“That Was the Week That Was,” and this time it’s not satire

July 23, 2024

“That Was the Week That Was,” also known as “TWTWTW” or “TW3,” was a satirical television comedy program that aired on BBC Television in 1962 and 1963, and an American version aired on NBC in 1964 and 1965. 

What we have just witnessed was a highly notable week, not unlike those featured on TW3, in terms of their attracting attention. But these are notable not for their satirical value but for their serious nature and impending results.

The first of those is that as the Republican National Convention grew nearer, Donald Trump ended the weeks of speculation about who his running mate would be by selecting J.D. Vance, a U.S. Senator from Ohio.

Vance, who has been in the Senate less than two years, is a bit of a controversial choice. A Marine Corps veteran who turns 40 next month, he “would be the third-youngest U.S. vice president if elected. He has a history of hard-line positions on issues such as abortion. And he has a reputation for hot rhetoric,” NBC News reported. Interestingly, not so long ago he was not a fan of Trump. 

His relative youth among the most prominent likely candidates is a notable move toward younger leadership.

Next, while many Americans, Democrats — including some highly prominent Democrats — thought Joe Biden should withdraw from the race, he stubbornly refused to step aside, although recent reports had said he was discussing that with his family. 

Then, on Sunday afternoon on X, formerly Twitter, Biden said that he will not be a candidate for reelection: “It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe that it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

Without Biden on the ticket, the Democrats have a serious problem: finding a replacement who has the necessary appeal to gain broad support.

Although she was endorsed by Biden, Kamala Harris’ performance as VP does not support her candidacy. As the so-called “Border Czar, she did nothing about the millions of illegals allowed into the country, and the resulting deaths of many Americans from illegal drugs, and criminal activities. And her penchant for cackling and word salads do not invite support. 

Next, a technology outage affected millions across the globe last Friday, leading to speculation that a cyber-attack had occurred. Instead, this event was blamed on a faulty software update by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, a firm that provides software to thousands of companies worldwide.

CrowdStrike said the problem occurred when it deployed a software update for its security product, Falcon Sensor. Microsoft Windows computers crashed when trying to install the update. 

The outage grounded flights, knocked media outlets offline, disrupted hospitals, banks, hotels, manufacturers, stock markets and government offices. This calamity should focus everyone’s attention on the instability of a digitized world where so many users must rely on a relative few providers.

Completing the list is the most serious of the group: The attempted assassination of a former President of the United States, at a campaign rally.

While the attempt failed to kill Trump, leaving him with a fairly non-serious injury, one attendee was killed and two others were seriously wounded. And the question on most everyone’s mind is, how did a gunman manage to get into what should have been a highly secured event under control of the U.S. Secret Service (SS)? And exactly who is primarily responsible for this atrocious failure?

The broad answer to that question is that the SS is responsible. It was an event where it had the duty to protect a former president, and was therefore in charge.

And yet a young gunman was able to get on top of a nearby building — that should have been manned by or at least under surveillance of the SS or some designee of the SS — long enough in advance of the event to have been noticed and reported by witnesses. Yet warnings of this individual’s presence were either not effectively communicated, or were ignored.

It is widely accepted that there were at least two shooters present. A thorough audio investigation of the gunshots showed that there were at least three different weapons fired. The first three shots were fired by the 20-year-old gunman, and the first one hit Trump’s ear. Next were several shots from another gunman who at this point has not been identified.

The third weapon to be fired was that of a SS sniper who shot and killed the 20-year-old shooter.

U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has avoided questioning about the matter, and those few comments she has made indicate that she has no clue what was going on, and what protections should have been in place. Perhaps she, too, will step aside, or be removed and replaced with someone competent.

This episode is yet one more dramatic failure of the Biden/Harris administration, which includes dangerous the border crisis, the catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal, record high inflation, a national energy crisis, our falling reputation among other countries, among others.

The reaction from nearly everyone has been appropriate so far

July 16, 2024

Donald Trump’s recent crazy trial filled with questionable legal actions, and the classified documents charge that was filed against Trump, while Biden’s documents crimes have not been charged, is curious. They support the idea that Trump’s enemies will go to great lengths to prevent him from being elected for a second term as our president.

And then last Saturday gunfire erupts at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania. Trump is injured, one spectator is dead, and two others are injured. And the shooter is shot and killed by the Secret Service.

Was this one more effort to prevent Trump from being re-elected? So far, there has been no motive established. It could have been politically motivated, or it could have been just one more idiot wanting to kill some people. However, it appears to have been an effort to assassinate Donald Trump. He was hit by the first shot, although, blessedly, it only grazed his ear. Had the bullet’s trajectory been an inch to the right, it would likely have killed him.

The reaction from nearly everyone is just as it should be: This should not have happened in America, and good wishes were expressed for Trump. This attitude comes not only from Trump supporters, but from many Democrats such as President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and California Gov. Gavin Newsome.

Biden, who called Trump and talked with him, said in a nationally televised statement “Look, there’s no place in America for this kind of violence. It’s sick. It’s sick. It’s one of the reasons why we have to unite this country. We cannot allow for this to be happening. We cannot be like this. We cannot condone this.”

Of course, this is not the first time a president has been shot at. Trump became the seventh American president or former president to have been shot at and killed or wounded. Four were killed: Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. And three were wounded: Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. 

Six were Republicans, and only Roosevelt and Trump were not in office when they were shot. And there have been other attempts to assassinate presidents, but fortunately, they failed.

We are currently in an extremely politically divided time. And the division is very bitter. The battle between Biden and Trump is particularly rough. And we find that Trump’s opponents frequently use personal attacks, rather than criticisms of the policies he supports for the country.

Vice President Kamala Harris condemned Trump for being a leader who “incites hate.” “Someone who vilifies immigrants, who promotes xenophobia, who stokes hate and who incites fear should never again have the chance to stand behind a microphone. And never again have the chance to stand behind the seal of the president of the United States of America,” she said. And one more, for good measure: “Donald Trump wants to turn our democracy into a dictatorship,”

While Speaker of the House, Pelosi said that the Trump administration is an "existential threat to our democracy."

