Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

National Review editors fall back on lazy assumptions to criticize Trump on NFL By Thomas Lifson

The editors of the National Review are back on their high horse again, recalling the days of their “Against Trump” issue devoted to foiling his quest for the GOP nomination. This editorial in National Review, calling for a “time out” on the NFL for Trump (like some naughty preschooler) and calling for better “judgment” (in other words, their judgment) from the president:

The president has conducted himself here in an unseemly fashion, to say the least, and has exhibited his remarkable knack for making everything he touches about him, which the NFL protests weren’t until he stuck his nose in. (snip)

This is not a question of rights but a question of judgment, which was, unhappily, in short supply over the weekend.

But along the way, the offer supporting context that makes it seem like the writers on the editorial board never read Heather MacDonald.

We do not believe that simmering white malice is the reason for it, but black Americans are arrested and incarcerated in numbers far disproportionate to their share of the population.

Huh? MacDonald has repeatedly shown that incarceration is not disproportionate to criminality.

Blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants in America’s 75 largest counties in 2009, 57 percent of all murder defendants and 45 percent of all assault defendants, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, even though blacks comprise only 15 percent of the population in those counties.

In New York City, where blacks make up 23 percent of the city’s population, blacks commit three-quarters of all shootings and 70 percent of all robberies, according to victims and witnesses in their reports to the New York Police Department. Whites, by contrast, commit less than 2 percent of all shootings and 4 percent of all robberies, though they are nearly 34 percent of the city’s population.

In Chicago, 80 percent of all known murder suspects were black in 2015, as were 80 percent of all known nonfatal shooting suspects, though they are a little less than a third of the population. Whites made up 0.9 percent of known murder suspects in Chicago in 2015 and 1.4 percent of known nonfatal shooting suspects, though they are about a third of the city’s residents.

Such racially skewed crime ratios are repeated in virtually all American metropolises. They mean that when officers are called to the scene of a drive-by shooting or an armed robbery, they will overwhelmingly be summoned to minority neighborhoods, looking for minority suspects in the aid of minority victims.

This means that observers have a duty to be realistic in assessing what ought to be of concern. As Mac Donald writes:

Trump’s concern about rising crime is therefore not a concern about white victims and the loss of white life. Rather, it is a concern about black lives. As Trump said: “[Y]oung Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson . . . have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child America.” Hint to the media: He was referring to black children in those cities, such as the ten children under the age of ten killed in Baltimore last year; the nine-year-old girl fatally shot while doing homework on her mother’s bed in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2015; and the nine-year-old boy in Chicago lured into an alley and killed by his father’s gang enemies in November 2015.

And yet the media is twisting itself into knots trying to downplay and trivialize the crime increase. Isn’t it white Republicans (and, of course, the cops) who are supposed to be indifferent to black lives?

Indeed, on their own pages, where Ms. Mac Donald is a contributor, a review of her latest book published by the very same National Review tells us:

You would never know it from the activists, but police shootings are responsible for a lower percentage of black homicide deaths than white and Hispanic homicide deaths. Twelve percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers, compared to 4 percent of black homicide victims.

NFL Banned Teams From Honoring Murdered Cops; Threatened Players Honoring 9/11 Ryan Saavedra

THANKS DPS….

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell attacked President Trump for showing a “lack of respect for the NFL” — regarding the president’s recent comments criticizing players for not standing during the national anthem — because it violated the “constitutional rights of our players,” referring to the First Amendment.

This comes from the same commissioner who threatened NFL players who wanted to honor both 9/11 victims and five police officers who were murdered in Dallas.

The Dallas Cowboys wanted to pay tribute to the five Dallas officers who were murdered at a Black Lives Matter protest on July 7, 2016. The Cowboys had been wearing a special decal on their helmets that said “Arm in Arm” that specifically honored the police officers — that is, until the NFL stepped in and stopped it.

“The NFL had an opportunity to be leaders and advocates for change in law enforcement,” Sgt. Demetrick Pennie, president of The Dallas Fallen Officer Foundation, told TMZ at the time. “These are our friends and our loved ones … it hurts to not have the NFL fully support us.”

Nationally syndicated conservative talk-radio host, Mark Levin, fumed over the decision by the NFL, calling it “embarrassing” and “disgraceful”:

Let me tell you why the NFL won’t do this. Anyone have a guess? I have a big guess: Because they don’t want any trouble from the leftists, from the Black Lives Matter crowd. I know exactly what’s going on here. Like Hillary Clinton doesn’t seek the endorsement from the cops union. Of course not. The Democrat Party’s gone. And the NFL top brass, like the NBA top brass, like baseball top brass, all liberal Democrats. [Every] damn one of them, pretty much.

Even more disgusting was the NFL’s response last September to players who wanted to honor the thousands of Americans who were murdered by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.

“Avery Williamson, a starting linebacker for the Tennessee team, hoped to wear a pair of specially-designed cleats at his team’s home opener Sunday against the Minnesota Vikings on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but he backed off when a league rep vowed to fine him for violating the league’s uniform code,” the New York Post reported.

Looming Obamagate will make Watergate look like a misdemeanor By Wayne Allyn Root

An ancient Chinese philosopher once said, “May you live in interesting times.” Congratulations, we’ve hit the jackpot.

We are in the beginning phase of Obamagate. This is our generation’s Watergate. Except far worse.

Here’s a refresher course for those too young to remember. Watergate was the biggest scandal in modern political history. Republican President Richard Nixon desperately wanted to know what Democrats were planning for their 1972 presidential campaign against him. He ordered a team of trusted aides to spy on them. They literally broke into the offices of the Democrat National Committee inside the Watergate Building. That was the beginning of the end for Nixon.

But today no one needs to physically break into an office to spy on a political rival. All you have to do is use the high-tech electronic power of government. A corrupt president can use the government to listen in on anyone, anytime.

The media and liberal critics went ballistic when Donald Trump tweeted in March that Barack Obama spied on him. CNN tweeted, “Trump’s baseless wiretap claim” and, “Trump just flat-out lied about wiretapping.” Well guess who was right? Trump — again.

According to multiple media reports out last week, officials in the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. They wiretapped Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort both before and after the election. It appears other top Trump aides were also wiretapped, as was Trump Tower.

If these media reports are proven true, then the Obama administration was spying on the entire Trump campaign staff. Even if they were listening in on only Manafort, to whom do you think he was speaking? Trump and every high-ranking member of Trump’s campaign staff.

Which means while government agents were supposedly listening for “criminal activity,” they just happened to hear every plan of the Trump campaign … they just happened to know what would be in Trump’s speeches … they knew his line of attack versus Hillary … they knew his debate prep … they knew everything Trump was planning before he did it. That’s some valuable inside information.

Obama just happened to pick the perfect guy to spy on — if he wanted to fix the election for Hillary.

The NFL Can’t Afford to Become a Battleground And the nation can’t afford to pit tribal loyalties against shared national identity. by Megan McArdle

If you want a perfect metaphor for our national moment, it’s Steelers offensive tackle Alejandro Villanueva coming out onto the field for the national anthem while the rest of his team stayed in the locker room.
Asked about it after the game, coach Mike Tomlin simply referred to an earlier statement on the reasoning for keeping the team in the locker room while the Star Spangled Banner played: he wanted the team to be unified in whatever it chose to do. “People shouldn’t have to choose,” Tomlin said. “If a guy wants to go about his normal business and participate in the anthem, he shouldn’t be forced to choose sides. If a guy feels the need to do something, he shouldn’t be separated from his teammate who chooses not to.” But as Villanueva seems to have recognized, staying in the locker room is not simply a neutral act; it is also a choice, of tribal loyalties over national ones.

Team unity is an admirable goal for a coach. But to secure that unity, he asked Villanueva, a West Pointer who served in Afghanistan, to refrain from publicly honoring a symbol of the larger team we’re all supposed to be a part of: the United States. The coach asked him to choose tribal unity over the national kind. It’s a false choice, but one that a lot of people are nonetheless being forced to make. And no matter what they choose, a lot of people end up angry.

Tomlin himself, of course, was clearly in a bad position. And I have sympathy for the players who put him there. I understand why people with a platform would want to use it to publicly express the feeling that a lot of black Americans have: that their country does not treat them as completely equal citizens, but as a caste apart.

Feeling like a citizen is more than being entitled to carry the passport abroad. If you are regularly stopped by police, demanding to know who you are and what you’re doing here, you are apt to feel like exiles in your own country. People who feel this way could view the country’s anthem as something less than a sacred expression of an inviolable national unity. Or perhaps they see it as embodying that ideal, of which our nation is falling short.

A lot of people don’t see it that way, however. Players refusing to offer a small symbolic honor to the country that has made them among the richest and most revered people in the history of humanity … well, to many ordinary fans who cannot dream of such status or wealth, it seems frankly ungrateful, and disrespectful to the legions of less exalted Americans who ultimately pay their salaries.

President Donald Trump was happy to capitalize on this also-understandable sentiment. In a series of tweets this weekend, he called for the players who won’t honor the anthem to be suspended or fired. Given what the players were protesting, such an attack inevitably has its own tribal overtones.

Trump was wrong to attack the NFL players; it is beneath the dignity of the U.S. presidency to bully individuals or groups. (Exceptions made for political figures who have volunteered for the fray.) It’s understandable that NFL players wanted to make as strong a counterattack as possible. Unfortunately, huddling in a locker room is not a very effective method of striking back at the president. If it was supposed to defuse the tension, it didn’t. Trump’s base is fired up over this conflict, their sympathies entirely with the president. And the mushy middle that such protests need to persuade are unlikely to be swayed by a refusal to honor the anthem.

To get those people on your side, you first need a common connection, a claim on their sympathy and support. Where does that claim come from? Appeals to universal moral values like justice and equality may feel more important, more virtuous, than mere patriotic symbolism. But the historical record indicates that however much people honor those virtues in theory, in practice they are unwilling to actually do much to secure justice and equality for distant strangers. No, to really move people to action you need a more primal, less abstract connection, which is to say, precisely the sort of sentiments of loyalty and solidarity that the anthem evokes.

Without them, we find ourselves where we are now: tribe against tribe, lofty ideals against gut patriotism. It’s a battle that both sides are losing, at immense cost.

Can We Stop Calling It a ‘Muslim Ban’ Now? The list of restricted nations never included some of the largest Muslim countries. Now it includes North Korea and Venezuela.by Eli Lake

When President Donald Trump came into office, one of the first things he did was issue a temporary ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries. It was an early flash point for the so-called resistance, prompting Americans to protest the executive order by going to airports.
It also prompted legal challenges and rebukes from the courts, and its implementation was chaotic.
On Sunday, the White House announced a new version of the policy, and it bears little resemblance to the president’s campaign promise to ban Muslim travel to America.
There are a few reasons. To start, two Muslim-majority countries — Iraq and Sudan — are no longer affected by the executive order. Considering that other countries with large Muslim populations — like Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and India — were never on the list, even the earlier iteration hardly fulfilled Trump’s crude campaign promise.
Also two non-Muslims countries have been added to the list: North Korea and Venezuela. (Of course, North Korea does not allow its citizens to travel….) For Venezuela, the new policy affects government officials and not citizens. Chad is also added to the list. According to a 1993 census, a little over half of the population in Chad is Muslim.

This leaves five countries from the original executive order: Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Syria and Libya. There are some exceptions here as well. Somalis will be able to travel to the U.S. but not emigrate here. Iranian student exchanges will continue, but other travel will be restricted.

It’s worth asking why certain countries are included in the travel ban. According to U.S. officials, it’s because they could not meet basic standards for improving their visa systems. In the case of Iran, this is because the government in Tehran is engaged in a proxy war against U.S. allies in the Middle East, and it has a bad habit of detaining U.S. dual national citizens on trumped-up charges.

For Yemen, Somalia, Syria and Libya, the answer is much more straightforward. These are all basically failed states with weak governments. All four are still fighting civil wars, to varying degrees. The ability of the state to perform basic services, let alone seriously screen travelers to the U.S., is almost non-existent in many cases. Just this month, the German press reported that Berlin assesses the Islamic State holds 11,000 blank Syrian passports.

None of this is to say that a ban is the best policy. There are more subtle ways to deal with this problem. It has the unintended effect of turning away talented citizens who would otherwise help make America great again. A ban is a crude instrument.

Bill de Blasio Is America’s Most Irrelevant Mayor The one-time progressive star who leads our nation’s largest city is now virtually invisible. How did this happen? By Kyle Smith

New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, was elected with 73 percent of the vote, and on November 7 he’ll probably be reelected in a comparable landslide. On September 12 he faced token opposition in the Democratic primary, to be followed by token opposition in the general election. (Staten Island assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis is the GOP’s sacrificial lamb, while celebrity private detective Bo Dietl is running as an independent.)

Employment is up. Crime is down. The New York City economy and Wall Street are in bloom. In the grumbliest city in America, New Yorkers have little to kvetch about, except the trains, which, everyone knows, aren’t run out of City Hall. Yet in a fiercely progressive city, the progressive mayor’s approval rating hovers around 50 percent and has been underwater for much of his first term. In a City Hall that still rings with echoes of the footsteps of outsized personalities — Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg — de Blasio barely makes a sound. No one credits him with engineering New York’s current state of ease. When the history of the period is written, he’ll be a footnote to the two-decade revolution that was the Giuliani–Bloomberg period. He’s a six-foot-five-inch dwarf.

Why doesn’t New York love Bill de Blasio?

It’s a question that preoccupies the mayor as he coasts to his second (and final, given term limits) stint in City Hall. “You’d assume they’d be having parades out in the streets,” he tells New York magazine.

Actually, New Yorkers are having parades out in the streets, such as the Puerto Rican Day parade, in which de Blasio marched behind a convicted terrorist, Oscar López Rivera, to whom the parade initially planned to give a place of honor. De Blasio initially said he would march behind López Rivera but then, after major sponsors, Governor Andrew Cuomo, and his own police commissioner dropped out, told reporters he had quietly been campaigning behind the scenes to get López Rivera dropped, calling the FALN separatist movement Rivera co-founded “mistaken from the beginning, because it used violence in the context of a democratic society, and that is not acceptable to me.” Then, after López Rivera announced he would not accept a ceremonial honor but would march at the head of the parade anyway, de Blasio joined him, albeit keeping his distance a few blocks behind.

That was pure de Blasio — allying himself with the most vicious and extreme elements of the Left, bumbling in an attempt to get himself out of a jam of his own creation, and coming off comically foolhardy and inept. The mayor whose big college experience was a trip to work for the Sandinistas in 1988, who toured the Soviet Union in 1983 and later honeymooned in Cuba, would love to turn New York into New Stalingrad. But he can’t figure out how to do it. So he settles for fuming about the ills of private property, luxury housing, and income inequality. The more he does so, the more he resembles background static in New York’s glorious cacophony — irritating but irrelevant.

“A wallflower. There is no sense of alpha male about him,” wrote Vanity Fair’s Bryan Burrough. This was in a sympathetic profile.

“He just didn’t have the stars lined up,” Al Sharpton, another fan, told the New York Times, as though already looking back on the man who becomes a lame duck on January 2.

In a Politico list of 18 hot mayors, de Blasio wasn’t even mentioned. The Times reported that he is such a nonentity that he has to wear a nametag at national conferences, even gatherings of mayors. The tallest man in most any room is somehow the most pathetic one in it, the Empire State gelding. Among his best-known and least New Yorky traits is a penchant for oversleeping, rendering him late to, for instance, a memorial service for victims of a plane crash and three different events on one St. Patrick’s Day, including a reception at Gracie Mansion — “his own house,” noted the Times with exasperated italics. Exhausted from his morning workouts, he has a habit of following up with naps in his office. The city that never sleeps has a narcoleptic chief.

THE TENNESEE SHOOTING: DANIEL GREENFIELD

Tennessee Church Killer Posted Black Nationalist, Anti-Police, Pro-Islam Material
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/267953/tennessee-church-killer-posted-black-nationalist-daniel-greenfield

Kidega, the Sudanese immigrant who opened fire in a Tennessee Church had a social media profile (as reported by Heavy) that is chock full of everything you expect.

Kidega’s likes included black nationalist Muslim racists like Farrakhan and Malcolm X.

There is the black nationalism and the accusations of racism. Especially when directed at the police.

Kidega’s page was also full of conspiracy theories on a variety of topics.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/267952/sudanese-immigrant-opens-fire-tennessee-church-daniel-greenfield

A Sudanese immigrant named Emanuel Kidega Samson opened fire at a Nashville church.

Kidega shot 5 people. He killed one woman in a parking lot. The Minister was shot and left in critical condition. His wife was also shot and is in stable condition.

The Sudanese immigrant’s other four victims. Two of them are women in their sixties. Two others are women in their eighties. All of them appear to be stable.

Worshipers reportedly put up a fight causing Kidega to shoot himself in the leg. An usher was pistol whipped by the Sudanese man.

A Facebook page apparently belonging to the African immigrant shows that he was from Khartoum, Sudan and was living in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Murfreesboro, Tennessee has been at the center of a great deal of controversy over the settlement of immigrants and refugees in the area leading tensions with the American residents.

McCainCare The dishonorable Senator from Arizona. Daniel Greenfield

It’s official.

Senator John McCain won’t vote for ObamaCare repeal. He won’t vote for any health care bill that isn’t “bipartisan.” And any bipartisan bill will be ObamaCare plus something even worse.

If McCain won’t vote for a health care bill that isn’t bipartisan, he won’t vote for ObamaCare repeal.

Period.

That’s information that voters could have used when Senator McCain was running for reelection last year on a platform of repealing ObamaCare.

Back then, McCain’s first TV ad took a shot at ObamaCare. A TV ad declared, “John McCain is leading the fight to stop ObamaCare.”

It was right up there with his even more infamous 2010, “Complete the danged fence” ad.

“Obamacare is anything but affordable,” one press release denounced a bill that was “rammed through Congress”. And yet, McCain is now satisfied to keep it in place until Republicans agree to whatever Dem version of ObamaCare they ram through next. Call it McCainCare. It would be only too fitting.

What does McCainCare look like? It’s what happens when ObamaCare fails.

In Arizona, it means vanishing options and sharp rate hikes. It means one provider to a county. Or less. It means a disaster so bad that last September, McCain was touting a bill to protect Arizonans from the collapse of ObamaCare. But who will protect Arizonans from McCainCare? Not Senator McCain.

McCainCare is a stalemate over ObamaCare. Without the mandate, the collapse will come even quicker. Since McCain won’t vote for a non-Dem ObamaCare bill, that means either Democrats and the left-wing of the GOP will gather together enough votes for Son of ObamaCare. Or there will be McCainCare.

McCainCare will trap millions of Americans in a failing system even as Republicans get the blame. Son of ObamaCare, which could still just as easily be dubbed McCainCare, will restart the process again with a new failing system that will turn over the health care market, eliminate the health insurance that millions of Americans had been relying on, and then go on to fail and trap them in the rubble.

Again.

Self-Esteem, Good; Patriotism, Bad By James Lewis

It’s about time for commonsense conservatives to speak up in a spoiled rich kid culture, where every politically correct commissar is a spoiled rich kid.

Patriotism is love of country, but the Left hates people who love their country. Especially if that country is America.

If you express noisy love for Castro’s Cuba, liberals have no problem with you. But if you love Amerika… no.

Self-esteem is love of self. It has pros and cons. You can have too much or too little, and after the liberal education establishment decided to disconnect self-esteem from actual achievement, chances are that you now have way too much. You’ve lost one of the great truths of real life, and as a result of your narcissism you will have to suffer, or make other people suffer, or both. We have seen a president of the United States with too much self-esteem, and a recent Democratic candidate who lost an election and still can’t figure out why. Their self-esteem is disconnected from their actual virtues, skills, and achievements.

