Author: J.H. Holliday

Donald Trump receives a lot of criticism for his temperament and his ability to look “presidential.”  Even a lot Mr. Trump’s supporters wish he would be more careful with his words and moderate his approach.  However, one can find a lot of value in Mr. Trump’s temperament, which is perhaps why he cites it as one of his greatest assets.

First, it is important to mention that for at least the first 150 years of United States history, only the smallest percentage of Americans even laid eyes on their president.  Speeches and campaigns were not televised and viewed by any large numbers until the 1960’s.  Since then, it seems to have become a trend for politicians to move toward political correctness for fear of not stirring up opposition to their success.  Or could it be that politicians have always done this and modern media has just made it more apparent?  Either way, it is ironic how often the people who complain about their political leaders saying a lot of nothing, are frequently the same people who want their leaders to moderate temper and approach.

Furthermore, what exactly does it mean to “look presidential?”  Why limit the presidential “look” to a calm, evenhanded, mediocrity?  From Washington to Obama, there have been many great presidents who would not fit this narrow model, and for good reason.  There is something to be said for a president who gets fired up about something.  Passion, and even anger, within a candidate is an indicator of the energy he or she will put into the job.  When something as superficial as “the presidential look” has become the deciding factor for voters, it is a sign of lack of vision on their part.

Why has something so superficial become more important than substance?  Some of the greatest leaders in world history were probably not the type to mince words.  Many of Mr. Trump’s followers are specifically attracted to his direct approach and politically incorrect speech.  Many Americans would rather have a president who says what he means and does not beat around the bush, than one who gives a long, lawyered, meaningless answer every time.

Much of what Trump says may be ineloquent, awkward, or over-simplified, but nonetheless true.  Case in point: Trump said President Obama is the “founder of ISIS.”  He has been questioned on it several times by the media.  When asked to clarify, Trump has insisted he meant exactly what he said, and he explains it in a way just as ineloquent as the original statement.

We all know what Trump meant.  Considering his propensity for exaggeration and jesting, he should not be taken too literally.  He tries to be flamboyant for greater impact and this does not fit in with political correctness; don’t expect it to.  This is definitely counter to the current trends within our culture.  People seem to have increasing difficulty distinguishing between speaking respectfully, and walking on eggshells.  Some Americans have become so obsessed with political correctness, it is amazing they manage to have meaningful conversations at all.

Since when did Americans need their hands held so much?  When a society becomes increasingly offended by words, it is a sign of that society’s problems becoming truly trivial.  Yet, in our nation, there are so many problems that are not at all trivial.  They are real problems with real solutions, yet everyone turns to jello as soon as these issues are discussed.  Race relations, immigration, birth control, religious freedom, and many others are all contentious issues within our society.  They all could benefit from respectful yet brutally honest discussions.  Why beat around the bush when we are all adults who should be capable of respectful debate?  It comes down to whether Americans priorities lie in resolving issues, or continuing under the facade that all is okay and.

Donald Trump is an American who seems to have a genuine desire to resolve the issues in our nation.  American’s could benefit from a leader who is not overly careful with his language.  In the end, such a man or woman would be better remembered for the actions they took and the changes they made.  Suppose for a minute that Mr. Trump is elected and has only moderate success over four to eight years.  Twenty years from now, will anyone remember or care about old rhetoric involving a Hispanic judge, the Mayor of London, or Miss Universe?

Nor should American’s buy into the criticism of Mr. Trump’s temperament.  The notion Mrs. Clinton promotes that Mr. Trump is going to fire off nuclear weapons because he is having a bad day is absurd.  What is worse is many Americans believe this garbage.  Does anyone really think Mr. Trump would be as successful as he is if he was as unhinged as Mrs. Clinton implies?  It is also doubtful he would have such a positive relationship with his children if he was so unstable.  

Mr. Trump may not be the best orator.  However, he speaks directly and is not afraid to address the issues facing our nation.  Like any personality trait, there are simply positives and negatives to it.  To put it simply, right now the United States needs a leader who will not take any crap.  The alternative is electing a leader who uses a lot of words to say nothing.  Americans are tired of their concerns being trivialized or neglected.  Many of us would rather have a president who brings positive change, even if his style is brash.

~AD

Share This:

In the first chapter of this Black Lives Matter series, we examined BLM’s manifesto and core values. Naturally, the next step is to evaluate the claims and grievances made my BLM and evaluate their validity.  It’s time to face the facts.

BLM’s claims, while evoking a lot of emotion and hyperbole, have little basis in any fact and BLM does not do much to refute that.  Nowhere on the site does it outline any particular evidence in support of their outrageous grievances.  If their claims were true, why not add news stories or links to statistics, or anything that demonstrates tangible evidence and not just rambling emotional diatribe?  Furthermore, the one claim they made which has at least some basis in fact, regarding the number of Blacks incarcerated, is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent.

According to studies done by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Blacks make up 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population in the United States.  Even if this study does not count those individuals who are on parole or probation as “incarcerated” (and some studies do), this hardly equates to their description of 2.8 million Black people locked in cages as described on BLMs “about us” page.  In the manifesto, BLM then changes the number to the more accurate estimate of 1 million.  The inconsistency  is unprofessional at the least and troubling at the most.

Either way, it is critical to also mention the U.S. has one of the overall best records in the world in regards to humane treatment of its incarcerated population.  However, including these kind of facts mitigates the raw emotional power of grossly inaccurate (or inconsistent) statistics and inflammatory language which seems to be the basis for accumulating support of BLM.

It is true Blacks make up an overall larger proportion of the incarcerated population than any other racial/ethnic groups in this country.  However, no evidence exists to show the reason for this has anything to do with direct persecution of the Black population by “the state,” much less state sponsored genocide, as BLM suggests.  There is a simple reason for the high rate of incarceration.  Statistics have consistently proven the number of crimes committed by Blacks is far higher proportionately than any other single racial/ethnic group, and it is not racist to say so.  Any second grader can do the math: more Black crime = more Black incarceration.

Though Blacks make up only about 13% of the population of the United States, they commit almost half of homicides nationwide.  Over 90% of the time the victim is also Black, usually a male.  Blacks commit over 50% of robberies, 30% of burglaries, 34% of aggravated assaults, 25% of vandalisms, and 67% of illegal gambling.  Collectively, Blacks committed 38% of violent crimes and 29% of property crimes nationwide in 2012.  Most of these figures have been documented in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report.  Though, as an establishment of “the state,” perhaps BLM does not give the FBI credit.

The numbers only get worse for Blacks when crime statistics for individual cities are examined.  Take a study by Chicago Police Department in 2011 for example.  Despite comprising about 33% of the Chicago population,  71% of all homicides in the city were committed by Blacks and 75% of the victims were Black.  It is important to note only 29% of Chicago homicides for 2011 had a corresponding prosecution.  This is ironic considering BLM’s charge that the state system is rigged against Blacks.

Strangely absent from BLM website, is the grievance we often see their supporters making on the major cable news networks; that the Black population in the United States is being hunted down by various Law Enforcement agencies in the country.  Various studies have been conducted, including one by the Center for Disease Control in 2012, one by the Washington Post in 2015, and another published by a Harvard University professor in 2016.  All of them concluded White people were about twice as likely to be shot by police as Black people.  

Why is there a disparity between percentage of Blacks shot by police, contrasted to the proportionately lower percentage of other racial/ethnic groups?  Just as is the case with Black incarceration, the disproportionate rates are due to the fact Blacks commit a proportionately higher percentage of crimes.  One would also be hard pressed to find any legitimate study concluding that a majority of officer involved shootings of any racial/ethnic group, were unjustified, much less racially biased.  At the very least, the statistics of police shootings of Blacks hardly reflects any form of genocide committed by the state, as BLM would suggest.

The problem this poses for BLM is these facts completely undermine the inflammatory claims they have made.  Their grievances are based more in emotion than logic or fact.  If BLM wants to be taken seriously, they need to make some important changes to their focus, overall organization, and to the behavior of their supporters.  That is a subject for the next article.

~AD

Share This:

I would be remiss to let this week go by without mentioning the recent attacks on our nation by Radical Islamic Terrorism.  By now everyone should be familiar with the knife attacks in St. Cloud, Minnesota and the bombings in New Jersey and New York.  If you are not familiar, do your duty as an American and get familiar real quick because all Americans face this common threat; whether you feel threatened or not.  There is a lot about the initial fallout from these incidents that is bothersome so let’s get right into it.

To begin with, the responding authorities to each incident deserve considerable praise.  The swift and commendable response of Officer Falconer to the attacker in the St. Cloud mall should not be taken for granted, trivialized, or criticized.  Nor should the excellent investigative work of the various police/intelligence agencies that led to the capture of the N.J./N.Y. bomber.  Both responses are deserving of the highest praise and recognition from the Americans these peace officers protect and serve.

Yet, immediately after such events, there is always the search for why such attacks occurred and who failed to see them coming.  In the case of the bombings, muckraking journalists flocked to any sign of a controversial existence of previous knowledge police/intelligence agencies had in regard to the attacker(s).  Any prior knowledge of the attacker is often blown way out of context.  This is because the context in which the muckrakers find the info is always post-attack.  The original context, as viewed by law enforcement/intelligence, was pre-attack.  There is a considerable difference between the two.  

In any case, the police/intelligence agencies are scrutinized by all these journalists and newscasters; sitting around their comfy couches, drinking lattes and discussing how, in retrospect, they would have done things differently.  Journalists suffering from a Walter Cronkite complex pass over a few hastened notes and statistics in front of them and then pass judgment on intelligence and law enforcement agencies.  Their ignorant, uninformed, and biased comments often cause Americans to question the very legitimacy of our policing institutions.  Once again, everyone is quick to judge and evaluate the justice system, while demonstrating a pitiful ignorance in regards to how it works.  Maybe they should consider the following, as a simplified example:

The FBI probably receives thousands of calls a year in regards to potential terrorist threats.  A few of these (very few by number) may even be legitimate threats.  Maybe the FBI is able to stop a few potential threats this way, even though they may not be recognized for it.  Overall the FBI, like the majority of police agencies in the United States, lacks the manpower and resources to devote all energy toward every single incident, call, or tip off.  Nor would it be an efficient use of resources if they did, as police agencies get a lot of calls and tips that are complete garbage.  

Some tips are from legitimately concerned citizens.  A lot are from crazies or simply from over worried, nosey, too-much-time-on-their-hands, chicken littles.  The problem is, police (local and federal) have to respond to ALL tips and calls no matter what…maybe American’s do not understand that.  The more people you have crying wolf, the less credence is given to each caller, and the fewer resources are available for police to give adequate attention when the wolves really attack.  Hopefully readers can understand how this applies to both the Orlando and N.J./N.Y. attacks.  If not, think about it awhile later because we are moving on for now.

Something else is troubling in regard to these incidents: both seem to be lacking in serious recognition from many Americans.  This might be due to the fact nobody died in either attacks, thankfully. Or it could be due to the relatively swift and effective response by law enforcement and intelligence officials.  Either way, it seems like many Americans have quickly gone about their daily lives without giving enough thought to what these attacks might truly indicate.  To do so is not only disingenuous to those casualties of the attacks, but to us as Americans.

For example, it was reported all over the news how New Yorkers continued about their daily lives in the hours and days following the attacks.  This is a good thing if it is a result of Americans having a true understanding of the danger they face, and being resilient in the face of that danger.  Many Americans do possess this quality.  After the attacks, many New Yorkers put on a tough face and went on about their business and there is nothing wrong with that.  However, it is more likely a response by a people too coddled in our relatively peaceful nation to truly understand the meaning of terror.

Americans have never been faced with the kind of terrorism the Israelis experienced during both Intifadas.  The Intifadas involved attacks on public places day after day, week after week.  Buses, schools, streets, homes; nothing was off limits under those circumstances.  It is crucial Americans do not underestimate the chance of something similar happening in our own backyard.  Thus far (fingers crossed) our intelligence community and law enforcement have been largely successful in preventing such a thing.  However, make no mistake; it could happen here if the U.S. is not diligent in its response to terrorism.  Americans may think they are tough because they survived a fumbled bombing attempt but they have yet to be seriously hardened against true terrorism.

Overall, Americans were lucky this last week.  We were lucky the bomber in question was not very adept with explosives.  It is that much more fortunate the bomber was captured alive very shortly after the attack.  We were also lucky an off-duty peace officer was present, aware, and had the means to stop a knife-wielding terrorist in his tracks.  Radical Islamic Terrorism is on the rise.  The evidence is right in front of us.  The enemy has given us fair warning.  They are uncaring, brutal, and would like nothing more than to see Americans suffer to their deaths.  It is time for our nation to rise up to the challenge and destroy our enemy with extreme prejudice.  Americans can only effectively do so if we recognize these terrorists for what they are, and support those who serve and protect us from them.

~DA

 

Share This:

United States Congress has recently passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).  This bill would theoretically provide a channel for family members of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for its involvement in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  President Obama is expected to veto it.  This might be the first time I agree with our president on something.  I do not know President Obama’s personal reasons for vetoing and, for the purpose of this article, it does not matter.  The reason this legislation should be vetoed is because it will eliminate the already eroding sovereign immunity that exists among western nations.  It is just another extension of globalization.  As much as I would love for the victims’ families of 9/11 to see some form of justice, this is one of the most ridiculous ways to pursue it.

Most of Obama’s supporters on the issue cite two concerns regarding the issue.  First, the concern that if it becomes “legal” for United States citizens to pursue civil lawsuits on the international level, it will reciprocally open up the U.S. government for civil lawsuits by citizens from other nations.  Furthermore, there is the concern it will lead to retaliatory attacks or kidnappings of U.S. Citizens in nations where such lawsuits are in progress.  Then of course there is the concern over Saudi Arabia freezing its assets in the U.S.

My own reasons for disliking this legislation go beyond worries over fiscal matters, counter-suits and kidnappings.  It is not a matter of whether foreign citizens will choose to sue the U.S. government, because someone surely will.  It is a matter of who is going to prosecute such lawsuits and who enforces the verdict.  The Supreme Court of the United States has no jurisdiction in Saudi Arabia.  Will it be an international court linked to the United Nations?  Hopefully not, because the United Nations cannot provide an objective platform for such a thing.  As it stands, the U.N. already exercises way too much influence over the U.S.  The success of such legislation could lead to a further disregard for U.S. authority, power, and sovereignty.

At best, such lawsuits will go nowhere.  Just because the U.S. or the U.N. says it is okay for citizens to sue Saudi Arabia, does not mean Saudi Arabia will care, and why should they?  After all, the whole logic behind suing them is because they bear some burden for the lives lost on 9/11.  If they cared about American lives the Saudi government would have done something about Al-Queda in the first place!  There is no way, outside of war, to force the Saudi government to pay.  An international body judging such lawsuits would have to be formed.  By the way, the U.N. already attempts to enforce international law and it does a deplorable job.  Most nations outside of western civilization ignore international law at their convenience.  But let us assume for a minute that such a body could successfully enforce such a thing.

At worst, such lawsuits will succeed in being prosecuted.  A few American families may get a little money but what about the overall impact to our nation?  Should this happen, where does it stop?  You are not likely to find one nation on this planet without a citizen who carries a grievance against the U.S. government.  Who will determine the criteria for prosecuting cases against the U.S. or other nations and will there be any regulation of frivolous lawsuits?  Globalization already has the U.S. tied in with every nation and global company on the planet.  This will only tie up the U.S. with more international red tape, and all Americans will feel it in one way or another.

Success of such lawsuits will only lead to the U.S. being less sovereign and more accountable to an international body which has no business directing U.S. fiscal or foreign policy.  This is the very concept which led to the British rejecting the European Union.  In fact, this is the very reason why the 13 colonies chose to revolt against the British Monarchy!  In both cases, neither group felt it was right to be regulated by a foreign entity imposing its regulations on them.  Globalization could force the U.S. to come full circle.  This legislation could very well be the first step on the last road leading to complete globalization.

Globalization is the whole reason why President Obama does not want to offend the Saudi government.  Globalization has tied us into Saudi Arabia in multiple ways; to the degree where one could argue our ability to seek justice for lost American lives has been compromised.  American lives are becoming expendable because it is too risky to respond with any real authority to a nation which trains terrorists to attack us.  Too many American oil companies are at stake and too many American’s do not want to wait in line for gas.

Either way, globalization has tempered the U.S. far too much.  If Congress truly wishes to do justice to the victims of 9/11 it could do so.  It could declare war on Saudi Arabia or endorse an embargo or sanctions.  It could vote to hold Saudi terrorists for ransom to raise money for the families.  It could pass legislation that could lead to the U.S. being energy independent so we could tell Saudi Arabia to go pound sand; then our options would be truly unlimited.  I too want justice for all those American lives lost, but this simply is not going to do a fair job.  A lawsuit is the kind of nerf ball response that our enemies now expect of us.

Neither are such lawsuits going to act as a deterrence to future terrorist attacks.  Radical Islamic Terrorists do not care if the Saudi, Iranian, or Syrian governments are going to pay out a couple million dollars to a few Americans.  They will still endlessly search for ways to kill Americans and destroy everything western civilization stands for.  Their ideology goes beyond material value and governments that fund terrorism will continue to fund it no matter how hard it hits their pocket books.  Pre-2003 Iraq and pre-Nuclear Deal Iran are perfect examples of this.

The U.S. risks setting a precedent it may not be ready or willing to follow up on.  If this bill is passed and all necessary channels for the victims’ families are established to take Saudi Arabia to court, the verdict is only as enforceable as the defendant wants it to be.  It would not do justice to the 9/11 victims’ families.  It is time to think outside the box in terms of pursuing justice for Americans.

Share This:

Last night Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were questioned in a Commander In Chief forum.  This has spurred a lot of conversation in the news in regards to America’s foreign policy.  So let me open up a huge can of worms because I have a feeling my views on the matter are shared by only a minority.

When it comes to foreign policy, the United States needs to act more like a modern day Roman Empire.  This is not to say the U.S. should look to expand its territory without limits, or attempt global domination.  Such things are costly and unnecessary to say the least.  What it means is the U.S. needs to act completely in America’s interest, just as every other nation on the earth acts in its own self interest.  It also means the U.S. should be respected for the authority it has.

I must preface this article with the following statement:  the United Nations and international laws are garbage.  The Geneva Convention and other such agreements are arbitrary and unrealistic by any real measure of human behavior and survival.  America’s enemies completely ignore such treaties and the U.S. is expected to abide by them, no matter how many American lives it costs.  This is a subject to elaborate on at another time.  Suffice it to say this article is based on the premise that the U.S. should play by the same rules everyone else plays by in warfare and conflict…no rules.  If you do not agree with this, stop reading right now because what follows will probably upset your delicate sensibilities.

Here is a short history lesson that could aid American’s greatly when considering warfare and conflict:

During World War Two, the Americans and the British ran a very extensive bombing campaign against the Germans, particularly in the German homeland.  Initially, bombing runs were designed to be conducted primarily at night to reduce Allied casualties.  German casualties were not considered too much because the goal was to win the war, not reduce enemy suffering; what a concept.  At some point, the Allied command discussed conducting more bombing runs during the day.  They came up with the idea of a Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO).  This CBO plan involved the Americans conducting bombing runs throughout the day, and the British conducting night time runs.  The concept behind this was to deny the enemy of even one minute of rest from warfare and carnage.  Germany’s military, economy, and people were to be subjected to this around the clock to diminish their ability to wage war.  In other words, complete submission and unconditional surrender of the enemy was the goal.  That is how you fight and win a war.

This is an important concept to embrace.  As the saying goes, “war is hell.”  There is absolutely, unequivocally no way around it.  For 30,000 years of human existence on this earth, mankind has played, and played to win.  This recent obsession with being more concerned over collateral damage than one’s own casualties is absurd.  I am sick and tired of all the bleeding hearts promoting the asinine concept that “America is better than that.”  This is yet another topic for another article.  Suffice it to say for the past 50 years, Americans have lived under this foolish idea that there is a nice and pretty way to conduct war, and we are somehow subhuman if war is waged in any other fashion.

Here is a hypothetical situation: a quartet of Iranian gunboats harasses a U.S. Naval vessel.  Three of those Iranian boats should be blown out of the water.  The fourth boat should be boarded and captives taken.  Any dead bodies recovered should be hung from the yard arm (if modern ships have such a thing) and that boat should be cast adrift into Iranian waters, bodies included.  Iran should then have to pay for the ransom of the captive sailors.  Do you think Iran would try this again?  It certainly would not be so quick to disrespect the U.S. Navy if this was the response.

Vladimir Putin understands this way of thinking and Donald Trump knows it.  This is important to discuss because lately even the most hawkish of Republicans have turned to mush over Trump’s regard for President Putin.  For instance, Bill O’Reilly criticized Trump for praising Putin, saying Putin is not deserving of praise.  Mr. O’Reilly is badly mistaken.

Credit should be given where credit is due, especially to ones enemies.  One is not ready to battle or negotiate with ones enemies unless they have a clear understanding of their strengths and weaknesses.  An integral part of understanding your enemies comes from appreciating their strengths.  Additionally, if America wants to be respected by foreign powers, it needs to understand what it is those powers respect.  The reason why Russia and Iran have repeatedly gotten away with threatening the U.S. Navy is because they know President Obama is a pushover, and he has proven them correct.  They do not respect him or the U.S.

Trump says he will have good relations with Russia.  Under his administration the U.S. will act more hegemonic, which he knows Putin will more likely respect.  Trump admires Putin’s nationalism.  He admires the fact that Putin will tell the international community to go screw themselves; Russia is going to take care of Russia.  At the very least, one has to admire Putin’s directness and predictability.  Now, I would never trust Putin to run a fair presidential election or provide due process, but that is completely beside the point.  Why do so many people have such a black and white view of this?  It is perfectly logical to acknowledge Putin’s strengths and condemn his behavior at the same time.

In all reality, most leaders act primarily in their own nation’s best interests; Putin is just more honest about it.  Why should it be any different for them or for us?  This brings me to my final conclusion.  We live in a world where the power structure is built around nation-states.  No matter how much globalization ties nations together, we are still a collection of nation-states of varying size and power.  All nations have separate identities, goals, and concerns and there is no reason it should be any other way.   I therefore say, let nations do as they will and the U.S. should do the same.  It does not mean the U.S. should conquer indiscriminately, but it also does not mean the U.S. should be afraid to assert its authority.  The U.S. can live and let live; but if the enemy does not let live, annihilate them like a hawk devouring its prey.

 

~ AD

Share This:

Black Lives Matter is quickly becoming a nation-wide movement; unfortunately recognized as legitimate by seemingly an increasing number of Americans.  Well, BLM is a complete farce.  A whole book could be written on this, however I will attempt to cover the issue in a short series of posts.  This first post will primarily focus on the manifesto and basic beliefs espoused by BLM.  Who are they? Who are they to tell Americans whose lives matter and whose do not?

Let us be clear from the outset: in no way does BLM have the kind of credibility worthy of attention or acknowledgement from any average American, much less major cable news networks and well-respected politicians.  If the irony of the racially exclusive moniker is not enough to demonstrate this, then let us take a closer examination of BLM.

Upon visiting the website of BLM, one will find the movement is considerably vague in terms of what its goals and principles are.  The most specific answer you will get can be found on their “About Us” page where it states what Black Lives Matter Means.  There you will find what amounts to a list of grievances, primarily against “the state.”  These grievances include, but are not limited to, the following:

• “How Black poverty and genocide is state violence”
• “ How Black girls are used as bargaining chips during times of conflict and war.”
• “ How Black folks living with disabilities and different abilities bear the burden of state sponsored Darwinian experiments that attempt to squeeze us into boxes of normality defined by white supremacy, and that is state violence.”
• “How 2.8 million Black people are locked in cages in this country is state violence.”
• “How Black women continue to bear the burden of a relentless assault on our children and our families and that assault is an act of state violence.”

These grievances are mentioned multiple times throughout their loosely defined manifesto.  The overall conclusion BLM makes is, “Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state.”  In other words, the United States intentionally targets Black people for persecution.  The states that make up our nation hunt down Black people to lock them up, enslave them (yes, this is mentioned in the manifesto), and outright murder them.  Genocide of Black Americans by the United States is the ultimate goal here.  What a crock.  Believe it or not, this is the basis on which BLM is formed.  It is important to mention at this point, for several reasons, that BLM has been invited into the White House.

BLM is entirely disorganized, hypocritical, and unscrupulous.  They seem to lack any kind of hierarchical or organized structure. Instead, they are based in a confederation of various chapters spread throughout the country.  BLM acknowledges each chapter has varying requirements for admittance into the group.  Collectively, BLM chapters give this disclaimer “before you contact a #Black Lives Matter chapter”:

“Please note that #BlackLivesMatter is a network predicated on Black self-determination, and BLM Chapters reserve the right to limit participation based on this principle.”

By stating this, BLM effectively admits they are potentially a racially exclusive group.  They rationalize it by stating, while all lives matter, it is Black lives that do not matter equally.  Little or no factual evidence is given to demonstrate their understanding of this, or to help others to understand it.  Ironically, BLM suggests that it is a bad thing to drop the Black and simply to say “Lives Matter.” BLM argues that if you do this, you are:

“intentionally or unintentionally, erasing Black folks from the conversation or homogenizing very different experiences.”  

Apparently BLM has a monopoly on all victimized minority claims and no other victims of prejudice could possibly relate to them.  Indeed, BLM says for a non-Black to try and relate their experience(s) of prejudice is to insult Black people and BLM.  This is racist in and of itself.  How does BLM expect to garner support from more than just Black people if they put their “suffering” on a pedestal and the suffering of others in a shoe box?  This goes to show how disorganized and narrow minded the group truly is.

None of this is to say BLM does not have at least a few mentionable and credible goals.  They seek to empower “Black queer women” (their words).  This is all well and good.  They also seek to empower Black transgender and disabled people.  Indeed, one could point out various legal and emotional obstructions these groups face, or have very recently faced.  However, all of this is overshadowed by the irrational claim that “the state” purposefully subjugates all groups listed by BLM.

It is further overshadowed by the overwhelming lack of credibility BLM possesses.  The first thing you will likely see on their website is pictures of Trayvon Martin, Philandro Castile, and Alton Sterling.  Trayvon Martin’s homicide was ruled justifiable by all fair and legal means.  The incidents involving Philandro Castile and Alton Sterling have yet to be fully investigated, yet BLM presumes their innocence.  All the while, they presume the guilt of “the state,” without affording the due process to the state that they would have done for themselves, if the positions were exchanged.

This is just a basic review of BLM’s basic principle and beliefs.  The disorganized nature of the group makes it difficult to go beyond this in terms of detail.  BLM demonstrations have been held all over the nation and internationally.  It is difficult to determine whether BLM officially embraces all demonstrations carrying the #BLM slogan.  What we do know is this group, its followers, and its mentality, has been embraced by many of our most important political leaders.  Thusly, it poses a problem for all Americans when such an irresponsible group is allowed to weigh in on national policy.  More to follow on this.

Share This:

Colin Kaepernick has received a lot of flack in the past few days for his anti-American/police remarks and actions. Mr. Kaepernick refuses to stand during the national anthem in pre-season NFL games.  He says he is doing so to “stand with the people who are being oppressed.”  I could go on about what a hypocrite he is for disrespecting the flag, our servicemen, and the nation that affords him freedom of speech.  However, I will take the less popular route and explain how stupid his criticism of the police is.

To begin with, Mr. Kaepernick seems to believe he is knowledgeable in the subject of police training.  This knowledge extends to the fact he knows police academy graduates receive a gun after approximately six months of training.  That’s about it.  His comparison of police training to the education of a cosmetologist bespeaks his ignorance on the whole topic.  Below are some important things for you to consider Mr. Kaepernick.  In fact, if you have heard Colin Kaepernick and support the drivel coming from his entitled, ungrateful, and ignorant mouth, consider the following information:

1. Police applicants undergo extensive background checks.  This process often takes months.  The applicant is subjected to multiple tests in addition to evaluating any criminal background.  These tests range from evaluating written, oral, and comprehensive skills to medical and psychological examinations.  During this background, some departments even require participation in physical training activities on the applicants’ own time and money.  The competition is often high and after several months of background and testing, a small percentage will be admitted into the police academy.  So as difficult as I’m sure it is to get into cosmetology school, let us just say the criteria for entrance is far less exclusive Mr. Kaepernick.
2. Consider how much it costs to train police academy recruits.  Even for smaller departments, the cost to the trainee is often anywhere from a few hundred dollars, to months of salary if the trainees are unpaid.  For the training agency, the cost can easily go into six figures.  This cost starts with the background expenses, including paying for all the applicants who do not end up qualifying. So Mr. Kaepernick, if you think police need more training, write your local congressman (or woman); offer to donate some of the millions of dollars you get for being a terrible quarterback and put it toward extra police training.  Most police welcome extra training.
3. Training does not end when a peace officer receives his/her duty weapon.  Most officers then undergo their custody and/or patrol training.  This is extensive and stressful on-the-job training which also takes months.  At some point, the decision is made by the trainer(s) whether their trainee is ready and able to carry the duties of a peace officer without being a risk to the public, his/her partners, or him/herself.  Trainees, having come so far at this point, do not always pass.
4. Even after a peace officer has passed field training, the county and state often require further training.  This could be training in updates or new laws, policies, weapons, etc. By the end of a peace officer’s career, it can add up to several hundred more hours of training.  By the way Mr. Kaepernick, peace officers are often required to qualify with their duty weapon multiple times a year.  Furthermore, peace officers frequently seek additional training, depending on the areas of the field they are interested in (gangs, narcotics, detectives). This training adds up to a lot of time, and often is paid for by the peace officer out of his/her own pocket.

Mr. Kaepernick, do you realize basic training in the United States Army lasts only 10 weeks?  Yes, this includes assault weapons training.  Do you know why Army recruits receive far less training, even though they too carry lethal weapons?  Because they are not implicitly expected to get between you and somebody who wants to victimize you!  They are not trained to determine whether that somebody has broken any laws!  And a lot more focus is put on peace officer training to help humans make a split-second decision that could result in loss of life to criminals and innocents alike.

So what is your point Mr. Kaepernick?  How much training would you require of peace officer trainees?  For that matter, you seem to be an expert on cosmetology training as well; do they receive adequate, too much or not enough training according to you?  Trust me, a lot of people far more intelligent than you have designed various types of job training requirements to match their respective profession.  You are the last person on earth who should be consulted about police training.

Mr. Kaepernick also said “I can’t look in the mirror, and see other people dying on the street that should have the same opportunities I had.”  Where is he going with this?  Is the implication that police are taking opportunity away from people?  There is no evidence of extrajudicial police shootings being a major problem in our nation, if that is the insinuation.  Is he referring to homeless dying on the street?  There are countless programs in the United States that provide opportunities for homeless on the streets to improve their living situation; certainly more so than many other nations.  Could he be referring to the thousands of gang related homicides on the streets of Chicago?  If so, Mr. Kaepernick could make a world of difference to many suffering families there.  He has millions of dollars he could throw at trying to solve the gang violence in Chicago.  Put your money where your loud mouth is Mr. Kaepernick.

Mr. Kaepernick expanded his anti-police rhetoric by describing a situation he encountered in college:  “We were the only Black people in that neighborhood, the cops got called and all of us had guns drawn on us.”  He implied this was racial profiling by police, and CBS reported it exactly as such.  However, he said the police “got called.”  Unless the person who called was a peace officer, it is not racial profiling.  This is a prime example of how people do not understand that police are required to respond to calls, regardless of the race of either the caller or the subject.  Mr. Kaepernick also suggested the police arrived with weapons drawn purely because he and his friends were Black.  His lack of credibility and obvious bias makes one question how factual this is.

By the way, with regard to race and training: many states require more hours of training in “cultural diversity” than they do emergency vehicle operations.  This is significant considering how much of an officer’s time is spent behind the wheel.  It is an indication of how serious states and their respective police departments are about forming good relations with an increasingly diverse community.

Mr. Kaepernick also stated, “cops are getting paid leave for killing people.”  There is far too much stupidity in this statement to address in this post.  I will address this matter in particular later, in my posting on Black Lives Matter.  What it all comes down to is ignorance on Mr. Kaepernick’s part.  Unfortunately, Mr. Kaepernick represents a larger portion of the population embracing anti-American/police sentiment and this needs to be addressed.

Ignorant anti-police comments are becoming all too common, particularly among celebrities.  These celebrities are too selfish to realize their ignorant rhetoric has real effect on the relationship police have with their communities; a relationship many officers strive daily to improve.  One could hope they would educate themselves before making these type of comments, but that’s probably asking too much of these vapid millionaires.  Next time you sit down Mr. Kaepernick, think about the thousands of servicemen (military and law enforcement) who died protecting the lives of unappreciative brats like yourself.  You are fortunate to live in a country where they do that for you even if you are sitting on your rear, spitting on a nation that has done so well by you.

 

 

Share This:

The news has been packed lately with discussion over Donald Trump’s immigration policies and whether he has “flip-flopped” on the subject.  As lame a criticism as this is of Trumps policy, I will address it as a means of segue into later discussions on immigration in the U.S.

It could be argued that Trump’s strong stance on immigration has been the primary force propelling him to success as a presidential candidate.  Illegal immigration in particular is an issue that has gone largely ignored by leading politicians for years.  Trump’s policy is epitomized by the building of a border wall and all other details of his policy have generally fallen along the lines of a zero-tolerance for illegal immigration.

Whereas Trump originally suggested the possible deportation of all Illegals in the U.S. could take place, this policy is currently undergoing a transition.  There are likely several reasons for this.  The reasons are all more logical than political so let us examine them.

Reason 1) Trump is trying to better gauge the wishes and values of his supporters.

This can clearly be seen by his reaction and rudimentary poll taken on his Hannity appearance this week.  More than many politicians I have seen, Trump seems genuinely concerned with what his supporters want.  Trump sees himself filling the role a politician in a representative type of government is supposed to fill; a representative of his supporters’ values and wishes.  This is not only logical, but also an important part of Trump’s appeal to his supporters in general.

Reason 2) Trump may realize the impracticality of deporting 12 million Illegals in the U.S.

Fewer people have a more zero-tolerance stance toward immigration than yours truly.  As harsh as it would be to deport Illegal families or break them apart, it could be an unfortunate necessity.  Having said that, it would not be very practical to engage in such a program.  In the end it would end up costing more to do so, for all involved.  Thusly, Trump is moving toward more middle ground and the decision to do so is logical and practical.

Reason 3) Trump needs the support of the Republican base to win the election and subsequently implement his hard line immigration policies.

Make no mistake; a hard-line approach to immigration reform is what is needed.  Trump is definitely the man for that.  Not the traditional politician, Trump is beginning to realize that taking a stand on things is not popular, particularly in today’s culture of coddling issues, ignoring problems, and pandering to voting groups.  Trump may need to soften his approach slightly in order to rally the Republican base and put them in line with his traditional support base.  Though this is a political decision, it also boils down to logic in the end.  By altering his policies by 10%, Trump can get elected and pass 90% of his policies (or 100% because who thinks Trump will care after he is elected).  With 0% alteration, Trump may not get elected and can implement 0% of his policies.  It’s math. It’s logic.

Bottom line, Trump has not altered his policy much at all.  He still wants to build a border wall, enforce current immigration laws, cut off Federal funding to sanctuary cities, and deport Illegals with major criminal convictions.  Even if he does not deport other Illegals, he still stands for forcing them to make reparations for years of free-loading off the American taxpayer and he is right to do so.

The last time I checked, no other politician has advocated for all of these things, much less implemented anything.  The wall is the symbol of Trump’s logical, hard line stances.  Should he get elected, Trump’s walls will be built and for the first time a politician will actually achieve some tangible immigration reform.  So can we make this “Trump flip-flops on Immigration” garbage go away already?  Perhaps the Democrats and the news networks that kiss up to them are so desperate to discredit Trump, they’ll throw anything at the wall to see what sticks.

 

Share This:

The difference Mr. President, is that using the phrase “Radical Islam” helps reassure the American people that you recognize the enemy we are battling.  DO NOT make the mistake of reducing our concerns to some sort of paranoid, ignorant, irrational, or prejudiced fear mongering.  We are all aware you believe you have the higher emotional IQ.

You made it clear from your speech you are more upset by rhetoric which could actually help American’s define the ideological threat to them, than you are upset by the deliberate murder of dozens of Americans.  You made it clear you are more concerned about Syrian refugees you do not know, than American citizens you are actually responsible for.

You will try to distract us by saying that guns are the greater threat.  I would argue that the radical ideology in a man’s mind is just as dangerous as the inanimate weapon in his hands.  Radical Islam, Mr. President, is just as lethal a “weapon of war” as is a rifle or a bomb, if not more so.  The terrorists responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing, the Brussels Bombings, and the Orlando attack all used different weapons but their ideology and motive was the same.

Today I listened and honestly, though naively, hoped to hear a speech that would attempt to rally American’s against what is a common enemy: Radical Islamic Terrorists.  I hoped to hear the President of the United States elaborate on a coherent strategy he and his advisors have for taking the fight to ISIS and other Radical Islamic terrorist organizations.  Instead, what I heard from my president ONCE AGAIN, is that I need to apologize again for attempting to quantify and identify those who would threaten the lives of my family and my fellow countrymen.  I have never seen somebody so smugly and condescendingly dismiss the legitimate concerns of the very people he is supposed to represent.

At the end of the day your job is to protect Americans; enhance or secure our rights, freedoms, and our lives.  If you showed half as much passion for this duty as you do as a poster child for political correctness, ISIS could possibly have been defeated years ago and therefore many American lives saved.

Today you did not display strength, decisiveness, or any of the attributes I would hope to see from the leader of the free world.  Your petty concerns over the semantics of rhetoric reduced you from being the Commander in Chief, to the Politician in Chief.  Your agenda of political correctness is excessive beyond any reality and clearly surpasses your interest in the American people.

~DA

Share This: