Unbelievable corruption

If your blood does not boil; if your belief in the rule of law is not shaken; if your doubts about the “deep state” are not erased, then I question your vital signs.

What Sidney Powell and her team have unearthed, exposed, should shock any American alive.

I do not, I cannot endorse much of President Trump’s style or his methods, but if you are an American, please ask yourself: If the Democrat Party is in the White House and controls the US Congress, how and who will address the unbelievable corruption present in today’s Federal government? Who will be safe?

Martin

Share

New York’s Cop Out

What a sorry state of liberal politicians. Yes, people (?) continue to vote them into office. As my father often says: “People get what they deserve.” mrossol

WSJ 7/2/2020.

For those wondering where the Defund the Police movement is going, look no further than New York City. On Tuesday the City Council endorsed Mayor Bill de Blasio’s bid to cut $1 billion from the police—roughly 17% of the department’s budget.

New York isn’t the only city moving to defund its police, but it bears particular significance as America’s commercial capital. And its funding cuts are especially striking because it comes in a place that implemented the policing revolution that transformed the Big Apple from a crime-ridden metropolis in the early 1990s into what it was in 2014 when Mr. de Blasio was sworn in: America’s safest big city. Thousands of New Yorkers are alive today because of this policing revolution’s success at reducing the murder rate.

No doubt the City Council was mindful of the protesters gathered outside their building who clashed with police. Far from being happy with the cut, the protesters complained the $1 billion wasn’t nearly enough. It never is.

 

When Mr. de Blasio first ran for mayor, he campaigned against the police and vowed to end a tactic called stop and frisk. Liberals claimed it wasn’t responsible for the reduction in crime, which they attributed to demographics. In 2013 federal Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that stop and frisk was unconstitutional, and eventually the city abandoned it.

 

Now the antipolicing efforts are accelerating. The City Council has eased the laws against such quality-of-life offenses as vagrancy and public urination, and Manhattan’s district attorney is no longer prosecuting them. Governor Andrew Cuomo’s bail reform this year lets even repeat offenders back on the streets immediately. In recent weeks the police department dismantled its plainclothes anti-crime units under political pressure. The head of the police captains association has called for ending the highly successful CompStat system that tracks crimes across the city and helps police focus on high-crime neighborhoods. The union says it encourages too many police interactions with minorities that result in police being blamed.

The result is already more crime. For the first half of 2020, murders in New York City rose 21% over the same period a year ago, shootings are up 46% and shooting victims are up 53%. The victims include a 17-year-old high school basketball star, Brandon Hendricks, who was gunned down Sunday night in the Bronx while attending a barbecue.

“You have a criminal justice system that is imploding,” NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea told reporters last week. “Imploding. That’s the kindest way to put it.” The New York Post reports that since the George Floyd protests began police retirements are spiking, with 272 cops choosing to leave the force—compared with 183 over the same period last year. They won’t be replaced as the city’s budget cuts will forgo two of the next four classes of NYPD recruits, reducing the headcount by 1,163 uniformed officers (out of some 36,000).

As police retreat from the anti-crime lessons of the last three decades, and even from active policing lest cops be put in the dock, the crime rate in New York will bear close watching. If violence and disorder continue to rise, the fault will lie with the rich liberals who empower criminals and then leave the consequences to be suffered by the most vulnerable.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-cop-out-11593731047?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Share

King’s Moral Vision Is a Threat to the Woke

WSJ 7/2/2020. Letters to the Editor.

There is a common theme between the discussions of morality and moral law in Daniel Henninger’s “Smiley Face Liberalism” (Wonder Land, June 25) and “Notable & Quotable: Dr. King” (June 25). Mr. Henninger speaks of the left’s erasure of “even the idea of a functioning consensus about morality,” concluding that in a society untethered to a shared moral baseline, no one today has moral authority. The latter quotes a portion of Martin Luther King Jr.’s powerful and timeless “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” in the context of the recent kerfuffle at UCLA, where lecturer W. Ajax Peris is under investigation for having the temerity to read King’s letter aloud in class, in which King used the n-word twice.

One suspects UCLA’s microaggression monitors have little real concern about their exquisitely sensitive students hearing Dr. King’s meaningful, historical use of a word that is heard in almost every gangsta-rap song today. Rather, it is King’s message about the foundation for a moral code that is most threatening to leftist academia’s relativism, i.e., that “just” laws must be rooted in natural law, eternal law or the law of God. As with the writers of our Declaration of Independence, which refers to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” King declared there must be a fixed touchstone or standard against which to determine what laws are moral and just, or not. Otherwise, laws can be declared just or unjust arbitrarily, as it suits the ideology of the loudest or most powerful voice in the conversation. One can only wonder how King himself would have fared if he read his letter verbatim today in a class of those offended UCLA students.

Ed Grysavage    St. Augustine, Fla.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kings-moral-vision-is-a-threat-to-the-woke-11593717917?mod=opinion_major_pos17

Share

The honorable revolution

The elites in leadership make me sick. Absolutely no backbone or appreciate for why America became to be the great country that it is. MAGA. mrossol

WSJ. 7/3/2020

They can take down Teddy Roosevelt, and Princeton can cancel Woodrow Wilson. They can topple Ulysses Grant, deface the Lincoln Memorial, throw ropes around Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square, knock down the author of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” put Thomas Jefferson in storage, and say America’s founding began in 1619. But they can’t make the Fourth of July disappear.

Rewriting history doesn’t yet include eliminating daily turns of the calendar, so they will have to endure the hard fact that between July 3 and July 5 falls the Fourth of July and that most Americans still believe this day is about the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

 

Until now, the Fourth of July was the holiday celebrated by everyone in the U.S. as an American tradition. The message being sent by the protesters in the streets is, “Your traditions don’t mean a thing to us, and we will toss them out as we see fit.”

 

Each year, nearly every town holds a Fourth of July parade and celebrates with evening fireworks. This year, the coronavirus pandemic means few parades, while in New York City and elsewhere, massive nightly fireworks are intended to intimidate, not celebrate.

 

The Fourth of July is, or was, a day of families joined in quiet expressions of patriotism, with American flags flying. This year, families are divided, the air filled with shouted bitterness and somewhere this weekend an American flag will be burned.

The U.S. is in a revolutionary moment not just because of the street protests after the death of George Floyd or because of the pulling down of presidents’ monuments. On their own, these demonstrations wouldn’t come to much, primarily because—if the on-camera interviews conducted with protesters are representative—the substance of their protest is so unformed and diffused. Fireworks—loud, startling and self-extinguishing—are an apt metaphor.

The important element is the acts of consent from America’s elites. These people sit atop the country’s commanding institutions—in academia, business, politics, bureaucracies, media, book publishing, museums, philanthropies—and their instant assent provides legitimacy and puts us into something resembling a revolutionary situation. Which means this will be a revolutionary presidential election, the second in a row.

In that spirit, let me recommend some weekend reading: the Declaration of Independence. See how you react to revisiting the ideas that made a real revolution, stated in less than 1,500 words.

Even amid that upheaval there was wit. Without once naming George III, they refer merely to “the present King of Great Britain.” Today you would search in vain for a member of the “resistance” who consigns Mr. Trump to anonymity as “the current president of the United States.” That no such sophisticated insult is possible reflects how far we’ve come, or gone.

Among the most striking differences between revolutionaries then and now is that the signers included in their Declaration a bill of particulars for their intention to separate. Once past Jefferson’s famous phrases about all men created equal and unalienable rights, he states, “let facts be submitted” and lays them out in 27 staccato paragraphs.

One is struck by the tone of optimistic defiance in the Declaration’s text. Compare it with the pro forma, almost cookie-cutter language in statements from the boards of directors at Princeton or the American Museum of Natural History, who instead sound like defeated men and women. Wherever the current revolt may end, it’s hard to see our own confused, wan elites as the heirs to the country’s original leadership.

A forewarning to Trumpians: These first declarers also take “the Tyrant” to task on immigrants, for “refusing to pass” laws “to encourage their migrations hither.” And international commerce, “for cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.” All sides today will claim to find supporting language in the Declaration’s text, such as, “They too have been deaf to the voice of justice.”

 

Times change—and that’s the point. Through the Revolution, the Civil War and all the years since that signing, the American idea has been about social, political and economic progress.

In contrast, the defining symbol that now attaches to the current revolution—and their conscious choice—is the removing of monuments, including the general who won the War for Independence and the general who won the Civil War over slavery.

It is a misstatement to call what is going on now an American revolution. The Declaration’s revolution was about creating a new nation. Today’s claimants see the future as de novo, a blank slate, an exercise in elimination. It is closer to what the ever-ironic 1960s radical anarchist Abbie Hoffman called “revolution for the hell of it.” That isn’t enough.

This weekend’s Fourth of July is the 244th anniversary of American’s first revolution. It remains the benchmark against which any successor idea must be measured.

Write henninger@wsj.com.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-say-you-want-a-revolution-11593642468?mod=opinion_featst_pos3

Share

I'm serious… usually. (Martin Rossol)