%20(1)%20(4)%20(1).jpg)
By Brad Slager
+++
++++
| ||||||||
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Payback! ++++ San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin feuds with police who won’t show up to help him in a raid+++ A rock at rest does not move. +++ City Run by Democrats for 60 Straight Years Ranked Worst Place To Raise Family++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DUH! Those who read my memos are better informed than those who get their input from the mass media. That's scary! A recent poll was conducted by a national polling outfit. It's name doesn't matter. They are all the same. This one was "YOUGOV". Here are the results to questions asked of average people on the street. What percentage of the country is black? Answers 41%. Actual, 12% What percentage is "Latino"? Answers 39%. Actual 17% How many families make over $500,000 a year? Answers 26%. Actual 1% People think a quarter of the country is rich. What percent of American's are vegetarians? Answers 30% Actual 5% What percent of American's live in NY city? Answers 30% Actual 3%. What percentage of American's are transgender? Answers 22% Actual 1% What percentage of your fellow citizens are Gay? Answers 30% Actual 3% So why do people have such inaccurate thoughts on these counts? THE MEDIA! The media run race, gender, wealth stories constantly. Result? We are being brainwashed by the media left. Hitler would have been proud if he had had half the success. Disney just went full on "gender" They will no longer welcome guests with the traditional "Welcome ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls" Why? Because 1% of the population dictates to the other 99% and corporate America falls for it. Regardless of what you think less than 20% of Americans use "twitter". Yet twitter controls 80% of public opinion, why? Next time you are thinking Americans have changed, remember this survey. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Even when Biden reverses course it sends a message of weakness and lack of conviction: +++ Biden’s Ukraine Rocket Whiplash Kyiv will get weapons for the artillery war, albeit belatedly. The Editorial Board Ukrainian soldiers from an intelligence conduct a patrol and monitoring operation on the outskirt of the separatist region of Donetsk (Donbas), May 17. Photo: Daniel Ceng Shou-Yi/Zuma Press The White House on Wednesday announced $700 million more in weapons for Ukraine, and the good news is the U.S. will send some sophisticated firepower to help beat back the Russians in the country’s east. Russia is gaining ground in Ukraine as the war has become a brutal artillery fight. The Russian advance is slow and costly, including “devastating losses amongst mid and junior ranking officers,” the Institute for the Study of War noted this week. But the Russian military has an artillery advantage in range and firepower. President Biden said Monday the U.S. wouldn’t provide Ukraine with “rocket systems that strike into Russia,” suggesting the White House might not be willing to lend the equipment that could help the Ukrainians blunt the Russian advantage. The Ukrainians have been asking for such systems for months. The Administration now says it has assurances that the Ukrainians won’t use the rocket systems announced Wednesday to strike targets inside Russia. High mobility artillery rocket systems, known as Himars, are powerful weapons, both precise and mobile. The Pentagon says the U.S. will send four systems that are positioned in Europe, and that training the Ukrainians will take about three weeks. That’s an eternity in an artillery war, but better late than never. Officials said the U.S. will provide munitions that can reach roughly 40 miles. The Pentagon noted that’s about double the range of the Howitzers the U.S. has been sending, so it’s an improvement on the battlefield. Yet the Administration is still declining to offer longer-range options that can travel more than 180 miles. If the Ukrainians have promised to use the weapons only to defend their territory, why limit the reach of the rockets the U.S. provides? The rocket drama is a microcosm of the Administration’s strategic ambivalence about the war. Mr. Biden wrote this week that he won’t pressure Ukraine into accepting a settlement with Russia, but that will be the implicit result if the U.S. is too slow or reluctant to provide the weapons the Ukrainians need to prevail. For months the Biden Administration has come to the right conclusion on weapons and support, but late and only after prodding from Congress or the press. The way to bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, and end the bloodshed, is to defeat him on the ground. AND:  Russia Suffers ‘Heavy Losses’, Pulls Out As more time passes, the more it seems like the Russian invasion of Ukraine was something that they did with nothing more than ego and hubris. They had done little to no research on the resolve of the Ukrainian people, or the level of support they would receive from the international community. While no nation provided boots on the ground, the weapons, planning, and operational support they provided were huge. As a result, the United Kingdom is noticing the Russians doing what Putin’s father should have done and pulling out. This is because of their “inability to capture key Ukrainian cities.” As the report continued to say “Despite Russia’s success in encircling Kharkiv in the initial stages of the conflict, it has reportedly withdrawn units from the region to reorganize and replenish its forces following heavy losses. The withdrawal of Russian forces from the Kharkiv Oblast is a tacit recognition of Russia’s inability to capture key Ukrainian cities where they expected limited resistance from the population.” This report is especially damning about the leadership in Russia. What was once seen as a global superpower, and a nation not to be toyed with, they are emerging from this conflict looking about as strong as a sack full of kittens. The lack of proper planning, training and dedication to a real mission has destroyed the Russian troops. Early in the conflict, they should have known it was done for as an elderly woman approached Russian troops to offer them flower seeds. Knowing full well the Russians would never win, she hoped to see their corpses turn into something beautiful for the Ukrainian people. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Liberal Jews often act without realizing the consequence and message they are sending. Such continues to be with their blind/irrational support of anything that deals with/connotes "equity." +++ Tobin Calls Jewish Leaders Who Condemned ZOA for ZOA’s Criticism of Israel-Hating, Jew-Hating BLM “Disgraceful” — And Jewish Leaders Never Apologized to ZOA or Ended Support for Black Lives Matter Group By Jonathan S. Tobin (MAY 24, 2022 / JNS) Did the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman on May 25, 2020, awaken America to its sordid racial past and the need to correct present injustices? Or did the events of the summer of 2020 do more harm than good, both to racial minorities and society in general? In the days, weeks and months after Floyd’s fatal encounter with the police in Minneapolis, few were willing to raise questions about the surge of interest in addressing what some insisted was evidence of the systemic racism that was allegedly the primary characteristic of American society. American Jews and their leading organizations were very much part of this. They were, for the most part, eager to lend their voices to the chorus of those calling for addressing the problem of racism and to engage in soul-searching about the community’s alleged failure to confront prejudice in its own institutions. Major groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the Anti-Defamation League, as well as some of the major religious denominations, were also willing to lend support to a Black Lives Matter movement that had gone mainstream after spending its first years as a marginalized radical force. But what hasn’t happened is an acknowledgment by mainstream Jewish organizations that their fear of being perceived as being out of touch with liberal fashion on racial issues in the summer of 2020 wasn’t just wrongheaded. It also served to provide cover for and to undermine opposition to ideas that enabled antisemitism and helped demonize Israel and its supporters. While the idea that black lives matter was never up for debate, it was in that atmosphere that so much of the organized Jewish world felt impelled to sign on to support for the movement itself. That seemed like a cost-free gesture that allowed Jewish groups to virtue signal their opposition to racism. What they didn’t count on was the way this effort helped intersectional ideology, which falsely analogizes the Palestinian war on Israel to the struggle for civil rights in the United States, to become the guiding force behind an increasingly powerful left wing of the Democratic Party In this way, the catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) became not just pervasive on college campuses but the official policy endorsed by President Joe Biden on his first day in the White House in January 2021. Biden’s equity agenda, which is now being implemented in every government department, isn’t about promoting equality. In this context, equity means the opposite. It mandates racial discrimination while promoting the “white privilege” narrative in which Jews are transformed from a minority that is under attack from antisemites on both the Left and Right into part of an oppressor class. It allows an antisemitic BDS movement to similarly play the victim while the objects of its discriminatory campaign are treated as villainous opponents of “people of color,” despite the fact that the majority of Jewish Israelis trace their origins to the Middle East and North Africa. Those voices raised against Jews—whether in academic settings where DEI has become inextricably linked to increased antisemitism, on the floor of Congress where the left wing “Squad’s” embrace of lies about Israel has led to violence on American streets, or in the mainstream media where anti-Zionism acts as a cover for antisemitism—have grown louder and more accepted in the last two years. Legitimizing such a movement may not have been the intention of the Jewish leaders who signed declarations supporting BLM. Racism is terrible and opposing it is laudable. But by going along with the mob mentality that embraced the “1619” lies and legitimized a heretofore radical BLM movement, that’s exactly what they helped foster. Some, like the ADL, are not only unrepentant, but doubling down on their rhetoric about “white supremacy” instead of focusing their considerable influence on combating the BLM movement. That many of them also attacked and sought to treat those Jews who spoke up against it, such as the Zionist Organization of America, as beyond the pale is even more disgraceful. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Even one such death is a tragedy except for the fact we have become a mentally frayed and disturbed society. Meanwhile, radical liberals are more interested in what they believe notwithstanding facts and evidence. +++ Perception Diverges From Reality on Mass School Shootings Gun-control advocates want you to think that tragedies like Uvalde are more common than they are. By Jason L. Riley
Saturation media coverage of such terrifying events as the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, can leave some people with the impression that these things occur far more often than they do. Three years ago, on the 20th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colo., the New York Times published an article noting that public perceptions of school safety are largely at odds with what the data show. “The unique horror of mass shootings,” the Times reported, “means they occupy a central place in parents’ fears, and in the nation’s political debate about gun access and school safety, even though they remain rare.” Most gun-related deaths—54% in 2020—are suicides. Mass shooting casualties are less than 1% of all gun deaths, and there have been 13 mass school shootings since 1966. These data points are cold comfort to those mourning the shooting victims in Uvalde, but they ought to inform any public policy response under consideration.
There are an estimated 400 million guns in circulation in the U.S., which leads gun-control advocates to conclude that school shootings are an inevitable outcome of having so many guns around. Correlation is not causation, however, and research has failed to find a causal relationship between changes in gun-ownership rates and changes in the level of school violence involving firearms. A recent analysis of the Rand Corporation’s firearms database by the University of Oklahoma’s Daniel Hamlin found significant increases and decreases in school gun incidents during periods when gun-ownership rates remained relatively stable. Gun violence that occurs away from school settings tells a similar story. Gun-ownership rates in rural areas are higher than in urban areas, yet our cities tend to be far more violent. Whites own firearms at much higher rates than blacks or Hispanics, yet gun violence among the latter two groups is much more commonplace. Moreover, proponents of additional gun laws ignore that shootings continue to plague places such as Chicago, which already has some of the country’s most severe gun restrictions. How passing more gun regulations, or taking guns away from the law-abiding, will deter criminals is a question they can’t answer. Gun-control advocates in the U.S. like to make selective comparisons with other countries, such as Japan, where both gun ownership and gun crimes are lower than in the U.S. But lower levels of gun possession don’t necessarily translate into lower levels of violent crime. Gun ownership rates in Switzerland and Austria, for example, are significantly higher than in Germany, even though the Swiss and the Austrians have lower murder rates than the Germans. Likewise, Russia and Mexico have stronger gun-control laws than we do as well as higher homicide rates. In the two decades leading up to the pandemic, legal gun sales in the U.S. rose while violent crime declined. Covid-19 no doubt helped to reverse crime trends, but the pandemic can’t explain everything. Anti-police sentiment had already been growing in the wake of fatal high-profile encounters between police and black suspects. With the blessing of progressive Democrats and most media outlets, activists have tried to reduce police resources and scapegoat law-enforcement for social inequality. Ironically, the same people who agitate for additional gun restrictions have worked to undermine the police officers tasked with enforcing any new gun laws, and they have praised the district attorneys in San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York and elsewhere who vow not to prosecute repeat offenders. Low-income blacks are the most frequent victims of violent crime in this country. When you diminish the quality of policing in their communities, you’re not helping matters. And gun restrictions that make it more difficult for law-abiding blacks to defend themselves and their families can only make a bad situation even worse. Sensational killings—particularly those that occur during an election year in a deeply divided nation—are bound to be exploited by political partisans. But if policy makers want to do something constructive in response to what happened in Uvalde, they might first make sure they’re not barking up the wrong tree. In a nation with as many firearms as this one, and where gun possession is part of our tradition and protected by the Constitution, forced confiscation or voluntary disarmament are both impractical. Deterrence is the more realistic option. Misbehaving students can be suspended and expelled if necessary. Mental-health services can be improved. Armed security guards can be employed. No one thinks turning schools into fortresses is ideal, but turning schools into gun-free zones can make them a magnet for mass shooters. When you’re worried about someone shooting back, sometimes you think twice about taking the first shot +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Norway has become a key supplier of energy as Europe seeks out alternatives to Russian oil and gas. As the Financial Times explained, the EU imported 40 percent of its gas supplies from Russia before the war in Ukraine erupted. Now that rate has dropped to 26 percent. By the end of the year, EU officials said, the bloc should be importing only 13 percent of its gas from Russia and even less oil. Norway is already enjoying a record year in oil and gas sales, Upstream noted. Oil companies said they need long-term contracts to secure investments to expand further. Expecting more business, the Norwegian government doled out new licenses for drilling in hitherto untouched zones along the Scandinavian country’s Arctic coast in March, after it became clear that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would scramble world energy markets and prices. “Access to new, attractive exploration acreage is a pillar in the government’s policy for further development of the petroleum industry,” Norwegian Minister of Energy and Petroleum Terje Aasland said in a statement to Reuters at the time. “New discoveries are crucial for ensuring jobs, value creation and production.” This mother lode of black gold highlights the irony of Norway’s image as a leader in the green revolution that proponents believe is necessary to avert the most damaging effects of droughts, rising sea waters and other effects of climate change. For example, more than 65 percent of new cars purchased in Norway last year were electric, Electrek reported. Now officials are planning to repeal tax incentives and other perks that drove those sales – not because they want to revert to carbon-fueled vehicles but because they want to reduce the number of cars on the roads overall and encourage bicycling and walking. Additionally, Norway has invested heavily in green technologies in the oil industry itself. A largely taxpayer-funded initiative would use green hydropower generated on land to electrify offshore oil and gas rigs. “That will help meet national climate targets, and so allow the lucrative industry to keep pumping fossil fuels for decades more,” wrote Bloomberg, adding that the plan met Norway’s “own climate goals without jeopardizing their economic interests.” Norwegians have mixed views on their oil industry. Some voices contend that Norway should use its oil riches to help the less fortunate, as Norwegian Church Aid Secretary General Dagfinn Høybråten said in an interview with Devex. Traditional communities living in northern Norway warn against energy projects – carbon or renewable – that might imperil their fishing grounds and way of life, as National Geographic documented. Reindeer that are central to indigenous Sami communities don’t mix well with wind turbines. Speaking to Reuters, Norwegian leaders rejected allegations that they might be “greenwashing,” or only appearing to care about the environment. They were simply trying to make an orderly transition, they said. At least it is a transition. +++++++++++++++++++++ |
No comments:
Post a Comment