By David Moore, Unite San Antonio

The first rule of propaganda is to control the information provided and to dictate the content of a political position.  These have been the tactics of ACT4SA from the beginning, and City Council has aligned themselves with this radically extremist group to continue a biased and misleading presentation of Proposition A, aka the “Justice Charter.”

Take for example the original petition by ACT4SA: claims of reducing unnecessary arrest, saving scarce public resources, ending enforcement of marijuana possession and abortion crimes, banning no-knock warrants and choke-holds, and the use of citations in lieu of arrest for low level non-violent crimes.

From the appearance of such a proposal, most citizens would sign such a petition, particularly if you control your market.  ACT4SA used such tactics to target specific markets, such as local CBD and vape shops, where petitions were left for their clientele to sign in support of decriminalizing possession of marijuana.  Petition drives were also held at area bars that are populated by young supporters of women’s choice. 

By finding a singular issue individuals support, ACT4SA hoped to influence them into supporting the entire policy.  In this manner, the citizen is misled.  Thus, the reason to present Proposition A to the public as a single proposal to change the City Charter benefits the criminal while jeopardizing public safety.

Even the policy in its entirety misleads the citizenry by making general claims, and then burying the actual intent in fine print.  They know the average voting public will not read the 3794-word legal document which, consisting of 14 separate sections, represents the largest single proposal to change the city charter ever presented for a vote.

Examples of this propaganda tactic can be found in the websites for ACT4SA and their associate radicals at Ground Game Texas, in which both use catch phrases such as “decriminalize possession of marijuana” and “decriminalize abortions,” without providing any linked information as to the nature of their claims or legality.  The same tactic is used when making claims to eliminate choke-holds, and the “cite and release” policy, claiming the need to codify such policy changes without telling the public that both measures are currently established policy and state law.

So why codify such measures locally, when the policy changes existing state laws and violates the Texas Constitution, and benefits the criminal while jeopardizing public safety?

In section 178, which abolishes the no-knock warrant, only 50 words are used to address this issue.  The remaining 993 words outline measures which limit, hinder, and prevent search warrants and inhibit the investigation and enforcement of criminal laws, from misdemeanors to felonies.

Fine print counters state law, statutory law and case law, designing a system of search warrants that benefits the criminal while restricting law enforcement. Restrictions include banning the use of specific equipment necessary to execute dangerous incident searches and hostage situations, such as occurred in Uvalde.

These benefit the criminal while jeopardizing public safety.

Sections 172 through 175 outline the establishment of a “Justice Director” position, which ACT4SA presents in limited form as a completely new city department which will oversee the changes to the city charter.  What is not explained is that this political appointment consists of an individual without any background or working knowledge of law enforcement policy or laws designed to protect the public.

The entire 550 words used to establish these changes to our charter are nothing more than a means to force law enforcement to violate state laws governing the detention of refugees in response to a federal request, to “mitigating racist and discriminatory law enforcement practices,” and a claim that the city has a history of discrimination against the citizenry.  Most important is the veiled intent to defund public safety and divert the funds to social programs controlled by tax-exempt organizations. 

Assisting marginal groups in this way sacrifices the safety of the general public.  This policy would give a political appointment the operational authority and review of all aspects of public safety and funding, while subverting managerial control of the City Manager.

This benefits the criminal while jeopardizing public safety.

Now comes City Council.  In ratifying the measure as a single proposition on the May ballot, they continue the propaganda efforts used by ACT4SA, while ignoring existing constitutional and state law, and our own City Charter.  Claiming they had no choice when they in fact swore an oath to uphold the laws of this state and city, council established a proposition in which a citizen in support of, say decriminalizing marijuana, will vote for passage for that issue not fully understanding that in doing so, they approve the entire measure whether they support the other charter amendments or not. This is done by the language of Proposition A, as it will appear on the May ballot and reported by Ballotpedia:
===
San Antonio, Texas, Law Enforcement on Abortion, Marijuana, and Police Actions Charter Amendment (May 2023)

A “yes” vote supports ending enforcement of low-level marijuana possession, ending enforcement of abortion laws, banning no-knock warrants by law enforcement, banning choke-holds by law enforcement, and using citations instead of arrests for low-level nonviolent crimes.

A “no” vote opposes ending enforcement of low-level marijuana possession, ending enforcement of abortion laws, banning no-knock warrants by law enforcement, banning choke-holds by law enforcement, and using citations instead of arrests for low-level nonviolent crimes.
===

Our City Council further enhances these same propaganda efforts by creating an official link on the city’s website which continues the control and dissemination of limited and misleading information about Proposition A.

Opponents of Proposition A are gambling against the house (ACT4SA), who along with their state and national supporters are stacking the deck in favor of Proposition A.   With funding and financial support from ActBlue, assistance from state radicals Ground Game Texas and Texas Organizing Project (TOP), along with national extremist groups and our own City Council, it will be a difficult to defeat Proposition A.

Without the support of an informed public of the dangers of Proposition A, without aggressive efforts to get citizens to the polls, Proposition A will pass, and our city will suffer the single most destructive measure against public safety ever enacted in this state.

VOTE NO CRIMINAL BENEFIT ACT – VOTE NO FOR PROPOSITION A

**The views and opinions expressed in this guest editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of InfuseSA.  InfuseSA shall not be held liable for any inaccuracies represented in guest editorials.

The post Vote NO on the Criminal Benefit Act – Vote NO on Proposition A first appeared on Infuse SA.

Last year, Elon Musk shared a meme depicting the recent evolution of the political spectrum.  One “liberal” stick figure sprinted far left, morphed into a “progressive,” and accused his formerly “fellow” liberal stick figure of being a “bigot!”

The “conservative” stood by chuckling. 

That scene is playing out right now as the so-called “Justice Charter” (JC) makes its way onto the ballot in May’s election in San Antonio.

This proposition would at once prevent San Antonio enforcement of state marijuana and abortion laws, ban chokeholds and no-knock warrants by police, codify the cite & release program for low-level crimes, and create a Justice Director position to manage it all.

Nearly every section has stirred some controversy, as well as the fact that they’re all bundled together.  Since that appears to violate Texas procedural law, the Texas Alliance for Life “filed an emergency petition asking the Texas Supreme Court to require separate votes for each of its provisions.”

Enter the press.

A couple of members from our board spoke at the city council proceedings certifying for the ballot the petition drive that made the JC a reality.  The San Antonio Express-News labeled us as “conservative-leaning.”

We are a non-partisan 501(c)3 with board members of varied political affiliation.  We are all about freedom, which needs no partisan defense.  We reach out and engage with anyone or group who has concerns about our community, and who respects others’ core human rights and freedoms. 

Groups like Act4SA however, take an all-or-nothing approach. 

Grouping the six charter amendments together as one, rather than doing them separately, drives a single wedge between citizens.  Rather than finding multiple, various areas of common ground, we’re forced into two camps. 

That makes it easier to control the narrative.  Partisan labels become easier to apply.  The media stokes the flames.  Real progress becomes a casualty.    

It didn’t have to be this way.

Our board and fellow Infusiasts are a diverse bunch, much like our community.  There are some portions of the JC where we all agree.  Others have created spirited discussions.  On the rest, we’ll part ways in the voting booth.

As one proposition on the ballot though, we are unified in opposition.  The bad outweigh the good.     

Groups like Act4SA and their fellow travelers may claim to want to make progress.  Their actions however, lead one to believe that their priority is to force you to accept their definition of “progress.” 

The post The Justice Charter and the (D)evolution of the Political Spectrum first appeared on Infuse SA.