The Destruction of American Higher Education. Loving The Iranian Bomb. Are Baltimore's The Future? Israel Responds To Nepal's Needs.

===

Grandson Blake is all boy!
===
Bibi hanging on by a thread? (See 1 below.)
===
Call me prejudiced but I prefer Italian food and Italians over French food and the French:

Left Click : 10 Things We Love About Italy from The Perennial Plate on Vimeo

===

Liberal Professors and administrators are engaged in the destruction of American Higher Education.

Fight back by contributing to The  Leadership Institute.(See 2 below.)

===

Too many Americans are learning  to love the Iranian bomb. Cliff May heads The Foundation for Defense of Democracies . (See 3 below.)

===

Here's your chance again.  (See 4 below.)

===

Russian military  provocation - will it be met?  (See 5 below.)

===

Will black citizens awaken and shake off the liberal establishment or are they too imbued with self pity, low esteem and crippled by welfare?

Will they allow Baltimore's to remain their future?  (See 6 below.)

===

Israel responds and cares: http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/the-60-second-video-about-israel-in-nepal-that-will-amaze-you/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=The+60+Second+Video+About+Israel+in+Nepal+That+Will+Amaze+You%21&utm_campaign=20150429_m125551475_4%2F30+Top+Daily%3A+The+60+Second+Video+About+Israel+in+Nepal+That+Will+Amaze+You%21&utm_term=The_60_Second_Video_About_Israel_in_Nepal_That_Will_Amaze_You__jpg_3F1430379942

===

Off to Litchfield Saturday then driving coast to coast.

Have a great summer. Be safe.

===Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)  Is One Vote Enough? Bibi Will Survive.

By Jonathan S. Tobin 

The conventional wisdom about t he formation of Israel’s new governmentis that it can’t possibly survive. Due to former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman’s decision earlier this week to refuse to re-join Benjamin Netanyahu’s Cabinet, what was expected to be a solid 67-vote majority for the next government was reduced to a slender 61-vote total in the 120-member Knesset. After last minute hardball negotiations with the Jewish Home Party, Netanyahu scraped in just before the deadline for the end of the negotiations with a coalition that is likely to be as fragile as it may be fractious. But Netanyahu’s legion of critics in both the U.S. and Israel shouldn’t get too excited. Though the smart money is betting that this coalition won’t last out the year, no one should assume that anyone other than him would be running Israel for the foreseeable future.

The responsibility for this state of affairs is being widely blamed on Netanyahu’s arrogance and bad judgment. There is some truth to this since the prime minister was foolish to think he would make things much better when he decided to go to new elections only two years after winning a second consecutive (and third overall) term in 2013.

The coalition he had forged in 2013 with a combination of right wing and centrist parties was at cross-purposes with itself. In Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid and Hatnua’s Tzipi Livni he hadn’t so much formed a Cabinet of rivals as a dysfunctional therapy group. But the assumption that he could easily assemble a new government from Likud’s traditional right wing and religious party partners was a trifle over-optimistic. Indeed, in the last days of the campaign, it seemed as if he was doomed to defeat. But a last day surge back in his direction enabled Netanyahu to score a decisive victory with Likud winning the most seats of any party in the last decade. That set up what looked to be a set of difficult negotiations with Likud breakaway Moshe Kahlon and his Kulanu party as well as the right-wing partners in his last government, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beytenu and Naphtali Bennett’s Jewish Home.

The assumption was that eventually these parties and the religious factions would fall in line and sign up for the next government. Some thought if that didn’t work out, Netanyahu would be able to bring in Yitzhak Herzog and his Labor-led Zionist Union Party to make a unity government that embraced rightist, centrist and left wing parties.

But those calculations didn’t count on both Lieberman and Herzog coming to the conclusion that their future prospects would best be served by staying out of the government. Being Netanyahu’s junior partner allowed Lieberman to claim the foreign ministry but it also undermined the rationale for his party’s existence and led to a drastic diminution of its numbers. Just as Lapid had belatedly recognized that being co-opted by the prime minister would be the death of his centrist faction, so, too, did Lieberman also realized that another stint in the Cabinet would be the end of his party even if it did advance the nationalist principles that he claimed to advocate.

Similarly, Herzog recognized that while a national unity government might be in the nation’s best interests in a time of crisis, that wouldn’t give his Labor colleagues the opportunity to blast everything the prime minister was doing. With an eye on the next elections whenever they might occur, he sought to enhance his credibility with the public by staying in the opposition.

Thus, while it might make some sense to blame this standoff on Netanyahu’s prickly personality and the dismissive way he treats friends as well as foes, that factor may not really be the reason the prime minister was only able to amass 61 votes for his new Cabinet. Even if he were far more charming or loyal than he is, Netanyahu wasn’t going to be able to persuade either Lieberman or Herzog to act against their own political interests. The problem is not so much Netanyahu as it is an electoral system that has never yet produced a result that enabled any of the country’s leading parties to form a government on their own. That left the prime minister dependent on Bennett who exacted a stiff price for joining the government just before the six-week period for forming a government expired.

With only 61 votes, Netanyahu is now vulnerable to the whims of any one of his partners. If offended or just for the fun of it, any one of them can topple the government. So it’s hardly surprising that a lot of savvy observers think the rickety edifice won’t stand and that Netanyahu will be forced to call new elections before too long. That would expose him to another uncertain bout with the voters and the next time he might not do as well as the last.

But predictions of the beginning of the end for Netanyahu are premature.

First, narrow coalitions have survived in Israel before and this one may do the same. Though those outside of the government may hope for its collapse, everyone on the inside of it has a vested interest in its survival in the short term. None are likely to do better in a new election. Nor would Netanyahu’s partners stand to benefit if he were forced to come to terms with Herzog. That’s especially true of Bennett, who is the main beneficiary of Lieberman’s defection.

A collapse generated by an unexpected squabble or controversy is certainly possible. But it is just as likely that at some point, Lieberman will come to the conclusion that being in the opposition isn’t boosting his prospects of surviving the next election. Herzog may also decide that it might serve his interests to become foreign minister and deputy prime minister (Netanyahu’s standing offer to him) prior to the next vote in order to boost his prestige and gravitas.

So even if Netanyahu’s Cabinet does come to blows in the coming months and new elections are the result, President Obama, American Jewish left-wingers and all the many other members of the “I hate Bibi” club need to prepare themselves for another bitter truth. The political map of Israel shows no sign of a radical change in the near future. The political left may persuade itself that it is gradually gaining ground on the Likud and its natural partners on the right. But the truth is that so long as Labor is tied to the failed  policies of its past that depended on a non-existent Palestinian desire for peace, it won’t be leading an Israeli government. The odds are, another election will yield the same result as the last three with Netanyahu on top and a rotating cast of characters filling out his Cabinet. Even if his 61-vote government doesn’t survive, Netanyahu will.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)

The problem at America’s colleges

America’s college campuses have become cesspools of leftism.

Here are just three recent stories the Leadership Institute has uncovered:

1. Students at the University of Maryland, who pay up to a whopping $44,645 per year to attend, couldn’t identify Ronald Reagan after being shown a photo of him.

2. At the University of California-Irvine, their legislative council voted to ban the American flag in their student government lobby, calling it “a weapon of imperialism” that doesn’t belong in an “inclusive space.”

3. A professor at Polk State College in Florida gave a student four zeroes in a row on essays – because she refused to write them in a way that would deny her Christian faith.

This is all thanks to leftist control of our nation’s colleges.

Leftists knew one of the best ways to undermine America was to raise up generation after generation of students ignorant of our country’s rich, patriotic heritage.

But it goes beyond that.

Not only do leftist professors leave out our country’s rich heritage in their lectures, they indoctrinate students to hate America.

Professors spew their venom at students day-in and day-out:

• America is evil.
• Old Glory is a symbol of genocide.
• The Founding Fathers were oppressors.
• Conservatives are racists.
• Communism is the cure for the world’s ills.

Impressionable students – even those who grew up in conservative, patriotic homes – end up parroting the same garbage they hear in the classroom.

And if a conservative student tries to stand up for herself, like the one at Polk State College who refused to deny her Christian faith in her essays, the professor fails that student – sabotaging her grades and her future career.

If left unchecked, conservatives may lose our colleges altogether ... and then our country.

How can conservatives fight back against the left?

The outlook at college seems bleak – and even worse for our country.

But there’s hope.

The Leadership Institute has a plan to fight back against these campus leftists all across America.

When conservative students know they have someone standing with them, they are empowered to fight back against the left.

And when they’re equipped with the right tools to fight back against the left,they win!

From California to Maine, the Leadership Institute sends field staffers to America’s college campuses.  They organize students into strong conservative groups and add them to the Leadership Institute’s unique national network of 1,604-and-counting student groups.

Once in the network, Leadership Institute staff train students how to:

• Increase the size and effectiveness of their conservative groups
• Engage in campus activism to advance conservative principles
• Use the media to get their message out and expose leftist professors
• Win victories to reverse leftist campus policies

Here’s just one way the Leadership Institute helped conservatives fight back:

A Leadership Institute field staffer started a student group at Michigan State University (MSU) called the Campus Conservatives.

Evan Schrage, an MSU student, was a member of the Campus Conservatives. 

Evan’s English professor, William Penn, went on a vicious tirade against conservatives on the first day of class.

But thanks to friends like you who helped organize and train Evan in the Campus Conservatives group, Evan knew what to do.

He caught Professor Penn on video saying “Republicans have already raped this country,” and conservatives are racist and suppress black voters.

Evan brought his video to the Leadership Institute.  The Institute’s investigative journalists published the story on our campus news watchdog website, CampusReform.org.

The story became national news.  And Evan appeared on The O’Reilly Factorand Fox and Friends to expose his professor’s outrageous bias.

The result?

Michigan State University officials suspended the leftist professor.

Leftist professors at Michigan State will think twice before trying to indoctrinate students like Professor Penn did.  And that makes more classrooms safe for conservative students.

How can you help take back our nation’s colleges?

Do you want to help conservative students fight back when they face leftist indoctrination and retaliation in the classroom?

Do you want to take back our nation’s colleges for conservative principles?

You can help.

Over the next several weeks, the Leadership Institute plans to hire at least 20 field staffers – just like the ones who helped Evan Schrage fight his professor at Michigan State.

The Institute may even hire 30 field staffers, if enough generous donors make that possible.

Your help means the Leadership Institute can:

• Hire more field staffers
• Start more conservative groups
• Fight back against more campus leftists
• Win more victories
• Reverse our country’s leftist course toward socialism

Americans can’t afford to lose this young generation to the left.

Obama and his cronies have damaged and corrupted our country so much. What you do now will have an immense impact on this generation of students who will vote in the crucial 2016 elections ... and beyond.

With your help, the Leadership Institute will train conservatives to fight back against campus leftists, roll back the leftist monopoly, and win.

Please help the Leadership Institute equip students to begin to take back our country with your generous donation right now.

Help conservative students fight campus leftists – and take back our colleges – today

$25	$50	$100
$250	$500	$1000

  Other: $ 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)- The ‘charming’ Dr. Zarif

Or: How too many Americans have learned to stop worrying and love the Iranian bomb

By Clifford D. May

Tehran’s largest cemetery, Behesht-e Zahra, contains the graves of thousands of Iranians killed in battle. There’s also a polished stone monument bearing this inscription: “To the memory of two Muslim Lebanese youths who on the morning of Sunday October 23, 1983, in two simultaneous martyrdom operations, with trucks carrying explosives, attacked the headquarters of American occupiers (in South Beirut) and headquarters of French occupiers (in West Beirut) killing 241 American marines and 48 French paratroopers. Their names we do not know, but we will continue their path.”

We do know the name of the man who planned those mass murders – against not “occupiers” but international peacekeepers working under UN auspices at the request of the Lebanese government.  Imad Mugniyeh was a commander of Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanon-based terrorist proxy. Among other attacks for which he was responsible: the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the prolonged torture and eventual murder of CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley.

In 2008, Mr. Mugniyeh was assassinated. Last year, Iran’s foreign minister laid a wreath on Mr. Mugniyeh’s grave in Beirut.

And last week, at New York University, there was this event: A Conversation With “His Excellency Dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” What did he say in response to questions about the tribute he paid to Mr. Mugniyeh?

Not a word. No one thought to ask.

Instead, Dr. Zarif was given an opportunity to hold forth on a range of topics. The New York Times was impressed with his “suave fluency in English” and “familiarity with American history and law.” It found him “easygoing and smiling, living up to his image as a diplomatic charmer to an audience that was polite and respectful.”

However, Iran’s top diplomat did assume “a blunter tone” when discussing the U.S. Congress where there is bipartisan skepticism about the agreement that is to be finalized by June 30. In particular, he “took a few verbal pokes” at “Senator Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican who drafted a letter signed by 47 Republican senators warning Iran’s leadership that the validity of President Obama’s signature on an agreement could be undone by the next administration.”

“I think the United States, whether you have a Democratic president or whether you have a Republican president, is bound by international law,” he instructed, “whether some senators like it or not. And international law requires the United States to live up to the terms of an agreement that this government enters into.”

Just so we’re clear: “This government” means President Obama who is planning to “enter into” an agreement even if most members of Congress consider it detrimental to the security of the U.S and its allies. Mr. Obama plans to do this by not calling the agreement a treaty – which would require a Senate vote for ratification – but rather a non-binding “executive agreement” that he can then turn over to the UN Security Council which will produce what Dr. Zarif called a “mandatory resolution” that will bind the U.S. “whether Senator Cotton likes it or not.”

That last quip evoked laughter from the audience. “I couldn’t avoid [saying] that,” Dr. Zarif playfully conceded. “I am tempted to say you will pay for that,” responded the moderator, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius

I am tempted to say he will not -- just as he is not paying for the fact that the government he represents is right now imprisoning four Americans, among them Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian. Asked about that by Mr. Ignatius, Dr. Zarif said he hoped Mr. Rezaian would be able to “clear his name” in an Iranian court.

In The New Yorker, Dexter Filkins – a journalist for whom I have enormous admiration -- did report without equivocation that Dr. Zarif “is the foreign minister of a state that has killed hundreds of Americans (in Iraq, in Lebanon), and is possibly the world’s most active sponsor of terrorism.”

Mr. Filkins added: “He doesn’t apologize for, or even acknowledge, any of that. You get the sense, watching Zarif, that his most difficult job is not haggling over the details of a nuclear agreement with the West as much as keeping the darker forces in his own government at bay.”

That is indeed the conventional wisdom. But if it were true would he have laid a wreath at the grave of Mr. Mugniyeh? Was that part of his strategy for keeping those darker forces at bay?

Two of my Foundation for Defense of Democracies colleagues, Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operative, and Ali Alfoneh, an Iranian-born scholar, have long been studying Dr. Zarif –reading his memoir, published last year, and just about everything else he’s written.

Their conclusion: The “affable foreign minister turns out to be every bit as religiously ideological as the radicalized student activist he was in the late 1970s” when Iran’s Islamic revolutionaries seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran -- “which Zarif still calls the ‘Den of Espionage’” – holding the diplomats hostage for 444 days.  Dr. Zarif’s goal is “to preserve the Islamic revolution, not to transform it.”

This statement seems particularly telling: “We have a fundamental problem with the West and especially with America. This is because we are claimants of a mission, which has a global dimension. It has nothing to do with the level of our strength, and is related to the source of our raison d’être.” The Islamic Republic, he added, has a “defined a global vocation, both in the Constitution and in the ultimate objectives of the Islamic revolution. I believe that we do not exist without our revolutionary goals.”

What did Dr. Zarif say about that during the conversation at NYU last week? Not a word. No one thought to ask.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)THIS IS THE CHANCE TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY FROM EXTINCTION DUE TO THE RULING CLASS MENTALITY RUNNING AMOK IN WASHINGTON D.C. OUR FEDERAL CRIME CITY.

Lawmaker: Congressional term limits possible if they don’t apply to current members

Citing an unfortunate “ruling class mentality” in Washington, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) on Wednesday introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The proposal, however, would exempt current lawmakers.

Under DeSantis’ proposal, a constitutional amendment would limit members of the House to three two-year terms and senators to two terms of six years.

“Too many in Washington display a ruling class mentality and congressional term limits would go a long way towards restoring the citizen-legislator ethos of the Founding Fathers,” DeSantis said in a statement. “Americans of all political background overwhelmingly support term limits, yet term limits have floundered in Congress. An approach that phases in congressional term limits reconciles the self-interest of members of Congress with the public’s desire to see these changes enacted and gives us the best chance to make term limits a reality.”

The Florida Republican said that his legislation exempts current lawmakers to prevent it from stalling in Congress and make passage “plausible.”

DeSantis explained in a commentary for The Daily Signal:

Twenty years after the Supreme Court, in a poorly reasoned 5-4 decision, stymied the movement to enact congressional term limits via state ballot initiatives, term limits advocates are stuck trying to convince two-thirds of the members in each house of Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution which would effectively kick them out of office.

Needless to say, this is not an easy task. (BUT IT IS VITAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR REPUBLIC AS DESIGNED WITH MUCH THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS)

If a member of Congress has spent, say, 10 years trying to move up the rung on an important committee with the hopes of one day becoming a committee chairman, how likely is it that the member will vote to short-circuit his own career for the sake of term limits?

DeSantis’ legislation currently has three sponsors, Republican Reps. Matt Salmon of Arizona, Reid Ribble of Wisconsin and Rod Blum of Iowa, all of whom have worked on term limit legislation in the past.

