Friends, there are some interesting developments in the battle for America's soul. First, the harpy you see above, who is Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland, California, may be in hot water -- the hotter, the better! The Department of Justice is looking into whether she can be charged with obstruction of justice. Over the weekend, you see, she warned the good people of Oakland that ICE was about to conduct raids to apprehend criminal illegal aliens. (Naturally, she would want to protect these model non-citizens from Trumpian tyranny.) It's about time one of these lawless Democrats was held responsible for his or her criminal conduct! I look forward to seeing her marched away in cuffs ASAP. Read more about it here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/28/doj-looking-into-possible-obstruction-charge-against-oakland-mayor-who-warned-ice-raid.html
Next, it seems that the Senate, along with the House, is disinclined to act rashly to curtail Americans' 2nd Amendment rights. Good! Sometimes, the deliberate, cautious nature of the legislative process is a positive thing. That's certainly what our Founding Fathers believed. Public policy should be made thoughtfully, not off-the-cuff and in reaction to raw emotion. The gun control crowd is trying its hardest to whip up people's fears, so I'm glad to see our elected representatives are responding with some backbone.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376172-senate-gop-rejects-trumps-call-to-go-big-on-gun-legislation
Lastly, the real story of how Nikolas Cruz was able to threaten his teachers, neighbors, and classmates with impunity is starting to come out. It wasn't the NRA that made it possible for Cruz to acquire firearms -- it was the bleeding heart, soft-on-crime policies of the Obama administration. This story has been brought to you already on this blog, but now it's beginning to go mainstream. About time!
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html
Keep your eyes peeled for further developments on all three fronts. Above all, let's hold Democrats and liberals accountable! They're masters at the art of deflection. That's why we need to trumpet the facts every chance we get.
Apologies Dr. Waddy for not visting, SUNY Geneseo is keeping me very busy, these days. I'm a little perturbed by the President's current view point on 'seize the guns and due process later,' frankly, I don't believe that is what the founding fathers wanted. Hopefully, he will be set straight. Your post is dead on correct, much to the dismay of some folks.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Linda. I'm glad your studies are keeping you out of trouble! I agree -- the President should never endorse an abrogation of due process. Of course, police already have the power to seize guns, IF the circumstances make it absolutely necessary. The problem in Parkland was that the police never used their ample powers to neutralize an obvious threat. They have become absurdly averse to arresting anyone underage. That needs to change.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding about Parkland is that the officers were told to stand down. I think political correctness has also gone amuck, Dr. Waddy. Alot of factors that have affected this issue of gun rights. I recently had a professor suggest that the 2ND Amendment was originally only suppose to protect against the invasion of Native Americans and not for the "normal" person to keep on baring arms, that was quite an arguement/discussion we had. I also think people need to brush up on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and perhaps even re read the Federalist Papers. I also wonder if the President is saying things on purpose to get people to have this discussion, as there are alot of the younger generation who were raised with President Obama, who simply used his pen to change things and not a thought about the rule of law.
DeleteThank you Dr. Waddy for allowing the dialog to be opened, something that is lacking in schools and colleges. As for staying out of trouble, being a registered Conservative, and studying in a liberal arts program, it has been quite difficult to conform. (Big smiles)
Ha! I can imagine, Linda. You must be "triggered" on a daily basis at SUNY Geneseo. Too bad no one cares if a conservative is triggered...
ReplyDeleteSadly, while I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt, it's hard to escape the conclusion that he didn't think out the implications of all of his remarks, and he probably has been infected with some of the anti-gun culture of NYC. He needs to have more meetings with the NRA! That could enhance his understanding.
Dr. Waddy, yes, and one has to know when to keep ones mouth shut, lol. But, that is what studying in the Liberal Arts is about; keeping ones mind open. I'm pretty set in my ways not to be swayed. I like hearing other viewpoints, just not when the other side is not open to hearing mine or understanding there are other viewpoints.I have to say, so far, the professors have been fair and do allow you to have an opinion, there are times though when I'm left with "huh". I'm so glad Alfred State prepared me for the massive and over abundance of writing. Smiles
DeleteDr. Waddy: I worked for seven years in a setting estab lished, at untiring effort, by two persons with vast experience in criminal justice and criminal psychology. That was, NY State Shock Incarceration. I believe it to have been based on the common sense perception that you must confront young criminals head on, with immediate and very distasteful consequences for negative behavior in custody. Intense group exercises in personal introspection, the intent of which is to get to the very "heart" of criminal behavior are essential but can only succeed in an intensely disciplined program, one following the very successful Marine boot camp model. I witnessed efforts to do this in conventional prison settings and they were predictably disastrous. Obama like statistically grounded apologies for intensely antisocial behavior are doomed to failure in any effort to protect the law abiding majority. Of course, they do yeoman service to "revolutionary" causes (which of course always result in such as "the Terror", the Paris Commune, the Gulag, the "Great Leap Forward "famine and Pol Pot's hellhole. And for those whose savage behavior precludes any return to society, perpetual custody is the only measure a sane society may follow.
ReplyDeletePerpetual custody, yes, or the death penalty. What are your thoughts on the latter?
ReplyDeleteJack, first, I had no idea that even existed here in this state! As for Marine boot camp, we were just discussing this very thing, being married to a Marine, he whole heartily agrees with you, that straightened him out. My husband is a firm believer that a young person troubled or not, needs to join the military or the Peace Corp. Public Service has long gone to the wasteland.
ReplyDeleteAh, the death penalty. I'll leave that subject to others, smiles. I am curious, Jack, your thoughts on it.
Linda, I'm glad that so far professors at SUNY Geneseo are respecting your point of view. I'd be surprised if they did so in all cases, but I'm sure you're capable of standing your ground, if need be.
ReplyDeleteA boot camp experience would be beneficial for a lot of people in our society, in my opinion. It might teach them that they're NOT the center of the world, for instance. I'd like to see every adult male perform some kind of national service...but the chances of that are slim.
Of course, even the military has changed, and has succumbed in part to our society's egoism, fragility, and superficiality. Nothing is sacred these days. Thank heavens, though, that at present it isn't Obama or Clinton choosing our military leadership. There's a chance that some of the damage already done by the left can now be undone.
Linda: I should have added that an essential element of Shock Incarceration is measured and appropriate positive reinforcement for continued and demonstrated progress in the individual inmate's understanding of how his or her criminal thinking was intolerable. My understanding is that the Marines believe in knocking recruits down a few pegs and then building them back up.Please express my thanks to your husband for his service; the Marines are the best. I am for the death penalty in cases of savagery when guilt is beyond doubt. It should be accomplished by use of the chair in order to lend to it an element of dread which is society's due for the terror and agony these people cause. I would also afford to those who are serving very long sentences (again, for inhuman cruelty) the means to take their own lives. By the way, Shock is centered at Lakeview Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility at Brocton; I've been retired 15 years but the facility could be visited and observed back then. I have heard that since the original Warden, Ronald Moscicki, retired, the program has been watered down; I hope not - it served the taxpayer (no frills at all), the crime victim and the inmate well. That is in sharp contrast to conventional prisons, which are cynical and disingenuous places undeserving of the title "correctional facility". They do serve a very vital service in sparing the law abiding the good graces of heartless victimizers though. I think its intolerable that conservatives should be isolated at any state supported "university". I've continued to fight this at my bigoted lala land alma mater, SUNY New Paltz. Dr. Waddy: Thanx for commending the exemplary behavior of the Mayor of Oakland to us. She should be wearing federal blue (prison garb). If we were to establish mandatory national service I would exempt the armed forces; the volunteer military has been an outstanding success and should not be watered down. National service would require military discipline though, to keep it from becoming a "make work" farce or even a leftist asset (eg the "Wonderful Storefront No Show Revolutionary People's Office" staffed by such as Barack Obama).
ReplyDeleteJack -- good point that any form of national service would probably become a playground for leftist utopianism at this stage. We don't want to see phalanxes of "Obama Youth" marching around town... Thank you for giving us some insights into how a good "correctional facility" is run. It strikes me that consistency is the key to almost any form of training. For instance, if you consistently let people get away with outrageous behavior, well, expect more of it! Ah, so you favor the chair. You're probably right that dread should be part of the equation. I've never understood all the problems we seem to be having with lethal injection. How hard is it to render someone unconscious? (That's rhetorical. I assume the average reader of this blog doesn't often render anyone unconscious. Ha!)
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: The reason I held forth at length on Shock is that I believe it to be the practical antithesis of of the view that most criminals can be "rehabilitated". Most of the young ones have led consistently negative lives (like Cruz). They must be shown the way to constructive living, of which they probably have no experience or for which they have only scorn. They have nothing to which to be "rehabilitated". And as for the real bad asses, put them away for good: "rehabilitation" is practically impossible with them and society must not be subjected to the risk of their reintroduction into complete freedom. "Corrections" as it is mostly misnamed, should have only two settings: Shock, which should be mandatory, but reserved only for those who have some chance of reform. For those whose crimes cannot be tolerated to that extent: perpetual custody or very close supervision, which is possible given modern electronic technology. Attempted reform of those types is a wrongheaded and intolerable risk to the well being of the law abiding. On guns: I think Justice Scalia wrote the definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment in his majority opinion in the monumental Heller case which confirmed the individual right to bear arms. In it, he discoursed at length about the English Common law origin, which predated our American nationhood, of the recognition of this natural law right and its organic and rightful place in our legal structure. I rejoice that it is mandatory authority throughout our country. Though the Court said some regulation of weapon possession is appropriate and it left it largely to the states to enact, the overriding principle established in Heller still obtains. I'd predict that it will derail much of the disdainful New York "Safe Act" when that belatedly reaches the Gorsuch reinforced court. I see Cuomo once again publicly expressed his disdain for the "rural" part of "his" state and celebrated his opposition to our "vocal minahritty's" defiance of his self serving (that is as he sees it; his anti gun rights efforts will condemn his Presidential pipedream to disaster in the real America; maybe he only seeks the nomination and a mention in the history books) campaign to make gun owners second class citizens. President Trump often shoots from the hip (well, we wanted a nonpolitician and we got one) but I think his overall record shows him to be on our side. He has good reason to resent his hometown for the scorn it showed him in the election and may take pleasure in defying their leftist views on gun rights.
ReplyDeleteWise words, Jack. I'm sure you're right that Trump will return to the straight and narrow. His heart is always in the right place. Do you really think the SAFE Act will be overturned? I hope it will be. I agree that much more clarity is needed on the degree to which the right to keep and bear arms can be "regulated" into oblivion... Question: how do you tell if a criminal is capable of reform?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy:I think some crimes like rape, murder, assault on a senior citizen or a disabled person, arson,etc are so vicious that society should, for the good of the law abiding, treat them as proof positive that the perpetrator can never be freed of, at least, incarceration or very intense surveillance. For crimes outside those categories, Shock should be mandatory. The typical sentence is six months and its a long six months; I think failure to complete it or reversion to crime upon release should be considered proof of incorrigibility. The training for all staff there was intense, very sophisticated and remarkably free of political correctness. We called insincerity "fronting" and it was sometimes easy to spot, especially with young cocky offenders. Sometimes it took longer to ascertain and I'm sure there were some who flim flammed us. When it was discerned it was immediately confronted. I saw a big Counselor sweep aside two heavy library tables to go nose to nose with a guy who was making light of his presentation (the presentation itself had some inmates in tears, it was that intense). Sometimes fronters were given a second chance but only after going through a remedial program I ran for awhile. Such a regimen is a good test of whether an individual really wants to change. If they did, we worked hard with them, both before and after parole, to show them the right way. I would also decriminalize a good many drug offenses so that we take only serious criminals in hand at any level.The provision in the Safe Act which calls for the confiscation of all guns, not just handguns, from any permit holder who has his license revoked is a clear "equal protection" Constitutional violation.Under the Safe Act revocation can occur for purely administrative errors on the part of the holder. Non permit holders owning long guns only do not face this kind of hazard and scrutiny. That part of the Safe Act would, I'm confident, be thrown out by SCOTUS. Two other provisions of the act have been abandoned because of a lower court order and for proven impracticability. If SCOTUS acts as I hope it will, the act and its founder can be discredited.
ReplyDeleteHi Jack. That's good to know about the SAFE Act. It's a shame that the Supreme Court is limited in the number of cases it can tackle. Really there is enough work in undoing the idiocy of lower courts to keep ten Supreme Courts fully employed! Thanks for the additional insights into how the shock program worked. I have a lot of respect for men who work so hard to give criminals a second chance. It can't be easy, on so many levels. It seems to me that there must be a lot of incorrigibles, because in 21st century America there really are a lot of ways to get help, and a lot of ways to change course.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Thanx to you and to anyone else who does so, for considering my long winded expositions. Wanted to add that your point about how many people could benefit from a boot camp experience is very well taken; I used to say that to the inmates in the remedial program I coordinated for awhile at Shock. One last point: aside from their cruelty, the insolent presumptuousness of criminals particularly disgusts me. They need to have some very intimidating people get right in their faces and say "No! That kind of behavior will NEVER be tolerated; its cowardly and low life and if you do it be sure you'll have us on your back until you are beyond sick of it!". Such a stand is the opposite of those of the apologists like Obama (or worse, Michael Dukakis with his furloughs for murderers) who in ,yes, presumptuous, deference to the victimizers and blatant disregard for the actual and potential victims (all of us really), coddle monsters like Cruz. Many in law enforcement would be willing to use all necessary force but are prevented from doing so by hopelessly idealistic supervisors and policy makers who are safely detached from the consequences of their dereliction.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Jack -- which is exactly why I assume working in law enforcement of any kind has to be among the most frustrating and thankless jobs imaginable! I respect and sympathize with those who choose it as a profession. God Bless the Thin Blue Line!
ReplyDelete