Sir Robert Peel, the Ruling Elite, and Antifa

Sir Robert Peel, Home Secretary under the Duke of Wellington, formed the London Metropolitan Police in 1829. He was also instrumental in the establishment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He thus became the ‘Mother of modern policing’ upon which policing in the Anglosphere (and elsewhere) is based.

He left us nine principles of modern policing which are the key to the successful policing of a democracy (or a constitutional republic). They are:

  1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
  2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
  3. To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
  4. To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
  5. To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
  6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
  7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
  9. To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Those are the principles upon which American police forces are based, and like the Met, some are coming into disrepute recently with the citizens, usually especially principles 5, 7, and 8 recently.

Why? Well, Colonel Schlichter has some thoughts:

Rioters and criminals get released with a wave and a smile; cops get threatened with death row for fighting back when a career criminal tries to taser them. It’s all a lie and a scam.

This is all part and parcel of a strategy to strip us of any kind of refuge or recourse from abuse. We cannot look to the marketplace of ideas to make our case because our case has been declared verboten. The institutions are arrayed against us. The law means nothing because it will not be enforced neutrally. So why again do we consider ourselves bound by the social contract the establishment has been using like Charmin?

What we are seeing is the elite’s ruthless pursuit of the power we stripped them of back in 2016 when we made the Hillary fans cry. And since then, despite it all, we have made progress – some good judges, no more wars, trade realism with China. But this is intolerable to the leftist Establishment.

I find it very difficult to disagree with him, as do many Americans, which is why May was the best ever month for gun sales, and June is expected to top that. That has much to do with the threats that Antifa is making to spread out from the ‘blue cities’, which America as a whole will not tolerate. We have too much to lose. So if the police abdicate the trust we’ve tried to have in them, as many are doing and/or if a two-tiered level of justice continues for much longer, we might as well disestablish the police forces, for then the rights, and the obligations, delineated in the constitution, the courts, and the police, will devolve back to the citizenry at large. Kurt may or may not be correct that this is a coup of the elite against the people, it doesn’t matter. That is the perception many (maybe most) of us have been given, and the sovereign American people will act accordingly. The police at all levels become something between superfluous to an enemy of the people.

I suggest that it is a very bad outcome, even if we win, and we would.

The American People Take Control

The other day, Ben Domenech of The Federalist titled his post “Americans Will Decide When Lockdown Is Over“. As always, he makes a good case…

As a legal matter, Trump assuredly does not have the power to order states to do such things or overrule their governors on the matter without provoking a major legal fight. But all of this talk about whose authority must be respected leaves out the practical reality at play here: the American people will decide when the economy is reopened. Until their fears fade, you can’t just flip a switch and make them go out to eat or interact or buy luxury goods. As Chris Jacobs notes: “Just because the Trump administration gives word that individuals and businesses can reopen doesn’t mean that most, or even any, of them will do so.”

That, of course, is simply common sense. You can maybe, given sufficient cause, tell Americans they can not do something, and most will likely comply, even as we have with the soemtimes nonsensical rules imposed during this [perhaps] epidemic. If you work hard enough at scaring us anyway. For a while – maybe.

It’s another kettle of fish if you’re going to try to tell us we have to start doing all the things we did before. Ever tried to tell your stubborn uncle that he has to do something? Yeah, worked out well didn’t it? Uncle Sam’s nephews are a stubborn lot at best and don’t coerce worth a damn.

The other thing Ben is right about, and I do urge you to follow the link above is that when we decide it’s time to get back to work, play, worship, whatever; we will do so, and no government will ever be able to stop us.

Remember when the authorities closed the Port of Boston? Yeah, what happened? The United States happened. Perhaps we are really dumbed down sheep these days, but I don’t think so, I think we’re complacent, overly comfortable, and afraid that asserting ourselves might get the china broken. But I think under that we are the same people as we were then, and woe betide any would-be dictator.

The other thing is this, from Jack Dunphy at PJ Media via Second City Cop, who says this:

  • I’ve been a cop for nearly 40 years. For the last 20 of them, I’ve had the good fortune of being granted the platform, first at National Review Online, later at City Journal, Ricochet, and here at PJ Media, to write on behalf of my fellow police officers when their actions came under what I considered to be unfair criticism. Police work has grown more difficult since I began, all the more so when cops’ split-second decisions are scrutinized by an uninformed public after having been mischaracterized in the media, sometimes deliberately.

    So it saddens me to observe some of the asininity on display among some of my fellow police officers in recent days as fear of the coronavirus pandemic brings the country to its knees. Reason and common sense have in some places been abandoned in favor of a level of social control rarely seen in any country that calls itself free, much less in the United States of America. Here in Southern California, we have seen police officers ticketing a surfer on an otherwise empty beach, citing people for sitting in parked cars while watching a sunset, and, in what may be the most farcical display of them all, using not just one but two boats to corral and arrest a lone paddleboarder off the coast of Malibu.

    I do not discount the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic. Indeed, I am of a sufficiently advanced age to be considered a high-risk patient if I were to contract the disease. But neither do I discount the genuine threat to liberty posed by the various orders, decrees, edicts, and mandates lately imposed by the nation’s governors, mayors, health commissioners, and every other sort of government functionary exercising their newly discovered power to limit the freedom of their fellow citizens. In the case of the people being hassled for watching the sunset, cited above, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department was so proud of this exercise of authority that they made it their pinned tweet on their Twitter account.

He (and we) are of a generation of cops who remember exactly what the oath was we took years ago, and it wasn’t to be petty tyrants in the service of political agendas.
And that’s important, there are some bad apples in the police department barrel, just like all the other barrels, but in general, the police officers we see in the street are not the problem. They too are victims, as they do their best to enforce the law, stay out of jail, and still keep their job and self-respect. A lot of the time, they are the guys and gals stuck in the middle, just trying to get through the day. We make a mistake if we make them the enemy instead of the politicians who are so greatly exceeding their authority.
Ben makes another  point:
And on the other hand, those who desperately want to reopen and exchange in goods and services will do so in spite of any regulatory burden that is not delivered at the end of a gun. Just go to any mid-sized neighborhood and you’ll see that the number of small businesses that are quietly reopening, despite not offering an essential service, is growing every day. They are testing the limits of the willingness of police to shut them down. And really, unless they end up going viral, the cops are looking the other way.
Life will go on, and the police (in the street, anyway) realize just like the rest of us, that in large measure we have been lied to (again) and that there will be a tomorrow, and if we are going to live in that world, we’d be wise not to make everyone an enemy. After all, we have politicians to do that for us. Frankly, out here, I doubt very much if there is a business, or indeed church, who isn’t quietly breaking the rules. They have to be, if life is to go on, and Americans are above all pragmatic. The question always is, “Will it work?” and the answer when the question is committing economic suicide to prevent some flu deaths is a resounding “NO!”
Long ago, centuries before “Governor Blackface” was in office, a Governor of Virginia knew his people very well. His comment in another crisis was

Give me liberty or give me death

I too qualify as an at risk person and Governor Patrick Henry speaks for me and I think most Americans, even when the Chinese Flu threatens.

Land of Heroes

Sometimes we forget to acknowledge across the partisan divide, when someone on the other side, does the right thing. Well, today I want to take the time.

First, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who is running for President, but did the right (and nice) thing earlier this week when she heard about Rush Linbaugh’s cancer. She Tweeted:

That was both nice and kind of her, alone of the Presidential candidates, and she paid a pretty high price for it (at least on Twitter). Her politics are often as bad as the rest, but Rep. Gabbard seems like she is a very nice human being, which is, of course, why I, like so many conservatives, like her even as we disagree with much of what she says.

Thank you, ma’am.

Another one who has surprised me greatly is Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D- AZ). When she was running she seemed much like just another Democrat flake (pun there but not intended). As she demonstrated at the State of the Union, she has proved to be what a Senator should be, an advocate for her constituents. If you were watching, you saw her standing out often, as she applauded things that she thinks are good for Arizona, and many, many of those were the same thing that left the harpies in white sitting on their hands.

As Gabby Hoffman said on RedState, “Be a Kyrsten Sinema not a Nancy Pelosi.”

These two young women give me hope that American politics may yet recover, but that day is not today. But we should notice and comment when an opponent does the right thing regardless of the political consequences. We should also emulate them, not in what we believe but in how we treat people.

On the other hand, Pelosi’s harpies in white sat there stone faced when the President said this:

And yet, historically this is what the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, believed. Well, it makes the choice pretty clear, you can be pro America, or you can vote Democrat. It takes an exceptional person to combine them, a few still exist, and we honor them, but they are a species on the verge of extinction.

Project Veritas in Iowa

I don’t usually follow Project Veritas all that closely. Not because I don’t think they do useful work, I do but because you can’t follow everything and plenty of others do. But this is different. This is at least part of the second tape but watch. (a bit NSFW by the way.)

John Hinderaker at PowerLine explains:

He promises that Milwaukee will “burn” if Sanders doesn’t get the Democratic nomination, and vows to attack police officers. He endorses the Soviet Gulag in particular, and Communist re-education camps in general. He talks about “revolution” and suggests that anyone who opposes the Bernie Sanders revolution will be shot. He comes out against free speech. Jurek advocates sentencing billionaires to hard labor “breaking rocks” and approves of Antifa. His language is vulgar and threats of violence are interspersed through his conversation.

Democrats are already in damage control mode on Twitter. You can see the Project Veritas videos as well as some of the Democrats’ responses on O’Keefe’s Twitter feed. Democrats describe Jurek as a volunteer, which he isn’t. He is a paid staffer in Iowa (or was until today). He was described as a “top-tier organizer” by Sanders’ senior campaign officials in Iowa, who have now closed down their social media accounts.

Funny how often ‘damage control mode’ means lying like a rug because one got caught, isn’t it?

Meanwhile, there is one thing we can say for sure. To paraphrase John Lennon, Kyle Jurek may be a violent Communist dreamer, but he’s not the only one. James Hodgkinson, another Bernie Bro, has already done some of the worst things that Jurek threatens. The liberal press has tried to bury the fact that Hodgkinson, a Sanders volunteer and hard-core labor unionist, shot up a group of Republican Congressmen, and would have succeeded in murdering the House Majority Whip, but for the miracles of modern medicine.

It’s a very valid point. Does Sanders believe this stuff as well? I don’t know. But if a significant portion of his followers and employees do, does that matter very much? They seem to have found a home.

That is not good news for America, any more than Corbyn was for Britain. Britain dealt pretty decisively with the threat. We need to as well. As John asks…

But maybe it is time to ask: how radical are Bernie Sanders and his supporters, anyway?

AG Barr at The Federalist Society

Attorney General William Barr gave the Barbara K Olson Lecture at the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyers Convention.

It is a superb dissertation on the background and theory of the American system of government. I have never heard better. I highly recommend watching and paying attention.

Sometimes we forget, we have had, and we do ha some extremely intelligent and accomplished people in our government.

Since the AG said it all, there is little point to me adding my 2¢ worth.

Enjoy.

Patriots not Globalists

I noted an article at The Duran yesterday. While I suspect many of you have not heard of the site, I often enjoy their view,  which is not conventional. Here Matthew Ehret comments on Trump’s speech to the UN. The video clip is at the link: “Future Belongs To Patriots, Not Globalists”: Donald Trump Tells UN.

The author states that:

This powerful intervention broke the narrative that the UN Climate summit or the attempts to impeach him had anything to do with “saving the environment” or “stopping corruption in politics” as those running these operations would have us believe. The reality, as Trump eloquently made clear at this venue, is that the issue now, as it has always been, is truly about the nature of the world order- and whether that order shall be run by sociopathic technocrats under a one world government, or patriots under a community of sovereign nation states.

He’ll get no argument from me on that.

But there’s more. Ehret, I had never heard of so I Duck, Ducked him. He’s an iconoclastic Canadian author, who has done a lot of work on the roots of the ‘Deep State’. It’s probably a good thing for a Canadian to research, more than anyone they sit halfway between Britain and America. He seems to be making the point that the ‘Deep State’ is, in fact, the old British elite’s attempt to reestablish the old Empire, that he says failed about the time of the Boer war.

I think he may be correct. One of the things that I have never understood was  FDR’s antipathy to the Empire. Ehret puts it in opposition to the American system as designed by Hamilton and further extended by Lincoln.

He has authored a 55 page PDF on the origin of the ‘Deep State’ that I found this morning. While I’m only about a fifth of the way through it, I’m finding it fascinating. From the introduction:

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in  producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labour of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and         diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the labourer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to under working the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level.

One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

– Henry C. Carey, Harmony of Interests, 1856

The PDF is here. I do not know if he is right, nor do I know he is wrong. But, either way, it is by far the most plausible answer to the origin of that shadowy grouping that I have read. If you are interested,  you should too.

 

%d bloggers like this: