As Homicides Skyrocket in Baltimore, Cops Are Looking To Leave (Video)

Thanks to the racial grievance narrative that was embraced and perpetuated by Obama, Holder, Loretta Lynch, Sharpton, the BlackLivesMatter crowd, and the entire Baltimore city government, Baltimore cops are now feeling harassed and intimidated to the point that they can no longer do their jobs –  and as a result, criminals are running wild.

Everybody is happy – thugs get to do whatever they want, and cops get paid to sit around on their asses and eat donuts. (The ones who haven’t put in their two week notices, that is.)

Crime is skyrocketing in Baltimore. (Remember, it’s a hard and fast rule: Everything bad skyrockets under Obama.)

Megyn Kelly, Wednesday night, ran through the alarming numbers: Homicides are up 40%, non-fatal shootings are up 60%.

“The Western district of the city where the riots took place have seen 22 homicides in just the last four months – that’s more than the entirety of last year. And just today, five more people were shot in a broad daylight gun-battle ranging over a half mile down residential streets. All of this happens while arrests are down 32%, and police reps say the rank and file feel alienated by this prosecutor and are concerned about doing their jobs.”

Kelly went on to say that the Mayor and the police chief have come out to say that the police are not “holding back.”

Kelly’s guest, former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman explained what is going on.

“They’re not holding back – they’re being very cautious about following all the rules. They know nobody’s got their back in the city government, their own police chief’s going to throw them under the bus – so they’re doing everything by the book – they’re answering the radio calls and they’re making no proactive stops. They’re not getting out and shaking people down, wondering what people are doing, searching people – looking for guns, drugs — they’re basically just answering the calls for service,” Fuhrman said.  “And this is exactly what the city government gets. They get a police department that answers the cat-in-the-tree call – and that’s it.”

Megyn Kelly noted that in the course of doing their jobs, cops now have to worry that one mistake they make could “turn into charges of false arrest, false imprisonment, and the loss of their freedom.”

She added, “we’re already hearing from some of our Baltimore police officer sources that they’re looking to leave this police force.”

Fuhrman “well, that’s what’s going to happen. The only people you’re going to have left are the people that are either going to do nothing and just agree with the administration (weasels who will probably end up being on the take) or they’re going to leave the department. Officers are actually going to find better places to go that actually respect them and actually back them when they actually do lawful arrests – actually do their job.

(Way to go Fuhrman! You said “actually” 5 times in one sentence!) 

Fuhrman continued, “Megyn you have to see what’s going on here. You have two dynamics. You have the city administration and every government official in Baltimore trying to get police scalps. They are not throwing them under the bus – they’re trying to get scalps. Now, while that’s going on, all the gang members, all the drug dealers, all the two bit criminals, all the wannabes – it’s vacation! They know they’ll be able to take advantage of the police not wanting to be in the area because they are the target of these gang members and drug dealers and they’re also the target of their own administration – so they’re going to pull back, they’re going to do their job, and they’re going to stay out of trouble.”

Kelly concluded by noting that the prosecutor Marilyn Mosby sat down with Vogue magazine while the city is awash in murders she should be prosecuting.

Howie Kurtz: Stephanopoulos Blunder “Severe”, “Unthinkable” (Video)

Megyn Kelly led off her show Thursday night with the George Stephanopoulos bombshell that the Washington Free Beacon (not Politico) broke.

As you surely know by now, Steppie neglected to disclose his Clinton Foundation donations even as he reported on the Clintons and their foundation/slushfund – a particularly egregious oversight –  considering  a hard-hitting interview he had with Peter Schweizer, who he aggressively grilled over “Clinton Cash” – the book Schweizer wrote about the Clinton Foundation.

Kelly and Marc Thiessen remarked upon the irony of Stephanopoulos (a Clinton insider who worked in the Clinton White House) questioning the partisan motivations of  former Bush speechwriter Peter Schweizer.

“George Stephanopoulos actually questioned whether Peter Schweixer had a partisan interest in his book because he had worked for four months in the Bush administration — when he was the communications director for the Clinton White House and the Communications Director for the 1992 Clinton Campaign, and is it fair to say maybe he has a partisan interest in defending Hillary Clinton?” Thiessen said.

