It is time to end the foolish liberal soft-on-crime methodology

April 23, 2024

We all remember the incident back in 2020 when George Floyd was wrongly killed by a Minneapolis police officer during an arrest. What followed was a manic anti-police movement resulting in “defund the police” efforts in many places in the country, and cases where funding for police operations were reduced.

We have also seen soft-on-crime prosecutors refuse to prosecute many people charged with crimes; no-bail policies that released those accused of crimes, many with multiple previous charges, back onto the street without having to post bail; and violent protests against police departments that resulted in much damage to public and private property, but relatively few people held to account for their criminal behavior.

How police should react to various situations involving crimes was then “re-imagined,” and new ideas about dealing with crime appeared. While some advocated doing away with police altogether, another idea was that of using “soft police,” where social workers, rather than trained uniformed officers, would deal with crimes and criminals.

Mariame Kaba is described as an American activist, grassroots organizer, and educator who advocates for the abolition of prisons, and all police.

At about the time the George Floyd riots and protests began, Kaba had published an article in The New York Times in which she wrote: “As a society, we have been so indoctrinated with the idea that we solve problems by policing and caging people that many cannot imagine anything other than prisons and the police as solutions to violence and harm. People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation.”

She suggests that the problems of safety and justice can be solved by spending more taxpayer money on housing, food, and education, rather than making people pay a price for breaking the well-known and sensible laws.

In the years since this soft-on-crime approach began, crime has increased substantially across the nation, particularly in blue cities and states where this foolish philosophy exists.

One example of this was reported by the FBI. From 2019, before the soft-on-crime mentality appeared, to 2020, following the Floyd death, the national murder rate jumped by 30 percent, the largest single-year increase in history.

Many of us, likely most of us, understand that the system that has been in effect since the origins of the United States of America actually is the more sensible and successful system.

A fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Rafael Mangual, showed the fallacy of not enforcing laws in the traditional way. Police presence, he said, often is all that is needed to deter crime. But removing criminals from the street is also a needed action.

“If a police officer makes an arrest and removes an active offender from the street, if that’s someone who was committing 10, 20, 30 felonies a year,” he said, “that individual being in custody spares the community the crimes that would have otherwise been committed.” Makes sense, doesn’t it?

“In the city of Chicago, the typical homicide suspect has 12 prior arrests,” he continued. “One in five [homicide suspects], 20 prior arrests, these are not just individuals who are being locked up for the first offense and having the key thrown away.”

And he added that crime will always be with us, but removing or reducing the successful practice of having a police presence is “irresponsible.”

As for the public perception of the crime problem, a Gallup poll from last November shows that among both Democrats and Republicans, the number who believe that crime is a serious problem is at the highest point since Gallup started reporting it in 2000.

Predictably, the left responded to the perception of crime being a serious problem, saying it is just a “moral panic.”

But this “moral panic” is the result of seeing what the soft on crime idea has produced: murders, robberies, rapes, assaults, and more.

The Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald understands the fallacy of these current trends towards crime. She noted how criminals have become more brazen and the commission of many kinds of crimes exploded.

Focusing on the increase in retail crimes that the left-wing scholars ignore, she said, “Our criminal justice elites have decided that they would rather subject the property of honest businessmen to mass expropriation than to apprehend and punish looters, because doing so has a disparate impact on minority criminals.” And, she correctly said that these crimes are “not crimes of necessity, they are crimes of opportunity.”

In the criminal mind is the attitude, “if I won’t be punished, why not rob the store?”

“This is not a normal state,” she said. “It is due to a failure of will. The will to enforce the values of civilized society.”

“It is not a ‘moral panic’ to be concerned about the lawlessness that has broken out since 2020, it is realism,” MacDonald said.

After years of being horrified with what has happened, the public is finally supporting a return to sensibly dealing with crime. Perhaps things will soon begin to change. Cities like San Francisco and Washington, DC have begun to make changes. And not a moment too soon.

The dangers originating at the southern border are growing

April 16,2024

Not so long ago those in positions of authority and leadership understood the importance of controlling who may enter our country.

In 2012, after winning election to his second term, then-President Barack Obama commented, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.” 

Another comment he made was: “Now I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.” Responding to what he termed the temptation to do that, he said, “But that’s not how our system works … That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Several years prior to Obama’s comments, then-Sen. Joe Biden took a similar position. “It makes sense that no great nation can be in a position where they can’t control their borders. It matters how you control your borders. Not just for immigration. But it matters for drugs, terror [and] a whole range of other things.”

However, not long after expressing his true and important position on enforcing the law, Obama did what he said he was not permitted to do: he issued an executive branch memorandum titled “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA). This declaration provided amnesty for young illegal aliens, and also provided other benefits to them. All of that was un-Constitutional and illegal.

A couple of years later, Obama expanded this illegal declaration and added Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).  These two actions provided provisional amnesty to more than 4.5 million illegal aliens, and encouraged cartels to traffic illegal aliens into the country.

