Watch: Dad Walks Into Daughter’s Classroom, Immediately Sees Something Disturbing Hanging On The Wall

Outrage erupted at a Kentucky high school after several parents found anti-police artwork on display in their children’s classroom.

According to a report by WLKY, the artwork was the product of an honors English class assignment at North Oldham High School. Students were asked to read To Kill A Mockingbird, then draw pictures showing what they believed to be social injustice.

The artwork that sparked the outrage depicts a Klu Klux Klan member in 1930 about to shoot a black man alongside a picture of a police officer shooting a black child in 2015. It was drawn by a student in a previous year’s class.

 

But some parents and local residents haven’t accepted this response and are calling for the images to be taken down.

“I do think it’s a little dramatic, and right now it is a very touching time to have something like that come up,” said David Byrd. “They risk their lives for this job and our communities. Cops aren’t killers, they defend our safety. That’s my opinion about it.”

One of the parents upset about the artwork is David Hamblin, a local police offer. His daughter is a student in the class.

“My daughter is not unlike other children of first responders. Hamblin posted on Facebook. “She fears for my safety every day, and believes me to be a man of honesty and courage. What this propaganda creates, are future cop haters, which endanger me, and 800,000 other courageous protectors.”

“When I saw it, I could see immediately why [my daughter] didn’t feel comfortable with it, because I didn’t feel comfortable with it,” Hamblin told WDRB in an interview Wednesday. “It’s comparing a race-based ideology, or the KKK, to that of professional workers who serve their country day-in and day-out. There’s propaganda and there’s the First Amendment. They’re two different things, especially in a government-run classroom.”

North Oldham High School responded to the concerns with the following statement. “We believe that our role as educators is to prepare our kids for the world beyond the classroom, and sometimes things are going to be controversial,” said Tracy Green, the director of communications for Oldham County Schools.

“They’re pictures about social injustice, so I would assume they’re a little offensive to a lot of people, because we’re talking about a controversial issue,” Green continued.

While the school says it understands the anger, and that these images are in no way meant to diminish the service police perform, the images will not be coming down.

h/t: IJReview

Obama/Holder Set to Force Minority Democratic Redistricting Plan on “Racist” States

Hans A. von Spakovsky, National Review

The redistricting process for congressional and state-legislative seats will soon begin in earnest. All redistricting plans must meet the “one person, one vote” equal-protection standard established by the Supreme Court, which means that districts are supposed to be as even in population as possible.

But redistricting also must comply with the Voting Rights Act, and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division just released its new “Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.” This guidance, which affects redistricting in all or parts of 16 states, is almost guaranteed to cause problems for Republicans.

When the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, Section 5 was supposed to be a temporary, emergency provision. It prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change in their voting laws unless those changes are pre-cleared by the Justice Department or approved by a three-judge panel in federal court in Washington. This 45-year-old “emergency” provision has been renewed four separate times, most recently in 2006. That renewal gave the section 25 years of new life, despite a complete lack of evidence that the type of systematic discrimination that led to its initial passage still exists. Indeed, Congress even changed the Section 5 legal standardto make it easier for the Justice Department to cause mischief.

And as we see in the new guidance memo, DOJ seems intent on doing just that. Jurisdictions covered under Section 5 — all of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota — now have the burden of proving that their redistricting plans were adopted “free of any discriminatory purpose” and will not have any “discriminatory effect.”

Historically in U.S. jurisprudence, the government has the burden of proving guilt. But Section 5 has always had a different requirement…

How will this play out in the real world? Here’s my prediction. Democratic-drawn redistricting plans will nearly always be rubber stamped by this Justice Department, unless local black or Hispanic Democrats don’t like how their white Democratic colleagues have sliced the pie. Republican-drawn plans, meanwhile, will run into a buzz saw of Voting Section opposition based not on the legal standards set forth under Section 5, but on whether the Section’s lawyers think the plan will hurt or help Democratic candidates. As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports, “Democrats are looking toward the Justice Department in President Barack Obama’s administration to serve as a counterweight” to Republican control of the redistricting process in Texas. Doubt this will happen? Just look at how Justice blocked Kinston, N.C., from switching from partisan to nonpartisan city-council elections. Justice’s rationale? Minorities wouldn’t know whom to vote for if candidates’ Democratic-party affiliation didn’t appear next to their names on the ballot…

Even worse is the fact that the guidance memo says that Justice will develop its own “illustrative alternative plans for use in its analysis.” In other words, the Democratic political appointees who run the Justice Department will draw up their own redistricting plans. They’re certainly prepared to do that. Sam Hirsch, who was once the Democratic party’s main redistricting lawyer, is now a deputy associate attorney general.

The guidance says that if a state submits a plan that’s not (in the opinion of Justice lawyers) as good as the plan concocted internally at Justice, then “the Attorney General will interpose an objection.” In other words, the Justice Department will use its law-enforcement power under the Voting Rights Act to force states to implement the redistricting plans drawn up by the Obama administration, despite the fact that nothing in the law allows them to do this…

The bottom line is this: The Holder Justice Department’s opposition to race-neutral enforcement of the law over the last two years suggests that redistricting may touch off contentious court battles over the rule of law. Unless states opt to bypass DOJ and go straight to federal court, the Left’s effort to exploit the Voting Rights Act for crass political purposes may reach a degree of success once thought unimaginable.

Read more.