Despite few sponsors signing on with DeSantis, the idea of term limits for Congress has plenty of political and populist support.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has made term limits a key campaign issue in his fledging bid for the White House.

“I ran for office because we have too many career politicians. I believe it now more than ever,” Paul said as he announced his campaign in April. “We limit the president to two terms. It’s about time we limit the terms of Congress!”

And term-limit legislation proposed in the Senate by David Vitter (R-La.) earlier in the year drew support from 2016 GOP presidential candidates Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas.

As for public support, a 2013 Gallup poll found that 75 percent of American adults would vote for congressional term limits if “given the opportunity.” In the same poll, 63 percent said they’d like to disband the Electoral College.

“Despite sharp polarization of the parties on many issues in 21st century politics, Republicans and Democrats broadly agree on both longstanding election reform proposals,” Gallup noted at the time.

DeSantis, a member of the House since 2013, also on Wednesday announced his intention to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Rubio.

-------------------------------------------------------

5) European War Games: Responses to Russian Military Drills

A Dutch helicopter participates in a NATO anti-submarine exercise in the North Sea on May 4. (MARIT HOMMEDAL/AFP/Getty Images)

Summary

Several events have coincided to demonstrate the dynamic, if not guarded, relationship between Russia and the Nordic and Baltic states. Ten NATO countries and Sweden launched a two-week planned exercise in the North Sea on May 4 to improve their anti-submarine warfare capabilities. On the same day, Finland — not a NATO member — began mailing letters to about 900,000 reservists informing them of their roles in a potential crisis situation. Meanwhile, Sweden's Foreign Ministry formally complained to Russian authorities that Russian navy ships were disrupting cable-laying work in waters between Sweden and Lithuania, the latest in a series of formal complaints over Russia's activity in the area. Concurrently, the Swedish and Lithuanian foreign ministers met with Moldova's pro-West leaders in Chisinau.

All of these events confirm that the Nordic and Baltic states are working to boost security cooperation in response to Russia's military activity in the region. Consequently, the security buildup will continue — on both sides.

Analysis

Russian military activity, especially flights, along NATO's borders has increased in past months. In March, Russian military activity in the Black Sea, Baltic Sea and along the Finnish border spiked as part of snap drills simulating a full-scale confrontation with the West. The exercises were not so much a direct threat to the region as a colossal demonstration of Russian capability against NATO and other regional powers, particularly Baltic and Nordic countries.

Russia consistently pushes security boundaries in the region as a show of power. On May 3, Latvia's military reported that two Russian naval ships and a Russian submarine were located 5.2 nautical miles from Latvian territorial waters in the Baltic Sea, only the latest in a series of similar incidents over the past few months. Similarly, on April 28, Finland's navy fired grenade-size underwater charges at shallow depth as a warning to a suspected foreign submarine reportedly located in waters near Helsinki. In October 2014, Sweden's military conducted a large-scale search for a suspected foreign submarine near Stockholm.

Russian activity in waters near the Baltics and Nordic countries, however, is not limited to submarines. Russian naval vessels, allegedly participating in military exercises, have also disrupted the laying of the NordBalt cable, designed to facilitate the trade of electricity between Sweden and Lithuania, four times.

Moves and Countermoves

The Nordic and Baltic countries are located in a region of strategic importance to Russia. The expansion of NATO to the Baltic countries in the early 2000s brought the alliance closer than ever to Russia, within 130 kilometers (80 miles) of St. Petersburg. And Norway, a NATO member, has pushed for the alliance to become more active in the Barents Sea and in the Arctic, where Russia is increasing its presence.

Finland and Sweden are formally non-aligned and have remained neutral since the Cold War. Nevertheless, the crisis in Ukraine and increased Russian military activity in the region have reignited the debate over Finnish and Swedish defense alignments. Though neither country is formally applying for NATO membership, Sweden is for the first time participating in NATO's anti-submarine drills. Both Finland and Sweden are involved in efforts to boost regional defense cooperation to counter Russian maneuvers in the region. In early April, officials from Finland and Sweden joined their Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic counterparts to jointly call for greater military cooperation among the countries.

Increased Russian military activity in the region has led some countries to strengthen their domestic defenses as well. On March 19, Lithuania's parliament voted to reinstate compulsory military conscription in direct response to the crisis in Ukraine. Although Finnish officials have denied that the letter campaign to 900,000 reservists is related to increased Russian activity along Finland's borders, the campaign's scale points to a link.

Finally, several countries, most notably Sweden and the Baltic states, have been highly involved in efforts to build a broad regional alliance to counter Russia's moves in Central and Eastern Europe. On May 4, Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom and Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius visited Moldova in preparation for the Eastern Partnership summit in Latvia later this month. Sweden and the Baltics, among others, have also vigorously encouraged Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova to take steps to further integrate with the European Union and to boost ties with countries such as Turkey and Romania to create a U.S.-backed alliance network that would reach from the Baltics in the north to the Black Sea and Turkey in the south.

Russia's military activity near the Baltic and Nordic states will not end anytime soon. Such activity is unlikely to escalate. However, Russian military exercises and movement will serve as a constant reminder of the potential threat Russia poses to the region. Still, the Nordic and Baltic nations will strive to cooperate on regional defense and strengthen defense policies in NATO and non-NATO states. And because of Russia's provocations in the region, even countries that have traditionally shied away from military alliances, such as Finland and Sweden, will likely heed their calls. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

6)

Blacks Need to Rise Up Against Liberal Black Establishment

“The American Civil Liberties Union tweeted Friday that ‘Black Spring has begun’ and called on the protesters to know their rights.” For more than 50 years liberals have claimed that the way to help the poor was to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. It hasn’t worked. It’s only put millions of poor people into a perpetual state of poverty and dependency.

Democrats are calling for more government money for Baltimore even though the city has received nearly $2 billion since Obama took office:

“The city of Baltimore received over $1.8 billion from President Barack Obama’s stimulus law, including $467.1 million to invest in education and $26.5 million for crime prevention.

“President Obama claimed last Tuesday that if the Republican-controlled Congress would implement his policies to make ‘massive investments in urban communities,’ they could ‘make a difference right now’ in the city, currently in upheaval following the death of Freddie Gray.”

There are millions of people who come to the United States with little education, diminished language skills, and barely two nickels to rub together. Even so, they have made huge strides in America educationally and economically. Asians, for example, are often discriminated against in college admissions because they outperform all other ethnic groups. They are actually punished for their success.

African Americans receive a “bonus” of 230 points on their SAT scores. Hispanics receive a bonus of 185 points. “Asian Americans . . . are penalized by 50 points.”

Baltimore’s problem isn’t cash. Douglas Wilson explains:

“The inner-city pathologies that are on display in Baltimore right now are religious and cultural, not genetic or racial. We are observing one more failure of socialism, and not the failure of black people. . . . I recommend Theodore Dalrymple’s Life at the Bottom if you are up for a real eye-opener. The Baltimore riots do invite judgment, but make sure you triple-check the identity of the defendant. The defendant is leftism.”

Liberals are calling for an “uprising.” So who are they going to rise up against? The mayor is black. Police Commissioner Anthony Batts and Deputy Commissioner of Patrol Garnell Green are black. Marilyn Mosby, Baltimore City state’s attorney handling the Freddie Gray case, is black. Three of the six arrested officers are black. Baltimore is a majority African American city. The President of the United States is black as was and is his Attorney General.

Eric Holder made everything about race, and said nothing about leftist policies that have decimated the black family.

Baltimore received billions in stimulus money and its political and legal structure is dominated by African Americans. So who do the blacks in Baltimore rise up against? Who’s creating the problem?

Walter Williams offers some historical insight:

“In the late 1800s, depending on the city, 70 to 80 percent of black households were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent. As late as 1950, only 18 percent of black households were single-parent. From 1890 to 1940, a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. In 1940, black illegitimacy was about 14 percent.

“Today it’s an entirely different story. Black illegitimacy is 75 percent. Close to 50 percent of marriage-age blacks never marry. Close to 70 percent of black households are female-headed. If one thinks family structure doesn’t matter, consider that the poverty rate among black female-headed families is about 47 percent but among married families it has been in the single digits for more than two decades.

*****

“Older black people, who were raised in an era when there was far greater discrimination and who faced far fewer opportunities, need to speak out against behavior and excuses that their parents would have never accepted. Otherwise, the race hustlers, poverty pimps and white liberals will continue with the narrative that black problems are a result of racism and racist cops and condemn future generations of blacks to a lifetime of mediocrity.”

There is no political capital to be gained in pointing out the real problems since they can’t be fixed with government money. It's a matter of self-government and family government.

In fact, government money and government programs have done a lot to fragment the black family, and so-called black leaders have taken advantage of the plight of their own people for profit and power.

------------------------------------------------------------------