When are progressives going to ‘police their own communities’?

Maybe when pigs fly?

Campaigning to defund police, derail the jail, get cops out of schools, and reimagine public safety, the Woke folk hereabouts contend that they could better police their own communities.

They can start any time as far as the Werkes are concerned. Sooner the better! What are they waiting for?

After the 11-08-21 riot at East high school, Freedom Inc. renewed its demand to end policing:

Police are actually a major disrupting force in black and other communities. … Like the slave patrols that preceded them, the police serve as overseers to control black communities and displace black students into prisons, poverty and other forms of systemic violence. …  It is our duty to ensure that black youth have power over the ways in which accountability and safety flows in our communities. …  The solution is for the most impacted youth, parents, and trusted adults to have control over their schools.

Instead, they want to empty the jails!

In the past week:

•  A 13 year old boy crashes stolen car on Beltline before school day starts, already high on mary jane. Flees. Dogs track him down.

•  High schooler beats the bejeepers out out of classmate just outside of West high school. (More here.)

•  Teenage girl arrested for tasing other teenage roller skaters in a brawl involving 250 — most of them unsupervised kids.

•  Guy out on yet another low-bail/no bail with seven open felony cases from 2021 alone shoots a driver of an SUV at an east-side convenience store, drags the body out and drives off to create additional mayhem.

The missing tape

Where is Nixon’s secretary when you need her? Wisconsin Right Now reports

There is no recording or transcript of the controversial hearing in which Waukesha parade suspect Darrell Brooks was released on $1,000 bail. Milwaukee County blames “technical issues” or “human error.”

Speaking of Kyle Rittenhouse … It is encouraging that even the readers of The Nation regard Elie Mystal as something of a joke. That progressive publication’s chief legal racist writes, “Kyle Rittenhouse has gotten away with murder— as predicted. It is our white justice system working as intended.” A reader of The Nation (John Nichols’ day job) corrected Mystal’s many mysterious mistakes, pointing out that:

•  Rosenbaum tried to take Rittenhouse’s gun.

•  Prosecution witness Grosskreutz testified that he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse. (Grosskreutz was himself in possession of an illegal gun, but unlike Rittenhouse was not charged.)

•  Huber struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard.

“All this happened in a matter of seconds. Kyle Rittenhouse was on the ground and under assault,” the reader commented. As of 11-30-21, that comment critical of Mystal received 382 upvotes and only 42 disagreements. Remarkable, considering only The Nation subscribers can comment. 

→ NBC News was, indeed, dogging the jury’s van. (Jonathan Turley’s scoop here.)

Readers of The Nation have more sense than the Washington Post’s Ruben Navarrette. “Whatever happened to accountability?” he asked, syndicated in Monday’s WI State Journal. “Rittenhouse’s acquittal means no one is held accountable … Actions do have consequences.” Mr. Navarette strikes a noble pose: “People have to own up to bad decisions.” 

Blaska’s Bottom Line: You want accountability? We’ll give you accountability! Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz could have left Rittenhouse alone. They could have stayed home. They chose to attack him. They paid for their bad decisions.

Are progressive writers out of touch with their own audience?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Freedom Inc., Kyle Rittenhouse, Progressives, Uncategorized, War on Police, Waukesha Christmas parade. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to When are progressives going to ‘police their own communities’?

  1. nathanemarks says:


    This^^ kills a couple of birds with one stone. I can’t think of a better solution for the mosh-pit that Madison Schools are becoming.


    • Liberty says:

      Nice in theory, but I can’t see this being sustainable.

      They’d have to be in the schools all the time, and how is that possible if people have work and other responsibilities?

      Parents also don’t have the training (or authority) that cops do when things go awry.

      I’m all for parents participating in their children’s education, but not like this. Let them be parents at home.


      • nathanemarks says:

        So your argument is not that “it’s not effective”, it’s that “there aren’t enough parents”?

        Who knows? But I’d happily take a half-day shift each week, and I know that I am not alone in that.

        Parents don’t need to be trained like cops. They just need to be present.

        A camera and bullhorn would help too.

        Before being so dismissive to an idea that seems to be working….why not try it? Or, suggest something better?

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Peter Anderson says:

    Dave, the West High link is dead. – p.


