Let’s just say this right off the bat: If the suspect in the Waukesha incident were a white man with a substantial record and not a black man with one, the ‘mainstream media’ would be screaming bloody murder in wall-to-wall coverage for the next month, declaring him to be a ‘white nationalist-racist-supremacist-mass murderer.’
That said, there are even more aspects to this case that the black suspect who was arrested on Monday in connection with allegedly killing five people and injuring more than 40 others by striking them and running them over with an SUV had already been in jail for previously striking a woman with a vehicle.
You literally cannot make this up.
The Epoch Times has more details:
Darrell Brooks, the suspect accused in Sunday’s Wisconsin Christmas parade massacre, was charged earlier this month with running over a woman with his car, although he later posted $1,000 bond, according to court records.
Brooks may be charged with five counts of intentional homicide, Waukesha Police Chief Daniel Thompson said in a Monday news conference. According to witnesses and footage, a red SUV careened down a parade route, striking dozens of people, including children and elderly participants on Saturday evening.
“We actually had a squad and barricades up, and [Brooks] drove right through,” Thompson noted regarding the Saturday incident. “When an officer tried to engage and stop the threat, he still continued through the crowd for some distance.”
Earlier this month, Brooks, 39, who is a career criminal according to several reports, was released from jail on a paltry $1,000 bond after he allegedly ran over a woman as she walked across a gas station parking lot in Milwaukee County, a criminal complaint says. The woman told police that she is the mother of Brooks’ child, the complaint added.
“Officers observed tire tracks on her left pants leg,” the complaint says.
In addition, “Brooks was charged with obstructing an officer; second-degree recklessly endangering safety with domestic abuse assessments; disorderly conduct with domestic abuse assessments; and misdemeanor battery with domestic abuse assessments, according to the complaint,” The Epoch Times adds.
This time, he’s been “charged with five counts of intentional homicide, which is the legal equivalent of first-degree murder in Wisconsin, and carries a life sentence upon conviction,” CBS Chicago reported.
“Online court records showed Brooks has two open criminal cases in Milwaukee County. And at least six other convictions for violent behavior,” the outlet added.
Here is an ongoing list of charges and convictions, many of them for violence:
— In 1999, he was found guilty on substantial battery-intend bodily harm, a felony;
— In 2003, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest;
— In 2005, Brooks spent a brief stint in prison for obstructing a police officer, which was also a misdemeanor;
— In 2006, he was convicted of a sex crime;
— In 2010 he was found guilty on felony strangulation and suffocation charges in Wood County;
— In 2011, Brooks was also found guilty of resisting and obstructing an officer.
The fact is, Brooks is the poster boy for the 1990s-era “three strikes, you’re out” laws that saw repeat offenders locked up for lengthy prison sentences because they proved over and over again they were incapable of peacefully existing in a civil society by following the rules for our society.
In the past several years, however, thanks to left-wing destroyers of civil society like George Soros, “criminal justice reform” district attorneys have increasingly refused to hold suspects to account, including repeat offenders like Brooks — which is why they continue to be free to prey upon one victim after another.
And now, this animal may be guilty of killing five more people and permanently injuring several others, though he should not have been free to roam the streets in the first place.
Our country needs a major reset when people like Brooks, regardless of their ethnicity, are allowed to continue victimizing innocent people.
Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden; highest rate of immigrants since 1910
The U.S. has had a massive surge in immigration this year, with as many as 1.5 million newcomers and a record 46.2 million foreign-born people, according to a report for the Center for Immigration Studies.
After a deep trough last year, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel and migration restrictions imposed to control the spread, the flow of people rebounded around the time President Biden was elected.
In numbers never seen before, they are coming legally through airports and land border crossings and illegally across the Rio Grande and remote regions of Arizona and California.
“There was pent-up demand for legal immigration, and illegal immigration has exploded in one of the greatest surges, if not the greatest, we’ve ever seen,” said Steven A. Camarota, the demographer who was the chief author of the report. “It’s driving the numbers up and up and up.”
As it stands, 14.2% of the U.S. population is foreign-born, or 1 out of every 7 people. That is the highest rate of immigrants in the population since 1910, when the number was 14.7%. At current trends, the government says, the U.S. will break that record well before the end of this decade.
Those numbers are even starker given the reversal of trends.
The data showed a drop of 1.2 million immigrants from February to September 2020, likely the result of coronavirus restrictions blocking new entrants, even as outmigration continued. That left the population of the foreign-born — the Census Bureau’s term — at 43.8 million.
It was up to 45 million by January and marched steadily to the current 46.2 million total shown for last month.
In the year after President Trump’s election, the immigrant population flattened.
Biden Vaccine Mandate for Contractors Blocked Nationwide
- Mandate one of a set of Biden vaccine initiatives
- States say contractor requirement violates Constitution
The Biden administration’s mandate for federal contractors’ employees to be vaccinated will be halted nationwide, amid a slew of challenges from states that say the president overstepped his authority in requiring the Covid-19 shots.
Led by Georgia, the seven states that challenged the mandate set to take effect on Jan. 4 are likely to succeed in their lawsuits against the administration’s order, U.S. District Court Judge R. Stan Baker of the Southern District of Georgia said in an order issued Tuesday.
The Biden administration mandate applies to roughly a quarter of the U.S. workforce and affects companies that do business with the federal government, including Lockheed Martin Corp., Microsoft Corp., Alphabet Inc.‘s Google, and General Motors Co.
Baker’s order follows a Kentucky federal judge’s grant last week of a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit involving Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. Baker echoed what his Kentucky counterpart said, that blocking the mandate didn’t indicate that the vaccine wouldn’t be effective to stopping the spread of Covid-19, but rather that Biden didn’t have the power to issue such an executive order.
Representatives from Georgia universities testified during an injunction hearing earlier this month, arguing that implementation of the mandate would be expensive, onerous, and cost them valuable employees who haven’t yet presented proof of vaccination. Those schools receive millions from the federal government.
The court found that the states could likely prove that Congress didn’t clearly authorize the president to issue the mandate, and that it “goes far beyond addressing administrative and management issues in order to promote efficiency and economy in procurement and contracting.” The 2017 nominee of President Donald Trump said, instead, the executive order works as a “regulation of public health.”
Neither the lawyers representing the state coalition nor the U.S. government immediately responded to emailed requests for comment.
Idaho Gov. Brad Little cheered Tuesday’s ruling in a statement. The state is part of the Georgia-led contractor mandate challenge, as well as lawsuits against the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration’s shot-or-test emergency regulation for large U.S. businesses, and another inoculation rule for healthcare workers.
“Yet another one of President Biden’s vaccine mandates have been temporarily shut down because the states—including Idaho—took a stand against his unprecedented government overreach into Americans’ lives and businesses,” Little said in the statement. “All three mandates are now completely stalled. We will continue to press forward in our fight against the federal government’s bad policies.”
Buried deep in Biden Infrastructure Law: mandatory kill switches on all new cars by 2026
Remember that 2700-page, $1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill that the US government passed back in August? Well, have you read it? Of course we’re joking — we know you haven’t read it. Most of the legislators who voted on it probably haven’t either. Some folks have, though, and they’re finding some pretty alarming things buried in that bill.
One of the most concerning things we’ve heard so far is the revelation that this “infrastructure” bill includes a measure mandating vehicle backdoor kill-switches in every car by 2026. The clause is intended to increase vehicle safety by “passively monitoring the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired,” and if that sentence doesn’t make your hair stand on end, you’re not thinking about the implications.
Let us spell it out for you: by 2026, vehicles sold in the US will be required to automatically and silently record various metrics of driver performance, and then make a decision, absent any human oversight, whether the owner will be allowed to use their own vehicle. Even worse, the measure goes on to require that the system be “open” to remote access by “authorized” third parties at any time.
The passage in the bill was unearthed by former Georgia Representative Bob Barr, writing over at the Daily Caller. Barr notes correctly that this is a privacy disaster in the making. Not only does it make every vehicle a potential tattletale (possibly reporting minor traffic infractions, like slight speeding or forgetting your seat-belt, to authorities or insurance companies), but tracking that data also makes it possible for bad actors to retrieve it.
More pressing than the privacy concerns, though, are the safety issues. Including an automatic kill switch of this sort in a machine with internet access presents the obvious scenario that a malicious agent could disable your vehicle remotely with no warning. Outside that possible-but-admittedly-unlikely idea, there are all kinds of other reasons that someone might need to drive or use their vehicle while “impaired”, such as in the case of emergency, or while injured.
Even if the remote access part of the mandate doesn’t come to pass, the measure is still astonishingly short-sighted. As Barr says, “the choice as to whether a vehicle can or cannot be driven … will rest in the hands of an algorithm over which the car’s owner or driver have neither knowledge or control.” Barr, a lawyer himself, points out that there are legal issues with this whole concept, too. He anticipates challenges to the measure on both 5th Amendment (right to not self-incriminate) and 6th Amendment (right to face one’s accuser) grounds. He also goes on to comment on the vagueness of the legislation. What exactly is “impaired driving”? Every state and many municipalities have differing definitions of “driving while intoxicated.”
Furthermore, there’s also no detail in the legislation about who should have access to the data collected by the system. Would police need a warrant to access the recorded data? Would it be available to insurance companies or medical professionals? If someone is late on their car payment, can the lender remotely disable the vehicle? Certainly beyond concerns of who would be allowed official access, there’s also once again the ever-present fear of hackers gaining access to the data—which security professionals well know, absolutely will happen, sooner or later. As Barr says, the collected data would be a treasure trove of data to “all manner of entities … none of which have our best interests at heart.”
Health2 weeks ago
French President Emmanuel Macron Says Someone Who Refuses COVID Vaccine Is ‘Not a Citizen’
Politics4 weeks ago
Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden; highest rate of immigrants since 1910
Politics4 weeks ago
Mashup: MSM worst moments of 2021
Health4 weeks ago
Boston Mayor Wu Relentlessly Heckled As New COVID-19 Restrictions Are Announced