Crime and Punishment in the Democrats' America

Billionaire George Soros is evil.  He has assisted numerous left-wing district attorneys across the country, helping them get elected thanks to his well-funded and are far reaching political action committees.  Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, George Gascon in Los Angeles, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia and Alvin Bragg in Manhattan, were all elected with the help of Soros.  These DA's have little interest in prosecuting bad guys, so it is no surprise that crime has increased where these DA's have taken office.

However, it turns out that even people on the left do not enjoy being the victims of crime.  In San Francisco, one of the most liberal cities in the country, Boudin was recalled.  In Los Angeles, enough voter signatures have been collected to force Gascon to face a recall election in November.  

Jose Alba is a 62 year old immigrant from the Dominican Republic.  He lives in Harlem and works at a bodega in northern Manhattan.  A woman came in to buy a bag of chips.  When her debit card was declined, she wanted to get the bag of chips for free.  Mr. Alba declined.  The woman was incensed and called her 35 year old boyfriend, who, upon his arrival, physically assaulted Alba.  Before he arrived, the woman took a knife from her purse and cut Alba.  Trying to defend himself from the boyfriend, Alba was able to reach a box cutting knife, using it to stab the boyfriend in his neck and chest, resulting in his death.    

Manhattan DA Bragg saw fit to charge Alba with second degree murder, and off he went to Rikers.  Bragg's office sought a $500,000 bond, but the judge reduced that to $250,000.  Under apparent pressure from the public, Bragg sought a further reduction to $50,000.  Alba is currently out on bail.  The deceased perpetrator was black.  Bragg is black.  Was race a factor?  I do not know.    

Here is the rest of the story.  The now deceased boyfriend was already on parole for attacking a police officer.  One news site reported that he had a history of 8 prior arrests, including for assault, robbery, and domestic assault.  While Alba faces murder charges, the girlfriend who cut him has been charged with...NOTHING!  Alba has no criminal record.  He was minding his business in the bodega when he was attacked.  Representative Lee Zeldin is on November's ballot against current New York Governor Kathy Hochul.  Zeldin is an Army vet, a Lt. Col. in the Army Reserves, and a Jewish Republican.  Reflecting the widespread sentiment in support of Alba, and against his prosecution, Zeldin said this:  "My first Day 1 action as Governor next January will be to fire Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg."

Recall that back in September, 2021, 4 mounted border patrol agents were accused of whipping Haitian immigrants attempting to illegally enter the country.  Here was President Biden at the time:  "It's horrible what you saw...I promise you, those people will pay...there will be consequences."  Typically, it was a rush to judgment.  Following an investigation, it was determined that none of the mounted agents had whips.  They were seen holding the horses' reins, likely in an effort to control their horses.  

The US Attorney's office for Western Texas declined to prosecute.  But Biden promised that there would be consequences.  Customs and Border Patrol is part of the Department of Homeland Security.  The Secretary of Homeland Security is part of the President's cabinet.  As Biden promised "consequences," CBP announced that disciplinary action would be taken against the agents.  The exact discipline has not yet been announced.  And, I wish I was making this up, but the illegal immigrants are suing over their alleged "mistreatment."  I am sure that the Biden Administration will support them.  

This is the current state of crime and punishment in the Democrats' America.  Prosecute the good guys, do not punish the bad guys.  It makes me sick.    

Growing Up In 1961

(Note.  On 7/22/17 I wrote "Lessons From My Childhood."  That was followed with "More Stories From My Youth," written on 11/12/17.  I hope that this post proves to be as popular as the other two.  I picked the year 1961 because I was 10 at the time.  Plus, it was an upside down year.)

The town I grew up in had about 80,000 people, But it always felt like a small town to me - probably because I did not venture out of the neighborhood.  Our garden apartment complex was bordered by a city street on one side, with a highway on the other side.  Across the highway was a row of shops - the grocery store, the candy store, the pharmacy, the cleaners, the kosher deli, the bakery, and just around the corner was Fred the barber.  My favorite store as a young boy was, of course, the candy store.  

The candy store had a soda fountain, although I was not a fan of ice cream sodas until later on.  Ice cream cones were 10 cents, but if you wanted a sugar cone you'd have to cough up 12 cents.  Most candy bars could be had for a nickel, although the Mounds and Almond Joy would cost you a dime.  And there was always a wide selection of comic books.  I was a DC Comics fan, with my favorite being Superman.  To this day I like to watch TV shows and movies where the good guys get the bad guys.  I would also buy some Batman, and "The Justice League of America."  Only rarely did I buy Marvel's "The Fantastic Four."  In 1961 a comic book only set me back a dime.  But come 1962 I first experienced inflation, as the price went up to 12 cents.  Our downstairs neighbor bought Archie comic books, and we would borrow each other's comics.  I haven't spoken to him since...today!  Old friends are special.  

The grocery store was family owned by a Mom and her two adult sons.  In 1961 a dozen eggs cost 57 cents, a loaf of bread was 15 cents, 63 cents would get you 10 potatoes, and a fresh delivered 1/2 gallon of milk would run 52 cents.  We actually had quite a few things delivered back then, and not by Instacart.  The grocery store delivered, the pharmacy delivered, and the cleaners delivered.  My father got seltzer delivered (I never cared for it much); and if you went into, say, the candy store, you could get a glass of seltzer by ordering a "2 cents plain."  We had milk delivered and placed in a metal box outside our door.  There was cream at the top of each quart.  And we had kosher meat delivered - my Mom's best friend's husband was a kosher butcher. 

Once in a while, my Mom would give me a list to take to the grocery store.  Following my Mom's instructions, I would ask one of the sons to please bag up everything on the list for me to take home.  And to put it on my Mom's tab.  No problem.  

As mentioned in my 7/22/17 post, my Mom worked at the pharmacy.  It was a small neighborhood store, but you could also buy perfumes, greeting cards and Timex watches.  There was also a small lending library in the store.  On some occasions in the winter, my Mom would go into work when there was no snow on the ground, but by the time she was ready to come home 3 to 6 inches of snow might have fallen.  When that happened, I would get a call to go get her.  Why?  I would walk ahead of her going home and she would step into the holes in the snow made by my boots.

At the bakery we would get sliced rye bread, and black and white cookies - which I still buy to this day.  My brother recalls standing in the kosher deli one day when a trucker came in.  Upon ordering a ham and cheese sandwich, the trucker was advised "we don't have ham and we don't have cheese.  How about pastrami?"  Delis still exist, but it isn't easy to find a kosher one. 

My inspiration for doing this post was actually Fred the barber.  Recently, my wife and I watched the movie "Defiance," starring Liev Schreiber and Daniel Craig.  They portray the two older Bielski brothers (there were four total), who escaped from Nazi occupied Eastern Europe into the forest.  During their time in the forest they came across other Jews who had escaped the Nazis.  The Bielski brothers took it upon themselves to protect, feed and house in temporary shelters the other escapees, while also launching attacks on Nazi troops.  

Three of the brothers survived and made it to the USA and settled in New York City, where they ran a trucking business together.  Which brings me back to Fred the barber.  I must have been about 10 years old, when Fred showed me some numbers burned into his forearm.  He tried to explain to me what it was all about, but I really did not understand.  Not at age 10.  Wikipedia estimates that about 250,000 to 300,000 Jews survived the Nazi concentration camps.  I am so grateful that Fred was one of those survivors.       

The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - My Take

(Note.  In the second post of May 15, I wrote "My Take," following the leak of the preliminary draft in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  This is "My Take" following the final decision overturning Roe.)

As one might expect, the left went overboard in the reactions to the decision.  Quite a few on the mainstream stations referred to the decision as "fascist."  Mika Brzezinski, on MSNBC, also said the decision was "anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-contraception...and anti-freedom."  Conservatives are used to the name-calling.  We understand that demagoguery is the favored debating technique of the Left.  Although, that is at least a little nicer than "fuck you Supreme Court," as some celebrities spouted.    

