Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black is a contributor to Canada Free Press, a security writer on touchy topics and an anti-crime activist. Cap Black is here!Greetings fellow hostages from the 'hood Conservative!!Go Fund Me
In the period since my Street Patrol began our VIP ( Volunteers in Prevention ) outreach at the New Orleans Healing Center, I’ve focused on engaging patrons about area violence and offering a walking escort.
My update regarding the recent parking lot assault by one of ten kids is often greeted by tales of more assault. A Street Patrol member texted me yesterday about ten kids throwing rocks at passersby in nearby St. Roch.
We also hit the pavement and talk to neighbors, thereby expanding our network of concern. Street attacks, theft, heckling and intimidation have become the norm in this community. Spreading the word; encouraging awareness and deterring aggression is the logical response to violence.
The Healing Center is a focal point of this response. My Street Patrol is committed to changing this situation alongside a vibrant community and one of its anchor institutions.
-Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black, RLSH. Creative advocate for crime prevention & homeless outreach. #CapBlackStreetPatrol. Call 504 214-3082 to share your concerns or request a walking escort.
*Donate* if you believe in creating safety together instead of awaiting rationing from government.
#IUniteWithBlue Tour Creator.
It’s odd for an upper income enclave to lack adequate police service but New Orleans Marigny neighborhood endures too much violent crime and too few in blue to stop it.
Residents, businesses and allies have a golden opportunity to create safety where little to none exists. It means exiting comfort zones insisting it’s a suburb instead of a high income sliver surrounded by high crime areas.
Residents must become much more wary in the face of inner city bicycle gangs targeting transplants walking and cycling. Well intentioned concern about at risk youth is folly unless tempered by caution.
Local police on television warn women to walk in pairs, a sure admission that this holiday season has very real ” horror day ” potential.
I watch depressed and in extreme cases, delusional, progressives rail against the recent Trump victory. They cannot grasp politically incorrect reasons why Hillary Clinton lost. I’ve boiled them down to this trio of acronyms: BLM ( Black Lives Matter ); FOP ( Fraternal Order of Police ) and BJ ( Bruce Jenner ).
The more BLM ranted and rioted, the closer Clinton pulled them, without even token criticism, to her pant suited bosom. Her slap in the face refusal to fill out the Fraternal Order of Police candidate questionnaire said she valued ambushers and agitators over law enforcement and their largest union. Celebrating Bruce Jenner’s psychotic break ( to traiditionalists ) and promising even more support of unisex school and restuarant bathroom policy sent traditionalists of varying degrees running to the polls.
If one accepts the premise that most mainstream media editors and producers are progressive, it’s therefore unsurprising that the image of American Blacks depicted is, to quote Hillary Clinton, “super-predators who must be brought to heel ( like animals ); cop hating rioters (acting animalistically) or political puppets mouthing leftist talking points ( like parrots, an upgrade of the animal theme).
Self-governing Black citizens are reduced to cameo roles in their own depiction. Conservative ones, arguably the most self-governed of the self-governing, are type cast as lost dissenters within the current of their own community.
The superintendent of the Chicago Police Department recently said a badly beaten female officer told him she didn’t shoot her attacker for fear of news coverage and retaliation against her family. I scrolled down to read the story’s comment section and saw some speculation that the statement wasn’t true. The argument was made that it’s counter-intuitive for an armed person not to shoot a life-threatening attacker. Had I not repeatedly heard, seen and read this same concern from retired and active officers, I’d agree her story seemed far fetched.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had their long awaited first presidential debate. It’s doubtful whether supporters of either candidate saw anything that would change their minds. Trump didn’t go for the jugular as many expected, but assertively laid out job creation, trade protectionism and crime prevention planks of his platform. As a safety voter, I always enjoy hearing his depiction of urban crime as onerous upon hostages in those communities.
Liberals embrace tormenters to the exclusion of their victims. Ironically liberal Republicans, as strict conservative detractors call Trump, don’t. He cited his ” stop & frisk ” proposal for captive Chicago and acknowledged New York mayors Giuliani ( in the audience ) and Bloomberg for reducing minority male homicide with this tactic. While infuriating for urban non-criminals ( I encountered the Southern version in the 80s and 90s ), these sudden searches made thugs afraid to carry guns, which saved imperiled lives.
Clinton rambled about mutual respect needed between police and urban areas. While Trump noted being endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police ( FOP ), I wish he’d asked why she didn’t fill out FOP’s questionnaire- a very disrespectful act.
As a safety voter, the only one talking economic security, counter-terrorism and support for law enforcement was Donald Trump. I expect more of the same with two debates left to go. He’s safety voters only choice.
President Obama has vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act ( JASTA ), designed to allow families of September 11th, 2001 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 airline hijackers.
For skeptics, this veto confirms suspicions that oil is considered more precious than innocent blood. The stage is now set for Congress to vote on an override of the veto. If the necessary two thirds majority in the US House and Senate materializes, it would be an all-too-rare bipartisan victory during Obama-era gridlock.
Precarious timing, law makers are running to hold their seats, add to pressure felt by policians. Voters can apply more pressure by demanding congressional incumbents and challengers state their position on the issue.
If Saudi oil trumps American blood, then it’s fair to ask whether JASTA delayed is JASTA, and justice, denied?
This weekend’s spate of radical Islamic terrorism-driven bombings and a stabbing spree underscore one presidential candidate’s perpetual warning that America is under attack. He has consistently issued a call to arms against radical islamic terrorism while his opponent quibbles over offending mass murderers.
America is forced to re-consider immigration, homeland security and public safety against enemies within her borders. Only one presidential candidate has made this case and its relevance resounds with each incident. His case against radical islamic terrorism is non-partisan and thus appeals to alert Americans of all ideologies.
We want to create safety together with leadership taking this threat seriously. Making America great again requires making her safe again and Donald Trump is the only presidential candidate who has made this case to my fellow hostages of violent crime, terrorism and perilous political correctness.
Current police reform mania goes deeper than liberal allegations of bias and libertarian mistrust of armed authority. Objective police supporters can at least have civil discourse with these ideologies. I contend reasonable liberal and libertarian voices have been lost amid a howling rogues gallery swarming in from serious anarchist domestic terrorist and inner city criminal extremes. These extremes forgo tame reform like civilian oversight or body cameras. They want police to bow down to mindless rage at traffic stops and frenzied disruption marches masquerading as peaceful protests. Abolition of police period is the ultimate stated objective.
Picture an America run by unhinged suburban socialists and inner city gangs with police and civilian self-defense made extinct? They want a monopoly on force and Ferguson, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Dallas and Baton Rouge graphically show how they’ll use it. This is national captivity these rogues envision, not police demilitarization championed by US Senator Rand Paul and the NAACP after the Ferguson riots.
Rhetorically beating White people, good, bad and in-between, over the head about American slavery ( to the convenient exclusion of other nations and individual’s sins ) doesn’t undo the past nor uplift the present. It does, however, provide invaluable context for current contempt some progressives have for American Blacks. However, reducing it to a verbal baton doesn’t honor those who suffered-and even triumphed-so that our better day as fully enfranchised American citizens can arrive.
In the same vein, continually comparing today’s police officers to yesteryear’s slave patrols
won’t enhance public safety nor community relations. As disrespected departments depolice, more inner citizens die without a chant from anti-cop protesters.
Public safety is in a dangerous state of flux. Departments are told, by pro crime activists, limitation lobby lawyers and federal judges, that felony suspects now enjoy limited diplomatic immunity. Under these rules of engagement, the subject must be addressed in genteel terms, lest his feelings be hurt. This also helps camera phone footage look less infuriating to addicted cop haters awaiting viral video injection. Officers must respond to resisting arrest in a deescalated manner, regardless of injury inflicted. Should the felony subject die during the conflict he initiated, departments weigh whether to charge the officer to head off violent protests and ritual rioting. Often, the chief solemnly meets with the dead felony subject’s mother, as if her son were an honored war hero.
The early 21st century may well be called, ” the era when police became obsolete. ” A veteran officer told me once that police were obsolete. He arrived at this conclusion after seeing the profession face unprecedented scrutiny.
Our challenge as stakeholders is to answer this question for ourselves. The media and high profile agitators don’t have final say in the matter. There are lifelong civilians and police retirees whose passionate police support doesn’t make national news. As law abiding people, protesting and creating buzz isn’t their style. I strongly suggest they raise the volume because anti-police voices have seized the airwaves.
The cure for Ferguson Effect depolicing rests in loud, organized public support of police officers. Pro-law enforcement lobbying must hit the streets, media and ballot boxes. It must change the narrative about policing in America. Civilian advocacy for police is the gaping hole between police unions and police protesters. It can be filled by folks who feel police aren’t obsolete, but only if they’re ready to fight. Are you ready to fight for police when they can’t fight for themselves?
Your response shapes safety and society for this century.
As someone who stands during the Pledge of Allegiance (raised by a Jim Crow vintage grandmother who always stood on arthritic knees and nerve-damaged feet when it played on TV), I’m not angered by NFL player Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand during this national tradition.
He said of this national tradition, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” Young men his age, regardless of wealth, often air a “Mississippi Burning” view of America as if no progress has happened. It’s part of a calculated hostility which must be deleted.
Raze-ism is my term for the homicidal illogic of urban predators. Raze-ism has two features, 1. Sudden volcanic rage and 2. Inability to accept responsibility for criminal conduct. The raze-ist sees himself as perpetually justified. This perpetual justification is impervious to bi-partisan bribery ( social programs ).
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement