Gangs in the Streets

VH asked what we can do about gang violence & I think her question warranted an article to do justice to the question.  Piers Morgan, President Obama and much of the media want to talk about gun violence.  Why is it not allowed to talk about violent crime instead?  Sandy Hook is tragic, but are those parents who lost children grieving any more than the parents who have lost children in the big cities such as Chicago?  Piers & Obama claim more gun laws are the answer.  I find that hard to believe.  Picture a map of the continental United States.  Liberals claim restricting guns to  this area will stop gun violence.  Now picture Rhode Island.  Imagine if we were to take the high crime areas in the US and stack them side-by-side.  I think that is a close scale for where the violence is and where it is not.  Most of our violence is in high crime neighborhoods.  Most cities are “safe”, even Chicago, if you stay in the right neighborhoods.

So what can be done to stop the violence?  I think an honest assessment of the issue will help.  Most of the violence today is committed by young, black men.  In some area’s it’s young, hispanic men.  This statement is borne out by simple prison statistics.  The overwhelming number of people imprisoned in the US are black males, starting their criminal career while young.  Frequently the violence is clashes between different groups (gangs) of young men fighting each other.  Black on black violence can be compared to domestic violence where the abused enables their tormenters.  There is a code of conduct where no one of a minority race seems willing to speak out against a member of their race.  Part of this may also be simple fear, that reporting a crime could cost you your life.  Witness a murder and agree to testify, only to be killed by his gang “brother” who wasn’t part of the first killing.  Maybe you survive against a small gang, but the “Cripps” “& “Bloods” number in the thousands.  So not any easy solution to be found there.

But why are they there?  Much in life can be explained by simple economic reasons.   Food, water & shelter are required by all for life.  Where/why do all these young men spring from these inner city neighborhoods?  I think government provided, low-income housing explains much of the source.  This is not to say the governments housing projects cause urban violence, government actions are enabling this violence in multiple ways.  LBJ’s “Greater Society” was supposed to provide a safety net for the poor and needy.  It is difficult for a single mother to raise a child on her own.  Who can blame a government for helping that single mother more than a poor family with a husband and wife?  Now we see the unintended consequence of mothers not marrying or even having children just to obtain government support.  Getting “paid” to make babies, as long as there is no “father” present.  Add to this, what government provides may keep the alive, but does not mean they are “happy”.   Look at today’s youth culture, cell phones & Air Jordan”s are required even in elementary school.  Jr high & high school brings peer pressure to a head so drop-outs increase as these poor young men seek to better themselves.  Gangs offer status, money, drugs, girls, (not that teenage boys think about sex) and a sense of belonging.  The real mystery may be why so few join inner city gangs…  Others have similar thoughts…

In My Bondage and My Freedom, Douglass laments that “Slavery does away with fathers, as it does with families.” (pg. 51) To beget more wealth, women were raped by their masters who, without remorse, sold their kin. Destruction of the family continues today, and has been expanded to the whole people, regardless of their origins. State overseers reward single women with welfare benefits for every child they bear, so long as no father is in the home. Douglass warned, “Make a man a slave, and you rob him of moral responsibility. Freedom of choice is the essence of all accountability.” (Frederick Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom: Part I — Life as a Slave, pg. 149)

In the old days, slave babies were separated from their mothers shortly after birth and placed in the care of others until they were old enough to be sold or rented out. Asking questions about parentage was evidence of impudent curiosity that resulted in lashings. Today, children face a different hazard. Women with unwanted pregnancies can abort their babies, and overseers pay the clinic. Planned Parenthood sucks the babies from their mother’s wombs, and dumps their bodies into the trash. Those babies will never show impudent curiosity.

In the nineteenth century slaves slept on the floor without blankets in unheated hovels. Rising at dawn, they worked until dark. They were expected to survive on meager rations, and nurse their own wounds. Today’s slaves live in cookie-cutter government housing. They receive food stamps, health benefits, and free cell phones. Even if jobs were available, they are not required to work. Obesity is a growing problem. Bored youths kill each other for trivial reasons.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/against_the_ghetto_plantation.html#ixzz2KX769DlR

President Obama, in his SOTU speech called on action to be taken on our education system.

You know, study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than three in ten 4-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives.

So, tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every single child in America.

(APPLAUSE)

a decade-long study by the federal government concluded that Head Start provided only “only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of 1st grade.”

The study, titled “Head Start Impact Study Final Report,” tracked 5,000 white, Hispanic and African-American kids from age three or four until the end of first grade. The children — all of whom were being raised by single parents or by families earning incomes below the poverty level — were compared to others who raised by the their parents or sent to other daycare centers.

The study was released in January 2010, and was conducted by a series of research groups that are frequently hired by the federal government to weight impact of programs and policies. The groups included Westat, the Urban Institute, Abt Associates and Chesapeake Research Associates.

In the old days, slave babies were separated from their mothers shortly after birth and placed in the care of others until they were old enough to be sold or rented out.

Nowhere in our nation is the failure of the liberal, big government approach more evident than Chicago.  A union dominated school system where their collective bargaining has been used to secure the highest pay & benefits along with the shortest school hours.  The predictable end result is one of the highest drop out rates along with the lowest test scores.  Obama’s answer to the failure of the education system is more of the same.  I expect the day care workers to be invited/forced into to the teachers unions as part of the process.

Chicago also has some of the most restrictive gun laws and has for decades.  How has that worked out so far?  The highest murder rate in the nation and Obama/liberal want to enact more laws like this across the nation? ” People buy guns outside Chicago and bring them into the city.”   Yes, that’s true.  People also buy drugs outside the US and they are brought into the country.  How will outlawing firearms stop criminals from smuggling them across the border?  Why would anyone believe they can stop guns but can’t stop drugs or illegal aliens?  Will facts ever change a liberals mind on these issues?  Well, maybe one’s….

Last year, like the year before and the one before that, more people died of gunfire in Chicago than soldiers in Afghanistan. Every year more school children die from gunfire in Chicago than died in Newtown. Every year. Many of these deaths in Chicago are from semi-automatic weapons. They are illegal in Chicago. They have been for a very long time. In fact, Chicago has one of the strictest gun control laws in the country. In 1982, almost 31 years ago, Chicago became the first American city to ban handguns. And yet, the Liberals scream for more gun control. True Liberals would look at the human cause of these events, not a quick fix that makes headlines, that make it look as if politicians are accomplishing something when they are doing no more good than Chicago did in 1982 when it banned handguns. It is not a revelation that most of these shootings are gang related. It is not a revelation that if we broke up the gangs, we would drastically reduce the violence. But legislation enabling enhanced enforcement procedures against gangs is nowhere to be found. Al Sharpton says not a word about providing law enforcement agencies with extra enforcement powers to bring this travesty to an end after decades of misdirected pseudo-liberal “solutions.” Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s strategy is to tear down empty buildings, as if the gangs would dissolve because they would never figure out where to gather and store their illegal weapons if the city’s empty buildings were torn down — leaving massive scars on the Chicago landscape, empty, bottle strewn, drug gathering “parks” throughout the City rivaling Bryant Park in its “heyday.”

True Liberals understand that the most successful strategy is one that eliminates obstacles to people’s achieving their potential. That strategy would require steps to eliminate the gangs, not play games by changing their meeting places. Why is it that today’s pseudo Liberals cannot get their hands around the idea that going to war against evil people is what allows the others to achieve their potential, to thrive, to grow? Every seven year old, even in Chicago, has the right to grow up. A civilized society protects that right, even if it means taking harsh steps against those who would deprive that seven year old of his opportunity. That doesn’t mean taking guns away from good people, or tearing down abandoned buildings to create vacant eyesores. It means recognizing that there are bad people, people without empathy, people without a respect for human life. This is the case in Chicago. This was the case of the shooter in Newtown. This is the case with Islamic fundamentalists. True Liberals understand this. The pseudo Liberals who have hijacked the label “Liberal” do not.

The pseudo Liberals want to stop crime without eliminating the criminals. They want world peace without challenging those who are committed to hegemony, caliphates, and domination. They want prosperity without encouraging each and every citizen to contribute to that prosperity.

There was a time when I was a Liberal. There was a time when I was a Democrat. I have not changed my values. I have not changed my philosophies. Someday, maybe the pseudo Liberals will adopt Liberal values. Someday, maybe Democrats will not just quote Thomas Jefferson, but understand what he intended for this great nation.

The young men joining gangs and prone to violence are a symptom of an artificial environment created by the government.  Low income housing is subsidized by the government and included rules of behavior for the residents including housekeeping, curfews, and the provision of an environment suitable for raising young children.  The police lack the authority to enforce these rules.  They can, when called enforce the law to the extent it’s allowed, but it’s not illegal for young men to hang out around their residence even in the early morning hours.  It is a violation of housing authority rules and could be grounds for eviction.  If it were enforced.  Young teens failing in school, hanging out with pimps & drug dealers with indifferent mothers, often drug users themselves.  Girls taught if they have a baby, they will be provided for, boys left out of that “safety net”.
I don’t claim there is any “solution”.  There will always be some crime, some criminals.  I do say the government is providing a breeding ground for these criminals and because they are providing these shelters, they alone have the power to force change.  Strict enforcement of housing authority rules with the support of the police would reduce the number of violent teens.  If Momma don’t want to lose her crib, she will keep Jr. in line.  Include the courts and truancy, maybe he’ll even graduate.  And this is not a new thought.  Time and again we hear conservatives demand enforcement of existing laws while liberals call for more laws.  There are over 20,000 gun laws in the USA.   How many more are needed?  Universal background checks/gunshow loophole?  The NRA proposed the ATF place booths at all gunshows for that purpose.  Hasn’t happened.  Almost as if they want an issue to rail against.  Almost as if a few lives lost is worthwhile to prolong their “crisis” narrative.
Advertisements

Comments

  1. Gang violence is a good subject to debate, because it is a very real problem that is growing. Pinpointing the problem may not be easy, but we all know that it’s not Global Warming (or is it?). Poverty, education, lack of family, lack of morals, could all play a roll in the nature of violence in these areas of the country.

    As you said LOI, some blame guns as the cause of all the violence and murders. guns are just a tool, they do not jump up and just start shooting on their own. There are thousands of laws that seem to be useless at stopping this problem, but many want even more useless laws. We have entire units in police departments whose sole purpose is to deal with gangs. That’s not working either.

    Is it one cause or a number of causes? This should be the first answer to achieve. 🙂

    • What are the common denominators with regards to inner city violence (gang violence).
      1. Mostly done by minorities.
      2. poor neighborhoods
      3. politically controlled by Democrats
      4. large numbers of welfare and food stamp recipients
      5. poor educational facilities with high dropout rates
      6. promotes and makes available abortion
      7. this violence is mostly ignored by the liberal MSM

      Anybody want to add more?

      • First and Foremost, “NO FATHERS”.

        • Welfare critics point to a steady decline in family unity since the explosion of the mid-’60s. It’s no coincidence the two are happening at the same time, they say.

          According to the Census Bureau, a single-parent family is six times more likely to be poor — and thus a recipient of welfare — than a two-parent family. Women heading families are particularly vulnerable.

          In 1980, there were 6.2 million families headed by single women, making up 19.4% of all families with children. By1990, that number had risen to 8.4 million families, or 24.2% of the total.

          Blacks have been especially hard hit.

          The percentage of black households headed by women grew from 28% to 40% between 1970 and 1980.

          At the beginning of World War II, the illegitimate birth rate among black Americans was slightly less than 19%. Between 1955 and 1965 — the year of the Watts riots and also the start of the War on Poverty — it rose slowly, from 22% to 28%.

          But beginning in the late 1960s the slow trend rapidly accelerated, reaching 49% in 1975 and 65% in 1989.

          Empirical studies have borne out the theory that welfare is behind much of this disintegration.

          For example, a study at the University of Washington showed that an increase of roughly $200 a month in welfare benefits per family correlated with a 150% increase in the illegitimate birth rate among teens.

          According to the House Ways and Means Committee “Green Book” for 1990, about 40% of parents collecting AFDC were black, 38% white and 17% Hispanic. Blacks make up about 12% of the population, while Hispanics make up about 9% of the population.

          The Green Book took its data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Family Assistance of the Family Support Administration.

          The concept of welfare dependency was also bolstered recently by a study by David Elwood of Harvard University. He found that of the 3.8 million families currently on AFDC, well over half will remain dependent for more than 10 years, many others for 15 years or longer.

          Studies also show a correlation between crime and broken homes. It isn’t so much the crime committed by the members of the broken home itself, says Robert Sampson, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, as it is the impact of broken homes on the community.

          “A high threshold of single-parent families in a community means a low capacity for social control of kids,” he said. A child is “more likely to find peers in that community who are not supervised.”

          Sampson said the relationship between broken homes and crimes “is large and certainly larger than many of the other factors that I looked at in the analysis.”

          Other research shows that not only is there a link between single-parent households and crime, but that the difference between black and white crime rates may largely be explained by the difference between their single-parent household rates.

  2. Interesting article…..but I fear you will find that the Liberal side will blame society. Texas is not immune in this problem but we deal with it very harshly. Some cities are very different as our State tells the city…it is your turf…defend it. Consequently, some cities address the problem and some do not. No city is immune.

    Here is what we do in Fort Worth. The State Attorney General has done what he is supposed to do…..define the gang issues and issue a variety of suggestions for the cities to follow.

    Fort Worth does the following:

    1) Admit that there is a problem. Without identifying that there is a problem, it cannot be fixed.
    2) Define what a gang is: The definition in Texas is as follows: A gang is defined as: “Three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continually or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities” (Texas Penal Code, 71.01).
    3) Once that is done, it is imperative to get neighborhood associations and the police together. Fort Worth is HUGE on neighborhood civilian patrols and watch systems with direct lines to the police. And that is all neighborhoods regardless of income levels.
    4) Identify the common areas where there is a likely association and patrol them.
    5) Eradicate graffiti immediately….this is how they identify “turf” boundaries.

    • Sorry hit the wrong button…will continue.

    • The liberals are actually right, blame society! The society they created, the one without consequences, the one without families, the one without fathers. it is their baby, they birthed it and we live with it.

      I remember the flack Gingrich took for proposing orphanages. I knew people, including an uncle, who grew up in orphanages. While there was most certainly a downside there was a much greater upside. values were taught. Forcibly maybe but taught. Kids were not left to their own devices, were educated, sometimes taught a trade and eventually allowed into the world as a grown, mature adult.

      • But the liberal politicians & media control the narrative on this. They will not allow reform and the loss of their voter base. Obama wants to expand pre-school even though it’s been shown to only help in the first or third grades. No long term improvement or reduction of drop out rates. But those mothers that would get free daycare will be loud, proud and vote for whoever holds out that candy.

  3. 6) Make parents PERSONALLY responsible for the cleaning up of graffiti up to and including tax liens on property. This has reduced our graffiti problem almost to nothing.
    7) Institute a zero tolerance policy on gangs and it does not matter the age. We have identified that most gang members are between the ages of 10-25 years of age.
    8) Eliminate the wearing of gang “colors” and insignia. Not allowed in schools or public areas and enforce it. Make them pull up their pants, wear the hat the way it is supposed to be worn and pull of identifying scarves and colors.
    9) Identify the wearing of hats and specific jewelry and tattoo and understand that it is not a fashion statement but rather an identifier for gangs.
    10) Do not make excuses for why kids join gangs. Do not blame society. Rich kids are involved in gangs as much as the poor.
    11) Identify the leaders of the gangs and keep an eye on them.
    12) When a drive by shooting or stabbing or bombing is identified, go after the parents and households monetarily. This has a huge effect as well. Do not use the excuse that a parent is not responsible for what their child does while at work……because they ARE responsible,
    13) Fort Worth has identified that gang activity is restricted to particular areas. Keep it there. For example, there are Asian gangs, Black gangs, and Hispanic gangs. Gang activity is usually restricted to to those areas of rival gangs. Our malls and theaters and public parks are routinely monitored and the rules enforced as to clothing and other gang related identifiers.
    14) Graffiti is not a simple slap on the wrist here, regardless of age. It is dealt with harshly. It is not a simple misdemeanor with a ticket. Regardless of age, the perps are assigned to numerous hours of community service. If the perp is under 17, their parents are required to supervise their child in the community service issues. You would be surprised at the effect of this.
    15) The Fort Worth Police and homeowners will protect themselves. A gun, knife, bomb, rock….knows no age. It is a tool. Homeowners will shoot….so will the police.
    16) Make gangs a pariah as bad or worse than drugs/alcohol. In Fort Worth we identify the gangs and make it known we know who they are.

    There are more but you get the idea…..HOWEVER……these are just street gangs. What is more prevalent and more dangerous are the prison gangs. THAT is a whole other story.

    • D13, do they haul the not-at-home dad’s in also when the kid is caught? Seems like the sperm donor should be held as much responsible for the actions of the kid as the mom.

      • That is a good question T Ray…….But…since I brought it up, I will get you an answer. Have a very good friend, ex military, that is an asst DA….he will know. Great question. What I neglected to say was that Fort Worth and surrounding subs…..number 1.5 million…..Dallas is not as strict as Fort Worth….and the gangs have actually moved there. We just do not have much of a gang problem anymore as far as the street goes…..our Asian gangs moved to Houston, we are told…..but the Hispanic gangs are growing some.

  4. Bottom Line says:

    Just my humble opinion…

    Blame this, blame that, slice it and dice it any way you like….think it and rethink it, etc etc etc…

    All human action is ultimately individual.

    It all boils down to one thing… Humans are a messed up species.

    Human nature is it’s own worst enemy. All we can do is try to overcome it by resisting our capacity to do evil, to try to do the right thing as individuals.

    The right thing, more often than not, is rooted in love, whether it be agape for your fellow humans or your love of your family, love of your mate, love of self, etc..(not necessarily in that order) Add an understanding of rights and responsibility, and we might actually get somewhere.

    Until everyone learns and practices the basic concepts of love and respect, and at least has a basic understanding of rights and responsibility, we’re not going to get along, will get nowhere, and will always have problems.

    …Golden Rule, …Live and let live, …blah blah blah…yada yada yada…

    • “Blame this, blame that, slice it and dice it any way you like….think it and rethink it, etc etc etc… All human action is ultimately individual.”

      Yes but, consider the “artificially created” environment. Low income housing provided only to women and their children. No shelter or assistance offered to the young, healthy males during their peak level of testosterone production. They are raise in a “safe zone” where only their parent has any authority over them. A housing authority has rules they can enforce requiring a decent home environment, but for the most part do not enforce. Legally, no one else can act until actual crimes are committed.

      Remember Freddie/Fannie? Government created entities. The president (Bush) could not legally do anything to reform them because they were created by congress, who had sole authority. Where was the accountability? Where is the accountability in the housing projects? Government creates entities, hold sole authority over them, but somehow are not required to oversee, just keep spending the money…..Let the deaths and destruction be someone else’s worry.

    • Human action may be individual but the influence that a society’s norms have on it’s children isn’t.

  5. Minimum wage and age restrictions in employing youngsters also play into the problem. Most states now restrict employment to those over 16 so the younger ones have no chance of learning the work ethic early. Contrast that to farm kids who are helping at a very young age. My brother and I collected 500 eggs a night when we were 7-8 years old.

    • Kids in the City used to mow laws, deliver newspapers or babysit-now adults need those jobs to survive.

  6. Years ago, I read about a private school operator who issued the following guarantee. All first grade kids that enrolled in his school would be able to read a newspaper article by Christmas or your money back. His text book of choice was McGuffey’s Reader.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuffey_Readers

  7. Complicated issue-full of emotion -mainly because it involves children and young adults-we know that the only way to really stop it-is to change attitudes and build up neighborhoods with good business’s. But it’s a catch 22, your gonna have to decrease crime before you can increase business’s. And changing attitudes-wow that’s hard and takes a long time.

    Why doesn’t Sharpton and others speak of more enforcement-because they don’t want their children to have to pay for what they believe is the fault of our unequal racist policies. They want someone to somehow reach in and provide economic equality-because the only other answer is putting their children in jail. Truth is, we as a Country have been trying to help for years-but all it has done is backfired-it has perpetuated the problem and caused an attitude of it’s not our fault and you owe it to me. The elite keep telling our young people they are free to do all sorts of things on the basis of freedom, yet they fail to realize that all their programs are set up so that they actually encourage the harmful and it is the poor who disproportionately follow this stupid advice. Seems few people are pulled out of poverty but a large number is being taught how to survive on governmental handouts. But the pride that used to be based on hardwork-is now more based on some false definition of what being a man means-to too many it seems to boil down to-if you are disrespected kill the …………….

    Our society has been drifting away from the fundamentals that create a strong society for along time now. Marriage, family, self responsibility and real self respect being the big ones.

    Changing attitudes takes a long time-in the meantime-tough enforcement is the only answer I see-along with going back to teaching those value’s.

    • Is it complicated or do the Jackson’s & Obama’s play a smoke & mirrors game. They get out there before the camera’s & demand action, waiting to throw down the race card. It has to be someone else’s fault. Government & money has to be the solution. Blame guns.
      Blame lack of school funding. Never let a crisis go to waste. Big gov. is the ultimate progressive goal.

      http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130217/humboldt-park/slain-teens-father-i-saw-cloth-i-didnt-know-that-was-my-daughter

      • I think it’s complicated because the cause is tired to so many things in our society IMO-and I definitely believe they throw the race card whenever they can. But I do strongly believe they believe it isn’t the individuals fault. It’s like with Dorner-they don’t excuse his actions so much as they blame his actions on someone or something else.

        • The Jackson 5 in their heyday gave plenty: music, entertainment, and joy to their fans. The Chicago Jacksons are another story. Jesse Sr. (The Right Reverend) and his son (the erstwhile congressman) have done a lot more taking than giving.

          “Taking” may be too charitable a word. Shaking down and wheedling may be better descriptors for the Chicago Jacksons’ acts. Parasitism is a fancier way to say it (as in aggressively and obscenely leeching).

          The elder Jackson’s stage show has managed to skirt illegality (it doesn’t hurt to have friends in high places or play the race card). Jesse Jr. crossed the line brazenly and stupidly enough to run crosswise the Obama Justice Department. Quite a feat for Jesse Jr. that fellow Democrat and Chicagoan Barack Obama would let his Justice Department pursue criminal charges against Jesse Jr. and his bride, Sandi (she for filing false tax returns). There wasn’t a rug big enough to sweep under the Jackson couples’ criminality.

          The Jackson father and son duo have procured oodles of money, perks, and privileges. Old man Jackson has done so for decades now, leveraging his leadership of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition (or maybe that should be “POSH?” Jesse Sr. never lived at the “hellish” Cabrini Green, ministering to the downtrodden; not lavish enough). Jesse Jr. is heading to the slammer to do a stretch (after the ink dries on a plea bargain deal with the feds). Misuse of campaign funds (fraud) is the rap. Evidently, slyness isn’t genetic.

          The tragedy in all this isn’t what befalls the younger Jackson (or what befalls Jesse Sr.’s reputation in years to come — more on that anon); it’s what these and other scammers do to the people gulled by them. In this case, poor blacks, who’ve been led down a primrose path by Jesse Sr. and various and many iterations of him (the Reverend Al Sharpton is a more notorious and monstrous spawn of Jackson Sr.).

          Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/doing_the_chicago_shakedown_starring_the_jacksons.html#ixzz2LHQeSnwm

          • A point, I agree with and didn’t mean to claim otherwise. I was talking more about what I believe is the basic feelings of many in the black community. From reading and watching what happens -it seems clear to me that some, don’t presume to know how many, actually cheer these people like Sharpton on, they seem to think Sharpton is putting the “Man” in his place. And seem to respect the fact that he’s becoming rich doing it. Haven’t seen any evidence that how he manages to get rich matters much to a certain % of people.

  8. Everything is talk. Instead of talking, take action. This is the first thing that popped in my head. I’m sure there are hundreds of ways to do something. I’m just tired of talk.

    Start with a pilot city. Chicago. Have Oprah, Michael Jordan, Jennifer Hudson, Judge Greg Mathis, other homegrown celebrities broadcast a challenge to the city. Best community garden..best entry for a parade, best pig roast, most helpful action for the church…whatever the “best” happens to be..Must have a minimum number of participants..Oprah & Co can encourage the gangs to be involved..something that the end result is helpful to the community at the same time it creates a sense of working together, community awareness, sense of pride in the accomplishment. The reward can be something that benefits the neighborhood..a new park,a new rec center, whatever. But make each neighborhood resurrect itself, with a little help, financial, or personal involvement from the celebrities. Then broaden the challenge to the country. Let the celebs deduct expenses from their tax returns, you know, their “fair share”. It can happen.

    • I think this type of thing is a good idea Anita-I know they have community projects that have helped and some that are a waste of money-Celebrity participation might broaden the interest and participation, especially since we are talking about young people. But you can’t help children much, unless you get rid of the bad influences and their power to scare and control the community. It has to be more than just a fun daytime activity. Then the kids return to drug addict parents or good parents but a lot of gang intimidation. The gangs have to be stopped and it’s gonna take the community deciding They aren’t gonna allow it anymore. the police and projects should be there to help but it will take the community to stop it.

    • 💡 ❗

  9. An unacknowledged irony here is that this free daycare is heralded as a means to strengthening often frayed families. The opposite is more plausible — its availability can make parents less responsible. Apathetic parents can now easily outsource providing meals, potty training, teaching morality and all the rest that traditionally defines raising children. In some neighborhoods daycare might become 24/7 enterprises where some parents might only occasionally visit their children. Of course this government facilitated neglect is hardly a disaster for those profiting from Washington’s largess and some children might also benefit from this care.

    One last item. President Obama’s vision rests on multiple misrepresentations of research findings and this only confirms the enterprise’s ideological (and job creation) mission. At best, his advisers cherry picked the research and the President is too trusting. His boast about the proven usefulness of Head Start ($180 billion since its creation) is particularly galling given the overwhelming evidence that its positive impact on cognitive development is small and quickly vanishes (see here, here and here). Yes, there have been occasional near miracles thanks to early intervention, but time and time again, these results were just hype or convenient falsehood (in some states test scores declined despite pre-school programs). The bottom line is that early intervention has existed for decades, billions have been spent, and measured by sorrowful outcomes progress since the mid-1960s is minimal or even zero.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_risk_of_obamas_universal_daycare.html#ixzz2LHVe3FqG

    • Before Walker became Gov and the unions had a stranglehold on public education in WI, they pushed through the need for 4K – kindergarten starting at 4 yrs. of age. Was first a trial in several districts but the propaganda from the unions was fierce and many school districts bought into it. My town was reluctant – we have (had) several preschools if parents wanted their kids to start school earlier. My own kids went to one such preschool three 1/2 days per week. At that time, we also had 1/2 day kindergarten, although the union was pushing for all day for that as well. Well, finally our school board relented (as many did throughout the state). One of the union “tools” was, “You won’t have to pay any more preschool tuition – it will be part of the taxes you’ve already paid.” Not surprising, many parents fell for it and started pressuring the board. I know of five private pre-schools that closed due to this movement, including the one my kids attended. While the schedules vary district to district, four-year olds now attend school 4 full days with one day off (teacher prep day!) and five year olds five days/week. That leaves 3 measly years for kids to be raised and taught by their parents before the indoctrination starts. Just the way the union wanted it.

  10. Hi Ya’ll 🙂 Lot’s of interesting discussion. D13’s example is a good start, but as he will admit, not the complete answer. I also believe that the destruction of the family unit, especially in the minority communities. Let me focus on blacks here for a moment. The blacks in our cities are mostly poor, under educated, on some form of government assistance and likely in some form of government housing.

    Why is this? Does it have everything to do with their political leaders wanting them to be slaves to the State? Are the gangs and the violence and the abortion clinics allowed to remain to keep the black population in check? Why isn’t the Democrats held accountable for those they represent?

    Anita, you had some great ideas too. Maybe take out an entire gang at one meeting and lay them in the road with a sign that says “Are you next?” . Legalize drugs. Get the young kids who are savable back in school and hold them accountable.

    We need to stop just letting it happen. We can shame the politicians to act. We can demand they take action to stop the violence in their neighborhoods. We can empower the good people to take action, but we need to back them up as well.

    What we need to do, IMHO, is stop with all the nice talk. Call it like it is. If we have a bunch of ignorant young people causing problems, give them a choice, re-education or elimination. Hold the parents to task. No more free rides, you want a govt handout, get off your ass and earn it. Clean up your filthy neighborhoods, pretend like your parents and smack the shit out of these kids. Put them to work cleaning up things as well. Let’s quit acting like we are afraid to offend someone. any other ideas 🙂

  11. State considers law requiring police to inspect homes of gun owners

    Danny Westneat
    The Seattle Times
    Feb 18, 2013

    Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

    As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

    That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

    “They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

    Full story here.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/state-considers-law-requiring-police-to-inspect-homes-of-gun-owners.html

    This isn’t far off the subject at all. These are the idiots in government that need to be shamed, in public, and shamed hard. It will do no good at all to target law abiding citizens. I did not read to see if this was a Democrat idea or a Republican idea (I have a good idea which one). 🙄

  12. This is a great map, that you can see where the murders occurred in Baltimore. You can change age, gender, race, type of weapon etc.
    http://data.baltimoresun.com/homicides/index.php?range=2012&district=all&zipcode=all&age=all&gender=all&race=white&cause=shooting&article=all&show_results=Show+results

  13. This is off subject. It is also for fun loving conspiracy theorists who enjoy the entertainment value of the theories. http://www.dailypaul.com/275044/orly-taitz-press-release-clerks-of-the-supreme-court-never-forwarded-to-5-out-of-9-justices-one-single-page-of-pleadings-

    This, for those who like CT’s, is really interesting.

  14. In Chicago, Violence Soars And Witnesses Go Silent

    by David Schaper
    November 13, 2012 3:32 AM

    It’s an old problem and an old code — “don’t snitch.” And it exists everywhere.

    But in Chicago, where homicides and shootings are up significantly this year, that old code is leaving a rising number of violent crimes unsolved. Chicago Police Department statistics show arrests are being made in about 30 percent of shooting homicides, while close to 80 percent of nonfatal shootings are going unsolved.

    When police can’t find and arrest the perpetrators, they worry that the shooters will soon shoot again.

    “It’s very frustrating,” says Chicago Police Sgt. Cesar Guzman, a detective with the department’s violent crimes unit. He describes one of the city’s hundreds of unsolved shooting homicides, which happened earlier this year on the city’s impoverished west side, along a wide boulevard.

    “It was a hot summer night,” he says, adding “a lot of people were out.”

    Guzman and neighbors in the area say there were cars parked along the boulevard, many with their windows open and music playing. A few kids were playing in the wide grassy median, while adults stood watch talking and laughing. Some were drinking and smoking. At the corner of one of the side streets, two men started arguing.

    “And then after the verbal altercation, the offender drew a weapon and shot at the victim, striking the victim multiple times,” Guzman says.

    The victim was 23-year-old Dominique Green, known in the neighborhood as “Snoopy.” Paramedics rushed him to a nearby hospital but with five bullet wounds in his torso and two in his head, Green was dead on arrival.

    The first few hours of an investigation are the most important, and locating eye witnesses is critical to solving such a crime. So Guzman and other detectives immediately started canvassing the neighborhood.

    “And what was surprising is, no matter how many times … I mean, we’re looking, we’re stopping people to see if they heard or saw anything, and most people would say no, they didn’t see anything, they didn’t hear anything, and they continued to walk by,” Guzman says. “And that’s one of the frustrations that we have to deal with when we come to areas like this, is that it’s not easy to find witnesses.”

    Fear And Distrust

    Investigators believe the shooting was gang-related, Guzman says, and many people in Chicago’s gang-dominated neighborhoods are just too afraid of retaliation to talk to police.

    But he and other police officials also blame a long-standing attitude that police say appears to be becoming more widespread in many communities: that you just don’t snitch to the police.

    Guzman says within Chicago’s deeply entrenched gang culture, even shooting victims often won’t cooperate.

    “They know who shot ’em and there’s a very strong possibility that they’re going to take matters into their own hands,” Guzman says. “And then we’re going to have another shooting later on.”

    In fact, police officials say a spike in retaliatory shootings is part of what is causing the homicide rate in Chicago to increase more than 20 percent so far this year over 2011. And as the number of shootings goes up, police are making fewer and fewer arrests for those violent crimes, leaving a staggering number of cases unsolved.

    According to Chicago Police statistics, there were close to 1,800 nonfatal shooting incidents in Chicago this year through the end of September. In almost 80 percent of those cases, detectives were forced to suspend the investigations because they had no workable leads.
    Chicago resident Stanley Jackson says there is a code of silence when it comes to witnessing crime. Enlarge image

    Chicago resident Stanley Jackson says there is a code of silence when it comes to witnessing crime.
    David Schaper /NPR

    “And most of those are gonna be from lack of cooperation, quite frankly,” says Chicago Chief of Detectives Thomas Byrne.

    “So a detective arrives to a scene, witnesses are not cooperating, victims not cooperating. It makes it very difficult to piece the puzzle together on what happened,” he says.

    When it comes to homicides, the chances of police making an arrest are not much better. The clearance rate for last year’s 433 homicides in Chicago was just 30 percent. In other words, 7 out of 10 times, murderers in Chicago get away with the crime.

    Twenty years ago, the clearance rate in Chicago was near 70 percent, and there were more than twice as many homicides a year back then. The union representing Chicago police officers says one factor in the low clearance rate is that there are fewer detectives now.

    Chicago Police officials refuse to disclose specifics on staffing within the detective ranks, but Byrne acknowledges it is a fair question.

    “Everybody wants more people,” he says. “I’m not going to lie — everybody would like more people, but you have to operate in the parameters that are set.”

    Those parameters, Byrne says, include financial constraints. He says recent promotions are helping ease the caseload for detectives in violent crimes and new hiring should lead to more police promotions into the detective ranks soon.

    He adds that it doesn’t matter how many detectives are working a case if no one will talk. Byrne calls the “don’t snitch” culture frustrating.

    “If we get some cooperation, we’re going to take a shooter off the streets of the city of Chicago. I mean, that’s the bottom line,” Byrne says. “If that shooter shoots today and nobody comes forward or a victim doesn’t step forward and do the right thing, that shooter’s still out there tomorrow. And if he’s shooting today, I guarantee you he’s going to shoot tomorrow. And that’s some of the frustration that goes with it.”

    Community Watch

    But those who live in Chicago’s gang and crime-ridden neighborhoods see things quite differently.

    Stanley Jackson fixes his car on the street, 100 feet or so away from the spot where Green was shot dead just a few weeks earlier.

    The 43-year-old security officer says he wasn’t out that night, but he has heard some about what happened. And he understands why those who were out that night won’t tell police what they saw.

    “Even if you did see something, you don’t know nothing. Basically, the fear of either they’ll shoot your kids, or they’ll try to get you, or if they can’t get you, they’ll get somebody in your family,” he says. “It’s that old code of silence thing, you know?”

    Others in this community say there’s even more than fear that is keeping many people in this neighborhood from coming forward to police as witnesses.

    “It’s that they don’t trust police officers,” says 54-year old laborer Sherman Smith.

    “Police patronize you, man. Police over here, they don’t protect and serve. They patronize,” says 21-year-old Joenathan Woods.

    Woods, who works on an automotive assembly line, says he doesn’t think police put much effort into investigating crimes such as the Green shooting, especially if it appears to be gang-on-gang and happens in poor, black neighborhoods like this one.

    “The only thing I can really think of that would help the community really is if the police are more hands-on in serving and protecting, you know what I’m saying? If they walk the streets and get to know the people,” Woods says.

    Criminologist Art Lurigio agrees that Chicago police need to do a better job earning people’s trust.

    “The police are responsible for creating an atmosphere in a community that encourages residents to come forward and cooperate with them in solving crimes,” he says.

    Lurigio, a professor of psychology and criminology at Loyola University Chicago, says the city’s community-policing strategy had been making progress in reducing violent crime since its implementation in the mid-1990s. But, he says, the department seems to have de-emphasized community policing in recent years.

    Without a better effort witnesses won’t come forward, he says, and without witnesses identifying the shooters, shootings are extremely difficult to solve. And that’s something he says the shooters know all too well.

    “I believe, and so do some other scholars, that there’s a general sense in communities where the homicide clearance rate is very low, that they’re getting away with murder,” Lurigio says.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/163242604/in-chicago-violence-soars-and-witnesses-go-silent

  15. America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem
    December 31, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield Comments (182)

    Chicago’s murder numbers have hit that magic 500. Baltimore’s murder toll has passed 200. In Philly, it’s up to 324, the highest since 2007. In Detroit, it’s approaching 400, another record. In New Orleans, it’s almost at 200. New York City is down to 414 from 508. In Los Angeles, it’s over 500. In St. Louis it’s 113 and 130 in Oakland. It’s 121 in Memphis and 76 in Birmingham.

    Washington, D.C., home of the boys and girls who can solve it all, is nearing its own big 100.

    Those 12 cities alone account for nearly 3,200 dead and nearly a quarter of all murders in the United States. And we haven’t even visited sunny Atlanta or chilly Cleveland.

    These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.

    Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.

    Chicago’s murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, the Midwestern 4.5 or the Illinois’ 5.6 rates, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war or decades of tyranny.

    But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be New Orleans which at an incredible 72.8 murder rate is ten times higher than the national average. If New Orleans were a country, it would have the 2nd highest murder rate in the world, beating out El Salvador.

    Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17.

    St. Louis has a murder rate just a little lower than Belize. Baltimore has a worse murder rate than South Africa and Detroit has a worse murder rate than Colombia. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.

    Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among the Romney voters rushing to stock up on assault rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.

    Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

    Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle which is agonizing over its 26 murders. That’s about the same number of murders as East St. Louis which has only 27,000 people to Seattle’s 620,000.

    So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell ahead of Zimbabwe and Rwanda?

    A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

    Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.

    America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

    National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

    Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

    If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.

    Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

    But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

    There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

    America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Our murder rate now largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

    As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”

    America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

    Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

    We do not need to have a conversation about the NRA. We need to have a conversation about Chicago.

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/

    • Wow! These are good articles you are finding VH. This one really is eye-opening in its bluntness.

  16. February 17, 2013
    A Blind Pendulum
    By Glenn Fairman

    Without the anchor of a moral center, politics and culture move in tandem to and fro inexorably like a living pendulum — first migrating to one extreme at a glacial velocity and always alighting on the tempting antipode that evades moderation like a drunken man heading homeward. The victim in these cultural mood swings of political perception is always truth: whose tragic wreckage is caused both by the consequences of our destructive philosophies and the haunting desire to salvage whatever intellectual pride we have left, once our idols have come crashing down upon us.

    While in the newspapers or on television you will not be informed about it in a form that makes sense, a growing cancer of racially-based violence is metastasizing in our cities. Moreover, unless you were to see these outrages first hand or in media outside the mainstream organs, you would know nothing of it — for it is being withheld from you. For reasons that we may want to speculate on, the news media have made an overt decision to avert your eyes away from the stone cold reality that a spectrum of young black men and women, motivated by race, rage, or entertainment, are increasingly committing crimes against life and property by the medium of flash mob violence.

    From Oregon and Washington to New Jersey, packs of youth are targeting markets, shoe stores, county fairs, beach walks, and city parks in conducting brazen crimes by overwhelming police and security who find themselves increasingly unable to counter the element of surprise and viciousness that goes hand in hand with this phenomenon. As a result of this, brutal beatings of whites and Asians have become commonplace occurrences, resulting in public facilities being closed down to traffic as roving hordes materialize and vanish into the night like specters. And yet, the 900 pound gorilla in the room (that no one will dare look in the eye) is that there is an unassailable racial component involved. Furthermore, in the interest of multicultural harmony, cities which have long been in the clutches of Democratic political machines have lulled themselves to become anxiously oblivious to the mayhem. Because of this, those molders of opinion have taken to calling a serpent a stallion in hopes that the world, in turn, would also close its eyes.

    In speaking to this epidemic of interracial mob beatings, robberies and maimings, Colin Flaherty’s 2012 book, “White Girl Bleed a Lot:” The Return of Racial Violence and How the Media Ignore it, offers an exhaustive account of this racial brand of violence. Moreover, it charts the reprehensible actions of: police chiefs, intellectuals, and media editors to sweep the undeniable racial aspects underneath the rug. In the media accounts of these crimes, rarely are the races of the perps and the victims given, except in the rare instances where blacks are on the receiving end of the injustice. Only then does unholy hell breaks loose as the usual coterie of racial extortionists flood the airwaves with their travelling Dog and Pony Shows of white racial condemnation. Rather than face the fact that an urban pandemic of this brand of violence, theft, and robbery is tantamount to a subculture gone amok, the newspeak term generally applied towards these perpetrators is simply “youth.” If, however, one scans the areas wherein these incidents occur or views the ubiquitous You-Tube videos, often posted by the assailants themselves, the shocking images provide the necessary information as to their salient identities.

    While the media remain intent on echoing the drum beat of white America’s persistent Jim Crow mentality or the perpetual congenital debt owed to African Americans for past discrimination, the pendulum has nevertheless swung Left to rationalize or diminish this reversed incarnation of racial violence. And as the racial component of this wilding is dismissed as uninteresting by the Usual Suspects, for he who has eyes to see, it is a direct consequence of a volcanic hatred that has been brewed from a well-cultivated array of cultural grievances. Grievances kept enflamed by liberal narratives of a divided society kept perpetually at war.

    If one looks to the 2011 FBI crime statistics, one notices that whites (Hispanics included) make up 78.1% of the U.S. population while Blacks comprise 13.1%. By race, blacks commit 45% of their crimes against whites while 43% target fellow blacks and 10% of their victims are Hispanic. when Whites commit violent crime, only 3% of their victims are black. By considering these crimes as a percentage of the population at large, blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

    In light of these numbers, the designation of “hate-crime” is at best a dicey proposition, since many police departments or courts, in conservative or liberal jurisdictions, are loathe to apply the term when designating black on white crime. However, white on black violence often earns this politically charged designation due to heightened cultural sensitivities or the fear of bad press that could bring racial upheaval. It is becoming increasingly evident that the “Hate Crime” designation is a selective arbitrary cudgel for blacks to use against whites only — a deconstructed justice that fits the prevailing Progressive stereotype of Caucasians as culturally predisposed to minority victimizing and oppression.

    An old Russian proverb reminds us: “Forget the past, lose an eye, dwell on the past, and lose both eyes.” Racial violence, in a society fetishized with equality, carries with it a more odious quality inasmuch as race, ethnicity, or culture is the animating factor in injustice. But in the end a crime is a crime; and any underlying assumptions that either aggravate or mitigate evil are fraught with the temptation towards further injustice through the pitfalls of assuaging passionate interests. The media, courts, political elite, intellectuals, and the prevailing voices of civil society were all culpable in their silence at the injustices of pre-Civil Rights America and they are more culpable now that we understand the effect that silence has had in perpetuating those crooked actions that take place in the dark alleyways of the averted gaze. The corrosive liberal guilt that comes from overcompensation, following on the heels of the adverse swing of the pendulum’s injustice against the black community, is again victimizing racial minorities in an even more dehumanizing form.

    Holding a segment of a population to a lesser standard by excusing them from the burden of responsible conduct is the apex of pathological discrimination. This is akin to pronouncing a people exempt from accountability and thereby condemned to a state of ethical incoherence and perpetual adolescence. Moreover, by knowingly obfuscating the truth behind this novel form of racial wilding, government and civil society give assent to a volitional blindness that becomes outraged only when a pre-certified pack of wolves devour innocent sheep. In the end, those minorities afflicted by this Progressive ethical cancer are themselves revictimized as a result of liberal society’s cowardice in feeding a Frankenstein-like evil they have wrought with their own hands. Through the recurring injustice of denial, such lives are again fated to be crushed by that blind pendulum whose bitter inertia truth would not forestall.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/a_blind_pendulum.html#ixzz2LL2rRQBH
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  17. January 27, 2013
    The Moral Force of Fatherhood
    By Glenn Fairman

    I have been seriously reflecting of late on my Father’s passing, and in doing so, mining the precious nuggets of who he was and what his relation was to our family. Like all kids who grew up and became aware of life in the late 50’s to late 60’s time range, the TV provided a cultural lodestone by which we measured ourselves and our circumstances, and it was here that we assimilated the subliminal cues and mores about what we should expect from life and how we should go about living it. Thinking back, the long line of “TV Daddies” produced in me a longing for this breed of stable and rational father-type who came home from the office and sat down in his chair while enjoying his pipe. I truly pined for this version of life, though even then I knew it was a mirage of sorts. Concealed within this dream was Life without the worry of paying the next utility bill or bereft of the palpable tension of impending financial ruin hanging over our heads — never fully articulated to the children by my parents — but ever present as we hoisted ourselves from one calamity to another. You see, I never did realize it at the time, but for a great multitude of families that inhabit the earth, this is the default position of everyday life.

    My Dad worked cutting huge rolls of steel into strips and when he destroyed his back at work, our family moved from working class to just hanging on by the skin of our teeth. So many children and so little money. I’m ashamed to say that I resented my mother and father for putting me in this situation. I wanted to have that TV life so badly and it would never come to be. Meanwhile, seeing my father at home attached to traction weights as he suffered in his bed of pain cast me into a bleak despair as I silently contemplated what would become of us.

    My parents did eventually lose their home after a long drawn out erosion of finances, but to my surprise, our family did not centrifugally fly apart. By the time I started college, my younger siblings and my parents delivered the local newspaper for needed cash and muddled through. Both I and my brother Gary had helped out with jobs of our own. The black cloud that loomed on the horizon and threatened to destroy everything rained hard upon us, but through it all we escaped intact.

    I view this now distant memory against the backdrop of a society wherein the notion of father is becoming an extraneous item: a theoretical good but inexorably becoming obsolete — like an extra leg on an amphibian. The explosion of single-mother households bears this out, and if we look deeply enough at the pathologies that have eaten away at the American family structure and the American culture writ large, we must come to grips with the diagnosis that the Invisible Father lies at the root of our dysfunction.

    It is by now a well-settled postulate, at least amongst honest minds, that the Great Society project and its War on Poverty produced the unintended consequences of missing fathers. Although conceived in compassion, programs such as AFDC had the perverse consequence of driving the male from the home and causing the role of provider to fall upon Uncle Sam. Moreover, rates of illegitimacy skyrocketed as recipients became savvy to the nuances of playing the system. Young girls could now escape the “tyranny” of their home lives and acquire Section 8 housing by bearing children and setting up households where they reaped the largesse of a dozen Federal and state programs but in reality, enmeshing them and their generations in a web of learned helplessness and structural dependence by eviscerating the natural family — the fundamental institution of nature.

    In the minds of huge swaths of our society, the Optional Father is an accessory and not a necessity. The Unnecessary Father, once relegated to the Inner City, now is a common phenomenon in every socioeconomic and cultural niche in America, although Black America has suffered disproportionately from this pathology. The absent or crippled Father accounts for nearly 70% of all black households and in the larger metropolitan cities, the illegitimacy figure exceeds 90%. In some Housing Projects, an intact family is as remarkable as a Unicorn. It has become agonizingly apparent that poverty, in real terms, has grown while the broken family structure statistics have skyrocketed, all due to the unintended consequences of well-meaning theories supplied by social scientists in their project to equalize the unequal. But this is by now ancient history.

    The truly pernicious consequences of the optional father are its effects on both boys and girls. The Free-floating father and its subliminal messages to children are: Men exist as biological donors of DNA. Their presence is appreciated, but not imperative — in either the maintenance of the household or in the formation of their children’s personality. If anything, their contribution is at bottom only a financial obligation. This view of the male, denatured from his traditional role, renders him a serial pollinator — living for pleasure and at best, a feature in serially-monogamous relationships with women. Women, through their fallen expectations of men, either accept and reinforce this procession of serial-cohabitation, or learn to make due by absorbing the male archetype role into their own role as mother; and consequently, transfer the lowered expectations of the male unto their sons, thus perpetuating the contagion into the next generation of families. Subliminally, both boys and girls acquire subtle and unmistakable cues on their place in the dysfunctional broken family: Boys can become predators and users of women and girls learn that males are often unstable and untrustworthy candidates to give love to because of their capriciousness. Regardless of what society externally says about the ideal nature of romantic love, the well has already been thoroughly poisoned for young men who intrinsically crave the strong caring father and adolescent girls whose quest for companionship and completeness is tainted by the dissatisfaction of an unrequited yearning for their Daddy.

    In a healthy world, it is the Moral Force of Fatherhood that binds together the ties of the family. It establishes the promise of familial justice by serving as a masculine curb to young males who otherwise learn that oppressive will and power alone are the highest goods in men. The strong father thus serves as a figure of reason that ameliorates the glandular surges of testosterone while imposing a sense of honor and strength of character in boys. Young men will ideally learn how to honor, cherish, and affirm women either consciously or subliminally and his good example ultimately establishes the bar that will allow young girls to judge their potential suitors by.

    There are many types of affirming fathers. Some are Captains of Industry and others manage only to scrape a hard days wage before returning home at the end of a long day. But money and prestige are ephemeral qualities in the man who would be a Father. Most importantly, he must be there in the home and he must be entrenched in the lives of his wife and children. He must take an active interest in every aspect of his children’s development: moral, educational and physical. He must balance on the fine line of doing too much and doing too little and he must be as wary of crushing his children’s confidence through criticism as he is of giving carte blanche acceptance to all of their behaviors. In becoming a great fatherly example, a man must be willing to diminish himself so that his sons and daughters may learn the lesson that love and duty often entails submission of one’s interest and self-sacrifice: virtues that are dripping out of the fractured American family — where the summum bonum has been interpreted as the exploration of every corridor of self-expression, no matter to which dead end it leads.

    Looking over these lines I have written, I am amazed that it has been necessary to write them at all. It is not as if I am translating wisdom from a foreign arcane culture. Most everyone of my father’s generation at least understood the relationship of male masculinity, fatherhood, and living the honorable life of sacrifice, even if they failed in the practice of it. In my neighborhood of middle and working class families, I did not know a single boy who did not at least have a father in their life, even amongst the handful who were families of divorce. Whether through: the decay of traditions and morality, the infantilizing hand of government, or as the result of an educational system and popular culture that portrays the father as bloody fool, American families are wrestling with a crisis of epic proportion that threatens the warp and weft of our social structure. Because men are not firmly integrated into the family structure, poverty for one-parent households is a practical byword, as is the disintegration of the confident hope of our young men and women. A dark spirit of confused anxiety ultimately ravishes a culture which affirms that the natural roles of men and women are interchangeable like batteries. The edifice is indeed cracking and you do not have to look too deeply into young people’s eyes to see a general hardness and loss of joy because they do not feel safe or secure that they are loved or that their ultimate interests are being looked after in their family setting. A great chasm exists and is widening between families who have a connected at- home Father and those where the males have merely gone through the motions of breeding and offering token alms in guilt ridden alienation.

    I have wandered far from my initial thoughts to explain the distinction between fathering and becoming a father. For a man, it will be the most arduous and fulfilling task of his life — and it will go on the entire remainder of his life. It is a responsibility that should leave you trembling in your thoughts at night: the knowledge that God has placed into your power the charge to help Him form and cultivate the soul of His priceless children — and with that responsibility goes the necessity of getting your own life in order- for you are your child’s first and greatest earthly template in which to emulate. It will take many years for you to reap the ultimate satisfaction of seeing your children thrive, but there are countless little joys to gather along the way. It is the Moral Force of the Father that is necessary in our families and our towns and cities. Together we form that great chain of loving support and protection for youth we both know and do not know. We are there to uphold the first things of being a Good Man that are fading from the streets and suburbs and of the American collective memory. We are more than a living wallet and seed bearer: we are God’s own hands to uplift, protect, and civilize our communities. We are far more than the sum of our singular passions and desires–we are the next generation’s visible and morally accountable blueprint for virtue and civility.

    My father would have liked reading this and to know that I had written it. You see, fathers above all desire to be proud of their own, as children long to hold their Dad as a hero. For a time I stopped thinking of my father as heroic, but that was long ago when I knew little of what being a real man was all about. It has been less than a year since he has been gone and I find that his lessons, whether he understood them at the time as such, have indelibly imprinted themselves on my character. I don’t think I ever sacrificed for my children the way he did for us, but I understand now in my very marrow the rock hard importance of who he was, and I try to instill those virtues in my own children. I miss my Dad now more than I did when I held and kissed his hand as he passed from my brothers and me. I want to tell him that I get it now; now that I understand that his entire life was one huge lesson, unheralded by fancy words or spotlights. My family was fortunate enough to share and enjoy him. He was always there for us and as I conclude these thoughts, I am convinced that he always will be there; still radiating that moral force of what a man and a father truly are, and resting in the knowledge that he was loved beyond all words.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_moral_force_of_fatherhood.html#ixzz2LL5IBxl4
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  18. Good Morning SUFA 🙂

    It’s a wet, cold, windy morning so far. Just plain gloomy. Hurry up Spring!!!!

    As we debate all the possible causes of the inner city violence and gang activity, we have touched on some ideas to fix it. Let me bring forward a solution that I haven’t heard of yet.

    earlier, I brought up holding elected representatives to task for getting these issues fixed in their respective precincts. HA! there is a part of the problem. While most of these violent precincts, if not all, fall under Democratic leadership, these politicians will NEVER, EVER make a strong effort to solve the problems. Why you ask? Because it would be political suicide. Smashing gang violence, that would result in the deaths of young minorities, would end any aspirations of a politician holding any higher office.

    This brings us to the argument for term limits. Is it time to end all of the perks for serving your neighbor? If there was no chance to further a political career, because it can’t be a “career” anymore, would it increase the chances of fixing the gang problem? These liberal politicians want to blame guns for their own failure of leadership. They throw rocks from their glass house, while only being concerned about their own political career.

    What is the real problem? Why has this problem been going on for so long?

  19. http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/B000KKNQBK

    Read the reviews-A mite tacky in places but I laughed till my stomach hurt.

    • Probably do wonders for Feinstein’s looks 😆

    • ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

    • OMG! The dog is looking at me ’cause I am making so much noise laughing. Hilarious and very crafty writers!

      Great laugh!

      • OH My, somewhat funny 🙂 I guess the gang violence subject is too tough to tangle with. Any ideas on a subject you would like Bob?

        • Create a prison system focused on rehabilitation, create extensive social programs in affected areas. That would certainly help but both cost a lot of $$$ so it wont happen.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I am reminded of the Democrat years ago who explained how the Social Programs were a small price to pay, in order to keep those animals locked up in the cities and away from the rest of us.

            Sorry Bob, tried that and it did not work.

          • Good idea’s Bob. As has been posted, it’s hard to get a conviction on these guys. Shouldn’t we focus on “before they enter a gang” period of time? How do we stop the problem as it is. Laws are not stopping them, politicians will do nothing.

            • You have the largest prison population in the world. I dont think convictions are a problem.

              Blacks still get much harsher prison sentences than whites do for the same crimes. Whites get called back for more job interviews when they have a criminal record compared with a black person with identical qualifications and no criminal record.

              I am not saying that turning to gangs is in any way right but as soon as a black person is born in disadvantaged circumstances, they not only have to overcome poverty, they face a future of discrimination.

              • That is simply the best imitation of Chris Mathews I have ever read 😆 Let’s look at the problem for what it is. The government herds blacks into the cities, provide cheap housing, free food and schools that are horrible at best. The Progressive Democrats have been harping on the fact that blacks are at a disadvantage. This is exactly what the Democrats want! They are their elected representatives in every area that is highly populated with blacks. these areas are also the most crime ridden with black on black murders being a constant event.

                So the Progressive Democrats represent the blacks, they do nothing to help them improve their education, they basically allow the gang warfare, it controls the population that the abortion clinics can’t manage to do. They offer free cookies to keep them where they are, then complain because they are disadvantaged. So Bob, you are right, they are disadvantaged, on purpose. You don’t think the progressive democrats would ever let the blacks be anything less than slaves do you? The Democrats are quite smart, despite the fact that slavery is outlawed, they have managed to enslave millions of blacks and have them living in crime ridden slums. 🙄

              • Democrats, democrats, democrats, democrats.

                Again you wonder why no one from the left is posting here anymore.

                Democrats are not the root of all evil and the cause of all the problems in the world. The same is true of republicans.

                Like I said sort out your prison system and create social programs that *dont* aim to keep people in poverty and you might see some progress. Oh the inherent racism needs to be sorted out but that will probably take a couple of generations or more. The last one is the most important.

              • So, in short you agree with me! That’s great. Now, if you knew me well enough, you would know that I despise both political parties and the Federal govt as a whole. My above posting on the black population is dead on correct. those on the left may not want to post here, because they can’t argue with facts.

                We are not discussing the prison system, we are discussing gang violence in the big cities. Social programs are in place all over these neighborhoods. They just aren’t doing any good. Do you have a logical answer to the problem of gang violence?

              • “So, in short you agree with me! That’s great.”

                No, no, there is plenty of blame to be handed around among all parties.

                “you would know that I despise both political parties”

                If you despised both parties I would expect you to complain about both equally. Should we do a quick count in your past comments to see which party you complain about most? Shall we see how many articles you post that blame the liberals/progressives/democrats for all of lifes troubles?

                Of course the prison system is a problem. Stop re-offending and you cut off a source to the violence. 67.5% will commit another crime within 3 years of getting out of prison. Compare that to Norway which has a recidivism rate of 16%. More men not going to prison and making an honest living means you have more stable homes. Stable homes create good environments for kids, kids wont want to join gangs…….do you see where this goes now?

                Well they aren’t effective social programs then are they, create effective ones instead.

          • Try studying rehabilitation and recidivism some days. First we start with punishment. Many of the posts over the past two days discuss the absence of fathers as a causative factor of crime in the inner cities. You have to be an idiotic moron not to see that. The curse heaped on every generation in the world, not just this country is that to themselves, in their own minds, they are the first generation “EVER”. They are capable of learning nothing but then again why should they learn, they seek no knowledge, they already know everything. Their “thinking” and “feeling” about an issue is equal to 6,000 years of prior human experience and established fact.

            Here is one for you. Your proposal has been tried and has, unfortunately failed. from 1959 no less!

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    After the election there was all kinds of moaning and groaning and cries of “what do we do”.

    Well I suggest that the first thing is to get RED States to ACTUALLY ACT LIKE Red States.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/19/the-time-to-end-agriculture-dependency-is-now/

  21. Facing a surging homicide rate and several headline-grabbing murders, Chicago’s top cop is taking aim at lobbyists who he says prevent politicians from implementing more gun control measures.

    Appearing on a local Windy City Sunday morning talk show on the radio station WLSAM, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said special interests that lobby politicians to influence their opinion on gun control are the real problem.

    “If there was a special interest influencing police work, I believe that would be called corruption,” McCarthy said. “So, if it has to do with donating money, versus a popular vote, I think we have a bigger problem in this country and someone has to wake up to that.”

    Gun rights advocates seized on the comments, saying that McCarthy was blaming the city’s gun violence on donors and lobbyists who advocate for the Second Amendment.

    “Garry McCarthy’s understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation’s third largest police department,” Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/18/chicago-top-cop-likens-gun-lobby-influence-to/?test=latestnews#ixzz2LMWbWfsC

    This guy’s idea is more gun control 🙄 I guess he figures the criminals will suddenly obey the law. I think he is just empowering the gangs.

  22. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/19/ohio-poll-worker-obama-supporter-investigated-for-potentially-voting-six-times/

    This lady admitted to voter fraud. Should she be charged and tried to the fullest extent of the law? Should she just be let off the hook because she is just plain stupid? 🙂

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Gang Violence? Why does it exist?

    Well ask yourself WHO is in charge and WHO stands to gain from it.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/total_destruction_of_the_us_an_interview_with_larry_grathwohl_part_1.html

    Now in my world 2 + 2 = 4

    Simple math is sometimes the Correct Math.

    • Hmmmm……

      So what do we do? Head to Washington? Just refuse to vote? Run for local elections I suppose. What else?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Kathy

        Yes, No, and Yes.

        Share your knowledge with as many as you can. WAKE THEM THE HELL UP.

        Then get active in local political party.

        Support people who SHARE your core values of freedom, liberty and justice.

        KEEP FIGHTING.

        You can have an impact on gang violence in YOUR town. You can’t do a damn thing about Detroit or Chicago. That is THEIR problem to fix.

        If the rest of us take care of our local situations then pretty soon the disease is isolated, then it is cured.

    • Who gains from it, who, who…drawing a complete blank…

      Former Democratic Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. was charged on Friday with improperly spending $750,000 of campaign funds on items such as Michael Jackson and Bruce Lee memorabilia (among other things). Yet, ABC’s World News did not cover the story at all. On Saturday, Good Morning America allowed the news a mere 18 seconds. Over the course of the weekend, NBC’s Nightly News, the CBS Evening News, Saturday Morning, Today and GMA never mentioned that Jackson is a Democrat. There was no coverage on Sunday.

      Most, such as Evening News guest-host Anthony Mason, simply referred to Jackson as the “former Chicago Congressman.” CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes spun, “Jackson, Jr., came to Congress in 1995, the promising and personable son of a civil rights leader, the Reverend Jesse Jackson.” Cordes did highlight how the ex-representative spent his campaign funds, including “$43,000 on a gold-plated men’s Rolex watch, $5,000 on fur capes and parkas and a long list of Bruce Lee and Michael Jackson memorabilia.”

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/02/18/jesse-jackson-jr-charged-blowing-750000-campaign-cash-abc-allows-18-#ixzz2LNSZLW00

  24. You have to listen to this. Dear Leader has really outdone himself this time with scare tactics. How utterly pathetic.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/sequestration/2013/02/19/obamascare-warns-grim-meat-cleaver-spending-cuts

  25. Bob, Down here. Stable homes are very popular and where they are the norm. there are no gangs. That I can agree with. Would you like me to just use the term “government” instead of “democrats” when it comes to the representatives in the areas with the gangs and most of the crime? If I’m offending you by stating facts, I’m sorry. Now as far as Republicans, when we get into a debate where they are the predominate representatives, I’ll gladly hammer them into the ground as well.

    Can you give an example of a social program that would be effective? How can we increase jobs in the inner cities to put young men to work? How can we free the blacks from their high rate of slavery to the state? These are the answers that I would like to discuss. Slamming Democrats is easy, slamming government is easy, fixing problems seems to be a big problem. What do ya think Bob, can we work on solutions? We have already determined the problem. Solutions should be next 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      The only effective solution is for those who live there and still give a shit to get off their arses and LEAVE.

      • Where to JAC? Where are these people with low incomes going to move to? They cant move to the burbs, you wouldn’t want another white flight would you?

        • Bob, I think your blowing the racism thing way out of proportion. Try and put MSNBC, Chris Mathews and all the other race baiters behind you, they are totally full of crap.

          You pose a good question, where are the low income folks going to move too?

          • I dont watch MSNBC, I dont even know if I can get it.

            Racism is still alive and kicking, this is from my own personal experience and studies backing this up. Like I said above, its the number 1 cause of all these problems.

            • Yes, racism is alive and well. When I was in the military in the 80’s to mid 90’s, I didn’t feel it was an issue. After 2K, it seemed like racism slowly grew into the monster (or alien) that it is today. I blame the MSM for a lot of that, they fed the beast and it just grew.

              If racism is the #1 cause of all these problems, who are the racists?

              • Which is the predominant race in the US? Which race has a history of being used for slavery and segregation?

                I am sure this is getting to a “well black people are racists too!!!!” response and I am sure some of them are, but they are not the ones who hold the wealth and power. They are the ones still getting discriminated against. Again a study found that white men with criminal records were getting more calls for job interviews than black men with no criminal records and identical qualifications. Does that not set alarm bells ringing?

                Give it few generations and it will sort itself out, but lets not pretend racism does not make an impact today.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Bob

          How about North Dakota where jobs are plentiful and the money is better than anything they have ever seen.

          How about Texas?

          How about Oregon or Washington?

          There are places with jobs and far less crime. Places where “diversity” already exists.

          • How does a person living pay cheque to pay cheque just up and move to another state?

            How do you get there for a job interview etc?

            • It takes planning and saving. It’s not that hard, with some effort. Do these people need cable TV? Do they need an expensive cell phone plan? Do they need Cheeto’s? It can happen, with some short term sacrifice. Hell, most of them have a bigger flat screen than me, and a better cellphone with internet. So yes, they can do it. The “Woe is me” BS is just that, BS!

              • Sure its possible, its just a lot of time and a lot of hard work.

                What happens when there hours are reduced at work or they get laid off? What happens if they need to pay for some medicine for their kid? Lot of stuff happens in life that ruins your further opportunities.

                This by the way isnt helping gang violence, actually JACs suggestion is just helping concentrate it.

              • Most of the people I’m talking about don’t work, they just collect their govt support.

                Bob, I’m not joking here. It only takes one computer hacking event, no matter who makes it happen, but one event that denies the use of their EBT cards (govt money) for more than 5 days would be a disaster. I would have no problem if the govt would help those who want to relocate and work. Hmm, what a good idea! what do ya think?

              • But what happens, Bob, if they actually get out of the grind and make a success of themselves and keep their kids off the streets?

                Instead of thinking there is nothing that can be done and these poor people are destined for lives under the government thumb, which is what (gasp!) Democrats would have you believe, most of us on the other side believe these people deserve better than remaining slaves to the government. They deserve self-respect by making their own way, they deserve to make their own decisions on where they live and what they can eat. Will it take some effort on their part? Of course. Will there be occasional setbacks? Of course.

                But that’s the definition of life – and everyone should have that opportunity. Unfortunately, the democrats need a committed voting bloc and choose to keep them in the slave status, regardless of the violence that also goes along with it. You can’t address the violence honestly without addressing the role government plays in keeping them in these urban, Democrat-run blights, which is why an honest discussion doesn’t take place.

              • You go Kathy! Very well put! I was on my web portal going through all the stores on the site, and everytime I saw the word shoes, I thought of you, LOL. I’m surprised at how many shoe stores are on it. 🙂

              • @Kathy

                I never said nothing can be done for them. Instead of focusing on getting all the “good” people out of these neighbourhoods though I thought we were discussing how to actually treat the problems there now? Getting those people out of the projects isnt going to help the problem of gang violence. Again yes its all the democrats fault, I am glad when the republicans have had the majority of power in the government they made and proposed such strident changes……..

            • How did my Grandfather get from Galacia in Eastern Poland to Hamburg to catch a boat for the US in 1905? What the F— do you want, 1st class travel vouchers? Somebody who does not have the gumption to move, when there is nothing holding him back,to a place where he can do well would not do well if you drove him there in the back of a Mercedes and handed him the job. He has been “ruined” by the system. He is no different than the panhandler in the Subway with his empty coffee cup stuck out asking for “a little change”. Get real man!

              • Great contribution SK, I suppose you do a lot of balloon rides.

                I am merely pointing out that its sometimes not as simple as “just leave” in some of these neighbourhoods. Again this is not going to help the problem of gang violence.

              • M<y friend, you really have to get out in the "real" world and see what is going on. Here is an interesting article on the benefits of gang membership although the author misses the initial WHY BELONG.

                http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/take-all-prisoners/200904/gangs-in-america-outcasts-ticket-success

                I am reminded of some studies done in the '40's which I studied in college. Gangs thrived in the '40's due to the absence of fathers. They were either in the service or working 24/7. I believe the UK had similar problems at the time. These gangs continued through the '50's and only broke up in the '60's. With the present absence of not only Fathers, but anyone who could conceivably be a role model, gangs are back.

                The Pres, last week did his pandering again, equating himself with young men in Chicago with his "I wish I had a Father" statement. He had, an educated mother, not a 16 year old High School drop out and she had two parents who could and did stand in. he was also raised at the time when any adult male had no problem stepping in and acting "in loco parentis" when they saw something going wrong.

      • Always the simple answer: If I can do it, so can they. Racism? In the greatest land in the world? How can that be? We’re the “good guys” … oy vey.

        Bob, you’ll soon see the pointlessness of arguing here, especially about race, but good luck, brother.

    • ” Now as far as Republicans, when we get into a debate where they are the predominate representatives”

      How often does that happen on this site?

      As for solutions:

      Look to other countries education models, Finland would be a good place for starters.
      Reform the police service.
      Decriminalize all drugs like Portugal.
      Offer incentives to employers for creating apprenticeship positions in those areas.

      A few off the top of my head.

      • How often does that happen on this site? Never really thought about it. If you will suggest a topic, I will gladly write a Republican bashing article, they are way overdue anyway 🙂

        Look to other countries education models, Finland would be a good place for starters.
        Reform the police service.
        Decriminalize all drugs like Portugal.
        Offer incentives to employers for creating apprenticeship positions in those areas.

        Good ideas. Although I’m not keen on European models, there are some good ideas. Reforming the cops, yes, that would be a good thing, some are way to out of control and power hungry! Legalizing drugs has always been one of my ideas to end a lot of violence. That may be a good article to consider.

        We can work together, but how would you reform the cops?

        • “Although I’m not keen on European models”

          Why is that? You look at what works and see if you can improve on it. A lot of Americans like to see Europe as some sort of bogey man but when it comes to crime rates, education, health care, social mobility, a lot of Western Europe has the US beat. If I were you I would be studying some of their programs intensely.

          Reform cops. Get them to actually police their own ranks. Get external teams to conduct investigations into corruption and do all that they can to stop the blue code of silence.

          • Bob, I did say there are some good ideas. I’m not fond of govt, period. Your reform ideas make very good sense. Getting to this point seems to be the hard part, to many politicians in the way 🙂

          • Hey, ever look at the ethnic composition of Finland?, Norway? Denmark?Portugal? Do you notice a difference between those places and the US? I do. As previously pointed out, we are a polyglot society who, in the past had the time to assimilate newcomers. We do not anymore, have not shut the doors in over 50 years , a record for us. I believe there are some problems with lawlessness in jolly olde these days? What is that multi ethnic stew cooking up thatwas different from 50 years ago? Hows assimilation going?

            Before you talk about “reforming” the police, figure out a way to join them on patrol in a crummy neighborhood and see what they go through. Don’t know if they have “auxiliary police” or “police reserves” in England but take it from me, it is a great place to start and actually see what the hell the other half lives in and just how much of that is self created.

            • Amen

            • We all have problems with immigration in one way or another in Europe. Lets not venture into American Exceptionalism as it always gets tiresome. Look at what works and try and see what you can adopt.

              Yes the police do a hard job but lets not pretend there is not corruption. The vast majority of police said in an anonymous survey they would not report corrupt activities done by another police officer. Thats what needs to stop.

          • “Why is that? You look at what works and see if you can improve on it. A lot of Americans like to see Europe as some sort of bogey man but when it comes to crime rates, education, health care, social mobility, a lot of Western Europe has the US beat. If I were you I would be studying some of their programs intensely.”

            I like Bob …:)

            • Amen.

            • Ethnic composition Charlie, Apples and Oranges comparison. You too Buck.

              • What has that got to do with education models and social programs?

              • Not to press the issue but in the US it is “complicated” by the diversity that exists nowhere else.

              • bwhahahaha

                “Just who in the hell is getting into American Exceptionalism? Where did that bogeyman come from?”

                “Call it a pre-emptive strike because I could see where you were going.”

                Not to press the issue but in the US it is “complicated” by the diversity that exists nowhere else.

                Boooooooom, man I even warned you about it above. psssssst the last thing you said is American Exceptionalism.

              • I don’t know if you are dense or not. perhaps it is a misunderstanding of language as Churchill would say. Exceptionalism to me always meant people who were claiming we were better than other people and places because we were Americans. When you have a set of problems because you are unique I cannot see that as being Exceptionalism in the usual sense of the world. Would you refer to a group of 100 blind people scoring better on a braille test than 100 sighted people as being exceptionalism. If you would, then you are correct but I think you use the term too broadly. Same with 100 native Spanish speakers scoring better than 100 Spanish as a second language speakers on a test.

              • Every other country has a unique set of circumstances and challenges. Again you look at programs that work elsewhere and you see what can be adapted for your own needs. You do not dismiss everything with a hand wave and claim only America has an exceptional set of circumstances and nothing would work for it. Do you see what American exceptionalism is now and how you gave a text book case of it?

              • Bob, I wish we followed Austrian economics. This Kenyesian crap will destroy both our countries soon.

  26. @Anita, I’m way better looking than he is, LOL 😆

    http://conservativevideos.com/2013/02/the-sneaky-gun-grab/

  27. @Bob, Here in the States, the government has already thrown out the 4th and 5th Amendments. we the people have not. The government has the 1st Amendment under attack and we are fighting that everyday. Since the Sandy Hook shooting, in which a person who has no history for at least two years prior to the event, murdered 20 kids and 8 adults in a spree that baffles the mind, our 2nd Amendment rights are now under attack.

    To understand the significance of the latter, it was the British, who wanted to do disarm those in the States that led to the 1st American Revolution. This is not forgotten by the 85 plus million gun owners that currently reside in the USA. Many of us feel that our God given rights are slowly being eroded. That is not acceptable. While the black communities throughout this country continue to struggle in many ways, they, yes they, have allowed themselves to become slaves once again.

    I would love nothing more than to help the blacks break those chains and be 100% independent. While government and the media want you and everyone else to believe that many of us are racist’s, what is more factual, is that those who claim that are the true racists. Many in the media are too brainwashed to understand this, which has led many more people to become just as brainwashed into believing their propaganda lies.

    People like me want freedom for everyone and we can see though the lies. The endgame is coming, as many of us believe that the economy, led by almost 17 trillion in debt, will finally collapse. This will lead to many bad things, not just here, but throughout the world. The fiat money Ponzi scheme is coming to a head, and like a volcano, will explode. So we believe.

    Imagine what will happen when the US dollar is all but worthless. The slaves will become the Zombie apocalypse that is often spoken of. The government has recently purchased around 2 billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 automatic M-4 equivalent rifles and have enough 40 cal pistols to serve an army. The question I have, is who will be using these weapons? Who will fire upon the citizens if all hell breaks loose?

    Be happy your in the UK, although you may end up with a worse problem, you folks don’t have the guns to fight back against anyone. Bummer! 🙄

    • If you think you can fight the government Gman you will have a very brief moment of surprise if you try.
      I have yet to see how people who think that way can bring down drones, stop their nervous system being destroyed by biological agents and survive being temporarily heated to the same temperature as the surface of the sun.

      Those are the arms the government can bring to the table against your AR-15. If you need firearms to defeat a tyrannical government, you lost the arms race a century ago.

      • The problem you have Bob, is you think the government is all powerful. They are not, because it’s the people who are in charge of all the weapons. Do some research on East Germany and see just how powerful a bunch of blabbering suits really are. 🙄

        • *trap sprung*

          So what you are saying Gman is that although the government has the weapons, they would not be used against the people because it is the people who have them? So why do you need firearms to fight a tyrannical government if the government will not use arms against you?

          • Bob, It is my RIGHT to have firearms. I alone will determine need, that is nobodies business but mine. How I exercise that right, whether it be for hunting, practicing, self defense, or any other moral use is a right that I will choose. Do I need an AR-15 to hunt? No, but it is my right to have one if I choose. The govt will always have some psychopath power hungry freaks to do their bidding. You mentioned military weapons such as nukes and/or biological. Our troops would never follow those orders.

            As far as our 2nd Amendment rights, I believe that without that right, all the other rights would be taken away. There would be no free speech, no Habeus Corpus, nothing. we would all be at the whim of a town full of criminals and psychopaths.

            So when your Queen decides that there is no more free speech, what are you gonna do? Hold your hand up and threaten them with your index finger 😆

            • You just got caught in your own trap 😆

            • “You mentioned military weapons such as nukes and/or biological. Our troops would never follow those orders.”

              Right so you dont need firearms to use against a tyrannical government then because the government would not use them, just like I said?

              Argue all you like that you need firearms for hunting and self defence but whenever someone mentions they need it as protection against the government I point out that the government (and yes the military is part of the government) have weapons far more sophisticated and deadly at their disposal. The person always comes back with “oh the military would never use those weapons against the people”.

              Happens every time Gman, can you not see the logical inconsistency? Again say you need your guns for hunting and self defence but cut the crap about saying you need them for protection from the government when in the next breath saying the government would not use weapons against you.

              “So when your Queen decides that there is no more free speech”

              I suggest you read up on how UK politics work before you embarrass yourself further, ignorance is not a virtue.

              • G-man is wrong, it’s when your PM decides you have no more free speech. No written Constitution and an “Official Secrets Act”. Didn’t read all those James Bond books years ago for nothing.

              • Bob, I love it when you guys make stuff up to feed your ego’s 🙂 The Military is NOT part of the government. We here in America have only three parts to out government, the Administrative, Legislative and Judicial. The Legislative Branch is allowed to raise an Army and Navy to defend the nation. We also have State militia’s and militia’s made up of normal everyday people who are not trained like the regular military.

                The military takes an oath. In the Oath, they agree to defend the Constitution. They do not say, defend the government.

                Go back to school Bob, read our Constitution to learn about our government.

              • @SK

                “it’s when your PM decides”

                You dont understand either.

                Dont try and feed me crap Gman, who pays for the military? Where do they get their money from? Who assigns their budget each year? Who tells them where to go and what to do? Who is their commander and chief? Are military members federal employees? What is the department of defence? What is it a department of?

                Why do I know more about your government than you do?

              • Bob,

                ignorance is not a virtue.

                You can’t be serious!! Haven’t you been reading the comments that are addressed to you?

                For those on the “right” at SUFA, ignorance is indeed a virtue of the highest order!

              • See Bob – right here:

                In the Oath, they agree to defend the Constitution. They do not say, defend the government.

                Gman doesn’t even recognize that since our constitution defines our government, taking an oath to defend the Constitution is the same as taking an oath to defend the government.

                But I guess this may be stupidity more than ignorance…it’s a fine line around here…

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Bob

    How?

    Cell phone, internet and if need be a freakin Greyhound Bus.

    If all else fails………..hitchhike.

    • No doubt. We have millions of ‘undocumented’ here now. They all walked a country mile to get here. Gotta hand it to them for that.

      Go Sparty!

    • Well hitchhiking with your family to another state with no job yet sounds like a sensible idea.

      Again moving these families out of the areas does nothing to solve gang violence.

      • Bob, You don’t seem to like any ideas that could help the problem. So, lets just leave the problem alone, let them kill each other and more innocent people. If the residents are too damn stupid to leave, then it sucks to be them. Is that better?

        • What? We are talking about gang violence and possible solutions. JAC proposed that all the people that would provide a good base to help improve the neighbourhoods should leave. How is that in any way shape or form a helpful solution to gang violence? Like I said, all that will do is concentrate it, as in it will be directly detrimental to lowering gang violence.

          • Bob, concentrate for a minute. JAC’s proposal makes all the sense in the world. Take the young “future” gangbangers out, get them a better education and a stable home and environment. When the gangs run out of new recruits, what will happen? OH MY, that’s right Bob, they will go away. It won’t take long for them to kill each other off. We can’t fix the current group, but why not focus on the future group? JAC’s idea makes perfect sense.

            • We arent talking about taking the “future” gangbangers out, you are talking about taking out the stable families that dont produce gangbangers, do you see? So no, it does not make one ounce of sense.

              “We can’t fix the current group”

              Why?

              • How do you know that these are stable families? How do you know that they won’t produce a gangbanger? You don’t. If they are living in govt housing, they are not very stable to begin with. Peer pressure will play a role as well. Your assumptions, which is all they are, are rediculous at best and have no basis of fact.

                Re: current group, first, the politicians won’t fix it. Second, what are your ideas to fix this current group and turn them around. Please don’t say social services because that’s a joke and we all know it.

              • “The only effective solution is for those who live there and still give a shit to get off their arses and LEAVE.”

                From JAC above, so the ones who care about the future for themselves and their kids should leave. Sounds like a stable family to me, the ones that want the best for their kids.

                Why dont you try and read the premise of the discussion before wading in. Like I said for the 5th time, taking stable families out of bad neighbourhoods will not have a positive outcome on gang violence.

                “If they are living in govt housing, they are not very stable to begin with.”

                Haha, I wont bother with this one. You have the gall to criticise me about making assumptions 😀

                I gave you about 4-5 different things that can be done to help the current and future group, I am not going to develop a full blown roadmap to fix all of Americas ills.

              • No, Bob, it is not a Why question it is a How question. History, that annoying thing teaches us that what you proposed has been tried and has basically produced bupkis. Revisit “Officer Krupke” above and see where youth was in the mid 1960’s when “West Side Story” was written.

                You have an entire generation that has been lost. Everything that has been tried in the way of being nicey-nicey has failed dismally.

  29. Virginia Pizza Shop Offers Discounts for Gun-owners

    The safest pizza you’ll ever eat

    Adan Salazar
    Prison Planet.com
    February 19, 2013

    A Virginia pizza shop is doing its part to uphold the Second Amendment and private gun rights by offering discounts to patrons who present concealed carry permits or visit the eatery possessing visible firearms.

    Virginia Pizza Shop Offers Discounts for Gun owners.

    According to their website, the All Around Pizza and Deli shop in Virginia Beach is offering a 15 percent discount for customers who “show us you carry openly or show us a concealed weapons permit.”

    Pizza shop owner Jay Laze, speaking of the success of his deal, told The Virginian-Pilot, “it’s been awesome.”

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/virginia-pizza-shop-offers-discounts-for-gun-owners.html

    We should have a lot more of this!

  30. I often wonder if some Democrats actually want to be targets in the event of a collapse of the economy. I also think that the DHS is the enemy of the people, claiming that those of us who want guns and freedom as terrorists. If we were that way, this joker wouls already be gone 🙄
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/19/ny-bill-would-force-gun-owners-buy-least-1m-insura/

  31. I posted this last week, differently, but it’s just to funny to pass up. http://godfatherpolitics.com/9532/if-you-were-born-via-caesarian-section-you-cant-be-president/

    Ignorance is bliss. Geez there a lot of blissful people out there. 😉

  32. All I can say is “Oy vey.”

  33. Why even Amsterdam doesn’t want legal brothels
    The Dutch experiment in legalised prostitution has been a disaster
    107 Comments Julie Bindel 2 February 2013
    Germany’s Escort Girls Anticipate Increasing Demand During World Cup

    Do you remember the rather brilliant comedy sketch featuring Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse in which they played laid-back police officers in Amsterdam, bragging that they no longer have to deal with the crime of murder in the Netherlands since the Dutch legalised it? Don’t laugh too hard. In 2000 the Dutch government decided to make it even easier for pimps, traffickers and punters by legalising the already massive and highly visible brothel trade. Their logic was as simple as it was deceptive: to make things safer for everyone. Make it a job like any other. Once the women were liberated from the underworld, the crooks, drug dealers and people traffickers would drift away.

    Twelve years on, and we can now see the results of this experiment. Rather than afford better protection for the women, it has simply increased the market. Rather than confine the brothels to a discrete (and avoidable) part of the city, the sex industry has spilt out all over Amsterdam — including on-street. Rather than be given rights in the ‘workplace’, the prostitutes have found the pimps are as brutal as ever. The government-funded union set up to protect them has been shunned by the vast majority of prostitutes, who remain too scared to complain.

    Pimps, under legalisation, have been reclassified as managers and businessmen. Abuse suffered by the women is now called an ‘occupational hazard’, like a stone dropped on a builder’s toe. Sex tourism has grown faster in Amsterdam than the regular type of tourism: as the city became the brothel of Europe, women have been imported by traffickers from Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia to meet the demand. In other words, the pimps remained but became legit — violence was still prevalent but part of the job, and trafficking increased. Support for the women to leave prostitution became almost nonexistent. The innate murkiness of the job has not been washed away by legal benediction.

    The Dutch government hoped to play the role of the honourable pimp, taking its share in the proceeds of prostitution through taxation. But only 5 per cent of the women registered for tax, because no one wants to be known as a whore — however legal it may be. Illegality has simply taken a new form, with an increase in trafficking, unlicensed brothels and pimping; with policing completely out of the picture, it was easier to break the laws that remained. To pimp out women from non-EU countries, desperate for a new life, remains illegal. But it’s never been easier.

    Legalisation has imposed brothels on areas all over Holland, whether they want them or not. Even if a city or town opposes establishing a brothel, it must allow at least one — not doing so is contrary to the basic federal right to work. To many Dutch, legality and decency have been irreconcilably divorced. It has been a social, legal and economic failure — and the madness, finally, is coming to an end.
    ‘Of course this couldn’t happen today.’

    ‘Of course this couldn’t happen today.’

    The brothel boom is over. A third of Amsterdam’s bordellos have been closed due to the involvement of organised criminals and drug dealers and the increase in trafficking of women. Police now acknowledge that the red-light district has mutated into a global hub for human trafficking and money laundering. The streets have been infiltrated by grooming gangs seeking out young, vulnerable girls and marketing them to men as virgins who will do whatever they are told. Many of those involved in Amsterdam’s regular tourist trade — the museums and canals — fear that their visitors are vanishing along with the city’s reputation.

    I was last there with Roger Matthews, a professor of Criminology at Kent University and a renowned expert on the sex trade. The politicians he spoke to confess that the legislation has made a total pig’s ear of an already unsavoury situation. So the repair work is starting — for what good it will do. Women who rent the windows will soon be obliged to register as prostitutes. This will be as ineffective as the obligation on them to pay tax. When the fake and government-funded union supposedly representing those involved in prostitution did a massive membership recruitment post-legalisation, only a hundred joined, and most of those were strippers and lap dancers.

    Rather than remove the sleaziness of the red light district, it made the area more depressing than ever — full of drunken sex tourists who act as window shoppers, pointing and laughing at the women they see. Local women pass the streets with their heads down, trying not to see the other women displayed like cuts of meat in a butcher’s shop. Men can be seen entering the brothels, trying to barter down the price. Others come out zipping up their jeans. Many of the women look very young, all of them bored, with the majority sitting on stools in underwear playing with their phones.

    Nowhere else in the world is street prostitution legal, because people do not want it in plain sight. Where there is a street sex trade, women are accosted on their way home by punters, and often condoms, drugs paraphernalia and pimps are visible. But the Netherlands decided in 1996 that street prostitution was a decent way to earn money and created several ‘tolerance zones’ for men to safely rent a vagina, anus or mouth for a few minutes. Cars drive into cubicles. This being the Netherlands, there is a special section for cyclists. Keep prostitution green.

    The day after the Amsterdam zone opened, more than a hundred residents from nearby neighbourhoods took to the streets in protest. It took six years for the mayor to admit in public that the experiment had been a disaster, a magnet for trafficked women, drug dealers and underage girls. Zones in Rotterdam, The Hague and Heerlen have shut down in similar circumstances. The direction of travel is clear: legalisation will be repealed. Legalisation has not been emancipation. It has instead resulted in the appalling, inhuman, degrading treatment of women, because it declares the buying and selling of human flesh acceptable. And as the Dutch government reforms itself from pimp to protector, it will have time to reflect on the damage done to the women caught in this calamitous social experiment.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8835071/flesh-for-sale/

  34. @ Tray….you asked: “D13, do they haul the not-at-home dad’s in also when the kid is caught? Seems like the sperm donor should be held as much responsible for the actions of the kid as the mom.”

    Sorry that it took me so long to answer as I was awaiting to talk to my friend who, I told you , is an assistant DA. Here are some VERY INTERESTING statistics from the Fort Worth area.

    1) The dead beat dad is looked for but normally is not found. He is not found for two main reasons. The female will not point him out. The reason for this is that if he is found and his feet “held to the fire”, the female will lose government help. It is a lucrative business to be on the government teat. A single female with 3 children have government benefits that amount to over $50,000 per year. There is no incentive for a female to find a dead beat dad much less get off her butt and work in society, and (2) once a dead beat dad is identified, the State of Texas requires stringent rules to force him to own up to his responsibilities. A dead beat dad, identified as one who does not support his child in any manner, is not entitled to the following: (a) a driver’s license, (b) not entitled to state ID’s, (c) not entitled to hunting and/or fishing licenses, (d) cannot renew car titles or get license plates, (e) has state liens against all their property…etc.etc.

    2) The gang violence is restricted to specific population areas. The Asian gangs prey on Asian people. The Hispanic gangs prey on Hispanic populations. Since a majority of the Hispanics are here illegally, they do not call the police and the gangs know this….easy prey. The Asians have lived with gangs for centuries. The black gangs are really into drugs and prostitution and theft. They know no boundaries and the violence between the black and hispanic gangs is growing exponentially. The police usually let them shoot each other and just pick up the pieces as long as it is confined.

    3) The gang violence is 90% limited to government housing areas and government projects. They have found that the entitlement mentality is prevalent and directly related to gang activity. He says that the government project areas have child care, parks, recreation centers, schools, movie theaters, malls, YMCA’s. They have everything that the affluent areas have but when you drive through the areas, there are burglar bars on every window. The public schools in those areas have the highest drop out rates, lowest test scores, and highest arrests for truancy. There is no parental supervision.

    4) There is no supervision of children from the parent or parents that do not work. He cites that the norm is a mother and or father of three or four, on the government teat, (food stamps, housing, and transportation) sitting around on their porch or playing bingo all day on EBT cards and their children are left to run amok. Even after school, there is government sponsored child care and food programs for the children so the parents have no incentive to interact. The majority of the domestic violence reports are in those project areas and are children against parents or a single parent in a loud argument with their children.

    5) He further cited that the difference is stark. Drive through a neighborhood that is outside the government projects and you will see the soccer fields full of children, the YMCA parking lots full of cars, the recreational centers full of children and parents, the ball fields and basketball courts full of supervised activities, and the parks are full of picnics and they are clean. Drive through the government projects where all the same assets are in place, and you will see empty baseball fields, empty soccer fields, very little activity at the YMCA’s…etc. It is prevalent. In the parks, you will see gangs of youth smoking and drinking, wearing their colors and flashing gang signs, carving their territory marks on the trees, stacking rocks identifying their territory.

    He further said that you can see the cultural differences in people. He says that it is not all of the people that live in the government areas, but those that do take the initiative to try to organize in those areas are intimidated to the point they quit. He pointed out that the Asian areas and the Hispanic areas and the Black areas and the Caucasian areas are all different when it comes to cleanliness and reporting crime. The Asians simply will not report it but they are very clean and tidy. not so in the other areas. In addition, as it turns out, that the government project areas are very segregated by the very government that preaches integration. They preach it but do not practice it. The other very interesting thing that they have observed is that the Caucasian children do not form their own gangs but will join the other ones….except in the Asian community. Only Asians are allowed.

    This is what I found out.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Bob, et al.

    Excuses provided, or the litany of “what if’s” are nothing but sorry excuses.

    There is no good reason, excuse, for good people to NOT leave. Other than their own mental state of hopelessness.

    As for fixing vs. concentrating, I never said that anything could be done for the existing areas where this is so prevalent. I don’t think it is possible to do anything from the “outside”.

    Nothing will change until the good people who live there WANT it to change so badly they are willing to ACT and not blame everyone else for their damn problems. Just like the circular argument provided about not providing witness accounts to a murder. See how they blamed the cops for their lack of courage and commitment.

    So in the meantime the only way to save good people is for good people to LEAVE.

    These Rotten centers could be addressed but NOBODY is willing to do what is required. First of all it would look like a POLICE STATE for several years. The prison population would grow even bigger and then we would here screams of racism because they would mostly be Black or Hispanic.

    We have constructed a morass of politically correct behavior, Govt rules and attitudes that simply act to STOP any constructive actions. These hell holes are a microcosm of the problems that are growing in the nation at large. They are a look into the future if we do not act to stop the spread of the disease.

    • Why the hell did you join in the discussion when your only contribution is “they are all screwed, the good ones should leave”. If you are not willing to contribute anything useful then why bother JAC? Not the best way to look for solutions is it now?

  36. Matt Lockwood says:

    It’s a real simple solution I think- end the war on drugs. Will this cause an uptick in crime? No, not really and actually it would create a benefit- allowed free reign with the drugs, you would have a forced “natural selection”, as those who could get as much as they wanted would kill them selves off. Thousands would not have a “record”, so they would be able to get jobs. It’s not like legalizing drugs will make anybody say”wow, crack is legal- think I’ll start smoking it”!

    • From my article up above:

      “Pimps, under legalisation, have been reclassified as managers and businessmen. Abuse suffered by the women is now called an ‘occupational hazard’, like a stone dropped on a builder’s toe. Sex tourism has grown faster in Amsterdam than the regular type of tourism: as the city became the brothel of Europe, women have been imported by traffickers from Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia to meet the demand. In other words, the pimps remained but became legit — violence was still prevalent but part of the job, and trafficking increased. Support for the women to leave prostitution became almost nonexistent. The innate murkiness of the job has not been washed away by legal benediction.

      The Dutch government hoped to play the role of the honourable pimp, taking its share in the proceeds of prostitution through taxation. But only 5 per cent of the women registered for tax, because no one wants to be known as a whore — however legal it may be. Illegality has simply taken a new form, with an increase in trafficking, unlicensed brothels and pimping; with policing completely out of the picture, it was easier to break the laws that remained. To pimp out women from non-EU countries, desperate for a new life, remains illegal. But it’s never been easier.

      Legalisation has imposed brothels on areas all over Holland, whether they want them or not. Even if a city or town opposes establishing a brothel, it must allow at least one — not doing so is contrary to the basic federal right to work. To many Dutch, legality and decency have been irreconcilably divorced. It has been a social, legal and economic failure — and the madness, finally, is coming to an end.”

      Are you sure making ALL drugs legal won’t make the violence associated with drugs worse and more wide spread. I’ll just skip the idea that we should do something just so people will kill themselves off and relieve us of the problem.

      • Read this report on the effects of decriminalizing all drugs in Portugal:

        http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

        • I of course have not read the whole thing yet.

          Legalizing vs. decriminalizing vs. depenalizing. Will have to think about all this and try to get the definitions straight. I like the idea of people not being put in jail for something like pot. But some part of me-tends to rebel against the legality of something- being smoky for a lack of a better word. But will think about it and read the rest of the report.

          • Even for all the hard drugs they found a reduction in usage when it was decriminalized across almost all age groups. If you get some time its an interesting read.

    • There is a lot to what you say. This is why my opinions on the subject have never been hard and firm. To quote a Detective Sgt. of Narcotics who is an acquaintance, “If they can’t keep drugs out of prisons how are they going to keep them out of the country?”

  37. Bob, down here. Time for school. You said “Dont try and feed me crap Gman, who pays for the military? Where do they get their money from? Who assigns their budget each year? Who tells them where to go and what to do? Who is their commander and chief? Are military members federal employees? What is the department of defence? What is it a department of?

    Why do I know more about your government than you do?

    Who pays for the military? The people, through taxes
    Where do they get their money from? The people, through taxes
    Assigning budget= Congress
    Tells them what and where to go. Military commanders. They are given permission from the President, who is the Commander – n- Chief. However, no one in the military is obligated to follow illegal orders.
    Yes, they are employees. They are also volunteers. the Government is made up of “ELECTED” people. See the difference Bob? The DOD is an arm of the military, run by a civilian who is not elected. Our Constitution demands that our military is under the direction of civilians.

    So tell me BOB, if the government is elected and the military is a volunteer force, who, without the people would not exist or get paid, who do you think they are out to protect?

    Class dismissed!

    • @Todd, Glad to see that your critical thinking skills are still a shining example of all Liberals 🙂

      • Gman doesn’t even recognize that since our constitution defines our government, taking an oath to defend the Constitution is the same as taking an oath to defend the government.

        But I guess this may be stupidity more than ignorance…it’s a fine line around here…

        The Constitution defines what the government is made up of and then LIMIT’s it ability to rule. The Bill of Rights, also part of the Constitution defines the Rights of the people and further LIMIT’s the government. You know Todd, that part in the 2nd Amendment that says “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

        The oath has nothing to do with defending the government, it is about defending the country form ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Yes Todd, an elected government can become a domestic enemy of the people. Oh, the people can always elect a NEW government if the standing one is forcibly removed from office.

        Calling names is so lame Todd, totally childish. 🙄

    • Cmon Gman you are seriously back peddling on this and you know it.

      “Who pays for the military? The people, through taxes”

      Where does the money get paid to? It begins with G.

      “Where do they get their money from? The people, through taxes”

      Where does the military get their pay cheques from? It begins with G.

      “Assigning budget= Congress”

      And congress is part of the………. I will give you a clue it begins with G, we have been talking about it quite a lot.

      So the government tells the military where to go and what to do is what you are saying since the government orders the military commanders what they need to accomplish.

      “The President is the military’s overall head, and helps form military policy with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), a federal executive department, acting as the principal organ by which military policy is carried out.”

      So the military gets its money from the government, gets its orders from the government, its commander and chief is the head of your government and would not exist without the government but its not part of the government? I dont want to use harsh words but that is some pure, brown strained crap. The government can order people in times of need to fill the military, what is that word again, begins with a D ends with something you float in. Happened last time a few decades ago, well I will remember it sooner or later!!!

      I suggest you read up on the department of defence and its purpose, you will find words such as federal and that dreaded government word in there quite a bit. Out of everything you have put forward Gman this is the most laughable I mean cmon!!!!!

      • Where does the government get it’s money from? Your premise was that the military part of the government. Technically it is not, as I explained. The militaries purpose is to protect the people from all enemies, as I stated. The people cannot become the enemy, but the government can. I don’t know how else to explain it, other than to say our government is not all powerful like yours is. The government is “of the people, by the people and for the people” (at least that was the plan, they are far from that as I see it now).

        Your desire to make government all powerful is laughable as well.

        • According to Federal Statute Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 (a), all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are either citizens of the United States or have declared their intent to become citizens are members of the “unorganized” or reserve militia.

          Well, does that make all males in that age group government?

        • You aint explained jack. At no point have you put a decent explanation forward. I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. Oh and yes the government gets its money through taxes I dont see where you are going with this or the point you are trying to prove. Please give me some hard proof that the military is separate from the government and that the two dont go hand in hand.

          • Simple language in the Constitution : To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

            The military is governed. It cannot be government if is part of the governed.

            To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
            Once again, they are governed.

            To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
            An army that can be raised, can also be ended.

            Basically, the military is an “employee” of the government. They have no power to govern.
            I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to comprehend. I think you may mean that because the government dictates what the military does, that makes the military part of the government. Maybe we have a different definition of what government is? Be we are going in circles, that’s for sure.

            Let’s try and start from scratch. What, exactly is your question?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              GMan

              You are making a very interesting argument. But lets test it another way.

              If your premise is true then would that not also hold for any other Federal Agency established by Congress?

              After all, they are all established by Congress under Constitutional “authority” and supervised by the Executive Branch. They are funded in the exact same way as the military.

              But would you consider ATF, DOJ, or the Dept of Interior as NOT THE GOVT?

              • I consider them employees as well. All of your agencies mentioned can be shut down. They also do not make laws, but enforce them. I think I consider government as, only those elected to office. Government makes laws etc. They hire people to enforce their laws. We elect government. Beyond that, everyone else that is not elected are just employees of government.

                The Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, for example, does not govern. I hope that explains it 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Gman

              Let me remind you that Govt Agencies create Federal Regulations.. your violation of those regulations can result in a Fine or Imprisonment.

              Seems like “laws” to me.

              • I see your point. These agencies are given permission by Congress to make regulations and Congress can also kill those regulations. The ultimate authority still reigns with Congress. For the sake of the debate, The initial subject was the military, you already answered that below 🙂

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Bob and Todd

    Sorry boys, but the Constitution is NOT the Govt.

    It certainly is the foundational document of authorization but it is NOT the Govt itself.

    That is why the military recognizes a separate allegiance to the Constitution from that of their Commander in Chief or Congress.

    That is why officers are taught to evaluate orders against the Constitution and allowed to “refuse” Govt orders if they deem them in conflict.

    As for the practicality of fighting the Govt, well I give you Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of what it could look like. Would the Govt survive such a situation? Doubtful.

    Would enough Americans rise up and take arms against the Govt? Doubtful. Not until Govt crosses some unknown and ill described line of acceptability. Then all hell would break loose.

    Here is the ironic, or funny, thing about your argument Bob. The Govt of today is in reality actually afraid of the armed citizenry. In fact it is far more afraid of the citizens than the citizens truly are of the Govt. That is the threat of armed force by the Govt.

    The Sec of Homeland Security included her list of high risk groups for a reason. The Govt actually feels these groups are a serious threat. And that their crazy ideas could spread.

    • It’s about dang time I got some backup! 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        You’re not getting all the back up you think.

        I disagree with your view that the military is NOT part of the Govt.

        But I disagree with Bob and Todd that the Constitution is the Govt and simply point out they don’t seem to understand the difference and that our military’s history on this shows the separation.

        So I guess you are getting “some” back up. Better than nothing I guess. 🙂

        • I guess it comes down to definitions. I see government as the elected ones. I see everyone else as employees of the government. Like in business, employees are an asset of the company, but not part of the Board of Directors. Make sense yet?

    • Todd says:
      February 20, 2013 at 5:19 pm

      See Bob – right here:

      In the Oath, they agree to defend the Constitution. They do not say, defend the government.

      Gman doesn’t even recognize that since our constitution defines our government, taking an oath to defend the Constitution is the same as taking an oath to defend the government.

      But I guess this may be stupidity more than ignorance…it’s a fine line around here…

      See JAC, I was lonely and under attack 😆 Todd called me stupid, again, only to be proven wrong again. Guess we know who is the st……… 🙂

      • Gman,
        The only thing you’ve PROVEN is my original comment:

        For those on the “right” at SUFA, ignorance is indeed a virtue of the highest order!

      • “They do not say, defend the government.” … so does that mean ONLY when the interpretation of the constitution is the one adopted by tea baggers? It seems to me, you guys take great issue when the court has it’s own opinion (even if 5-4). See Robertson and Obama care …

        Or are you lunatics the only ones to know it’s “true intent”?

        Just having fun fellas … no disrespect intended (seriously) … but your arguments at times, are truly silly.

      • Gman you are still not making one spot of sense. Being an “employee” of the government would still make you part of the government.

        I work for a very large multi national corporation. My department is fairly autonomous, we have our own building, legal, HR and technical staff etc. Now when I get my pay cheque it has the name of the head office on there, they assign us our budget and the board monitors us and gives us our objectives. If I turned round and said “I am not part of x corporation” my colleagues would politely ask if I had smoked a large amount of crack recently. I will ask the same question to you Gman.

    • JAC,
      I’m always amazed at the arguments you try to defend…

    • “Sorry boys, but the Constitution is NOT the Govt.”

      When did I say it was?

      “As for the practicality of fighting the Govt, well I give you Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of what it could look like. Would the Govt survive such a situation? Doubtful.”

      What is the difference between Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan and an armed insurrection in the US? One of the two has absolutely no risk to the stability of the US government. What weapons would the US employ if they believed there to be a direct threat to it? I will let you look up some history books for that answer.

      I am merely pointing out the fallacy of the “I need guns to fight a tyrannical government!” statement by listing the weapons the US has at its disposal. This is always followed by “Well the people with those weapons would never use them!” which renders their first statement pointless.

      Thats when Gman started blathering about how the government and military are completely separate, he still is not making any sense.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Bob

        It is not a fallacy to argue that you need guns to protect yourself from a tyrannical govt.

        It would be a fallacy to argue that there would not be serious casualties if an all out revolution were to occur.

        Your argument has its weak points as well. You argued the Govt would use its entire arsenal if needed. That is very unlikely.

        You see, any insurrection or revolution has its supporters and detractors. If the Govt moves to harshly against the supporters it can alienate the detractors. The result being a greater opposition to the Govt.

        That is why our Govt takes the “boiling frogs” approach. By the time they offend the masses it will be to late for them.

        You also fail to recognize the existing affect gun ownership is having on our Govt. I assure you the Govt people are restrained to some degree just by their knowledge that many people own guns and don’t take kindly to the Govt’s imposition on their lives. If not for this “tension” I know some Agency people who would have taken harsh actions years ago, when it was not needed.

        You also did not recognize that tyranny can be State or Local in nature. I have posted examples before of where armed citizens were able to confront and force bad govt to change.

        Your argument seems to me can be summed up with this:

        Since the slave owner will beat the hell out of the slave for trying to escape, there is NO REASON for the slave to try to be free.

        • “Your argument has its weak points as well. You argued the Govt would use its entire arsenal if needed. That is very unlikely.”

          No I didnt, that was my entire point. I said that the government would not use those weapons to attack people hence no need for an armed populace to fight it.

          “You also fail to recognize the existing affect gun ownership is having on our Govt. I assure you the Govt people are restrained to some degree just by their knowledge that many people own guns and don’t take kindly to the Govt’s imposition on their lives.”

          Restrained to do what exactly?

          “You also did not recognize that tyranny can be State or Local in nature. I have posted examples before of where armed citizens were able to confront and force bad govt to change.”

          My scenario is an insurrection against the US government, the one that most people who say they need firearms “to keep in check”.

          “Since the slave owner will beat the hell out of the slave for trying to escape, there is NO REASON for the slave to try to be free.”

          No it isnt, my argument is that people who say they need firearms to take on a tyrannical government also claim that the tyrannical government would not use its weapons against them. One cancels out the other.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Bob

            Excuse me if I got your argument backwards but I remember you pointing out how the military would simply destroy the rebels. As I recall that is what led Gman to claim they would not. I think you are BOTH WRONG.

            Unless you are restricting your case to only Gman’s argument.

            Putting that aside, the Govt is NOT just the Military.

            It includes many “armed” Federal Agencies and the State agencies that are tied to them at the hip. These people would most certainly use their weapons against the people, if they think they can get away with it.

            Besides, I would fully expect even the military to fight against the rebels. At least in the beginning.

            Especially if the Govt could make it look like a limited location and number of people. They love making examples of small groups to deter broader action against it.

            Which of course makes owning guns to protect myself from tyranny very REAL.

  39. Really guys 🙂 is this worth arguing over-who cares how one determines which departments are considered government or just government employees-the government is a structure-they’re all suppost to be just employees.

%d bloggers like this: