Month: February 2018

Parkland Shooting: Questions the Left Can't Answer


Now a week out from the tragic Parkland Florida shooting, emotions are still running high.  Stories and explanations change by the day. Answers should be forthcoming, but instead, we are left with only questions. Rather than answering these questions, the media is posturing and preening for political purposes.

Here are some of the questions worthy of asking.

Days after the shooting, CNN hosted a town hall meeting.  Rather than a thoughtful discussion regarding causes and potential solutions, it lived up to CNN’s goal of a political rally.  Yet CNN claims that its meeting was not political.  Could CNN pour a cup of coffee without it being political?

Did CNN stack the audience and prep participants?  CNN has a history of planting Democrats in its town hall meetings.  One participant claimed that CNN gave him scripted questions to ask.  Plausible?  Isn’t CNN the network that supplied Hillary Clinton with debate questions in advance?

CNN turned their town hall meeting into a Dana Loesch- and Marco Rubio-bashing fest.  Yet neither pulled the trigger that terrible day.  Why is the shooting their fault?

Plenty of other individuals and groups are being blamed for the shooting – the NRA, Republicans, and President Trump.  They were not in the school that day.  They did not shoot anyone.  Nikolas Cruz did the shooting.  Why isn’t he being blamed?

What about the police officers who remained outside or hid behind cars during the shooting?  Or the flippant Sheriff Scott Israel, deflecting blame as skillfully as Barack Obama did for eight years?  Why is blame being directed at those who had nothing to do with the shooting?

Where is the blame over the Obama-Holder Justice Department, paying schools to hide or overlook crime, in an effort to improve arrest and incarceration statistics?  As Jack Cashill wrote in American Thinker, ignoring crime doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.  Those chickens always come home to roost, whether Trayvon Martin or Nikolas Cruz

The NRA contributed $1.1 million to candidates in the 2016 election cycle, according to Opensecrets.org.  The left says the “Republican Party is owned by the NRA.”  Is that so?  One million isn’t that much – unless you believe that the Russians influenced the 2016 election by spending that amount on Twitter and Facebook ads.  Is anyone asking about the really big money?

Fahr LLC, owned by left-wing climate warrior Tom Steyer, contributed $90 million in 2016.  The American Federation of Teachers gave $31 million, and the National Education Association contributed $30 million.  The NRA are a bunch of cheapskates in comparison.  Which groups are really buying influence in Congress?

What has Big Education done for school safety, other than making schools “gun free zones,” turning them into target-rich environments?  Not only are they not protecting their students, but they are also leaving their union dues-paying teachers vulnerable in school shootings.  Why doesn’t Big Education care about teachers and students?

Why do these shootings almost always happen in “gun free zones”?  Would a bank or jewelry store ever declare itself a “gun-free zone”?  What about any government building in the country?  Does this make sense?

Members of Congress bray about the evils of guns and how arming teachers is a bad thing.  Yet their workplace is surrounded by armed guards and metal-detectors.  Many of them travel with armed escorts.  Governors and big-city mayors surround themselves with armed security, at work and at home.  Why won’t they protect children with the same zeal?

When elected officials eliminate armed guards from the U.S. or state capitols and declare them “gun-free zones,” they can join the discussion of arming teachers.  Why doesn’t CNN or any other media outlet ask elected officials to explain this hypocrisy?

Why are conceal-carry teachers a bad idea?  Aren’t they similar to air marshals?  Have air marshals accidentally shot passengers?  Or children who also fly on airplanes?  Why do we protect airplanes in a way we won’t protect schools?

Some pilots are armed, not all – just as some teachers or other school employees, not all, could be armed.  Are pilots accidentally shooting passengers or each other?  They are the last line of defense against another 9-11.  Why is there no last line of defense for our children if a shooter gets into a school?

If the NRA had been abolished years ago, would Sandy Hook have been prevented?  Would the Parkland shooting not have happened?  What about Columbine?  Or Aurora?  Or the Pulse nightclub?  Would Chicago be murder-free and safe?  Eliminating the NRA would have as much effect on murder rates as getting rid of SUVs would have on the climate.

If gun control is such an important issue to Democrats, why didn’t they do something when they had the chance?  From 2009 to 2011, they controlled Congress and the White House.  Yet they did nothing when they had the opportunity.  Why not?

Columbine happened on Bill Clinton’s watch, Sandy Hook on Barack Obama’s watch.  What did they do to stop these national tragedies?  Why don’t they share the blame for their inaction?  If Obama could “slow the rise of the oceans,” why couldn’t he end gun violence?  Has any reporter asked him?

If the age for owning a firearm is raised to age 21, should that also be the minimum age for military service?  Or an abortion?  Or a driver’s license?  Or voting?  Cars and abortions are dangerous and deadly, too.

How old was James Hodgkinson, the congressional baseball shooter?  Or Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter?  Hint: Both were older than 21.  How would an age restriction have stopped them?

Why are there armed guards at museums and jewelry stores? At sports stadiums, airports, and concert venues?  But not at schools.  Are paintings and watches more valuable than children?

How long does the average school shooting last?  How long does it take first responders to arrive on the scene?  What happens at the school before help arrives – especially if no teachers are armed?  Can anyone refute the axiom, “When seconds count, help is minutes away”?

President Trump held his own listening forum, to hear all points of view, unlike CNN’s forum, which was one-sided.  The president had a few notes.  Big media were obsessed with that.  Don’t TV news anchors and former presidents read from teleprompters?  Didn’t the last president use a teleprompter to speak in a sixth grade classroom?

These are all interesting questions worthy of discussion, particularly in a forum like a CNN town hall with a national audience.  Yet that will never happen.  Why not?  Is this a problem to be solved or simply a political issue to be exploited?

Lots of questions.  Few answers.  If the left wants a rational discussion of the Second Amendment and school safety, perhaps some of these questions need to be asked and answered.  Otherwise, it’s cheap talk and virtue-signaling…while waiting for the next school shooting.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

Now a week out from the tragic Parkland Florida shooting, emotions are still running high.  Stories and explanations change by the day. Answers should be forthcoming, but instead, we are left with only questions. Rather than answering these questions, the media is posturing and preening for political purposes.

Here are some of the questions worthy of asking.

Days after the shooting, CNN hosted a town hall meeting.  Rather than a thoughtful discussion regarding causes and potential solutions, it lived up to CNN’s goal of a political rally.  Yet CNN claims that its meeting was not political.  Could CNN pour a cup of coffee without it being political?

Did CNN stack the audience and prep participants?  CNN has a history of planting Democrats in its town hall meetings.  One participant claimed that CNN gave him scripted questions to ask.  Plausible?  Isn’t CNN the network that supplied Hillary Clinton with debate questions in advance?

CNN turned their town hall meeting into a Dana Loesch- and Marco Rubio-bashing fest.  Yet neither pulled the trigger that terrible day.  Why is the shooting their fault?

Plenty of other individuals and groups are being blamed for the shooting – the NRA, Republicans, and President Trump.  They were not in the school that day.  They did not shoot anyone.  Nikolas Cruz did the shooting.  Why isn’t he being blamed?

What about the police officers who remained outside or hid behind cars during the shooting?  Or the flippant Sheriff Scott Israel, deflecting blame as skillfully as Barack Obama did for eight years?  Why is blame being directed at those who had nothing to do with the shooting?

Where is the blame over the Obama-Holder Justice Department, paying schools to hide or overlook crime, in an effort to improve arrest and incarceration statistics?  As Jack Cashill wrote in American Thinker, ignoring crime doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.  Those chickens always come home to roost, whether Trayvon Martin or Nikolas Cruz

The NRA contributed $1.1 million to candidates in the 2016 election cycle, according to Opensecrets.org.  The left says the “Republican Party is owned by the NRA.”  Is that so?  One million isn’t that much – unless you believe that the Russians influenced the 2016 election by spending that amount on Twitter and Facebook ads.  Is anyone asking about the really big money?

Fahr LLC, owned by left-wing climate warrior Tom Steyer, contributed $90 million in 2016.  The American Federation of Teachers gave $31 million, and the National Education Association contributed $30 million.  The NRA are a bunch of cheapskates in comparison.  Which groups are really buying influence in Congress?

What has Big Education done for school safety, other than making schools “gun free zones,” turning them into target-rich environments?  Not only are they not protecting their students, but they are also leaving their union dues-paying teachers vulnerable in school shootings.  Why doesn’t Big Education care about teachers and students?

Why do these shootings almost always happen in “gun free zones”?  Would a bank or jewelry store ever declare itself a “gun-free zone”?  What about any government building in the country?  Does this make sense?

Members of Congress bray about the evils of guns and how arming teachers is a bad thing.  Yet their workplace is surrounded by armed guards and metal-detectors.  Many of them travel with armed escorts.  Governors and big-city mayors surround themselves with armed security, at work and at home.  Why won’t they protect children with the same zeal?

When elected officials eliminate armed guards from the U.S. or state capitols and declare them “gun-free zones,” they can join the discussion of arming teachers.  Why doesn’t CNN or any other media outlet ask elected officials to explain this hypocrisy?

Why are conceal-carry teachers a bad idea?  Aren’t they similar to air marshals?  Have air marshals accidentally shot passengers?  Or children who also fly on airplanes?  Why do we protect airplanes in a way we won’t protect schools?

Some pilots are armed, not all – just as some teachers or other school employees, not all, could be armed.  Are pilots accidentally shooting passengers or each other?  They are the last line of defense against another 9-11.  Why is there no last line of defense for our children if a shooter gets into a school?

If the NRA had been abolished years ago, would Sandy Hook have been prevented?  Would the Parkland shooting not have happened?  What about Columbine?  Or Aurora?  Or the Pulse nightclub?  Would Chicago be murder-free and safe?  Eliminating the NRA would have as much effect on murder rates as getting rid of SUVs would have on the climate.

If gun control is such an important issue to Democrats, why didn’t they do something when they had the chance?  From 2009 to 2011, they controlled Congress and the White House.  Yet they did nothing when they had the opportunity.  Why not?

Columbine happened on Bill Clinton’s watch, Sandy Hook on Barack Obama’s watch.  What did they do to stop these national tragedies?  Why don’t they share the blame for their inaction?  If Obama could “slow the rise of the oceans,” why couldn’t he end gun violence?  Has any reporter asked him?

If the age for owning a firearm is raised to age 21, should that also be the minimum age for military service?  Or an abortion?  Or a driver’s license?  Or voting?  Cars and abortions are dangerous and deadly, too.

How old was James Hodgkinson, the congressional baseball shooter?  Or Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter?  Hint: Both were older than 21.  How would an age restriction have stopped them?

Why are there armed guards at museums and jewelry stores? At sports stadiums, airports, and concert venues?  But not at schools.  Are paintings and watches more valuable than children?

How long does the average school shooting last?  How long does it take first responders to arrive on the scene?  What happens at the school before help arrives – especially if no teachers are armed?  Can anyone refute the axiom, “When seconds count, help is minutes away”?

President Trump held his own listening forum, to hear all points of view, unlike CNN’s forum, which was one-sided.  The president had a few notes.  Big media were obsessed with that.  Don’t TV news anchors and former presidents read from teleprompters?  Didn’t the last president use a teleprompter to speak in a sixth grade classroom?

These are all interesting questions worthy of discussion, particularly in a forum like a CNN town hall with a national audience.  Yet that will never happen.  Why not?  Is this a problem to be solved or simply a political issue to be exploited?

Lots of questions.  Few answers.  If the left wants a rational discussion of the Second Amendment and school safety, perhaps some of these questions need to be asked and answered.  Otherwise, it’s cheap talk and virtue-signaling…while waiting for the next school shooting.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.



Source link

The Hezb'allah Threat in the Tri-Border Area


The Tri-Border Area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, also referred to as the Triple Frontier, is host to significant activity by various terrorist groups and criminal organizations.  One of them is the Shia jihadist group Hezb’allah, which has used the region for fundraising and training, and as a means by which to carry out attacks in South America.

The Tri-Border Area forms at the convergence of the Iguazú and Paraná rivers.  It covers an area of roughly 965 square miles and is surrounded by jungle.  In includes the Brazilian city of Foz do Iguaçu, the Paraguayan city of Ciudad del Este, and the Argentine city of Puerto Iguazú.

The Tri-Border Area is attractive to terrorist groups and criminal organizations for a number of reasons.  In the period between 1971 and 2001, the population of the Tri-Border Area grew from 60,000 to 700,000.  The construction of the Itaipú hydroelectric plant was an important driver of this growth.  Such rapid population growth in the region contributed to a lack of infrastructure needed to regulate the high degree of increased commercial activity and border crossings, which has made the area significantly more difficult for law enforcement to police.

The Tri-Border Area has a large Arab population.  Estimates of the Arab population in the region range from 20,000 to 30,000, with most residing in Foz do Iguaçu, as well as a large number in Ciudad del Este.  About 90 percent of that population is of Lebanese origin.  The Arab community in the region is tightly knit and has its own schools and clubs.  This makes it difficult for law enforcement to penetrate the community, which makes the region an ideal operations base for Arabic-speaking terrorist or criminal groups.

The surrounding jungle provides another reason to make the region appealing to terrorist groups and criminal organizations.  As jungles are difficult to penetrate, they are a good place for groups to hide bases, training camps, drug plantations, laboratories, and clandestine runways.  An example of this is how the Amazon has been used to shelter dozens of runways and the Paraná River has been used regularly for illicit traffic. 

In addition to the conditions that make the region attractive to criminal organizations and terrorist groups in general, there are reasons why it has attracted Hezb’allah specifically.  One reason is the relationship between Hezb’allah and the Iranian government.  In 1982, the Iranian government held a meeting in Tehran where its officials decided that they would use proxy terrorist groups to export their revolution abroad and use Iranian embassies and Shia mosques to facilitate that goal.  Several months after that meeting, Mohsen Rabbani was sent by the Iranian regime to Argentina as a commercial attaché.  Rabbani’s public reason for being there was to inspect livestock, but the covert reason was to promote an Iranian-backed presence in the area.

Hezb’allah’s presence in the Tri-Border Area dates back to the 1980s, when it first established logistical and financial cells in the region.  Hezb’allah has utilized its presence in the region as a means of fundraising.  A 2005 Paraguayan intelligence report reported that approximately 20 million dollars are collected in the region each year to finance Hezb’allah and Hamas.  A major portion of the money transfers in the region are done through informal value transfer systems, such as the hawala system, rather than by a standard wire transfer.  As such, they are difficult for law enforcement to trace.

Hezb’allah has also been involved in various activities as a means of fundraising.  One of these is the sale of counterfeit products including pirated software, music, and films.  Remittances have all been used as a means to mask contributions to terrorism.  According to the former head of United States Southern Command, Gen. John F. Kelly, the Lebanese Shia diaspora in the Tri-Border Area “may generate as much as tens of millions of dollars for Hezbollah through both licit and illicit means.” 

Hezb’allah has also been smuggling weapons to Brazilian criminal gangs.  Hezb’allah has been providing the Brazilian gang First Capital Command (PCC) with weapons while also acting as an intermediary in the sale of explosives that the PCC had stolen from Paraguay.  In exchange for this, the PCC offers protection in Brazil’s prisons for inmates of Lebanese origin.

Hezb’allah has been heavily involved in the narcotics trade in the region, including smuggling cocaine.  In June 2017, a Lebanese Paraguayan man with ties to Hezb’allah named Ali Issa Chamas was arrested in the Tri-Border Area for drug-trafficking after being caught at Ciudad del Este’s international airport trying to smuggle 39 kilograms of cocaine hidden inside 27 boxes of plastic wrap to the United States.

In addition to fundraising to help carry out terrorist attacks abroad, Hezb’allah has also used the Tri-Border Area as a means by which to carry out attacks within South America.  The first example of this was on March 17, 1992, when a car bomb exploded in front of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people and injuring 242.  Hezb’allah identified the attack as retaliation for the death of its leader, Abbas al-Musawi, who had been killed a month prior in an attack by the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon.

On July 18, 1994, Hezb’allah carried out another bombing in Buenos Aires, this time against the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association (AMIA) building.  The attack caused the deaths of 85 people and the injury of 151 people, as well as substantial property damage.  Several calls were made via pay phones in the vicinity of the AMIA building on the day of the attack placed to a single cell phone subscriber located in Foz do Iguaçu in the Brazilian portion of the Tri-Border Area.

Additional evidence suggested that Foz do Iguaçu may have been used as a base of operations for preparing the attacks.  Samuel Salman el-Reda, a Lebanese-Colombian man who was the logistics coordinator for both the Israeli embassy bombing and the AMIA bombing, owned a house in Foz do Iguaçu.  He lived there until the AMIA bombing, at which point he fled to Lebanon.

Hezb’allah has used its presence in the Tri-Border Area to engage in terrorist attacks and to carry out fundraising activities, including by illicit means, to carry out terrorist attacks abroad.  The group has maintained a presence in this region since the 1980s and remains a security threat to this very day.

Zachary Leshin is a former congressional staffer who has worked extensively in foreign policy.  He recently graduated with a Master’s in statecraft and national security from the Institute of World Politics.

The Tri-Border Area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, also referred to as the Triple Frontier, is host to significant activity by various terrorist groups and criminal organizations.  One of them is the Shia jihadist group Hezb’allah, which has used the region for fundraising and training, and as a means by which to carry out attacks in South America.

The Tri-Border Area forms at the convergence of the Iguazú and Paraná rivers.  It covers an area of roughly 965 square miles and is surrounded by jungle.  In includes the Brazilian city of Foz do Iguaçu, the Paraguayan city of Ciudad del Este, and the Argentine city of Puerto Iguazú.

The Tri-Border Area is attractive to terrorist groups and criminal organizations for a number of reasons.  In the period between 1971 and 2001, the population of the Tri-Border Area grew from 60,000 to 700,000.  The construction of the Itaipú hydroelectric plant was an important driver of this growth.  Such rapid population growth in the region contributed to a lack of infrastructure needed to regulate the high degree of increased commercial activity and border crossings, which has made the area significantly more difficult for law enforcement to police.

The Tri-Border Area has a large Arab population.  Estimates of the Arab population in the region range from 20,000 to 30,000, with most residing in Foz do Iguaçu, as well as a large number in Ciudad del Este.  About 90 percent of that population is of Lebanese origin.  The Arab community in the region is tightly knit and has its own schools and clubs.  This makes it difficult for law enforcement to penetrate the community, which makes the region an ideal operations base for Arabic-speaking terrorist or criminal groups.

The surrounding jungle provides another reason to make the region appealing to terrorist groups and criminal organizations.  As jungles are difficult to penetrate, they are a good place for groups to hide bases, training camps, drug plantations, laboratories, and clandestine runways.  An example of this is how the Amazon has been used to shelter dozens of runways and the Paraná River has been used regularly for illicit traffic. 

In addition to the conditions that make the region attractive to criminal organizations and terrorist groups in general, there are reasons why it has attracted Hezb’allah specifically.  One reason is the relationship between Hezb’allah and the Iranian government.  In 1982, the Iranian government held a meeting in Tehran where its officials decided that they would use proxy terrorist groups to export their revolution abroad and use Iranian embassies and Shia mosques to facilitate that goal.  Several months after that meeting, Mohsen Rabbani was sent by the Iranian regime to Argentina as a commercial attaché.  Rabbani’s public reason for being there was to inspect livestock, but the covert reason was to promote an Iranian-backed presence in the area.

Hezb’allah’s presence in the Tri-Border Area dates back to the 1980s, when it first established logistical and financial cells in the region.  Hezb’allah has utilized its presence in the region as a means of fundraising.  A 2005 Paraguayan intelligence report reported that approximately 20 million dollars are collected in the region each year to finance Hezb’allah and Hamas.  A major portion of the money transfers in the region are done through informal value transfer systems, such as the hawala system, rather than by a standard wire transfer.  As such, they are difficult for law enforcement to trace.

Hezb’allah has also been involved in various activities as a means of fundraising.  One of these is the sale of counterfeit products including pirated software, music, and films.  Remittances have all been used as a means to mask contributions to terrorism.  According to the former head of United States Southern Command, Gen. John F. Kelly, the Lebanese Shia diaspora in the Tri-Border Area “may generate as much as tens of millions of dollars for Hezbollah through both licit and illicit means.” 

Hezb’allah has also been smuggling weapons to Brazilian criminal gangs.  Hezb’allah has been providing the Brazilian gang First Capital Command (PCC) with weapons while also acting as an intermediary in the sale of explosives that the PCC had stolen from Paraguay.  In exchange for this, the PCC offers protection in Brazil’s prisons for inmates of Lebanese origin.

Hezb’allah has been heavily involved in the narcotics trade in the region, including smuggling cocaine.  In June 2017, a Lebanese Paraguayan man with ties to Hezb’allah named Ali Issa Chamas was arrested in the Tri-Border Area for drug-trafficking after being caught at Ciudad del Este’s international airport trying to smuggle 39 kilograms of cocaine hidden inside 27 boxes of plastic wrap to the United States.

In addition to fundraising to help carry out terrorist attacks abroad, Hezb’allah has also used the Tri-Border Area as a means by which to carry out attacks within South America.  The first example of this was on March 17, 1992, when a car bomb exploded in front of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people and injuring 242.  Hezb’allah identified the attack as retaliation for the death of its leader, Abbas al-Musawi, who had been killed a month prior in an attack by the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon.

On July 18, 1994, Hezb’allah carried out another bombing in Buenos Aires, this time against the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association (AMIA) building.  The attack caused the deaths of 85 people and the injury of 151 people, as well as substantial property damage.  Several calls were made via pay phones in the vicinity of the AMIA building on the day of the attack placed to a single cell phone subscriber located in Foz do Iguaçu in the Brazilian portion of the Tri-Border Area.

Additional evidence suggested that Foz do Iguaçu may have been used as a base of operations for preparing the attacks.  Samuel Salman el-Reda, a Lebanese-Colombian man who was the logistics coordinator for both the Israeli embassy bombing and the AMIA bombing, owned a house in Foz do Iguaçu.  He lived there until the AMIA bombing, at which point he fled to Lebanon.

Hezb’allah has used its presence in the Tri-Border Area to engage in terrorist attacks and to carry out fundraising activities, including by illicit means, to carry out terrorist attacks abroad.  The group has maintained a presence in this region since the 1980s and remains a security threat to this very day.

Zachary Leshin is a former congressional staffer who has worked extensively in foreign policy.  He recently graduated with a Master’s in statecraft and national security from the Institute of World Politics.



Source link

Sheriff Israel: Parkland's Barney Fife


The photo car says it all about Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel: his self-serving vanity, his shallow and blatant political ambitions, and his insensitive self-absorption visible in the wake of the Parkland school shooting that left 17 dead.  Police cars are for patrolling the community, not for the political self-promotion perpetrated by Sheriff Israel in 2015:

A Broward County sheriff’s spokeswoman confirmed vehicle wraps featuring a large image of Sheriff Scott Israel, which cost taxpayers $12,500 in total to cover five Ford Focus vehicles, have been removed.


The move came days after a Local 10 News report on the cars in which one of Israel’s opponents, retired Broward Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Willie Jones, condemned them as a campaign ploy financed by the public[.] …


Broward Collision was paid $2,500 per car for wrapping the vehicles.  Elections office records show that just days before the work had begun Israel accepted $2,000 in campaign contributions tied to Broward Collision, including $1,000 from the business and another $1,000 in the name of a relative of owner Keith Petron.   

It was the same kind of bloviating vanity that led Sheriff Israel to appear on CNN’s gun control town hall, in the full knowledge that his deputies showed cowardice by not entering the Parkland high school, where an armed killer would eventually leave 17 dead.  He blamed the NRA and browbeat NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch for pointing out that gun ownership is a constitutional right and that it was law enforcement and not the NRA that failed to heed the scores of warning signs about what was to happen:

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, a big fan of gun control, sensed an opportunity to pile on and deflect a little attention from his own agency’s failings.  After survivor and student organizer Emma Gonzalez confronted Loesch with a nonsensical question about making it harder to obtain automatic weapons and Loesch shut it down, Israel stepped in:


“I understand you’re standing up for the NRA and I understand that’s what you’re supposed to do.  But you just told this group of people that you’re standing up for them, you’re not standing up for them until you say I want less weapons.”

Unfortunately, Sheriff Israel never understood what he was supposed to do, which was to show the leadership necessary to protect his citizens – and particularly their children – from armed predators.  Instead of doing his job or finding out what went wrong at Parkland, he pointed fingers at everyone but himself, taking the time to bask in the light of a CNN town hall, soaking up the free publicity for his ego as the citizens he failed were burying their dead children.  He repeatedly dodged rather than accepted his responsibility and culpability for the Parkland massacre:

“I gave him a gun.  I gave him a badge.  I gave him the training.  If he didn’t have the heart to go in, that’s not my responsibility.”  So says Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, a man atop a corrupted institution which failed its citizens in not just one moment, but instance after instance where the laws and policies put in place by the representatives of the people should have been more than sufficient to stop the massacre of February 14th[.] … [W]e already know enough to argue this is not one failure by a school guard who’d earned enough time for retirement, but that it included at least three more Broward deputies, who were hiding behind their cars outside the school when neighboring Coral Springs police arrived.  That Israel is so vociferous in his blame for others – for the NRA on CNN’s town hall, for the school guard as a lone actor, for others in his organization for failing to handle repeated reports of the shooter’s red flags – is an indication of how much he wants these questions to go away.


When Israel was previously accused of corruption, he responded with a paraphrased quote from Game of Thrones: “Lions don’t care about the opinions of sheep.”

Sheriff Israel is a cowardly lion, the coward of the county, the coward of Broward.  One only wishes his heart were as big as his ego.  He made that remark about lions and sheep two years ago in response to charges of corruption in his office:

Two years ago, the Sun Sentinel reported that Israel was rewarding top political supporters by giving them and their family members cushy jobs doing public relations and community outreach for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.  One such position, outreach manager, paid out a salary of $78,489.  The person who got that job was the husband of Israel’s campaign manager.

Sheriff Israel is an ambitious but incompetent political hack.  He has repeatedly spouted cartoonish drivel, such as the bizarre answer he gave to CNN’s Jake Tapper last Sunday:

The moment on CNN’s State of the Union when all of America realized that the Sheriff’s Department of Broward County, Fla., had been run by a lunatic since 2012:


TAPPER:  The last question, sir.  Do you think that if the Broward Sheriff’s Office had done things differently, this shooting might not have happened?


ISRAEL:  Listen, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, O.J. Simpson would still be in the record books.


TAPPER:  I don’t know what that means.  There’s 17 dead people, and there’s a whole long list of things your department could have been done differently.

For the record, Sheriff Israel, O.J. Simpson is still in the record books.  Unfortunately, Sheriff Israel is still sheriff.  If Sheriff Israel has any decency, he should resign.  He is Parkland’s Barney Fife, except for the fact that the iconic TV sheriff was at least honest and not a corrupt hack.

Government has one prime function, and that is to protect its citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic.  That is what law enforcement is supposed to do, from the local police, who went to the killer’s home multiple times before the shooting, to the FBI, which was too busy looking for phantom Russians to heed or care about the cries for help from Parkland.

The fault, dear sheriff, lies not in the NRA or our stars, but in yourself and others like you, who take their salaries from the taxpayers and use taxpayer dollars – not to protect them, but to put your picture on the cars they paid for.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

The photo car says it all about Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel: his self-serving vanity, his shallow and blatant political ambitions, and his insensitive self-absorption visible in the wake of the Parkland school shooting that left 17 dead.  Police cars are for patrolling the community, not for the political self-promotion perpetrated by Sheriff Israel in 2015:

A Broward County sheriff’s spokeswoman confirmed vehicle wraps featuring a large image of Sheriff Scott Israel, which cost taxpayers $12,500 in total to cover five Ford Focus vehicles, have been removed.


The move came days after a Local 10 News report on the cars in which one of Israel’s opponents, retired Broward Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Willie Jones, condemned them as a campaign ploy financed by the public[.] …


Broward Collision was paid $2,500 per car for wrapping the vehicles.  Elections office records show that just days before the work had begun Israel accepted $2,000 in campaign contributions tied to Broward Collision, including $1,000 from the business and another $1,000 in the name of a relative of owner Keith Petron.   

It was the same kind of bloviating vanity that led Sheriff Israel to appear on CNN’s gun control town hall, in the full knowledge that his deputies showed cowardice by not entering the Parkland high school, where an armed killer would eventually leave 17 dead.  He blamed the NRA and browbeat NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch for pointing out that gun ownership is a constitutional right and that it was law enforcement and not the NRA that failed to heed the scores of warning signs about what was to happen:

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, a big fan of gun control, sensed an opportunity to pile on and deflect a little attention from his own agency’s failings.  After survivor and student organizer Emma Gonzalez confronted Loesch with a nonsensical question about making it harder to obtain automatic weapons and Loesch shut it down, Israel stepped in:


“I understand you’re standing up for the NRA and I understand that’s what you’re supposed to do.  But you just told this group of people that you’re standing up for them, you’re not standing up for them until you say I want less weapons.”

Unfortunately, Sheriff Israel never understood what he was supposed to do, which was to show the leadership necessary to protect his citizens – and particularly their children – from armed predators.  Instead of doing his job or finding out what went wrong at Parkland, he pointed fingers at everyone but himself, taking the time to bask in the light of a CNN town hall, soaking up the free publicity for his ego as the citizens he failed were burying their dead children.  He repeatedly dodged rather than accepted his responsibility and culpability for the Parkland massacre:

“I gave him a gun.  I gave him a badge.  I gave him the training.  If he didn’t have the heart to go in, that’s not my responsibility.”  So says Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, a man atop a corrupted institution which failed its citizens in not just one moment, but instance after instance where the laws and policies put in place by the representatives of the people should have been more than sufficient to stop the massacre of February 14th[.] … [W]e already know enough to argue this is not one failure by a school guard who’d earned enough time for retirement, but that it included at least three more Broward deputies, who were hiding behind their cars outside the school when neighboring Coral Springs police arrived.  That Israel is so vociferous in his blame for others – for the NRA on CNN’s town hall, for the school guard as a lone actor, for others in his organization for failing to handle repeated reports of the shooter’s red flags – is an indication of how much he wants these questions to go away.


When Israel was previously accused of corruption, he responded with a paraphrased quote from Game of Thrones: “Lions don’t care about the opinions of sheep.”

Sheriff Israel is a cowardly lion, the coward of the county, the coward of Broward.  One only wishes his heart were as big as his ego.  He made that remark about lions and sheep two years ago in response to charges of corruption in his office:

Two years ago, the Sun Sentinel reported that Israel was rewarding top political supporters by giving them and their family members cushy jobs doing public relations and community outreach for the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.  One such position, outreach manager, paid out a salary of $78,489.  The person who got that job was the husband of Israel’s campaign manager.

Sheriff Israel is an ambitious but incompetent political hack.  He has repeatedly spouted cartoonish drivel, such as the bizarre answer he gave to CNN’s Jake Tapper last Sunday:

The moment on CNN’s State of the Union when all of America realized that the Sheriff’s Department of Broward County, Fla., had been run by a lunatic since 2012:


TAPPER:  The last question, sir.  Do you think that if the Broward Sheriff’s Office had done things differently, this shooting might not have happened?


ISRAEL:  Listen, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, O.J. Simpson would still be in the record books.


TAPPER:  I don’t know what that means.  There’s 17 dead people, and there’s a whole long list of things your department could have been done differently.

For the record, Sheriff Israel, O.J. Simpson is still in the record books.  Unfortunately, Sheriff Israel is still sheriff.  If Sheriff Israel has any decency, he should resign.  He is Parkland’s Barney Fife, except for the fact that the iconic TV sheriff was at least honest and not a corrupt hack.

Government has one prime function, and that is to protect its citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic.  That is what law enforcement is supposed to do, from the local police, who went to the killer’s home multiple times before the shooting, to the FBI, which was too busy looking for phantom Russians to heed or care about the cries for help from Parkland.

The fault, dear sheriff, lies not in the NRA or our stars, but in yourself and others like you, who take their salaries from the taxpayers and use taxpayer dollars – not to protect them, but to put your picture on the cars they paid for.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

Dispatches from Deep inside Progressiville


In the 1979 suspense thriller When a Stranger Calls, a legendary movie reveal on the order of The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects occurs at the film’s climax.  Having been terrorized by sinister, anonymous phone calls for most of the film’s running time, the babysitter suddenly finds out that “the calls are coming from inside the house!”

These are words – or words to that effect – that many in my community might collectively gasp if they knew how I voted on November 8, 2016.  (Tar and feathering to follow.)

I live and work in a passionately progressive sub-hamlet of a major metropolitan city in California.  (OK, it’s Los Angeles.)  I voted for Trump.  According to the zeitgeist, those two facts shouldn’t even be in proximity to one another on the page – let alone be true in real life.

Per the modern liberal California mindset, like the menacing stranger in the film, I am odious, insidious, and nefarious.  These are adjectives of which I now share joint custody with the president – ever since poor-sport leftists, in their pique and petulance, decided that being Trump and voting for him are effectively the same thing.  I am repugnant, by definition.  So I am hiding in plain sight in my community – effectively closeted because of my political beliefs.

On November 9, 2016, the day after The Election That Dare Not Speak Its Name, the Los Angeles Unified School District issued a memo from the superintendent of schools acknowledging that “emotions are running extremely high” following the election and that “there may be anxiety and concerns among our students.”  The memo went on to say additional counseling services would be available and that we should encourage students to “embrace diversity, renounce intolerance, and respect differing ideologies,” especially “when the need for healing and common understanding are greatest.”

Credit is due to the superintendent of schools for moderation in tone, particularly considering the hair-on-fire hysteria of much of the left, but it’s nonetheless noteworthy that the second largest school district in America saw the need to issue a memorandum about how teachers, counselors, and parents should help children cope with the results – of a democratic election.

The very same Day after the End Times, the well-meaning principal of our elementary school posted a school-wide memo via email that included a link to a Huffington Post article entitled “What Do We Tell The Children?”  The virtue-signaling and hypocrisy of this article are too myriad to quote, but suffice to say that honoring the outcome of the election (yeah, right) and fighting bigotry (except the bigotry that reviles differing viewpoints, of course) were just two of the tone-deaf directives urged by Ariana Huffington’s hard-left website.  This is the same worthy successor to The Weekly World News that relegated Trump to the entertainment section over a year before the election – then reversed itself six months later with an imperious and embarrassing editorial by AHUFF herself.

Oops.

One measure of how left-leaning my community is?  The entire school my kids attend gathered in the auditorium to watch Obama’s inauguration in 2009 – enraptured.  One guess as to whether that was reprised in January of 2017.  Too triggering, I imagine.  Who wants to see a creature bent on our destruction put his hand – or his claw – on a Bible?

And what rough beast, his hour come round at last, slouches toward Washington to be sworn in?

Signs of the burgeoning “resistance” were everywhere in my community.  A makeshift “revolution wall” popped up at a nearby crossroads with DIY signs condemning  “Agent Orange.”  Children as young as second grade, worried about the evil president and his desire to hurt all foreigners.  A local vegan restaurant painted a huge Shepard Fairey-like mural of Trump on its side with the word “DISOBEY” across it.  Kindergarten-age children in “pussy hats” shopped at the local Whole Foods with their parents, having attended the Women’s March (that excluded pro-life women) the weekend prior.  A middle-schooler in my carpool commented that his family had decided not to share Christmas with their close relatives who were “Trump people.”

It was easy to see from what source these kids’ talking points and attitudes originated, if you had even a moment with their parents.  These otherwise often delightful and engaging people were wont to suddenly start riffing on the nightmare we are now enduring at the tiny hands of the fascist, racist, sexist, misogynist POTUS.  

I became expert in nodding earnestly and offering up innocuous commentary such as “right?” when stuck in these one-sided rants.  I decided I could join in honestly when the conversation, such as it was, turned to Trump’s impolitic tweeting, his clumsy rhetoric, or his vulgarianism – things I generally think are off-putting but could honestly care less about.  I learned to look for the subtle signs of a MAGA in my midst.  Anyone not randomly alluding to the American Armageddon in casual conversation, not re-laminating the Stronger Together bumper sticker to the family Prius, or not dressing their kids in old Obama HOPE t-shirts might be a stealth Trump supporter.  

One day at the beach, a crew of new friends and my family all suddenly stopped, sensing some ineluctable shift in social electricity.  We turned to each other for what seemed an eternity of apprehension – then threw caution to the wind and asked tentatively, “Wait, are you…did you…?”

Maybe it was that there, on the Pacific Coast, with the ocean at our backs like a corner table at an Italian mob restaurant, we felt safe enough to ask the question that could otherwise legitimize shunning in our community.  Once we had all unmasked ourselves and had our Come to Donald moment, the freedom to talk was like the euphoria of finding other people when you were young who were really into the same loud, weird, awesome band everyone else hated.

Under the tyranny of California sunshine that weather-shames you into always being outside, we found joy in hammering diaper-wearing lefties, pussy hat hypocrites, the fake news media, Empress Pantsuit, and Barry-O’Trojan Horse to our hearts’ content.  Thereafter, we would seek each other out on the down-low – always in private – in an effort to find some time to speak freely about our president, Captain Middle Finger.  We formed a secret society of sorts, just to be able to talk openly about the president of the United States of America.

But some social casualties were inevitable.  I gave up social media as the many blood pressures I was raising caused me to shed my Pollyanna view of respectful dialogue.  A friend of decades and his wife stopped inviting me and my family to their annual New Year’s Day brunch because of how I voted, and an even older friend was shamed by his wife for inviting me to their home – which I have been doing since Jane Fonda sold exercise videos.

The election of Donald Trump has been a gigantic litmus test for America.  It is said that true character is revealed only under duress.  If that’s so, then this country is filled with a whole lot of people who present well in the day-to-day world when things are going their way.  But when the fates don’t favor them, they’re revealed to be namby-pamby embarrassments, with dubious reasoning skills, largely indefensible positions, hearts full of hypocrisy and hatred, and a dumb-assery that is fast becoming legend.  (Here’s to you, Joss Whedon, Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep, Judd Apatow, Kathy Griffin, Rosie O’Donnell, LeBron James, Eminem, Chelsea Handler, Stephen King, etc.)

But maybe I should really be thanking these folks instead of mocking them.  Thank God for the left!  (Or maybe: “Thank Science for the left” – in the progressive translation…)  After all, but for the north star of the left’s virtue, I would surely wander blind in a desolate wasteland of extreme bias, moral rot, and random cruelty to other humans.  We all would.

Even so, one wonders how many silent Trump voters exist in the spaces adjacent to the caterwaul of leftist outrage?

How many calls are coming from inside the house?

Image: John Morgan via Flickr.

In the 1979 suspense thriller When a Stranger Calls, a legendary movie reveal on the order of The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects occurs at the film’s climax.  Having been terrorized by sinister, anonymous phone calls for most of the film’s running time, the babysitter suddenly finds out that “the calls are coming from inside the house!”

These are words – or words to that effect – that many in my community might collectively gasp if they knew how I voted on November 8, 2016.  (Tar and feathering to follow.)

I live and work in a passionately progressive sub-hamlet of a major metropolitan city in California.  (OK, it’s Los Angeles.)  I voted for Trump.  According to the zeitgeist, those two facts shouldn’t even be in proximity to one another on the page – let alone be true in real life.

Per the modern liberal California mindset, like the menacing stranger in the film, I am odious, insidious, and nefarious.  These are adjectives of which I now share joint custody with the president – ever since poor-sport leftists, in their pique and petulance, decided that being Trump and voting for him are effectively the same thing.  I am repugnant, by definition.  So I am hiding in plain sight in my community – effectively closeted because of my political beliefs.

On November 9, 2016, the day after The Election That Dare Not Speak Its Name, the Los Angeles Unified School District issued a memo from the superintendent of schools acknowledging that “emotions are running extremely high” following the election and that “there may be anxiety and concerns among our students.”  The memo went on to say additional counseling services would be available and that we should encourage students to “embrace diversity, renounce intolerance, and respect differing ideologies,” especially “when the need for healing and common understanding are greatest.”

Credit is due to the superintendent of schools for moderation in tone, particularly considering the hair-on-fire hysteria of much of the left, but it’s nonetheless noteworthy that the second largest school district in America saw the need to issue a memorandum about how teachers, counselors, and parents should help children cope with the results – of a democratic election.

The very same Day after the End Times, the well-meaning principal of our elementary school posted a school-wide memo via email that included a link to a Huffington Post article entitled “What Do We Tell The Children?”  The virtue-signaling and hypocrisy of this article are too myriad to quote, but suffice to say that honoring the outcome of the election (yeah, right) and fighting bigotry (except the bigotry that reviles differing viewpoints, of course) were just two of the tone-deaf directives urged by Ariana Huffington’s hard-left website.  This is the same worthy successor to The Weekly World News that relegated Trump to the entertainment section over a year before the election – then reversed itself six months later with an imperious and embarrassing editorial by AHUFF herself.

Oops.

One measure of how left-leaning my community is?  The entire school my kids attend gathered in the auditorium to watch Obama’s inauguration in 2009 – enraptured.  One guess as to whether that was reprised in January of 2017.  Too triggering, I imagine.  Who wants to see a creature bent on our destruction put his hand – or his claw – on a Bible?

And what rough beast, his hour come round at last, slouches toward Washington to be sworn in?

Signs of the burgeoning “resistance” were everywhere in my community.  A makeshift “revolution wall” popped up at a nearby crossroads with DIY signs condemning  “Agent Orange.”  Children as young as second grade, worried about the evil president and his desire to hurt all foreigners.  A local vegan restaurant painted a huge Shepard Fairey-like mural of Trump on its side with the word “DISOBEY” across it.  Kindergarten-age children in “pussy hats” shopped at the local Whole Foods with their parents, having attended the Women’s March (that excluded pro-life women) the weekend prior.  A middle-schooler in my carpool commented that his family had decided not to share Christmas with their close relatives who were “Trump people.”

It was easy to see from what source these kids’ talking points and attitudes originated, if you had even a moment with their parents.  These otherwise often delightful and engaging people were wont to suddenly start riffing on the nightmare we are now enduring at the tiny hands of the fascist, racist, sexist, misogynist POTUS.  

I became expert in nodding earnestly and offering up innocuous commentary such as “right?” when stuck in these one-sided rants.  I decided I could join in honestly when the conversation, such as it was, turned to Trump’s impolitic tweeting, his clumsy rhetoric, or his vulgarianism – things I generally think are off-putting but could honestly care less about.  I learned to look for the subtle signs of a MAGA in my midst.  Anyone not randomly alluding to the American Armageddon in casual conversation, not re-laminating the Stronger Together bumper sticker to the family Prius, or not dressing their kids in old Obama HOPE t-shirts might be a stealth Trump supporter.  

One day at the beach, a crew of new friends and my family all suddenly stopped, sensing some ineluctable shift in social electricity.  We turned to each other for what seemed an eternity of apprehension – then threw caution to the wind and asked tentatively, “Wait, are you…did you…?”

Maybe it was that there, on the Pacific Coast, with the ocean at our backs like a corner table at an Italian mob restaurant, we felt safe enough to ask the question that could otherwise legitimize shunning in our community.  Once we had all unmasked ourselves and had our Come to Donald moment, the freedom to talk was like the euphoria of finding other people when you were young who were really into the same loud, weird, awesome band everyone else hated.

Under the tyranny of California sunshine that weather-shames you into always being outside, we found joy in hammering diaper-wearing lefties, pussy hat hypocrites, the fake news media, Empress Pantsuit, and Barry-O’Trojan Horse to our hearts’ content.  Thereafter, we would seek each other out on the down-low – always in private – in an effort to find some time to speak freely about our president, Captain Middle Finger.  We formed a secret society of sorts, just to be able to talk openly about the president of the United States of America.

But some social casualties were inevitable.  I gave up social media as the many blood pressures I was raising caused me to shed my Pollyanna view of respectful dialogue.  A friend of decades and his wife stopped inviting me and my family to their annual New Year’s Day brunch because of how I voted, and an even older friend was shamed by his wife for inviting me to their home – which I have been doing since Jane Fonda sold exercise videos.

The election of Donald Trump has been a gigantic litmus test for America.  It is said that true character is revealed only under duress.  If that’s so, then this country is filled with a whole lot of people who present well in the day-to-day world when things are going their way.  But when the fates don’t favor them, they’re revealed to be namby-pamby embarrassments, with dubious reasoning skills, largely indefensible positions, hearts full of hypocrisy and hatred, and a dumb-assery that is fast becoming legend.  (Here’s to you, Joss Whedon, Robert De Niro, Meryl Streep, Judd Apatow, Kathy Griffin, Rosie O’Donnell, LeBron James, Eminem, Chelsea Handler, Stephen King, etc.)

But maybe I should really be thanking these folks instead of mocking them.  Thank God for the left!  (Or maybe: “Thank Science for the left” – in the progressive translation…)  After all, but for the north star of the left’s virtue, I would surely wander blind in a desolate wasteland of extreme bias, moral rot, and random cruelty to other humans.  We all would.

Even so, one wonders how many silent Trump voters exist in the spaces adjacent to the caterwaul of leftist outrage?

How many calls are coming from inside the house?

Image: John Morgan via Flickr.



Source link

Parkland Kids: The Return of the Grieving Activist


According to many gun control advocates, 18-year-olds are too immature to handle guns – but are mature enough to advise us on gun policy.  Thus, we’re told we must “listen to the voices” of the young Parkland shooting survivors.  Not only that, but we’re not to question or oppose them because they’re young; they’re survivors; and, by golly, because it’s absolutely devastating to the anti-gun agenda!

There’s something truly reprehensible about this situation, and it’s not conservatives criticizing the positions of activist Parkland students such as David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez.  It’s that liberals are using the students as human props and human shields, letting them throw the punches and then condemning the assailed if they dare defend themselves.

Well, sorry, but as I wrote years ago in The Grieving Activist, if you want to grieve, grieve.  If you want to play politics, play politics.

But my sympathy for grieving ends when the use of grief as a political battering ram begins.

Now, putting minors on the front lines is not at all unprecedented.  The youngest U.S. naval captain was 12-year-old David Farragut, and the British would often have upper-class preteen boy officers aboard their warships, as accurately portrayed in the film Master and Commander.  But could you imagine if, after firing some salvos at French vessels and receiving a proportionate response, a British captain bellowed, “What do you think you’re doing?!  There are kids aboard this ship!”  Ridiculous.

But it’s no more ridiculous than doing likewise in our political campaigns – and, mind you, “campaign” is a military term, applied here because at issue is political warfare.  So put kids on the front lines if you wish, as the Nazis did in WWII’s waning days, but know they’re taking flak because you placed them in harm’s way.

This all is very calculated.  We know that CNN staged a town hall affair, cherry-picking the attendees and controlling the questions.  We know that, as pro-Second Amendment Parkland survivor Brandon Minoff related, the media are ignoring the voices of the pro-gun Parkland kids (so much for “listening to the children”).  Nonetheless, while this anti-gun operation may or may not have George Soros’s fingerprints all over it, as Sheriff David Clarke suggested, it’s also no doubt true that the student activists are “wildly motivated,” as CNN’s Alisyn Camerota put it in response to him.

Yet there’s an obvious question here: is it wise to have recently traumatized people advising on policy?  Would we let someone whose dog was just killed by a neighbor help determine punishment for cruelty to animals?  “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely,” as Ben Franklin warned.

Additionally, we’re a pretty immature civilization if we look to kids for policy advice.  There’s a reason why societies might traditionally have been governed by a council of (hopefully) wise elders: teen boys may sometimes have utility in warfare, but adolescent angst doesn’t make for sober heads.  Moreover, mainstream media love publishing articles about the impulsive “teen brain”; now they say we should bow before these brains’ latest impulses.  (Note: I instinctively knew that the “teen brain” thesis was nonsense, as this article explains, but immaturity is nonetheless a factor.)

Yet something else must be said about these “wildly motivated” teens.  To paraphrase late comedian Rodney Dangerfield, “They really care – about what, I have no idea!”

It’s fashionable to beatify survivors.  Endure a tragedy, and you’re suddenly a sainted soul whose motives are beyond reproach.  But while I’m sure many Parkland students are what we’d call, practically speaking, “good people,” I’m also sure about their character as a group.

They’re just people.

Their number includes the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Heck, we’re only talking about this issue right now because of a Parkland teen who attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSDHS) and who is not at all a good person (I won’t give him publicity by using his name).

Yet the mainstream media exalt Parkland students as fonts of wisdom – while simultaneously infantilizing them, saying they can condemn but not be criticized, offend but not be offended.  I’m different: realistic.  I’m thus going to exercise some logic here, even though it’s wholly out of fashion.

With approximately 3,000 Parkland teen survivors, what’s the probability that they’re all “good people”?  Oh, I’m sure a handful will go on to do great things and that most of the others will do good but average things.  Then there are the rest.  Whom might they include?

Well, without naming names, is it inconceivable that a few of the 3,000 might be Machiavellian enough to realize that the shooting’s aftermath is an opportunity for fame and possibly wealth and career-building?  This doesn’t mean they don’t have genuine anti-gun passions – they may, as people’s actions are often driven by multiple motivations, some noble and some ignoble – only that the primary impetus may be a more self-serving one.

And, actually, out of 3,000 people, it’s inconceivable that there wouldn’t be two or three of this mold.  Teens ain’t potted plants – they can be manipulative as well as meritorious.  Just ask “clock boy” Ahmed Mohamed about that.

The left can huff and puff about these observations, but it draws distinctions among gun crime survivors, too.  House majority whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was seriously wounded by a left-wing activist in last year’s congressional baseball shooting, and Colorado House minority leader Patrick Neville, also a Republican, survived the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.  But I don’t hear them trumpeted as voices “we must listen to.”  Why?  It could be what they have in common with the ignored Parkland pro-Second Amendment kids.

The latter, however, are just a few of the young voices about which leftists couldn’t care less.  Other examples are the Boy Scouts booed at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the six-year-old lad in a 2012 anti-Obama video whom liberals wanted dead, and the 650,000 babies they actually do manage to kill annually via prenatal infanticide.  And this does reflect the culture-of-death mentality: liberals want to hear young voices – until they become inconvenient.  At that point, their freedom of speech can be aborted.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

According to many gun control advocates, 18-year-olds are too immature to handle guns – but are mature enough to advise us on gun policy.  Thus, we’re told we must “listen to the voices” of the young Parkland shooting survivors.  Not only that, but we’re not to question or oppose them because they’re young; they’re survivors; and, by golly, because it’s absolutely devastating to the anti-gun agenda!

There’s something truly reprehensible about this situation, and it’s not conservatives criticizing the positions of activist Parkland students such as David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez.  It’s that liberals are using the students as human props and human shields, letting them throw the punches and then condemning the assailed if they dare defend themselves.

Well, sorry, but as I wrote years ago in The Grieving Activist, if you want to grieve, grieve.  If you want to play politics, play politics.

But my sympathy for grieving ends when the use of grief as a political battering ram begins.

Now, putting minors on the front lines is not at all unprecedented.  The youngest U.S. naval captain was 12-year-old David Farragut, and the British would often have upper-class preteen boy officers aboard their warships, as accurately portrayed in the film Master and Commander.  But could you imagine if, after firing some salvos at French vessels and receiving a proportionate response, a British captain bellowed, “What do you think you’re doing?!  There are kids aboard this ship!”  Ridiculous.

But it’s no more ridiculous than doing likewise in our political campaigns – and, mind you, “campaign” is a military term, applied here because at issue is political warfare.  So put kids on the front lines if you wish, as the Nazis did in WWII’s waning days, but know they’re taking flak because you placed them in harm’s way.