  3. nathanemarks says:

    The whole low/no bail thing is so tricky to figure out.

    “Bail Money” has never kept (nor been intended to keep) people from committing more crimes. In an ideal world, the bail is set to ensure that the Accused appears in court at some point in the future to answer for their crimes.

    If the Accused has committed a drug-related crime, then the judge should require absolute sobriety as a condition of bail. If it’s a car-related crime, then the judge should require that they give up their keys. A gun related crime? Well, you get the picture.

    Enforcement of THESE^^ conditions is what keeps the public safe. Not setting a higher bail.
    But putting the judge in the position where they must decide (for every Accused) how high to set the bail – solely as a means to prevent future crimes – well it’s wrong-headed and unconstitutional. Thousands of people (both innocent and guilty) would have lives interrupted, kids not supported, and rent/mortgages that don’t get paid. The resulting instability would have a horrible/negative impact on thousands.

    Brooks didn’t even have $1000 for his bail. He had to borrow it. Through this lens, the bail was set correctly…It was high enough to compel him back to court.

    The critical mistake made by the judge was not the bail amount – it was not requiring Brooks to give up his keys.


    • Liberty says:

      Your statement sounds nice in theory, but shows me that you don’t understand what’s happening in reality.

      Do you actually believe Brooks would have obeyed the judge’s orders? Even if he had theoretically relinquished his car keys, he would have likely found another way to do harm.

      That’s because criminals have no regard for the law or morals.

      Even when those charged do disobey the judge, they’re bound to be re-arrested, then re-released, only to repeat the process. Police use the term “catch and release” for good reason.

      Cash bail is at least a deterrent, unless it’s being funded by an outside source. Ask any cop (unless they’re a Progressive cop) what they think about bail “reform” measures. Better yet, look at where most of the crime is occurring right now.

      The system is a joke. The criminals know it and take advantage of it.

      “If the Accused has committed a drug-related crime, then the judge should require absolute sobriety as a condition of bail. If it’s a car-related crime, then the judge should require that they give up their keys. A gun related crime? Well, you get the picture”


      • nathanemarks says:

        Right. But insane people are going to be insane. You can’t control nor predict that with legislation. And more to the point: by trying to tailor policies to the Dahmers, Bundys, and Brooks of the world — you’ll put the rest of us in a cage too.

        We’ll all end up worse for it.


        • Gary L. Kriewald says:

          You’re using some pretty extreme examples to support your thesis. They do indeed illustrate that “insane people” can’t be controlled by legislation. But what about the vast number of criminals who aren’t insane but are all too willing to take advantage of lenient sentences, low bail and lax enforcement? There are plenty of people who repeatedly commit crimes–often serious ones but not dramatic enough to make the front page–while out on bail and never face the consequences. And how is the justice system expected to enforce bail conditions when demented progressives, like the ones who rule Madison, gleefully slash police budgets?

          Liked by 1 person

        • nathanemarks says:

          I’m not really going to respond to your straw man – you seem to be ignorning the point.

          You cannot use bail as a lever to pull, to somehow prevent crimes not yet committed. It does not function for that purpose, nor should it. And if you try — it will do more harm than good.


        • Liberty says:

          There are psychopaths gunning down, assaulting, and committing other types of crimes against innocent civilians, including children, every day of the week.

          And they do it brazenly, without a care in the world.

          Crime has increased in large part, because these criminals know that the system now works to THEIR advantage. They know that once arrested, they’ll either be given no or low cash bail, will receive a light (or no) sentence, and will be free to re-offend. This is especially prominent in liberal cities, where Progressives want to decriminalize crime.

          Cash bail may not be able to prevent all crime, but it’s a strong deterrent, provided the funds don’t come from outside groups. .

          Ask any police officer, the people who work in the field every day protecting us from the the muck of the world, for their thoughts on bail reform. With the exception of a few bleeding heart cops, the majority will tell you that cash bail is effective.


        • nathanemarks says:

          Criminals are becoming more brazen because of lack of enforcement. That’s got nothing to do with Brooks’ bail.

          The point which you seem to be intentionally ignoring is that there is no reasonable/lawful amount of bail money which will stop an insane person from acting…well, insane.

          And if they are truly insane — then jail/bail are not the correct way to handle them.


        • Liberty says:


          If cash bail isn’t an effective deterrent, why does law enforcement criticize “reform” laws? The people who work in the trenches every day can’t all be wrong.


          You said: “Criminals are becoming more brazen because of lack of enforcement. That’s got nothing to do with Brooks’ bail.”

          Now why do you suppose there’s less enforcement right now? Hmmm, might it have anything to do with left’s demonization of policing? Also, “lack of enforcement” is just one contributing factor to rising crime.

          You said: “The point which you seem to be intentionally ignoring is that there is no reasonable/lawful amount of bail money which will stop an insane person from acting…well, insane.”

          I’m not ignoring it. I just think you’re wrong. Crime has risen dramatically in cities whose states have introduced cash bail “reform” laws or whose judges assign piddling amounts. New York City and Chicago, for example. Coincedence?

          “And if they are truly insane — then jail/bail are not the correct way to handle them.”

          Define “insane.” The people gunning down innocent civilians and children, assaulting them, raping, committing home invasions, and such don’t meet the definition of insane. They’re more like psychopaths and sociopaths.

          Nathan, what is your remedy then for rising crime?


        • nathanemarks says:

          As far as dealing with rising crime, my thinking is similar to yours but more evolved. We absolutely need more police. Less probation. Harsher penalties. But we must ALSO look at individuals and ask the question: is this an Evil Person? -or- is it a Desperate Person who has made sh!tty decisions?

          Brooks is Evil. But for every one (1) Brooks there are many thousands of Desperate Persons who with the right influence are capable of a productive existence. Given drug treatment, job training, or medication – Desperate People would never have committed a crime in the first place.

          So what’s the right response? Set their bail so high that they lose what little stability they have (a job/apartment/car), incarcerate them for a decade…and then set them free with even less stability?

          To a person who has the ability to lead a productive life (but is teetering on the edge due to sh!tty decisions) – these^^ penalties push them into an unrecoverable spiral.

          Instead, folks like me argue that we should keep bail low (as high as needed to compel them to appear in court). We should also get them AODA treatment. vocational training. meds that balance them. Provide them with whatever piece of their life was missing which precipitated the criminal behavior.

          Listen, they still need to be punished. But when we release them – we must place them in a position to succeed. Otherwise — how can we expect them to act any differently? *It costs nearly $40k per year to keep someone in jail. Why not mandate a longer sentences, but divert some of that toward providing (the aforementioned) stability?

          To your other point: let’s be intellectually honest here – quit pretending that guys like Brooks act rationally. They are literally the lunatic fringe. Police, probation, higher bail, and penalties mean nothing to them.

          The only way that more police officers would have stopped Brooks, is if one of them got a lucky shot off. Raise Brooks’ bail further and his mother would have gone further in debt, and he still would have been back on the street. Give him more jail time and it just delays the inevitable meltdown. *These consequences are not persuasive to Evil People. But they will destabilize Desperate People — and we all lose when that happens.

          Liked by 1 person

      • richard lesiak says:

        It is a joke and it starts at the top. Just like Bannon and company who blow off testifing. Legal orders are not mere suggestions.


      • Nathan correctly points out that the setting of cash bail pertains solely to the risk of failure to appear in court. Some of the subsequent replies reflect the view that cash bail should be set high out of consideration for public safety or a demonstrated high risk of committing new crimes during the pretrial period. The problem is that court officials are prohibited by the plain letter of the law and, indeed, the Wisconsin Constitution, to set high cash bail for the purpose of promoting public safety. You might think setting bail based upon the severity of the charges or the criminal history is an option for court officials, but it’s not.

        In these “catch and release” scenarios, what you’ve got are defendants who commit a lot of crimes but nevertheless never (or very rarely) miss a court date. Thus, there is no basis in law to set a high cash bail. In other words, the “catch and release” that people are frustrated with is actually enshrined in our state Constitution, and has been since the bail provisions were amended in 1981. (https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Bail_Reform_Amendment,_Question_3_(April_1981))

        (Ironically, the longer the rap sheet of a given person, the easier it is to calculate their risk of failing to appear in court. If someone has had a mess of criminal cases filed over the last few years, such that they had a total of, say, 100 scheduled court appearances over all those cases, and they only had, say, one failure to appear, well, the court official has to concede that their risk of failing to appear is only 1%. So… signature bond, or very low cash.)

        Liked by 1 person

        • Liberty says:


          Thanks for your input. I think most on here understand that the purpose of bail is intended to secure a defendant’s appearance in court.

          A few thoughts and questions.

          You said that most repeat offenders appear in court. It sounds like a case of their knowing how to play the system. A system that allows criminals to continually prey on society without consequences is broken.

          I’d also be interested in seeing that data, and am interested in why the County doesn’t make it readily available to the public. What’s the big secret?

          I believe judges also have something called judicial discretion. If someone commits a heinous crime, does the judge not have the right (and obligation) to hold any person who is perceived as a threat to society until trial?

          Brooks, for example, was issued a five million dollar bail. You’re saying that the judge didn’t take the nature of the crime into consideration, and that he would have received the same bail amount for a much lesser crime or one that wasn’t as widely publicized? Because if this is just about guaranteeing a show in court, why five million?

          Cash bail isn’t perfect. For example, nobody wants to see wealthy people not have to sit in prison for a heinous crime simply because they have the means. It is however, an effective deterrent.

          It is the liberal cities across the country, the ones that reject the notion of cash bail or that have established cash bail reform laws, that crime has skyrocketed. It’s not the only reason for rising crime, but it’s certainly a contributing factor.

          Law enforcement tends to agree. From New York City’s police union:

          “Bail reform took effect at the start of 2020, and even though it was later amended, critics said too many crimes are still not eligible for bail and too many repeat offenders, including those charged with gun possession, are automatically freed at arraignment because judges do not have the discretion to order them held or to set high bail.”

          The system in its current form is not working for the law-abiding of this nation. It gives criminals unfair advantage and seems like it’s set up to be abused by people who know how to game the system. I don’t think most of us care whether crime is deterred with cash bail or judicial discretion. We just don’t want to feel like sitting prey anymore.


        • To Liberty: I can’t counter the notion that these repeat offenders are effectively “gaming the system.” The system is what it is, until it is changed.

          Regarding data, what data are you referring to? My ability to query data is limited by the architecture of my database, but I’ll do what I can if I know what you’re looking for. If it’s regarding repeat offenders who are continually getting released, I did research one such instance for Mr. Blaska. He asked me about the case of Andre J. Miller, Jr., a prime example of “catch and release.” Town of Madison Police Chief Scott Gregory (whom I consider a friend) lamented in the State Journal that Mr. Miller just kept getting out of jail on signature bonds only to commit more crimes. “Signature bonds apparently do nothing to ensure the defendant follows the court’s orders. It is my hope a large cash bail is set for Miller to protect our community,” he was quoted. But the fact is that cash bail was inappropriate for Mr. Miller. I was able to ascertain from my records that he had 63 scheduled court appearances across his eight individual cases. He failed to appear at one of those. Quantifying his risk of failing to appear—one instance out of 63– you get a 1.6% chance. I understand Chief Gregory’s frustration. But Miller maintains a nearly perfect track record of appearing in court. He clearly doesn’t need the incentive of having cash at stake to encourage him to appear in court. And that’s why he keeps getting signature bonds. Again, it’s in our Constitution, as amended in 1981.

          Regarding judicial discretion, I’m going to assert that, no, no court official has the discretion to violate a constitutional mandate. We all swore an oath. The $5 million dollar bail assessed for Brooks now is conceptually in keeping with the constitutional mandate that cash bail must be linked solely and exclusively to flight risk. Here’s the logic: The penalties for these offenses are so severe (life in prison without parole) that it creates a huge (perhaps even irresistible?) incentive for the defendant to flee in order to avoid those penalties if convicted. The same logic applied to Kyle Rittenhouse’s $2 million bail (after all, he had ties to the community and no previous history of avoiding court dates, not having a criminal record). I do support bail reform and am a proponent of the elimination of cash bail, as implemented in Washington DC (many decades ago) and New Jersey (just recently). But there is so much to unpack on that issue– a comments section may not be the appropriate forum!


        • Liberty says:

          Thanks for the insights, Carlo. Very informative.

          Seems to me that the system is broken. A near-perfect record of appearing in court means absolutely zilch if someone continues to reoffend.

          Perhaps the law does need to be changed to better accommodate the law abiding. You said you support bail reform, but what would that entail, exactly and what options do you propose? I have no problem eliminating cash bail, provided, and only provided the person being released is NOT A threat to public safety, and that failure to appear in court or reoffend results in penalties.

          I guess what I’m trying to get at, is HOW a judge determines the amount of bail. Why for example, did Brooks get $1,000 last time but $5 million this time? Does Brooks have a record of not appearing in court. If he does, then I would argue that the judge did indeed use discretion.

          As for records, I’m not looking for specific files. What I would like is for the County to be more transparent in how it grants bail. Don’t need names, just statistics. People call for the police to be transparent. Why not the prosecutors and the judges, too?

          Liked by 1 person

        • David Blaska says:

          Liberty puts it better than I have: “A near-perfect record of appearing in court means absolutely zilch if someone continues to reoffend.” Clerk of Courts Esqueda is overly narrow in his interpretation of bail. Here is language of the Wisconsin Constitution: Article 1, section 2: “All persons, before conviction, shall be eligible for release under reasonable conditions designed to assure their appearance in court, protect members of the community from serious bodily harm or prevent intimidation of witnesses.”

          But it goes on to read, “Monetary conditions of release may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon finding there is a reasonable basis to believe that the conditions are necessary to assure eappareance in court.”

          That, however, is balanced by the third clause: “The legislature may authorize, by law, courts to revoke a person’s release for a violation of a condition of release.”

          Yet we have the Verona high school kid wielding a gun AFTER a court order that he not and is STILL released.


        • Carlo Esqueda says:

          To David Blaska: To the extent that the constitutional language regarding monetary and non-monetary conditions of bail might seem in need of clarification, the Legislature did just that in the crafting of Ch. 969.01(4) of the statutes, which reads: “If bail is imposed, it shall be only in the amount found necessary to assure the appearance of the defendant. Conditions of release, other than monetary conditions, may be imposed for the purpose
          of protecting members of the community from serious bodily harm or preventing
          intimidation of witnesses.” You can’t get much clearer than that regarding the very bright line delineating the purpose of money bail vs. non-monetary conditions of bail. The third clause you refer to is operationalized by 969.035 (pretrial detention, basically being held without bail). This puts the burden upon the prosecution of proving, in a hearing that functions as a mini-trial, by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant BOTH committed the crime and that normal conditions of release are insufficient to protect public safety. I don’t know about other counties, but I can’t remember the last time a prosecutor pursued that option here.

          To Liberty: The “how” of the two disparate bail amounts set for Brooks I think I’ve already explained. He has a good track record of court appearances. DA Chisholm’s statements today notwithstanding, there would not have been (in my opinion) a legal rationale for a bail significantly higher than $1,000 for the prior case. He now gets the $5 million bail as a result of the logic I already explained: that the prospective penalties from this new case are so severe that they create, all by themselves, an extreme incentive to flee. As to transparency in bail decisions, you may be asking the unanswerable. Now, we do have risk assessments (which are public records, available for inspection at my office) that are done on all defendants appearing for in-custody initial appearances. The assessments measure on two axes: risk of nonappearance; and risk of reoffending during the pretrial period. Someone might score as very low risk on the first and very high on the second. Because the first is low, it points toward no or low cash bail. A high score on the second will likely result in referral to my Pretrial Services Office with orders to fit the defendant with a GPS bracelet, and/or alcohol monitoring and/or random drug testing– in other words, a high level of non-financial conditions. I’m not saying that court officials just look at these risk reports and let the score make the decision for them. It’s just one more thing to consider, in addition to arguments made by the prosecution and the defense. Before we had that tool, all the court official had to go on for these decisions was what they heard in court, their own experience and, frankly, gut instinct– as well as the understanding of the necessity to act in a manner consistent with the law and the Constitution. Maybe you could be more precise about what transparency would look like to you?

