I started writing this blog shortly after Obama became President. It was actually set up and named by my daughters, who saw that I had been sending political emails to maybe 10-12 people I knew. Now, one daughter just added an email address for readers to be able to email me directly; as many readers are reluctant to post public comments. The email is in my profile, "About Me," and is mike.truthuncensored@gmail.com. My daughters also want to get my blog linked to other sites in order to increase readership. Stay tuned and I will let you know.
My last post discussed Melania's speech and the plagiarism issue. It was mentioned by some on the right that both Obama and Biden had been guilty of plagiarism. Why didn't I bring it up? The answer is because the plagiarism by Obama and Biden was irrelevant. Plagiarism is wrong. As with anything else that is wrong, it is not a defense to say "but other people do it also." Is stealing okay because others do it? Obviously not. I had no interest in defending Melania's partial copying of Michelle Obama's speech. What was significant was the difference in genuine beliefs of the Trumps versus the Obamas.
Similarly, an issue arose in one of the group emails in which I participate. One reader was incensed that I would not condemn Trump for accusing a judge of bias just based on his ethnicity (Hispanic) alone. I believe that reader was just so upset with my conservative views (this particular group email consists of mostly liberals) that he missed my very first comment about the issue. I had said that Trump's accusation of bias on the basis of ethnicity with no facts to support the bias was unconscionable. That participant in the blog had no interest in discussing any of Hillary's problems. He just wanted to make sure that I said Trump was wrong.
A friend recently just told me that he was watching the Republican convention on CNN, but would also switch to FOX periodically. He felt that he was entering into a different universe each time he switched from one station to the other. CNN commentators had nothing good to say about the convention or Trump's speech. On the other hand, the FOX commentators were gushing over Trump's speech as one of the best political speeches ever. Both views are nonsense.
Trump hit many issues that concern the average American: law and order, terrorism, the economy, jobs and manufacturing, taxes, education and school choice and school debt, veterans, Supreme Court appointments, the Second Amendment and foreign affairs. Along the way, he threw in his criticisms of Hilary Clinton. It was, substantially, a populist speech, with a fair number of issues that would ordinarily appeal to Democrats. That made it all the more obvious that CNN and FOX were simply defending "their side," rather than giving a fair analysis. Which is why I encourage people, especially young people, to read different viewpoints. Which is also why I enjoy talk radio shows that have many callers, and make it a point to read letters to the editor. Those sources provide many different viewpoints.
Question: then weren't you justifying Trump's attack on the press when you answered with Obama's behavior towards the press? (See the 7/20/16 post "Get Ready For All The Lies.") Weren't you doing what you said you would not do because if something is wrong, it is wrong? Answer: not at all. The point of that post was not to defend Trump. Rather, it was to show the incredible bias of the elitists in the universities who were making Trump out to be the worst potential president for the First Amendment and freedom of the press, while ignoring the very real attacks on the press by a man who has actually been President for 7 1/2 years. The bias of the academy, like the bias of the media, is a very real and serious issue, and this blog has addressed it on multiple occasions.
The bottom line, of course, is that this blog has a conservative viewpoint. But I do my best to provide facts and information, not just my opinions. And, as long term readers of the blog will know, I have posted a number of exchanges between myself and others in order to present both sides of an issue. If any reader would like to engage in an exchange on a particular issue, email me and I will do my best to post it. Your name would not be posted, you would only be identified as "Reader," unless you preferred otherwise.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
A Couple of Observations
Much has been made of Melania Trump's convention speech apparently tracking an earlier speech by Michelle Obama. When you put the speeches side by side, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Michelle Obama's speech was, indeed, copied in part. Such copying of words, without giving recognition to the original speaker, is unacceptable. The New York Times made this their lead story in today's paper. I am sure glad that the Times wants to keep this front page news. Slightly different from one of the actual candidates being blasted, and essentially being called a liar, by the Director of the FBI. For that important story it was basically "nothing to see here, let's move along."
So, the Times accused Melania not only of "word-for-word repetition," but also of "borrowed themes." What? Ideas cannot be owned. They can not be copyrighted. And they can not be plagiarized. Both Melania and Michelle spoke of achieving one's goals through hard work. That is a universal theme. There is one important difference. The Trumps actually believe it. We see it in the way the Trump children all work; they work for their father, but they work. They are family oriented. I have not heard of problems with drugs, alcohol or the law. Think of other very wealthy families and their children. Compare Ivanka Trump with Paris Hilton. Two billionaire fathers. I'd say one clearly did a better job of parenting.
Listening to Donald Trump Jr's speech, it was obvious that Trump Sr encouraged his children to work. He taught them to learn from the people who actually do the work, not just the MBAs sitting in some distant office. Trump took his kids to job sites, and they learned from those workers. That gives a certain appreciation and respect for working men and women. I loved his line that "We didn't learn from MBAs. We learned from people who had doctorates in common sense...It's why we're the only children of billionaires as comfortable in a D10 Caterpillar as we are in our own cars."
I said that the Trumps actually believed Melania's words about hard work - contrary to the Obamas. Everyone remember Obama's thoughts on hard work and running a business? "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Or, "...if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own." So much for Michelle's achieving one's dreams through "your willingness to work for them."
A final thought. Our oldest daughter got us involved in a show called "Orphan Black." In one episode, there is a child in the room with several adults. One of the adults mentions "Republicans." The child asks "what is a Republican?" And the adult replies to the effect that it's best not to tell her so as to not give her nightmares. This non-stop mocking of conservatives and Republicans is what passes for intellectual debate from the left. It also reflects the truth that unlike "classical liberals" (see the July 17 post) leftists (today's liberals) have zero tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
So, the Times accused Melania not only of "word-for-word repetition," but also of "borrowed themes." What? Ideas cannot be owned. They can not be copyrighted. And they can not be plagiarized. Both Melania and Michelle spoke of achieving one's goals through hard work. That is a universal theme. There is one important difference. The Trumps actually believe it. We see it in the way the Trump children all work; they work for their father, but they work. They are family oriented. I have not heard of problems with drugs, alcohol or the law. Think of other very wealthy families and their children. Compare Ivanka Trump with Paris Hilton. Two billionaire fathers. I'd say one clearly did a better job of parenting.
Listening to Donald Trump Jr's speech, it was obvious that Trump Sr encouraged his children to work. He taught them to learn from the people who actually do the work, not just the MBAs sitting in some distant office. Trump took his kids to job sites, and they learned from those workers. That gives a certain appreciation and respect for working men and women. I loved his line that "We didn't learn from MBAs. We learned from people who had doctorates in common sense...It's why we're the only children of billionaires as comfortable in a D10 Caterpillar as we are in our own cars."
I said that the Trumps actually believed Melania's words about hard work - contrary to the Obamas. Everyone remember Obama's thoughts on hard work and running a business? "If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Or, "...if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own." So much for Michelle's achieving one's dreams through "your willingness to work for them."
A final thought. Our oldest daughter got us involved in a show called "Orphan Black." In one episode, there is a child in the room with several adults. One of the adults mentions "Republicans." The child asks "what is a Republican?" And the adult replies to the effect that it's best not to tell her so as to not give her nightmares. This non-stop mocking of conservatives and Republicans is what passes for intellectual debate from the left. It also reflects the truth that unlike "classical liberals" (see the July 17 post) leftists (today's liberals) have zero tolerance for opposing viewpoints.
Get Ready For All The Lies!
A group calling itself "Historians Against Trump" penned "An Open Letter to the American People." Claiming to be unaligned with any group, their main complaints about Trump were as follows: Trump "bullies and suppresses the press," Trump "seeks to weaken First Amendment protections as President," Trump "singles out journalists for attack," and Trump "mocks physical disabilities."
Let's start with the last item. While Trump denied mocking the reporter with a muscular disorder, the video of it did seem to show that he was mocking the reporter. If he intended to, it was totally inappropriate. I wonder what this group had to say about Obama saying his bowling skills mirrored the Special Olympics. He had to apologize. Let's not forget the times Obama mocked religious people, starting with his "clinging to their guns and religion" comments. Although my favorite was his telling Christians not to get on their high horses about Islamic terror, because look what Christians did during the crusades.
The most serious charge concerns Trump and the press. Here is James Goodale, former general counsel to the New York Times, in discussing Obama's possible criminalizing of reporting on national security information: "President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst President ever on issues of national security and press freedom." New York Times reporter David Sanger: "This is the most closed, control freak administration I've ever covered," referring to the President who promised the most transparent administration ever.
