The Democrats and the Left have been attempting to portray Donald Trump as the second coming of Adolph Hitler. Yet it is highly ironic that at the planned rally for Trump at the UIC Pavillion in Chicago, it was the very same Democrats and Leftists who acted like brown-shirted Nazis by creating chaos and disruption aimed at preventing Trump from speaking at the campaign forum. While it is their right to protest and demonstrate, no group or individual has the right to deny another group or individual their right to lawful free speech and freedom of assembly. Just because you disagree with someone does not give you the right to stop them from expressing themselves. It should be noted that many of the protesters were carrying Bernie Sanders signs, which is fitting considering Sanders is an avowed Socialist and an admirer of Marxist regimes, all famous for political repression.
The issue at hand is not whether you are or are not a supporter of Donald Trump. The issue is whether we will permit political groups to deny people the right to express their political views. By allowing these groups to get away with disrupting Trump's rally, we are setting a dangerous precedent. Violence and intimidation have no place in American politics.
So where are the statements of condemnation from Republican and Democrat leadership? There is a school of thought that says the Washington elites are remaining silent because they fear the anti-establishment rhetoric of Donald Trump, and would prefer to see him stopped and removed from the political debate.
But be forwarned. There is a growing rabble out there that are either ignorant or have no regard for the Constitution of the United States. And if these mobs are allowed to flourish, your favorite candidate may be the next one in the crosshairs.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
THE OSCARS IN BLACK AND WHITE
Accusations are flying from all directions accusing the Academy Awards of being racially biased. It borders on the ridiculous to accuse Hollywood of any anti-black bias. The film industry is famous (and infamous) for being uber liberal in its politics. Think Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, Leonardo DeCaprio, ad nauseum. You couldn't spit out of you car window driving down Wilshire Boulevard without hitting a left leaning liberal.
The Academy honchos say they will implement steps to increase diversity in their committee over the next several years.Sounds like a step in the right direction, but think what that policy implies. The idea of greater diversity on the Academy Awards committee is meant to increase diversity of the nominees in the various award categories. But let's dig deeper into that premise. If increasing racial diversity among the voters results in greater racial diversity in nominees and winners, then that implies blacks will vote for blacks, whites will voter for whites, Hispanics will vote for Hispanics, etc.. Rather than eliminate racial bias in selecting nominees, the Academy plan tacitly admits that the preponderance of voting will be along racial lines. If the sole purpose of the awards is to reward professional excellence, then what does it matter the racial makeup of the voters?
Racial quotas are the tools of despots and bigots. The Oscars should be racially and gender neutral, and the winners chosen on merit.To do otherwise would be the equivalent of choosing nominees by blindly pulling names out of a hat, talent and professional excellence be damned.
The Academy honchos say they will implement steps to increase diversity in their committee over the next several years.Sounds like a step in the right direction, but think what that policy implies. The idea of greater diversity on the Academy Awards committee is meant to increase diversity of the nominees in the various award categories. But let's dig deeper into that premise. If increasing racial diversity among the voters results in greater racial diversity in nominees and winners, then that implies blacks will vote for blacks, whites will voter for whites, Hispanics will vote for Hispanics, etc.. Rather than eliminate racial bias in selecting nominees, the Academy plan tacitly admits that the preponderance of voting will be along racial lines. If the sole purpose of the awards is to reward professional excellence, then what does it matter the racial makeup of the voters?
Racial quotas are the tools of despots and bigots. The Oscars should be racially and gender neutral, and the winners chosen on merit.To do otherwise would be the equivalent of choosing nominees by blindly pulling names out of a hat, talent and professional excellence be damned.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
DO LIVES MATTER? OR NOT?
You've seen them on TV, in the papers, online: Black Lives Matter demonstrators marching in the streets, carrying signs, shouting slogans, tying up traffic, blocking business establishments. They have legitimate grievances--white police officers allegedly shooting black citizens without justification. But given the circumstances, a person must ask if these demonstrators are sincerely taking to the streets to end injustice, or simply to push political and social agendas.
Contrary to what black leaders would have you believe, police shootings in Chicago are not on the rise. Look at the numbers. In 2014 there were 37 police shooting, and 16 people killed. In 2015 that number dropped to 26 police shooting, and 8 people killed. Rather than deteriorating, the situation regarding police shootings is actually markedly improving.
