Exploiting George Floyd – USA Gov Policy

What happened to George Floyd was a terrible tragedy. To those who support Progressive politics, however, it was a great gift.

The U.S. economy had made extraordinary gains, with special momentum for blue collar jobs. In foreign affairs, the inexcusable mistakes of the Obama Administration were being corrected. Washington was finally fighting back against China’s outrages. The false charges of Russian collusion were finally exposed. The presumptive candidate of the Democratic Party was tottering on the edge of senility.

Progressives had little chances of persuading the public to fulfill Barack Obama’s vision of “fundamentally transforming” America into something radically different than the constitutional, free market entity that had made it the most successful nation on Earth.

Then along came the tragedy in Minneapolis. Ignoring the fact that Floyd’s death took place in a Democratic, progressive-run city, as did other, similar outrages (think Rodney King in Los Angeles, or Eric Gardner in New York) the Left moved swiftly to irrationally blame the White House, and, indeed, America as a whole.

Pay careful attention to the allegations of systemic discrimination, followed by calls to defund the police. The goal has nothing to do with George Floyd or racial bias. It is a cynical and deceitful drive by the increasingly powerful Socialist movement to wholly replace the American system of government, beginning particularly with law enforcement.

The fact that the charges of “systemic discrimination” were unsupported by facts didn’t matter. Anyone who questions that premise is swiftly labelled a bigot, ending any discussion. Nevertheless, the false narrative of police eagerly killing black men doesn’t have a factual basis.

Take the example of the charge that cops are engaged in a shooting spree against black men.

Statistics say that alcoholism occurs in about 20% of men and women. sildenafil delivery Acai juice has tremendous health properties and could be one the viagra 50 mg downtownsault.org factors responsible for causing ED in you. In this manner this treatment activates the normal mode in existence of ED health condition. viagra prices downtownsault.org Once a person’s dopamine super viagra cheap levels decrease by 30%, symptoms of early parkinson’s disease start to show.

Consider the results of a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States study: “We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.”

Heather MacDonald, writing in National Review found that “Earlier studies have also disproven the idea that white officers are biased in shooting black citizens. The Black Lives Matter narrative has been impervious to the truth…”

Despite the lack of evidence, the anti-police movement is quickly gaining steam. has announced a $150 million cut to his police force. In New York, similar cuts are being advocated by some. In New York, the NYPD is also facing demands for budget cuts.

Obviously, a lack of protection would lead to chaos. What do Progressives suggest replace police? Law Enforcement Today provides the answer:

“One of the self-proclaimed leaders of the Black Lives Movement (BLM) in New York says they plan on launching an armed branch of ‘peace officers.’ He says it’s to combat police brutality in black communities during the so-called “war on police.” The comments were made in an interview with the Daily Mail. BLM New York chapter Chairman Hawk Newsome talked about plans of the group to follow in the footsteps of the Black Panthers Party by matching fire with fire … The Black Panthers Party had also created ‘peace officers’.

There is shocking indifference to lives lost and property destroyed by Progressive allies, who blatantly see what happened to George Floyd not as a tragedy but as an opportunity. The progressive Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who serves as the Democratic Attorneys General Association Co-Chair noted that “Yes, America is burning. But that’s how forests grow.”

Picture: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/