This all is very calculated.  We know that CNN staged a town hall affair, cherry-picking the attendees and controlling the questions.  We know that, as pro-Second Amendment Parkland survivor Brandon Minoff related, the media are ignoring the voices of the pro-gun Parkland kids (so much for “listening to the children”).  Nonetheless, while this anti-gun operation may or may not have George Soros’s fingerprints all over it, as Sheriff David Clarke suggested, it’s also no doubt true that the student activists are “wildly motivated,” as CNN’s Alisyn Camerota put it in response to him.

Yet there’s an obvious question here: is it wise to have recently traumatized people advising on policy?  Would we let someone whose dog was just killed by a neighbor help determine punishment for cruelty to animals?  “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely,” as Ben Franklin warned.

Additionally, we’re a pretty immature civilization if we look to kids for policy advice.  There’s a reason why societies might traditionally have been governed by a council of (hopefully) wise elders: teen boys may sometimes have utility in warfare, but adolescent angst doesn’t make for sober heads.  Moreover, mainstream media love publishing articles about the impulsive “teen brain”; now they say we should bow before these brains’ latest impulses.  (Note: I instinctively knew that the “teen brain” thesis was nonsense, as this article explains, but immaturity is nonetheless a factor.)

Yet something else must be said about these “wildly motivated” teens.  To paraphrase late comedian Rodney Dangerfield, “They really care – about what, I have no idea!”

It’s fashionable to beatify survivors.  Endure a tragedy, and you’re suddenly a sainted soul whose motives are beyond reproach.  But while I’m sure many Parkland students are what we’d call, practically speaking, “good people,” I’m also sure about their character as a group.

They’re just people.

Their number includes the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Heck, we’re only talking about this issue right now because of a Parkland teen who attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSDHS) and who is not at all a good person (I won’t give him publicity by using his name).

Yet the mainstream media exalt Parkland students as fonts of wisdom – while simultaneously infantilizing them, saying they can condemn but not be criticized, offend but not be offended.  I’m different: realistic.  I’m thus going to exercise some logic here, even though it’s wholly out of fashion.

With approximately 3,000 Parkland teen survivors, what’s the probability that they’re all “good people”?  Oh, I’m sure a handful will go on to do great things and that most of the others will do good but average things.  Then there are the rest.  Whom might they include?

Well, without naming names, is it inconceivable that a few of the 3,000 might be Machiavellian enough to realize that the shooting’s aftermath is an opportunity for fame and possibly wealth and career-building?  This doesn’t mean they don’t have genuine anti-gun passions – they may, as people’s actions are often driven by multiple motivations, some noble and some ignoble – only that the primary impetus may be a more self-serving one.

And, actually, out of 3,000 people, it’s inconceivable that there wouldn’t be two or three of this mold.  Teens ain’t potted plants – they can be manipulative as well as meritorious.  Just ask “clock boy” Ahmed Mohamed about that.

The left can huff and puff about these observations, but it draws distinctions among gun crime survivors, too.  House majority whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was seriously wounded by a left-wing activist in last year’s congressional baseball shooting, and Colorado House minority leader Patrick Neville, also a Republican, survived the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.  But I don’t hear them trumpeted as voices “we must listen to.”  Why?  It could be what they have in common with the ignored Parkland pro-Second Amendment kids.

The latter, however, are just a few of the young voices about which leftists couldn’t care less.  Other examples are the Boy Scouts booed at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the six-year-old lad in a 2012 anti-Obama video whom liberals wanted dead, and the 650,000 babies they actually do manage to kill annually via prenatal infanticide.  And this does reflect the culture-of-death mentality: liberals want to hear young voices – until they become inconvenient.  At that point, their freedom of speech can be aborted.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.



Source link

Stalking an Active Shooter


During the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida, four Broward County sheriff’s deputies, including a school resource officer, allegedly waited to enter Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School while children were being murdered inside.  If Sheriff Scott Israel’s investigation confirms that those officers failed to take action, they should be fired for abrogating their most sacred duty.

Police officers need to confront suspects immediately during an active shooter situation in a school or other public place.  Ideally, there should be at least two officers present to clear even a single room.  The search of a school is best done by a tactical team, but an active shooter is an exception to the rule.  In exigent circumstances, when there is a serious risk of death or bodily injury to others, police need to respond immediately, even if that means searching with a less than optimal number of officers.

The FBI has developed protocols for how law enforcement should respond to active shooters, and over 114,000 officers have already received Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training.  This training is designed to give officers the basic tactical formations and other techniques needed to clear a school with a limited number of officers.  When a mass shooting occurs, it is likely that the officers who respond will come from different departments and will have different levels of training, as was the case in Parkland.  The training is designed to allow officers who never worked together to enter schools, locate the shooter, and eliminate the threat.

All active shooter incidents are exigencies, where even a lone officer needs to take action.  When the attack is in a school, as in Parkland, the need for swift action is even greater.  Children are among the most defenseless and vulnerable people in our society, and the main role of government is to stop citizens from using force against each other.  It may seem harsh to criticize those four officers for not risking their lives and entering the school, but it appears they failed to fulfill a duty on which the public depends.

As a deputy sheriff with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, I once received a domestic disturbance call just as our patrol zones shifted to the east, so I responded knowing that my backup would probably be several minutes away.  As I approached the parking lot to the complainant’s community, the dispatcher updated the call to say she heard shots being fired.  I requested my backup to expedite and jogged to the townhouse.

As I walked up to the front of the building, a terrified woman burst through the front door toward me.  “He has a gun, and he’s going to shoot my kids.  Please, don’t let him kill my kids,” she pleaded.  I radioed dispatch that an armed man was threatening to murder children, then I drew my gun and shouldered my way through the front door.

I quickly cleared the bottom floor, then slowly ascended the stairs to the second floor.  The house was completely dark, and I held my flashlight in one hand and a .45 semi-automatic handgun in the other.  There was an open bedroom door at the end of the hall, so I moved toward it because it was the most immediate danger.  My pulse accelerated as I approached the door, not knowing where the suspect was or if the children were still alive.

I reached the room and saw a man lying flat on his back, blood pumping out of his chest, and a semiautomatic handgun on the floor near his right hand.  I could smell the gunpowder in the room, and the man looked dead.  I glanced around, but there was no sign of the children.  “Sheriff’s Office.  Kids, are you here?” I shouted.  A young boy, probably only five years old, popped up behind the bed, his eyes wide with fear.  A moment later, a second child peeked over the bed at me.  “Come to me,” I said and stepped into the room positioning myself between the man and the children as they moved around the bed.  “Run outside and find your mother,” I said, and they fled the room in their pajamas.

This was a crime scene, and I didn’t want to disturb the evidence, but I had to secure both the handgun and the man and then finish searching the house.  I bent down cautiously and grabbed the handgun.  As soon as I stood up, the man who I thought was dead bolted upright and screamed.  My knees felt weak from the surprise, and I took a step back, covering him with my gun.     

The man jumped up and ran from the room, blood spurting everywhere.  I chased him down the hallway and radioed that the suspect was fleeing.  I followed him down the stairs and out the front door, where the man stopped and confronted me.  I stuffed his gun in my waistband, covering him with my own, and ordered him to “get on the ground,” but he just babbled incoherently.  A second deputy arrived and tackled him, and we quickly subdued and handcuffed him.  I later learned that the gunshot was self-inflicted and that the man had had survived.

This incident illustrates the need to act from a disadvantaged tactical position when children are at risk.  I didn’t wait for my backup or take cover behind a car.  I knew that searching a dark two-story townhouse alone was dangerous, but the circumstances made this an exception, so I confronted the suspect alone.  If I didn’t, those children could have died.

In Parkland, it is unclear how many children those four deputies could have saved if they entered the school immediately, but they may have been able to stop the attack much sooner.  Even if the deputies who stayed outside the school while children died had poor training or little experience in lethal situations, they still failed to protect the lives of the innocent.  Sheriff Israel needs to conduct a transparent investigation and quickly fire any officers who failed to respond properly.  Not to harshly punish those officers for dereliction of duty is to undermine citizens’ trust in the police.

Jeffrey James Higgins is a retired DEA supervisory special agent and a former Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputy, with over 25 years of total law enforcement experience.  His recent writing and media appearances can be found at JeffreyJamesHiggins.com.

During the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida, four Broward County sheriff’s deputies, including a school resource officer, allegedly waited to enter Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School while children were being murdered inside.  If Sheriff Scott Israel’s investigation confirms that those officers failed to take action, they should be fired for abrogating their most sacred duty.

Police officers need to confront suspects immediately during an active shooter situation in a school or other public place.  Ideally, there should be at least two officers present to clear even a single room.  The search of a school is best done by a tactical team, but an active shooter is an exception to the rule.  In exigent circumstances, when there is a serious risk of death or bodily injury to others, police need to respond immediately, even if that means searching with a less than optimal number of officers.

The FBI has developed protocols for how law enforcement should respond to active shooters, and over 114,000 officers have already received Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training.  This training is designed to give officers the basic tactical formations and other techniques needed to clear a school with a limited number of officers.  When a mass shooting occurs, it is likely that the officers who respond will come from different departments and will have different levels of training, as was the case in Parkland.  The training is designed to allow officers who never worked together to enter schools, locate the shooter, and eliminate the threat.

All active shooter incidents are exigencies, where even a lone officer needs to take action.  When the attack is in a school, as in Parkland, the need for swift action is even greater.  Children are among the most defenseless and vulnerable people in our society, and the main role of government is to stop citizens from using force against each other.  It may seem harsh to criticize those four officers for not risking their lives and entering the school, but it appears they failed to fulfill a duty on which the public depends.

As a deputy sheriff with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, I once received a domestic disturbance call just as our patrol zones shifted to the east, so I responded knowing that my backup would probably be several minutes away.  As I approached the parking lot to the complainant’s community, the dispatcher updated the call to say she heard shots being fired.  I requested my backup to expedite and jogged to the townhouse.

As I walked up to the front of the building, a terrified woman burst through the front door toward me.  “He has a gun, and he’s going to shoot my kids.  Please, don’t let him kill my kids,” she pleaded.  I radioed dispatch that an armed man was threatening to murder children, then I drew my gun and shouldered my way through the front door.

I quickly cleared the bottom floor, then slowly ascended the stairs to the second floor.  The house was completely dark, and I held my flashlight in one hand and a .45 semi-automatic handgun in the other.  There was an open bedroom door at the end of the hall, so I moved toward it because it was the most immediate danger.  My pulse accelerated as I approached the door, not knowing where the suspect was or if the children were still alive.

I reached the room and saw a man lying flat on his back, blood pumping out of his chest, and a semiautomatic handgun on the floor near his right hand.  I could smell the gunpowder in the room, and the man looked dead.  I glanced around, but there was no sign of the children.  “Sheriff’s Office.  Kids, are you here?” I shouted.  A young boy, probably only five years old, popped up behind the bed, his eyes wide with fear.  A moment later, a second child peeked over the bed at me.  “Come to me,” I said and stepped into the room positioning myself between the man and the children as they moved around the bed.  “Run outside and find your mother,” I said, and they fled the room in their pajamas.

This was a crime scene, and I didn’t want to disturb the evidence, but I had to secure both the handgun and the man and then finish searching the house.  I bent down cautiously and grabbed the handgun.  As soon as I stood up, the man who I thought was dead bolted upright and screamed.  My knees felt weak from the surprise, and I took a step back, covering him with my gun.     

The man jumped up and ran from the room, blood spurting everywhere.  I chased him down the hallway and radioed that the suspect was fleeing.  I followed him down the stairs and out the front door, where the man stopped and confronted me.  I stuffed his gun in my waistband, covering him with my own, and ordered him to “get on the ground,” but he just babbled incoherently.  A second deputy arrived and tackled him, and we quickly subdued and handcuffed him.  I later learned that the gunshot was self-inflicted and that the man had had survived.

This incident illustrates the need to act from a disadvantaged tactical position when children are at risk.  I didn’t wait for my backup or take cover behind a car.  I knew that searching a dark two-story townhouse alone was dangerous, but the circumstances made this an exception, so I confronted the suspect alone.  If I didn’t, those children could have died.

In Parkland, it is unclear how many children those four deputies could have saved if they entered the school immediately, but they may have been able to stop the attack much sooner.  Even if the deputies who stayed outside the school while children died had poor training or little experience in lethal situations, they still failed to protect the lives of the innocent.  Sheriff Israel needs to conduct a transparent investigation and quickly fire any officers who failed to respond properly.  Not to harshly punish those officers for dereliction of duty is to undermine citizens’ trust in the police.

Jeffrey James Higgins is a retired DEA supervisory special agent and a former Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputy, with over 25 years of total law enforcement experience.  His recent writing and media appearances can be found at JeffreyJamesHiggins.com.



Source link

Becoming Michelle Obama


In time for Thanksgiving 2018, Michelle Obama’s memoir is due for release.  The book, which should be entitled Enjoying a Bigger Piece of Your Pie, will instead be titled Becoming.

According to the former FLOTUS, the “highly anticipated” tome details what Michelle O calls a “deeply personal experience.”  And well it should, because she and her world-renowned author husband reached a hefty $65-million two-book deal with Penguin Random House – a formidable amount of wealth that neither Shelly nor Barry is likely to be spreading around anytime soon.

Due to be published in 24 languages, rumor has it that Michelle’s book will have global appeal, which most certainly puts Becoming in the literature category of contenders for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

Speaking of Nobel Peace Prizes, husband Barack, whose half of the book deal is due out in 2019, will take Becoming on an international book tour, where he’ll use his wife’s book as an excuse to promote himself as the ultimate source of all wisdom and truth.

Just for the record, this is not Mrs. Obama’s first crack at authorship.  When the former first lady took up organic gardening on 1,500 square feet of White House lawn, that agricultural exploit resulted in a book titled American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen and Gardens Across America.

In a statement from the CEO of Penguin Random House, Markus Dohle, this new book “will stretch the confines of a traditional former first-lady memoir the same way Obama’s official portrait for the Smithsonian did.”  About the anticipated bestseller, Dohle elaborated, “‘Becoming’ is an unusually intimate reckoning from a woman of soul and substance who has steadily defied expectations – and whose story inspires us to do the same.”

Recently, it was Mrs. Obama who observed that in the movie Black Panther, “young people … finally [got to] see superheroes that look like them on the big screen.”  Therefore, if all goes according to plan, the cover jacket portrait of Becoming will accomplish a similar end.

In the meantime, while out and about bashing Donald Trump and lying about first lady Melania handing her a gift she didn’t know what to do with on Inauguration Day, Mrs. Obama has also mentioned that she anticipates the book being “inspirational.”

That’s why, just days after her passive-aggressive husband rebuked anyone on Twitter who disagreed with his position on gun control by publicly extolling everyone who did agree, in a statement about her upcoming autobiography, Mrs. Obama, said, “Writing Becoming has been a deeply personal experience.”

Michelle said penning a memoir “allowed [her] … space to honestly reflect on the unexpected trajectory of [her] life … how a little girl from the South Side of Chicago found her voice and developed the strength to use it to empower others.”

Forgetting that America has heard all that bootstrap-racial oppression malarkey before, of late, Michelle has given glimpses into the biographical vistas Becoming will explore.  Last year, for instance, for the 50,000th time, Michelle reiterated to the Hartford Courant that her “[p]arents weren’t wealthy.”  That was true until Mama Marian Robinson moved into the White House and received reparations in the form of four or more $4-million vacations a year – compliments of the U.S. taxpayer.

Comparing her former home to the $8.1-million mansion she currently occupies in the posh Kalorama section of Washington, D.C., Michelle poured it on when she told the Connecticut news site, “They weren’t fancy folks.  But we had a good childhood, living in a little, bitty apartment.”

Evidently unaware that self-doubt is something all humans grapple with, more recently, in Indianapolis, Michelle threw race in with gender, when she told a mostly female crowd of 12,000 attending a gender equity gathering that women of color tend to grow up with “doubts in their heads.”

Michelle spoke directly to girls in the audience, 300 of whom were Indianapolis Public Schools students who had received free tickets to the event.  After explaining that “women of color doubt themselves,” Michelle reminded women of color, “You’re just as capable, if not more capable than people who doubt you.”

After that, the former first lady intimated that people feared her when she was a kid because of the color of her skin, saying, “The vast majority of kids of color are not in gangs, not doing drugs, they’re not robbing or stealing.  They’re me.  I am the kid you’re afraid of.”

After eight years of “mediocre people … running stuff,” Michelle aptly pointed out something undoubtedly true about both herself and her husband when she confirmed, “There are very mediocre people out there running stuff.  But nobody’s told them they’re not good enough.”

Based on comments such as those, it’s easy to predict that the book is likely to become a platform where an increasingly unbecoming Michelle can rant on about racial prejudice, inequality, social injustice, and pay inequity and do it while being paid millions for a book she probably didn’t write.

Compliments of Penguin Random House publishers, Mrs. Obama can falsely insinuate that white Americans view black Americans as gang-banging, drug-addicted, dishonest, and dangerous.  She can also allude to mediocre white men being in positions only because no one informed them “they’re not good enough.”

In addition to “inspiring” insights such as those, the book will likely touch upon Michelle’s time living in that huge White House that “was built by slaves” with the “prisonlike elements” she was forced to endure for two terms.

At any rate, Becoming is unquestionably an appropriate title for this memoir, because while she was the first lady, Michelle became many things.

Take for instance Michelle becoming a world-class organic gardener, a master of the hula hoop, a connoisseur of haute couture, and a backup dancer for Bruno Mars.  During her eight years in office, Michelle was also becoming a dictatorial lunch lady, a pumped-up biceps icon, a jet fuel-guzzling Air Force One traveler, a Hollywood elbow-rubber, a fried fat cake eater, a Target shopper, and an advocate for breastfeeding and bringing home Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.

While her husband was “fundamentally transforming” America, Michelle was busily becoming an advocate for redefining marriage and transgender bathrooms and, above all, becoming a public speaker in the style of female members of the old Black Panthers.

Even still, it’s hard to fathom that despite being the recipient of untold blessings, Michelle believes that “after eight years of working really hard for this country, there are still people who [don’t] see [her] for what [she is] because of [her] skin color.”  Based on those and similar delusional sentiments, “bitter clinger” Michelle Obama’s book Becoming will probably be anything but “inspirational.”  

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.

In time for Thanksgiving 2018, Michelle Obama’s memoir is due for release.  The book, which should be entitled Enjoying a Bigger Piece of Your Pie, will instead be titled Becoming.

According to the former FLOTUS, the “highly anticipated” tome details what Michelle O calls a “deeply personal experience.”  And well it should, because she and her world-renowned author husband reached a hefty $65-million two-book deal with Penguin Random House – a formidable amount of wealth that neither Shelly nor Barry is likely to be spreading around anytime soon.

Due to be published in 24 languages, rumor has it that Michelle’s book will have global appeal, which most certainly puts Becoming in the literature category of contenders for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

Speaking of Nobel Peace Prizes, husband Barack, whose half of the book deal is due out in 2019, will take Becoming on an international book tour, where he’ll use his wife’s book as an excuse to promote himself as the ultimate source of all wisdom and truth.

Just for the record, this is not Mrs. Obama’s first crack at authorship.  When the former first lady took up organic gardening on 1,500 square feet of White House lawn, that agricultural exploit resulted in a book titled American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen and Gardens Across America.

In a statement from the CEO of Penguin Random House, Markus Dohle, this new book “will stretch the confines of a traditional former first-lady memoir the same way Obama’s official portrait for the Smithsonian did.”  About the anticipated bestseller, Dohle elaborated, “‘Becoming’ is an unusually intimate reckoning from a woman of soul and substance who has steadily defied expectations – and whose story inspires us to do the same.”

Recently, it was Mrs. Obama who observed that in the movie Black Panther, “young people … finally [got to] see superheroes that look like them on the big screen.”  Therefore, if all goes according to plan, the cover jacket portrait of Becoming will accomplish a similar end.

In the meantime, while out and about bashing Donald Trump and lying about first lady Melania handing her a gift she didn’t know what to do with on Inauguration Day, Mrs. Obama has also mentioned that she anticipates the book being “inspirational.”

That’s why, just days after her passive-aggressive husband rebuked anyone on Twitter who disagreed with his position on gun control by publicly extolling everyone who did agree, in a statement about her upcoming autobiography, Mrs. Obama, said, “Writing Becoming has been a deeply personal experience.”

Michelle said penning a memoir “allowed [her] … space to honestly reflect on the unexpected trajectory of [her] life … how a little girl from the South Side of Chicago found her voice and developed the strength to use it to empower others.”

Forgetting that America has heard all that bootstrap-racial oppression malarkey before, of late, Michelle has given glimpses into the biographical vistas Becoming will explore.  Last year, for instance, for the 50,000th time, Michelle reiterated to the Hartford Courant that her “[p]arents weren’t wealthy.”  That was true until Mama Marian Robinson moved into the White House and received reparations in the form of four or more $4-million vacations a year – compliments of the U.S. taxpayer.

Comparing her former home to the $8.1-million mansion she currently occupies in the posh Kalorama section of Washington, D.C., Michelle poured it on when she told the Connecticut news site, “They weren’t fancy folks.  But we had a good childhood, living in a little, bitty apartment.”

Evidently unaware that self-doubt is something all humans grapple with, more recently, in Indianapolis, Michelle threw race in with gender, when she told a mostly female crowd of 12,000 attending a gender equity gathering that women of color tend to grow up with “doubts in their heads.”

Michelle spoke directly to girls in the audience, 300 of whom were Indianapolis Public Schools students who had received free tickets to the event.  After explaining that “women of color doubt themselves,” Michelle reminded women of color, “You’re just as capable, if not more capable than people who doubt you.”

After that, the former first lady intimated that people feared her when she was a kid because of the color of her skin, saying, “The vast majority of kids of color are not in gangs, not doing drugs, they’re not robbing or stealing.  They’re me.  I am the kid you’re afraid of.”

After eight years of “mediocre people … running stuff,” Michelle aptly pointed out something undoubtedly true about both herself and her husband when she confirmed, “There are very mediocre people out there running stuff.  But nobody’s told them they’re not good enough.”

Based on comments such as those, it’s easy to predict that the book is likely to become a platform where an increasingly unbecoming Michelle can rant on about racial prejudice, inequality, social injustice, and pay inequity and do it while being paid millions for a book she probably didn’t write.

Compliments of Penguin Random House publishers, Mrs. Obama can falsely insinuate that white Americans view black Americans as gang-banging, drug-addicted, dishonest, and dangerous.  She can also allude to mediocre white men being in positions only because no one informed them “they’re not good enough.”

In addition to “inspiring” insights such as those, the book will likely touch upon Michelle’s time living in that huge White House that “was built by slaves” with the “prisonlike elements” she was forced to endure for two terms.

At any rate, Becoming is unquestionably an appropriate title for this memoir, because while she was the first lady, Michelle became many things.

Take for instance Michelle becoming a world-class organic gardener, a master of the hula hoop, a connoisseur of haute couture, and a backup dancer for Bruno Mars.  During her eight years in office, Michelle was also becoming a dictatorial lunch lady, a pumped-up biceps icon, a jet fuel-guzzling Air Force One traveler, a Hollywood elbow-rubber, a fried fat cake eater, a Target shopper, and an advocate for breastfeeding and bringing home Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.

While her husband was “fundamentally transforming” America, Michelle was busily becoming an advocate for redefining marriage and transgender bathrooms and, above all, becoming a public speaker in the style of female members of the old Black Panthers.

Even still, it’s hard to fathom that despite being the recipient of untold blessings, Michelle believes that “after eight years of working really hard for this country, there are still people who [don’t] see [her] for what [she is] because of [her] skin color.”  Based on those and similar delusional sentiments, “bitter clinger” Michelle Obama’s book Becoming will probably be anything but “inspirational.”  

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.



Source link

CPAC Is Transitioning


MassResistance is a grassroots network of pro-family activists.  We started in Massachusetts 25 years ago (as Parents’ Rights Coalition), and now have chapters around the country.

We had a rewarding time last October at Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit, so we figured that the American Conservative Union’s CPAC 2018 attendees would likewise appreciate receiving our information.

We applied for a booth, were vetted, and approved in late January.  Shortly thereafter, we were abruptly disinvited.  No convincing reason was given – just some vague statements about our “tone” not being respectful toward our political opponents.  You can read the details here.

CPAC’s hypocrisy on “tone” is clear in light of its inclusion of the radical LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans for the third year in a row.  In 2016, Log Cabinites ran a full-page ad in USA Today coinciding with the Republican Convention, where they slammed the Party’s platform committee as “LOSERS” and “MORONS” for defending real marriage.  And then there’s CPAC’s invitation to foul-mouthed “Dangerous Faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos, who was to be its 2017 keynote speaker – until a video emerged wherein he said good things about pederasty.

On top of all that, this year’s CPAC auditioned four transgender activists who say they’re Republicans.  As the next new thing, they got a lot of attention (though they were unofficial participants).  While it’s likely that other groups wouldn’t be allowed to stand for hours with signs in the convention center hallway, this group was not asked to leave.  Possibly, they would have been approved for an exhibit table if they’d just coughed up $2,000.

In addition to unfurling their rainbow Gadsden flag (“Don’t Tread on Me”), they held little placards reading:

Proud to be Conservative

Proud to be Transgender

Proud to be American

#SameTeam

After a positive story in Newsweek and Slate’sinterview with the group’s organizer, you can be pretty sure they’ll be approved at CPAC next year.  The American Conservative Union can’t appear to be on the wrong side of history.

Someone has to talk to conservatives, said their leader, Jennifer Williams, even though many in the LGBT community wouldn’t like them being at CPAC.  Williams was giddy at the absence of social conservative groups, including the fact that MassResistance was banned.  “There’s not even one workshop regarding traditional marriage.”

