Liberal San Franciso wakes up

Crossville TN

Description

Recall of Chesa Boudin in San Francisco Shows Rogue Prosecutor Movement for Failure It Is George Soros money elected him. Chesa Boudin, the rogue prosecutor of San Francisco, was recalled from office Tuesday by voters who were disgusted by his feckless leadership and pro-criminal, anti-victim policies. The recall was organized and funded primarily by liberal Democrats who were fed up with Boudin and his hands-off approach to enforcing the law. Boudin’s recall is significant not just for the voters in the City by the Bay, but nationally, as it is the clearest signal yet that the rogue prosecutor movement, as we have been saying, is a colossal failure. We warned readers about Boudin last August, specifically how his policies of not prosecuting thefts, burglaries, shoplifting, drug cases, and other crimes have turned the city into a nightmare for businesses and residents alike. Certain crimes skyrocketed under Boudin’s watch because he refused—like all rogue prosecutors inspired and/or funded by leftist billionaire George Soros—to enforce entire categories of duly enacted laws. Voters in San Francisco, quite honestly, should have known better when they voted for Boudin. His parents are Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, both of whom were members of the Weather Underground, a radical, militant Marxist organization. The duo drove the getaway car following an armed robbery of a Brinks truck in New York, in which a Brinks guard and two police officers were fatally shot. When they were sent away to the Big House, he was raised by two other radicals, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, co-founders of the Weather Underground. While Boudin should not be held accountable for the sins of his parents, he should be held accountable for his own poor choices. Before attending Yale Law School, he lived in Venezuela and served as a translator to the dictator, then-President Hugo Chavez. After clerking for two federal judges, he began his career in the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, where he argued that California’s bail system was unconstitutional. It wasn’t and isn’t. But that didn’t matter. The entire so-called “progressive prosecutor” movement is built on two premises: (1) that the entire criminal justice system is systemically racist and (2) that to fix the system, you have to reverse-engineer and dismantle the criminal justice infrastructure. The first premise is simply not true, and voters are finally starting to wake up to the fact that law and order matters. The second premise, in practice, has meant funding candidates for district attorney and requiring them, once elected, to act like public defenders and to ignore victims. What Boudin and other rogue prosecutors didn’t count on was liberal, inner-city residents and voters rising up and demanding that their district attorneys actually prosecute criminals. They gambled on the idea that liberal voters would tolerate crime, robbery, thefts, open-air drug markets, rising gang violence, and more homicides, as long as these policies were sold as “reimagining prosecution” and a way to combat “mass incarceration.” They also assumed that inner-city residents and voters are stupid. They assumed that voters didn’t remember that crime rates, especially rates of violent crime, had been falling dramatically for 25 years, until Boudin, George Gascon (Los Angeles), Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Foxx (Chicago), and Kimberly Gardner (St. Louis), and others of their ilk came along a few years ago. They assumed that voters wouldn’t figure out that those crime rates fell, at least in part, because of creative programs like drug courts, domestic violence courts, teen and peer courts, family justice centers, and thousands and thousands of alternatives to incarceration—genuinely progressive programs that had been implemented by traditional law-and-order prosecutors who were in favor of limiting access to those programs to truly deserving offenders, while prosecuting the rest for the crimes they had committed.