“He is the greatest threat to our democracy in our history”: said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Biden himself has said, “Trump’s assault on democracy isn’t just part of his past … It’s what he is promising for the future.” And, “This election, your freedom, your democracy, America itself is at stake now, folks.” And earlier this week, he said, “We’re done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.” Hmmm. Interesting.

Former Trump Attorney General William Barr, who had his disagreements with Trump, actually took Trump’s side on this issue. He said that "the Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy. He is not." 

Saying that America is a “democracy” is a favorite Democrat tactic. America is not, never has been, and was never intended to be a democracy. It is a constitutional republic that subscribes to democratic principles, but is designed so that public authority is derived entirely from the people, not a select group.

Do Democrats believe that old adage that if something is repeated often enough, people will believe it? And once they believe it, their party can rule the country for eternity?

Also, while both sides do get personal in campaigns, and while there may be some benefit for doing that, what serves the country best is to leave the juvenile personal attacks behind, and deal with ideas and policies. What is good for the country must be the main consideration of both political parties, always. Even Biden has called for a return to civility.

But most important: While the Secret Service did a wonderful job protecting Trump after shots were fired, it needs to explain why a gunman was able to get on the roof of that nearby building. And why did the authorities not do something about that when told that someone was there? 

This gigantic failure resulted in the death of an innocent observer, and could have been the death of a former president.

Many Americans do not understand the purpose of the Supreme Court

July 9, 2024

In the recently ended term of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court rendered some decisions that have a lot of people upset. They believe that their political/ideological perspective should be the way of life for all. And when the Court’s rulings do not follow that line of thinking, the Court has made a terrible and unforgiveable mistake.

The reaction of some of these people is that one or more of the justices should be impeached, and/or the Court must be packed with additional justices who hold political/ideological beliefs that align with theirs, and will rule accordingly, resulting in politically satisfying decisions.

This position is far removed from the original intent and purpose of the Court. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law. Its job is to ensure the promise of equal justice under the law and it also functions as guardian and interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is information from Justia online regarding the function of the Supreme Court: “Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlines the scope of judicial power. Under Section 2, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts may hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under their authority, among other matters. 

“With a few exceptions, the Supreme Court is limited to appellate jurisdiction, reviewing cases previously heard by other courts. Federal courts may hear only actual, ongoing cases or controversies, which means that someone bringing a claim must have ‘standing’ to sue. In general, they must have suffered a concrete injury for which a court can provide an effective remedy.

“One of the most important and frequently exercised powers of federal courts does not appear in the text of Article III. This is the power of judicial review. Barely a decade into its history, the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury v. Madison that it holds the power to determine whether a legislative or executive action is constitutional. Many of the most famous Supreme Court decisions have relied implicitly on the notion that the Court is the ultimate interpreter of the founding document.

“On the other hand, the Court has developed a doctrine of judicial restraint in the area of ‘political questions.’ The six factors outlined in Baker v. Carr largely define this doctrine, which is based on the idea that courts should remain aloof from politics. Thus, a federal court should decline to hear a case that presents an issue heavily laden with political implications.”

Now, those who disagree with the Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity, and other similarly unpopular decisions, will claim that the immunity issue is rife with political implications. But the important factor is that the decision protects the actions of presidents of any and all political persuasions, not one in particular. These days, nearly everything has political implications, but that was not the issue of the immunity decision. It was a question of Constitutional intent regarding the actions of presidents while in office.

The judicial branch, of which the U.S. Supreme Court is a part, is the only one of the three branches of our government in which no one is elected. The president and vice president in the executive branch are elected, and the members of the two houses of the Congress are elected in the legislative branch.

Those seeking one of those positions run for president/vice president, the Senate or the House of Representatives on a platform of things they support and oppose. But future federal judges and justices do not campaign for, or run for a seat on a court, let alone have a platform of things they support and oppose that they will exercise if selected for a seat. Judges and justices are expected to be politically and ideologically neutral. The law is supposed to be applied without prejudice or preference.

Those chosen for a seat in a federal court are there not to please Republicans, Democrats, or any group. They are there to interpret the Constitution and laws of the nation as they were written and intended to be understood without political bias or interest.

Imagine if the Democrats were somehow able to gain total control of the government. How would the non-Democrats feel about their country, if they were forced to live under the dictates of the Democrats, many of whose rules they would strongly dislike, and which might have serious negative effects on them? 

And then, what if in a few years the Republicans somehow managed to take control, and force their ideas on the country. How would the non-Republicans like that?

That is the reason the federal court system, and indeed, all of our courts, must be politically neutral and maintain America’s pledge and history of being the one place on the planet that guarantees its people fairness and the greatest amount of personal freedom in the history of mankind.

And each of us must take a deep breath whenever the Supreme Court, or any court, makes a ruling with which we disagree, and move on. And if a change is desired, we must make those changes through the proper processes, and not through brute force. 

The Biden-Trump debate was certainly an eye-opening experience

July 2, 2024

Last week we saw what Republicans, conservatives and those who don’t favor Joe Biden winning the election in November have been saying for a good while. The debate between President Joe Biden and former-President Donald Trump was such a stark demonstration of Biden’s troubled mental state that his Democrat supporters and media supporters are now saying publicly that he should drop out as the Democrat candidate.

The televised debate showed that the deceivers are those in the media, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and others who accused Biden critics of presenting false evidence of his mental decline by editing videos to show him losing his train of thought, mis-speaking, and wandering around aimlessly.

There for everyone to see on live TV — not just in this country, but across the globe — was Biden revealing his troubled mental state, and showing everyone not just why he must not be re-elected, but also the danger he currently poses as President of the United States.

Biden supporters in the media immediately reacted to his poor performance, with the following comments from some of them.

A former Obama adviser, one who knows Biden close up, Van Jones, who now is a CNN political commentator spoke from a personal viewpoint. "I just want to speak from my heart," Jones said. "I love that guy. That’s a good man. He loves his country. He’s doing the best that he can, but he had a test to meet tonight to restore confidence of the country and of the base. And he failed to do that. And there’s a lot of people who are going to want to see him consider taking a different course now."

Addressing what happens next, Jones said, "We’re still far from our convention, and there is time for this party to figure out a different way forward, if he will allow us to do that. But that was not what we needed from Joe Biden, and it’s personally painful for a lot of people. It’s not just panic, it’s pain of what we saw tonight." 

Columnist Thomas Friedman, who is reportedly a close friend of the President, wrote a column bearing the headline, "Joe Biden Is a Good Man and a Good President. He Must Bow Out of the Race."

"I watched the Biden-Trump debate alone in a Lisbon hotel room, and it made me weep. I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime — precisely because of what it revealed: Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election," he wrote. 

"The Biden family and political team must gather quickly and have the hardest of conversations with the president, a conversation of love and clarity and resolve," Friedman continued. "To give America the greatest shot possible of deterring the Trump threat in November, the president has to come forward and declare that he will not be running for re-election and is releasing all of his delegates for the Democratic National Convention."

MSNBC’s Joy Reid had the following reaction: "The people who were texting with me were very concerned about President Biden seeming extremely feeble, seeming extremely weak. Joe Biden’s job was to reassure them tonight. His job was to calm his party, to make them feel that, ‘Yes, I can do this. I have four more years in me. I have the ability and the stamina and the strength to do four more' … He did not do that. He did the opposite of that."

The New York Times, an avid supporter of the Democrats and Joe Biden, published the position of its editorial board on Biden’s performance. "President Biden has repeatedly and rightfully described the stakes in this November’s presidential election as nothing less than the future of American democracy," the editorial said. "Mr. Biden has said that he is the candidate with the best chance of taking on this threat of tyranny and defeating it. His argument rests largely on the fact that he beat Mr. Trump in 2020. That is no longer a sufficient rationale for why Mr. Biden should be the Democratic nominee this year."

The Times is correct about the critical stakes in this year’s election. However, it has the matter of who is the threat to the country upside-down. It is Biden and the Democrats that represent tyranny and a threat to the future of our country, not Trump and the Republicans. 

The Democrats and socialists are who want to change history by pushing Critical Race Theory, and the 1619 Project. It is they that promote changing the names of buildings, streets and military bases with the “wrong” name from our history. It is they that want to pack the Supreme Court with liberal/socialist justices who will make law from the bench, and protect their one-party rule.

It is Trump and the Republicans who are, and who have been for years, fighting to sustain the America that our Founders created, which in its original form has led the world in so many good ways for so long. It is those on the right who want to protect the freedoms and independence provided to each of us in the Constitution.

Along with summer time, the solstice brings us hurricanes

June 25, 2024

Well, with June comes the birthday of West Virginia, the start of summer, and the start of the six-month-long hurricane season. 

Hurricanes are one of nature’s most powerful storms, and the strong winds, storm surge flooding, and heavy rainfall can lead to inland flooding, tornadoes, and rip currents, all of which can cause great damage to property and death to those in their path. 

Obviously, something like this generates a great deal of attention, particularly in coastal areas where they are most likely to strike.

Stormfax.com tells us that on average there are as many as 12 named storms, 6 hurricanes, and 2 major hurricanes each year during the Atlantic hurricane season. 

“As the impacts of climate change have been more and more evident, we have seen and experienced increasing frequency and gravity of extreme weather events,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said recently, when the country’s ability to respond to disasters was being discussed.

The climate change/global warming faction thinks that this year could be a very busy hurricane season as climate change causes storms to be stronger. And, the first named storm of the hurricane season has already arrived, dumping heavy rain on parts of Mexico.

Climate change they say is the result of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, many climate scientists tell us that the Earth is much cooler now than in the past, and that the warming that is cited is not a large increase, and that we are still a long way from the historical warmest temperatures.

Other scientists warn that if we continue to try to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere we will significantly harm plant growth, and it is plants that give us the oxygen that keeps us alive. They also say that rather than cutting the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in half, we need to double it. Doing so, they say, will spur greater plant growth, which is a good thing.

But if the climate change folks are correct that the planet is warming and that it is a true problem, is there correlation between warmer temperatures and more and stronger hurricanes?

David Legates is a professor emeritus of climatology at the University of Delaware, a visiting fellow for the Science Advisory Committee in the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, and has written a book titled “Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism.”

He says that “[If] we have colder periods, we will get more hurricane activity. If we have warmer periods, the hurricane activity tends to drop off.” Under that premise, warmer weather equals fewer and less severe hurricanes.

In an interview for The Daily Signal, interviewer Virginia Allen asked him: “Professor Ligates are hurricanes over the past five to 10 years more severe than hurricanes were maybe 50 or 100 years ago?”

“Of course they are because these sites could never tell you anything that can’t be true,” he responded. “See, when you say more severe, we can parse that in a variety of ways. We can say there’s more hurricanes happening.

“We can say that the hurricanes that happen are becoming more intense. We can say that the hurricanes that are happening are actually becoming larger and more powerful overall. Or we can say that they’re making landfall more often than not. And after all, landfall hurricane is the worst-case scenario. If a big hurricane stays out in the Atlantic, that’s only a good thing unless you’re a shipper.”

He then presented some graphics produced by Ryan Maue, who served as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) chief scientist and produced the graphics from data from NOAA that illustrate his position.

Legates said, “if you look at that record, you see lots of variability over the years, but you see no long-term trend either in tropical storms or hurricanes. So, we can’t really say that over the last 50 years that there’s been a dramatic increase in the number of tropical storms or hurricanes or there has been a drastic decrease. It looks just like there’s lots of variability, which we call year-to-year. Some years we get hit and some years we don’t. And so, there’s no change there.”

After further discussion, Allen asked: “So we’re seeing a decrease in the number that are making landfall?” 

“Yes, it is less that are making landfall, which should be a good thing to write home about,” he said. “I know news likes to say, ‘let’s pick on the bad stuff. If it bleeds, it leads,’ but this is good news to write home about [and] that if there’s something in that signal, it’s a good signal.”

In conclusion, Allen asked Legates if there was anything that humans could do to affect the severity of hurricanes. His response: “A warmer world might do that because as we’ve seen [in] the coldest period of the last 400 years, the hurricanes were a little more intense. So maybe a warmer world is the best thing we could hope for.”

Maybe global warming/climate change isn’t really a crisis, after all.

Millions cheer Trump being convicted on 34 felony counts

June 18, 2024

Former President Donald Trump was convicted by a jury in New York last month on 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It is the first trial on four crimes of which Trump has been accused.

This conviction represents the first time in the nation’s history that a former president has been found guilty of a crime. And it has the added element of interest because Trump is the Republican candidate in the November presidential election, where he is seeking a second term.

Democrats and other anti-Trumpers are ecstatic over the verdict, rendered on the second day of jury deliberations. Sentencing on the crimes is scheduled for next month, and there is the hope among his non-fans that he will receive jail time.

That’s the story of one side of this highly controversial topic. On the other side are supporters of the former president who disagree with the verdict and believe this trial should never have occurred.

Critics of the trial have many complaints about the way Trump has been treated, including a long list of “irregularities” and questionable things with the initial charges and the actual courtroom process.

They cite the huge effort to keep Trump from running for reelection that includes states trying to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot. This effort was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that states cannot make this decision.

Several legal authorities, including present and former law professors as well as former prosecutors and defense attorneys, have cited a list of problems with this entire process, from the filing of the charges all the way to the rendering of the verdict.

Let’s consider Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s role in this. During his successful campaign, he noted his past experience and desire to go after Trump and his sons to “hold them accountable.” And he has satisfied his supporters on this point.

On the Sean Hannity show on Fox News Channel, former Harvard law professor — and proud Democrat — Alan Dershowitz heavily criticized Bragg’s accusing Trump of falsifying business records to allegedly pay porn star Stormy Daniels hush money, saying that it’s the “weakest” case he has seen in his 60 years of being an attorney.

“There is nothing here,” Dershowitz told Hannity. “There is no misdemeanor, there is no felony, there is no federal crime. The feds refused to prosecute — even Bragg refused to prosecute until some of his young progressive woke prosecutors demanded that he prosecute.”

He criticized Bragg for “trying to elevate it to a felony by claiming that the only reason that he paid the nondisclosure funds was to prevent voters from learning about it. Obviously, he did it because he didn’t want to embarrass his family, he didn’t want to embarrass his wife. And the idea that you can prosecute somebody — they could have gone after Alexander Hamilton on this theory,” Dershowitz said.

Appearing on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria” Dershowitz told host Maria Bartiromo that Bragg ought to be investigated for bringing this case under the existing circumstances. “Nobody in history has ever been charged with failing to disclose in a corporate form the fact he paid hush money.” Dershowitz said. “The reason you pay hush money is to not disclose it. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money.”

More problems with the trial have been cited by Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School. Turley lists several things done during the trial by Judge Juan Merchan. Here are a few of them.

“For many of us, the Trump trial has seemed otherworldly, a vaguely familiar proceeding where common elements of a trial seem to have been flipped,” he wrote for The Hill.

“At the start of closing arguments, most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records,” Turley wrote, alluding to the fact that defense attorneys cannot adequately defend their client if the alleged crimes are not specifically named.

He noted that “the prosecution engaged in flagrant violations from offering testimony on unestablished facts to directly contradicting prior instructions,” with no interference from Merchan.

A guilty verdict needs a unanimous vote by all 12 jurors. But Turley wrote that Merchan told the jurors that “they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict.” 

“Given the instructions and the errors in this trial, it would seem that an acquittal is almost beyond the realm of possibility,” Turley wrote before the verdict had been reached. “That leaves either a hung jury or a conviction. However, the framing of this case and failure to protect the rights of the defendant have undermined the perceived legitimacy of the proceedings and any possible verdict.”

There are several other salient points Turley, Dershowitz and others have made, and other factors highlighting the blunders in this trial, but there isn’t enough space in this column to cover them all.

Apparently, the left believes doing anything to prevent Trump from winning the election is okay.

Many do not appreciate D-Day or Israel’s fight for survival

June 11, 2024

Last week we observed the 80th anniversary of D-Day, which occurred on June 6, 1944. At that time the forces of eight allied countries, including the British Commonwealth and the United States, began an action that would over the next year defeat the horrible forces of Nazi Germany.

At the time it was the largest amphibious invasion in military history, and in restoring democracy and peace to much of the world, and the United States played a very significant role in that action. And thousands of U.S. and allied military personnel gave their lives to save the world from Nazi Germany.

The importance of this action is observed and celebrated annually, attended by remaining veterans of that action who are in their 90s and over 100 years-old, the President of the United States, and leaders of other countries.

The ceremony in France is observed by the French citizens whose nation benefitted greatly from it. They solemnly and thankfully observe D-Day at the official ceremony, and many or perhaps most of them display American flags at their homes and businesses.

It has been reported that more French people display our flag to celebrate D-Day than Americans do at any time.

How things have changed in America. One red flag is that D-Day celebrations are valued more by the French than by Americans. Another is how many Americans do not understand that the current war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in the fault of the Hamas terrorist organization, not Israel. 

Hamas’ savage, unprovoked attack in Israel on October 7 of last year at a peaceful music concert left more than a thousand innocent people dead. Among the dead were some 40 American citizens. Others were taken hostage, and many of them have been killed or have died as a result of their imprisonment. Some Americans are among those hostages, as well.

And yet, protests at college campuses condemn the Jews, not only those in Israel, but from wherever they reside, even here in America. Not only are the Jews blamed for responding to the terrorists in order to defend their very existence, the terrorists of Hamas and other Iranian proxies are regarded as heroes by some, and given the sympathy that is only deserved by true victims.

The Hamas worshipers chant “Death to Israel,” “Death to the Jews,” and even — believe it or not — “Death to America.”

How can so many of us know so little about what actually happened, or know a version that didn’t occur? Or perhaps worse, know what happened and not care that Israel was savagely attacked, and more than a thousand were killed in often the most disgusting and horrific ways? 

What is currently happening in Gaza is totally justified. It is essential to Israel’s continued existence, and was caused by the savage Hamas terrorists. Hamas, the terrorist proxy of Iran, was elected to rule the Palestinians of Gaza by the Palestinians of Gaza.

The failure to appreciate D-Day for its world-changing result, and the huge role America’s military played in that event, and the other traditions of our country that are not appreciated or are despised, is more than a little unnerving.  

And history tells us that this has happened before. Other great nations existed for centuries, and then collapsed because of weakening attitudes from within. That is where we are today in America.

We have failed so badly to teach our young about the great things of America. So many do not really know about their country, and do not appreciate it. And indeed, some even hate it. 

And it is not just our failure to educate younger generations about the wonders of their country that is a problem, we have a large faction actively working to subvert that education process further by deceitfully changing what should be being taught.

Other troubling things are happening, too. We have China buying up farm land and land near military bases, and buying interest in or ownership of food producers. There have been several suspicious fires at food processing plants.

While other countries are focused on developing a military that can conquer other nations, we have military leadership focused on diversity, equity and inclusion instead of merit, competence and being the deadliest force on Earth.

We have borders that are essentially wide open, allowing anyone who wants to enter the country for any reason to enter, and thousands of others being flown into the country by the government. Rampant inflation harms everyone in the country. Attorneys general and district attorneys in many places value criminals over victim, and that has led to a serious increase in crimes.

We have a man in the Oval Office who is a beloved leftist, but a disaster as President of the United States of America!  The leftist faction is determined to destroy the USA as designed, and replace our limited government structure that gave us a world-leading level of personal freedom and innovation with another one-party government that seeks to control everything.

Is it possible to undo all the subversion, mis-direction and false knowledge? Can the country our Founders created be saved? Or will America slowly decompose into Venezuela II?

The meaning of laws or the Constitution should not be changed on a whim

June 4, 2024

Why is it that those on the left — liberals, socialists, Marxists, “progressives” — think that the ideas expressed in our laws and the Constitution are just suggestions, and their interpretation by judges and others in positions of authority can vary with the wind?

Do they really believe that words mean whatever anyone wants them to mean at any given time as political fervor and social preferences dictate? 

Well, yes, many of them believe that whatever their political motivation is at any moment is enough to justify changing the meaning of a law or a feature of our Constitution that was written years, decades, or even centuries ago.

Those written words were just ideas of the moment, they suggest, and everyone knows that ideas and circumstances change as time progresses. Therefore, the meaning of laws and the Constitution must be flexible enough to be understood as they want to understand them at any point in time.

And they want to get rid of anyone in any position who believes the contrary: that laws and the Constitution mean what they meant when they were created, and will continue to hold that meaning until they are properly changed by the appropriate processes.

In order to get the world organized to their liking, the leftists want to remove anyone from their official position that doesn’t follow the popular ideological line. Supreme Court Justices, for example, who follow the law and Constitution as written. They are “originalists,” or “judicial conservatives.”

Like umpires and referees, judges, justices, magistrates, etc., must not take sides in their work. They must not change the rules of the game during the game. They have the duty to apply the laws and terms of the Constitution as they were intended when created, without applying political or ideological bias. 

That point is frequently missed by some observers who instead want their personal beliefs to prevail in such matters, despite what the intent of the measure in question may be.

But the interpretations of our Constitution and existing law must be based upon the circumstances that prevailed at the time they were created, and that those circumstances were why these laws and Constitutional provisions were created to begin with.

If the original circumstances that were the basis of a law or a feature of the Constitution no longer exist, if things have changed substantially, then the law can be repealed, or the Constitution can be amended as needed. But until those actions take place, the laws and Constitution must be followed as written, and as intended. The leftists prefer to consider the U.S. Constitution a “living document,” the meanings of which ebb and flow with the tide of time.

This concept was dealt with in an article by United States Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch titled, “Why Originalism Is the Best Approach to the Constitution.” 

In this article, he addresses some specific instances. However, we will focus on the primary meaning: “Originalism teaches only that the Constitution’s original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies.”

“Whether it’s the Constitution’s prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.”

And then, the crux of the debate: “Living constitutionalists often complain we can’t know the original understanding because the document’s too old and cryptic. Hardly. We figure out the original meaning of old and difficult texts all the time. Just ask any English professor who teaches Shakespeare or Beowulf.”

And he then describes the leftists’ preferred solution to the disagreement: “For when it comes to the social and political questions of the day they care most about, many living constitutionalists would prefer to have philosopher-king judges swoop down from their marble palace to ordain answers rather than allow the people and their representatives to discuss, debate, and resolve them. You could even say the real complaint here is with our democracy.”

In common parlance, they want the documents to say whatever they prefer them to say at any given moment. And those meanings can change with a new breath.

“Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what,” Gorsuch asks? “The ‘judicial Power’ of Article III of the Constitution isn’t a promise of all good things. Letting dangerous and obviously guilty criminals who have gravely injured their victims go free just because an officer forgot to secure a warrant or because the prosecutor neglected to bring a witness to trial for confrontation seems like a bad idea to plenty of people.

“But do you really want judges to revise the Constitution to avoid those ‘bad’ results? Or do you believe that judges should enforce the law’s protections equally for everyone, regardless of how inefficient or unpopular or old the law might be? Regardless of who benefits today — the criminal or the police; the business or the employee; immigrants or ICE?”

Originalism focuses on process, not substance. The originalist concept protects the country from renegade “jurists” who will do whatever improves their political/ideological position. This is not what America is about.

We must not yield to those seeking global governance

May 28, 2024

Some of the countries on Earth are independent. Some are voluntarily members of a group. Others are ruled and totally controlled by another country. America, blessedly, is an independent nation, and has been since 1776.

When our country was organizing after declaring and winning its independence from the British empire, the Founders worked hard and long to design a nation that would be sustainable, successful and somewhat unique.

Their design has proven to be a very good one. “Today, it parallels old empires like Rome and Britain in scope, aesthetics, and influence,” WorldAtlas online notes. “Rome's legal system, infrastructure, and language permeated the known world, much like the USA's cultural exports, English language, and democratic principles. Britain's former naval prowess and colonies echo the USA's global military bases and economic reach. However, the USA differs in its soft power emphasis, using cultural, economic, and political influence more than direct colonial control.”

The WorldAtlas description continues: “Fueled by immigration, innovation, and resources, it emerged as a global power post-WWII. Its strengths lie in its diversified, technologically-advanced economy, military supremacy, and cultural influence. Furthermore, as it occupies a fairly isolated continent, it is currently near-impossible to successfully invade.”

For nearly 250 years the US has been a nation of individual freedom that has made great contributions to life on Earth. Its government has held fairly strong on the ideals upon which it was built, including being an important nation in the interests of the world, using its influence and strength generally for its benefit as well as the common good, and at the same time maintaining and protecting its national independence.

The USA belongs to and participates in many international organizations, offering its knowledge and wisdom to help solve international problems. And it is the wisdom of our unique design that has allowed the US to provide such leadership to the rest of the world.

There are political and ideological factions within the country that actually want to abandon what made America the great, often world-leading nation it became. Their desires and actions have often been in plain sight for many years, and their actions have actually moved the country in small steps toward that goal.

Included in this movement is a path toward one-world government. Organizations like the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization seek to control some of what many or all nations do, or perhaps to be part of a world government.

An attitude contrary to things the US currently and historically does is alive and well, and factions in the US seem all too eager to change them.

One example of shifting national control to an international agency is the plan supported by the Biden administration to give away American sovereignty by supporting two World Health Organization (WHO) treaties. This has received very little public discussion.

Signing onto these treaties would transfer to the WHO the rights of states to make decisions on public health. However, the federal government does not possess the right to do this under the U.S. Constitution, even if taking this action was a sensible thing to do. And, we must recognize that anything that subverts the nation’s ability to make its own decisions to another nation or international body is foolish in the extreme.

This action is opposed by the Republican Attorneys General in 22 states. In a letter put together by Montana’s Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, the AGs said, “We will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly or indirectly set public policy for our citizens.”

This significant threat to our independence and national sovereignty is discussed on ConservativeHQ.com, a site operated by Richard A. Viguerie. It says, “The WHO will discuss drafts of its proposed pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations at the upcoming World Health Assembly, May 27 to June 1. The proposals aim to give the WHO more authority to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics.”

The 22 Attorneys General believe that these amendments would “transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organization into the world’s governor of public health.”

And ConservativeHQ notes that “[a]t the end of May, President Biden intends to join other nations in supplanting our Constitution and the liberties it guarantees with something called ‘global governance.’”

“Their plan, which has been stealthily negotiated for several years at the World Health Organization, would permit no informed debate – let alone require the approval of the American people through their elected representatives in the United States Senate.”

This is wrong on many levels. It goes against our Constitution, and the idea of an independent constitutional republic that it created.

Because of its unique design the US has amassed great successes over its nearly 250 years of existence. It must not become just one of dozens or hundreds of nations following a path determined for it by others. Many of them hope to see the US lose its independence, and become a nation of sheep doing what they are told by the elite globalists. 

We the people must make the important determinations for our country, and protect the freedoms the Founders so judiciously provided for the people.

Basic education in America is falling short of what is needed

May 21, 2024

In the last few years there has been much criticism of both public education and higher education. Stories abound regarding the changing of education into indoctrination in many public schools and school systems, and colleges and universities.

It got so bad that when parents attended school board meetings to express their concern and displeasure, they were sometimes hassled by security and police personnel. And the U.S. Department of Justice even went so far as to label some of them as “domestic terrorists.”

While these unauthorized and often secret changes in the curriculum are dishonest, some of them are truly dangerous. Some schools or teachers not only keep parents from knowing that their children are interested in changing genders, for example, some of them are actively encouraging it.

Colleges and universities are suspected of teaching students not how to think, but they instead are pushing political points of view about what to think on important issues.

Another side of the education situation is what is happening to the actual level of education taking place. On this topic, The Daily Signal, a digital news platform of The Heritage Foundation, has recently published some statistics that truly ought to alarm every American, and especially those in the school systems dealt with in the story.

The Signal story discusses the spending on education in Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, DC, along with their level of performance as measured by the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

The state which spent the most in “current expenditures” in FY2022 was New York, laying out $29,284 per pupil.

The Signal noted that “[c]urrent expenditures comprise expenditures for the day-to-day operation of schools and school districts for public elementary and secondary education, including expenditures for staff salaries and benefits, supplies, and purchased services,” according to the NCES. “General administration expenditures and school administration expenditures are also included in current expenditures,” it added.

According to the NAEP, New York had only 28 percent of eighth grade students scoring proficient or better in mathematics, and just 32 percent were proficient or better in reading.

Spending a little less money than New York was Washington, D.C., at $28,128 in current expenditures per pupil. But proficiency did not measure up. For mathematics, only 16 percent were proficient or better, and only 22 percent made the grade in reading.

Showing better proficiency than New York or D.C. was New Jersey, where per-pupil spending was $25,550. Mathematics = 33 percent, reading = 42 percent.

Vermont and Connecticut followed, with spending of $25,073, and $23,868, respectively. Vermont: mathematics = 27 percent, reading = 34 percent. Connecticut: mathematics = 30 percent, reading = 35 percent.

In the per-pupil rankings, three other New England states followed. Massachusetts spent $22,778; Rhode Island spent $20,498; and New Hampshire spent $20,424. Massachusetts: mathematics = 35 percent, reading = 40 percent. Rhode Island: mathematics = 24 percent, and reading = 31 percent. And, New Hampshire: mathematics = 29 percent, reading = 33 percent.

Utah and Idaho spent significantly less per-pupil, but didn’t do worse in ratings and in some cases were better than the higher-spending systems.

Utah spent just $9,496 per-pupil: mathematics = 35 percent, reading = 36 percent. Idaho spent $9,662 per-pupil and scored 32 percent in both math and reading.

The Signal also published some data on Catholic schools, at which parents pay tuition for their children to attend, in addition to the taxes they pay that support public education. “The average tuition at Catholic elementary schools in 2023, according to U.S. News and World Report, was $4,840. The average tuition at Catholic high schools was $11,240,” the story said.

And, it added that “students at Catholic schools score better on these NAEP tests than students at public schools.”

It should be noted that the FY2022 data was affected to some degree by the COVID virus and its effects on school operations. However, the 2022 numbers were not very much lower than the previous survey data from FY2019.

The Signal story did not cover all states, and we may assume that some states did much better than those listed. However, any school system that produces proficiency for fewer than 50 percent of students, has a serious problem.

And these low scores are not limited to these particular states and D.C. The NAEP Report Card for 2022 in reading shows that “the average reading score for eighth-grade students was 3 points lower than 2019. Average scores are reported on the NAEP reading scale that ranges from 0 to 500.”  The score for 2019 was 263, and for 2022 was 260. And only two states had higher scores in reading in 2022 than they had in 2019.

NCES data shows rising scores in both math and reading starting in FY1990/1991 on a 500-point scale. Reading scores rose from 211 to 221 in FY2012 before dropping to 215 in FY2022. Math scores rose from about 235 to 241, then dropped to 234 in FY2022.