Williams told Slate:

Log Cabin Republicans have been here for three years straight and they’ve been very controversial in the past.  One great thing CPAC did last year was banning Milo Yiannopoulos from coming to speak after everything happened to him, because he’s one of the most anti-transgender conservatives out there, supposedly.  I don’t believe he’s a conservative.  And then this year they took away Mass Resistance being able to have a booth once they learned about their anti-LGBT views and particularly anti-transgender views, because right now there’s a bill in Massachusetts to remove public accommodations.  So that growth has been amazing.  A lot of it is built by the younger generation, the millennials.

From Newsweek:

Williams says that most CPAC attendees have been accepting of her [sic] and her [sic] fellow activists’ presence, with perhaps one out of 30 evincing a negative reaction, such as a thumbs-down gesture.  She [sic] believes that acceptance will only increase.  “I know,” she [sic] says, “we can change hearts and minds.”

Williams said in a Twitter interview:

One of the most conservative things you can actually do, if you think about it, is be transgender.  Because you’re seizing your identity, you’re seizing who you are, and saying to the world, “I’m living free as myself, I’m living authentically.”  I fully believe in limited government, but that limited government extends to not telling people who [sic] they should be married to, or who should they [sic] be.

Well, since it’s just about “freedom” and limited government, CPAC will have to let them have a table next year!

Williams clearly wants to change Republican positions on transgenders in the military and on housing and employment discrimination legislation.  His question – “What are we gonna do for those three years [remaining in Trump’s term]?  Wait for an impeachment?” – is a dead giveaway that he is an infiltrator.

It’s telling that the college-age trans demonstrator in the group is a member of a relatively new nationwide (nominally conservative) campus group, Turning Point USA.  Their motto: “Big Government Sucks.”  (Nice tone!)  The organization bought its “Supporting Sponsor” ticket to CPAC 2018 for a mere $28,000.  The big funders like the libertarian approach.  “Transgender rights” will fit right in.

Turning Point USA’s leader, Charlie Kirk, has said the “gay issue” is dead in the Republican Party and that it’s time to move on to bigger things.  The group’s focus is promoting free-market and limited government principles (i.e., libertarianism).  He says the group is also fighting the “culture war,” which he defines as promoting free speech and a “diversity of ideas.”  The one thing that holds Republicans together is “freedom, freedom, freedom,” he claims.  He welcomes the “sea change” in the party, which is increasingly open to drug legalization and the redefinition of marriage.  “Gay marriage…whatever!”  (Next year he might say, “Transgender…whatever!”)  He thinks government can protect social conservatives who havereligious objections to LGBT demands without disturbing the attack against marriage or the anti-discrimination laws that lead to persecution.

Yes, we’ve apparently reached a turning point, where our social stability can go to Hell with the blessing with the increasingly libertarian CPAC.

Amy Contrada is the author of Mitt Romney’s Deception (2011) and various MassResistance reports.  She has degrees from Tufts and Brown, plus a diploma in violin-making.  See AmyContrada.com for some of her openly attributed writing.

MassResistance is a grassroots network of pro-family activists.  We started in Massachusetts 25 years ago (as Parents’ Rights Coalition), and now have chapters around the country.

We had a rewarding time last October at Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit, so we figured that the American Conservative Union’s CPAC 2018 attendees would likewise appreciate receiving our information.

We applied for a booth, were vetted, and approved in late January.  Shortly thereafter, we were abruptly disinvited.  No convincing reason was given – just some vague statements about our “tone” not being respectful toward our political opponents.  You can read the details here.

CPAC’s hypocrisy on “tone” is clear in light of its inclusion of the radical LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans for the third year in a row.  In 2016, Log Cabinites ran a full-page ad in USA Today coinciding with the Republican Convention, where they slammed the Party’s platform committee as “LOSERS” and “MORONS” for defending real marriage.  And then there’s CPAC’s invitation to foul-mouthed “Dangerous Faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos, who was to be its 2017 keynote speaker – until a video emerged wherein he said good things about pederasty.

On top of all that, this year’s CPAC auditioned four transgender activists who say they’re Republicans.  As the next new thing, they got a lot of attention (though they were unofficial participants).  While it’s likely that other groups wouldn’t be allowed to stand for hours with signs in the convention center hallway, this group was not asked to leave.  Possibly, they would have been approved for an exhibit table if they’d just coughed up $2,000.

In addition to unfurling their rainbow Gadsden flag (“Don’t Tread on Me”), they held little placards reading:

Proud to be Conservative

Proud to be Transgender

Proud to be American

#SameTeam

After a positive story in Newsweek and Slate’sinterview with the group’s organizer, you can be pretty sure they’ll be approved at CPAC next year.  The American Conservative Union can’t appear to be on the wrong side of history.

Someone has to talk to conservatives, said their leader, Jennifer Williams, even though many in the LGBT community wouldn’t like them being at CPAC.  Williams was giddy at the absence of social conservative groups, including the fact that MassResistance was banned.  “There’s not even one workshop regarding traditional marriage.”

Williams told Slate:

Log Cabin Republicans have been here for three years straight and they’ve been very controversial in the past.  One great thing CPAC did last year was banning Milo Yiannopoulos from coming to speak after everything happened to him, because he’s one of the most anti-transgender conservatives out there, supposedly.  I don’t believe he’s a conservative.  And then this year they took away Mass Resistance being able to have a booth once they learned about their anti-LGBT views and particularly anti-transgender views, because right now there’s a bill in Massachusetts to remove public accommodations.  So that growth has been amazing.  A lot of it is built by the younger generation, the millennials.

From Newsweek:

Williams says that most CPAC attendees have been accepting of her [sic] and her [sic] fellow activists’ presence, with perhaps one out of 30 evincing a negative reaction, such as a thumbs-down gesture.  She [sic] believes that acceptance will only increase.  “I know,” she [sic] says, “we can change hearts and minds.”

Williams said in a Twitter interview:

One of the most conservative things you can actually do, if you think about it, is be transgender.  Because you’re seizing your identity, you’re seizing who you are, and saying to the world, “I’m living free as myself, I’m living authentically.”  I fully believe in limited government, but that limited government extends to not telling people who [sic] they should be married to, or who should they [sic] be.

Well, since it’s just about “freedom” and limited government, CPAC will have to let them have a table next year!

Williams clearly wants to change Republican positions on transgenders in the military and on housing and employment discrimination legislation.  His question – “What are we gonna do for those three years [remaining in Trump’s term]?  Wait for an impeachment?” – is a dead giveaway that he is an infiltrator.

It’s telling that the college-age trans demonstrator in the group is a member of a relatively new nationwide (nominally conservative) campus group, Turning Point USA.  Their motto: “Big Government Sucks.”  (Nice tone!)  The organization bought its “Supporting Sponsor” ticket to CPAC 2018 for a mere $28,000.  The big funders like the libertarian approach.  “Transgender rights” will fit right in.

Turning Point USA’s leader, Charlie Kirk, has said the “gay issue” is dead in the Republican Party and that it’s time to move on to bigger things.  The group’s focus is promoting free-market and limited government principles (i.e., libertarianism).  He says the group is also fighting the “culture war,” which he defines as promoting free speech and a “diversity of ideas.”  The one thing that holds Republicans together is “freedom, freedom, freedom,” he claims.  He welcomes the “sea change” in the party, which is increasingly open to drug legalization and the redefinition of marriage.  “Gay marriage…whatever!”  (Next year he might say, “Transgender…whatever!”)  He thinks government can protect social conservatives who havereligious objections to LGBT demands without disturbing the attack against marriage or the anti-discrimination laws that lead to persecution.

Yes, we’ve apparently reached a turning point, where our social stability can go to Hell with the blessing with the increasingly libertarian CPAC.

Amy Contrada is the author of Mitt Romney’s Deception (2011) and various MassResistance reports.  She has degrees from Tufts and Brown, plus a diploma in violin-making.  See AmyContrada.com for some of her openly attributed writing.



Source link

Illegal Aliens, Identity Theft, and Claire McCaskill


Missouri Democratic senatrix Claire McCaskill is at it again, facing a tough re-election battle (nobody likes her here) and trying to fool the Show-Me electorate with her “reasonable” approach to promoting the policies that caused the problems in the first place.

In a blast sent out to constituents, “Air Claire” crowed:

But now, scammers are using children’s stolen Social Security numbers to open fraudulent credit cards before they even graduate high school. We need to stay ahead of the curve to protect Missourians’ financial well-being, and we need the Social Security Administration to step up to the task.


That’s why I teamed up with {Republican} Senators (Bill) Cassidy and (Tim) Scott to push the Social Security Administration to crack down on this kind of fraud – known as synthetic identity theft – and protect Missourians by requiring financial institutions to confirm that the names and birthdates on credit card applications match Social Security numbers.”

Well, isn’t she a peach?

But what McCaskill fails to mention is her role in the very scourge she seeks to fix by forcing businesses to spend their own money to address it.

First, what is driving the rise in the theft of Social Security numbers of children?  Well, Ronald W. Mortensen gives us a clue:

As my colleague Jessica Vaughn testified before the Senate Judiciary committee:


[I]t would be appropriate to have [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – DACA] applicants disclose any misuse of Social Security numbers or other personal identifiers so that the system can be purged and corrected, and so that the true number holders can be informed.  It would also be appropriate to impose an additional fine on the many DACA recipients who worked illegally before obtaining DACA status and improperly used false identity information. The fines could be used to establish a restitution fund for the victims.


… 43.9 percent of all surveyed DACA recipients had worked prior to gaining DACA status, and that percentage increases to 60.7 percent for DACA recipients over 25 years of age.  However, these individuals were unable to legally obtain Social Security numbers for their pre-DACA employment, which means that they used fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers that all-too-often belong to American citizens, including American children.


The use of unlawfully obtained Social Security numbers by individuals eligible for DACA status is so pervasive that the Obama administration instructed applicants not to disclose their illegally obtained numbers.  That ensured that Americans who are the victims of DACA identity theft were left with destroyed credit, arrest records attached to their names, unpaid tax liabilities, and corrupted medical records while the DACA recipients walked away scot-free from multiple felonies[.]

And that is just the DACA participants.  In truth, it’s worse:

One in four illegal immigrants [sic] are working with stolen Social Security numbers – and the IRS is not doing a sufficient job of informing Americans of the fraud, the Treasury Department’s inspector general said in an audit released Thursday[.] …


The IRS was able to identify only half of the potentially 1.4 million people who were likely affected by such fraud in 2015, the Times reported[.] …


The immigrants then file tax forms using the ITINs, but their W-2 forms show valid Social Security numbers they have fraudulently given to employers to clear an initial work authorization check, the Times reported.


The IRS estimated as many as 2.4 million illegals filing taxes every year with the Social Security numbers are not authorized to have them.

That’s as many as 2.4 million, based on estimates by a government that has regularly undercounted illegal aliens and makes every effort to downplay the damage they are doing.  I suspect that the number is quite a bit higher.  And how many of these stolen SSNs get sold on the dark web when the “immigrants” are through with them?  Remember, illegal aliens may not be the only customers.  Then, too, how many acts of identity theft has MS-13 perpetrated?  Identity theft was one of the crimes that led the Obama administration to designate MS-13 a criminal group.

If you want more proof that illegals are stealing our children’s futures, just take a look at the states with the worst identity theft and credit card fraud.  The survey ranks all fifty states, started with the worst to best.  The worst states?  Nevada, California, New Mexico, Florida, Texas, Michigan, Virginia, Illinois, Arizona, Washington, Maryland.  Please note that these are all high immigrant and illegal alien states.

So we know what the problem is, but does Claire McCaskill?  While she supported E-Verify in the past (no doubt since it puts a burden on private businesses instead of holding the government accountable), she has been a good foot soldier for the Democrats’ open border policy.

She supports chain migration, sanctuary cities, funding for executive amnesty, and funding for processing centers for Central American unaccompanied minors.  She voted for the DREAM Act, against a bill to prevent suing Arizona for immigration law, and against defunding sanctuary cities.

According to Numbers USA:

Sen. McCaskill opposed the Vitter Amendment to H.R. 627, The Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009.  This amendment would have required the banks that issue credit cards to ensure that those granted credit cards are in the United States legally by obliging the banks to verify the identity of applicants using REAL ID-compliant documents.  By opposing this amendment the Senator helped illegal aliens remain in the United States. The amendment failed 28-65[.] …


Sen. McCaskill voted against the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1184) to S. 1385 to establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals.  The Cornyn Amendment would have permanently barred from admission into the United States, and denied immigration benefits (including legal status under the amnesty in this bill), to: (1) absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported); (2) aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists); (3) aliens who fail to register as sex offenders; (4) aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses; (5) aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders; (6) alien gang members; and (7) aliens convicted of at least three DUIs.  The Cornyn Amendment failed by a vote of 46 to 51.

Claire has done this to the great displeasure of her Missouri constituents.  So now she needs a red herring, and she will boldly work with Republicans to craft legislation forcing all businesses to do a pile of sleuthing to verify the identities of applicants for their products, and perhaps put those companies in danger of running afoul of civil rights laws by profiling.  Claire doesn’t care that this will cost the consumer, or that it is abusive to make a private business do the work the government just won’t do.

But then, why should she care?  She defrauded taxpayers herself, using government money to finance flights on her airplane and then not paying taxes on it. 

But then, by her standards, doesn’t everyone?

Hat tip: Brian Birdnow

Read more from Tim and friends at The Aviary: www.tbirdnow.mee.nu.

Missouri Democratic senatrix Claire McCaskill is at it again, facing a tough re-election battle (nobody likes her here) and trying to fool the Show-Me electorate with her “reasonable” approach to promoting the policies that caused the problems in the first place.

In a blast sent out to constituents, “Air Claire” crowed:

But now, scammers are using children’s stolen Social Security numbers to open fraudulent credit cards before they even graduate high school. We need to stay ahead of the curve to protect Missourians’ financial well-being, and we need the Social Security Administration to step up to the task.


That’s why I teamed up with {Republican} Senators (Bill) Cassidy and (Tim) Scott to push the Social Security Administration to crack down on this kind of fraud – known as synthetic identity theft – and protect Missourians by requiring financial institutions to confirm that the names and birthdates on credit card applications match Social Security numbers.”

Well, isn’t she a peach?

But what McCaskill fails to mention is her role in the very scourge she seeks to fix by forcing businesses to spend their own money to address it.

First, what is driving the rise in the theft of Social Security numbers of children?  Well, Ronald W. Mortensen gives us a clue:

As my colleague Jessica Vaughn testified before the Senate Judiciary committee:


[I]t would be appropriate to have [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals – DACA] applicants disclose any misuse of Social Security numbers or other personal identifiers so that the system can be purged and corrected, and so that the true number holders can be informed.  It would also be appropriate to impose an additional fine on the many DACA recipients who worked illegally before obtaining DACA status and improperly used false identity information. The fines could be used to establish a restitution fund for the victims.


… 43.9 percent of all surveyed DACA recipients had worked prior to gaining DACA status, and that percentage increases to 60.7 percent for DACA recipients over 25 years of age.  However, these individuals were unable to legally obtain Social Security numbers for their pre-DACA employment, which means that they used fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers that all-too-often belong to American citizens, including American children.


The use of unlawfully obtained Social Security numbers by individuals eligible for DACA status is so pervasive that the Obama administration instructed applicants not to disclose their illegally obtained numbers.  That ensured that Americans who are the victims of DACA identity theft were left with destroyed credit, arrest records attached to their names, unpaid tax liabilities, and corrupted medical records while the DACA recipients walked away scot-free from multiple felonies[.]

And that is just the DACA participants.  In truth, it’s worse:

One in four illegal immigrants [sic] are working with stolen Social Security numbers – and the IRS is not doing a sufficient job of informing Americans of the fraud, the Treasury Department’s inspector general said in an audit released Thursday[.] …


The IRS was able to identify only half of the potentially 1.4 million people who were likely affected by such fraud in 2015, the Times reported[.] …


The immigrants then file tax forms using the ITINs, but their W-2 forms show valid Social Security numbers they have fraudulently given to employers to clear an initial work authorization check, the Times reported.


The IRS estimated as many as 2.4 million illegals filing taxes every year with the Social Security numbers are not authorized to have them.

That’s as many as 2.4 million, based on estimates by a government that has regularly undercounted illegal aliens and makes every effort to downplay the damage they are doing.  I suspect that the number is quite a bit higher.  And how many of these stolen SSNs get sold on the dark web when the “immigrants” are through with them?  Remember, illegal aliens may not be the only customers.  Then, too, how many acts of identity theft has MS-13 perpetrated?  Identity theft was one of the crimes that led the Obama administration to designate MS-13 a criminal group.

If you want more proof that illegals are stealing our children’s futures, just take a look at the states with the worst identity theft and credit card fraud.  The survey ranks all fifty states, started with the worst to best.  The worst states?  Nevada, California, New Mexico, Florida, Texas, Michigan, Virginia, Illinois, Arizona, Washington, Maryland.  Please note that these are all high immigrant and illegal alien states.

So we know what the problem is, but does Claire McCaskill?  While she supported E-Verify in the past (no doubt since it puts a burden on private businesses instead of holding the government accountable), she has been a good foot soldier for the Democrats’ open border policy.

She supports chain migration, sanctuary cities, funding for executive amnesty, and funding for processing centers for Central American unaccompanied minors.  She voted for the DREAM Act, against a bill to prevent suing Arizona for immigration law, and against defunding sanctuary cities.

According to Numbers USA:

Sen. McCaskill opposed the Vitter Amendment to H.R. 627, The Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009.  This amendment would have required the banks that issue credit cards to ensure that those granted credit cards are in the United States legally by obliging the banks to verify the identity of applicants using REAL ID-compliant documents.  By opposing this amendment the Senator helped illegal aliens remain in the United States. The amendment failed 28-65[.] …


Sen. McCaskill voted against the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1184) to S. 1385 to establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, and other criminals.  The Cornyn Amendment would have permanently barred from admission into the United States, and denied immigration benefits (including legal status under the amnesty in this bill), to: (1) absconders (i.e., aliens already ordered deported); (2) aliens deemed inadmissible or deportable as security risks (e.g., terrorists); (3) aliens who fail to register as sex offenders; (4) aliens convicted of certain firearms offenses; (5) aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, or violation of protection orders; (6) alien gang members; and (7) aliens convicted of at least three DUIs.  The Cornyn Amendment failed by a vote of 46 to 51.

Claire has done this to the great displeasure of her Missouri constituents.  So now she needs a red herring, and she will boldly work with Republicans to craft legislation forcing all businesses to do a pile of sleuthing to verify the identities of applicants for their products, and perhaps put those companies in danger of running afoul of civil rights laws by profiling.  Claire doesn’t care that this will cost the consumer, or that it is abusive to make a private business do the work the government just won’t do.

But then, why should she care?  She defrauded taxpayers herself, using government money to finance flights on her airplane and then not paying taxes on it. 

But then, by her standards, doesn’t everyone?

Hat tip: Brian Birdnow

Read more from Tim and friends at The Aviary: www.tbirdnow.mee.nu.



Source link

The War of Trump's Hair


Narcissists don’t laugh at themselves.

Can you imagine Obama laughing at himself, in public, maybe laughing at his own big ears?  Never in a million years.  Or Michelle?  She might be going for the Democratic nomination next time, but she always projects anger.  Getting her to smile is going to be tough.

So sorry – no can do.

Trump just pulled a sight gag on himself at the start of his CPAC talk, turning his back to the audience and stroking his (phony) golden hair in a sort of goofy way.  It must have gone on for a minute or two, and the C-packers roared.  Then he turned around, smiled slightly, and started his speech.

It was a barn-burner.  He then transitioned from his starting gag to some serious talk about kids who kill and how to stop them.

The CPAC speech worked, at least for me – from a starting gag to some passionate talk about the Florida killer, and he made it all count. The whole thing was believable, at least to me, and in politics and showbiz, believability is a big deal.

(Plus, he launched the midterm campaign at CPAC, in a way few other presidents could have done.  Maybe Lincoln, who was famous for his stories and jokes,  could have done it.  Maybe Teddy Roosevelt, but not many others.

Hillary? Laugh at herself?  Gimme a break!  You should watch the way Hillary laughs.  It’s so phony, she might be having a fit.)

This is why Trump is not a narcissist – because narcissists never laugh at themselves.  They are too vulnerable inside.

Secret shame is what makes the Obamas of this world act the way they do, which is why they always, always, always have to boast about themselves.  We all start life as little narcissists, like babies in the Terrible Twos, and then some of us grow up, and some of us don’t.

We wrote about Trump’s grown-up personality last year, when he was running for office.  Now it turns out he likes to do comical shticks every now and then, but he’s generally as serious as Lincoln was when the Civil War broke out.

One time Trump had a photo op with two sexy Miss Universes, both of them throwing buckets of ice cold water over his head, on the roof of one of his big Trump hotels.  He didn’t crack a smile, because it’s no fun to get all that ice water over your combover on the roof of a big, cold, windy building.

Jackie Gleason didn’t smile either when he was the target of a gag.  That makes it funnier.

Trump likes physical humor, which is terribly, terribly undignified, but…who cares?  He can also be dignified, and he’s just being Trump.  He has his genuine side, as he showed in that speech, talking about Florida kids being killed by that moron. That was dead serious, and the audience felt it.

Watch for some action from the White House soon – some sensible ideas that might make a difference.  School shooters go for all the drama and TV exposure, because those little thugs are big narcissists, too, and if the girl doesn’t like him, your teenage thug wants revenge.  Don’t ever give him that satisfaction, and put him in jail if he makes credible threats to kill.

Credible murder threats do not have First Amendment protection, as the other side likes to pretend, whenever its members love the murderer.

The Founders knew better.  The whole history of English Common Law was based on practical people – farmers, soldiers, and sailors – who wanted free speech, but they did know the line that could never be crossed.

If you pose a danger to other people, or yourself, the Constitution does not give  you love and protection.  It’s a practical document, which is why it has lasted.  The Constitution – the real Constitution, not the phony-baloney Obama prop – is not a suicide note.  You pose a threat, and the cops can lock you up, and you can call the ACLU if you want, but somewhere, with a little luck, there’s a judge with common sense who doesn’t have to parade his liberal street cred for the newspapers.  He’ll put you in jail, and don’t you dare come back.  There’s no “catch and release” in the U.S. Constitution, because that’s fake law enforcement, a parody of the real thing.  They were practical people, the Founders, and also clear thinkers.

We now have an insane immigration system, and ordinary people are beginning to catch on.  Trump will run on that issue for the midterms, and a lot of people already agree with him.  Let Hillary try that one on.

I thought it was a good speech.

Narcissists don’t laugh at themselves.

Can you imagine Obama laughing at himself, in public, maybe laughing at his own big ears?  Never in a million years.  Or Michelle?  She might be going for the Democratic nomination next time, but she always projects anger.  Getting her to smile is going to be tough.

So sorry – no can do.

Trump just pulled a sight gag on himself at the start of his CPAC talk, turning his back to the audience and stroking his (phony) golden hair in a sort of goofy way.  It must have gone on for a minute or two, and the C-packers roared.  Then he turned around, smiled slightly, and started his speech.

It was a barn-burner.  He then transitioned from his starting gag to some serious talk about kids who kill and how to stop them.

The CPAC speech worked, at least for me – from a starting gag to some passionate talk about the Florida killer, and he made it all count. The whole thing was believable, at least to me, and in politics and showbiz, believability is a big deal.

(Plus, he launched the midterm campaign at CPAC, in a way few other presidents could have done.  Maybe Lincoln, who was famous for his stories and jokes,  could have done it.  Maybe Teddy Roosevelt, but not many others.

Hillary? Laugh at herself?  Gimme a break!  You should watch the way Hillary laughs.  It’s so phony, she might be having a fit.)

This is why Trump is not a narcissist – because narcissists never laugh at themselves.  They are too vulnerable inside.

Secret shame is what makes the Obamas of this world act the way they do, which is why they always, always, always have to boast about themselves.  We all start life as little narcissists, like babies in the Terrible Twos, and then some of us grow up, and some of us don’t.

We wrote about Trump’s grown-up personality last year, when he was running for office.  Now it turns out he likes to do comical shticks every now and then, but he’s generally as serious as Lincoln was when the Civil War broke out.

One time Trump had a photo op with two sexy Miss Universes, both of them throwing buckets of ice cold water over his head, on the roof of one of his big Trump hotels.  He didn’t crack a smile, because it’s no fun to get all that ice water over your combover on the roof of a big, cold, windy building.

Jackie Gleason didn’t smile either when he was the target of a gag.  That makes it funnier.

Trump likes physical humor, which is terribly, terribly undignified, but…who cares?  He can also be dignified, and he’s just being Trump.  He has his genuine side, as he showed in that speech, talking about Florida kids being killed by that moron. That was dead serious, and the audience felt it.

Watch for some action from the White House soon – some sensible ideas that might make a difference.  School shooters go for all the drama and TV exposure, because those little thugs are big narcissists, too, and if the girl doesn’t like him, your teenage thug wants revenge.  Don’t ever give him that satisfaction, and put him in jail if he makes credible threats to kill.

Credible murder threats do not have First Amendment protection, as the other side likes to pretend, whenever its members love the murderer.

The Founders knew better.  The whole history of English Common Law was based on practical people – farmers, soldiers, and sailors – who wanted free speech, but they did know the line that could never be crossed.

If you pose a danger to other people, or yourself, the Constitution does not give  you love and protection.  It’s a practical document, which is why it has lasted.  The Constitution – the real Constitution, not the phony-baloney Obama prop – is not a suicide note.  You pose a threat, and the cops can lock you up, and you can call the ACLU if you want, but somewhere, with a little luck, there’s a judge with common sense who doesn’t have to parade his liberal street cred for the newspapers.  He’ll put you in jail, and don’t you dare come back.  There’s no “catch and release” in the U.S. Constitution, because that’s fake law enforcement, a parody of the real thing.  They were practical people, the Founders, and also clear thinkers.

We now have an insane immigration system, and ordinary people are beginning to catch on.  Trump will run on that issue for the midterms, and a lot of people already agree with him.  Let Hillary try that one on.

I thought it was a good speech.



Source link