So let's be clear.  The decision in Dobbs did not make abortion illegal.  It did say there was no federal constitutional right to an abortion.  It returned the issue to the states, where, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought the debate should be.  (See the 6/26/22 post regarding commentary in The New York Times.)  And no, 5 white men did not make the decision in Dobbs.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined in that decision, as did Justice Thomas.  But 7 white men did make the decision in Roe.  Back then it was okay for white men to decide these things.   

Here was this past Sunday's editorial in the Los Angeles Times:  "It's a dark time in America as this once-revered institution has taken the rare and awful path of depriving people of their rights."  Nope, not what the Court did.  What the Court did do was say that Roe was decided on, at best, very shaky constitutional grounds, that the Court should not have gotten involved with abortion in the first place,  returning the issue to the voters and their elected state representatives.  

Here was Representative Maxine Waters:  "The hell with the Supreme Court.  We will defy them."  Defy the Supreme Court of the United States?  I thought it was only Republicans who disrespected our democracy.  Lest you tell me she is a little wacky, let's not forget Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  Nor should we forget that an armed man who threatened to assassinate Kavanaugh was arrested near the Justice's home.  

Of course, when the Left does not get their way, it is time to change the rules of the game.  Pack the Court.  Term limits for the Justices.  Eliminate the filibuster in order to accomplish those goals.  President Biden called the decision in Dobbs an "outlier" in the developed world.  Nope.  Ireland and Germany ban most abortions after 12 weeks.  In Italy it's after 90 days.  In France, Austria and Spain, abortion is banned after 14 weeks.  In the Czech Republic it's 20 weeks, and in the UK it's 24 weeks.  And there are exceptions for various reasons.

But, contrary to the desire of some, it is not unrestricted access up to and including the due date.  Yet, there are states with no restrictions - Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Vermont, New Jersey and Washington, D.C.  And possibly New Hampshire.  Just today I heard from someone who favors abortion through the due date.  So let me be clear, such late term abortions (absent a need to protect the life of the mother) are murder.  It is infanticide.  I do not understand how anyone can justify that.  

I remain opposed, as well, to an all-out ban of abortion.  My position in the Dobbs case remains unchanged from May 15.  The Mississippi statute in question banned abortions after 15 weeks.  That is what the Court should have addressed.  And notice how 15 weeks is a longer period than is allowed in quite a few European countries, where the people decided.

As Gerard Baker wrote in the 6/28/22 Wall Street Journal:  "Progressives should now know what conservatives have known for a long time: that the burden is on them to convince voters to support ethically sound solutions that can balance the competing interests of women, the unborn and the soul of society itself."  But, Democrats have for some time looked to the courts to accomplish their policy goals.  The democratic process?  Not so much.

The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - A Brief Look At Commentary In The Los Angeles Times

(Note.  While the L.A. Times did not have their own editorial in yesterday's paper, it can be fairly stated that they allowed an Op-Ed by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, to act as the paper's editorial.)  

Dean Chemerinsky:  "Roe vs. Wade was overruled not because of anything about its reasoning or any method of judicial interpretation but because Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 and was able to appoint three justices to fulfill his promise to...end abortion rights."  This is not the first time that I have been disappointed by Dean Chemerinsky.  (See the post on Kyle Rittenhouse.)  A look at the prior post reveals there were, in fact, criticisms of the Roe Court's reasoning and judicial interpretation - even by those on the Left.

Dean Chemerinsky complained that in Dobbs the Court wanted to leave the decision making on abortion to the political process, yet had no hesitation in declaring a New York State law passed in 1911 as being unconstitutional, and not deferring to the political process in that case.  (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, in which the Court held that the Second Amendment provided for a right to keep and bear arms.)  Is the Dean kidding?  There is an express constitutional provision - the Second Amendment - discussing guns.  Where is the express constitutional provision discussing abortion?  I expect better, especially from the Dean of one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. 

