Crime is up in New York

March 7, 2020

People feign outrage whenever anyone suggests that the left is actively trying to destroy America, but even if you grant that they aren’t, if they WERE, what could they possibly be doing that’s any different from what they’re doing already?

Here are a couple of inexplicable cases in point: New Yorkers have watched in anger and astonishment over the past few months as a new state law (written by the Democrats they elected to absolute power) allows criminals to be released without bail to commit the same crimes over and over. To no thinking person’s surprise, this has vastly emboldened criminals and sparked a big jump in crime.

In New York City, major crimes were up 22.5% in February from one year ago, and shootings were up 7.1%. Since the strict gun laws have only gotten tighter since then, while only restrictions on criminals were loosened, someone with rudimentary deductive skills might think that proves controlling criminals is a more effective way to reduce shootings than passing more gun laws.

New York City has seen increases in robberies, felony assault, burglary, grand larceny, grand larceny of a vehicle and hate crimes. Of course, attacks on police officers are up. Even “squeegee guys” are back! Rape is down slightly from 2018, but that could just be due to failing to report it to police.

Retired NYPD Bronx detective Malcolm Reiman was there in the hellish pre-Giuliani days under liberal Mayor David Dinkins. He told Fox News, “Crime was out of control. People forget how bad it was…Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Reiman said, "You would walk down the subway steps every day, and all you could smell was urine; it was littered with muggers and mentally-ill people everywhere. Subways were truly terrifying places. Those protesting today don't know what it was like for everyone back then."

Well, they’re getting a taste (or smell) of it now, and without even having to fly to San Francisco or L.A. But what did they expect when they elected (and reelected!) Dinkins’ far-left protégé, Mayor Bill DeBlasio, who seems more concerned with protecting criminal illegal aliens than his own cops and constituents?

Maybe the power of video will shake some sense into New York voters’ heads if they see this latest horrific outrage on TV or social media. A 15-year-old girl in Brooklyn was surrounded on the street by five male teens (reportedly “friends” of hers with whom she’d had an earlier altercation.) They savagely beat her and left her lying on the sidewalk with head trauma and other injuries before stealing the Air Jordan shoes off her feet and running away. Luckily, the entire sickening assault was caught on video, and the alleged attackers turned themselves in to police. Although, under the current regime, who knows if anything will happen to them, or if they’ll be out beating up another girl by this time tomorrow?

This is what happens when young people have no respect for the law or the police. And why should that be a surprise when the political leaders in charge of enforcing the laws obviously have no respect for the law or the police either?

Elizabeth Warren is now officially out of the Presidential race, after flopping on Super Tuesday. If you’ve been following her campaign, which has largely consisted of angry, hectoring lectures about how bad things are and how unfair, racist, sexist, etc., America is, you won’t be surprised to hear that she and her staunchest followers are blaming her failure to win the nomination on sexism.

But wait: didn’t the Democrats already nominate a woman in the last election? Or maybe Warren was done in by racism, due to her 1/1024th Cherokee blood. (Which, incidentally, she was never asked about in all 10 debates. Can you imagine a white male Republican candidate taking career advantages intended for a minority under false pretenses, and not even being asked about it? I call that “Democrat privilege.”)

If Warren supporters are correct, then ultra-liberal Democratic primary voters are sexists and racists, even in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, Warren’s home state where she came in a distant third.

Commentary continues below advertisement

By the way, there is still a female candidate in the race, one who’s a genuine racial minority: Tulsi Gabbard. She even won a delegate on Tuesday, which was the previous criteria for being in the debate (even though they previously let in Bloomberg, who had no delegates, while snubbing Gabbard.) So naturally, the DNC changed the rules to keep her out of the next one. They claim it’s because she has no chance of winning, but I think it’s because they’re afraid she’d absolutely demolish their two geriatric white male “frontrunners” (neither of whom looks like he can still jog, much less run.)

But if she did demolish them, wouldn’t that leave her as the strongest candidate standing, which would give her a real chance at winning the nomination? Since the DNC refuses even to let her have a shot, then I guess we know where the real sexists are.

Back to Warren: I think one big reason she didn’t do better is that her entire campaign was based on nothing but leftist negativity. She painted a dark, angry picture of a suffering, dystopian America that only leftists see, one that she was going to transform with fiscally untenable, big government giveaway programs and leftwing wish list craziness that she would cram down our throats on day one with executive orders. She used identity politics to divide Americans and pit us against each other. And she almost always came across as being blow-her-top furious, like Lewis Black without a sense of humor.

I don’t want to be accused of being one of those sexist guys who tells a woman she should “smile more,” but does Liz Warren EVER smile? This has nothing to do with gender: Americans like leaders of either sex who are optimistic and make them feel good about the future. A big part of the presidency is being America’s head cheerleader. It’s also essential to have a sense of humor. Today’s leftists are too humorless to see it, but many people watch Trump rallies because he’s hilarious. So was Reagan. I disagreed with Obama’s policies, but I admit he had great comic delivery. Joe Biden has skated on a number of controversies and gaffes because of his blinding smile and avuncular “Uncle Joe” persona. And when I ran for President, I would tell people that “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anyone about it.”

Let’s try a thought experiment: Close your eyes and picture Elizabeth Warren...

Okay, did you imagine her snarling into the camera with one arm raised, poking an accusing finger in your face? Join the club. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is male or female, can you blame anyone for not wanting to see that every day for the next four years?

From Jan:

Good article. One thing I have actually thought about is that Joe is such a liability to the party because of his son, Hunter, and their actions in the Ukraine. Honestly, what I think is a possibility is that the DNC will actually work toward bringing Joe down themselves, once he gets the nomination. Using this scenario as an excuse to get him out and get someone who they really would like to get in there; i.e., Michelle Obama or someone with that kind of star power.

From Laura:

Thanks for writing, Jan. I chose not to venture into the Ukraine/Hunter Biden issue because the wheels of justice turn sooooo slowly, it’s hard to know how much of a factor this will become to Democrat voters (who, lest we forget, always forgive their own) before the convention and/or the election. But it certainly could create more scenarios, and you're right: it’s one more way to get him replaced at some point. The Dems surely have even more contingency plans in case Durham delivers his report.

RELATED READINGAinsworth: With Biden winning, watch what Michelle O does now

Their move will depend on the timing of that report. Here’s just one of several possibilities: Biden picks Michelle as running mate; with her popularity, they win; before inauguration (it can't be after, because Barr would have been fired on Day 1 and the investigation stopped), Durham report finally comes out and shows criminality and cover-up; Biden relinquishes office in lieu of impeachment (a la Nixon) “for the good of the country”; Michelle assumes Presidency. The Obama machine gets back in.

Or, the report comes out sooner, before November, with Biden possibly having to step away from his nomination before the election. But in that case, too, Michelle steps in and if she wins, the result is the same: the Obama machine gets back in.

By the way, the Senate has just started its own investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden, with Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson vowing to force a vote on the first subpoena as soon as next week. From their end, Ukraine is also investigating.

Right now, the Democrats –- with help from Mitt Romney, who might as well be one –- are trying to taint the Senate investigation as purely political. They will do everything possible to stall the process and keep old Joe viable at least until the convention and the naming of Michelle as his running mate. The media will help them by continuing to downplay Biden’s mental deterioration and ignoring any damaging developments in the Ukraine scandal.


From Lorna:

Comment/question: Would she qualify? I have read where she doesn't have the 14-year citizenship requirement because of her tax status. Her parents filed her out of country for education benefits and she filed out of country while she was in college. I wish I could recall where I read this but I remember looking and if true, she wouldn't be eligible until 2021.


From Laura:

Very interesting question! This may have been what you read…

First, on counting the number of years: the Constitution is vague on whether the 14 years need to be consecutive or cumulative. But there is precedent for the “cumulative” argument: the presidency of Herbert Hoover. Hoover was elected in 1928 and inaugurated in 1929. As USConstitution explains, if the “consecutive” argument were correct, Hoover would’ve had to live in the U.S. since March of 1915. But he’d lived in London for a time during that period. In fact, the Court Directory of London lists a London address for him from 1910 to 1917. So that precedent dispenses with the “consecutive” interpretation and leaves us with the “cumulative.”

And what exactly does “residence” entail? The early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said this: “by ‘residence,’ in the Constitution, [it] is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicile within the United States.”

I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem that this requirement is flexible enough for Michelle to get around it. Obviously, she was living here, regardless of what her sneaky tax returns say, and she would be able to prove she was. The founders included the residency requirement to give the candidate a tangible tie to this country, and she would argue that she absolutely has that, fulfilling the founders’ intent.

It should be noted for the purposes of our discussion that the 12th Amendment made the same qualifications for President apply to the Vice President.

You’ll recall there were challenges to Barack Obama’s candidacy as well, his having to do with whether or not he was born in the United States and also –- the one I still puzzle over –- whether his American citizenship was renounced when he was signed up to attend a Muslim school in Indonesia as a boy.

As far as I know, we have NEVER been provided the paperwork on this, nor that of much of Obama’s official life, not even his college transcripts or writings while in school –- which is pretty curious for an editor of the Harvard Law Review. But you’ll notice he got to run, and serve, as President for two terms despite the murkiness concerning his citizenship and background. I doubt that any “residence” challenge to Michelle’s candidacy would stop her.

While researching the answer to this question, I came upon a piece in AMERICAN THINKER from April of last year that mentions what the great Rush Limbaugh was saying then about the Obamas trying to get back into the White House. Seems I’m in good company.

Rush speculated then that Michelle wouldn’t throw her hat into the ring unless it was a virtual certainty that she would win. I agree, but this sort of “backdoor” way into the White House via Biden’s candidacy is different. She wouldn’t be getting in as a traditional candidate.

In July of last year, Rush explained what her motivation for running would be; namely, preserving as much of the “Obama legacy” as possible. Oh, goody.

But here’s a different viewpoint posted August 26 of last year at AMERICAN SPECTATOR. David Catron believes that although Michelle is the Most Admired Woman in the world and all that, even she would have a tough slog running against President Trump, who would give her a hard time about some atrocious things she’s said over the years. (Note: Trump had better be careful how he treats her, though, or that could backfire.) I still say much has happened since last August --- the implosion of the Democrat lineup and, especially, the further deterioration of Biden --- to make a Michelle run likely, either as a last-minute substitute for him or as #2 on the ticket with him, as he quietly fades away.

First, I should admit that if you’d like to see a demonstration of “confirmation bias” in action, you need look no further than my periodic observations about Michelle Obama. You see, I concluded well over a year ago that, based on political realities and what I’d already seen, Michelle O would be the Democrat nominee for President. So now I actively look for developments that tend to support this view. And I find a lot.

It’s not that I want this to happen --- just the opposite. One of the many reasons I don’t is the main reason many Democrats do: she’s absolutely the only person on the Democrat side with the star power to generate excitement and draw crowds in a way approaching Trump. (It DOESN’T MATTER that she has no accomplishments other than a failed lunch program.) Bernie was drawing good-sized crowds of “progressives,” but enthusiasm has waned since he went full-out commie and praised Fidel Castro for his “literacy programs,” and he failed to wow on Super Tuesday. (Hey, Breadline Bernie, what good is literacy when you’re permitted to read only Party-approved propaganda?) Dems crave rock-star quality and “cred,” and Michelle has all that. They like her for what she represents to them.

Commentary continues below advertisement

Biden did surprisingly well on Super Tuesday, but with his mind teetering on the brink and his impression that of a diminished person, the individual selected to be his running mate is all-important. If Biden’s faculties fade even more noticeably on the campaign trail, that person will need to step in “for the good of America” before the election. If Biden manages to make it through to the election and wins, he won’t be able to keep up with the immense responsibilities and non-stop schedule of a President, and the 25th Amendment will almost certainly be used at some point in his term of office to “retire” him and install the Vice President as the new POTUS. We’ve all envisioned this scenario. I do believe that Uncle Joe is being used as a vehicle for others to obtain power.

Laura Ingraham said as much on Wednesday night: “...Everyone knows, including all those big names who just endorsed Biden, that he’s just going to be a figurehead President. Americans won’t be voting for a man who can articulate a serious policy agenda, let alone defend it. They’ll be voting for the party machine’s geriatric puppet...The man barely knows where he is or who he’s with at any hour of the day...Biden is basically being shuffled around by his wife and his staff from event to event, campaign stop to campaign stop. He’s not in charge, and everyone knows it.”

Already gaffe-prone, Biden is, sadly, deteriorating before our eyes. What used to be mildly amusing is no longer anything to laugh at. On Wednesday, Guy Benson on Shannon Bream’s FOX NEWS show tried to be kind: “The larger concern [with Biden] is the [brain] synapses, and I say this with all respect to the former Vice is a little bit difficult and painful to watch. And I think a lot of other candidates have danced around that issue. Donald Trump will not; Donald Trump will have a sledgehammer on this issue.”

Brit Hume, who has spoken of this before, was more blunt: “How many of the people who voted for him tonight would agree that he’s senile?”

Tucker Carlson understands the danger this situation poses, and he didn’t hold back Wednesday in talking about what we all can see:

Hillary must desperately want to be on that ticket with Biden. She’s increased her visibility –- in safe situations –- and surely has done God-knows-what behind the scenes to wangle this for herself. But she has more baggage than the Lost-and-Found at LaGuardia. Too many voters on both sides of the aisle can’t stand her and have had enough of her scandals. And after what her DNC did to Bernie in 2016, his supporters won't come out to support HER. They’ll either spend Election Day holed up in their rooms in their parents’ basements, tweeting and smoking pot, or they’ll scream at the sky and riot.

Plus, we’re talking about Democrats here, with their laser-beam focus on identity politics (which is a racist scourge on society), and she’s so...white, and so...old. Biden, challenged in the general election by his own whiteness and oldness, has said specifically that he’d consider a black female as his running mate. Pundits automatically thought of Kamala Harris, but her stunning lack of success on the campaign trail suggests that'll be a NO.

Democrats are desperate this time, not just to dump Trump and retake the White House, but to hold Congress and perhaps even take the Senate. A Democrat White House could do serious damage even with a Republican Senate, as it would release a flurry of big-time executive orders in place of legislation that would have had to pass there. With a Democrat Senate, though, they could pass these as laws AND oversee all judicial appointments, perhaps even moving the Supreme Court farther left if a conservative judge such as Clarence Thomas needs to step down. In other words, stick a fork in the Constitution; it’s done.

So, what’s Michelle Obama up to these days? Apparently, she’s readying to hit the campaign trail in the battleground state of Michigan, to “boost voter turnout” as co-chair of a “non-partisan” (sure) group called “Why We All Vote.” The tickets to her appearance in Detroit on March 27 are free, but not available to the general public (so much for the “all”), only to “the organization’s volunteers and partners, as well as educators, college students and high school students who are eligible to vote.”

And what is the Democrat Party up to? I’d guess they’ve been working up some plans…

Plan A: Biden gets nomination, names Michelle as running mate; he crashes and burns before election; Michelle becomes the candidate. If she wins, Obama machine gets back in.

Plan B: Biden gets nomination, names Michelle as running mate; if they win, he is “retired” and Michelle assumes power. Obama machine gets back in.

Plan C: Biden gets nomination, names Michelle as running mate; if they win, Biden remains as figurehead for a time and Obama machine gets back in.

Plan D: No one has enough delegates; it’s a brokered convention; Michelle ends up on ticket in either the #1 or #2 spot; if they win, Obama machine gets back in.

Plan E: Biden crashes and burns BEFORE convention; Michelle is drafted at convention; if she wins, Obama machine gets back in.

There may be other scenarios I haven’t thought of, but they all lead to the Obama machine getting back in. That’s Valerie Jarrett, the old DOJ and intel bureaucracy, and maybe the whole works. I hope I'm wrong. The only thing to stop it is a tsunami of Trump support, and MY plan is to be a part of that.

And now, another prominent Democrat who made violent threats against people she disagreed with, then tried to weasel out of taking responsibility or even apologizing...

Denver City Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca retweeted a tweet in which someone said, "For the record, if I do get the coronavirus, I'm attending every MAGA rally I can." CdeBaca added some laughing and “OK” emojis and “#solidarity Yaaaas!!”

I’m pleased to report that she was hit with a wave of complaints about her endorsement not only of spreading the coronavirus, but of using it to try to sicken and even kill people just because she disagrees with their politics (but don’t worry: today’s leftists only admire socialist nations’ literacy programs and free health care, not the authoritarianism!)

Following the Schumer playbook to the letter, CdeBaca refused to apologize and instead sent out a spokesperson to try to gaslight the public and deflect the justifiable outrage over her own actions onto the people who criticized her. Here’s her statement:

"Councilwoman CdeBaca made a sarcastic tweet on Twitter to call attention to the Trump administration's downplaying of the Coronavirus outbreak as a 'hoax' no more dangerous than the common flu. Rather than conservative outlets making a four-day-old Tweet their focus on Super Tuesday, they should focus their energy on demanding a competent Federal response to this public health crisis instead."

Okay, you want a response from a conservative? Here’s my response:

1. President Trump is being praised by actual medical authorities for taking swift action that’s helped to delay and contain the coronavirus in the US, actions that met initial resistance from liberals such as (ta-da!) Chuck Schumer, who accused him of a “war on immigrants” for blocking people from entering the US from China.

2. Trump didn’t say the coronavirus was a “hoax,” he said the claim that he wasn’t taking action on it was a hoax. The councilwoman claimed she was calling attention to a hoax when she was actually perpetuating a hoax to dodge responsibility for her own actions.

3. That tweet wasn’t “sarcasm,” it was a clear endorsement of biological warfare against political opponents, in utter disregard of the general health of the US population and human decency in general.

4. If Denver voters reelect this person, it will be convincing evidence that the city has way too many marijuana dispensaries.

Super Thursday

March 5, 2020

Happy “Super Thursday,” America! Despite what Joe Biden apparently thinks, there are no primaries on “Super Thursday,” but you can celebrate Mike Bloomberg dropping out of the race by drinking a Super Big Gulp.

Better enjoy that large drink while you can, though. Just moments after the electoral defibrillator paddles resuscitated Biden’s campaign, pundits began floating the idea that Biden would not be a caretaker President so much as a President who needs a caretaker. The theory is floating around that powerful members of the Democratic Party establishment want Joe in the White House because he would be a befuddled figurehead while they actually ran everything behind the scenes (you know, like that phony image of Reagan they created, only this time for real.) Here’s Tucker Carlson outlining that scenario…

Biden didn’t help by declaring that he would put table-vaulting anti-gun fanatic “Beto” O’Rourke in charge of his gun policy. President Trump relished using the term “quid pro quo” to advance his theory that all the other candidates who’ve quit and endorsed Biden were promised something big in return, like a high-level Biden Administration appointment. Funny, I thought when the voters rejected them, they made it clear that they didn’t want those people anywhere near the levers of power. But if you looked at that crowded debate stage and thought that all of those people put together wouldn’t add up to one good President, well, elect Biden and you might find out.


Or better yet, don’t elect Biden, and we won’t have to worry about “Beto” riding roughshod over the Second Amendment, or Pete Buttigieg deciding what religious beliefs we’re allowed to express, or Mike Bloomberg being named as Czar In Charge of Telling You How Big Your Beverage Can Be. (“Your soda cup must be shorter than Mike Bloomberg to be allowed to drink it!”)

On a serious note, does anyone else find it odd that Democrats want to ban all sorts of things that people do to their own bodies, from vaping and smoking (aside from pot), to drinking large sodas, from using too much salt to eating meat…yet their go-to response to any limits on abortion is that the government can’t tell a woman what to do with her own body? Reality check: drinking a large soda is something you do to your own body. Abortion is something you do to your unborn child’s body. Guess which one is more lethal.