Kelly cited Eric Wemple of the Washington Post media blog, who said; “A donation from Stephanopoulos to the Clinton Foundation in any amount constitutes a scandal and an immediate crisis for ABC News.”

Howard Kurtz remarked, “This blunder by Stephanopoulos is so severe that it really threatens to undo what he’s accomplished in his 18 years at ABC News.”

He added that for Steppie to given this money to the Clinton Foundation and not disclose the donations to his bosses or viewers is “unthinkable.”

Kelly asked why Stephanopoulos would be considered too partisan to moderate a debate, but not the entire 2016 campaign. ot so much conflict that he isn’t stepping out of 2016 coverage entirely.

Kurtz said he should have found “any other charity on earth to give it”

SEE ALSO:

WFB: ABC News Anchor George Stephanopoulos Donated $50,000 to Clinton Foundation

PJ Tatler: ABC News Should Be Ashamed
The underhanded way ABC rolled out a controversial news story about one of its anchors today is disgraceful.

While the contributions were publicly available information, the host had not disclosed the conflict of interest to ABC viewers – until he was caught by Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon.

Stiles asked ABC for a comment, and while they were waiting for a reply, ABC leaked the story to Dylan Byers of Politico, who titled his story “George Stephanopoulos discloses $50,000 contribution to Clinton Foundation” (as if the idea to disclose was all Stephanopoulos’s).

A half an hour after Politico’s story ran, ABC News sent a statement  to the Washington Free Beacon.

PJ Tatler: Republicans Revolt Over Stephanopoulos’s Conflict of Interest at ABC (Video)
Ed Driscoll: More Stephanopoulos Conflicts of Interest Emerge

Rep. Trey Gowdy: Witness list will include Cheryl Mills,Huma Abedin and Sid Blumenthal

On Wednesday’s “Hugh Hewitt Show, House Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Rep Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Sidney Blumenthal, Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes will be on his witness list to testify before the committee or commit to a transcribed interview.

Asked if his witness list would include Cheryl Mills, the former Secretary of State’s chief of staff, Gowdy responded,  “absolutely, and it was always going to include Ms. Mills. But, if you studied the correspondence between the State Department and Secretary Clinton after she decided to return the public record to the public a couple of months ago, that correspondence was directed to Cheryl Mills. So, Cheryl Mills needs to be talked to, not only with respect to Benghazi, but also with respect to the retention of the public records by Secretary Clinton after she separated.”

Huma Abedin will also be included on the witness list, Gowdy said because, “you have to if you want to write the final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after Benghazi.”

He also said that Sidney Blumenthal, Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice will be on the list, “because I think your listeners would be interested in the chronology. We are taking the witnesses from the Department of State and CIA whose identities need to be preserved, we’re doing them first, and those are transcribed interviews. Then we are moving into the people who are more well known, the Susan Rice’s, the Ben Rhodes, and yes, you can include Sidney Blumenthal.”

Hat tip: AoSHQ

Black Judge Shames White Victims Of Home Invasion (Video)

B9316903331Z.1_20150410140540_000_GQRAF50NE.1-0

The reason Judge Olu Stevens of Louisville, Kentucky berated a family that was terrorized by two black home invaders – in court and on Facebook  – will knock your socks off. In all my years, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an egregious example of race-card abuse.

The judge was “troubled” and “offended”  by the fact that a three year victim was so traumatized by a violent home invasion, she is now fearful of black males.

Jordan and Tommy Gray’s 3-year old daughter was watching “SpongeBob” when two black armed men broke into her home and robbed her family at gunpoint – one of the perps pointing a gun in her father’s face.

Mom and dad honestly noted on the their victim impact statement that she is still afraid of black men 2 years later.

“Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave,” the mother said. “It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

Via US News:

Tommy Gray also wrote that since the crime, his daughter had been terrified of black males and that probation was not sufficient punishment for Gregory Wallace, 27, who had pleaded guilty to robbery.

“If holding a little girl at gunpoint gets you probation, then our system is flawed,” Gray said.

But when Wallace was brought up for sentencing Feb. 4 in Jefferson Circuit Court, it was the parents, not Wallace, who suffered Judge Olu Stevens’ wrath.

“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” he said.

“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”

The Grays were not in court as Stevens denounced their statements and granted probation to Wallace, whom he said deserved the opportunity to redeem himself.

But they did see when Stevens condemned their statements again, in a post on Facebook.

“Do three year olds form such generalized, stereotyped and racist opinions of others?” he wrote. “I think not. Perhaps the mother had attributed her own views to her child as a manner of sanitizing them.”

That a supposedly unbiased judge would ask such an ridiculously biased  “leading question” does not speak well of him.

It’s obviously true that three year olds generally don’t develop “generalized, stereotyped and racist opinions (as if you could call her fears those things) “on their own.” This young tot had a little help – She was traumatized when a couple of black home invaders terrorized her family.  Is this judge stupid?

The family is obviously unhappy that the ordeal has negatively impacted their daughter’s view of blacks. How did he miss that? It’s why they listed it it on the impact statement.

Later Stevens said, “I wasn’t criticizing the victims, I was criticizing a statement that I thought was a generalization against an entire race of people.”

He was criticizing the feelings of a three year old victim of a crime. Shame on him. #SMDH

Meanwhile – –

Wallace and his accomplice, Marquis McAfee, both 27, were arrested about three weeks after the robbery. Both pleaded guilty and McAfee, who was on probation for a prior crime, was sentenced to 10 years in prison, which he is serving.

Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Richard Elder objected to probation for Wallace, who pleaded guilty to a 20-year sentence, saying he was “guilty as hell” and “put a gun in that little girl’s father’s face.”

Huge Palette Cleanser: 

WISTV: Man’s candid, honest video about race and traffic stops goes viral:

This is a heart-warming story and I’m glad it’s getting some attention. I wish the young man had worded a thing or two differently in his video – but his heart was definitely in the right place so kudos to him.

Pat Caddell Trashes Holder on Menendez Indictment: DOJ “Is Run By A Political Hack”

On Fox News’ Political Insiders, Easter Sunday, Doug Schoen, John LeBoutillier, and Pat Caddell joined host Julie Banderas to talk about the federal charges against Senator Bob Menendez, which came the same week the DOJ decided not to prosecute Lois Lerner.

The insiders all agreed that the indictment is politically motivated and designed to send a message to the rest of congress.

“It sends a chilling feeling to any other Democrats who are thinking about crossing the Obama White House,” LeBoutillier said.

Democrat pollster Pat Caddell claimed that the Political Insiders was the first show to predict that the Menendez case would become politicized by the “Criminal Injustice Department” which he added, “is run by a political hack – who when he’s not playing the race card, he’s covering up scandal after scandal – be it Solyndra, the IRS, or whatever. They did this to Menendez … to chill the other members. They went after the one Democrat who was speaking with great conscience on this issue. They had this three years ago – the public integrity section – which is itself an oxymoron – is the same section that took out Senator Ted Stevens and got reprimanded after he lost his election, by withholding  evidence.”

Caddell continued, “76% of the American people want congress to have a say. Barack Obama intends to bypass the congress to the UN.

Later Caddell pointed out that the charges against Menendez involve women and trips, and so forth, but, “you got Bill Clinton out there going to Orgy Island with a convicted pedophile. You don’t hear anything about that,” he said.

“The corruption on the Hill is unbelievable – This cover-up of Lois Lerner and the cover-up of Benghazi are worse than anything covered up in Watergate.”

SEE ALSO:

Breitbart TV: ABC’S KARL: MENENDEZ INDICTMENT LIKELY TO QUELL CHALLENGES TO IRAN DEAL:

Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl said the indictment of  Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is a strong supporter of Israel and opposes President Barack Obama going ahead with an Iran nuclear deal without congressional  approval, will make it harder for Republicans to persuade other Democrats to go against the president and override a veto on Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) legislation calling for congressional oversight.

DOJ: No Contempt Charges For Lois Lerner – Sen. Menendez Indicted

Let’s see. We’ve got two corrupt individuals, here, but two very different treatments under the law.

One of the above did everything she was asked to do and more, kept her mouth shut and destroyed evidence. She gets a gold star.

The other person did bad. He was critical of the administration’s negotiations with Iran and embarrassed the president. He gets indicted.

As Ace says, The masks are all off now.