Or how about the Public Editor of the New York Times, Margaret Sullivan: "...it's turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press." (The above quotes are from a piece on Alternet on 10/11/13 by Glenn Greenwald, who wrote his article for the Guardian.)
Last (I'm sure I could find others if time permitted), is a quote from CNN's Jake Tapper, after noting that government sources are afraid to speak with the media during the Obama administration: "...the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists...more than all previous administrations combined." (From a piece by Jon Greenberg, 1/10/14, on PunditFact.)
So, what do Goodale, Sanger, Sullivan and Tapper have in common? Notwithstanding that they are all affiliated with liberal media organizations, they all said Obama was the worst President for a free press. What did/do these "Historians Against Trump" have to say about Obama and the press?
Anyone who has read articles in the LA Times or NY Times about the Republican convention these last couple of days would struggle to find a positive word about the convention. I can barely wait to see all the gushing articles next week about the Democrat's convention; and Chris Matthews having more thrills running down his leg. Just don't look for honest reporting.
Let's start with the last item. While Trump denied mocking the reporter with a muscular disorder, the video of it did seem to show that he was mocking the reporter. If he intended to, it was totally inappropriate. I wonder what this group had to say about Obama saying his bowling skills mirrored the Special Olympics. He had to apologize. Let's not forget the times Obama mocked religious people, starting with his "clinging to their guns and religion" comments. Although my favorite was his telling Christians not to get on their high horses about Islamic terror, because look what Christians did during the crusades.
The most serious charge concerns Trump and the press. Here is James Goodale, former general counsel to the New York Times, in discussing Obama's possible criminalizing of reporting on national security information: "President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst President ever on issues of national security and press freedom." New York Times reporter David Sanger: "This is the most closed, control freak administration I've ever covered," referring to the President who promised the most transparent administration ever.
Or how about the Public Editor of the New York Times, Margaret Sullivan: "...it's turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press." (The above quotes are from a piece on Alternet on 10/11/13 by Glenn Greenwald, who wrote his article for the Guardian.)
Last (I'm sure I could find others if time permitted), is a quote from CNN's Jake Tapper, after noting that government sources are afraid to speak with the media during the Obama administration: "...the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists...more than all previous administrations combined." (From a piece by Jon Greenberg, 1/10/14, on PunditFact.)
So, what do Goodale, Sanger, Sullivan and Tapper have in common? Notwithstanding that they are all affiliated with liberal media organizations, they all said Obama was the worst President for a free press. What did/do these "Historians Against Trump" have to say about Obama and the press?
Anyone who has read articles in the LA Times or NY Times about the Republican convention these last couple of days would struggle to find a positive word about the convention. I can barely wait to see all the gushing articles next week about the Democrat's convention; and Chris Matthews having more thrills running down his leg. Just don't look for honest reporting.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Classical Liberalism
Today's Democrats are certainly not liberal - not in the classical, traditional sense. Today's Democrats are leftists and socialists and statists. They do not believe in the primacy of the individual. They do not believe in limited government. And they do not believe in permitting opposing speech. It's a good idea to take a look at how far the leftist Democrats have moved from true liberalism. As noted by Wikipedia, "Liberalism as a specifically named ideology begins in the late 18th century as a movement towards self-government and away from aristocracy."
One of the leading voices then on this idea of liberalism was John Stuart Mill, with his famous treatise "On Liberty." Mill discussed three objections to government interference in the lives of the people. "The first is, when the thing to be done is likely to be better done by individuals than by the government." But government under Democrats, especially since the 1960s, has taken on ever-increasing responsibilities. It is the Republicans who have discussed bringing us back to true liberal ideals, when they discuss privatization of functions that have been taken over by the government.
Mill: "The second objection is more nearly allied to our subject. In many cases, though individuals may not do the particular thing so well, on the average, as the officers of government, it is nevertheless desirable that it should be done by them, rather than by the government, as a means to their own mental education - a mode of strengthening their active faculties, exercising their judgment, and giving them a familiar knowledge of the subjects with which they are thus left to deal."