          As for bail reform, New Jersey has gone down a good path, I think. Lots of articles to find via Google, but I’ll just put this here: https://pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion/editorials/nj-now-a-leader-in-showing-that-bail-reform-works/article_e0797479-e90b-5f2c-bfff-a045ce145bff.html


        • Carlo Esqueda says:

          Again, to David Blaska: It was mere moments after I pressed “post” that I realized I cited the wrong statute regarding that third constitutional clause. I should have referred to 969.08(5). That law presents the procedure by which the prosecution may ask the court to rescind pretrial release after the defendant is accused of another crime. It still has that mini-trial kind of proceeding where the prosecution has to prove by “clear and convincing evidence”: that the defendant committed the new crime, and it has to occur within 7 days of the date the defendant is taken into custody on the new charge. This piques my curiosity (as I imagine it might yours) and I’m going to try to find out how often such proceedings take place here.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Liberty says:


          I’d like to focus on the second part of the statute you cited.

          If judges are bound by law in regards to the amount of bail they can set, why the heck are they not utilizing conditions of release more often? If they are doing this, what types of conditions are they ordering?

          Also, can’t Wisconsin prosecutors request a detention hearing in cases where a defendant poses a danger to the public? Again, how often is this happening?

          These are the types of statistics that should be made readily available to the public. From where I sit, there’s little transparency or accountability on the prosecutorial or judicial sides. Don’t we have a right to this information?

          Thanks again for your insights. I’m learning a lot.

          “Conditions of release, other than monetary conditions, may be imposed for the purpose of protecting members of the community from serious bodily harm or preventing intimidation of witnesses.”

          Liked by 1 person

  4. patrickmoloughlin says:

    And do note that the Michigan shooter got off about 30 rounds with his “pistol.” That’s what they called Grosskreutz’s 9 mm, semi-automatic. Also note that said shooter dropped the gun, hands up, upon arrival of first armed officer. Not sure if it was an SRO, but that only indicates the SRO would have been there even sooner to stop the carnage.

    But the disturbing thing about the 13 year-old car thief was him running and stripping his clothes off after the crash. As the cop pointed out, that’s a pretty sophisticated move to evade detection. Where and when do you think he learned that?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Gary L. Kriewald says:

      He learned it from the culture that produced him. While most kids are being taught to stay in school and respect authority figures (teachers, parents, police) and to function generally in a civilized society, feral thugs like him are learning “sophisticated move[s] to evade detection.” I’d wager the other thing he’s learned is to play the victim card no matter how egregious his behavior might be.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Blaska Asked, “When are progressives going to ‘police their own communities’?”

    Progressives will never do such a thing because then they would be viewed as the bad authoritarian “police” and they can’t allow them to be seen that way. Where 21st century progressives “rule”, the rule of law collapses and chaos ensues but yet we are constantly inundated with innuendo filled propaganda from the political left telling us that “the left is right and the right is wrong”, it sounds a bit Orwellian, doesn’t it.

    Blaska wrote, “You want accountability? We’ll give you accountability! Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz could have left Rittenhouse alone. They could have stayed home. They chose to attack him. They paid for their bad decisions.”

    Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz played a stupid Darwin Award nominee game of kill that armed S.O.B. conservative and won themselves a miniature copper jacketed lead trophy signifying to the world their unique contributions to a “civil” society.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. pANTIFArts says:

    Re: Cops out of schools-

    Lost in the reporting is the fact that in the Oxford High shootings the shooter was stopped and captured within minutes by officers responding to the School Liaison Officer, (who was one of their own). Also, in the Aurora CO drive-by shooting of six students across from the high school, the most seriously wounded victim was saved by two School Liaison Officers who applied a tourniquet and rendered other aid. Despite all the screeching and cackling from the “woke”, having someone with a level head on scene in a chaotic situation is always a good thing.

    Re: Rittenhouse-

    Recently, on a more liberal local blog, it was implied that Rittenhouse was a “vigilante”. It was my contention that “vigilantism” better applies to racists “making their neighborhood safe for white people”.( the Arbery killing) AND the term applies equally well to those who take offense when their “right” to loot, riot, and burn is interfered with. (“woke” mob violence might be hard to spot in the midst of a full-blown riot)


  7. One eye says:

    I’d love to hear what your friend Ali really thinks about Freedom Inc.

    I don’t think they’re USEFUL idiots anymore.


  8. Citizen Dave's Remington 700 says:

    Hilarious videos: https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/17-year-old-charged-with-pulling-out-taser-at-weekend-roller-rink-fight-complaint-says/article_8ebe6998-c523-5135-bbb9-df7eb6d01ba8.html

    Remember: Blaska genuinely believed this behavior could be kept in check with khakis, polo shirts and shoveling money to his butt-buddy Kaleem Caire to instill “muh conservative values.”

    Kyle Rittenhouse > Wisconsin cuckservatives


    • David Blaska says:

      Guess we’ll never know whether Kaleem Caire could have made a difference in our public schools because the school board that Remington 700 defends turned down Kaleem’s proposed Madison Prep. Will note that police are not being called to Kaleem’s One City Schools, probably because he emphasized high expectations, performance, and accountability. Remington also seems to have a hard one against school appropriate dress like khaki pants and polo shirts. Not sure why, that would be a step up.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Liberty says:

      It’s not just about clothes. It’s about attitude and discipline, of which dressing appropriately is a small part.

      Self-respect, respect for others, academic or life success, etc, are not just conservative values. They should be values that all of us should hopefully want to strive for.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 wrote, “Hilarious videos”

      That remark in relation to the videos that were linked to is signature significant*, Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 seems to think that open violence and chaos is “hilarious”. Well I’m here to tell Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 that that kind of thinking is a clear sign of an immature sophomoric mind and a budding anarchist. I’m sure Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 could find some like minded people in Madison’s chapter of ANTIFA totalitarian brown shirt fools.

      *Signature Significance: Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.

      Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 wrote, “Blaska genuinely believed this behavior could be kept in check with khakis, polo shirts…”

      That could be a small piece of a much larger big picture puzzle that’s focused on personal responsibility, actually learning classroom materials (imagine that), and learning rational social skills that are based on civility and reality.

      Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 wrote, “…shoveling money to his butt-buddy Kaleem Caire to instill “muh conservative values.” “

      So let’s dissect that statement; Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 is slinging a bigoted anti-gay personal insult, “butt-buddy”, at both David Blaska and Kaleem Caire and on top of that Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 implies that the values that Kaleem Caire teaches and Dave Blaska agrees with such as high expectations, performance, and accountability are not the values of anyone but conservatives. This kind of thinking is that of a raging anti-LGBT… bigot and a blithering idiot.

      Lastly; I wonder what the real Citizen Dave, aka the honorable Dave Cieslewicz a self proclaimed classic Liberal, would think of this Citizen Dave’s Remington 700 childish internet troll’s bastardization of his nickname; my guess is that the real Citizen Dave is far too intelligent to approve of anything this internet troll wrote. What say you Mayor Dave?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. georgessson says:

    David, yer sayin’ Freedom Inc and MDSN 365 are in denial. Hmnnnn, guess I gotta
    agree again -110%. Marquan Webb, LaFollete HS would-be shooter today, (TODAY !), has 8 pending cases in the courts from 6/2021.

    Yepper, that’s jes’ since late June, a mere 4 months. Oh… And all the 8 cases are in the ubiquitous”OPEN” status, hence the ubiquitous “Bail Jumping” charges filed, tho never enforced…

    And… somehow he ended up leaving Copperlake juvenile facility to end up @ LaFollette ?


    Can you imagine if progressives ‘police their own communities’? I can only envision several dystopian Twilight Zone episodes of MT towns… and I don’t feel comfy.


  10. Alexanders says:

    I thought/understood “accountability” is a “white (supremacists trait)” yet Freedom, inc. is using that word.

    An interesting diacodomy.


  11. Bill Cleary says:

    We are living on the edge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nqcL0mjMjw

    The truth is that we don’t even see it.

    I am scared for the future of humanity.

    God will speak His Truth to all of us, whether we want Him to or not.

    The Truth will be revealed!

    Pray hard for life is going to come to an end.

    I feel it coming, I feel it coming.


  12. Jedigolfer says:

    Carlo has been most informative. Thank you! One point Carlo mentioned has really piqued my interest. He states there is a law that “presents the procedure by which the prosecution may ask the court to rescind pretrial release after the defendant is accused of another crime.” This would seem to be an ideal mechanism to reduce repeat offenses. I am constantly amazed to hear that a suspect is already facing multiple charges from multiple instances and is out on bail or signature bond again. Is it possible that once a person is arrested for a 3rd time with outstanding charges that maybe we just keep them behind bars until their court dates? It seems they have demonstrated that they will keep offending as long as they are still on the street.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.