This year I am foregoing the sending of Christmas/Holiday cards in order to focus on the distribution of an Open Letter to All. In this time of forgettable tweets and instagrams, I am gratified by the privilege of sharing more than 140 characters embodying good will to everyone, exceptions noted below. My wish for this joyous season is to remind us that divine inspiration must always be matched by human works, not by faith alone.
While I am not a historian, I am a student of history (having been graduated by Davidson College, I will gleefully always be a student); particularly I am a student of original historical sources, not filtered through the oft clouded lenses of interpretation and bias.
Two voices; more than two centuries ago provide us a precise message of utmost current urgency. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams writing to Foreign Secretary John Jay, March 28, 1786, reporting home on their London meeting with Ambassador from Tripoli regarding Barbary States piracy of American merchant sailing ships:
"We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us provocation.
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take prisoners; and that every Mussulman [muslim] who was slain was sure to go to Paradise."
Two voices more than two centuries ago have proclaimed for the ages that "radical Islam" has not changed, evolved or modernized in altering its core message - radical Islam will not remake its swords into plow-shares any time soon. Not when the core message of the prophet is that violent conversion of infidels into either believers or slaves is divinely mandatory. Not when a martyr's death in battle against the infidels guarantees the warrior of Allah 72 virgins in Paradise.
America must send radical Islam one unanswerable message - a crushing military defeat so complete that no warriors of God are left armed and willing to enslave us. Our defeat of these warriors of God must be so crushing that not one murderous thug is left seeking war with us because it will be made plain that Allah is not so Great after all. A military beat down of such historic magnitude is needed now - not ultimately, not after the radical Islamists have been contained, not after their networks have been dismantled - NOW. Their hearts and minds will follow (or not, as it will be irrelevant) when they see no paradise on Earth, but only death and destruction of their evil cause.
There is no soft power, no social media messaging, no poverty ending jobs program imaginable to the rational mind that can supplant Allah's divine command and promise to his followers of eternity in Paradise. Peace be with us all, after we muddle through this War together.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
Sometimes Less is More
At the dedication of the Union Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the most renowned orator of the day spoke eloquently (we think) for more than two hours, with no breaks for the audience or himself. What he said that memorable day may well be recorded and documented somewhere. To my knowledge, however, his speech is not enshrined on the wall of any Washington, DC Mall monument.
Abraham Lincoln spoke for fewer than three minutes at Gettysburg, but his words were truly immortal.
Trey Gowdy and his repub. panel mates might have taken heed of this great lesson of history. Rather than giving Ms. Clinton a national audience for over nine hours to allow her to wallow in the victim hood of constant political badgering, they would have been better served, and the Republic possibly preserved, had they instead asked the former Secretary of State but three questions:
(1) Mrs. Clinton, you have testified that you put out the fabrication that an internet video caused the death of our four Americans serving in Libya. You told us today that you did so knowing it to be false, in order to persuade the Arab governments to stop further mob attacks on our nation's in-country facilities. Beside that absurd linkage between a video and other Arab dictators motivation to engage in mob control pursuits, you also personally told that lie to the mothers of Glen Daugherty and Shawn Smith at their coffin return ceremony in Delaware. What possible reason did you have to lie to these grieving parents, saying that you personally would "get and punish that murderous video maker" ?
(2) Mrs. Clinton, you have testified that Congressional budget cuts prevented the State Department from adequately providing security to our facilities in Libya. How did you decide it was more important to spend $60,000,000.00 on converting the Paris, France Embassy building to solar power instead of improving the security of Ambassador Stevens and Shawn Smith?
(3) Mrs. Clinton, on September 10, 2012, the Office of the President issued a Press Statement, assuring Americans that because the next day was the eleventh anniversary of the 911 World Trade Center attacks, every US government facility, and particularly those located in hotbeds of radical extremist activities, had been placed on Def Con 1, a veritable war footing in preparation for fully anticipatable attacks. Despite this directive from the President, you and the State Department changed absolutely nothing in Ambassador Steven's schedule for September 11th - his one day trip to Benghazi for a leisurely outdoor patio dinner with Turkey's Ambassador. Did the President lie to the American people, or did you intentionally ignore his directive to protect Ambassador Stevens and his staff taken to Benghazi that deadly anniversary day?
Sadly, The repubs failed us, as did Mrs. Clinton in Libya.
Abraham Lincoln spoke for fewer than three minutes at Gettysburg, but his words were truly immortal.
Trey Gowdy and his repub. panel mates might have taken heed of this great lesson of history. Rather than giving Ms. Clinton a national audience for over nine hours to allow her to wallow in the victim hood of constant political badgering, they would have been better served, and the Republic possibly preserved, had they instead asked the former Secretary of State but three questions:
(1) Mrs. Clinton, you have testified that you put out the fabrication that an internet video caused the death of our four Americans serving in Libya. You told us today that you did so knowing it to be false, in order to persuade the Arab governments to stop further mob attacks on our nation's in-country facilities. Beside that absurd linkage between a video and other Arab dictators motivation to engage in mob control pursuits, you also personally told that lie to the mothers of Glen Daugherty and Shawn Smith at their coffin return ceremony in Delaware. What possible reason did you have to lie to these grieving parents, saying that you personally would "get and punish that murderous video maker" ?
(2) Mrs. Clinton, you have testified that Congressional budget cuts prevented the State Department from adequately providing security to our facilities in Libya. How did you decide it was more important to spend $60,000,000.00 on converting the Paris, France Embassy building to solar power instead of improving the security of Ambassador Stevens and Shawn Smith?
(3) Mrs. Clinton, on September 10, 2012, the Office of the President issued a Press Statement, assuring Americans that because the next day was the eleventh anniversary of the 911 World Trade Center attacks, every US government facility, and particularly those located in hotbeds of radical extremist activities, had been placed on Def Con 1, a veritable war footing in preparation for fully anticipatable attacks. Despite this directive from the President, you and the State Department changed absolutely nothing in Ambassador Steven's schedule for September 11th - his one day trip to Benghazi for a leisurely outdoor patio dinner with Turkey's Ambassador. Did the President lie to the American people, or did you intentionally ignore his directive to protect Ambassador Stevens and his staff taken to Benghazi that deadly anniversary day?
Sadly, The repubs failed us, as did Mrs. Clinton in Libya.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Did Ann Compton just save the Union?
Having retired gracefully to the south of France (actually that would be Algeria, should say south in France), ABC News rushed Ms. Compton back to Washington on Friday to confront Josh Earnest personally in his west wing office. Why, you ask, did these key guardians of media integrity and intellectual honesty fly Compton back and reinstate her to the White House beat? Simple answer - they decided that a rare opportunity to expose the pompous and self important CBS 60 minutes program as being a fraud in the tank for Obama/Hillary had just presented itself.
Last week, Steve Kroft asked the president a number of questions about the use of a private e-mail server by former Secretary of State Clinton. Mr. Obama in answering these soft ball questions dismissed the entire matter as nothing more than mundane political fodder for the republicans in the run up to the 2016 election. The most outrageous claim so casually offered by the president was his assertion that nothing transpired by Ms. Clinton's exclusive use of an easily hackable, bathroom stored server that could have compromised national security. Giving up the identity of a CIA spy in Libya as just one example that Kroft might have followed up with to factually challenge that absurd assertion that this Secretary of State, through her entire four year tenure, never once communicated anything relevant to our nation's national security. But of course, he didn't.
Indeed, in the face of this blatant attempt by the nation's Chief Law Enforcement official to compromise, and shut down even, an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, Mr. Kroft said absolutely nothing. CBS gave the president a national platform and audience to send an unequivocal message to Attorney General Lynch: "nothing to see here, these are not the drones you are looking for, move on".
Thus, armed with the full transcript of the president's August 18, 2014 Presser, Ann Compton demanded Josh Earnest reconcile Mr. Obama's 60 Minute performance with his categorical statement in answer to her press conference question of that date regarding the July local police shooting of an unarmed young, black man in Ferguson, Missouri:
"I have to be very careful about prejuding these events before investigations are completed because, although these are issues of local jurisdiction, the DOJ works for me and when they're conducting an investigation I've got to make sure that I don't look like I am putting my thumb on the scales of justice one way or the other. So, it is hard for me to address a specific case beyond making sure ... people can trust the process, that as a consequence you end up with a fair and just outcome."
(President Barrack Obama, 8/18/14; speaking at the White House Press Room to Ms. Compton)
When Ann Compton read that same quote verbatim to Mr. Earnest, he replied: "At this point what difference does it make, whether they were a group of Libyians out for a stroll or a group of demonstrators who decided just to kill four Americans, what difference does it make?" At which point, CBS Senior White House Reporter, Bill Plante, leaped up from his seat just as his head exploded.
To my knowledge, no News Outlet, reporter or talking head in the entire country has asked the White House to explain Mr. Obama's egregious violation of his own articulated standard for not tampering with ongoing FBI criminal investigations. Accordingly, I imagine this Blog Post is either satire or fantasy journalism ethics.
Last week, Steve Kroft asked the president a number of questions about the use of a private e-mail server by former Secretary of State Clinton. Mr. Obama in answering these soft ball questions dismissed the entire matter as nothing more than mundane political fodder for the republicans in the run up to the 2016 election. The most outrageous claim so casually offered by the president was his assertion that nothing transpired by Ms. Clinton's exclusive use of an easily hackable, bathroom stored server that could have compromised national security. Giving up the identity of a CIA spy in Libya as just one example that Kroft might have followed up with to factually challenge that absurd assertion that this Secretary of State, through her entire four year tenure, never once communicated anything relevant to our nation's national security. But of course, he didn't.
Indeed, in the face of this blatant attempt by the nation's Chief Law Enforcement official to compromise, and shut down even, an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, Mr. Kroft said absolutely nothing. CBS gave the president a national platform and audience to send an unequivocal message to Attorney General Lynch: "nothing to see here, these are not the drones you are looking for, move on".
Thus, armed with the full transcript of the president's August 18, 2014 Presser, Ann Compton demanded Josh Earnest reconcile Mr. Obama's 60 Minute performance with his categorical statement in answer to her press conference question of that date regarding the July local police shooting of an unarmed young, black man in Ferguson, Missouri:
"I have to be very careful about prejuding these events before investigations are completed because, although these are issues of local jurisdiction, the DOJ works for me and when they're conducting an investigation I've got to make sure that I don't look like I am putting my thumb on the scales of justice one way or the other. So, it is hard for me to address a specific case beyond making sure ... people can trust the process, that as a consequence you end up with a fair and just outcome."
(President Barrack Obama, 8/18/14; speaking at the White House Press Room to Ms. Compton)
When Ann Compton read that same quote verbatim to Mr. Earnest, he replied: "At this point what difference does it make, whether they were a group of Libyians out for a stroll or a group of demonstrators who decided just to kill four Americans, what difference does it make?" At which point, CBS Senior White House Reporter, Bill Plante, leaped up from his seat just as his head exploded.
To my knowledge, no News Outlet, reporter or talking head in the entire country has asked the White House to explain Mr. Obama's egregious violation of his own articulated standard for not tampering with ongoing FBI criminal investigations. Accordingly, I imagine this Blog Post is either satire or fantasy journalism ethics.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Valerie Plame: Media Role Model or Ignored Relic from Dust Bin?
As my last post - Knives and Garrotes - was mis-characterized as an anti-gun control screed, which it was not (See Blog Post: Guns and Roses, 12/16/12), I will avoid any subtlety here. My theme now, as it was then, is that intellectual dishonesty is a lethal cancer on the body politic because such lack of integrity by opinion makers undermines the very foundation of the fourth pillar sustaining our Constitutional Republic - a free press with public credibility. (There I go again - JD, enuff bombast for U?)
As you all know, I am not supporting Ms. Hillary for coronation as the next President of these United States. Nonetheless, my exclusive focus now is on the national media posture as it pertains to the former Secretary of State's public disclosure, thru unsecured e-mails, (yes PLURAL: sent and received) of the name of a secret CIA spy (yes, a foreign spy working for the US) stationed in Libya.
This critical appraisal will be squarely set in the relevant context of the media coverage of the leaking of Ms. Valerie Plame's identity to the public during the second term of the W. Bush Administration. To assert that the main stream media (MSM) went all high dudgeon over Mr. Richard Armitage's leak to Mr. Robert Novak may well be the understatement of all times. The two most prominent Bush Administration officials that these great guardians of the life of CIA operative Plame demanded be imprisoned after being publicly "Frog Walked" out of the White House in hand cuffs and leg irons were Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Calls for the impeachment of President Bush were advanced as well, I'm quite sure.
This massive outpouring of righteous indignation at an Administration official(s) endangering the life of a CIA operative must surely be prologue for what we will see and hear from the MSM soon, right? There is no factual dispute here, Ms. Hillary's campaign spokesperson on Friday acknowledged that she had fingered an actual spy working behind enemy lines, but said two others had sent her this CIA operative's name and had not informed her of a secret classification covering that identity. Sure, we should not expect the most experienced SEC/STATE in history to know that the names of working spies in a war zone constitute a state secret.
To this debacle, I will simply quote Israel's Benjamin Netenyahu as to what I predict will be the MSM coverage of Ms Hillary:
"The response from this body - nearly every one of the [meia outlets] ... represented here - has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence."
Before writing this Post further, I just stared at this quote for 45 seconds,before posing a more positive note: anyone finding a MSM demand for Ms. Hillary to be Frog Walked to Jail for possibly killing an American CIA spy will be given a six month extension to his or her Elite Membership. Good hunting you'se guys.
As you all know, I am not supporting Ms. Hillary for coronation as the next President of these United States. Nonetheless, my exclusive focus now is on the national media posture as it pertains to the former Secretary of State's public disclosure, thru unsecured e-mails, (yes PLURAL: sent and received) of the name of a secret CIA spy (yes, a foreign spy working for the US) stationed in Libya.
This critical appraisal will be squarely set in the relevant context of the media coverage of the leaking of Ms. Valerie Plame's identity to the public during the second term of the W. Bush Administration. To assert that the main stream media (MSM) went all high dudgeon over Mr. Richard Armitage's leak to Mr. Robert Novak may well be the understatement of all times. The two most prominent Bush Administration officials that these great guardians of the life of CIA operative Plame demanded be imprisoned after being publicly "Frog Walked" out of the White House in hand cuffs and leg irons were Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Calls for the impeachment of President Bush were advanced as well, I'm quite sure.
This massive outpouring of righteous indignation at an Administration official(s) endangering the life of a CIA operative must surely be prologue for what we will see and hear from the MSM soon, right? There is no factual dispute here, Ms. Hillary's campaign spokesperson on Friday acknowledged that she had fingered an actual spy working behind enemy lines, but said two others had sent her this CIA operative's name and had not informed her of a secret classification covering that identity. Sure, we should not expect the most experienced SEC/STATE in history to know that the names of working spies in a war zone constitute a state secret.
To this debacle, I will simply quote Israel's Benjamin Netenyahu as to what I predict will be the MSM coverage of Ms Hillary:
"The response from this body - nearly every one of the [meia outlets] ... represented here - has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence."
Before writing this Post further, I just stared at this quote for 45 seconds,before posing a more positive note: anyone finding a MSM demand for Ms. Hillary to be Frog Walked to Jail for possibly killing an American CIA spy will be given a six month extension to his or her Elite Membership. Good hunting you'se guys.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Two Knives and a Garrot equal one Assault Rifle
In, 1999 - a long, long time ago, indeed, way back in a previous century - Neil was preparing over the summer to enroll in Vermont's Middlebury College. Striving to assist my son matriculate the ball down the field toward a more successful academic career than my own, I endeavored to incorporate in a multi-page narrative all the best examples of classical logic and rhetoric (with comparisons to sophistry) from my Davidson College years.
Now, sixteen years later, I remember very little of my essay, about which Neil has confirmed having no recollection whatsoever, despite its classical prose honed at the desk of Classics Professor George Labban, R.I.P. The exclusive recollection still fresh in my own mind is that the rhetoric of logic, when done well, is the most persuasive form of the rational polemic. Here is the very example I shared with Neil: A raging dialectic debate, then in the forefront of U.S. opinion makers just as it is today, focused on the transformational utility of gun control measures. These gun control advocates advanced as their central tenet the purported direct cause and effect correlation of private gun ownership prohibitions with achievement of the universally desired goal of the eradication of gun violence, citing accurate crime stats from several nation's with these prohibitions that had experienced sharp drops in firearm murders. For them, however, that fair proposition was invariably followed up by pure sophistry. These gun banners then asserted unequivocally that such mass gun confiscations, by ending unlawful shootings, secured universal public safety by prevention of homicidal criminal violence.
Regrettably, logic and reason immediately put the lie to this grandiose claim. As I wrote to Neil:
"After Great Britian banned the private ownership of firearms, murders by garroting increased by over 2000 per cent annually."
Now, I did not actually research England's record of strangulation homicides. Nonetheless, the imperative of comparing all methods of murder to ascertain effectiveness of any particular prevention policy is obvious and would not to be overlooked by intellectually honest persons seriously proposing to repeal an Amendment to our Constitution enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Again the obvious - humans bent on doing murderous harm to others will readily substitute alternate available weapons for the guns denied them.
Indeed, a recent news article from Great Britain reported that a Member of Parliament was calling for restrictions on the sale of steak knives due to a recent significant increase in homicidal stabbings. One could easily ask - would serving forks with multiple prongs be next up for confiscation in England?
In sum, therefore, this rhetorical exercise has demonstrated by irrefutable logic that the evil in men's hearts will not be deterred by mere gun control laws; they are no panacea in that all western societies having implemented them have achieved little if any enhancement to public safety. Would that our nation's policy makers and talking heads had been graduated either by Middlebury or Davidson.
Now, sixteen years later, I remember very little of my essay, about which Neil has confirmed having no recollection whatsoever, despite its classical prose honed at the desk of Classics Professor George Labban, R.I.P. The exclusive recollection still fresh in my own mind is that the rhetoric of logic, when done well, is the most persuasive form of the rational polemic. Here is the very example I shared with Neil: A raging dialectic debate, then in the forefront of U.S. opinion makers just as it is today, focused on the transformational utility of gun control measures. These gun control advocates advanced as their central tenet the purported direct cause and effect correlation of private gun ownership prohibitions with achievement of the universally desired goal of the eradication of gun violence, citing accurate crime stats from several nation's with these prohibitions that had experienced sharp drops in firearm murders. For them, however, that fair proposition was invariably followed up by pure sophistry. These gun banners then asserted unequivocally that such mass gun confiscations, by ending unlawful shootings, secured universal public safety by prevention of homicidal criminal violence.
Regrettably, logic and reason immediately put the lie to this grandiose claim. As I wrote to Neil:
"After Great Britian banned the private ownership of firearms, murders by garroting increased by over 2000 per cent annually."
Now, I did not actually research England's record of strangulation homicides. Nonetheless, the imperative of comparing all methods of murder to ascertain effectiveness of any particular prevention policy is obvious and would not to be overlooked by intellectually honest persons seriously proposing to repeal an Amendment to our Constitution enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Again the obvious - humans bent on doing murderous harm to others will readily substitute alternate available weapons for the guns denied them.
Indeed, a recent news article from Great Britain reported that a Member of Parliament was calling for restrictions on the sale of steak knives due to a recent significant increase in homicidal stabbings. One could easily ask - would serving forks with multiple prongs be next up for confiscation in England?
In sum, therefore, this rhetorical exercise has demonstrated by irrefutable logic that the evil in men's hearts will not be deterred by mere gun control laws; they are no panacea in that all western societies having implemented them have achieved little if any enhancement to public safety. Would that our nation's policy makers and talking heads had been graduated either by Middlebury or Davidson.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
A Very Bad Deal - Part Tres
For his entire term in Office, President Obama has pledged to Israel and to the entire civilized world that he would take any and all steps necessary to prevent the mad mullahs of Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, as they are sure to use them against the Jews and us, as well.
Indeed, seemingly out of step with his nation's plans to annihilate Israel, one former Iranian President expressed appreciation for the existence of the national Jewish homeland, stating that it made their total destruction so much swifter due to having the vast majority of the world's Jews gathered so close together in a "ONE BOMB STATE". Nice touch there. Hitler would be envious of this good Muslim's sense of efficiency. [ Please, everyone offended by Governor Huckabee's oven analogy, be assured - I am not implying in any sense that President Obama's antipathy toward Israel, while very real and deeply felt, is analogous to the Nazi regime's final solution. ] In my heart, I feel that Obama views Israel as the bully in the Middle East region, able to intimidate and push around its neighbors because the Jews possess the Bomb, and have the where-with-all to use it effectively from Tripoli to Tehran. Accordingly, truth be told, the President sees Iran, with a short break out time to possess its own nuclear weapons, as a necessary counterweight to Israel and that nation's war propensities. Mr. Obama has, in fact, spoken repeatedly of his full acceptance of Iran as a very significant "regional power" in the Middle East.
Of course, that very candid acceptance, seeming approval even, makes the logical alternative to Obama's false choice between - a terrible 10 year agreement and war - off the table for the Administration. Having ousted Israel from the international community of civilized nations, and welcomed back in Iran with open arms (to be funded by a 150 billion dollar pay-off), any international cooperation on effecting regime change in Tehran now is absolutely prohibited.
What a shame. In 2009, the entire civilized world saw the mad mullahs rocked to their very core by pro-democracy protests in Tehran. Rather than support the people of Iran desperately wanting to become free again, this President sent secret letters to the mullahs asking them to forgive America for its many transgressions against Iran, starting with the 1952 CIA sponsored coup that put the hated Shah back on his imperial throne in Tehran. Thus, abandoning the millions fighting and dying in the city streets, President Obama got into bed with these murderous thugs to make nice with them and there unbounded hatred of Israel and us. They remain, despite this Deal of Total Appeasement, at war with America (or are their chants of "death to America" merely seeking our demise as the result of old age), and now the President has forbidden the entire civilized world from even saying rude things about, let alone seek their removal from power, these murderous rulers. We shall all reap the bitter fruits of this harvest of shame.
Indeed, seemingly out of step with his nation's plans to annihilate Israel, one former Iranian President expressed appreciation for the existence of the national Jewish homeland, stating that it made their total destruction so much swifter due to having the vast majority of the world's Jews gathered so close together in a "ONE BOMB STATE". Nice touch there. Hitler would be envious of this good Muslim's sense of efficiency. [ Please, everyone offended by Governor Huckabee's oven analogy, be assured - I am not implying in any sense that President Obama's antipathy toward Israel, while very real and deeply felt, is analogous to the Nazi regime's final solution. ] In my heart, I feel that Obama views Israel as the bully in the Middle East region, able to intimidate and push around its neighbors because the Jews possess the Bomb, and have the where-with-all to use it effectively from Tripoli to Tehran. Accordingly, truth be told, the President sees Iran, with a short break out time to possess its own nuclear weapons, as a necessary counterweight to Israel and that nation's war propensities. Mr. Obama has, in fact, spoken repeatedly of his full acceptance of Iran as a very significant "regional power" in the Middle East.
Of course, that very candid acceptance, seeming approval even, makes the logical alternative to Obama's false choice between - a terrible 10 year agreement and war - off the table for the Administration. Having ousted Israel from the international community of civilized nations, and welcomed back in Iran with open arms (to be funded by a 150 billion dollar pay-off), any international cooperation on effecting regime change in Tehran now is absolutely prohibited.
What a shame. In 2009, the entire civilized world saw the mad mullahs rocked to their very core by pro-democracy protests in Tehran. Rather than support the people of Iran desperately wanting to become free again, this President sent secret letters to the mullahs asking them to forgive America for its many transgressions against Iran, starting with the 1952 CIA sponsored coup that put the hated Shah back on his imperial throne in Tehran. Thus, abandoning the millions fighting and dying in the city streets, President Obama got into bed with these murderous thugs to make nice with them and there unbounded hatred of Israel and us. They remain, despite this Deal of Total Appeasement, at war with America (or are their chants of "death to America" merely seeking our demise as the result of old age), and now the President has forbidden the entire civilized world from even saying rude things about, let alone seek their removal from power, these murderous rulers. We shall all reap the bitter fruits of this harvest of shame.
Monday, July 20, 2015
A Very Bad deal - Part Deux
Hope and change captivated a nation six very long years ago, when multitudes - almost beyond counting -roared their approval of President-Elect Obama when he assured us that soon the seas would stop their rise, summer temperatures would cool and peace among all nations was achievable by America simply extending an open hand to our adversaries, instead of the confrontational closed fist of the Bush bullies. Well, at least in foreign policy implementation (contrary to the Obama promises of keeping our doctor and health insurance), this President has been true to his word, by pursuing an American leadership retreat across every continent on the globe. Instead of projecting American power to deter, or if undertaken, to punish hostile acts by our adversaries, this Administration has asked all the evil-doers of the world to play nice with us because we truly do want to be friends with everyone.
In Mr. Obama's public announcement last week of the Iran Nuke deal - not Peace for our Time, but peace for the next 10 years, after which most all restraints on Iran's nuclear weapons program will be lifted- he called out the blood thirty butchers of Tehran and pleaded with them to enter "Like" on the President's facebook page:
"Our differences are real and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored.
But it is possible to change the path of violence and rigid ideology in foreign policy based upon threats to attack your neighbors ... That's a dead end.
A different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict leads to ... more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.
This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it."
Ah, if only the REAL WORLD'S malevolent dictators were swayed by such SWEET REASONING to repudiate their brutal intentions to dominate and conquer. Most assuredly, insane monsters such as Hitler and Stalin, having lived through the horrors of WWI, with millions upon millions slaughtered, would have recognized, had Obama told them, that going to war again just 20 years after the 1920 Paris Peace Treaty was definitely a "dead end". Of course insane dictators care little, if at all, for the millions upon millions killed in their wars, so long as they triumph - as they always expect to do.
So, count me skeptical as to the mad mullahs of Iran being swept away by the silky tones of Mr. Obama's offers of warm fellowship and friendship, when their sole and exclusive objective is making everyone worldwide bow down in obedience to their Deity, or die.
In Mr. Obama's public announcement last week of the Iran Nuke deal - not Peace for our Time, but peace for the next 10 years, after which most all restraints on Iran's nuclear weapons program will be lifted- he called out the blood thirty butchers of Tehran and pleaded with them to enter "Like" on the President's facebook page:
"Our differences are real and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored.
But it is possible to change the path of violence and rigid ideology in foreign policy based upon threats to attack your neighbors ... That's a dead end.
A different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict leads to ... more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.
This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it."
Ah, if only the REAL WORLD'S malevolent dictators were swayed by such SWEET REASONING to repudiate their brutal intentions to dominate and conquer. Most assuredly, insane monsters such as Hitler and Stalin, having lived through the horrors of WWI, with millions upon millions slaughtered, would have recognized, had Obama told them, that going to war again just 20 years after the 1920 Paris Peace Treaty was definitely a "dead end". Of course insane dictators care little, if at all, for the millions upon millions killed in their wars, so long as they triumph - as they always expect to do.
So, count me skeptical as to the mad mullahs of Iran being swept away by the silky tones of Mr. Obama's offers of warm fellowship and friendship, when their sole and exclusive objective is making everyone worldwide bow down in obedience to their Deity, or die.
A Very Bad Deal indeed
I desperately wanted to be able to support an agreement among the world's major powers and Iran that would prevent that rogue, terrorist nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The President is correct that the alternatives to a diplomatically negotiated settlement of this challenge to the survival of Israel, as well as the existential threat Iran poses to its Arab neighbors are themselves fraught with grave risks.
Of course, when the leaders of the civilized world confront an evil as monstrous as Iran, with its ruling Mullahs believing that God Almighty requires death (meaning: total annihilation) to both the little Satan and us, the Big Satan, there are no pain free/risk free policy choices. As Winston Churchill observed to Neville Chamberlain after the Munich dismemberment of the Czech nation to appease Hitler's insatiable appetite for conquest: "You had a choice between dishonor and War, now you shall have both."
By telling the world that he was not elected to be a war president, Mr. Obama has assured every adversary that he will make whatever concessions they demand to prevent even a threat of hostilities. That posture, wherein the other side absolutely know you will not walk away from the negotiating table and pursue stiffer sanctions or a possible military strike, makes those talks, not negotiations, but rather arranging the terms of surrender.
At least Neville Chamberlain was candid and honest with the people of Great Britain, in telling them that the price of "Peace for our Time" was the enslavement of a free Czech nation to the Nazi vice grip. Even Churchill respected him for not claiming that what he had done wasn't appeasement, pure and simple, coupled with the assertion that Hitler would keep his word of honor, and had no additional territorial aspirations. Sound similar - the Mullahs have told Obama that they have no aspirations to possess nuclear weapons.
What would Sir Winston think about our President's announcement last week that he had achieved Peace with Iran? Here are some of Mr. Obama's assertions in that White House address to the nation:
*BO: "That's the deal. It has the full backing of the international community."
WC: "That's a bald face lie, as Israel vehemently opposes this agreement, as most probably does Saudi Arabia, Egypt and ten or more middle east nations fearful of Iran's aggression." [Possibly, Obama meant to send a message to Israel - you are now considered an outcast, rogue state, unworthy of inclusion in the community of civilized nations. Nice touch there.]
*BO: "Put simply, ... the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary."
WC: That's a bald face lie, when Iran objects to any or all proposed IAEA inspections, IRAN sits on the Committee which will decide whether any such visits are allowed, so the claim that the IAEA decides where and when it will inspect is, put simply, false."
*BO: "If in a worst case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. President in the future ... in a far stronger position with Iran further away from a weapon."
WC: "That's a bald face lie. Did he even read that assertion before he read it on the teleprompter? He postulates a "worst case" scenario confronting a future president, but then in the same sentence claims that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon through violating this agreement. Of course, the "worst case" is Iran gets the bomb, so any future president's attempt to compel their compliance with this dead deal will be against an Iran ready able and willing to annihilate both Tel Avis and Washington, D.C."
That level of arrogance - in bald face lying repeatedly to the American people in the belief that should they know the true level of Obama's appeasement, this deal will be rejected overwhelming in Congress - is truly dishonorable and most probably will lead to war. Shame on all of us, should we not be contacting our elected representatives night and day from this point forward demanding that this deal be dumped.
Of course, when the leaders of the civilized world confront an evil as monstrous as Iran, with its ruling Mullahs believing that God Almighty requires death (meaning: total annihilation) to both the little Satan and us, the Big Satan, there are no pain free/risk free policy choices. As Winston Churchill observed to Neville Chamberlain after the Munich dismemberment of the Czech nation to appease Hitler's insatiable appetite for conquest: "You had a choice between dishonor and War, now you shall have both."
By telling the world that he was not elected to be a war president, Mr. Obama has assured every adversary that he will make whatever concessions they demand to prevent even a threat of hostilities. That posture, wherein the other side absolutely know you will not walk away from the negotiating table and pursue stiffer sanctions or a possible military strike, makes those talks, not negotiations, but rather arranging the terms of surrender.
At least Neville Chamberlain was candid and honest with the people of Great Britain, in telling them that the price of "Peace for our Time" was the enslavement of a free Czech nation to the Nazi vice grip. Even Churchill respected him for not claiming that what he had done wasn't appeasement, pure and simple, coupled with the assertion that Hitler would keep his word of honor, and had no additional territorial aspirations. Sound similar - the Mullahs have told Obama that they have no aspirations to possess nuclear weapons.
What would Sir Winston think about our President's announcement last week that he had achieved Peace with Iran? Here are some of Mr. Obama's assertions in that White House address to the nation:
*BO: "That's the deal. It has the full backing of the international community."
WC: "That's a bald face lie, as Israel vehemently opposes this agreement, as most probably does Saudi Arabia, Egypt and ten or more middle east nations fearful of Iran's aggression." [Possibly, Obama meant to send a message to Israel - you are now considered an outcast, rogue state, unworthy of inclusion in the community of civilized nations. Nice touch there.]
*BO: "Put simply, ... the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary."
WC: That's a bald face lie, when Iran objects to any or all proposed IAEA inspections, IRAN sits on the Committee which will decide whether any such visits are allowed, so the claim that the IAEA decides where and when it will inspect is, put simply, false."
*BO: "If in a worst case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. President in the future ... in a far stronger position with Iran further away from a weapon."
WC: "That's a bald face lie. Did he even read that assertion before he read it on the teleprompter? He postulates a "worst case" scenario confronting a future president, but then in the same sentence claims that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon through violating this agreement. Of course, the "worst case" is Iran gets the bomb, so any future president's attempt to compel their compliance with this dead deal will be against an Iran ready able and willing to annihilate both Tel Avis and Washington, D.C."
That level of arrogance - in bald face lying repeatedly to the American people in the belief that should they know the true level of Obama's appeasement, this deal will be rejected overwhelming in Congress - is truly dishonorable and most probably will lead to war. Shame on all of us, should we not be contacting our elected representatives night and day from this point forward demanding that this deal be dumped.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Those raisins really were Small Potatoes
Sure, Gay marriage is fine; as a libertarian, I see little or no governmental interest in discriminating against and restricting same sex couples from participating in the full legal right, dignity and respect that society grants those joined in the bonds of matrimony. Simultaneously, I do not condemn, or even criticize, those who oppose same sex marriages based upon their religious faith. Those folks are not bigots or haters, so long as they don't abuse or mistreat homosexual persons they encounter in life.
In my acceptance of the rights of gay to marry, I am joined by millions of other Americans. Indeed, this societal preference for full civil rights for gay couples is so equitably fair that within the next few years a vast majority support by the nation's electorate is inevitable, in my judgment.
Instead of allowing democracy to craft public policy - as this cultural institution of a family's legal composition has been handled since the founding of our country - five unelected, unaccountable lawyers (for God's sake) have totally eviscerated the nation's Constitutional self-government - "... of the people, BY the people ...".
Nonetheless, vast multitudes of people have now hailed the Supreme Court as being the greatest moral and legal institution in all of recorded human history. How incongruous - when all power of government to establish what is fundamental law resides in five unaccountable persons, these titans of wisdom - self determined by the way - have appointed themselves America's rulers-for-life, or better known as: "We don't need no stinkin Legislature".
Hey, the Divine Right of Kings is a swell gig, so tell me, who, with an ego as large as Justice Kennedy's, would turn down the chance to become one of the immortals - his name eternally to be spoken of in reverence as the Great Emancipator!
Yes, how incongruous for millions to be celebrating their complete disenfranchisement. American democracy, the liberty of 320 million citizens to chart our own governing principles, seems worth a year or two to reform a marriage code that was in place for the entire 230 years of our collective self-governing experience.
It should be a self-evident truth to every celebrant of this declaration of judicial supremacy - when judges can create, all rights by simple fiat (by their wise words scrolled on parchment to be handed out to their subjects), they therefore must have identical powers to take all those same civil rights from us by their identical whim. Who can still assert that judicial powers are checked or balanced in our Constitutional system of three co-equal branches of government?
A few weeks ago a state trial judge in New York presided over a day long hearing on whether captivated jungle animals are entitled to the full array of human civil rights enshrined in our nation's Constitution and legislatively enacted statutes. Oblivious to the indisputable truth that our nation that adopted the Constitution knew the difference between a human being and a baboon, this arrogant jurist's disdain for the democratic formulation of public policy was on full display. Now, don't get me wrong, I work tirelessly to strengthen animal protection laws by interacting with my representatives in Congress who speak for us all on such matters of national policy. This New York Judge decided she was in charge, and legislators were as useless as stinkin badges!
Such a coup de'tat by judges seems incomprehensible to all freedom loving citizens who believe in representative self government. Most assuredly, when animals are deemed entitled to be awarded civil rights by a court of wisdom (not law), soon it is likely judges will feel empowered to remove and deny civil rights to pre-born children, with no allowance for legislative or executive consultations.
In my acceptance of the rights of gay to marry, I am joined by millions of other Americans. Indeed, this societal preference for full civil rights for gay couples is so equitably fair that within the next few years a vast majority support by the nation's electorate is inevitable, in my judgment.
Instead of allowing democracy to craft public policy - as this cultural institution of a family's legal composition has been handled since the founding of our country - five unelected, unaccountable lawyers (for God's sake) have totally eviscerated the nation's Constitutional self-government - "... of the people, BY the people ...".
Nonetheless, vast multitudes of people have now hailed the Supreme Court as being the greatest moral and legal institution in all of recorded human history. How incongruous - when all power of government to establish what is fundamental law resides in five unaccountable persons, these titans of wisdom - self determined by the way - have appointed themselves America's rulers-for-life, or better known as: "We don't need no stinkin Legislature".
Hey, the Divine Right of Kings is a swell gig, so tell me, who, with an ego as large as Justice Kennedy's, would turn down the chance to become one of the immortals - his name eternally to be spoken of in reverence as the Great Emancipator!
Yes, how incongruous for millions to be celebrating their complete disenfranchisement. American democracy, the liberty of 320 million citizens to chart our own governing principles, seems worth a year or two to reform a marriage code that was in place for the entire 230 years of our collective self-governing experience.
It should be a self-evident truth to every celebrant of this declaration of judicial supremacy - when judges can create, all rights by simple fiat (by their wise words scrolled on parchment to be handed out to their subjects), they therefore must have identical powers to take all those same civil rights from us by their identical whim. Who can still assert that judicial powers are checked or balanced in our Constitutional system of three co-equal branches of government?
A few weeks ago a state trial judge in New York presided over a day long hearing on whether captivated jungle animals are entitled to the full array of human civil rights enshrined in our nation's Constitution and legislatively enacted statutes. Oblivious to the indisputable truth that our nation that adopted the Constitution knew the difference between a human being and a baboon, this arrogant jurist's disdain for the democratic formulation of public policy was on full display. Now, don't get me wrong, I work tirelessly to strengthen animal protection laws by interacting with my representatives in Congress who speak for us all on such matters of national policy. This New York Judge decided she was in charge, and legislators were as useless as stinkin badges!
Such a coup de'tat by judges seems incomprehensible to all freedom loving citizens who believe in representative self government. Most assuredly, when animals are deemed entitled to be awarded civil rights by a court of wisdom (not law), soon it is likely judges will feel empowered to remove and deny civil rights to pre-born children, with no allowance for legislative or executive consultations.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
An Expensive Raisin in the Sun ...
... is a pernicious poke in the eye of freedom and democracy. Yesterday, the Supremes invalidated the 1937 federal law - on the books for 78 years - that empowered the USDA literally to drive a truck uninvited onto a raisin farmer's real property, park that vehicle, stuff the bed and haul away as much of his annual crop as the Raisin Administrative Committee deemed necessary to prop up retail raisin prices to the level of profitability demanded by the raisin oligarchs on this Committee. For full legal reasoning see, Horne v. USDA, decided 6/22/15; (Mr Horne is a third generation family farmer in California's central valley who had the courage to bar entry to the USDA trucks at his private road gate). Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts; sole dissent by our presumably wise Latina Justice. This decision once again reversed (and if possible, embarrassed) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lower court decision in favor of this rape of our nation's consumers of raisins. Talk about non-accountability in government employ - I remember reading not too long ago that this most progressive of Circuit Courts gets upheld by the Supreme Court less than 50% of the appeals taken to nation's highest tribunal.
So, with that overview stated, here are the most salient points to ponder as concerned citizens wanting our Constitutional Republic to be restored to its original contours of limited government, with freedom and justice for all:
NEWS FLASH TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT:
As Justice Roberts admonished these legal dullards in his cogent opinion - the 5th Amendment precludes the federal government from seizing w/o. just compensation a person's car, identically as it does that same individual's private home. Now, I know that many legal concepts are not always objectively obvious in the proper application of governing law. That said, how is it conceivable that the San Francisco based court - two hundred thirty-nine years after our nation's founding - determined that despite the clear language of the 5th Amend, the feds can take absolutely everything I own with total impunity, but not my dwelling? Has legal scholarship fallen so far in our law schools, or are these judges just blinded by their ideology.
NEWS FLASH TO THE SUPREME COURT:
Irrespective of the federal government's obligation to pay fair market value for a raisin farmer's produce, when the exclusive purpose of that purchase is to artificially increase super market store prices of raisins - a criminal conspiracy if undertaken by two or more growers in a private sector transaction - that USDA program is not a taking for a legitimate public purpose/use. Indeed, it is Soviet style price-fixing to the substantial detriment of all American consumers.
NEWS FLASH TO THE CONGRESS:
When the USDA acts in concert with a price-fixing oligarchy of raisin conglomerates to screw the American consumers out of millions of dollars annually, where is the populist legislation to prohibit this outrage against free market competition? Where are the great champions of the working middle class? Where is Hillary, where is Bernie Sanders where even is the guy we elected twice to protect us from the deprivations of those evil 1%? (Conglomerate Raisin producers are billionaires, in case you wondered whether they made campaign contributions to both political parties)
I guess President Obama, who mandated a vigorous defense of this communist style central planning disaster, might need to check his constitutional law scholar credentials at the grocery counter next time he goes shopping for affordable healthy foods for the working class kids in charter schools he supports equally strongly.
So, with that overview stated, here are the most salient points to ponder as concerned citizens wanting our Constitutional Republic to be restored to its original contours of limited government, with freedom and justice for all:
NEWS FLASH TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT:
As Justice Roberts admonished these legal dullards in his cogent opinion - the 5th Amendment precludes the federal government from seizing w/o. just compensation a person's car, identically as it does that same individual's private home. Now, I know that many legal concepts are not always objectively obvious in the proper application of governing law. That said, how is it conceivable that the San Francisco based court - two hundred thirty-nine years after our nation's founding - determined that despite the clear language of the 5th Amend, the feds can take absolutely everything I own with total impunity, but not my dwelling? Has legal scholarship fallen so far in our law schools, or are these judges just blinded by their ideology.
NEWS FLASH TO THE SUPREME COURT:
Irrespective of the federal government's obligation to pay fair market value for a raisin farmer's produce, when the exclusive purpose of that purchase is to artificially increase super market store prices of raisins - a criminal conspiracy if undertaken by two or more growers in a private sector transaction - that USDA program is not a taking for a legitimate public purpose/use. Indeed, it is Soviet style price-fixing to the substantial detriment of all American consumers.
NEWS FLASH TO THE CONGRESS:
When the USDA acts in concert with a price-fixing oligarchy of raisin conglomerates to screw the American consumers out of millions of dollars annually, where is the populist legislation to prohibit this outrage against free market competition? Where are the great champions of the working middle class? Where is Hillary, where is Bernie Sanders where even is the guy we elected twice to protect us from the deprivations of those evil 1%? (Conglomerate Raisin producers are billionaires, in case you wondered whether they made campaign contributions to both political parties)
I guess President Obama, who mandated a vigorous defense of this communist style central planning disaster, might need to check his constitutional law scholar credentials at the grocery counter next time he goes shopping for affordable healthy foods for the working class kids in charter schools he supports equally strongly.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Why Joanne Chesimard still Matters
Normalizing relations with Cuba may well be a true national security plus for the United States, as the Castro brothers will not live forever, and so their tyranny over the Cuban people may soon be left to the ash bin of history. Being but 90 miles from Florida, Cuba would seem to be a nation that will be susceptible to the civilizing influences of American culture, ideals and life styles. Of course, mere proximity will achieve none of these worthy objectives for us or the millions of freedom seeking Cubans should this Obama Administration opening of Cuba be done without out the exchange of value for the immense value given in lifting the half century embargo and isolation of that tiny island.
Possibly the most crucial value that America must obtain from the Cuban government is its repudiation of being a safe haven for terrorists, criminals and fugitives from justice. It will serve our national security little if civilian avenues of travel from Cuba to the United States are made routine were those daily airline flights and cruise vessels visits to be unfettered access for attacks upon America.
This proposition gets us to the title star of this blog post - Assata Shakur, a.k.a. Joanne Chesimard. And make no mistake, she is deemed to be a superstar in anti-American circles. She is treated as royalty in her adopted home of Havana, Cuba, living there free as a (jail)bird since 1986.
Why should the status of one such person constitute a determinate as to whether the United States will help convert Cuba into a nation welcome in the broader community of civilization? The reason that Ms. Chesimard is the "canary in the coal mine" is because New Jersey State Trooper, Werner Foerster, was viciously executed by Ms. Chesimard firing two shots at point blank range into his head in 1972 along the Turnpike near East Brunswick. Chesimard was convicted of this henious crime in 1977, sentenced to life in prison, plus 33 years (to assure no possibility of parole), escaped to Cuba several years later where she was welcomed with open arms by the Castros who immediately granted her political asylum. Her guilt of the murder of Werner Foerster has never been contested, either by her or Cuba's murderous dictators.
Should Cuba want normalized relations with the United States, it is incontestable that it is normal for nations having such diplomatic, commercial, and all other normal interactions to not harbor confessed police killers. Any normalization with the Castros must include the return of Chesimard to New Jersey's justice system.
President Obama is now facing grave doubts in America regarding his trust and depth of support for our nation's police. Does he truly believe that they constitute an occupying force needing to be resisted by the folks, or does he believe that they are called upon to put their lives at risk every single day they get into their police cars?
Leading means making choices, Mr. President: whose side are you on - Werner Foerster's or Assata Sharkur's? This will be a telling moment for our President - will he stand for American justice or will he act stupidly?
Possibly the most crucial value that America must obtain from the Cuban government is its repudiation of being a safe haven for terrorists, criminals and fugitives from justice. It will serve our national security little if civilian avenues of travel from Cuba to the United States are made routine were those daily airline flights and cruise vessels visits to be unfettered access for attacks upon America.
This proposition gets us to the title star of this blog post - Assata Shakur, a.k.a. Joanne Chesimard. And make no mistake, she is deemed to be a superstar in anti-American circles. She is treated as royalty in her adopted home of Havana, Cuba, living there free as a (jail)bird since 1986.
Why should the status of one such person constitute a determinate as to whether the United States will help convert Cuba into a nation welcome in the broader community of civilization? The reason that Ms. Chesimard is the "canary in the coal mine" is because New Jersey State Trooper, Werner Foerster, was viciously executed by Ms. Chesimard firing two shots at point blank range into his head in 1972 along the Turnpike near East Brunswick. Chesimard was convicted of this henious crime in 1977, sentenced to life in prison, plus 33 years (to assure no possibility of parole), escaped to Cuba several years later where she was welcomed with open arms by the Castros who immediately granted her political asylum. Her guilt of the murder of Werner Foerster has never been contested, either by her or Cuba's murderous dictators.
Should Cuba want normalized relations with the United States, it is incontestable that it is normal for nations having such diplomatic, commercial, and all other normal interactions to not harbor confessed police killers. Any normalization with the Castros must include the return of Chesimard to New Jersey's justice system.
President Obama is now facing grave doubts in America regarding his trust and depth of support for our nation's police. Does he truly believe that they constitute an occupying force needing to be resisted by the folks, or does he believe that they are called upon to put their lives at risk every single day they get into their police cars?
Leading means making choices, Mr. President: whose side are you on - Werner Foerster's or Assata Sharkur's? This will be a telling moment for our President - will he stand for American justice or will he act stupidly?
Monday, May 25, 2015
MEMORIAL DAY 2015 - An Uncertain Trumpet
A more solemn day of remembrance is not found on our Nation's calendar. While Veteran's Day celebrates and honors all living former military service men and women, Memorial Day commands us to say a prayer for all those brave men and women who aren't here to accept the thanks of a grateful people.
From Lexington and Concord, across Bull Run, New Market, Vicksburg and Gettysburg to Bataan and Corregidor, Normandy, Pork Chop Hill, to Pleiku and Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the list of bloody battles and countries where American citizen soldiers gave their last full measure of devotion to our Country covers the globe with their fortitude. These few fought ever so bravely in defense of two uniquely American ideals that we have at the very core of our national experience - freedom and opportunity for all.
America's social compact - liberty and a better life for each succeeding generation - makes the ultimate sacrifice of our greatest patriots not in vain, and thus willingly given. Here's why they died:
* FREEDOM of expression, thought, belief and deed, so don't tread on me or my religious, atheist, libertarian or all other non-conformist personal pursuits;
* OPPORTUNITY to achieve my individual vision of success and prosperity for my family. So long as a person works hard and abides the rules, the absence of an aristocracy guarantees him/her a path to great achievements.
These two American bedrock principles gave more than two Centuries of Americans the certain knowledge that their sacrifice would help secure a more perfect Union, one so exceptional that it had never been duplicated (and most probably never will) in any of the scores of countries they liberated as such high cost in lives and treasure. Therefore, I cry out in pain on hearing anyone proclaim that: "the system, the economy, the path to success is rigged against everyday Americans, that the middle class is held down by an oligarchy of one percenters, in fact, that life in America is defined by rigid oppression and class bigotry".
That lie is so grossly UnAmerican; indeed, it is so unjust as to deny the tens of thousands in Arlington and our other national cemeteries the peace, respect and dignity that they deserve today, Memorial Day, and every other day on our calendars.
From Lexington and Concord, across Bull Run, New Market, Vicksburg and Gettysburg to Bataan and Corregidor, Normandy, Pork Chop Hill, to Pleiku and Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the list of bloody battles and countries where American citizen soldiers gave their last full measure of devotion to our Country covers the globe with their fortitude. These few fought ever so bravely in defense of two uniquely American ideals that we have at the very core of our national experience - freedom and opportunity for all.
America's social compact - liberty and a better life for each succeeding generation - makes the ultimate sacrifice of our greatest patriots not in vain, and thus willingly given. Here's why they died:
* FREEDOM of expression, thought, belief and deed, so don't tread on me or my religious, atheist, libertarian or all other non-conformist personal pursuits;
* OPPORTUNITY to achieve my individual vision of success and prosperity for my family. So long as a person works hard and abides the rules, the absence of an aristocracy guarantees him/her a path to great achievements.
These two American bedrock principles gave more than two Centuries of Americans the certain knowledge that their sacrifice would help secure a more perfect Union, one so exceptional that it had never been duplicated (and most probably never will) in any of the scores of countries they liberated as such high cost in lives and treasure. Therefore, I cry out in pain on hearing anyone proclaim that: "the system, the economy, the path to success is rigged against everyday Americans, that the middle class is held down by an oligarchy of one percenters, in fact, that life in America is defined by rigid oppression and class bigotry".
That lie is so grossly UnAmerican; indeed, it is so unjust as to deny the tens of thousands in Arlington and our other national cemeteries the peace, respect and dignity that they deserve today, Memorial Day, and every other day on our calendars.
Friday, May 8, 2015
The IRS Carpet Bombs Z Street ...
... regrettably one fatality - The U.S. Constitution, and no, it's not the old sailing ship.
So, let's start at the beginning - my liberal friends are quick to deny the fact of the weaponization of the Internal Revenue Service by claiming (wrongly) that progressive organizations were targeted by Lois Lerner's hit squad in roughly equivalent numbers to the Tea Partiers. Great defense - persons of all political stripes had their constitutional rights trampled upon, so "move along, nothing to see here."
That canard put to bed, we can now turn to the ongoing federal lawsuit, Z Street vs. Koskinan. (See WSJ Editorial, May 7th). Incredibly as this litigation demonstrates, despite cries of "Never Again", Jews are being targeted by the Government of a major western nation in the 21st Century.
Truth be told, Z Street, a pro-Israel educational organization, was selected for a "special review" in the processing of its 501(c)(4) tax exempt application years before the Tea Party was anything other than a humorous historical footnote to our War of Independence. When asked in 2010 the reason for the long delay in deciding its exemption application, the IRS agent purportedly stated that management had directed the Charitable Organization Division to "slow walk" all Israel related applications based exclusively upon their national policy advocacy (otherwise known as exercise of free speech rights).
At oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week, the three Judge panel was absolutely incredulous that the DOJ could contend that the IRS can constitutionally harass any charitable entity because of that group's foreign (or domestic) policy advocacy, when these views are out of favor with the Chief Executive sitting in the White House.
Remember my liberal friends, that tyrant, Richard Nixon, was voted for impeachment by a House of Representative Committee based upon White House overtures to the IRS seeking adverse tax rulings against opponents of his Administration. Those 1960's requests were advanced in subtle fashion, such that the IRS rebuffed them immediately and completely. Nonetheless, this Tricky Dick attempt to use the IRS to harass his "enemies" was deemed so egregious that it warranted his removal from office.
Accordingly, what say you now - you Champions of civil liberties - when the current White House has successfully and repeatedly misused the IRS to harass both Conservatives and Jews? Who do they have to come after before you will care? Know well: Z Street is not a fictional nightmare on Elm Street. It embodies the tyranny of the weaponization of the IRS, all too capable of crushing freedom on every street in America.
So, let's start at the beginning - my liberal friends are quick to deny the fact of the weaponization of the Internal Revenue Service by claiming (wrongly) that progressive organizations were targeted by Lois Lerner's hit squad in roughly equivalent numbers to the Tea Partiers. Great defense - persons of all political stripes had their constitutional rights trampled upon, so "move along, nothing to see here."
That canard put to bed, we can now turn to the ongoing federal lawsuit, Z Street vs. Koskinan. (See WSJ Editorial, May 7th). Incredibly as this litigation demonstrates, despite cries of "Never Again", Jews are being targeted by the Government of a major western nation in the 21st Century.
Truth be told, Z Street, a pro-Israel educational organization, was selected for a "special review" in the processing of its 501(c)(4) tax exempt application years before the Tea Party was anything other than a humorous historical footnote to our War of Independence. When asked in 2010 the reason for the long delay in deciding its exemption application, the IRS agent purportedly stated that management had directed the Charitable Organization Division to "slow walk" all Israel related applications based exclusively upon their national policy advocacy (otherwise known as exercise of free speech rights).
At oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week, the three Judge panel was absolutely incredulous that the DOJ could contend that the IRS can constitutionally harass any charitable entity because of that group's foreign (or domestic) policy advocacy, when these views are out of favor with the Chief Executive sitting in the White House.
Remember my liberal friends, that tyrant, Richard Nixon, was voted for impeachment by a House of Representative Committee based upon White House overtures to the IRS seeking adverse tax rulings against opponents of his Administration. Those 1960's requests were advanced in subtle fashion, such that the IRS rebuffed them immediately and completely. Nonetheless, this Tricky Dick attempt to use the IRS to harass his "enemies" was deemed so egregious that it warranted his removal from office.
Accordingly, what say you now - you Champions of civil liberties - when the current White House has successfully and repeatedly misused the IRS to harass both Conservatives and Jews? Who do they have to come after before you will care? Know well: Z Street is not a fictional nightmare on Elm Street. It embodies the tyranny of the weaponization of the IRS, all too capable of crushing freedom on every street in America.
Monday, May 4, 2015
O 'Baltimore: Willow weep for Thee
I had the privilege of having the City of Baltimore as a client for about seven years in the late 1990's, as I recall the time frame. My Firm's long standing environmental representation of the City ended with the advent of the Martin O'Malley Mayoral Administration, which for those desirous of fact checking can establish the exact end date for the services provided by myself and my partners.
Lamentably, getting paid the outstanding balances owed to the firm took almost another year of effort, as I recall the word from City Hall being at that time that we had made more than enough from Baltimore, despite unpaid invoices totally more than $70,000.00. Moreover, the numerous phone calls from the politically connected (large campaign contributions made) law firm's replacement lawyers seeking advice - for free- on matters both routine and obvious to any environmental law specialist made the insult of being stiffed on these bills all the more offensive.
With that context and possible bias on the record, let me get to the point here. I still love Baltimore, its Inner Harbor, history, its architecture, sewerage systems, its potable drinking water plants, its good people and most definitely its terrific food and restaurants. Sure, I saw plenty of decay and urban blight; nonetheless, mostly I inter-acted with very bright, hard working folks who respected their home town and looked to the future with both hope and appreciation for the means to achieve a better tomorrow.
Today, however, I fear that the Battle of Baltimore may have already been lost, as no society can intentionally withhold the protection of property and police officers lives and expect others than the wild thugs to be enthralled by the devastating realities of such "life on the street."