Mill is telling us that there is a benefit to the individual when they do things for themselves, rather than having government bureaucracy do things for them. As Mill notes, it is a means of self-education. But doing things for oneself, as opposed to relying on government, also motivates people to take care of themselves. And, for my friends on the left who are concerned with the idea of "self-esteem," doing and accomplishing things bolsters one's self-esteem in a way that government doing things for you can not.
Mill: "The third, and most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government, is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power." Our Constitution created a limited government, with enumerated powers. As the Tenth Amendment (too often ignored by our political leaders and the Courts) says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Classical liberals understood the dangers in growing too big a government. After all, revolutions were fought over excessive government power. Today's Democrats can conceive of no legitimate limits on government power.
Another very important difference between today's Democrats and Classical Liberals is in the area of speech. Mill: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Yet, the Democratic left today has no interest in allowing opposing speech. In case anyone actually needs any examples, think of all the times conservative groups on college campuses have invited conservative speakers, only to have the college administrators disinvite those speakers after protests from leftist students. Think of all the occasions when leftist students shout down speakers with whom they disagree. Recall that happened to the Israeli ambassador to the US at UC Irvine.
Perhaps the most distasteful example of the left's intolerance of opposing speech came about at the very beginning of Obama's first term. Recall that he, and the top people in his Administration, went on various talk shows saying that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, and should be ignored by the other news outlets. Then, we had various Democratic mayors across the country seeking to bar Chick-fil-A from operating in their cities because the owner dared to express his personal opinion that he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. Today, we have various newspapers refusing to print opinion pieces that rebut global warming theorists. And, in my 5/19/16 post, we had a Columbia Law School professor telling us how certain viewpoints are "legitimately disfavored."
Mill: "There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings...but there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinions and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it..." If Mill were alive today, and saw that college students needed "safe spaces" anytime a conservative speaker was on their campus, he would smile a knowing smile and think to himself "I predicted this over 150 years ago." You see, Classical Liberals loved the debate, they did not shy away from it.
But, today's Democrats can be repeatedly heard accusing Republicans of various evil motivations. Whether it is something like "Republicans healthcare plan is you die," or the name calling of Republicans as "haters," "bigots," and "women-haters," Democrats prefer demagoguery to actual debate. It is the rare instance in which I am able to get a Democrat to actually engage in a debate with me. On the other hand, Democrats have no problem in telling me I am wrong and then walking away, with some simply telling me that they hate Republicans. And, of course, there is no end to their mockery.
So, please do not tell me Democrats are "liberal." They are far from it. They believe in unlimited government power, forgetting that we fought a revolution over that very issue. They believe in suppressing opposing speech. And, perhaps worst of all, they do not even realize how tyrannical their views are. If you are a Classical Liberal today, you are a Republican, and most likely a conservative. So, I will proudly wear the label "Classical Liberal."
One of the leading voices then on this idea of liberalism was John Stuart Mill, with his famous treatise "On Liberty." Mill discussed three objections to government interference in the lives of the people. "The first is, when the thing to be done is likely to be better done by individuals than by the government." But government under Democrats, especially since the 1960s, has taken on ever-increasing responsibilities. It is the Republicans who have discussed bringing us back to true liberal ideals, when they discuss privatization of functions that have been taken over by the government.
Mill: "The second objection is more nearly allied to our subject. In many cases, though individuals may not do the particular thing so well, on the average, as the officers of government, it is nevertheless desirable that it should be done by them, rather than by the government, as a means to their own mental education - a mode of strengthening their active faculties, exercising their judgment, and giving them a familiar knowledge of the subjects with which they are thus left to deal."
Mill is telling us that there is a benefit to the individual when they do things for themselves, rather than having government bureaucracy do things for them. As Mill notes, it is a means of self-education. But doing things for oneself, as opposed to relying on government, also motivates people to take care of themselves. And, for my friends on the left who are concerned with the idea of "self-esteem," doing and accomplishing things bolsters one's self-esteem in a way that government doing things for you can not.
Mill: "The third, and most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government, is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power." Our Constitution created a limited government, with enumerated powers. As the Tenth Amendment (too often ignored by our political leaders and the Courts) says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Classical liberals understood the dangers in growing too big a government. After all, revolutions were fought over excessive government power. Today's Democrats can conceive of no legitimate limits on government power.
Another very important difference between today's Democrats and Classical Liberals is in the area of speech. Mill: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Yet, the Democratic left today has no interest in allowing opposing speech. In case anyone actually needs any examples, think of all the times conservative groups on college campuses have invited conservative speakers, only to have the college administrators disinvite those speakers after protests from leftist students. Think of all the occasions when leftist students shout down speakers with whom they disagree. Recall that happened to the Israeli ambassador to the US at UC Irvine.
Perhaps the most distasteful example of the left's intolerance of opposing speech came about at the very beginning of Obama's first term. Recall that he, and the top people in his Administration, went on various talk shows saying that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, and should be ignored by the other news outlets. Then, we had various Democratic mayors across the country seeking to bar Chick-fil-A from operating in their cities because the owner dared to express his personal opinion that he believed in the traditional definition of marriage. Today, we have various newspapers refusing to print opinion pieces that rebut global warming theorists. And, in my 5/19/16 post, we had a Columbia Law School professor telling us how certain viewpoints are "legitimately disfavored."
Mill: "There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings...but there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinions and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it..." If Mill were alive today, and saw that college students needed "safe spaces" anytime a conservative speaker was on their campus, he would smile a knowing smile and think to himself "I predicted this over 150 years ago." You see, Classical Liberals loved the debate, they did not shy away from it.
But, today's Democrats can be repeatedly heard accusing Republicans of various evil motivations. Whether it is something like "Republicans healthcare plan is you die," or the name calling of Republicans as "haters," "bigots," and "women-haters," Democrats prefer demagoguery to actual debate. It is the rare instance in which I am able to get a Democrat to actually engage in a debate with me. On the other hand, Democrats have no problem in telling me I am wrong and then walking away, with some simply telling me that they hate Republicans. And, of course, there is no end to their mockery.
So, please do not tell me Democrats are "liberal." They are far from it. They believe in unlimited government power, forgetting that we fought a revolution over that very issue. They believe in suppressing opposing speech. And, perhaps worst of all, they do not even realize how tyrannical their views are. If you are a Classical Liberal today, you are a Republican, and most likely a conservative. So, I will proudly wear the label "Classical Liberal."
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Permissible Generalizations, Part II
Obama referred to the murderer of the five Dallas police officers as a "demented individual." That individual had said that he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers. When asked if that attack might be considered a "hate crime," Obama opined "it's very hard to interpret the motives of this shooter, as we have seen in a host of mass shootings." Very hard? He said he wanted to kill white cops. How is it "very hard" to figure out his motives? He wanted to kill white cops. He said so.
Obama continued in his feigned confusion regarding the shooter's motives: "What triggers that, what feeds it, what sets it off, I'll leave that to psychologists and people who study these kinds of incidents." Obama then compared the Dallas shooter to the young white man who shot and killed parishioners in their church: "we don't assume that somehow he's making a political statement that's relevant to the attitudes of the rest of America." But that's exactly what happened. Because that murderer was seen in an online post with a Confederate flag, much of the country (especially the left) jumped to the conclusion that any reference to the Confederacy motivated whites to kill blacks.
Recall that the Confederate flag was not only banned from flying on government buildings (which I had no problem with) but also dropped from retail outlets. Schools named after Robert E. Lee scrambled to change their names. Why the uproar? Because of a generalization that equated anything to do with the Confederate States of America with motivating whites to kill blacks. That was, of course, nonsense.
Obama: "And we shouldn't make those assumptions around a troubled Muslim individual (in Orlando) who is acting on their own in that same way." There you have it. No generalizations may be made about radical Islam - a phrase Obama refuses to utter. It matters not that these Muslim terrorists shout "Allahu Akbar," or say that they are killing in the name of Islam. No, each radical Islamic attack is carried out by a "troubled" individual "acting on their own." All of the thousands of terrorist attacks around the world can be attributed to "troubled" individuals "acting on their own." It is strictly coincidental that there are so many of these perpetrators who all happen to be Muslim.
So, Obama claims that no generalizations can be made about Islamic terror. He says no generalizations may be made about the white man shooting blacks in their church (although the left had no problem doing just that). No generalization may be made about a black man killing white cops. But there is one generalization that Obama feels confident about making: our police departments and criminal justice system are populated by a bunch of racists. Again, "these are not isolated incidents." These are not troubled officers acting on their own. That description is reserved for Muslim terrorists.
When asked what his legacy might be with regards to race relations, Obama said that he "tried to get all of us Americans to understand the difficult legacy of race...to recognize that the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination didn't suddenly vanish with the passage of the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, or the election of Barack Obama..."
No right thinking person can think that slavery was anything but abhorrent. Every right thinking American acknowledges that some still hold racist attitudes. That includes blacks, such as the black shooter of the Dallas police officers, who said he wanted to kill whites. I disagree with the proposition put forth by some on the left that only whites can be racists. But if Obama wants to make generalizations, he should do so about his community - the black community.
He should be concerned about all the blacks killed mostly by other blacks; 263 blacks killed in Chicago alone so far this year. If blacks are committing most of those murders, he should be willing to make the generalization and ask what is going on in the black community, in black families. There are far too many single black moms. Boys and young men need a father. A father sets limits, teaches self-discipline. And a father teaches values. Here's a thought. I believe Obama could do far more good by giving uplifting speeches, instead of speeches that attack the police. One place to start would be talking about values. And a good place to start talking about values would be with the Ten Commandments. Look at the July 4th post, and you will see that our Founders were religious men; men who understood that the foundation of our democracy would have to be based on religious and moral values. We see what happens when that is lacking.
Obama continued in his feigned confusion regarding the shooter's motives: "What triggers that, what feeds it, what sets it off, I'll leave that to psychologists and people who study these kinds of incidents." Obama then compared the Dallas shooter to the young white man who shot and killed parishioners in their church: "we don't assume that somehow he's making a political statement that's relevant to the attitudes of the rest of America." But that's exactly what happened. Because that murderer was seen in an online post with a Confederate flag, much of the country (especially the left) jumped to the conclusion that any reference to the Confederacy motivated whites to kill blacks.
Recall that the Confederate flag was not only banned from flying on government buildings (which I had no problem with) but also dropped from retail outlets. Schools named after Robert E. Lee scrambled to change their names. Why the uproar? Because of a generalization that equated anything to do with the Confederate States of America with motivating whites to kill blacks. That was, of course, nonsense.
Obama: "And we shouldn't make those assumptions around a troubled Muslim individual (in Orlando) who is acting on their own in that same way." There you have it. No generalizations may be made about radical Islam - a phrase Obama refuses to utter. It matters not that these Muslim terrorists shout "Allahu Akbar," or say that they are killing in the name of Islam. No, each radical Islamic attack is carried out by a "troubled" individual "acting on their own." All of the thousands of terrorist attacks around the world can be attributed to "troubled" individuals "acting on their own." It is strictly coincidental that there are so many of these perpetrators who all happen to be Muslim.
So, Obama claims that no generalizations can be made about Islamic terror. He says no generalizations may be made about the white man shooting blacks in their church (although the left had no problem doing just that). No generalization may be made about a black man killing white cops. But there is one generalization that Obama feels confident about making: our police departments and criminal justice system are populated by a bunch of racists. Again, "these are not isolated incidents." These are not troubled officers acting on their own. That description is reserved for Muslim terrorists.
When asked what his legacy might be with regards to race relations, Obama said that he "tried to get all of us Americans to understand the difficult legacy of race...to recognize that the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination didn't suddenly vanish with the passage of the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, or the election of Barack Obama..."
No right thinking person can think that slavery was anything but abhorrent. Every right thinking American acknowledges that some still hold racist attitudes. That includes blacks, such as the black shooter of the Dallas police officers, who said he wanted to kill whites. I disagree with the proposition put forth by some on the left that only whites can be racists. But if Obama wants to make generalizations, he should do so about his community - the black community.
He should be concerned about all the blacks killed mostly by other blacks; 263 blacks killed in Chicago alone so far this year. If blacks are committing most of those murders, he should be willing to make the generalization and ask what is going on in the black community, in black families. There are far too many single black moms. Boys and young men need a father. A father sets limits, teaches self-discipline. And a father teaches values. Here's a thought. I believe Obama could do far more good by giving uplifting speeches, instead of speeches that attack the police. One place to start would be talking about values. And a good place to start talking about values would be with the Ten Commandments. Look at the July 4th post, and you will see that our Founders were religious men; men who understood that the foundation of our democracy would have to be based on religious and moral values. We see what happens when that is lacking.
Permissible Generalizations, Part I
It has been a difficult week for our country. A black man, Alton Sterling, was killed by police in Louisiana. Another black man, Philando Castile, was killed by a police officer in Minnesota. Then, five police officers (Lorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael Smith, Brent Thompson and Patrick Zamarripa) were murdered and another seven wounded in an ambush in Dallas, Texas. There is no doubt that race relations have worsened during the term of our first black President. It behooves us to see if his words help or hurt.
As a reminder, President Obama has not been particularly helpful with regards to race relations in the past. He jumped to conclusions with regards to the arrest of black Professor Gates by calling the Cambridge Police officers stupid, before knowing any of the facts. He told us that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon (Martin), which was totally unrelated to whether George Zimmerman acted legally or not. It was found he did act legally. Obama immediately dispatched the DOJ to Ferguson, Missouri after the police killing of Michael Brown, essentially condemning the entire Ferguson Police Department.
Now, with the sad and unfortunate killings of Mr. Sterling and Mr. Castile, Obama said this: "These are not isolated incidents...They're symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system." Is that a helpful generalization? Would it not be more helpful to say that he looks forward to a complete investigation of all shootings by local and state authorities; and, if necessary, he will ask the DOJ to investigate. Would it not be better to say that when anyone is stopped by the police they should comply with officers' orders. Doesn't Obama's comment essentially say that the entire criminal justice system is biased against blacks? It is untrue; and how is that possibly helpful?
Disappointingly, the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, was no better in his comments. Said Dayton: "Would this have happened if the passengers, the drivers were white? I don't think it would have." Thank you, Governor, for essentially claiming that all police officers are racist. Democrats like Obama and Dayton are doing nothing other than pandering to part of their political base, blacks. They are not trying to be unifying voices, and they are not helping matters by saying police and the criminal justice system are against blacks.
The New York Times editorial board was also quick to attack the police. In their 7/9/16 editorial, they state that the murderer of the five Dallas police officers committed his crime to "avenge the "innocent" deaths of black citizens in police encounters elsewhere." I'm confused. Does "innocent" deaths mean that the police acted wrongfully? Don't we need to know all the facts first, before making that generalization?
The Times also told us in their 7/8/16 editorial that police have now killed 123 blacks in the US this year. What generalization are we supposed to make from that single statistic? Here's a statistic: 509 people have been killed by police this year. 238 were white. 79 were Hispanic. The rest were unknown/other. 484 of those killed were male, only 25 were female. Clearly, the police are unjustly targeting males. Or, maybe, females are far less likely to commit crimes, and far more likely to comply with orders from police. Just maybe.
Here are some more statistics. In the first half of this year alone, in the single city of Chicago, 263 blacks have been murdered. We can extrapolate from past statistics that most of the murderers were also black. The NY Daily News reported on 11/19/13 that from January through June, 2013, blacks made up 63.8% of murder victims in Chicago; and blacks made up 70% of the perpetrators. Another site provided similar statistics for the year 2011 - blacks were 75.3% of the murder victims and 71.3% of the perpetrators. What generalization can Obama make from those numbers? None, because he would rather not discuss it.
As a reminder, President Obama has not been particularly helpful with regards to race relations in the past. He jumped to conclusions with regards to the arrest of black Professor Gates by calling the Cambridge Police officers stupid, before knowing any of the facts. He told us that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon (Martin), which was totally unrelated to whether George Zimmerman acted legally or not. It was found he did act legally. Obama immediately dispatched the DOJ to Ferguson, Missouri after the police killing of Michael Brown, essentially condemning the entire Ferguson Police Department.
Now, with the sad and unfortunate killings of Mr. Sterling and Mr. Castile, Obama said this: "These are not isolated incidents...They're symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system." Is that a helpful generalization? Would it not be more helpful to say that he looks forward to a complete investigation of all shootings by local and state authorities; and, if necessary, he will ask the DOJ to investigate. Would it not be better to say that when anyone is stopped by the police they should comply with officers' orders. Doesn't Obama's comment essentially say that the entire criminal justice system is biased against blacks? It is untrue; and how is that possibly helpful?