A look at the letters to the editor.  "A fetus now has greater rights than any woman or girl of reproductive age."  I wonder if the writer acknowledges any point in the pregnancy when the fetus/baby gains any rights.  And this letter:  "The U.S. is now officially a third-world country with a draconian Supreme Court."  I have actually felt that I live in a third-world country just by watching the news and driving around the city, and seeing people living on the streets everywhere.  And I do mean everywhere.  

And this letter:  "With most abortions now achieved through medication rather than a procedure, I bid you good luck trying to stop them.  You're going to need it."  That fact is supported by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. 

In an article inside the paper, the Times asserts that Republicans will push federal legislation to ban abortions nationwide.  And, they state that bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to do just that.  Although, they point out that the Senate bill has only 19 supporters, and the House bill has only 164 - both far short of the number for passage.  Meanwhile, some Democrats want the Congress to pass a federal law, while the Democrats still have the majority, permitting abortion  throughout the country.  I believe they are both wrong.

The general police power resides with the states.  That is why state governors, and not the President, decided when and if to have lockdowns due to Covid.  Under what provision in the Constitution or federal law, does Congress have the power to make a federal law on abortion?  And how disappointing would it be to see Republicans arguing for that power, when a conservative Court just said the opposite.  And I understand that many Democrats do not believe that the federal government should have any limitations on its powers.  Apparently Senator Schumer was unable to get all 50 Democratic Senators to support his bill, which Senator John Cornyn asserts would allow for abortion up to the due date, at least in certain instances.  And Senator Manchin said the proposal does not codify Roe, but seeks to expand it.    

In another article inside the paper, they quote President Biden fighting back against a threat by some red states to make it illegal for women to leave that state and go to another state in order to get an abortion.  If any state makes it illegal to travel from their no abortion state to a pro abortion state, that is outrageous.  I have long believed that there is an understood right to travel between the states, which can be supported by at least a couple of constitutional provisions.  Besides, we live in the USA, not the USSR.  We believe in liberty - not using the threat of law to keep people locked in place.  I cannot imagine a more anti-conservative position than trying to ban freedom of travel. 

The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - A Brief Look At Commentary In The New York Times

(Note.  I recently wrote three posts on the expected decision in Dobbs - two on May 15 and one on May 22.  The second on on May 15 gave "My Take" on what appeared would be the decision to overturn Roe, which the Court has now done in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  Abortion has been an emotional issue for those on both sides of the argument.  Before getting to "My Take" yet again, I want to address some of the reactions we've seen to the decision.)

Let's start with yesterday's editorial in the New York Times.  In the second sentence, the Times tells us that the decision "eliminated an established constitutional right involving the most fundamental of human concerns: the dignity and autonomy to decide what happens to your body."  I am curious if the Times had the same concerns about the right to control what happens to your body with regards to the Covid vaccines.  I opposed people losing their jobs, especially first responders, when government dictated to get the vaccine or be fired.  (Full disclosure.  I got two Pfizer vaccines, a Pfizer booster, and recently a Moderna booster.)

The Times criticizes the majority's reasoning in Dobbs, which claimed abortion is not "deeply rooted" in our country's history and tradition.  But then the paper complains that the Constitution "was written by a small band of wealthy white men," with many owning slaves and most considering women to be second-class citizens.  Just obnoxious.  When Roe was decided - by seven white men - did the Times complain about the Constitution then?  Were they fretting over seven white men making that decision?The Left's focus on identity politics is non-stop.  Never mind that this document, this Constitution, written by wealthy white men, is the greatest governing document ever written.  But if the Times wishes to move their operations to a country governed by, say, Sharia Law, all the best. 

As readers know, I also like to look at the letters to the editor.  One letter writer called Roe a "super precedent" (I do not know what that means legally), and called the decision "unconscionable," and issued by an "illegitimate court."  I am sad to say that this letter was written by a retired New York City judge.

Here is another letter:  "Years ago, whether I agreed with the court's decisions or not, I respected it and saw its decisions as sacrosanct.  But my disappoint in the current court is complete...this Supreme Court has become an arm of the G.O.P."  I wonder if the writer agreed with the Court's decisions when it was dominated by liberals.  I wonder if the writer has moved far left, as has much of the Democratic Party, and therefore feels differently in her worldview about many issues, especially her view of Republicans.

And this letter:  "Let's stop the battle of when life begins and move it to when does responsibility begin?  If responsibility begins at the point of conception for the males involved in every pregnancy, let's see how quickly women's health decisions are decriminalized and abortion rights laws remain."  I do not know what effect the writer's point would have on abortion laws.  I do know that I completely with her with regards to the responsibility of the male/father. 

In an article inside the paper, the Times quoted one Justice saying "The court bit off more than it could chew."  That was Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussing the decision in Roe vs. Wade.  She felt that the Roe Court should have simply addressed the very restrictive Texas statute at issue in Roe.  (Which was my opinion as to what the Dobbs Court should have done - address the Mississippi statute in question.)  Ginsburg was obviously in favor of allowing abortion.  But she also said this:  "The legislatures all over the United States were moving on this question...the law was in a state of flux."  By shutting down the debate on abortion taking place in the states, the Court created a backlash.  

Ginsburg:  "The Supreme Court's decision was a perfect rallying point for people who disagreed with the notion that it should be a woman's choice...they could, instead of fighting in the trenches legislature by legislature, go after this decision by unelected judges."  Even some in liberal academia criticized the Court in Roe.  One Yale law school professor and constitutional scholar, John Hart Ely, is quoted by the Times as follows:  "It (the decision in Roe) is not constitutional law, and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."  The Times says that Professor "Ely wrote that the Roe decision was untenable as a matter of intellectually honest jurisprudence."

       

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part III

So, what would I do?  First, as discussed in "My Take, Part I," I would enhance school security.  The Israelis are a good role model.  Is it going to be expensive?  Yes.  But as I said, we spend trillions of dollars annually.  Let's spend some on securing our schools.  And, I suspect there are current or retired law enforcement officers willing to volunteer their time.  The same for ex-military.  I am talking about men and women already trained in the use of firearms.

Also as discussed in Part I, I agree with the Rebbe's concern about declining religious involvement and the need for a non-denominational school prayer.  But this is a societal and family problem.  As the Wall Street Journal opined in their 5/26/22 editorial:  "The modern welfare state is adept at writing checks, but not much else.  Today's young killers aren't motivated by material deprivation.  They are typically from middle-class families with access to smartphones and X-boxes.  Their deficit is social and spiritual.  The rise of family dysfunction and the decline of mediating institutions such as churches and social clubs have consequences."  To my thinking, the societal, family and religious issues are far more significant than the issue of guns.

In March, 2018, and following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, then Governor Rick Scott signed into law some new legislation regarding guns.  The age at which someone could buy a rifle was raised to 21.  I agree with this, and here's why.  I am well aware that 18 year old's serve in our military.  But they are trained and disciplined in the use of firearms.  I am also aware that in many states people under age 18 grow up with firearms, and are taught the proper and safe use of such weapons at an early age.  But I also know that many 18 year old's are emotionally immature.  And shooters often dwell on perceived slights that they experienced in high school.  My hope is that being away from school and out in the real world for a few years, will lessen whatever emotional impact they experienced in school. 

The Florida law also put in place red flag laws, which the legislation called "risk protection orders."  I am in favor.  I discussed in Part I the difficulty in banning gun ownership based on a diagnosable psychological condition.  The law in Florida has given judges the ability to at least temporarily ban purchasing a gun by people who have been reported to the authorities to have made threats.  Is there a risk of abuse, say by an abusive spouse against the other spouse, making the victim of the abuse defenseless?  Yes.  Is there is a risk of abuse by liberal judges who too readily issue such orders?  Yes.  But I also read quite a few instances online where such risk protection orders were not only appropriate, but likely highly effective in preventing shootings.  I understand that no law is perfect.