Our country’s future depends on younger generations that can function at a high level. The information provided indicates that we will not meet that need.

The basis of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protests is faulty and wrong

May 14, 2024

The anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protests on college and university campuses continue, complete with law-breaking and violence. The protesters attempt to defend their illegal and violent behavior by claiming their actions are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But like so much else that these confused young people believe, while the First Amendment protects free speech, free speech does not include vandalism, trespassing, violence, and illegal harassment of individuals and groups. Actions such as blocking people from entering campus buildings, or taking control of school facilities, or interfering with school activities are not speech. 

They are crimes. And those crimes turn what could and should have been peaceful protests into riots.

Such activities are what finally moved the administrations of some institutions to say, “enough is enough,” and bring in police to break up the protests, and even to arrest some of the protesters. Whether those charged with improper behavior will actually suffer the consequences of their behavior remains to be seen.

Once the authorities became involved, moving people out of the encampments and arresting them, what so often was suspected was proven to be true: many of the protesters/rioters are not students or in any way connected with the school where they gathered.

They quite frequently were members of activist groups that sponsored the encampments, and even in some cases were being paid to condemn Israel.

While they may have earned monetary fines, suspension or expulsion from school, notations in their school records, or even jail time, with the soft-on -crime attitude of so many incompetent prosecutors, they may only get a slap on the wrist.

Much of the emotion behind this criminal behavior results from ignorance and misinformation about Israel’s history and the action it took following the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas that took some 1,200 innocent lives.

An authoritative look into this situation by Victor Davis Hanson, who is an historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and was published by The Daily Signal, focuses on “10 Most Common Pro-Hamas Lies About Israel.”

One lie is the claim by the protesters that Israelis are “settlers” and “colonists.” Jewish students are even sometimes told to “go back to Poland.”

But it is no secret to anyone wanting to know the truth that the general region that is now the state of Israel has been occupied by the Jewish people for more than 3,000 years.

Of the charge that the Gaza Strip was occupied by Israel, Hanson wrote, “The Gaza Strip, adjacent Israel, was autonomous. The Israeli border is closed, but so is the Egyptian border. There have not been any Jews in Gaza for nearly two decades.

“So on Oct. 7, Gaza was not occupied by Israel. It was under the control of Hamas, designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.

“After being elected to power in 2006, Hamas canceled all subsequent elections and ruled as a dictatorship. Gaza forbids Jews from entering Gaza and has driven out most Christians.”

Israel is also accused of targeting civilians. But Hanson points out that after the October 7 attack the Hamas terrorists ran back to Gaza and “hid in tunnels and bases beneath hospitals, schools, and mosques,” using Palestinians as screens against Israel’s counter-attacks, insuring that some of them would be killed.

“Outside assessors have concluded that Israel has not inadvertently killed a greater ratio of civilians to terrorists compared to most other urban fighting conflicts elsewhere,” Hanson wrote, “and perhaps even fewer than American engagements in Mosul and Fallujah.”

On the charge that Israel produced a response that was “disproportionate” to the Hamas slaughter, Hanson provides some numbers.

“Iran tried to send 320 missiles and rockets into Israel. Israel replied with three. Hamas launched 7,000 rockets into Israel and slaughtered 1,200 Israelis before the Israel Defense Forces responded in Gaza, often dropping leaflets and sending texts to forewarn [Palestinian] citizens.”

The only disproportionate aspect of this is the much higher effectiveness of Israel’s response to the Hamas terrorism.

The clearly incorrect suggestion that Israel is attempting genocide, to wipe out the Palestinian people, like the other lies Hanson lists, falls with a loud thump when faced with reality and the history of the Jewish people with Palestinians.

Hanson: “Before Oct. 7, some 20,000 Gazans a day requested to work in Israel — on the correct expectation of much higher wages and humane treatment.

“If Hamas had come out of its tunnels, separated from its impressed civilian shields, released its surviving Israeli hostages, and either openly fought the Israel Defense Forces or surrendered the organizers of the Oct. 7 massacre, no Gaza civilians would have died.

“According to Hamas’ questionable ‘genocide’ figures, roughly 4 percent of the Gazan population died during the Israeli military response to Oct. 7. At least a third to almost half of those deaths, according to various international observers, were Hamas terrorists.”

If the lies and distortions of Israel’s obligatory response to Hamas’ terrorism isn’t bad enough, President Joe Biden gross failure to fully support Israel in its time of need is unforgiveable. This decision is one more item added to Biden’s long list of sometimes deadly catastrophes and failures of leadership.

Our government spends too much, and taxes the people too much

April 7, 2024

Several weeks ago, as the April tax filing deadline neared, Facebook featured some comments about how Americans feel about taxes.

Among those comments were these: 

** The biggest scam in life: Paying taxes on money you make; taxes on money you spend; and taxes on things you own that you already paid taxes on with already taxed money.

** Paying taxes in the USA is like having a never-ending car payment on a car that won't run.

** If your country has enough money to give to illegals, your taxes are too high.

** If they can pay all these student loans, they can stop taxes on seniors!

Clearly, taxes are not popular with the American people, despite the need for the government to collect taxes to pay its bills.

Founder Benjamin Franklin in the very early days of the republic said the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. But he wasn't talking about income taxes, because they did not exist then.

In order to help pay for the Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861. Tax rates were 3 percent on income exceeding $600 and less than $10,000, and 5 percent on income exceeding $10,000. But this tax didn’t last very long. There were other income taxes of short duration.

The income tax we pay today came into existence in 1913 when the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. It was a tax on incomes of both individuals and corporations. 

As much as people dislike the taxes they must pay, they generally understand that taxes are necessary for governments at the federal, state, and local levels to operate. And here in America, with our commitment to personal freedom, those governments are expected to be lean, efficient, not overbearing, and not overly expensive.

On the federal level, those characteristics are not being followed as our Founders expected.

USA Facts tells us that the “federal government collected nearly $4.5 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2023 (FY2023). About half was collected through individual income taxes, while 37 percent was through payroll taxes. Other revenue sources included corporate income taxes, customs duties, and sales taxes.”