In total, 399 African Americans were homicide victims in 2015 in Chicago. Approximately 80% of those were murdered by other blacks. Too many of them were innocent children, and even infants. Yet can you recall a single demonstration by hundreds of Black Lives Matter supporters marching through black communities to protest these shootings? Apparently black lives matter only when they are killed by white cops. If they are killed by fellow blacks, then their lives really didn't matter as much. Can there be a more glaring example of hypocrisy?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that nationwide, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. In Chicago, shootings are again on the rise. The numbers are frightening. A person is shot every 2 hours and 55 minutes, and there is a murder every 17 hours and 34 minutes. Thank a half century of Democrat control of the city for this bloodshed.
And, oh, yes...the next time you head into Chicago, wear your flack jacket.
Contrary to what black leaders would have you believe, police shootings in Chicago are not on the rise. Look at the numbers. In 2014 there were 37 police shooting, and 16 people killed. In 2015 that number dropped to 26 police shooting, and 8 people killed. Rather than deteriorating, the situation regarding police shootings is actually markedly improving.
In total, 399 African Americans were homicide victims in 2015 in Chicago. Approximately 80% of those were murdered by other blacks. Too many of them were innocent children, and even infants. Yet can you recall a single demonstration by hundreds of Black Lives Matter supporters marching through black communities to protest these shootings? Apparently black lives matter only when they are killed by white cops. If they are killed by fellow blacks, then their lives really didn't matter as much. Can there be a more glaring example of hypocrisy?
The Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that nationwide, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. In Chicago, shootings are again on the rise. The numbers are frightening. A person is shot every 2 hours and 55 minutes, and there is a murder every 17 hours and 34 minutes. Thank a half century of Democrat control of the city for this bloodshed.
And, oh, yes...the next time you head into Chicago, wear your flack jacket.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
THE CHANGING FACE OF PLANET EARTH
The face of the earth is changing. No, not the geography. The topography remains the same. The change I'm referring to is the cultural change. A seismic shift is occurring in the ethnic and racial populations of this planet unlike any previously seen.
For ions Europe has been a sea dotted with ethnic islands. England was for the English, France for the French, Sweden for the Swedes, etc.. Now migrants are arriving from the Middle East, Africa and Asia at the rate of six thousand a day. There are currently 44 million Muslims living in Europe, and that number is expected to double by 2050. Germany expects 800 thousand migrants to pour into their country by the end of 2015. For the first time in history, Brits are a minority in London. In the past ten years, over one millions Brits have emigrated from England.
Back in the USA it has been estimated that we have at least 11 million illegal immigrants residing within our borders, the overwhelming majority of those being Hispanic. Putting this demographic shift into perspective, when JFK was sworn in as President in January of 1961, the country was 80% Caucasian. Today that number is 65%, and it is predicted that by the middle of this century, Caucasians will be a minority at 45%.
What this changing population landscape means to the world is yet to be determined. But one thing is certain. The world our grandchildren will inhabit in their senior years will be radically different from the one they were born into.
Take a good look around. We are witnessing the end of one era, and the beginning of a new one.
For ions Europe has been a sea dotted with ethnic islands. England was for the English, France for the French, Sweden for the Swedes, etc.. Now migrants are arriving from the Middle East, Africa and Asia at the rate of six thousand a day. There are currently 44 million Muslims living in Europe, and that number is expected to double by 2050. Germany expects 800 thousand migrants to pour into their country by the end of 2015. For the first time in history, Brits are a minority in London. In the past ten years, over one millions Brits have emigrated from England.
Back in the USA it has been estimated that we have at least 11 million illegal immigrants residing within our borders, the overwhelming majority of those being Hispanic. Putting this demographic shift into perspective, when JFK was sworn in as President in January of 1961, the country was 80% Caucasian. Today that number is 65%, and it is predicted that by the middle of this century, Caucasians will be a minority at 45%.
What this changing population landscape means to the world is yet to be determined. But one thing is certain. The world our grandchildren will inhabit in their senior years will be radically different from the one they were born into.
Take a good look around. We are witnessing the end of one era, and the beginning of a new one.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
MOTIVE FOR MASS MURDER?
There has yet been one more mass shooting. This time it happened at Umpqua Community College in Douglas County, Oregon. At latest count, there were 13 dead and 20 wounded.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
This latest shooting spree has one major factor in common with other mass shooting, such as the ones in Columbine and Aurora Colorado. What is the common denominator? The killings took place in a rural community or suburb. This begs the question: Why do these shooting take place in relatively quiet and sparsely populated areas? Why don't these rampages occur in major cities beset with guns, gangs and homicides? Places like Chicago, New York, Detroit, LA, etc.? Just this past weekend, 50 people were shot in separate incidents in Chicago. So why has no major city experienced a mass killing of a dozen people or more?
