Monday, April 27, 2015


              On the pretext of protesting another alleged case of police brutality, a mob of barbaric black criminals is running rampant through the streets of Baltimore even as this is written.  All semblance of a civilized society, let alone law and order, has disintegrated in that wretched city -- reduced to utter chaos and corruption by decades of unchallenged, one-party Democrat rule and, more recently, seven years of Obama's misrule in Washington.

                This is what happens when a lawless President and a succession of Afro-racist Attorneys General repeatedly endorse the twisted motives and means of street thugs, and repeatedly condemn and undercut the efforts of police to enforce at least a modicum of legal restraint against those elements.  Obama, Holder, and now Loretta Lynch have effectively handed black street criminals a license to continue their lawless thuggery by repeatedly stating that police efforts to suppress such crime unfairly target "young black males" and thus present a threat to what they laughably misrepresent as "civil rights."

                But the real threat to civil rights comes from the unrestrained violence of rioters in the streets of places like Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, when spineless government authorities abdicate their duty to employ the full force of police power to suppress lawlessness and maintain civil order.

                Perhaps the ultimate expression of the pro-thug/anti-police attitudes of Obama, newly appointed Attorney General Lynch, and their Democratic cohorts in urban governments was uttered by the outrageous black Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.  In describing how she reined-in the police in the face of the destructive Baltimore riots, she stated:  "It's a very delicate balancing act, because, while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well."

                As outrageously lawless and insidious as this statement is on its face, it is even worse when closely parsed.  When the mayor of a city in the throes of rampant criminal rioting unashamedly acknowledges – indeed, she seemed to righteously declare – that her government deliberately "gave those who wished to destroy space to do that," then that city has reverted to an atavistic barbarism; its government has perversely declared its alliance and cooperation with the violent mobs bent on its destruction.

                But Rawlings-Blake's statement reveals an even more profound strain of evil.  When she said that her government "tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on," it is apparent that "they" whom she was bent on protecting were the rioters themselves, not the innocent citizens or police whom they were attacking!

                This is an astonishing statement of grotesquely wrong-headed governance in an age when we have, unfortunately, become too inured to such outrages.  The Mayor of Baltimore employs her police to protect marauding criminals and to assure them adequate space to destroy the property of innocent citizens.  

                Incidentally, if anyone thinks that Mayor Rawlings-Blake is some kind of maverick who is outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party, think again.  She presently holds the office of Secretary of the Democratic National Committee.  Her radical views on law enforcement, race relations, and riot control place her squarely in the mainstream of the Democratic Party.  Indeed, she is an important leader of that wretched party.

                Ominously, the shockingly candid acknowledgments of this lawless mayor reflect a new "turn of the screw" that takes us – or at least those who live, work, or travel in Baltimore – to a very dark place that has not been seen before, or at least not with such astonishing clarity.  The Mayor and Government of Baltimore are more in sympathy with the rioting criminal mobs than with the city's law-abiding citizens or the police who try to protect them.  And they employ their authority to protect the rioters and to facilitate their criminal activities.

                Meanwhile, streamed "news alerts" during the networks' riot coverage assured viewers that "the White House was monitoring the situation."  That is, after Obama conferred with the lawless, "space-to-destroy" Mayor Rawlings-Blake about how the federal government might be able to "provide assistance as needed." 

                In light of the Mayor's assurance of protection and assistance for the rioters, one is left wondering what kind of assistance Obama intended to provide her.  Was he planning to send in Justice Department operatives to assure that the rioters would have even more "space to destroy"?  Don't laugh. That seems entirely possible with these characters.

                What a clueless, gutless, feckless presidential response to a catastrophic violent riot in one of America's largest cities.  Meanwhile, the FBI is apparently discovering evidence that black criminal organizations are planning attempts to assassinate white policemen not only in Baltimore, but in other opportune locations.

                Instead of conferring with the deranged mayor who has demonstrated nothing beyond her support for the safety and space of the rioters, Obama should be prepared to do what Presidents going back to Dwight Eisenhower have consistently done when violent rioters run amuck beyond the control of state and local authorities:  Invoke the authorities set forth in Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 331-334, to order the use of the federalized national guard or other military units to restore law and order.  Although some of those provisions require a request from the affected state's governor as a prerequisite to federal engagement, section 332 of title 10 does not.  It provides as follows:

                  "Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

                It appears that neither Maryland nor Baltimore authorities have the will or capacity to forcefully suppress the ongoing rioting and lawlessness in the streets of Baltimore.  The prevalent state of lawlessness and violence in Baltimore, moreover, obviously renders it "impracticable" to enforce federal laws – like federal laws protecting civil rights, the right to travel, and the conduct of interstate commerce -- in that city by ordinary means.  In comparable circumstances, Presidents from Eisenhower to Johnson to Bush have invoked the title 10 statutes to quell similar urban riots with the use of the federalized National Guard or other appropriate federal troops. 

                Even before today's (Monday's) riots erupted with unfettered lawlessness and violence, Obama and his Justice Department were on clear notice that a firm assertion of federal authority would probably be needed to quell this violent uprising.  When thousands of fans at a major league baseball game are trapped in the stadium, and unable to return to their homes due to rioting and street violence – which in fact occurred at Camden Yards on Saturday night – it is obvious that the situation is completely out of control.  And if that were not enough, the fact that the barbaric rioters were even threatening the safety of handicapped women in wheelchairs should have been enough to move even the Obama-Holder-Lynch Justice Department to initiate federal intervention.

                But neither Obama nor whichever of his Afro-racist Attorney Generals is on duty at a given time is particularly concerned with enforcing federal law against the barbaric Baltimore rioters.  Obama, Holder, and Lynch are, if anything, in strong sympathy with these rabid mobs.  They are more concerned with bringing bogus, unjustified civil rights actions against the beleaguered police than they are with protecting American citizens against the unfettered violence of the Baltimore barbarians.

                Splashing Rocks vigorously and repeatedly argued that Loretta Lynch should not be confirmed as Attorney General because she would enthusiastically perpetuate the lawless and discriminatory enforcement of federal law inflicted on the American people by Eric Holder for some six years.  But a sufficient number of Vichy Republican senators collaborated with Obama and the Democrats to enable her confirmation.  On the very day Ms. Lynch assumed her duties as Attorney General, her dangerously acquiescent response to the grotesque Baltimore riots gave us an infuriating preview of what we can expect for the dark remaining years of the Obama administration.

                If there ever were a post-revolutionary time to appreciate and exercise the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, this is that time.

                Addendum:  As though on cue to confirm this post's assertion that Attorney General Lynch is more concerned with appeasing the radical likes of Al Sharpton (a leading supporter of her nomination) by pressing anti-police "civil rights" investigations than with taking forceful law enforcement action against the rioters, Fox News this morning included the following report of Lynch's stated response to the chaos in Baltimore:

                "In a statement issued Monday, Attorney General Lynch said she would send Justice Department officials to the city in coming days, including Vanita Gupta, the agency's top civil rights lawyer. The FBI and Justice Department are investigating Gray's death for potential criminal civil rights violations."