Disappointingly, the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, was no better in his comments. Said Dayton: "Would this have happened if the passengers, the drivers were white? I don't think it would have." Thank you, Governor, for essentially claiming that all police officers are racist. Democrats like Obama and Dayton are doing nothing other than pandering to part of their political base, blacks. They are not trying to be unifying voices, and they are not helping matters by saying police and the criminal justice system are against blacks.
The New York Times editorial board was also quick to attack the police. In their 7/9/16 editorial, they state that the murderer of the five Dallas police officers committed his crime to "avenge the "innocent" deaths of black citizens in police encounters elsewhere." I'm confused. Does "innocent" deaths mean that the police acted wrongfully? Don't we need to know all the facts first, before making that generalization?
The Times also told us in their 7/8/16 editorial that police have now killed 123 blacks in the US this year. What generalization are we supposed to make from that single statistic? Here's a statistic: 509 people have been killed by police this year. 238 were white. 79 were Hispanic. The rest were unknown/other. 484 of those killed were male, only 25 were female. Clearly, the police are unjustly targeting males. Or, maybe, females are far less likely to commit crimes, and far more likely to comply with orders from police. Just maybe.
Here are some more statistics. In the first half of this year alone, in the single city of Chicago, 263 blacks have been murdered. We can extrapolate from past statistics that most of the murderers were also black. The NY Daily News reported on 11/19/13 that from January through June, 2013, blacks made up 63.8% of murder victims in Chicago; and blacks made up 70% of the perpetrators. Another site provided similar statistics for the year 2011 - blacks were 75.3% of the murder victims and 71.3% of the perpetrators. What generalization can Obama make from those numbers? None, because he would rather not discuss it.
Monday, July 4, 2016
A Few Words From Our Founders - Happy 240th Birthday America!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." (The Declaration of Independence, In Congress, July 4, 1776.)
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil..." (Thomas Paine in "Common Sense," published January 9, 1776.)
"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too little..." (Thomas Paine in his second pamphlet, "The American Crisis," published in December, 1776. Perhaps his most famous line from that pamphlet is "These are the times that try men's souls.") Sometimes, it seems to this writer that some do, indeed, esteem their liberty too little.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." (George Washington, January 8, 1790, in his first annual message to Congress.)
"Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Martha Jefferson, May 5, 1787.)
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." (George Washington, Farewell Address.)
"Adore G-d. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true..." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825.)
"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom." (John Adams, in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787.) This is the primary area where our country is falling far short. Many of our children need not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They are taught only about America's faults, not its overwhelming goodness. Many know little or nothing of the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution - the greatest governing document ever written.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 51.) Not something Obama and many other politicians appreciate. For many politicians, there should be no limit on their power.
Lastly, one of my personal favorites: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.) This one Amendment gives Americans rights that many around the world can only dream of. Some countries prohibit speech critical of their government. Some countries, even in Europe, have "hate speech" laws prohibiting certain speech. Some countries have an official state religion; and prohibit conversion to other religions.
G-d Bless the USA!
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil..." (Thomas Paine in "Common Sense," published January 9, 1776.)
"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too little..." (Thomas Paine in his second pamphlet, "The American Crisis," published in December, 1776. Perhaps his most famous line from that pamphlet is "These are the times that try men's souls.") Sometimes, it seems to this writer that some do, indeed, esteem their liberty too little.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." (George Washington, January 8, 1790, in his first annual message to Congress.)
"Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Martha Jefferson, May 5, 1787.)
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." (George Washington, Farewell Address.)
"Adore G-d. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true..." (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825.)
"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom." (John Adams, in "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787.) This is the primary area where our country is falling far short. Many of our children need not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They are taught only about America's faults, not its overwhelming goodness. Many know little or nothing of the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution - the greatest governing document ever written.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 51.) Not something Obama and many other politicians appreciate. For many politicians, there should be no limit on their power.
Lastly, one of my personal favorites: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.) This one Amendment gives Americans rights that many around the world can only dream of. Some countries prohibit speech critical of their government. Some countries, even in Europe, have "hate speech" laws prohibiting certain speech. Some countries have an official state religion; and prohibit conversion to other religions.
G-d Bless the USA!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)