKK Grand Master DNC Senator Bryd was all about Civil Rights. Tell me more about DNC Presidential candidate George Wallace “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door”.

          You need a history lesson, not talking points. The DNC is the enemy of the blacks. BLM is a tool of the liberals elites to the blacks back. Follow the money and you will figure that out.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to tom swift. | August 9, 2016 at 4:31 pm

          @MarkSmith The current democratic party bears no resemblance to the party of slavery & segregation. The republican party does. LOOK AT THE ELECTORAL MAP. The old confederacy is republican. That counts more than a name.

          Is that really your best argument? Pretty pathetic!

          MarkSmith in reply to tom swift. | August 9, 2016 at 8:15 pm

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed “The current democratic party bears no resemblance to the party of slavery & segregation. The republican party does. LOOK AT THE ELECTORAL MAP. The old confederacy is republican. That counts more than a name.

          Is that really your best argument? Pretty pathetic!”

          Well, I think Senator Bryd was in office until 2010. Also your “electoral map” does not account for state and local. Look at the map of state and local democratic areas over the past 40 years and I bet you can see those democratic control areas have went from nice to worst (Detroit, DC, LA, Atlanta, etc) Areas that are coming back are those that are part of the gentrification.

          Portland, Oregon 58.1%
          Washington, DC 51.9%
          Minneapolis, Minnesota 50.6%
          Seattle 50%
          Atlanta 46.2%
          Virginia Beach 46.2%
          Denver 42.1%
          Austin 39.7%

          What is interesting is liberals are the ones that are pushing medium and lower incomes people in to bad areas and reaping their properties at almost stealing rates.

          Internment Camps for the Japanese, Great Society Programs to put black on the reservation, gentrification to steal homes from lower and middle income people that are trying to do the right thing. Shoot, lets throw in the draft of the 1960’s. Forcing children to go to schools that are not their choice. Democrats talk a good story, but their actions really screw their base.

          The reality is that I don’t believe you lived it, you just read it online and join the latest cause célèbre. The Elite is the top democrats and over paid entertainment and media groups. With all the control that the liberals have on media, print and educational indoctrination the liberals should rule everything. Only problem is their plans fail and they can’t get the traction they need. Yes, you blame it on the “slave supporting Republicans” but you can’t admit that it is not racism, but fail bad democrat policy that has done the damage.

          As for party changes, take a good look that the democratic donor pool. See anyone that has roots in that same group that made redlining work? Yea!

          Us small folks that live in the middle class and grow up with integrated school, we saw true racism. Most millennium are clueless of the racism that we experienced in the 70’s and 80’s. Today’s racism is manufactured and perpetrated by the liberal elite. Many live in the Huffy Post world and thrive on being divisive. You claim to enlighten, but your select choice of “facts” are presented in dishonest ways. Pathetic I may be, but at least I am honest.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to tom swift. | August 10, 2016 at 11:11 am

          @ MarkSmith Since 1980 it has been failed Republican policies starting with ‘trickle down’ and so called ‘reforms’ During that period we have had republican president, republican congresses, republican state legislatures and governors more than 1/2 the time. The beauty from an electoral point of view is that worse they made things the more conservative think tanks offered new programs that always explained away the obvious.

          I am glad you brought up your point. Cities rarely decide their own fate. In the last 16 years Bush had a republican congress for 6 years and Obama had a democratic congress for 2. In the last 6 years, republicans have obstructed everything to a degree that made things worse on even bi-partisan issues like the farm and transportation bills and then they run on how bad things are – like TRUMP. Unfortunately, Trump is likely to have been a miscalculation. But the republicans will continue to obstruct and then run on how bad things are.

          Somewhere in this thread you also mentioned that Democrats think they can fix it all. Funny, but the only one I have explicitly heard say he can fix everything; most on his 1st day is: TRUMP. I paraphrased a bit, but he said it. Do you or anyone believe that?

          MarkSmith in reply to tom swift. | August 10, 2016 at 7:23 pm

          I wish someone would bring Hitler in to this discussion.


          Either your are dishonesty or just plain stupid.

          Cities rarely decide their own fate.

