By Duncan Smith at The National Sentinel
Democrats, now at least semi-officially the American Marxist Party, are hell-bent on dividing our nation to the point of civil war.
They hate America so much they literally want to see it destroyed.
And they are doing everything possible to ensure that’s what happens.
They gaslight our issues. They lie about truths. They attack our values and principles. They have destroyed our popular culture. They have hijacked our education system. Their policies have turned our biggest cities into crime-filled sewers.
And now they have created a two-tiered justice system that is literally going to lead to red states opting out at some point.
Because when their citizens can no longer get a fair deal from the feds, then there is no longer any point remaining in such a purposely unfair system.
Fox News’ Tucker Carlson gets it. And he is mightily sounding the klaxon alarm.
(Via Fox News)
Excerpted from his monologue Wednesday:
The ironically-named “Civil Rights Division” of the Biden Justice Department announced Wednesday there will be no charges brought against the man who shot and killed protester Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol back in January. No one who pays attention was surprised to hear this.
In cases like this, the benefit of the doubt usually does goes to law enforcement, and as we’ve often said, we’re fine with that. It should. But still, in a free society, the rest of us have a right to know roughly what happened. In this case, who shot Ashli Babbitt and why?
No one will tell us. The Biden administration says the man who killed Babbitt is a Capitol Hill police officer, and he did the right thing. That’s all they’ve said. We know that Ashli Babbitt was short, female and unarmed. There’s no evidence the officer who killed her gave any kind of verbal warning before he pulled the trigger. Is that standard procedure? We’d imagined the rules of engagement for federal agents limited the use of deadly force to situations where law enforcement has reason to believe they or the people around them are in imminent danger of being harmed. You can’t just shoot people without warning because they’re in the wrong place. That’s not allowed. Except now, apparently, it is allowed. When did these rules change? And, once again, who exactly shot Ashli Babbitt? Journalists exist to ask questions like these, but they’re not.
The Washington Post wrote a long story about the DOJ’s announcement in the case and never raised a single one of these questions. The Post didn’t name the shooter or even acknowledge that the government is withholding his name.
“Authorities determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove Babbitt’s civil rights were violated,” the Post declared. That was it. The rest of the piece was a personal attack on Ashli Babbitt and her political views. She deserved to die. That was the point of the Washington Post story.
How amazing to read something like this, especially now. Eleven hundred miles from Washington, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a police officer accidentally reached for her gun instead of a Taser and killed a man called Daunte Wright. It was a tragedy, as all shootings are. But we know that officer’s name because every news organization in the country printed it immediately. She has now resigned and is facing charges. Her mugshot is all over the Internet. Two nights ago, a mob showed up at her house, forcing her to flee.
She’s not the only one. Last August, a police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin shot a man called Jacob Blake. Remember that? Riots erupted immediately. Yesterday, that officer was cleared of all charges. When that story broke, NPR put that police officer’s name and photograph on the front of their website.
So that’s the standard, except in this case where they are still hiding the identity of the man who shot Ashli Babbitt.
A panel of privileged people tell you to abolish the police. But they’re not saying actually abolish the police. We often claim they are, but listen very carefully. They say they want to abolish American policing as it currently exists. And that raises the question: how does policing currently exist?
Here’s how: local communities get to control it. So the cops walking down your street, you hired them. That’s what Rashida Tlaib doesn’t like. That’s what offends MSNBC. The thing they hate about it is that they don’t control it. They can’t use your local police department to punish you for your political views. For that, they have to go to the FBI. It drives them crazy.
Abolishing the police doesn’t mean getting rid of people with guns. It merely and specifically means stripping you of any control over local law enforcement. It’s just a more ambitious form of gun control, meant to disempower the citizenry, not protect them. When your police department answers to them, things will be very different.
You see what’s going on. Two systems of justice — one for the allies of the people in charge, and a very different one for their enemies. These aren’t traditional liberals. They’re not calling for a peaceful utopia where no one uses violence. This isn’t the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. That was the old liberalism. We used to make fun of it, when it was going on. We could use a lot more of it now. This stuff is scary.
This article originally appeared on The National Sentinel and was republished with permission.
Let us know what you think in the comments below!
Sick of the censorship and election meddling?
💥 FOLLOW US 💥 on Telegram for instant News and Updates.
When you share to your friends you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you, we appreciate it!