Just take a moment to ponder the now ongoing thought process of current city business owners and potential business investors in Baltimore - a Mayor repeatedly apologizes for calling looters, arsonists and attempted murders of police officers "thugs". They are our unsupervised children, after all; yet offers nothing but contempt for the very economic lives of the city's business owners - with the back of her hand, this mayor gave our children all the space needed to destroy these life sustaining institutions, as these thugs needed to vent their anger.
Simply disgusting, and a clear abdication of the Mayor's sworn duty to uphold the law, and to preclude criminals from being given full and complete immunity to purge the town of the racist haunts as is a CVS pharmacy and a religious organization funded senior citizen home.
In sum, I will believe Prosecutor Mosby's refrain that - on her watch (better watch closely before she runs for higher office) - no one is above the law, just as soon as she opens an investigation to determine whether the current Mayor engaged in criminal misconduct in office by stopping law enforcement arrests over a 48 hour period of city riots that gutted hundreds of burned out cars, buildings and citizen belief in the honesty of elected representatives. Don't hold your breath, or smoke might just get in your eyes.
Lamentably, getting paid the outstanding balances owed to the firm took almost another year of effort, as I recall the word from City Hall being at that time that we had made more than enough from Baltimore, despite unpaid invoices totally more than $70,000.00. Moreover, the numerous phone calls from the politically connected (large campaign contributions made) law firm's replacement lawyers seeking advice - for free- on matters both routine and obvious to any environmental law specialist made the insult of being stiffed on these bills all the more offensive.
With that context and possible bias on the record, let me get to the point here. I still love Baltimore, its Inner Harbor, history, its architecture, sewerage systems, its potable drinking water plants, its good people and most definitely its terrific food and restaurants. Sure, I saw plenty of decay and urban blight; nonetheless, mostly I inter-acted with very bright, hard working folks who respected their home town and looked to the future with both hope and appreciation for the means to achieve a better tomorrow.
Today, however, I fear that the Battle of Baltimore may have already been lost, as no society can intentionally withhold the protection of property and police officers lives and expect others than the wild thugs to be enthralled by the devastating realities of such "life on the street."
Just take a moment to ponder the now ongoing thought process of current city business owners and potential business investors in Baltimore - a Mayor repeatedly apologizes for calling looters, arsonists and attempted murders of police officers "thugs". They are our unsupervised children, after all; yet offers nothing but contempt for the very economic lives of the city's business owners - with the back of her hand, this mayor gave our children all the space needed to destroy these life sustaining institutions, as these thugs needed to vent their anger.
Simply disgusting, and a clear abdication of the Mayor's sworn duty to uphold the law, and to preclude criminals from being given full and complete immunity to purge the town of the racist haunts as is a CVS pharmacy and a religious organization funded senior citizen home.
In sum, I will believe Prosecutor Mosby's refrain that - on her watch (better watch closely before she runs for higher office) - no one is above the law, just as soon as she opens an investigation to determine whether the current Mayor engaged in criminal misconduct in office by stopping law enforcement arrests over a 48 hour period of city riots that gutted hundreds of burned out cars, buildings and citizen belief in the honesty of elected representatives. Don't hold your breath, or smoke might just get in your eyes.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
Just when I thought nothing could be more alarming than the Obama Administration's weaponization of the IRS, news breaks of multiple Wisconsin Prosecutors Offices leading "dead-of-night" SWAT TEAM raids, searching occupied dwellings for documents related to the public policy advocacy activities of the homeowners.
Should these news reports be accurate - homeowners told under threat of immediate arrest not to tell ANYONE, INCLUDING NEIGHBORS, FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS ANYTHING about the police RAIDS on their homes - the lawlessness by these state officials entailed even the repeal of the First Amendment. Additionally, the Sixth Amendment's Right to Counsel notwithstanding, these innocent residents of Wisconsin, seeking exclusively to reduce labor union power over public budgets, were prohibited from disclosing the facts of these searches, even there having taken place, to their attorneys. The totalitarian scope of these police tactics are so massive and intimidating that, upon hearing of them, Lois Lerner was seen to blush in envy, and then seeking to be hired by the Milwaukee Prosecutor's Office. New reports indicate that the lead prosecutor in Milwaukee is married to a Union Shop Stewart who has been extremely vocal in seeking to combat opposition to her organization's long time monopoly control of state employees through the Wisconsin state law mandate of union membership.
Of course, an immediate question arises in the mind of anyone concerned about the Nation's adherence to the Rule of Law:
* Where is the ACLU? Where is the American Bar Association?
* Where is the U.S. Congress? Where is the judicial review?
* Where are Paul, Cruz and Rubio?
* Where are the national media?
Hopefully, they are or will soon be reading the National Review magazine article, entitled: "Wisconsin's Shame: I thought it was a Home Invasion"; subtitled: "They came with a battering Ram"; by author David French on April 20, 2015. I just hope that I have not violated the Wisconsin gag order by publishing this Post.
Should these news reports be accurate - homeowners told under threat of immediate arrest not to tell ANYONE, INCLUDING NEIGHBORS, FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS ANYTHING about the police RAIDS on their homes - the lawlessness by these state officials entailed even the repeal of the First Amendment. Additionally, the Sixth Amendment's Right to Counsel notwithstanding, these innocent residents of Wisconsin, seeking exclusively to reduce labor union power over public budgets, were prohibited from disclosing the facts of these searches, even there having taken place, to their attorneys. The totalitarian scope of these police tactics are so massive and intimidating that, upon hearing of them, Lois Lerner was seen to blush in envy, and then seeking to be hired by the Milwaukee Prosecutor's Office. New reports indicate that the lead prosecutor in Milwaukee is married to a Union Shop Stewart who has been extremely vocal in seeking to combat opposition to her organization's long time monopoly control of state employees through the Wisconsin state law mandate of union membership.
Of course, an immediate question arises in the mind of anyone concerned about the Nation's adherence to the Rule of Law:
* Where is the ACLU? Where is the American Bar Association?
* Where is the U.S. Congress? Where is the judicial review?
* Where are Paul, Cruz and Rubio?
* Where are the national media?
Hopefully, they are or will soon be reading the National Review magazine article, entitled: "Wisconsin's Shame: I thought it was a Home Invasion"; subtitled: "They came with a battering Ram"; by author David French on April 20, 2015. I just hope that I have not violated the Wisconsin gag order by publishing this Post.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Ms. Hillary initiates her ascent
First, she rode the rapids (bareback) at Whitewater to the promised land - the governorship of Arkansas; Next, she rode a herd of cattle (bareback) to the top of the financial dung heap in Little Rock; Followed up by her brilliant insight that Monica Lewinski (again bareback) was a fantasy of the nation's vast right-wing conspiracy;
Then, it all came together for Ms. Hillary's vast leadership abilities when she left four American patriots defenseless, despite her having watched in advance the virulent anti-muslim internet video. From this murderous act of terrorism, in which thousands of individually marching street demonstrators by accident converged on the Benghazi compound, and thereupon, conducted a 11 hour mortar and rocket propelled grenade assault on her subordinates, Ms. Hillary concluded that lying to the American people as to the killers motivation for this massacre - terroristic act of war against western values vs. overzealous film critics - was meaningless to her accountability for these fully avoidable deaths.
Now, as Ms. Hillary starts her climb up the Mt. Everest of American political leadership, she has surrounded herself with only female sherpas to guide her to the Presidency. Even Bill has not be allowed a seat in her "Scoobie-Doo". Of course, as husband's go, Ms. Hillary can not be judged too harshly; she definitely needs her personal space on this trip to the summit. So, the Slick One properly has been thrown under this black mini-bus.
Not to be outdone, however, Ms. Hillary has already made road kill of every other member of her immediate family other than Chelsea:
On her lying Mother: "She named me Hillary in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary, first man to successfully climb of Mt. Everest." When informed that her name could not possibly have been as a nod to Sir Hillary, as his epic triumph occurred six years after Miss Rodham's birth, she explained: "My Mother made up that naming in an effort to inspire me to achieve great thing in life."
On her lying Grandparents: All four of my Grandparents emigrated to America at very young ages." When told that Scranton is in Pennsylvania and not Transylvania, and two others were also born in Pa., Ms. Hillary explained that they told these falsehoods to inspire her to achieve great things in life.
Anyone see a pattern here? Being truthful with the American people is not one of Ms. Hillary's strengths, nor apparently, is tipping the little people who work at Chipotes. I for one would appreciate at least a glancing awareness of reality in our nation's next President. As with all the "defeats" we have put on the "militant extremists" now running Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Yemen, we Americans are going to be in great need of a candid President actually capable of inspiring us all to achieve great things.
Then, it all came together for Ms. Hillary's vast leadership abilities when she left four American patriots defenseless, despite her having watched in advance the virulent anti-muslim internet video. From this murderous act of terrorism, in which thousands of individually marching street demonstrators by accident converged on the Benghazi compound, and thereupon, conducted a 11 hour mortar and rocket propelled grenade assault on her subordinates, Ms. Hillary concluded that lying to the American people as to the killers motivation for this massacre - terroristic act of war against western values vs. overzealous film critics - was meaningless to her accountability for these fully avoidable deaths.
Now, as Ms. Hillary starts her climb up the Mt. Everest of American political leadership, she has surrounded herself with only female sherpas to guide her to the Presidency. Even Bill has not be allowed a seat in her "Scoobie-Doo". Of course, as husband's go, Ms. Hillary can not be judged too harshly; she definitely needs her personal space on this trip to the summit. So, the Slick One properly has been thrown under this black mini-bus.
Not to be outdone, however, Ms. Hillary has already made road kill of every other member of her immediate family other than Chelsea:
On her lying Mother: "She named me Hillary in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary, first man to successfully climb of Mt. Everest." When informed that her name could not possibly have been as a nod to Sir Hillary, as his epic triumph occurred six years after Miss Rodham's birth, she explained: "My Mother made up that naming in an effort to inspire me to achieve great thing in life."
On her lying Grandparents: All four of my Grandparents emigrated to America at very young ages." When told that Scranton is in Pennsylvania and not Transylvania, and two others were also born in Pa., Ms. Hillary explained that they told these falsehoods to inspire her to achieve great things in life.
Anyone see a pattern here? Being truthful with the American people is not one of Ms. Hillary's strengths, nor apparently, is tipping the little people who work at Chipotes. I for one would appreciate at least a glancing awareness of reality in our nation's next President. As with all the "defeats" we have put on the "militant extremists" now running Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Yemen, we Americans are going to be in great need of a candid President actually capable of inspiring us all to achieve great things.
Monday, April 13, 2015
It's Hilliary, Again Running ...
... across that tarmac under sniper fire. Well then, Ok; here is some more fire from an American Sniper - Ms. Clinton has now thrown her teirra into the ring for one of only three possible reasons:
(1) To prevent the Bushes from surpassing the Adams Family as the gold standard of American political dynasties;
(2) To improve upon her "permanent record" that has no accomplishments inasmuch as she was rejected when she volunteered to join the Marine Corps during the Vietnam conflict;
(3) To break the last great glass ceiling in American society and culture.
Should you have selected door Number Three, congrats - a vegematic blender is already on its way to your abode. So, it is now very transparent (a first for Ms. Hilliary - so her campaign is off on the er right foot) that this blatant appeal to raw sexism shall be the sole and exclusive underpinning to her pursuit of the highest office in the free world. Her Entitledness will proclaim that her uniqueness as a viable candidate, Demo. or Repub. - twin ovaries, her interior reproductive organs - constitute an attribute superior to all her male challengers with their external organ configuration, large or small.
In 1968, the nation became enthralled by the claim that Nixon was the One. What "one" was never explained in his long campaign for the Presidency, but he later clarified; "a crook". Now Hilliary wants to top her old political strategy mentor, with this slogan: "No Dick Hilliary". Well now, that is a campaign platform we can all get behind, at least until Slick Willie tells us to bend over.
That unpleasantness done with, here are some joyful observations of our small world:
* There is a special place reserved in heaven for those in attendance at church yesterday;
* There is not a loving parent today that does not want their daughter to marry Jordan Spieth;
*Augusta National is the prettiest location on the planet, where yesterday the Thrill beat the Pill.
So, Life is Good, there will be growth in the Spring and thankfully it is not difficult to learn to speak Farsi. Here's praying for you, Kid.
(1) To prevent the Bushes from surpassing the Adams Family as the gold standard of American political dynasties;
(2) To improve upon her "permanent record" that has no accomplishments inasmuch as she was rejected when she volunteered to join the Marine Corps during the Vietnam conflict;
(3) To break the last great glass ceiling in American society and culture.
Should you have selected door Number Three, congrats - a vegematic blender is already on its way to your abode. So, it is now very transparent (a first for Ms. Hilliary - so her campaign is off on the er right foot) that this blatant appeal to raw sexism shall be the sole and exclusive underpinning to her pursuit of the highest office in the free world. Her Entitledness will proclaim that her uniqueness as a viable candidate, Demo. or Repub. - twin ovaries, her interior reproductive organs - constitute an attribute superior to all her male challengers with their external organ configuration, large or small.
In 1968, the nation became enthralled by the claim that Nixon was the One. What "one" was never explained in his long campaign for the Presidency, but he later clarified; "a crook". Now Hilliary wants to top her old political strategy mentor, with this slogan: "No Dick Hilliary". Well now, that is a campaign platform we can all get behind, at least until Slick Willie tells us to bend over.
That unpleasantness done with, here are some joyful observations of our small world:
* There is a special place reserved in heaven for those in attendance at church yesterday;
* There is not a loving parent today that does not want their daughter to marry Jordan Spieth;
*Augusta National is the prettiest location on the planet, where yesterday the Thrill beat the Pill.
So, Life is Good, there will be growth in the Spring and thankfully it is not difficult to learn to speak Farsi. Here's praying for you, Kid.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
With their backs to the Wall, the NYPD must turn theirs backs on Mayor de Blasio
Just last night, in the Bronx, two more New York city police officer were shot and wounded by a street thug, all too willing to take down these arresting officers with lethal, deadly violence. This latest outrage of lawless carriage comes in the wake of yesterday's public condemnation of his police force by Mayor De Blasio. The Mayor repudiated his officers for again turning their backs - in a public street, not inside the building holding the solemn memorial service - to his screen image when the Mayor was speaking at the funeral of slain officer, Wenjian Liu Sunday afternoon. Mayor de Blasio lambasted his officers for what he pretended to perceive was their "alleged" show of disrespect for the slain officer and his grieving family.
Of course, obvious to anyone with even a smidgen of God-given common sense (street smarts, if you will, and New Yorkers have an abundance thereof) is that these officers were doing nothing of the kind toward Officer Liu. Indisputably they love him like the brother to them he was. Therefore, they would and did nothing to deminish his hero memory. Indisputably, these thousands of police officers instead, peaceably engaged in the Constitutionally protected act of symbolic speech to demonstrate their sincerely held belief that the Mayor had caused an increase in minority thug antipathy toward them, which, in some unquantifiable but still real fashion, contributed to the vicious anger and brutal violence unleashed without provocation or mercy by the murderer of these two NYC police officers.
Indisputably, de Blasio is a fool, or worse, to believe he can fool the vast majority of New Yorkers into thinking that the police officers' mere refusal to watch him speak at this funeral was a mean spirited act of disrespect to the slain officer. "His honor's" sordid attempt to smear these police officers by seeking to identify himself as True One in spirit with the dead officer, as an actual admirer of slain officer Liu, as the only one providing dignity and honor to his grieving family defies credulity.
More to the point going forward, what possible New York City public safety objective is advanced by the Mayor denouncing and condemning his own police force. Even were he to truly believe the police "acting out" in this fashion was inappropriate, why highlight and bring massive public attention to the perceived misdeeds of these officers in such a way that thug members of the public - and with 8 million residents, there are some number of them - are told that the NYPD is an illegitimate, out of control entity, bent on engaging in evil acts?
One obvious conclusion (not true necessarily, but I await a more plausible explanation) is that Mayor de Blasio perceives himself to be "at war" with 34,000 NYC police officers. He appears to be committed to a fundamental restructuring of the police department, so they will meekly comply with Co-Mayor Sharpton's mandated inner city policing policies, beginning, but surely not ending with, the de facto acceptance of all "broken window" crimes, so long as they are perpetrated by a minority person.
One stupid man, one very arrogant man apparently "thinks" he can break the Will, Spirit and Life Saving Judgment of more than 34,000 steely eyed, hardened guardians of civilization in the greatest City in the World? Not going to happen in his misbegotten life time. Regrettably, he most assuredly will keep trying over the course of too many life times of New York's Finest.
Of course, obvious to anyone with even a smidgen of God-given common sense (street smarts, if you will, and New Yorkers have an abundance thereof) is that these officers were doing nothing of the kind toward Officer Liu. Indisputably they love him like the brother to them he was. Therefore, they would and did nothing to deminish his hero memory. Indisputably, these thousands of police officers instead, peaceably engaged in the Constitutionally protected act of symbolic speech to demonstrate their sincerely held belief that the Mayor had caused an increase in minority thug antipathy toward them, which, in some unquantifiable but still real fashion, contributed to the vicious anger and brutal violence unleashed without provocation or mercy by the murderer of these two NYC police officers.
Indisputably, de Blasio is a fool, or worse, to believe he can fool the vast majority of New Yorkers into thinking that the police officers' mere refusal to watch him speak at this funeral was a mean spirited act of disrespect to the slain officer. "His honor's" sordid attempt to smear these police officers by seeking to identify himself as True One in spirit with the dead officer, as an actual admirer of slain officer Liu, as the only one providing dignity and honor to his grieving family defies credulity.
More to the point going forward, what possible New York City public safety objective is advanced by the Mayor denouncing and condemning his own police force. Even were he to truly believe the police "acting out" in this fashion was inappropriate, why highlight and bring massive public attention to the perceived misdeeds of these officers in such a way that thug members of the public - and with 8 million residents, there are some number of them - are told that the NYPD is an illegitimate, out of control entity, bent on engaging in evil acts?
One obvious conclusion (not true necessarily, but I await a more plausible explanation) is that Mayor de Blasio perceives himself to be "at war" with 34,000 NYC police officers. He appears to be committed to a fundamental restructuring of the police department, so they will meekly comply with Co-Mayor Sharpton's mandated inner city policing policies, beginning, but surely not ending with, the de facto acceptance of all "broken window" crimes, so long as they are perpetrated by a minority person.
One stupid man, one very arrogant man apparently "thinks" he can break the Will, Spirit and Life Saving Judgment of more than 34,000 steely eyed, hardened guardians of civilization in the greatest City in the World? Not going to happen in his misbegotten life time. Regrettably, he most assuredly will keep trying over the course of too many life times of New York's Finest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)