The Florida law also allowed school staff trained in the use of firearms to carry a weapon.  I have mixed feelings about this, but I come down in favor.  I would want it to be a concealed carry.  And, I am in favor because of the risk of a shooter getting past the armed guard at the entrance.

I am sure that those on the left will be disappointed by my not advocating for greater gun control, if not outright banning of the private ownership of guns.  And I suspect some on the right will disapprove of my support for red flag laws and raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21.  I welcome all (respectful) comments.

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part II

A look at some facts.  Jason Riley reported in the 6/1/22 Wall Street Journal, that 54% of the gun related deaths in 2020 were suicides, while less than 1% of gun deaths were a result of mass shootings.  That does not mean that all those deaths were not tragic.  Of course they were.  Riley also notes that gun ownership is more common in rural areas than in cities, yet it is the cities that tend to have more gun violence.  And, while whites have a higher degree of gun ownership than blacks and Hispanics, gun violence is a more common problem among those two minority groups.  

Obviously, the disparity in gun violence of whites vs minorities, and rural vs city, suggests that guns are not the problem.  For those who argue that guns are the major problem, you need to address these factual issues.  

I would like to add another issue:  the mainstream media.  How and what the media reports determines viewpoints.  The perceptions disseminated by the media become reality for many people.  An example.  The media never fails to report when a white cop kills a black person.  Therefore, many people can readily name at least some blacks who have been killed by the police.  When I have asked people to name a single white person shot and killed by the police, they are unable to do so.  Yet, far more whites are killed by the police than are blacks.  But, as perception becomes reality, to some, being unable to name a single white person killed by police must mean it does not happen.  Or, at least not very often.  And being able to name several blacks killed by the police must mean it is an epidemic. 

President Biden gave his "do something" speech to the nation about guns on 6/2/22.  There are some suggestions with which I agree, and those I will discuss in the next post.  But here are those items with which I disagree.  I would not ban so-called assault rifles, by which people mean the AR-15 (Armalite 15) rifles.  I have spoken with people far more knowledgeable than I am about this.  I would not repeal the gun manufacturers' liability shield, as I see that as a backdoor approach to put gun manufacturers out of business through countless lawsuits.

Prior to his speech, Biden had suggested a ban on the production of 9mm handguns, the most common gun in America.  I certainly do not agree with that.  People should have a right to protect themselves.  In the recently passed House legislation, the "Protecting Our Kids Act," the law suggested criminal penalties for anyone violating the new requirements for the safe firearm storage on residential premises.  I do not agree with that.  People who are irresponsible can already be held accountable at the state level.  

Not surprisingly, Biden argued in his speech that voters should make the issue of guns "central" to their vote in November.  I doubt that will happen.  Not with the highest rate of inflation in over 40 years.  Not with ongoing supply chain issues.  Not with out of control crime and homelessness across the country.  And not with a wide open border, allowing a large volume of fentanyl to illegally be brought into the country, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.  As more people die from fentanyl than from guns, I suggest that people make Biden's open border policy "central" to their vote in November.

But here is a recommendation I do have for the President.  Tone down the rhetoric!  I heard Jen Psaki, from the White House podium, state that it was an appropriate exercise of free speech to demonstrate in front of the homes of Supreme Court Justices.  No, it's not.  There is even a federal law prohibiting it.  And while that law might run afoul of the First Amendment, it still does not make it right.  I asked in an earlier post if judges should decide cases based upon who makes the loudest noise?  Based on the mob?  Did Biden criticize Schumer for threatening Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?  Because now we just had a man from Simi Valley, California, travel to Washington with the intent of assassinating Justice Kavanaugh.  

Toning down the rhetoric starts from the top.  And you, President Biden, are in a unique position to initiate a more civil political tone.  You ran as a "uniter."  The main theme of your inaugural address was that you were going to unify the country.  Prove it.