Statistics reported in 2015 showed that while illegal aliens constituted only about 3 percent of the U.S. population, they represented nearly 14 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed here. That included 12 percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnappers, and 16 percent of drug offenders. Those statistics also showed percentages ranging from 40 percent to 75 percent of the most wanted criminals in border states to be illegal aliens.

A Government Accountability Office study found that between 2011 and 2016, more than 730,000 illegals were in federal, state and local prisons and jails, and accounted for 4.9 million arrests for 7.5 million offenses, including drug crimes, assaults, sex offenses, kidnappings, homicide-related offenses, and terrorism-related offenses.

Then came the election of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016, and his ideas about the border and actions he took were very much the same as the prior rhetoric of Obama and Biden.

Trump’s policies were aimed at reducing the numbers of illegals trying to come in, and were successful. And despite the opposition of Democrats, who claimed Trump had no mandate for the actions he took, the number of those apprehended while attempting to cross the border decreased by 88 percent from the peak under Obama. And that wasn’t because border security was weakened, but because the numbers of those trying to get in dropped substantially, due to the new level border security that was in effect.

But then in the 2020 election voters decided that they wanted Joe Biden as President. And Biden wasted no time in reversing the successful policies Trump had implemented.

The number of apprehensions of illegal aliens at the border in October prior to the election of 2020 was right around 69,000. Interestingly, by February of 2021, just one month after Biden was sworn in, that number was 100,441. That trend continued to increase, reaching 212, 672 in July. And the invasion has continued unabated since.

During Biden’s catastrophic tenure, as of February 2024 more than 7 million illegals have entered the country. Worse than that, if you can imagine anything worse than this deliberate trashing of laws and common sense, Biden has reportedly flown nearly 400,000 illegals into the country, bringing them in without having to cross the Rio Grande and battle the razor wire in Texas, and interact with the border authorities.

After cancelling Trump’s border policies, which dramatically reduced the number of illegals coming in, by executive fiat, Biden has consistently said he does not have the power that Trump had, and cannot close the border. Actually, all he has to do is reinstate Trump’s policies, and things will improve almost immediately. 

As pressure has mounted, he has changed his tune just a little, now saying he is investigating whether or not he can close the border. This “investigation” has gone on for weeks without an answer. Biden and the Democrats apparently are the only ones who do not know the answer: Yes, you can close the border.

Meanwhile, the crimes against Americans continue to rise, and deaths to Americans by drugs illegally brought in, and by criminal illegals who have walked in undisturbed. None of this seems to bother Biden. Or, maybe no one has explained this to him.

But Biden knows exactly what is going on. It’s part of the Obama/Biden plan to fundamentally transform the United States of America into another Venezuela. And the plan is working.

America’s future is threatened by those who want to change everything

April 9, 2024

The future of the United States of America may be less secure than at any time since its inception. The country that has provided so much for so long, and has set a standard that no other country in the world has ever matched, is now seen by a large faction as no longer good enough.

What made America so great? Many things. A tripartite government with no single branch more powerful than the others. Each branch has the ability to respond to the actions of the other branches in our system of checks and balances. 

We don’t have a ruler; no king/queen, emperor or czar. Our leaders are our employees — they work for us! And the President, Vice President and members of Congress are selected at the ballot box by the eligible voters, who choose from candidates that they have participated in choosing. Judges and Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and approved by the Congress, and others are simply hired as employees.

Our system provides vast amounts of personal freedom, with a Bill of Rights that guarantees us the freedom for important things, like speech, the press, religion, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, security in our homes, fairness in legal matters, national defense.

So long as what we do does not violate a constitutional principal or sensible laws, we may do as we please. We can buy whatever house, car, appliances, clothing, entertainment, or personal items we choose.

Our Constitution provided the greatest degree of personal freedom in the history of human beings, but it is being replaced by restrictions on virtually every conceivable area of life. This is not new, of course, but has taken a dose of amphetamines in recent years.

Personal freedom, once a hallmark of the nation, is seen by this dissatisfied faction as a threat to the future. And the secret to a positive future in the mind of these people is a life that is much more controlled, with the bureaucracy having much more authority over the people.

Many restrictions exist on what we can and cannot do with our property, what kinds of things we can and cannot purchase. We are told there are legitimate reasons for these limitations. that is true, up to a point. But the number of federal, state and local regulations is huge, and cumbersome.

And many of the regulations are made by unelected bureaucrats, and are not approved by Congress, but nonetheless have the force of law.

The Code of Federal Regulation has 50 subsections where the government has seen fit to issue regulations that control what we can do, and how it must be done. One example of this was discussed by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) on its website.

A NAM survey last summer found that “U.S. manufacturers’ concerns over federal regulations have reached a six-year high as nearly 100 new major regulations — from 30 federal agencies and offices — threaten jobs and investment.”

Ohio Manufacturers’ Association President Ryan Augsburger noted that “In the next year, the Biden administration plans to issue even more regulations — approximately 3,200, including about 280 ‘major rules’ and 1,326 ‘significant rules.’”

Augsburger wrote that “More than 63 percent of manufacturers are spending more than 2,000 hours per year complying with federal regulations, diverting resources that would otherwise go towards employee compensation, new hires and additional investment in U.S. facilities,” citing the NAM’s Q2 2023 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey.

He then listed examples of the cost of these burdensome regulations:

** The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed particulate matter rule, which is expected to cost “up to $197.4 billion in U.S. economic activity and endanger as many as 973,900 current U.S. jobs”;

** The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate-disclosure requirement, which the NAM recently advocated against in testimony before the House; and

** The Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to ban noncompete agreements, which 70 percent of manufacturers use to safeguard their intellectual property.

Negative consequences such as these are not limited to manufacturing; they occur in virtually every area of work.

Our government is too big, too controlling and spends too much. Our national debt is $34.6 trillion. That comes to just under $103,000 for every person in the country.

Is it possible that this large faction of Americans desiring to impose restrictions on our freedoms actually has a plan for a better country in mind? Well, yes, they have a plan. But it is not a plan to make America better. 

Their plan is for a larger, more restrictive government, and much less personal freedom for the people. It is very much opposed to the concept that our Founders had in mind, and for which they created our governmental system. They and their plan are un-American and anti-American.

This continued degradation of the brilliant system we inherited must be reversed, or before much longer America as it was designed will no longer exist. Our freedoms must be restored and protected. And our government must be returned to its intended limited status.

America’s election system has serious security issues

April 2, 2024

One of the great things about being a citizen of the United States of America is being able to participate in determining who will serve us in important governmental positions.

The right to select our governments’ public servants from a list of candidates selected by the people through a voting process is a highly valued one, and governments at all levels have a solemn duty to protect that right, and assure us that the voting process is as safe and secure as possible.

That means using only those elements of voting that are the least likely to be misused.

We were assured that the 2020 election was very safe, and that may be true. But we also have seen evidence of irregularities and illegalities, some of which were implemented due to the COVID virus, and may have been done with the best of intentions. However, in some states, changes were made to the election process without the direction of the state legislature, which is required by the U.S. Constitution.

Plus, we know from history and human nature that there are people who will do anything to win elections, and there are problems and actual improprieties in many elections. 

The question is: To what extent do these problems and improprieties affect the outcome of local, state and national elections?

Where the 2020 election is concerned, there are two opposing storylines on that question.  The purpose here is not to argue for or against one or the other of those storylines. Election integrity is the focus.

The first step in securing elections is making sure that only eligible people can vote. The best way for doing that is a system in which voters prove their eligibility to election officials, and then have a photo ID that must be used when voting.

At one time many years ago, votes were cast on a paper ballot at a polling place by eligible voters who could prove their identity on election day. Ballots were hand counted and kept on file.

Since that time, that secure system has been weakened by the addition of elements that are more easily corrupted. One aspect of that is the idea of making voting easier or more convenient, which has increased the opportunities for problems. 

But voting is a critical element of our constitutional republic, so keeping the process secure is much more important than making it easier or more convenient.  

Voting by mail/absentee voting, and machine voting have entered the process with both positive and negative results.

The idea of absentee voting is beneficial for voters who have a very good reason for not being able to get to the polling place. Perhaps they serve in the military and are stationed away from their permanent address, or are attending school away from home. Perhaps they are elderly, ill, or disabled and unable to move about. 

But sending thousands or millions of ballots out in the mail to all voters to be returned by mail is begging for trouble. Likewise, having ballots returned by placing them in unsecured bins is dangerous, as is ballot harvesting.

Some voting machines do not use or produce paper ballots that can be checked. Machines used in ballot counting or voting can be hacked or programmed to affect vote totals. 

The Associated Press website warned that “Election officials face a long list of challenges this year, including potential cyberattacks waged by foreign governments [and] criminal ransomware gangs attacking computer systems.”

And a discussion on the National Public Radio website added this: “Basically, every election security expert agrees that we should not have lots of people voting over the internet. The DHS, FBI, the National Academies of Sciences - they've all agreed on this point. And there's really more agreement on this point than almost anything else in election security.”

According to the Brookings Institution, a paper trail is necessary. “Election security experts from Harvard, Stanford and the Brennan Center for Justice all recommend the phasing out of paperless voting, and twelve of the thirteen Democratic candidates who have declared a position on election security support mandating the use of paper ballots,” an article on the Brookings website states.

The idea of every eligible voter having to show a photo ID to vote garners complaints that this is discriminatory. But consider the long, long list of everyday things that require a photo ID. Things like buying alcohol, applying for a job, renting or buying a house, renting a car, applying for government assistance like welfare or unemployment, getting on an airplane. This is a precaution that must be taken.

Questioning election results is an American tradition, with many elections having seen challenges. The more election security is the focus, and the more limits we have on the election process to make it more secure, the fewer opportunities for irregularities and problems there will be, and hopefully fewer challenges to the results.

Any process that puts voted ballots at risk of being stolen or changed, or ballots falsely created, must not be allowed. We cannot make voting easier and more convenient if doing that weakens the security of the election process.