Has it been unpacked yet? by Annette Weir

 

Emotional baggage has a host of pieces to it.  If you travel and get on a plane, for example, there will be a chance that you will see a person boarding with a puppy, cat, or whatever other animal is permitted to give that person a sense of comfort.  However, when another passenger boarding has had a “few too many” to support their comfort, that’s when they proceed to unpack that host of emotional baggage that they’ve been carrying for so long, creating havoc for everyone else.  This is not to say that there aren’t people that need emotional support, because I saw firsthand an example of how this works when the district attorney in our town decided to use a German Shepherd that was trained to comfort people in the courtroom, when a witness had to testify.  The results were overwhelmingly positive.  So yes, there are times when some comfort is necessary to keep things stress free.

The recent videos of people breaking out in fights over dumb things like food while on a cruise have led me to believe that these people were just looking for an excuse to unpack their baggage of annoyances onto everyone else. We even see it in restaurants, fast food places, car washes, and yes, on flights. Then of course, there are the fights that break out in the streets at night for no apparent reason other than one person who didn’t like the way the other one looked at them.  What is going on?

It is my contention that, (aside from the feeling that much of this is orchestrated), with the onset of social media there are people that hide behind a screen in the dark of their basement typing away at anything they feel gives them satisfaction, while they become emotional cripples maintaining a sense of comfort in anonymity.  We don’t speak to anyone face-to-face because we have texting or emails to take care of that annoying chore.  We don’t face each other in restaurants because we need to check our “smart phones” – (an interesting name for something that makes some of us numb) - and if we happen to get into a confrontation with someone on the outside, we ignore them. After all, they’ve encroached into our safe space. And of course, we have our phones ready and waiting to video anything we deem as newsworthy as long as we’re not the ones being videoed. Then there’s TikTok to highlight these actions repeatedly like its pure entertainment.  No wonder there are people seeking some sort of emotional support.

We are experiencing a new generation of people that are devoid of the ability to control, or want to control, their emotions.  Just look at the labels we put on children in school whenever they act out.  They’re labeled as students that have emotional issues that can only be controlled by medication.  Once they’re off that med, well, then we must pay the price for their erratic behavior repeatedly.  This isn’t to say that there aren’t children, and some adults, who don’t need help with medications, but it sure seems like we’re seeing more of these behaviors that are uncontrollable lately, making me wonder where it all started.  We have become a society that believes in the right to say and do what you want regardless of how it may impact anyone else so that we can feel comfortable.  In other words, we have the right to unload our emotions regardless of who it may offend.

The abuse of drugs has contributed to this world of emotional cripples whereby anyone that feels down can always get something to make them feel up.  Then there are those people that don’t feel that work is necessary, therefore, they live with their parents and do absolutely nothing to improve their lot in life. Once they get out into the real world, they face what they find uncomfortable and must find a way to cope. College campuses are loaded with professional students who just go there to party and protest whatever flavor of the week is available. Then, when they finish their “education,” they find that the party atmosphere doesn’t succeed in a mature work environment. That’s when they seek some form of special accommodation, or safe spaces at work to make them feel secure and help with their emotions.

Of course, there will always be generations that claim that they were living in much tougher times than we are.  Thinking back to the 20’s, when the gangs were picking each other off to gain turf and push their booze, it seemed like that time would have been considered the worst to live in and the only way to control your emotions was to keep it to yourself.  When you go on to the 30’s and the depression, - talk about emotional struggles at that time of poverty - and you see a generation of people that were devastated with their losses, and nowhere to turn for comfort.  As we moved on to the 40’s we were in a war where some of our troops came home with what we call PTSD today, and bodily injuries that made them unable to function properly, making their situations extremely stressful without any place to go for assistance.  

This led to many of them taking their lives with suicide. The 50’s brought about race issues that were difficult to even imagine today, and it left the country with mixed emotions about what they were experiencing at that time. What was acceptable at that time showed the ugliness of our society, and one can only imagine how black people dealt with their emotions. The 60’s started to mess up the minds of people to the extreme. Those were the days of living your life the way you wanted, doing LSD and getting high, while abandoning right and wrong as long as it made you feel good. 

I think the 70’s on up have seen many changes too; some for the better, and some not so hot.  We began to see the rise of the BLM movement that was promoted by a former president, fanning the flames of hatred.   From there things started to explode and we saw more and more people toss out their emotional baggage on the rest of society, trying to make us all feel responsible for their lack of control, or willingness to do something constructive, other than rioting and burning down cities.

With the constant protests against law and order coming to various cities, it seems like the people that were comfortable with the chaos will always find a way to try and infect the rest of the population. After all, many of them are getting paid to be disruptive.  

Humans will always have to deal with stressful situations, that’s just a fact of life; however, how we manage our emotional baggage, either through thoughtful prayers asking for guidance, helping others without thinking about our own plight, or finding productive ways of channeling our thoughts, we will soon discover that it’s far better to be on the positive track, than to go negative.

Believe your eyes, Curtis Sliwa will win

 

Are you as tired as I am of reading about election polls that tell me who is going to win long before the votes are cast? At times it seems as though we have no need to vote at all because the pollsters have already decided on a candidate. In 2016, every news program reported that Hillary Clinton was a shoo in for president, and that Donald Trump didn’t stand a chance. I don’t know what polls they were reading, but every time I watched a Trump rally there were thousands of enthusiastic supporters cheering him on at large capacity stadiums. Conversely, Hillary was having difficulty filling up standard size ballrooms at hotels when she took to the microphone.

While Trump was unable to fit all of his attendees into those huge enclosures, forcing thousands to congregate outside and watch his speeches on large screens, Clinton was forced to invite celebrities like Madonna, Jay Z, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, and numerous others from the supercilious world of leftwing lunacy, in order to entice people to show up at her meager gatherings. Nevertheless, whenever I watched a news report, I was being conditioned to believe that Trump was merely a showman doing a schtick and trying to get publicity for his vast business holdings. In other words, the media was telling me, and millions of other voters, that our eyes were lying to us. In fact, the media was feeding us propaganda on steroids! 

I see the same scenario playing out in the NYC mayoral race. Zohran Mamdani is the Democrat Party nominee to capture Gracie Mansion, and the media tells us every day that he’s way ahead in the polls. His opponents, Andrew Cuomo, running as an Independent, and Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee, appear to have been left out of the conversation, as far as the media is concerned. Inasmuch as NYC is a leftwing media empire, it’s not hard to figure out who their choice is to run the Big Apple. “Democrat Socialist Mamdani is poised to be the next mayor,” screams a presumptuous headline, weeks before the general election. As President Reagan would say, “There you go again.” First of all, they should drop the “Democrat” part of his title, which is merely an attempt to make the “Socialist” part sound less ominous.

Meanwhile, Cuomo, who was defeated by Mamdani in the Democrat primary, has picked up some votes since the current Mayor, Eric Adams ended his moribund campaign. Still, all the polls tell voters that Cuomo is an also ran. Moreover, Curtis Sliwa is being totally ignored, even as he holds rallies all across the city, meeting with regular folks who meet and greet him with a level of excitement that says they’re fed up with the typical leftwing rhetoric that has turned the streets over to drugs and thugs. Whereas Sliwa has been a warrior against street crime as founder of the Guardian Angels, a non-profit volunteer organization that has patrolled the streets and subways since 1979, Mamdani has supported defunding the police and creating a “Dept of Community Safety,” which begs the question, “What does he think the NYPD is?” The most important job of the mayor is to keep people safe from the violent gangs and other malevolent denizens of that crime ridden metropolis.

Frankly, if residents don’t feel safe in their homes and on the streets, the whole idea of a civilized society is an oxymoron. Decent, hardworking citizens are afraid to leave their homes unoccupied as they head for their places of employment because burglars are on the prowl, day and night. It reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield line when he jokes about coming from a tough neighborhood: “Every time I shut the window in my apartment, it’s on someone’s fingers.” He had another line about his first day in the neighborhood: “I asked a cop, ‘How long is the walk to the subway? Cop said, “I don’t know, so far no one ever made it.” Although humor can serve as a coping mechanism, it loses its comedic effect when it becomes personal.

When Sliwa meets with neighborhood groups, from every racial and ethnic background, homeowners, apartment-dwellers, business owners, and working families, crowd around him in the streets, yelling, “Curtis for Mayor,” and “make NYC great again!” They’re the law-abiding, tax-paying people who are tired of being ignored, as politicians cater to the subhumans, who neither obey the law nor pay the taxes. If fear is as strong a motivating factor as I think it is, then Sliwa’s election should be a no-brainer. Let’s keep in mind that Mamdani’s Democrat primary win was a victory over a disgraced ex-governor. Additionally, about three times as many people vote in the general election, as compared to the primary. Furthermore, in the general, a candidate can win by a plurality, meaning he doesn’t need 50% plus one vote. Consequently, in a hypothetical case, Sliwa could win with 34% of the vote if Mamdani and Cuomo were to garner 33% each. Unless my eyes are lying to me, Sliwa has at least that many voters willing to save their city from the radical Marxist, slouching toward Gomorrah. 

 

 

Currently Revolting: Smoke Filled Room Ep. 21

Is it real, or is it acting? by Annette Weir

 

After watching an NYPD Blue series recently, I was amazed at how good the acting was, and at how realistic the story lines were.  Now I’m not a good critic of movies or acting because frankly, I don’t like to watch them because my interest level and attention span at times is limited.  I like things to get to the point quickly without all the fluff and filler that so many shows and movies put out.  However, this particular series got me wondering about how much of the character that the actor must portray spills over into their personal lives.

Robert DiNero, for example, who in real life is a very angry man, has always played the heavy, and he did those parts very convincingly.  He’s been known to say publicly that he would like to punch the President in the face because he vehemently disagreed with him, and he always reverts to profanity laden comments on almost every interview he’s been in.  I started to wonder if all those “heavies” that he had to portray on the screen were really a part of what he’s like and acting in those roles wasn’t much of a stretch.  He’s been married 4 times, which speaks for itself, and has very strong liberal ideas, and would never shy away from spouting them out in public.  Could this be why some actors/actresses turn to drugs and alcohol because they can’t adapt to a saner style of living after being known for such strong characters?

This isn’t to say that all actors/actresses have problems getting back to reality once they leave the studio; but it does make you wonder how much of what they are required to do on screen to convince the public spills over into the way they handle things in their daily lives or how it invades their personalities. 

Some of the actors from way back in the past, like James Stewart who served in the military, and had a stable home life with family; and James Cagney, who wouldn’t drink or smoke, didn’t seem to have problems with their personal lives.  Certainly, there are many more that fall into this category, but with the heavy demands that Hollywood has put on actors these days, it seems like their lives – regardless of how much money and fame they acquire – are always at risk if they start to take themselves too seriously.   

When I think of how the actor must prepare themselves to get “into” a role emotionally, that seems like a bit of stress on the system.  Sure, once they get off camera they can revert to something else, but there must be some strain on the system to lose weight for a role, gain weight for a role, or getting violent on screen when you must do this over and over again.  Hence the need to find stability somewhere, or for a drink or two I would suppose.

Celebrities in general thrive on attention – think Madonna, Sean Combs, Jennifer Lopez, and a host of musical entertainers making the news every day for some sort of nonsense – and suddenly you see a pattern forming.  Multiple marriages, relationships, children out of wedlock, and the list goes on and on.  Could this be because they are told every day by their publicists, and the public that buys their products, that they are above everyone else?

If you think back to the many actors that died because of drug overdoses in the last 5-10 years, it becomes very clear that they either wanted to maintain the image of the parts they played on screen in their daily lives or they couldn’t handle it.  That’s when they saw themselves losing the public’s attention and resorted to drugs to get them through each day. 

Whether it was a very talented Michael Jackson that needed to live a life that was really weird, had to get drugs to get him to sleep, or family issues that made him live his life the way he did; he couldn’t escape wanting to be in the public eye either.  And, of course, we can’t eliminate the lure of making so much money that you begin to feel invincible.    

Are we the fattest country in the world?

 

No, we’re not! However, even minimal research reveals that, despite not having the highest rate, the U.S. does have a very large population of obesity among high-income countries. The World Health Organization ranks the US as the 13^th fattest country, with 43% of our people classified as obese. Keep in mind, that’s out of 200 countries on the list. In addition, the 12 ranked fatter that us are mainly small island nations in the South Pacific. That also means there are about 187 countries that are thinner than we are. France has 11% obese (149^th on the list), Spain 19% (121^st on the list), even Italy, the land of pasta only has 21% obesity (107^th on the list).

Frankly, in my day-to-day travels, I concluded that more than half of Americans are grossly overweight. Although it’s true that we’re blessed to live in a prosperous country with supermarkets galore, arranged with food aisles and specialized sections as large as football fields, it seems obvious that few people are disciplined enough to exhibit some restraint in their selection process. Walking along one of those massive food emporiums, I’m used to seeing the largest people pushing grocery carts filled to the top with an assortment of calorie-laden processed foods, all of which is indicative of their enormous girth. They waddle laboriously from one aisle to another, stuffing enough calories in the cart to feed the Dallas Cowboys for a month.

Some will refer to what I’ve written as “fat-shaming.” Well, bluntly speaking, I sincerely doubt that people who are about a hundred pounds overweight are capable of being shamed by their appearance. Over the last few decades, we have been systematically programmed to reject conformity and refuse to meet established rules or criteria that set a standard of acceptable behavior. “Do your own thing” became the motto for the most undisciplined generation in our history. Conforming to societal norms and civil conduct was mocked as being uncool, old-fashioned, or out of touch with current trends. Furthermore, when someone pointed out bizarre behavior they were called “judgmental.” That was the beginning of new paradigm that led to our current state of physical and moral apathy.

Besides, in addition to other factors, obesity is linked to serious health issues like heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and certain cancers. Moreover, obesity incurs significant costs, with one year's medical costs for obesity in the U.S. reaching nearly $173 billion. It’s very different if someone has a medical condition that forces them to be medicated and sedentary. Some prescription drugs interfere with the metabolism making it extremely difficult to use up the calories we consume. Barring that, we all have a duty to ourselves and to the aesthetic environment to be diligent about our health and fitness.

That’s why I cheered when I watched Pete Hegseth tell the top military brass, consisting of about 700 generals, admirals and senior enlisted troops at a historic gathering at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, that the era of politically correct, over sensitive, don’t hurt anyone’s feelings leadership is over.  The Secretary of War issued new directives that will raise physical standards for everyone in uniform to a “male level,” toughen grooming standards, lift restrictions on rules of engagement, do away with racial quotas, and end restrictions on hazing for boot camp recruits. He demanded no more “fat generals,” saying all service members would need to meet fitness tests and grooming standards. “No more beardos,” he said. “The era of unacceptable appearance is over.”

The Secretary made it clear that if the men and women in uniform do not meet the male level physical standards for combat positions, cannot pass a PT (physical training) test or refuse to shave and look professional, it's time for them to find a new profession. One would think these directives would be unnecessary for those whose sole purpose is to defend our country on the battlefield. Yet, when I think back to a few years ago, during the ridiculous Biden Administration, when I saw a male Navy Admiral walk onto a platform wearing nylons, high heels and a dress, I felt like I was watching a burlesque routine at a carnival. I lost confidence in our ability to fight a war with countries that train their armies to be rugged hardnosed warriors. Our enemies gain confidence when they see fat soldiers, led by fat commanders, especially when those so-called leaders don’t know what gender they are. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have declared that the bizarre era of “dudes in dresses” is over. Sanity has returned and it’s not taking prisoners.

 

Pat Buchanan in 1992: "Make America first again"

Pat Buchanan Pays Tribute To Richard M. Nixon

Lessons I learned from my parents

Lessons I learned from my parents by Annette Rodriguez Weir 

When I was a teenager, I didn't think about the price of things. For example, I didn’t think about whether I would have enough to eat, or if our home, which was small, was different from the homes of others. I just went along living my life because I had two parents, and they always managed to make things work for us. There were times when I would take my mom to the store to shop for food and I always winced at her bringing coupons and checking the prices of everything. After all, that was for people that were poor, so I thought. She was also very careful where she shopped. There would be one store for the staple items, and another for meat that was of better quality. A&P was the lesser expensive store for vegetables and some of the staple items, like bread, (wonder bread with the red and blue balloon designs on the package). Bohack was the Tom Thumb of that era, with higher priced items, and their meats were of higher quality. My mom was very careful about the meats we ate. 

My father made me cringe when he would ask my older sister, who lived across the street from us, for her newspaper when she was finished with it. I couldn't help thinking, why can't he just buy his own! It just seemed to me that my parents were always watching their pennies very closely. I never gave a thought to what it was like bringing up 4 children with only one breadwinner in the family. Of course, in those days it was traditional for mothers to be the homemakers, taking care of the kids’ needs, paying bills, and keeping an eye on the budget. Fast forward to today! I went to the grocery store to pick up a few things for breakfast and got the shock of my life when some of the things I typically could purchase for a reasonable sum had tripled in price! I was jolted back in time. 

Although I never had to raise a family and never had to watch the pennies because I only had myself to take care of, it suddenly occurred to me that there are so many people that are really struggling to make ends meet and this inflation is just eating them up alive. In fact, while I was shopping, there was a tiny elderly woman that was, I would say, a bit on the skinny side. At least that's what I saw when she raised her arm to reach for a loaf of bread off the shelf, which she examined closely to determine price. I couldn't help but think, here is a person being chastised for something she had nothing to do with. Why? She is probably one of the people you hear about that must make a choice between medication and food, and it pained my heart to think of that. 

When my parents were just starting out in their married life, they had to go through the Depression, which I believe left a mark on their minds forever. Those of us who are post-Depression children were spared that painful experience because life improved immensely in the country by the time we came of age. When I was first married, there was no thought of the price of things, at least not for me, because again, I was taking care of myself. My former husband, being a frugal German, believed in each of us taking care of our own things. He did paid mortgage, but all other expenses were paid according to the needs of each of us, individually. It was okay because I wasn't hurting, and we had plenty of do-re-me. However, when I was on my own again, I could plainly see how being a bit frugal, or I prefer calling it self-conscious of how you spend, made more sense in the long run. 

The economy we keep hearing about every evening on the news, never seems to improve, and the thought that there are Americans who are truly in need, not because of their actions, but because of the actions of a socialist-inclined administration in Washington, makes one fearful of the future. Add to that the onslaught of illegal immigrants flooding into our country, being given free food, baby formula, housing, healthcare, education, etc., and you start to wonder if our elected officials are on our side or are they purposely trying to harm us. I always had enough faith in our government to believe that, although there were differences between political parties, they were all patriotic Americans, so they’d work together for the good of the nation. I’m not as certain anymore! 

Getting back to my parents, they always seemed to handle things with courtesy and kindness. Even when unexpected company would drop by, they’d have more than enough to whip up a dinner for them. And, more importantly, they never accumulated debts, preferring to save their shekels until they could afford the items. How did they do it? As I think back, they would always give to others and took little for themselves. 

Carlos and Esther Rodriguez didn’t have many material things, but they knew how to make the most of what they did have. Rather than complain about the price of things, they learned how to budget their income and be more prudent in their selection of items. Yet, I believe it was more than that, I think it was their strong faith in God that turned a stumbling block into a steppingstone. I feel eternally blessed by the principled legacy they passed on to me and my siblings.

Let cops do their job!

 

When President Trump held a press conference at the White House, in which he declared that he has federalized the capital police force, he made the excellent point that there are 3500 officers in that district, yet Mayor Bowser is requesting 500 more. “That’s a lot of police officers for a small area,” he said. He went on to say that more cops wouldn’t be needed if they were allowed to do their job. Trump announced that, he will deploy the National Guard and that Attorney General Pam Bondi will be taking command of the Metropolitan Police Department and DEA Administrator Terry Cole will be interim federal commissioner of the force. Bondi said “Let me be crystal clear. Crime in D.C. is ending and ending today. We are going to use every power we have to fight criminals here.”

It’s easy to assume that such talk is just the repetitious rhetoric that we’ve heard from political leaders for decades. We’ve been hearing them say that violent crime will not be tolerated on the streets of our cities, as if saying it will cause the rampaging thugs to reform their wicked ways. Yet, with no strong action to back it up, the rapists, muggers, carjackers, et al, will have a good laugh as they continue to rip off the decent people of their communities. The problem is that the bad guys have no fear of the good guys. However, what Trump has embarked on will change that equation. When law-enforcement personnel know they are backed up by courageous leaders at the top of the government, we’ll soon see how quickly chaos ends.

Every city has a trained army of cops who know how to curb crime, and they risk their lives every day to accomplish that goal. But how many of them are going to risk jail terms, lawsuits, and public condemnation each time they get involved in a violent confrontation? When cops read about their fellow officers being thrown under the bus for doing the job they were trained to do, they’re very likely to hesitate when they arrive at a crime scene. That hesitation often costs them, and others, their lives. Keep in mind, there are savage people who prowl the streets every day looking for easy prey. The only thing that deters them is police presence, and even that is becoming less worrisome to the recidivist thugs because they have no fear of the feckless system that masquerades as justice.

When criminals don’t fear cops, how safe is the average civilian? During my experience working in high crime areas for 20 years with NYPD, I learned that residents of most neighborhoods want tough cops on patrol. They’re afraid to go public with their support because they have to live in those areas where such support has resulted in brutal reprisals. Many feel as though they’re hostages in their own homes. Those who live in low crime districts have no idea what it’s like to be as afraid to walk in the street as it is to remain in one’s residence. Hence, whether it’s the nation’s capital, or any other municipality in our country, we must come to a time in which we agree to let cops do their job. Not only do they know who the reprobates are, they know where they are. When reducing crime in any area, a good start is to break up the gangs that terrorize whole sections of that zone. Me and my plainclothes investigation squad knew who the leaders were, and we took them to a place where we could reason with them. If they didn’t get our drift, we took a different approach; we showed up at one of their secret strategy sessions and tried reasoning with them in front of their fellow thugs.

I’ll leave the reasoning approach to your imagination. But suffice to say, when you introduce thugs to the raw tactics they use against innocent people; when they know what it feels like to be rushed to a hospital; when they feel the pain and the fear that they’re used to perpetrating against their victims; when they no longer have control over their circumstances and no one to appeal to for help, it’ll change their attitude toward others in their orbit. Moreover, when they learn that any further criminal behavior will result in similar types of behavior modification, they’re likely to abandon a life of crime. Some liberals will read this and say we took the law into our own hands. Au contraire, we did what the law is supposed to do; we curbed crime and punished criminals. If those oblivious handwringers lived in the vicious jungle known as urban America, instead of their ivory tower, gated communities, they’d be cheering us on too.     

Cops are just people doing their jobs

 

When I look at the highly publicized violent police incidents, it's obvious why some of them result in death.  Whether it's the George Floyd "I can't breathe" situation in Minneapolis; the Michael Brown shooting death in Ferguson, Missouri; the choke-hold death of Eric Garner in New York City; or numerous other law-enforcement actions, one thing is clear: they all resisted arrest.  They might all be alive today if they had simply obeyed the lawful orders of the police.  That's what decent people do when confronted by those who represent the system of laws by which civilized people live.  We have many "rights" in this constitutional republic, but one of them is not the right to disobey the law, or those entrusted to enforce it.

During my 20 years as a cop in NYC, violent episodes during arrest situations were probably as common as they are today.  The difference is, we didn't have the internet, iPhones, and social media to broadcast every unsavory moment dealing with civilian-police encounters.  Now that everyone has a camera, we have millions of wannabe producers, directors, and editors, all of whom have opportunities to become instantly famous by virtue of selected video clips that can distort the "news" as cleverly as the N.Y. Times distorts stories about President Trump.  What the Times editors write is the slant they want you to read.  Similarly, what you view on those videos is often the slant the videographer wants you to see. 

Inasmuch as there seems to be no limit to what can be posted on social media, and no penalties for distortions that incite people to riot, we have entered a phase in our history in which the potential for violent insurrection has been placed in the hands of the most malevolent purveyors of hatred for our country and for those who have a natural disdain for authority.  Being an active cop for two decades provided me with an education about people that few "civilians" would understand.  I learned that people intuitively understand the need for a system of laws, as well as the need for officers entrusted to enforce them.  Yet, intuitive, or not, people don't like getting arrested.

During a serious criminal incident involving an apprehension and arrest, the offender often becomes a violent adversary with one goal: do anything necessary to get away.  He may be on probation for another crime, meaning that a new arrest may result in several years' incarceration.

Think about the position of the cop when he stops a man for questioning under suspicious circumstances.  The man may be wanted for murder, robbery, rape, or any number of other felonies that would put him in a cell for long time.  With that in mind, he might be desperate enough to use a weapon on the cop to get away.  Up to that point, the cop hasn't determined the potential menace he's facing, since he's only doing a preliminary investigation.  In this scenario, the offender has an advantage on the cop because he knows what he's going to do if the handcuffs come out.  Faced with losing years of his life in prison, the felon is not likely to be taken easily.

The following is often the way the situation unfolds.  The cop determines he has enough evidence to effect an arrest and informs the offender of the charges.  "Hey, man, I didn't do anything, and you're not taking me!" the guy says.  In this instance, the cop has no other options.  He's facing a man who broke the law, and it's his job to bring the guy in, period.  He can't walk away.  He can't tell the guy he's forgiven.  He can't call his superior and ask for instructions.  He must do what he was trained to do — otherwise, turn in the badge and gun.

Okay, now comes the part about getting cuffs on the guy and putting him in the patrol car.  Please trust me on this: even with a partner helping you, it's very difficult and dangerous to take someone who doesn't want to go.  A 110-pound woman can put up a ferocious battle to keep you from manacling her wrists together and dragging her into the car.  Now imagine a 6'3", 220-pound, muscular antagonist who defies your lawful order to put his hands behind his back.  The moment he refuses, the justice system is being tested.  Either we enforce our laws or we turn the country over to barbarians.

This brings me to the reason for the title of this column.  Cops are just people who go to work at a job and look forward to returning home to their families.  They know that the work is dangerous, so their adrenal glands are on high alert during physical confrontations.  Being human, they may get scared, but they must respond when a crime occurs and the offender is within their grasp.  Deadly force is always the last resort.  Still, if they get scared enough, they will do what it takes to ensure that they go home to family that night.  Hence, when deadly force is used, it's not because the cop is brutal; it's because he was trying to do his job against an offender who left him no choice.

America is a racist country

 

On a bitter cold December night, 44 years ago, a police officer was brutally murdered on the icy, dark streets of Philadelphia. Patrolman Daniel Faulkner, making a routine traffic stop at about three o'clock on the morning of December 9, 1981, was knocked to the ground and shot several times in his upper body and face. Four eyewitnesses to the cold-blooded homicide identified the murderer as, Wesley Cook (AKA Mumia Abu Jamal). Mr. Cook was convicted of first degree murder the following year and sentenced to death by execution.

Well, here we are, more than 4 decades later, and instead of an execution, we have something akin to a coronation. Mr. Cook has received money for the sales of books, written while in prison, and he has been allowed to write a column in which he regularly rants about “racial injustice in America.” In addition, his fight against the death penalty, for which he has had the support of several Hollywood celebrities, has proved fruitful because several years ago, a judge reduced his penalty to life in prison.

When I think about the facts of this case, I have to agree with Mr. Cook, there is racial injustice in this country. Mr. Cook, a black man, murdered Officer Faulkner, a white man, and to this date Officer Faulkner has not received justice. Cook, a former member of the Black Panthers and an avid supporter of anti-government, and anti-police groups, was observed firing a shot into Faulkner's back as the officer was struggling with Cook's brother William, the driver of the vehicle. The wounded officer spun around, drew his revolver, and fired back, hitting Wesley Cook in the upper torso. At that point, the officer fell to the ground, writhing in pain from the back wound. Mr. Cook staggered a few feet, then walked up to the helpless cop and fired at his chest. Faulkner was twisting furiously on the ground, trying to avoid the bullets. Ultimately, Cook placed the gun barrel within inches of the cop's face and fired again. Witnesses have stated that a few quick spasms signaled the end of Faulkner's life.

Before the officer stopped the vehicle, which was going the wrong way on a one-way street with its lights off, he had radioed for backup, as police procedure dictates. After Cook fired the fatal bullet, he attempted to leave the scene, but his wound kept him from going very far. He was sitting on the curb with the murder weapon in his hand when the police arrived. When warned to drop the gun, he attempted to take aim at one of the responding officers, who, rather than shoot him, knocked the gun to the ground.

At the emergency room of the hospital, as Cook was violently resisting the police who took him there for treatment of his wound, witnesses heard Cook shout: “I shot the mother f...... and I hope the mother f..... dies.” The witnesses who were present at the shooting scene gave signed statements to the police only minutes after the occurrence. Without deviation, each one stated that they saw Cook murder Faulkner, and that they never took their eyes off him from the time he fired the fatal shots, to the time the police arrested him, just minutes later. At the subsequent trial, the witnesses testified accordingly.

One can scarcely imagine having more evidence for a trial and conviction than the incontrovertible facts presented here. During the trial, Mumia Abu Jamal, (He became an African tribal leader as soon as he found himself in a cell) repeatedly disrupted the proceedings on a daily basis with loud outbursts and verbal threats. An extremely patient judge and prosecutor dealt with his desperate attempts to make the trial about race, even allowing him to run his own defense and interview potential jurors. In the end, the racially mixed jury convicted Mumia of First-Degree Murder and recommended the death penalty. Up to that point, the system was working. If Mumia had been taken from the courtroom, brought to the place of execution, and been forced to pay with his life, justice would have been done.

But this is America, the country where people like Mumia and others are quick to criticize as barbarous and primitive. In this country, the system of appeals is practically endless, and the race card has more stopping power than a .44 Magnum. Who cares that Officer Faulkner has been dead and buried for 44 years? Who cares that the evidence against his murderer is flawless? Who cares that the jury only needed 3 hours to arrive at a unanimous vote for conviction? Mumia is black, and that entitles him to proclaim that the only reason for his plight is his color.

Imagine if the situation were reversed. The white guy stood over the black guy and fired bullets into his face in front of 4 witnesses. Do you think the judge and the D.A. would be so patient with his courtroom antics? How many Hollywood celebrities do you think would be making appeals to save his life? Would he still be alive and able to spread his racist dogma in newspapers and magazines? Nah! He'd be toast!!

Mumia is right. This is a racist country.

 

Golden Age Hollywood Actors Who Were Dumbest By Nature

mySCGOP.news - GCRP State EC Jeff Davis on Steve Bannon's War Room talks...

SMART HOUSE – ENGLISH VERSION – REMA 1000

How the Death Penalty Should Work

How the Death Penalty Should Work : I was happy to hear that Attorney General Pam Bondi announced she is directing prosecutors to seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione, the suspected shooter of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.  Already there are pleas from his fa...

Shocking Revolving Door at FDA & Pfizer, and How to Live Forever, w/ Ase...

President Trump Hosts a Reception Honoring Black History Month

NEA president mocked for copying 'The Office' character Dwight Schrute i...

Bring back tough cops!

 

I may sound like an old hair bag, but when I was a cop in NYC during the late sixties, seventies and early eighties, cops had respect, even from violent street hoods and gang members. That’s because we knew the job we were assigned to do, and we did it without worrying about political ramifications from leftwing radicals who never saw an arrest situation they agreed with. We had backing from our superiors and from the political establishment. The reason we had their support was because our toughness helped make residents in those high crime areas feel more secure.

When the world witnessed street thugs pouring a pail of water over the heads of 2 uniformed NYC cops a few years ago, law enforcement was set back a generation. Such a demonstration of contempt for the law is a result of decades of liberal policies by local governments which would rather tolerate utter disrespect for the police than have to deal with riot situations that often occur after cops do the job they were trained to do. Those cops should have been fired immediately for dereliction of duty. In addition, those thugs should have been charged with assault on police officers and forced to do jail time. The reason for their punishment is not merely because of their affront to the law, but because their actions made cops look weak and ineffective.

It's been my experience that law-abiding residents of a neighborhood want tough cops on patrol in their areas. That’s because they’re smart enough to know that weak cops are useless against the brutal hoodlums who terrorize them in the streets, as well as in their homes. Thanks to the anti-American Biden/Harris regime, thousands of savage gangs have entered our country and set up operations. As President Trump has emphasized over and over, those gang members are more vicious than any we currently have in our major cities. What type of cops do you think we need to deal with them? Yes, we have an army of well-trained law-enforcement officers in every urban area. However, all their training means nothing without the backup of local authorities.

Let’s face it; we are at war with violent criminals in every major city. The public has been conditioned to believe that the police are a racist, occupying force. Yet, even a cursory examination of the victims of crime indicates that blacks are overwhelmingly murdered, raped, robbed and assaulted by other blacks. The decent, law-abiding people in those areas want more effective policing, but are afraid to speak publicly, lest they be targeted by the organized gangs who are a constant threat to their lives. The fact is, they shouldn’t have to protest in order to be safe. That’s the government’s most important function! The police are the arm of government that is tasked with that job. It’s a highly sensitive job because it deals with some of the worst elements of society. Do you think you could be an effective cop if every move you made was on video, subject to scrutiny by leftwing groups, politicians, and legal aid attorneys?

The old adage tells us that a visit to a sausage-making factory would make our stomachs turn and change our diet immediately. Police work is not for those with weak stomachs. Cops get paid to handle that which the public doesn’t need to see as they’re enjoying dinner with their families. What most cops deal with, in cities and towns across the country, often involves the worst form of human garbage on the planet. To those who would quote scripture to scold me for my language, I say walk in a cop’s shoes for awhile before you talk about something you haven’t experienced in your typical 9 to 5 job. The Monday morning quarterback is generally someone who has never donned a uniform or thrown a pass.

I’m trying to explain what I learned after 20 years in some of the busiest precincts in NYC, 10 of which were assignments in plainclothes street patrol resulting in about 500 felony arrests. If you’ve ever been in a threatening situation, what’s the first thing you do? If you look around, hoping to see a police car nearby, you are typical of every other decent citizen. Imagine if that police car made a U-turn when the driver recognized the threat. Although it’s hard for me to imagine that occurring, I know that the police have been under siege every time they make a move, and they’re only human. Every time a cop is intimidated by political and media-driven bias, we are all in danger.

Tough cops are only a danger to violent criminals. The average citizen will almost never be involved in a police incident. However, when someone is unfortunate enough to become a victim of street violence, what type of cop does he/she want to come to their aid? A Tren de Aragua gang member has lots of experience with violence. If the cop that confronts him is squeamish, you’re toast. The fact is that we’re paying cops to enforce the law, so why not let them do it? Moreover, try to understand that they are only effective if they’re tougher than the thugs they’re going up against. How safe would you feel if they were afraid to grapple with the monsters that prey on innocent people every day? How long will it be before you become a victim? Criminal behavior is like a disease that will fester if not eradicated. The only cure for it is on the streets of your city, and it’s wearing a blue uniform.