          Sure, must be the case since the democrats can’t be responsible for screwing things up. Since this thread is about Giuliani, I guess he off the hook about your 911 accusations.

          In the last 16 years Bush had a republican congress for 6 years and Obama had a democratic congress for 2. …

          You pulled that one out of your behind. Lets account for RINO’s and who the true obstructionist are. But hey, I actually like a divided house so the government can’t do much damage. Obama passed Obama care which is costing me 20 K annually. My car is over 10 years old. My taxes are going up. You have selectively “claim” incorrectly. I figure Bush Jr. had only two years to make something happen 2003-2004 when he had a true majority and he screwed that up.

          Look at the nice little chart here:

          Somewhere in this thread you also mentioned that Democrats think they can fix it all.

          Search the thread, I can find it. Don’t matter.

          Funny, but the only one I have explicitly heard say he can fix everything; most on his 1st day is: TRUMP. I paraphrased a bit, but he said it. Do you or anyone believe that?

          You probably hear allot of things with those talking voices in your head. Who cares if he says he can fix it all. Hillary’s against everything I believe in..2nd, Pro Life, smaller government, no Obama Care, less entitlements, the police and she has proven her decision making process is flawed …white water, mailgate, not one thing she did right with foreign affairs as Sec. of State. She can’t fix ANYTHING!

          You can’t face the facts that democratic controlled area have a history of being poor districts in safety and economic development and electing democratic have not made their districts better. You want to blame the republicans, sure. What a cope out. As Tip O’Neill said, “All Politics is Local” and he is right. I here by claim that Hillary is Hitler and you are her god child.

        I lived through that era too and I have more respect for the old NVA warrior than I do you righteous protestors. That will never ever change.

        “I listen to the heads of police unions and they never, never, never have met a bad cop. Cops can get away with a killing by simply claiming the felt threatened. It doesn’t have to be true, but it is a free ride.”

        The police are subject training, discipline, and review. If you don’t know that, you are willfully ignorant. If you don’t know that BLM has made saints out of people killed while attempting to commit murder, you are coming here, where the information is available, and making a fool of yourself.

        Lawyers do not suffer fools gladly.

        Have you noticed how “pro police”people like Giuliani,Sherriff Clarke,Aleister,Mary Chastain,Harry Houck,etc.,don’t have any outrage for cops killed by white cop killers?
        In January and February this year 11 cops were KILLED exclusively by white cop killers. Giuliani response to this silence. Clarke the same thing. Aleister,Chastain,Houck,the same thing.
        Silence from the “pro police”people on the other cops killed by white cop killers. Silence on the increase of cops killed mostly due to white men. Even here at LI the same hypocrisy. I had to bring up the death of the Hispanic San Diego cop in order for this site to mention that. Since the killer was also Hispanic the pro police people had to be forced .

        Also in 2015 white Waco murderous biker thugs issued a Kill anyone in uniform order, in response to members being arrested. The pro police people didn’t get upset about that.

          MarkSmith in reply to m1. | August 9, 2016 at 11:00 pm

          You don’t get out much. Go over to the Tree House and you will get an ear full on white cop killers and cops that kill when they shouldn’t. Same with Statley McDaniel. The issue with BLM is Baltimore, Ferguson, Martin/Zimmerman, and the Mn. events. They are all fueled on a false narrative. So bad that it is getting cops in Dallas, LA and Louisiana killed for no reason.

        Cliven Bundy and the white Nevada militia on the other hand weren’t responsible for the climate that killed LVPD COPS Igor Soldo and Alyn Beck. Even though 2 Bundy ranch supporters and participants Amanda and Jared Miller killed those LEOs. Ambushed them while they were eating at Cici’s.

Hillary believes she must be anti-law enforcement to attract the black voters she needs.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MattMusson. | August 9, 2016 at 11:29 am

    If (and I am not saying its true) blacks don’t like cops, maybe the have legitimate reasons dating back from Jim Crow through today.

    There are as many whites (per capita) that use drugs as blacks, but who fills the jails.

    Are you people really that blind? Are you upset that white privilege is going away. Equality isn’t the same as black privilege. But I can understand that you feel that way if you are used to privilege.

      You are extremely dishonest. The BLM protestors have been all about killing cops (and whitey, but you hear less of that on the news because it would really screw up your narrative) since day one.

      I don’t care what their little grievances are, once they start advocating race wars, and actually taking part in violence they need to be put down.

      Geez, how come all those whites are not dead in the streets of Chicago, LA and DC. Is Black on Black crime not a reality? When I lived in Chicago, there was an eight block section that averaged a murder a day. Must have been the cops fault for it.

      If it really is about equal enforcement, push that issue instead of look for a pass because “whitey” gets one.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 11:57 am

        As Rick said in Casablanca: “We will always have Chicago to kick around”. As Captain Renault said: “Round up the usual suspects”.

        Sorry folks, you need some new material.

          New material? You mean like, according to the FBI stats, that 40% of the crime in the US is perpetrated by blacks? Could that be why blacks are ‘targeted’ so much?

        MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 12:56 pm

        For some odd reason my full post did not get posted. The “same old material” can be found at the Homicide Watch sites for DC and Chicago. I been part of the Chicago communities helping and the issue is not cops but drug use and lack of community support. When crimes are committed and people look away instead of being honest about it, the problem continues. BLM is not honest about the real issues and you make the case of the false narrative of the true problems. “BLM is ad hominem to the real issue of black crime” to use your words.

        Stop being part of the problem. The legacy of Democrat policy is so stinking bad in inner cities (Detroit is near to my heart) that I just can’t see how people there can’t see the abuses.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 2:10 pm

          Detroit is a direct result of redlining and the relocation of auto plants. Blacks could live near the new plants and they could not get bank or FHA financing.

          What is 8 Mile Road?

          MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 2:30 pm

          Detroit is a result of bad politics that drove businesses away. Your blame is misplaced. You did not live it. Jerome Cavanagh was helping Detroit become an integrated city and the 68 race riots screwed that up. Colman Young was on the take with the Union bosses thus never really help the city for recover. I saw amazing things happen to Detroit with Archer was in. Very impressive guy. Than the crap came back thanks to Kwame Kilpatrick. Detroit has never recovered from his rein of terror.

          Vancomycin in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 3:39 pm

          Report: Chicago Gangs Plotting to Kill Police Officers After Release of Controversial Paul O’Neal Shooting Video

          Yeah, let’s ignore this bullshit. But but but BLM doesn’t want to kill cops.

          Bull. Shit.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

          @MarkSmith No redlining? The maps exist.

          4fun in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 6:09 pm

          You’re about as truthful as hitlery. Quite the accomplishment.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed | August 9, 2016 at 2:10 pm

          Detroit is a direct result of redlining and the relocation of auto plants. Blacks could live near the new plants and they could not get bank or FHA financing.

          What is 8 Mile Road?

          Detroit’s last GOP mayor was Louis C. Miriani, a son of Italian immigrants, who served from 1957 to 1962. By the time he left office, the Republican brand was ebbing in Detroit, one of the country’s most Democratic-dominated cities.
          So for over half a century, democrats haven’t improved Detroit to the point of viability. Probably all those union bribes to buy votes to keep power and promote the democrat plantation.
          Surprise, surprise, surprise.

      “Are you upset that white privilege is going away.”

      I bet you are upset about it. Kinda weakens your cause, if it is gone, eh? Entitlement becomes meaningless if you do not create division, which is what you are trying to do.

      “Whitematized” was the term used on my friends to call out blacks that did not conform to this “privilege” view back in the 80. Not agreeing with BLM will get you called an Uncle Tom.

      Go for it and claim white privilege is the issue, but remember many of us come from “legal immigrate” backgrounds that built this country and we are proud of what we have done, even with discrimination staring us in our face everyday.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 5:09 pm

        If I was more interested in causes than in results, that would be true. Unfortunately, there are many other causes.

        Attacking my motives is ad hominem.

      Are you capable of counting past 1? Past 2? There is a strong correlation between men in maximum security prison and being raised by a mom without a dad. The Black community has a large percentage of young men being raised without a father. Notice the DNC had moms of men killed, but not their fathers. Just because Blacks are disproportionately involved in difficult situations than Whites, doesn’t necessarily mean racism.

      The left desires the destruction of society as we have known it. Destroying the family is important to that goal, as divorce and abortion have contributed. Structuring social welfare to destroy Black families is a feature, not a bug.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Milwaukee. | August 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm

        “The left desires the destruction of society as we have known it.” Damn, how did you sneak into our meetings?

        We are all the same:

        We laugh alike, walk alike,
        At times they even talk alike —
        You can lose your mind,
        When lefties are all of a kind.

        Apologies to Patty Duke

          “We laugh alike, walk alike,
          At times they even talk alike —
          You can lose your mind,
          When lefties are all of a kind.”

          No, we are not the same. Conservatives have a sense of humor which is part of their usual humility of understanding that they have a role to play in the universe, and they are not the be all and end all. Liberals tend to constantly be in crisis mode: every thing is an emergency: global warming, peak oil, use sunscreen, stop smoking, stop drinking 32 oz. sodas. Generally the left is humorless, and so they don’t “laugh”, unless someone else is getting seriously hurt. Then they laugh, but in a really cruel, humorless way. Sort of like that mean Nurse Ratched.

          “If not us, then who? If not now, then when?”, often attributed to RFK, is part of that “Only I can solve this problem.” messianic complex narcissism. Actually, it is a discussion about a lunch invitation.

          A: Hey, everybody else is busy. Do YOU want to go to lunch with me?
          B: Well if not me then who?
          A: How about lunch right now?
          B: If not now, then when?

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 10, 2016 at 10:39 am

          @Milwaukee Smuck, I was parodying your comment that starts “The left desires the destruction of society as we have known it.” We don’t all look alike, talk alike, etc.

          I have expressed nothing like that and I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself. Your comment is ad hominem and wrong. If that is all you have got and all you think, you are incapable of rigorous thought or thinking beyond your limited box.

          My comments on this site are always to present a point of view which is rarely, if ever, considered here. This is nothing but an echo chamber and a bear pit. Apparently the mere mention of a point of view which doesn’t fit the stereotype of a liberal or a lefty is enough to upset you and a few others. That was not my intention, but I can live with it.

It is because they cannot directly control the police

    But controlling the police is one of the left’s goals, and they may achieve it.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Rick. | August 9, 2016 at 11:31 am

      Maybe it is because the right controls the police and the left just want fairness.

      If you have always controlled the police, fairness would see unnatural and unfair. TOUGH!

        The right controls the police?! Get real. The local union and local politicians control the police. And in places like Detroit and Chicago and DC and New York, these are firmly in leftist hands.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to rabidfox. | August 9, 2016 at 4:36 pm

          The governments may be controlled by democrats, but the police are unaccountable. Their unions have the single purpose of supporting the police in collective bargaining and defending those accused of transgressions.

          ORDA, You can’t be serious. Who do you imagine pays the police? As public servants, they are accountable to and up a very high, many-runged ladder of elected officials and political appointees.

          Police are absolutely accountable as city, county, state, or federal law enforcement employees–paid for by the taxpayer–they fall under the purview, depending on their jurisdiction, of the sheriff, the mayor, the state Department of Transportation (or Department of Public Safety, etc. depending on the state–either way or some other way, under the purview, ultimately, of the governor), federal law enforcement fall under any number of alphabet soup agencies, but are all in the executive branch and ultimately under the purview of the president.

          The person to whom police are accountable at the lower levels (such as a sheriff) is often but not always (depends on the state and/or county/town) elected to this position; above that, the people to whom police are accountable are all elected officials (barring some special circumstance in which a governor appoints one until a special–or previously scheduled–election can be held).

          In other words, those democrat governments are responsible for and accountable for the police. How can you not know that?

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to rabidfox. | August 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm

          @Fuzzy Slippers They aren’t no matter how much you theorize about who pays them. They have collective bargaining agreements and rules that allow them extraordinary deference in any disciplinary proceeding.

          In a related matter, the NYTimes did a series of stories on prison guards in NY. In one case a prisoner was identified as someone who shouted out, but they got the wrong prisoner. Nevertheless, they beat him to death. A nurse blew the whistle at the risk of her career and life. The result was one guard was allowed to resign with his full pension. No other guard or superior was disciplined or even transferred because their union protected them. This is fact, not theory.

          ORDA, with whom do the police unions negotiate these contracts and from whom do they receive this “extraordinary deference in any discplinary proceeding”? Oh, right, the city, county, state, or feds.

          Personally, I think all public unions should be banned on principle; it’s simply unwise to have public employees with the collective power to cripple a city (remember the deaths in NYC when the city’s plow drivers refused to plow streets until they got what they wanted in negotiations with the city? The streets were impassable by EMT’s and the FDNY, so people who called 911 literally died as a result of public unions).

          Further, it is pure madness to pay K-12 teachers to sit in a special room away from students because they are unfit to teach (convicted sexual predators and the like). But that’s what elected officials have permitted, no?

          Cities and towns are going bankrupt under the heavy obligations for retirement and pensions and health care, etc. for public union employees.

          So yeah, I take your point about police unions (though you can’t ignore the politicians who agree to such contracts), but you cannot make an honest argument about police unions and ignore the same problem in other public unions. They should all be abolished. But then, where would Democrats be without all that union support both in campaign donations and in hired thugs to show up on cue at rallies and the like? It’s quite the dilemma.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Xenomethean. | August 9, 2016 at 11:38 am

    Do you understand that in Ferguson the police were being used as a revenue source? Can you not understand that poor blacks might resent it when they are ticketed and harassed for money – for cops salaries and white politicians salaries.

    I’ll bet you would be pissed, too. I read the resent right here when the slightest regulation or law or liberal political act affects you in a way you don’t like. How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot? You don’t like it. Get used to it and stop feeling so sorry for yourself. Stop making up stuff – like you got caught throwing spitballs and you don’t want the principal to suspend you and your mama to spank you.

      Personally, until those poor blacks actually value work and education, I don’t much care what happens to them anymore.

      They burned their own neighborhood down over a criminal thug that got killed because he tried to kill a cop. That takes real brains and courage.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Vancomycin. | August 9, 2016 at 12:00 pm

        I’ll bet you walked a mile in their shoes.

          I’ll bet I don’t care to. I was raised to understand that getting an education was *important to my future*. That you *work* for what you get, and *NO-ONE* owes you anything.

          That you *don’t mouth off to someone, ANYONE, with a gun.*.

          That you *respect* the police (not because they’re tools of the government) because they are there to come help if you are in trouble.

          If these asses were teaching their kids ANY of these lessons, maybe I’d give a damn about them. But, nope.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 9, 2016 at 1:30 pm

          I guess you weren’t raised to try to see things from the other guy’s point of view. That seems important to me.

          I have lived in red states and I have traveled most of the lower 48. If have be in Muskogee, OK at the time ‘Proud to Be an Okee from Muskogee’. I have tried to walk in a conservative’s shoes.

          You should try unless you don’t want to learn.

          Those “poor” blacks are a majority in Ferguson – so why didn’t they vote out the real source of the problem, the city council that was passing all these revenue generating ordinances. Don’t blame the cops for doing their jobs, blame the politicians who control them. AND the voters who didn’t bother to vote them out.

        Vancomycin in reply to Vancomycin. | August 9, 2016 at 3:38 pm

        I have no NEED to see the point of view of a bunch of uneducated criminals.

      Do you understand that a man that just committed a crime in his community and then physical attacked and threaten the life of a police officer and was kill for his actions and instead of the community doing something about “there problems” they blames the officer.

      The issue of the government using law enforcement for revenue is another issue that we all deal with on tickets, the new thing “speed camera” and just plan harassment, but that is not what BLM is about.

      If BLM would take their energies and fix their communities, maybe there would be less issues. I know because I have been part to those communities to help and there are a lot of people that need it. BLM is not helping those people that need it, they are making things worst.

      BLM is a joke. I challenge you to checkout homicide watch.



      You have no clue as to the risk that people of all colors put their lives at risk for the so called scum you claim to protect. Communities don’t need the likes of you, communities need people that want to help. It isn’t just a black thing so get of the entitlement thing.

      “…we are winning on the national level and on the cultural level.”

      Winning through lies, false news, voter fraud, ignorance, etc. Winning by applying Alinsky’s Rules. Winning by shutting down any opposing views on the college campus. Winning by abusing IRS power. Winning by “Hands up, don’t shoot.” Winning by covering up Hillary’s violations of the law.

      All contemptible.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to TX-rifraph. | August 9, 2016 at 4:52 pm

        I guess you need to claim all that when you are on the wrong side of history.

          Yep, BLM is on the wrong side. And the liberal that live at Huffy post go a great job of rewriting history.

          Earlier you said to someone else “Attacking my motives is ad hominem.”

          Now you do it since you cannot dispute the facts I presented. Thank you.

          “…when you are on the wrong side of history.”

          What the Sam Hill does that mean? Sounds like something John F. Kerry would say, or some other flaming idiot liberal.

          There are absolute truths, which have been true all through history. There is this thing called the Natural Law. “Don’t lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do”, is a good way to go through life.

      Don’t you understand that the government is constantly taking my money too. Does that mean my criminal kids has a right to commit strong arm robberies and then assault a police office then claim it is justified because of police tactics? Keep the lie going. BLM is not about the enforcement cause of legal injustice. Quote all the movies you want but reality is until those communities clean up their act and accept that drug use and disrespect towards others are the problem (not the police) then there is hope. There are a lot of people trying to help in the communities and external to the communities but BLM just makes it more difficult to work in those environment. My friend that was a black panther in the late sixties in Chicago quick because they became too violent and lost their ways. BLM has reached that point and any good that they may have had, is gone.

      Ferguson Police are Obviously targeting Blacks.Bill O’Reilly.

Still their union will continue to contribute to Democrats.

    TX-rifraph in reply to Anchovy. | August 9, 2016 at 11:03 am

    The union leaders are politicians not cops anymore in most cases. How many cops trust the leaders of their unions?

The totalitarians distrust the local/county/state police agencies because they cannot and will not be controlled to serve the ruling class. Their jurisdictions overlap and they are populated with people (officers) who truly want to do what is right and help people. Most cops identify with the little people and do not trust the politicians (with only a few exceptions).

Most politicians are out for themselves while most cops are out for the people who need help including protection from harm. Didn’t the DPD cops protect the BLM protestors when the shooting started in Dallas?

Yes, there are some exceptions like the Wisconsin John Doe thugs, where the Democrats were able to control and use the cops for political ends. However, even those cops where seen as nothing more than tools by the ruling class.

Democrats in general and Democrat politicians in particular see the police as a barrier to rule by edict. Police really do believe in rule by law as it does treat people fairly regardless of any group assignment.

    MarkSmith in reply to TX-rifraph. | August 9, 2016 at 11:10 am

    It all part of the Democrat’s desire to Federalize the police force, thus take more control. Just remember

    Speaking on “Hannity” last night, Giuliani said that Trump was his man and that he thinks other Republicans should vote for him as well.

OnlyRightDissentAllowed | August 9, 2016 at 11:52 am

As a native NY’r I know Giuliani as many of you can’t. I saw how mean spirited he can be.

How many of you are aware that Giuliani put the NYC Emergency Response Center in the World Trade Center despite criticism that the WCC was an obvious target. It had already been hit and the terrorist vowed to finish the job.

Why didn’t Giuliani get any of the blame for the hundreds of fireman and police killed on 9/11? You blame Clinton for Benghazi when she was only indirectly involved. Why did Giuliani become a hero when he could have been the goat?

Giuliani sent hundreds into the cleanup without proper safety gear. Not only were many killed or permanently disabled, but you and I are paying a huge bill for that!

    Native New Yorker…….I see your problem now. Go away you annoy me, boy.

    Wow, comparing Giuliani for the death of firemen caused by 9/11 attackers. When did he not make the call he should have?

    On the other hand, Hilary was suppose to make a decision but failed to. The impact was lost lives because of indecision. Then she covered it up. The there some kinda coverup that Giuliani did?

    As for proper safety gear, the lawsuit included some 190 companies. I guess Giuliani should have been standing at ground zero holding people back.

      MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      Sorry, I need to preview my post more.
      Meant to say : “Is there some kinda coverup that Giuliani did? “

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 4:59 pm

        I don’t think so. But the facts I mentioned are out there. They aren’t hard to find; especially the fact that he located the Emergency Center in the WTC against advice. His term was over and he wasn’t going to get elected to anything else. He actually offered to stick around for a few months after his term was scheduled to end. There was a very loud chorus of thanks, but no thanks.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 1:38 pm

      Giuliani was on the scene. The whole reason the Emergency Response Center was put in the WTC was so that he could walk to it. The recommendation was to put it in Brooklyn.

      YES, Giuliani was in charge.

      Yes, Giuliani could have been standing at Ground Zero and held people back with a word; with a command. He could have ordered proper equipment for the cleanup – not the attempted rescue. He should have. He was the mayor and he sure made that known when he ran for president. 9/11 became a joke whenever Giuliani showed up because that was his whole campaign.

      Instead he used it for political purposes. Now he is politicizing the police because otherwise he is nothing.

    Reading your nonsense….. Wow!

    I hope your wild rant made you feel better.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Common Sense. | August 9, 2016 at 1:59 pm

      comme si comme ca – Somebody commenting on the HuffPo said I should come here and I could learn stuff. What I have learned is that some people live in a bubble and they don’t like to hear anything that will burst their bubble.

      I am just offering a different point of view. I know you think liberals have an evil agenda. The truth is that we have a different culture. Part of that culture is to see issues as complex with a lot of grey.

      I feel sorry for you. You can’t see that I am just offering ideas and facts that you are unacquainted with. You are only familiar with the caricatures, misrepresentations, the out of context quotations and the purposeful misunderstandings. It is intellectually dishonest.

      We don’t hate cops. We just know, from personal experience, that some of them abuse their power. Look up the Central Park Five. They were innocent. Trump took out a full-page ad demanding their conviction. Now Trump objects to their getting compensation even though they were kids and they were forced or tricked into confessions and spent years in jail. One died in jail. What happened to his ‘right to life’?

      Look up Det. Louis Scarcella who framed 87 people.

      You won’t. Stay in your bubble. Before long I will get bored of this game or they will lock me out to keep the bubble pristine.

        Yep, it is a bubble we live in. Probably more of a reality than your pretend “victim” world bubble. As for the Central Park Five, you might want to go back and listen to a few of LBJ tapes. It was the system of law that convicted them, not Trump and you have to add the media element in.

        Also, who was the mayor at the time? Beloved Ed Koch, so I guess the democrat actually did the Five Bad.

        Huffy Post, eh. Yea, talk about a bubble.

Common Sense | August 9, 2016 at 1:28 pm

There is an opening as wide and deep as the Grand Canyon that
separates our nation today.

The politics of culture/identity have crippled our nation.
This is not going to end well.

    MarkSmith in reply to Common Sense. | August 9, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Hopefully you are wrong and it does end well. Otherwise the ones with the most guns win. I wonder if that is why the liberals are so against gun control.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MarkSmith. | August 9, 2016 at 2:19 pm

      Are you threatening or advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

      Maybe there are others who don’t share your point of view, but are also thinking about the same tactics. Actually, they are way ahead of you. What do you think ISIS is about? I am no sympathizer. Just pointing out you have no patent on political violence.

      BTW, the south believed strongly in gun control during Jim Crow. They didn’t think the 2nd Amendment applied to nigras. Was it liberals making sure nigras didn’t have guns?

        Uh. Yes. Yes it was liberals making sure the blacks didn’t have guns.

        I mean, assuming you take the stance that the NRA is a Right Wing conservative association, which is generally accepted, and that the Ku Klux Klan was a action wing of the democratic party, which is historical fact but not widely accepted.

        And that the republicans and conservatives in congress spent lots of time making sure that -everyone- had the right to bear arms from I dunno, 1860 forward, while Democrats were busy crafting laws designed to make it more difficult for the black – and then the poor – to arm themselves.

        I’m relatively sure that there’s a few black leaders of the NAACP that had NRA life memberships, and more than a few that had charters – Like maybe Robert F Williams, a wwii marine veteran?

        But hey. It’s just historical fact that democrats voted against any and all civil rights bills for the last two hundred years by overwhelming margins.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to AsuraYakou. | August 9, 2016 at 4:13 pm

          “Uh. Yes. Yes it was liberals making sure the blacks didn’t have guns.” Liberals in the South? That’s a good one. The descendants of democrats you refer to are now republicans. Do you deny that?

          “But hey. It’s just historical fact that democrats voted against any and all civil rights bills for the last two hundred years by overwhelming margins.” Are you serious? Your arguments are pathetic. You really don’t know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were pasted by northerners – some liberal democrats and some Rockefeller republicans. Those republicans don’t exist anymore.

          Until the 1977 takeover, the NRA had no problem with gun regs. Again, you conflate the current organization with a past it does not embrace – it may celebrate it – but it doesn’t embrace it.

          You put more importance in a name than in the historical facts. That is your best argument? Then you have none. Who cares what the democratic or republican party used to be when the current versions bear no resemblance to their past?

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to AsuraYakou. | August 9, 2016 at 5:03 pm

          I have an analogy for you. Was Paul the Apostle a vicious persecutor of christians or a follower of Jesus?

          Would pointing out his early life discredit his later life? Physically he was the same person, but was he the same?

        You are a real HACK!
        Take your threats and go away!

        The leftest thugs are the ones assaulting Trump supporters!

        And when Trump wins the election they will lose their minds!

        Was it liberals making sure nigras didn’t have guns?

        It was indeed. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was instituted to prevent the Panthers from showing up in Washington with guns. It killed mail order, and set up a Federal Firearms Licensing system intended to ensure that a FFL licensee (ie, a gun dealer) could see his buyer. That’s all that officialdom ever admitted. But what was he supposed to see? He was supposed to see for himself that his customer wasn’t black.

        That was how Congress wanted to keep guns out of the hands of the Panthers. A seller can’t be expected to recognize a Panther, but he can recognize a black person. And that, for Congress, was good enough.

        Liberals even today call this sort of villainy “common-sense gun laws”. Conservatives consider it a disgrace and an attack on the civil rights of all Americans.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to tom swift. | August 9, 2016 at 4:26 pm

          Yep, that was exactly my point. As soon as blacks took up arms, somehow laws got passed.

          But I was pointing out that during the Jim Crow era, white southerners who ran all of law enforcement and all of the southern governments, made sure that blacks didn’t have guns. The NRA said nothing.

          According to the web, the 1968 federal act was passed as a result of the assassination of JFK and MLK. “At the hearings NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported a ban on mail-order sales, stating, “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States”

          The Panthers’ demonstrations resulted in a 1977 California Act.

          Tom, don’t you have an invention to get the facts right? I do. I loved the Tom Swift books, but he was nothing like you.

OnlyRightDissentAllowed | August 10, 2016 at 10:51 am

@Milwaukee “Conservatives have a sense of humor which is part of their usual humility of understanding that they have a role to play in the universe” Trump does not appear to have a sense of humor except when he walks back one of his disgusting, provocative comments like the one on what 2nd Amendment supporters might do if he loses.

I claim he doesn’t have a sense of humor, not because I don’t like him, but because YOU NEVER HEAR ANYONE LAUGH at his comments. That is the only test. I don’t know that a sense of humor is a requirement for president, but your claim that “Conservatives have a sense of humor” is bogus.

BTW and for what it worth, Obama does. Hillary not so much. Again, I base this on whether people laugh. You know: They go – HA, Ha, Ha. Did they do that at Trump’s comment about maybe the 2nd Amendment types could deal Hillary’s choice of judges? No they did not.

    Too Funny, you really must be a paid troll.
    You try to hit that talking point.

    “Did they do that at Trump’s comment about maybe the 2nd Amendment types could deal Hillary’s choice of judges?”

    Nothing funny about it. All those that want their 2nd Amendment rights protect should do what it takes to make sure Hilary does not get elected. What is the problem with that?….I am waiting….are you taking the bait.. and give us “your dishonest version to the answer to that which is today’s talking point from the Hilary campaign. I call Godwin’s Law. Time to jump the shark.