Rev. Al Sharpton Calling Nationalization of Police Under DOJ

[JohnyMac]

I ran across this earlier today. In short Rev. Al is calling for the Dept. of Justice to nationalize all local and state police forces under their umbrella.

I have been hearing some rumbling about this however now the volume is being turned up a notch or two.

Rev. Al Sharpton called for the Justice Department to “take over policing in this country” and stated “we’re going to have to fight states’ rights” in comments recorded by the Baltimore Sun on Thursday.

Sharpton said, “we need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country. In the 20th century, they had to fight states’ rights in — to get the right to vote. We’re going to have to fight states’ rights in terms of closing down police cases.”

To watch the video or read the article go here.

We will be known as the Federal States of America not the United States of America. 

Stay tuned 

[JoJo]

The racist oops I meant Reverand Al would love that because he doesn't have sway over the whole country, just the democrat sections like Baltimore. Everytime i hear his name I think of the "Tawana Brawley" episode.

[Erick]

This entire episode w/ the riots and indictments is an unintended consequence of the lefts strategies and in the end actually quite good for liberty.

The left tries to control black votes via race baiting but the unintended consequences are alienating those police forces that they had been eyeing to play in a  role in oppressing us.

The cops are presented ever more clearly that despite its big gov't stance, the left is not their friend

[JohnyMac]

Erick, I agree with what you wrote. The DEM's have had minorities in their back pocket since the mid '60's. Like anything in life they may have taken for granted that voting block. For example, I am hearing more and more minority leaders coach their flocks to not "walk in lock step" with any party. But to approach each candidate individually, independent of party and match up the best candidate to their individual beliefs & politics to their own.

Allow me to swerve slightly from the theme of this post for a moment and write...   

There is a more open movement at this time from elites in Washington DC. and other bastions of Progressiveness that, "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed." (Hillary Clinton).
 

Hillary Clinton: 'Deep-Seated Cultural Codes, Religious Beliefs…Have To Be Changed'

Progressives are never happy until they are "helping you and your family - " The "Government knows best" philosophy. At this time they are being held in check by that discriminatory document put together by: White, rich, slave owning, Christian, men two hundred and twenty-four years ago.

I am grateful for the open discussion on the direction the country should take. Over the next nineteen months leading up to the 2016 election a great and much needed debate will be had. I encourage Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elisabeth Warren from the Progressive end of the DEM party along with Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Ted Cruz from the Conservative end of the GOP and all in between to participate in the discussion.

Now some of the folks on this forum as well as other venues similar to Unchainedpreppers; believe that to participate in the political process is treason. Anarchy or open revolution is the only answer.

Now, back on track with the theme of this post....

I will stay with the political process until the Schutzstaffel is formed and starts it's march down your and my streets. That is why this elevated noise coming from the White House and their segregates is concerning.

Stay tuned...      

[Reaver]

The racist oops I meant Reverand Al would love that because he doesn't have sway over the whole country, just the democrat sections like Baltimore. Everytime i hear his name I think of the "Tawana Brawley" episode.

Every time I hear his name I think about how awesome his cranium would look as a freight canoe.

[Nemo]

Pay attention to Obergefell v. Hodges.  That little case in SCOTUS.  Talking about gays getting married.  I think that no matter the decision it will result in strong calls for a Constitutional Convention.  If it shoots down gay marriage I submit that it will not be a major issue but if it permits them, watch out govt.

If the convention gets called and will be held I think the conservative part of the US will be in the lead make it happen to limit the Feds big time.  Should that get going like that, it would not surprise me for the Feds to try to stop it-- by whatever means necessary.

If it gets held I would not be surprised if something like the gun lobby and gay love people got together to make 2A just the last 14 words (The right . . . not be infringed) and add an amendment saying Gays are normal people too.

Lets all just hope the first sentence of the second paragraph above happens.

Nemo

[sledge]

I will stay with the political process until the Schutzstaffel is formed and starts it's march down your and my streets. That is why this elevated noise coming from the White House and their segregates is concerning.

Stay tuned...    

Ditto

[JohnyMac]

As a side note NEMO, I read the other day that the Gay USofA population is around 2% of 310M citizens. There is an aweful lot of noise coming from 2% of the population. Based on the noise volume you would think the Gay population is more around 10-15% of the population.

To continue on this theme you started NEMO: At first glance the whole idea of a marriage certificate may have been .gov's way of managing people. However if you look into it there was a reason. Some of the reasons were:

> Before 1753 in the UK you could get married at any age. The law was in part executed to stop underage
    marriage, without the consent of parents of both parties
> With a "legal marriage" (State sanctioned), both parties were guaranteed the right to survivor-ship of property
    owned in "Joint Tenancy". This in part was to help women but I am sure some men have benefited too.
> Marriage requirements were left up to each State to dictate by legislative action specifically who could marry
    whom, e.g. interracial marriage, polygamist marriage, same sex marriage, etc. The Federal government
    wanted nothing to do with this issue...It was a State issue.

Me personalty, I do not care if two consenting people wish to get married and are of a mature enough nature to do so. I do not care if polygamist marriage happens either as long as all parties are in agreement. Spread the misery happiness around.   

 

   
 

   

[crudos]

Sharpton has no influence, if he ever did in the first place. He is the lefty version of Rush, Savage, Hannity, et. al. All spouting at the mouth for ratings and more money.

Maybe some folks would prefer this?

We, the white, straight, and christian People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As ridiculous as it sounds, it really doesn't sound too far off from some groups and individuals making breathing noises lately.

[special-k]

...We, the white, straight, and christian People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America....

Way to go!  Fuck up the pre-amble and all.  Yaaa-hooo crudos... you're the man.