However, the report continues, the “federal government spent almost $6.2 trillion in FY 2023, including funds distributed to states, Medicare, Social Security, defense and veterans, transfers to states, interest on the debt, and aid to individuals such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and refundable tax credits accounted for 90 percent of spending.”

Worldometer online said that “the current population of the United States of America is 341,531,428 as of Sunday, May 5, 2024.” That’s about $13,000 in federal income collected per person. Spending, however, ran up to more than $18,000 per person.

Today, the National Debt stands at roughly $34 trillion. In 2006 the National Debt was around $8 trillion. A steady increase put it at about $23 trillion in 2020. And then the government stepped on the gas and the National Debt soared by $11 trillion in just 4 years to today’s $34 trillion. As a result, the per person amount to clear the National Debt today is more than $99,500.

The federal government is not as designed: small and limited in function. Today, it is too big, too expensive, not very efficient, and often quite over-bearing.

There are 15 executive departments and hundreds of federal agencies and commissions, employing approximately 1,427,700 federal employees, not including the military. Given the limited government philosophy of the Founders, many/most of these are not appropriate.

Which ones are needed? Here are a few of those executive branch departments that are sensible and needed: Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of the Treasury. While others may function well and sometimes provide positive guidance, are they really appropriate under the founding principles?

Why do we need a federal Department of Education to tell states how to educate the young? Why do we need the Environmental Protection Agency to tell private land owners what they can and cannot do with their own property? Why do we need a Department of Labor to tell businesses how they must operate? Under our system of federalism, these and other functions should be under control of the states, not the federal government.

In many of these departments, agencies or commissions unelected bureaucrats set rules in place with the force of law, complete with penalties. However, they are not approved by Congress, the law-making body. These bureaucrats tell the people that they work for, and who pay their salaries, what they can and cannot do, and can render punishment for them if they do not comply.

Over the decades the limited government philosophy of the Founders has fattened up and grown far beyond what it was designed to be, and what is needed and appropriate.

With every such step, the freedom of Americans becomes a little bit more limited. And if this concept continues much longer, America will no longer be the Land of the Free.

Anti-Israel protests are out of control and badly misguided

April 30, 2024

What is going on in this country regarding Israel’s response to the terrorist attack last October is truly disgraceful. The fanatical protests on several American college and university campuses, which have been virtually ignored and allowed to continue by the administrations of those institutions, are fueled by misinformation and ignorance. 

The protesters chant “death to Israel” and threaten the safety of their fellow students who are Jewish, although they are not often Israelis. And in response to the pro-Israel sentiments expressed in the country, the protesters also now chant “death to America.”

In taking the anti-Israel position, the protesters claim to be pro-Palestine, but that increasingly has meant pro-Hamas, the terrorists who unleashed that horrible attack on innocent Israelis and others in October. Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization that the Palestinians voted into power some years ago.

Israel has been and is the target of many of its Middle East neighbors where Islam is the religion. Islamic countries have tried over and over to eliminate Israel and its people, and have been soundly defeated each time.

Leaving behind for the moment the hatred of Israel held by these protesters and Muslims, not everyone is so blind to reality.

Israel is a special place for reasons other than just its role as a target of its neighbors. It is a beacon of democracy in an area where democracies are in short supply.

It is a country that despite its history of being targeted has demonstrated religious tolerance, and has made technological and other valuable innovations. It has made important contributions in mathematics, science, medicine, computing, defense, aviation and energy, to name just some areas to which it has contributed. 

And, it is home to those of other religions. The U.S. government estimates the total population of Israel in 2022 at 8.9 million. And according to the Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2021 approximately 73.8 percent of the population was Jewish, 18 percent Muslim, 1.9 percent Christian, and 1.6 percent Druze. So, if Israel is such a terrible nation, why do so many non-Jewish people willingly live and work there?

The anti-Israel protesters want people to believe, and perhaps themselves believe, that Israel started all of this. It did not. Hamas started it with a violent raid killing more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, including at least 35 U.S. citizens who were in Israel.

Among the slaughtered were elderly people. Children were killed in front of their parents, parents were killed in front of their children, babies were beheaded and burned to death in ovens, and other atrocities also committed. Hostages were taken. Some have been released, some have died or been killed, and more than 100 remain in captivity.

So, the military actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are not unwarranted attacks on innocent Palestinians. They are appropriate and justified responses to yet another attempt by an Iranian terrorist proxy group to eliminate completely the nation of Israel and every Jewish citizen in Israel. And the innocent Palestinian people voluntarily chose Hamas to lead them. 

The IDF works very hard to avoid injuring or killing non-combatants. However, the Israeli military killed seven aid workers, including three British veterans, of World Central Kitchen when it bombed a clearly marked vehicle belonging to the food charity, as reported by the Daily Mail.

“Israel Defence Forces chief Herzi Halevi … called the killings a 'grave mistake,' which he blamed on night-time ‘misidentification,’ and launched an independent investigation into the attack,” the Daily Mail reported.

The story continued, saying, “Israel is expected to pay compensation to the families of the aid workers killed in the airstrike on a food convoy in Gaza, military sources have claimed.”

In war, things do not always go as intended, as exemplified by this incident. The Israeli forces made a serious mistake, and innocent people died. However, had Hamas not unleashed that appalling, vicious attack last October, this mistake would not have occurred, and other Palestinians would also not have died.

Reuters reported that “protests against Israel filled streets in Brooklyn and escalated at universities across the United States.” These protests have recently grown to encampments, or tent cities, filled with tents that look alike, leading to the idea that these protests are sponsored and coordinated.

“Jewish Left-leaning billionaire and philanthropist George Soros and associations funded by him are reportedly funding the anti-Israel protests at college campuses across the US,” Business Today reported. “The protests, which started at Columbia University last week, have spread to universities and colleges across over 8 states in the US, The New York Post reported.” 

“A large Brooklyn street protest reached a standoff on Tuesday when New York police began to arrest people over disorderly conduct, restraining those who refused to move with zip ties,” the Reuters story added.

Protesters and others are calling for a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. The innocent hostages must be released. But a ceasefire by Israel will only delay the effort to destroy Israel, and kill all the Jews.

These institutions and law enforcement need to get moving and apply appropriate punishment to these students who are over-stepping the free speech boundaries and threatening innocent Jewish students.

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.