Connect with us

Wire

Biden Admin Continues Push to End Cash Bail System Despite Parade Massacre

Western Journal

Published

on

The Biden Administration stands by seeking to bring an end to cash bail, arguing that whether or not to keep defendants in custody should be something determined by the danger the defendant poses to the community and not by their ability to pay bail.

The White House is sticking by this policy goal at a time when the nation faces debates on bail policies — rising from the Waukesha, Wisconsin Christmas parade crash where 39-year-old Darrell Brooks Jr. allegedly rammed his vehicle through a group of innocent people who were taking part in the parade, Fox News reported.

With a vast criminal history going back to 1999, and including several felonies, Brooks, a convicted sex offender, made bail twice in Wisconsin in 2021, even though he was wanted in Nevada for jumping bail on a sex crime charge, according to the outlet.

Most recently, in early November, according to Fox, prosecutors in Milwaukee merely asked bail to be set for $1,000 for Brooks after he punched his girlfriend in the face and ran over her with his vehicle in a gas station’s parking lot.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On afterthought, the prosecutors consider the bail to have been “inappropriately low,” the outlet reported.

The low bail amount also drew criticism from several others.

“These extremely liberal prosecutors who want to talk about restorative justice, and what that means is, is that we are putting the public in danger by trying to give these people too many opportunities to re-offend,” retired police sergeant and National Police Association spokeswoman Betsy Brantner told Fox.

“It’s incredibly frustrating for law enforcement, and it’s just absolutely dangerous for our communities.”

It is in this context that the Biden White House has signaled that it would stand by its desire to see the end of cash bail.

According to Politifact’s Biden Promise Tracker, one promise President Joe Biden made when running for president was that he will “will lead a national effort to end cash bail and reform our pretrial system.”

Biden also promised to “establish a technical assistance program to help state and local jurisdictions transition to a fair, equitable and effective pretrial system that does not rely on cash bail.”

The Biden campaign called cash bail a “modern-day debtors’ prison.”

“The cash bail system incarcerates people who are presumed innocent. And, it disproportionately harms low-income individuals,” the Biden campaign’s website stated.

Biden’s proposal to end the cash bail system, however, was criticized by several crime experts, according to a 2020 Forbes report.

“Biden and Harris are saying we’re just going to ban it,” American Bail Coalition expert Jeffrey Clayton told Forbes. “If a judge finds that there is a serious risk of re-offense and flight in an arson case and imposes a $250,000 bail, that person will walk under the so-called ‘cashless bail system.’”

“A judge can require all the electronic monitors he wants, but that person will not remain in jail pending trial even if they are a flight risk, danger to the community and are likely to obstruct the criminal justice process. In fact, most states are only able to deny bail in very limited circumstances — generally capital murder cases — thus nearly every criminal defendant is getting out for free under Biden’s cashless bail system. Does anyone really think most Americans favor this?” Clayon added.

“Ending cash bail will not automatically put people charged with crimes on the streets,” an unnamed White House official told Fox after the Waukesha tragedy, affirming the White House’s support for the policy. “It just means that whether you get bail should be based on the threat you pose, and not how much money you have in your bank account.”

“There shouldn’t be a separate criminal justice system for wealthy Americans,” the official stated.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Wire

Store Apologizes After Employee Sign with Instructions on How to Deal with Africans Goes Public

Western Journal

Published

on

An Australian store has been forced to apologize for a sign that warned staff to sound an alert if an African customer entered the store.

An IGA store in Melbourne was pilloried on social media because of a sign behind the counter that read, “If an African customer comes to the bottle shop, presses [sic] the button for assistant immediately! Minimum two staffs in front while we serve Africans,” the sign read, according to Australia’s News.com.au.

In its reporting on the sign, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. said the sign had been in place for three years before it was noticed by anyone and became a social media furor.

“Sure they’re independently owned but the African community should be allowed to feel safe and comfortable at their local supermarket,” a TikTok comment read.

The ABC report quoted the store manager, who it did not name, as offering apologies for any offense.

“We don’t really mean for this, we apologize for what we’ve done. I’m sorry it will never happen again like that,” he said. “I’ve done the wrong thing for the public, we should not do like this.”

The manager said he should have told employees to hit the button if they saw a group of strangers in the store.

“It is my mistake. Big mistake,” he said.

A poster using the name Jack he on Twitter said he was the store manager and offered an explanation.

“Im store manager iGA sunshine west, we got robbed by 5 African men, one of the staff had a gun put to our head, we were scared, Im sorry for that i done,i told the ABC news all the reason behind this, But i don’t see any main point been reported, this is unfair, unfair news,” he tweeted.

ABC reported that a spokesperson for wholesaler Metcash, which operates the IGAs, said the company had the offending sign removed.

“This type of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any IGA store across the country,” a spokesman said.

“As part of our ongoing commitment to supporting local communities across Australia, we will ensure ALL IGA employees continue to create a shopping environment where all are welcome and equal,” the spokesman said.

The store now has a new note.

“We would like to apologies [sic] to anyone that got offended by the note we had … it was not our intention to offend,” the note says.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

An Australian store has been forced to apologize for a sign that warned staff to sound an alert if an African customer entered the store. An IGA store in Melbourne was pilloried on social media because of a sign behind the counter that read, “If an African customer comes to the bottle shop, presses [sic] the button for assistant immediately! Minimum two staffs in front while we serve Africans,” the sign read, according to Australia’s News.com.au. In its reporting on the sign, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. said the sign had been in place for three years before it was noticed by anyone and became a social media furor. “Sure they’re independently owned but the African community should be allowed to feel safe and comfortable at their local supermarket,” a TikTok comment read. ‘Completely unacceptable’: IGA supermarket under fire for sign racially profiling African customers https://t.co/83nMJg7SgU — Natalie Spencer (@natscloset) December 2, 2021 The ABC report quoted the store manager, who it did not name, as offering apologies for any offense. “We don’t really mean for this, we apologize for what we’ve done. I’m sorry it will never happen again like that,” he said. “I’ve done the wrong thing for the public, we should not do like this.” The manager said he should have told employees to hit the button if they saw a group of strangers in the store. “It is my mistake. Big mistake,” he said. A poster using the name Jack he on Twitter said he was the store manager and offered an explanation. “Im store manager iGA sunshine west, we got robbed by 5 African men, one of the staff had a gun put to our head, we were scared, Im sorry for that i done,i told the ABC news all the reason behind this, But i don’t see any…

Continue Reading

Wire

NYT Writer Argues Adoption More ‘Dangerous and Potentially Traumatic’ Than Abortion in Op-Ed

Western Journal

Published

on

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centers around Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy.

With a conservative majority in the Court, the right’s pipe dream of overturning Roe v. Wade, or at least rolling back abortion rights, appears to be within reach. Naturally, this development has escalated the public debate over what is, arguably, the most divisive issue of our time.

An op-ed in The New York Times written by Elizabeth Spiers, a Democratic digital strategist who was adopted as an infant, argues that adoption is “infinitely more difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic than terminating a pregnancy during its early stages.”

She criticizes Justice Amy Coney Barrett for suggesting that “adoption is some kind of idyllic fairy tale.” Spiers writes, “My own adoption actually was what many would consider idyllic. I was raised by two adoptive parents, Alice and Terry, from the time I was an infant, and grew up in a home where I knew every day that I was loved. A few years ago, I found my biological mother, Maria, and three siblings I didn’t know I had via a DNA test and Facebook.”

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“The first time I spoke to Maria on the phone — she lives in Alabama, not too far from my parents, and I live in Brooklyn — she apologized repeatedly for giving me up and told me she loved me and that I would always be family. ‘You are blood,’ she would say later. I told her, and continue to tell her, every time she brings it up, that the apology is unnecessary. I had a wonderful childhood and I believe she had made the right decision. But she remains heartbroken about the years we missed together.”

Spiers “resent[s] being used as a political football by the right. I believe that abortion is a form of health care and that every woman should have access to it if she needs it … I resent it on behalf of Maria, who found the choice she made traumatizing and still feels that pain, 44 years later.”

Does Spiers think Maria would be less traumatized if she had aborted her?

Maria had several children already and felt it would be too difficult financially and perhaps emotionally to raise another child, so she delivered Spiers and turned her over to parents who could (and did) offer her a childhood of abundance and attention.

Does Spiers op-ed convince you that having an abortion is easier than suffering through the trauma associated with adoption?

I would argue that Maria’s heartbreak would be greater if she’d opted to abort Spiers.

I know several women who had abortions with men they later married and raised families with. Each has told me they often think about the child who would have been their first born.

Spiers continues: “While pregnant, they will undergo the bonding with a child that happens by biological design as an embryo develops into a living, breathing, conscious human. And then that child will be taken away.”

“The right likes to suggest that abortion is a traumatic experience for women — a last resort, a painful memory. But adoption is often just as traumatic as the right thinks abortion is, if not more so, as a woman has to relinquish not a lump of cells but a fully formed baby she has lived with for nine months. I’m a mother myself … As anyone who has gestated a human will tell you, there is a vast difference between the fourth week of pregnancy and the 40th.”

I have three children. Rather than viewing them as “a lump of cells” in the early months of pregnancy, I was awestruck by the knowledge that a new life was growing within me. And that was long before I felt the first little flutters of movement, the point at which Spiers believes “a kind of biological brainwashing” begins which “happens whether you want to be a parent or not.”

FYI, Ms. Spiers, most women would call it bonding or even love, rather than “a kind of biological brainwashing.”

“She [Justice Coney Barrett] blithely seems to assume that a mother can simply choose not to bond with the child she’s gestating solely on the basis that she is not ready to be a mother or believes that she is unable to provide for the child,” Spiers continues.

The mother/child bond is real, and I would argue it starts long before quickening begins. Is it really easier to end that life than to deliver the child and give them to parents who yearn for a child and have the financial means to provide for them?

“The trauma doesn’t just affect mothers, either,” she writes. “Researchers have a term for what children who are adopted, even as infants, may suffer from later in life: relinquishment trauma. The premise is that babies bond with their mothers in utero and become familiar with their behaviors. When their first caretaker is not the biological mother, they register the difference, and the stress of it has lasting effects.”

Ms. Spiers, we all experience some form of trauma in this life. Truth be told, many who have been raised by their biological parents have experienced trauma and would have been far better off being raised by adoptive parents who truly welcomed parenthood and loved them.

During his 1992 presidential campaign, former President Bill Clinton said, “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.” While the number of abortions in the U.S. has declined since that time, Democrats have pushed for unlimited access to abortions, with state lawmakers in New York and Virginia fighting for late term, partial-birth and even taxpayer funded abortion.

Then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was so delighted after his state’s passage of the Reproductive Health Act in Jan. 2019, which expands abortion rights, that he ordered the One World Trade Center building, two major bridges in the state and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany, to be lit up with pink lights, according to The Washington Times.

Yes, they were celebrating a new law which eliminated “most of the state’s previous restrictions on abortions after 24 weeks,” legalizing the most heinous and cruel procedures conceivable to kill babies.

Ms. Spiers should consider the trauma experienced by the victims of these procedures. And perhaps the trauma of the mother after the reality of what she just allowed a doctor to do to her child sinks in.

Sorry Ms. Spiers, the argument that killing a child in the womb (or even out of the womb as some states now allow), simply because life is difficult and potentially full of suffering, is sheer madness.

In a lengthy Twitter thread, conservative podcast host Ben Shapiro savages Spiers op-ed in his signature fashion. It’s worth a read.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centers around Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. With a conservative majority in the Court, the right’s pipe dream of overturning Roe v. Wade, or at least rolling back abortion rights, appears to be within reach. Naturally, this development has escalated the public debate over what is, arguably, the most divisive issue of our time. An op-ed in The New York Times written by Elizabeth Spiers, a Democratic digital strategist who was adopted as an infant, argues that adoption is “infinitely more difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic than terminating a pregnancy during its early stages.” She criticizes Justice Amy Coney Barrett for suggesting that “adoption is some kind of idyllic fairy tale.” Spiers writes, “My own adoption actually was what many would consider idyllic. I was raised by two adoptive parents, Alice and Terry, from the time I was an infant, and grew up in a home where I knew every day that I was loved. A few years ago, I found my biological mother, Maria, and three siblings I didn’t know I had via a DNA test and Facebook.” “The first time I spoke to Maria on the phone — she lives in Alabama, not too far from my parents, and I live in Brooklyn — she apologized repeatedly for giving me up and told me she loved me and that I would always be family. ‘You are blood,’ she would say later. I told her, and continue to tell her, every time she brings it up, that the apology is unnecessary. I had a wonderful childhood and I believe she had made the right decision. But she remains heartbroken about the years we missed together.”…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week