Ed Schultz perfectly happy for militarized law enforcement to target non-liberals
Paul Joseph Watson
August 19, 2014
MSNBC host Ed Schultz suggested on his show last night that police like those currently occupying Ferguson, Missouri may need military gear in order to deal with the threat posed by “anti-government groups.”
“The Department of Homeland Security recently came out with a report saying the biggest threat to our security is here within our own borders,” said Schultz, adding, “There’s a lot of anti-government groups that have popped up in this country, hate groups that have popped up in this country, and law enforcement feels outgunned and they want to be prepared,”
The MSNBC host went on to suggest that it was the use of militarized equipment that was the issue, not a question of whether police departments should possess it in the first place.”
Apparently, Schultz thinks it’s perfectly reasonable for heavily armed police to use armored vehicles and military weapons against someAmericans, so long as their political opinions can be skewed as “anti-government.”
“Did you catch that? If not, allow me to summarize: The police are too militarized and as a result are unfairly and unjustly using their unnecessary power to harm black people. But wait, could they actually need this stuff because of people who don’t trust the police?” writes Caleb Howe.
Schultz’s reference to the DHS report relates to a leaked document from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis which predicted a rise in “anti-government violence over the next year.”
The report notes that a “perceived victory” during the Bunkerville standoff involving Cliven Bundy has emboldened such extremists, who will continue to cite “government overreach and oppression” as an excuse to stage “more violence.”
Schultz’ myopic comments again expose the hypocrisy of the left-right paradigm. Both sides of the partisan persuasion are only concerned about police brutality and the militarization of domestic law enforcement when it is used to target people who embrace their political dogma, when the sensible response would be to realize that the constitutional rights of people from all over the political map are simultaneously being oppressed.
This article was posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 9:50 am