Here is one possible explanation. Unlike rural communities, violence is a daily fact of life in the inner city. Guns are plentiful, and law enforcement estimates there are over 100,000 gang members in Chicago alone, which account for 80% of the shootings. There is little restraint against violence in the inner city; it is an accepted way to settle disputes and grudges between groups and individuals. In contrast to rural areas and small towns, where gun violence is a rarity, and violent behavior of any kind is discouraged, the inner city's availability of weapons and support of gang afffiliations provides a ready outlet for anger and violent impulses, which in turn, decreases the possibility of emotional explosions leading to mass murder. It is, in effect, a type of safety valve that does not permit anger to build because of the opportunties to release it.
This isn't to say that gang street violence is a positive antidote for the mass shootings in Oregon, Colorado, etc., but it is a theory that has yet to be invalidated.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
GOVERNMENT APPROVED MARRIAGE
Kim Davis, county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple, and as a result, she was thrown in jail for contempt of court. That action ignited a firestorm of protests around the country by people claiming Ms. Davis is being persecuted for exercising her religious beliefs. Rights have been violated, but they weren't those of Ms. Davis.
Her claim is that gay marriage is in opposition to her religious beliefs, and therefore, she refused to issue the marriage licenses on moral grounds.But there is a far more fundimental issue in question. The government, be it federal, state or local, has no right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Such matters are way beyond the purview of government in a free society. It was mere decades ago that in a certain number of states, whites and blacks were not permitted to marry one another. Giving bureaucrats the power to decide which adults can marry is certainly heading down a slippery slope. Setting such a precedent, future government leaders could decide that Jews can't marry Catholics, or Asians can't marry Caucasians, or Italians can't marry Swedes.
The only actions that should be deemed unlawful are those that violate the individual rights of others.In the case of gay marriage, whose rights are being violated? You may be offended, but none of your rights have been violated.
And while there is no provision in our Constitution, this country was built on the priciple of seperation of church and state. You are free to practice your religion, but you can make no laws forcing your religious beliefs on others. Some Christians would debate this point, especially as it pertains to gay marriage. This is, at best, a hypocritical position.What would be the reaction of Christians be if a female county clerk dressed in burka refused to uphold a law because she said it violated Islamic teachings? My guess is there would be utter outrage at such an action, and justifiably so.
If gay marriage laws violated Kim Davis' religious beliefs, then she should have recused herself from the situation rather than deny the rights of two Americans.
Let us ask ourselves two question: Do we really want a government that has the power to tell us who we can and cannot marry? And how does two gays marrying interfere with your Constitutional rights?
Her claim is that gay marriage is in opposition to her religious beliefs, and therefore, she refused to issue the marriage licenses on moral grounds.But there is a far more fundimental issue in question. The government, be it federal, state or local, has no right to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry. Such matters are way beyond the purview of government in a free society. It was mere decades ago that in a certain number of states, whites and blacks were not permitted to marry one another. Giving bureaucrats the power to decide which adults can marry is certainly heading down a slippery slope. Setting such a precedent, future government leaders could decide that Jews can't marry Catholics, or Asians can't marry Caucasians, or Italians can't marry Swedes.
The only actions that should be deemed unlawful are those that violate the individual rights of others.In the case of gay marriage, whose rights are being violated? You may be offended, but none of your rights have been violated.
And while there is no provision in our Constitution, this country was built on the priciple of seperation of church and state. You are free to practice your religion, but you can make no laws forcing your religious beliefs on others. Some Christians would debate this point, especially as it pertains to gay marriage. This is, at best, a hypocritical position.What would be the reaction of Christians be if a female county clerk dressed in burka refused to uphold a law because she said it violated Islamic teachings? My guess is there would be utter outrage at such an action, and justifiably so.
If gay marriage laws violated Kim Davis' religious beliefs, then she should have recused herself from the situation rather than deny the rights of two Americans.
Let us ask ourselves two question: Do we really want a government that has the power to tell us who we can and cannot marry? And how does two gays marrying interfere with your Constitutional rights?
Monday, August 24, 2015
THE SOUND OF CHINA SHATTERING
That ear-splitting thud you heard was the stock market crashing on Wall Street. Since the market's historic high back in April, stocks have lost over two thousand points. Numerous factors have contributed to the downfall, but the one factor most frequently sited is the economic downturn in China, the world's second largest economy after the US. The Chinese stock market has lost billions in value, and the government has devalued their currency as that country falls into a deep recession. These developments have struck fear into the hearts of investors around the world, particularly the US. A multitude of companies, both large and small, depend on China for a signifigant amount of their business, and if the Chinese economy goes into a protracted tailspin, so will the profits of these companies.
Just a few years ago financial experts around the world were predicting that China would overtake the US as the world's largest economy. So what happened? To find out, let us back up a few decades. Under Chairman Mao and the communist revolution, China was nothing more than a large country with a third world economy. There was massive poverty and hunger, the result of a brutal dictatorship and failed economic policies.
With the death of Mao, new leadership took power and immediately overhauled their policies by liberalizing their economy and granting their citizens greater personal freedom. The beginnings of a capitalist economy took root. People were now free to own their own businesses and enjoy the profits. No longer did the communist leaders declare capitalism to be the enemy. Instead, the government encouraged entrepreneurship, causing the economy to soar and poverty and hunger to diminish.
So why is the powerful Chinese economic engine suddenly sputtering and stalling? A couple of years ago I told a friend the Chinese miracle would not continue unabated--could not continue under its current system of government, much less surpass the United States, because it has one fundimental flaw. That flaw is its economic system.
Am I saying there is a flaw in the market system? Not at all. The flaw with China is that its free market isn't free enough. Because it is still a one party system run by communists, the government maintains stringent controls and regulations over the market. In order for a free market system to grow and prosper, freedom must be maximized. Allow me to explain.
Picture a large unfenced backyard. In this yard we have a dog. To keep the dog from running away, it is attached to a long leash. The leash is long enough to permit the dog to roam a large area. But if it goes beyond a certain point, the leash stops the dog in its tracks and prevents it from advancing.
Such is the case wirh the Chinese economy. It is like the dog in the yard. The communist bureaucrats are the leash. Once the economy grows to certain levels, the onerous regulations halt economic expansion in its tracks. It was just a matter of time for those regulations to halt progress, and that time has arrived.
While our own country does not have a totally free market, the level of regulations and restrictions are nowhere near the magnitude of the Chinese.Should our leaders at some point in the future seek to increase the regulatory burden on the marketplace, then we will experience a similiar crash.
What is now required going forward is for our business and political leaders to realize that as long as China remains under Marxist leadership, their ability to be a dynamic economic power will be limited, like that dog on a leash. Further advancement will always be thwarted. That means our own business plans must begin to reflect that reality when dealing with the Chinese.
The lesson to be learned is thas the freer the market, the more prosperous the market.
Just a few years ago financial experts around the world were predicting that China would overtake the US as the world's largest economy. So what happened? To find out, let us back up a few decades. Under Chairman Mao and the communist revolution, China was nothing more than a large country with a third world economy. There was massive poverty and hunger, the result of a brutal dictatorship and failed economic policies.
With the death of Mao, new leadership took power and immediately overhauled their policies by liberalizing their economy and granting their citizens greater personal freedom. The beginnings of a capitalist economy took root. People were now free to own their own businesses and enjoy the profits. No longer did the communist leaders declare capitalism to be the enemy. Instead, the government encouraged entrepreneurship, causing the economy to soar and poverty and hunger to diminish.
So why is the powerful Chinese economic engine suddenly sputtering and stalling? A couple of years ago I told a friend the Chinese miracle would not continue unabated--could not continue under its current system of government, much less surpass the United States, because it has one fundimental flaw. That flaw is its economic system.
Am I saying there is a flaw in the market system? Not at all. The flaw with China is that its free market isn't free enough. Because it is still a one party system run by communists, the government maintains stringent controls and regulations over the market. In order for a free market system to grow and prosper, freedom must be maximized. Allow me to explain.
Picture a large unfenced backyard. In this yard we have a dog. To keep the dog from running away, it is attached to a long leash. The leash is long enough to permit the dog to roam a large area. But if it goes beyond a certain point, the leash stops the dog in its tracks and prevents it from advancing.
Such is the case wirh the Chinese economy. It is like the dog in the yard. The communist bureaucrats are the leash. Once the economy grows to certain levels, the onerous regulations halt economic expansion in its tracks. It was just a matter of time for those regulations to halt progress, and that time has arrived.
While our own country does not have a totally free market, the level of regulations and restrictions are nowhere near the magnitude of the Chinese.Should our leaders at some point in the future seek to increase the regulatory burden on the marketplace, then we will experience a similiar crash.
What is now required going forward is for our business and political leaders to realize that as long as China remains under Marxist leadership, their ability to be a dynamic economic power will be limited, like that dog on a leash. Further advancement will always be thwarted. That means our own business plans must begin to reflect that reality when dealing with the Chinese.
The lesson to be learned is thas the freer the market, the more prosperous the market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)