The DoJ won’t press contempt charges against her for her busted attempt to plead the fifth (Here Is a Statement of Alleged Facts I Want to Introduce Into the Record/Having Done That, I Now Say I Don’t Want to Speak for the Record).

Supposedly the DoJ is still considering bringing some sort of charges against her over the Tea Party Targeting.

(Pssssst: There will be no meaningful charges. You read it here, first!)

As for Democrat Bob Menendez, (who earlier this year suggested that the  White House gets its talking points from Tehran) we have this: 

This is the the quasi fascist state of law enforcement in America today where the DOJ selectively and capriciously decides to enforce the law to the benefit of some and the detriment of others – depending on political considerations.

SEE ALSO:

Judicial Watch: Judicial Watch Accuses Obama Administration of Misleading Court on Hillary Clinton Email Scandal:

Judicial Watch accused the Obama administration of stalling and withholding information from a federal court in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top aide’s emails.  Last week, Judicial Watch attorneys sought a status conference over the issue of the Hillary Clinton’s and other secret email accounts in order to “avoid further undue delays, prejudice and potential spoliation.” In response, the Justice Department, on behalf of the State Department, told the federal court handling the matter (U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth) that there was no need for a hearing until at least late April and that, contrary to statements by Mrs. Clinton and various administration spokesmen, it was not aware of the secret email issue until recently.  In its response (Reply in Support of a Motion for a Status Conference), Judicial Watch cited Mrs. Clinton’s press statement:

Secretary Clinton was the head of the agency and the State Department cannot claim it was unaware of the State Department’s failure to records-manage agency emails from the Office of the Secretary. In fact, the “Statement from the Office of Former Secretary Clinton” states that “[h]er usage [of non-“state.gov” email for State Department business] was widely known to the over 100 Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed.”

Judicial Watch also accused the Obama administration of continuing to thwart the FOIA:

The State Department has yet to demonstrate how it is satisfying its obligations under FOIA in light of recent revelations that Secretary Clinton’s emails were not being properly managed, retained and produced. This also applies to emails received or sent by other officials or employees within the Secretary’s office to conduct government business who used non-“state.gov” email addresses. To determine the adequacy of the State Department’s search, both Judicial Watch and the Court should be informed by the Department directly of the details surrounding the retention of agency emails within the Office of the Secretary and the extent of the Department’s ability to search, request and retrieve those records …

Had Judicial Watch not challenged the State Department’s search, this case would most likely have been dismissed before any public revelations were made about the unlawful arrangement relating to the State Department’s handling of agency emails during Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department …

Video: Sheriff David Clarke Slams DOJ’s “Junk” Ferguson Report: “Bogus Use of Statistics,” “Misapplication of Data”

Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke is one of the few people in law enforcement willing to come out in public and forcefully say what he thinks Barack Obama and Eric Holder are really up to with their false racial grievance narrative. He has been calling them out in the media for many months, while most in the the media have meekly and cravenly accepted the Bravo Sierra coming from the Regime.

On Saturday’s Justice with Judge Jeanine, Clark said he wasn’t surprised by the recent police shootings in Ferguson, Missouri.

“That’s what I knew this was going to come to,” he declared. “I knew that stoking this flame would cause individuals to blatantly now, come out and attack law enforcement officers – like the ambush in NYC with officers Ramos and Liu, like the incident in LA where a police squad was patrolling a neighborhood and took on sniper fire – as well as San Francisco. So this isn’t the first time it’s happened, and I believe it’s going to continue until these individuals stop this witch-hunt – the president and Eric Holder – this witch-hunt on the American police officer and American law enforcement agencies.”

Clarke said that the DOJ’s report on the Ferguson Police Department was payback for not being able to bring charges against Officer Darren Wilson – the implication being that the Ferguson Police Department didn’t play ball and help the DOJ railroad Wilson.

“He (Holder) knew that he was going to be able to do it – and when he found out her didn’t, he figured he’d get them back, this way,” the sheriff charged, calling the DOJ’s report “a junk report” with a “bogus use of statistics” and “misapplication of data.”

As for the racist emails, he said, “I’d like to know the methodology he used for this report. Did he find a couple of racist, or off color emails combing through 25,000, 50,000, he saw a few? Or was this two out of maybe 10 or 12? There’s a lot that hasn’t been explained about this report, judge.”