Don’t Take the Wrong Lessons from NYC’s Murder Drop Proactive policing still matters. By Heather Mac Donald

Cop critics who assiduously ignored the 20 percent increase in the national homicide rate over the previous two years have suddenly become enthusiastic purveyors of crime statistics. Fueling their newfound interest in crime data is the announcement that the New York City homicide rate is at a near-60-year low. That homicide drop shows that proactive policing is irrelevant to crime levels, say these policing skeptics. The New York Police Department’s reported-stop activity plummeted earlier in this decade as a result of a groundless trilogy of racial-profiling lawsuits against the department. Yet crime in New York ultimately continued its downward trajectory. Therefore, proactive policing like pedestrian stops is unnecessary, these cop critics say.

Their arguments are specious.

New York City’s formerly high-crime neighborhoods have experienced a stunning degree of gentrification over the last 15 years, thanks to the proactive-policing-induced conquest of crime. It is that gentrification which is now helping fuel the ongoing crime drop. Urban hipsters are flocking to areas that once were the purview of drug dealers and pimps, trailing in their wake legitimate commerce and street life, which further attracts law-abiding activity and residents in a virtuous cycle of increasing public safety. The degree of demographic change is startling. In Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, for example, the number of white residents rose 1,235 percent from 2000 to 2015, while the black population decreased by 17 percent, reports City Lab. In Bushwick, Brooklyn, the number of whites rose 610 percent over that same decade and a half; the black population was down 22 percent. Central Harlem’s white population rose 846 percent; the black share dropped 10 percent. In 2000, whites were about three-quarters of the black population in Brownsville-Ocean Hill; by 2015, there were twice as many whites as blacks. In 2000, whites were one-third of the black population in Crown Heights North and Prospect Heights; now they exceed the black population by 20,000. The Brooklyn Navy Yards has now been declared the next cool place to be by the tech industry. Business owners are moving their residences as well as their enterprises to the area.

This demographic transformation has enormous implications for crime. A black New Yorker is 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker, according to perpetrator identifications provided to the police by witnesses to, and victims of, those shootings. Those victims are overwhelmingly minority themselves. When the racial balance of a neighborhood changes radically, given those crime disparities, its violent-crime rate will as well. (This racial crime disparity reflects the breakdown of the black family and the high percentage of black males — upwards of 80 percent in some neighborhoods — being raised by single mothers.)

Leftist Socialism: The Toothfish of Modern Politics by Linda Goudsmit

Patagonian Toothfish, the rejected ugly, oily, bottom dwelling toothy fish was rebranded Chilean Sea Bass and became an expensive delicacy for gullible millennials.

So it is with Socialism, a rejected, ugly, oily, bottom dwelling ideology that enriched the elite and enslaved the masses was rebranded Social Democracy and became a rallying cry for naive 21st century millennials.

It is often useful to look backward to move forward so let’s review. Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto, stated unequivocally, “Democracy is the road to socialism.” Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Russian Communist Party, affirmed, “The goal of socialism is communism.” Social democracy began in the late 19th early 20th century as a political ideology advocating an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes to effect the transition rather than the revolutionary processes of Marxism.

The Socialist Party of America had been unable to field a successful presidential candidate for decades so in 1972 the Socialist Party of America officially rebranded itself and changed its name to Social Democrats, USA. “The name ‘Socialist’ was replaced by ‘Social Democrats’ because many Americans associated the word ‘socialism’ with Soviet Communism.” Anyone familiar with Marx and Lenin correctly associated the two which is why rebranding was necessary to eliminate its negative image and conceal its identity.

The thing about rebranding is that it does not change the product itself – only the name changes and its psychological associations.

Rebranding Toothfish as Chilean Sea Bass was a successful marketing strategy designed to sell a rejected fish in the food industry. Similarly, rebranding the Socialist Party of America as Social Democrats was a successful marketing strategy designed to sell a rejected ideology in the political sphere. Both were highly successful.

The democratic socialism currently embraced by the left-wing radicals that dominate the Democrat Party in America has embraced identity politics to increase its membership with inclusive promises of “social justice and income equality.” These slogan promises disguise the reality of socialism because, like the Patagonian Toothfish, changing its name does not change what socialism is.

Civilization’s ‘Darkest Hour’ Hits the Silver Screen A masterful new film shows how Churchill saved the world from Nazi Germany in May of 1940. By Victor Davis Hanson

The new film Darkest Hour offers the diplomatic side to the recent action movie Dunkirk.

The story unfolds with the drama of British prime minister Winston Churchill’s assuming power during the Nazi invasion of France in May 1940. Churchill’s predecessor, the sickly Neville Chamberlain, had lost the confidence of the English people and the British government. His appeasement of Adolf Hitler and the disastrous first nine months of World War II seemed to have all but lost Britain the war.

Churchill was asked to become prime minister on the very day that Hitler invaded France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The armies of all three democracies — together larger than Germany’s invading forces — collapsed within days or a few weeks.

About a third of a million British soldiers stranded in a doomed France were miraculously saved by Churchill’s bold decision to risk evacuating them by sea from Dunkirk, France, where most of what was left of the British Expeditionary Force had retreated.

Churchill’s greatest problem was not just saving the British army but confronting the reality that, with the German conquest of Europe, the British Empire now had no allies.

The Soviet Union had all but joined Hitler’s Germany under their infamous non-aggression pact of August 1939.

The United States was determined at all costs to remain neutral. Just how neutral is emphasized in Darkest Hour by Churchill’s sad phone call with U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR cleverly assures Churchill that in theory he wants to help while in fact he can do nothing.

Within days of Churchill’s taking office, all of what is now the European Union either would be in Hitler’s hands or could be considered pro-Nazi “neutral.”

Darkest Hour gets its title from the understandable depression that had spread throughout the British government. Members of Churchill’s new war cabinet wanted to sue for peace. Chamberlain and senior conservative politician Edward Wood both considered Churchill unhinged for believing Britain could survive.

Both appeasers dreamed that thuggish Italian dictator Benito Mussolini might be persuaded to beg Hitler to call off his planned invasion of Great Britain. They dreamed Mussolini could save a shred of English dignity through an arranged British surrender.

Mapping The Swamp, A Study of the Administrative State (FY2016) reveals the size, scope, and power of the federal government.

Here are some ‘Key Findings’:

1.97 million civil service employees at a total cash cost of $136 billion. Every minute, the federal government pays its disclosed workforce $1 million. Every eight-hour workday costs more than $500 million.

Over the last six-years, the number of federal employees making $200,000+ increased by 165 percent.

More than 400,000 federal bureaucrats made $100,000+ incomes. Furthermore, nearly 30,000 rank-and-file employees out-earned all 50 state governors receiving more than $190,823.

After just 3-years of employment, federal bureaucrats receive 43 paid days off – that’s 8 1/2 weeks! We estimate this perk costs taxpayers $22.6 billion annually.

A new ‘minimum wage’ for federal employees: at 78 agencies, the average employee made more than $100,000!

Presidio Trust – a small federal agency in San Francisco – paid out three of the four largest bonuses at the federal government, including the largest in FY2016. The biggest bonus ($141,525) went to an HR Manager in charge of payroll!

Download a PDF copy of our report, click here.

We literally ‘Mapped The Swamp’:

Search our interactive map of the 2 million federal bureaucrats by ZIP code, click here. Just click a pin and scroll down to see the results rendered in the chart beneath the map.

See a small piece of the federal bureaucracy in your ZIP code or any ZIP code across America.

Ambassador David Friedman has reportedly called for the US State Department to change its terminology and drop the word ‘occupied’ when referring to the ‘West Bank.’ By Shimon Bar Lev, United with Israel

United with Israel does not use the term ‘occupied’ when referring to areas controlled by Israel since June 1967. US Ambassador David Friedman apparently agrees.

Although many call the territories to the west of the Jordan River captured by Israel in the Six Day War the “West Bank,” United with Israel prefers to use the historically and geographically correct term ‘Judea and Samaria.’

‘Occupied’ is a loaded political phrase that indicates, just by its usage, that Israel is the occupier and not the legal sovereign in territories in the Land of Israel that were captured in the Six Day War in 1967. The ‘territories’ remain in dispute, and they been the subject of a series of peace negotiations and a few partial agreements, including the Oslo Accords signed in 1995 between Israel and the Palestinians.

International legal expert Ambassador Alan Baker told United with Israel that “Friedman is completely correct. The word ‘occupation’ refers to your army taking military control over some other country’s sovereign territory. Israel has a unique historic connection to Judea and Samaria.” According to Baker, “The correct term should be ‘disputed territories.’”
State Department Agrees to Consider Policy Change

The State Department is refusing to adhere to Friedman’s request but has agreed to bring the issue up for consideration in the near future, Israel Radio reported. The development comes only weeks after President Donald Trump shifted decades of US policy by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Even as he made the policy announcement, Trump went on to declare that the US remains committed to a comprehensive peace agreement and has not taken a position relating to the future and permanent recognized borders between Israel and the Palestinians.

Islamic Oppression of Women: A Hot New Market by Giulio Meotti

Unfortunately, for most of women in the Middle East, veils are not an “exciting development”, but an imposition by an obscurantist ideology. After the Islamic State was defeated in Raqqa, Syria, many women took to the streets to take off their veils and were filmed burning them.

“The enemies of freedom are first recruited from the free societies, from some of the enlightened elites who deny the benefit of democratic rights to the rest of humanity, even to their own compatriots, if they have the misfortune to belong to another religion, to another ethnicity.” — Pascal Bruckner, author.

Instead of embracing these veils, a true feminism should defend the rights and freedoms of all women. It should not be ideologically submissive to those who repress women.

We are not talking about the dreary type of Muslim garment of Raqqa or Kabul, but a global market that is a Westernized, colorful, supposedly joyful Islamic enterprise.

First it was a Muslim woman wearing a hijab in Playboy. Then Nike released a “performance hijab” for athletes. Meanwhile, last spring, Aab, one of the world’s leading Islamic clothing retailers, opened its first boutique in London, just in time for the annual London Fashion Week. Vogue Arabia published its first-ever print issue. Last month, Mattel unveiled, so to speak, the world’s first hijab-wearing Barbie doll, who is apparently part of a new series dedicated to women “breaking social barriers”.

A conformist and “inclusive” establishment, eager for profits, has turned the Islamic veil into a purportedly new symbol of freedom and fashion. Islamists have understood this psychology among Western elites, who are terrified to be accused of “Islamophobia”. This is how Islamist misogyny has been turned into a global garment. Take a recent Vogue announcement:

“Dolce & Gabbana is producing a collection of hijabs and abayas [full-length Saudi covering for women] targeted to Muslim customers in the Middle East. To Muslim women with a taste for luxury fashion, this collection is an exciting development”.

Unfortunately, for most of women in the Middle East, veils and abayas are not an “exciting development”, but an imposition by an obscurantist ideology. After the Islamic State was defeated in Raqqa, Syria, many women took to the streets to take off their veils. Last June, similar images were seen after Raqqa was first freed from the Islamist dictatorship. Women were filmed burning their veils.

Pakistan: Blasphemy Laws, Human-Rights Abuses Deepen by A. Z. Mohamed

The Pakistani parliament is becoming increasingly radicalized — as the results of a local by-election in Lahore in September demonstrated.

In such a political climate, and with a new prime minister who refuses to criticize his country’s blasphemy laws, let alone work to repeal them, Pakistan’s already fragile “democracy” is on a steady slide backwards.

In late September — less than three weeks after newly instated Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi attended the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly in New York — two Christian boys employed as cleaners at a hospital in Pakistan were arrested for violating the country’s blasphemy laws. According to the complaint lodged with police, the boys had swept up and burned strewn pieces of paper on which Quranic verses happened to be written.

At around the same time, a Pakistani court sentenced a Christian man to death for insulting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in a poem he sent to a Muslim friend on the WhatsApp messaging service. This came two months after a young Muslim Pakistani was sentenced to death for “blasphemous” posts on Facebook.

On September 20, after the closing of the General Assembly, Abbasi was invited to give a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations. During the Q&A period — at the end of his “conversation” with David Sanger of the New York Times — he was asked by Human Rights Watch (HRW) director Kenneth Roth whether he would “speak out against [Pakistan’s] blasphemy law, and certainly about [its] harsh application…with death sentences and mob violence and the like.”

Abbasi replied by dodging the question:

“[I]t’s only up to the parliament to amend the laws. The job of the government is to make sure that the laws are not abused and innocent people are not prosecuted or prosecuted.”

At this point, Sanger interjected:

“[C]ertainly it is up to the parliament, but you’re in a position of both great political and moral leadership now in your post as prime minister. And I think the core of the question was whether or not the leaders of Pakistan are willing to go stand up to what seems to be, at least through American and Western eyes at time(s), deat

ISIS Takes Hold in Pakistan by Kaswar Klasra

In February 2016, the director general of the Pakistani Intelligence Bureau warned the government that ISIS was emerging as a threat, with Pakistani terrorists providing a foothold for the group, whose Pakistani branch is called Walayat-e-Khurasan.

ISIS also enlists “partners of convenience” in Afghanistan and “outsources” terror attacks to Pakistani organizations — such as Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and Jamaat-ul-Ahrar — a recent UN Security Council counter-terrorism report revealed. In addition, as many as 100 Pakistanis left the country in 2015 to join ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

The most vulnerable victims of this threat are Christians, who make up a mere 2% of the Sunni Muslim-majority state. ISIS is only the latest terrorist group to have attacked Christians in Pakistan.

Concern over the extent of the presence and power of ISIS in Pakistan resurfaced on December 17, when a suicide-bombing at a church in Quetta left at least nine worshipers dead and more than 50 seriously wounded.

Had Pakistani security forces not responded swiftly to the attack on the Bethel Memorial Methodist Church — where 400 men, women and children were attending Sunday services – the assailants “would have managed to reach the main hall of the building, and the death toll would have been much higher,” Sarfraz Bugti, the provincial home minister of the Baluchistan province, where Quetta is located, told Gatestone Institute.

Responsibility for the attack — in which two terrorists, clad in explosive vests and armed with AK-47 rifles — was later claimed by ISIS, which has an impressive record of honesty in taking credit for attacks, in a statement published by the Amaq News Agency.

This was the sixth ISIS attack in Pakistan in the past year and a half. The first took place on August 8, 2016, when a suicide bomber killed at least 70 people and wounded more than 100 in an attack on a crowd of lawyers and journalists gathered in a government hospital in Quetta — in the province that borders Afghanistan and Iran — to mourn a lawyer who had been murdered earlier in the day. The attack was claimed by a joint ISIS-Taliban faction.

On October 24, 2016, ISIS claimed responsibility for a deadly attack on a police training college in Quetta. The assault, committed by three heavily armed terrorists against sleeping cadets, left more than 60 dead and more than 165 others wounded.

The Scientific American is Officially a Joke Daniel Greenfield

I’ve written about the descent of the formerly prestigious Scientific American into social justice blogging before. But this jumps the shark. And all the starving polar bears on the ice floes. And Al Gore’s mansion and private jet.

Men Resist Green Behavior as Un-Manly

Please, tell us more.

Our own research suggests an additional possibility: men may shun eco-friendly behavior because of what it conveys about their masculinity.

Like caring more about brand virtue signaling than doing anything useful?

But surely this is based on solid research. After all, research was clearly mentioned.

In one study, we threatened the masculinity of male participants by showing them a pink gift card with a floral design and asking them to imagine using the card to purchase three products (lamp, backpack, and batteries). Compared to men shown a standard gift card, threatened men were more likely to choose the non-green rather than green version of each item. The idea that emasculated men try to reassert their masculinity through non-environmentally-friendly choices suggests that in addition to littering, wasting water, or using too much electricity, one could harm the environment merely by making men feel feminine.

This comes from two associate professors of marketing. Their solution is to put more wolves on eco-friendly products. That will be less threatening.

At the end of the article, there’s this notice. “Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about?”

If you’re a marketing scientist who specializes in putting wolf virtue signaling, please send your peer-reviewed paper to the Scientific American.

The Politics of Caesar’s Wife Maintaining high Victorian standards of sexual behavior in a sexually saturated culture. Bruce Thornton

In 62 B.C., the tribune Clodius Pulcher was caught sneaking into Julius Caesar’s house during a religious ritual forbidden to men. Clodius was allegedly attempting to seduce Caesar’s wife, Pompeia, who was hosting the ceremony and was rumored to welcome Clodius’ advances. Because the scandal happened at Caesar’s house, he divorced her.

At Clodius’ trial for sacrilege, however, Caesar testified that he knew nothing of the matter, despite the evidence and despite widespread rumors about Pompeia and Clodius. When asked by the prosecutor why then he had divorced his wife, Caesar responded with the now proverbial, “I thought my wife ought not to be under suspicion.” But as Plutarch adds, Caesar’s decision was not about upholding standards of religious purity or virtuous behavior. Caesar had made a political calculation: the accused was a tribune of the people and a favorite of the masses, who were threatening the jurors with violence. As a leader of the populares, the people, Caesar couldn’t afford to alienate his volatile supporters by testifying against their champion.

The recent numerous accusations of sexual misconduct, harassment, or assault by politicians and celebrities, some of which date back forty years, have been accompanied by condemnations of the accused redolent of the “Caesar’s Wife” standard: political leaders “ought not to be under suspicion.” In Caesar’s time as in ours, this rigorous standard of behavior reflects politics as much as a commitment to virtue.

After eight women accused U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) of various forms of sexual harassment, more than 30 senators, including 21 women, five of them Republicans, called for him to step down. Most of the accusations comprised unwanted physical contact and clumsy passes; one, a photograph of Franken pretending to grope a sleeping journalist’s breasts, was clearly a juvenile gag. Franken in his resignation announcement did not apologize or admit his guilt. Instead, he claimed that some of the allegations were “simply untrue,” and others he remembered “differently.” He also decried “the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that, in fact, I haven’t done.” At this point, little corroborating evidence has surfaced that definitively proves Franken’s guilt.

As well as exposing a sexual offender, however, and asserting high standards of personal behavior, the reaction to the charges against Franken to many smacked of political expediency. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was the first Democrat to call for Franken’s resignation, saying that “any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn’t acceptable.” A few weeks earlier, after Gillibrand had criticized former President Bill Clinton for not resigning over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, many questioned why it took nearly 20 years for Gillibrand to acknowledge Bill Clinton’s transgressions.