The social psychologist Roy Baumeister has spent many years studying people with high and low self-esteem, and he writes in the journal Psychological Science.

“People high in self-esteem claim to be more likable and attractive, to have better relationships, and to make better impressions on others than people with low self-esteem, but objective measures disconfirm most of these beliefs. Narcissists are charming at first but tend to alienate others eventually. Self-esteem has not been shown to predict the quality or duration of relationships.”

If you’re as young as some of the F*K Amerika! athletes who are taking knees while getting million-dollar salaries today, chance are that you were a “self-esteem kid.” That is, your teachers didn’t care what you actually achieved in academic classes, because they believed (wrongly, as always), that self-esteem was a good thing by itself. Sane and rational cultures know better than that.

In reality-based cultures self-esteem is earned. It doesn’t come free with harebrained liberal fantasies. When self-esteem is earned, we learn how to take pride in our achievements, and to feel shame or guilt when we get things wrong. With luck, our teachers also encourage us to keep trying when we inevitably fail the first couple of times. Failure is no big deal, but giving up is.

Mass murderers often seem to feel no guilt at all. The Nazis at the Nuremburg war crimes trials are shown in news photos laughing it up. Stalinists these days are celebrated by NYT obits, and, not surprisingly, liberals are refinding their inner Stalinists again. Which is why “Antifas” in black and red Nazi-era colors look and act like sociopaths, with no capacity for guilt or shame.

POTUS Donald Trump is encouraging American sports fans to walk out, or stay away when their favorite, spoiled rich-kid athletes do their F-U gesture during our National Anthem.

It’s about time for common sense conservatives to speak up in a spoiled rich kid culture, where every politically-correct commissar is a spoiled rich kid.

Without Columbus, There Would Be No Latinos Last year a Puerto Rican city put up a monument to the explorer taller than the Statue of Liberty. By Jennifer C. Braceras

The collective impulse to tear down statues and rename buildings to meet modern sensibilities is growing stronger by the day. Earlier this month a statue of Christopher Columbus in New York’s Central Park was vandalized with graffiti that read “hate will not be tolerated” and a creepy warning that “#somethingscoming.” The following day, protesters gathered at the city’s Columbus Circle to demand that a statue of the explorer there, which stands atop a 76-foot column, be removed.

Foes of Columbus, including Melissa Mark-Viverito, speaker of New York’s City Council, say the explorer’s likeness is offensive to oppressed peoples. “There obviously has been ongoing dialogue and debate in the Caribbean—particularly in Puerto Rico, where I’m from,” Ms. Mark-Viverito said last month, knocking Columbus for the “oppression and everything he brought with him.”

Ms. Mark-Viverito might want to take a closer look. Puerto Rico celebrates Columbus not once but twice each year: on the federal holiday in October and again on Nov. 19, or Día del Descubrimiento (Discovery Day), which commemorates Columbus’s arrival in Puerto Rico during his second trans-Atlantic voyage.

While folks on the mainland wring their hands over whether to take monuments to Columbus down, Puerto Rico is putting them up. Last year the city of Arecibo inaugurated a Columbus monument taller than the Statue of Liberty. The 350-foot statue, a gift to the U.S. from sculptor Zurab Tsereteli, was rejected by New York, Boston, Miami, Cleveland, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and—maybe the biggest insult—Columbus, Ohio.

Columbus was born in Italy, but he sailed under the Spanish crown. Without Columbus and the Spanish colonization of the Western Hemisphere that followed, Latinos as a people would not exist.

Latin Americans have, thus, long celebrated the day that Columbus landed in the New World as Día de la Raza, or Day of the Race. The word “raza” isn’t meant in a Darwinian or bigoted sense. It refers to what the Mexican thinker José Vasconcelos called the “cosmic race” that incorporates people of all skin colors and physical characteristics in a culture that includes Spanish, native and African traditions. Día de la Raza is a universal celebration of a people and a world made possible because of the courage of Christopher Columbus. By honoring the explorer, Latin Americans honor their own place in the world and proclaim that they, as much as any other people, built the societies of the Western Hemisphere. CONTINUE AT SITE