Tuesday, June 14, 2022




Biden's brain is a black lady

For more than a year, Democratic lawmakers and like-minded advocates have pleaded with Joe Biden to create a “gun czar” to address the epidemic of violence.

Each time, the president’s team pushed back with force, contending it has the perfect person already in place, someone with command over the issue and extraordinary access to the president himself.

That person is Susan Rice.

As director of the Domestic Policy Council, Rice leads a team of roughly a dozen staffers examining ways to push through modest gun reforms should Congress again falter, and explore new executive orders even if lawmakers succeed.

Her ascendence to the role of point person on guns marks the latest chunk of policy turf over which she has claimed jurisdiction, joining a sprawling portfolio that stretches from policing and racial justice to student loan debt, immigration and health care policy, including a prime piece of protecting abortion rights.

The scope of her fiefdom is as remarkable as how she managed to secure it. Having eschewed a public-facing role, Rice has relied on a combination of internal maneuvering and bureaucratic know-how to place herself at the nerve center of some of the fiercest debates roiling Washington. And she’s further cemented her status with the president in the process.

Rice and Biden meet multiple times a week. As the president prepared for his recent prime-time address on guns, she joined him on several occasions in his residence. Senior aides say Biden’s trust in her is so profound that she can see him whenever she needs to.

“I’ve seen it,” a recently departed senior White House official said of the relationship. “You see it in the meetings. You see how he talks about her in meetings even when she’s not around.”

In interviews with 21 current and 13 former White House and administration staffers, along with two dozen officials on Capitol Hill and from across the party and advocacy worlds, Rice is described as an underappreciated political operator, a pragmatist consumed with putting points on the board, and a process obsessed micromanager. She personally goes through and edits her staff’s typos in the memos they draft.

Rice’s elevated stature in the West Wing has come with fierce loyalty from colleagues and praise so superlative-laden that it borders on deification. More recently, it has led to speculation inside the White House that she will succeed Ron Klain should he leave the chief of staff post. Rice has privately told people in recent days that she has no interest in the job, describing herself as a policy person at heart.

“There is a reason that she is the only person in American history to have led both the White House’s National Security Council and its Domestic Policy Council,” Klain said. “She has unique talents, intellect, and determination to get results.”

But her style has also irritated lawmakers and high-ranking officials on Capitol Hill. To some former colleagues and outside advocates, Rice has come to personify a kind of risk-averse, incremental approach to policy-making that they fear falls far short of addressing the country’s needs — and will ill-serve Democrats in the midterms and elections beyond.

“Rice is seen as a domestic policy lightweight and a block to any good things that happen to cross her desk,” said the leader of one progressive organization, who asked to withhold their name out of fear of angering Rice and the White House. “So everybody who wants to do big things has a vested interest in her desk being as empty as possible.”

Regardless of one’s views on her, Rice’s rise resembles one of the great Lazarushian tales in modern politics. She was too hot to touch even for some in her own party by the end of the Obama years, having become the chief protagonist in Republicans’ investigations into the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

She weighed running for the U.S. Senate in Maine; then saw her stock rise as an alternate to presumptive frontrunner Kamala Harris during Biden’s veepstakes. But both those prospects fizzled. And with little chance of being nominated for a Senate-confirmed position, there was uncertainty about what her next step would be.

In less than two years time, she’s become one of the more influential domestic policy operatives of her generation

**************************************************

Cowardice by any other name....

Heavily armed officers delayed confronting a gunman in Uvalde, Texas, for more than an hour even though supervisors at the scene had been told that some trapped with him in two elementary school classrooms needed medical treatment, a new review of video footage and other investigative material shows. Instead, the documents show, they waited for protective equipment to lower the risk to law enforcement officers.

The school district police chief, who was leading the response to the May 24 shooting, appeared to be agonizing over the length of time it was taking to secure the shields that would help protect officers when they entered and to find a key for the classroom doors, according to law enforcement documents and video gathered as part of the investigation reviewed by The New York Times.

The chief, Pete Arredondo, and others at the scene became aware that not everyone inside the classrooms was already dead, the documents showed, including a report from a school district police officer whose wife, a teacher, had spoken to him by phone from one of the classrooms to say she had been shot.

More than a dozen of the 33 children and three teachers originally in the two classrooms remained alive during the 1 hour and 17 minutes from the time the shooting began inside the classrooms to when four officers made entry, law enforcement investigators have concluded. By that time, 60 officers had assembled on scene.

“People are going to ask why we’re taking so long,” a man who investigators believe to be Chief Arredondo could be heard saying, according to a transcript of officers’ body camera footage. “We’re trying to preserve the rest of the life.”

More than a dozen of the 33 children and three teachers originally in the two classrooms remained alive until the police entered.Credit...Christopher Lee for The New York Times

Investigators have been working to determine whether any of those who died could have been saved if they had received medical attention sooner, according to an official with knowledge of the effort. But there is no question that some of the victims were still alive and in desperate need of medical attention. One teacher died in an ambulance. Three children died at nearby hospitals, according to the documents.

Xavier Lopez, 10, was one of the children who died after being rushed to a hospital. His family said he had been shot in the back and lost a lot of blood as he awaited medical attention. “He could have been saved,” his grandfather Leonard Sandoval said. “The police did not go in for more than an hour. He bled out.”

Supervisors at the scene at some point became aware that there were people inside the classrooms who needed saving.

“We think there are some injuries in there,” the man believed to be Chief Arredondo said several minutes before the breach, according to the transcript. “And so you know what we did, we cleared off the rest of the building so we wouldn’t have any more, besides what’s already in there, obviously.” It was not clear from the transcript whom he was speaking to.

But even with additional documents and video, much about the chaotic scene remained unclear, including precisely when Chief Arredondo and other senior officers became aware of injuries inside the classrooms. It is not known whether Chief Arredondo or other officers inside the school learned of the 911 calls from a child inside the classrooms who said that some had been shot but were still alive.

Among the revelations in the documents: The gunman, Salvador Ramos, had a “hellfire” trigger device meant to allow a semiautomatic AR-15-style rifle to be fired more like an automatic weapon; some of the officers who first arrived at the school had long guns, more firepower than previously known; and Chief Arredondo learned the gunman’s identity while inside the school and attempted in vain to communicate with him by name through the closed classroom doors.

But with two officers who initially approached the door shot at and grazed, Chief Arredondo appeared to have decided that quickly breaching the classrooms without shields and other protection would have led to officers possibly being killed. He focused instead on getting other children out of the school while waiting for additional protection equipment.

The response by the police at Robb Elementary School is now the subject of overlapping investigations by the Texas state police and the U.S. Justice Department. It was the subject of a closed-door hearing at the State Capitol in Austin on Thursday that featured the director of the state police, Steven McCraw.

But details of what took place inside the school have been slow to emerge, and aspects of the early accounts delivered by Gov. Greg Abbott and top state officials, including Mr. McCraw, have had to be amended or completely retracted. The official narrative has shifted from a story of swift response by the local police to one of hesitation and delay that deviated from two decades of training that instructs officers to quickly confront a gunman to save lives, even at a risk to their own.

****************************************************

Leftist political violence tied to dangerous Democrat rhetoric

This week, a man from California was arrested outside Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home and charged with attempted murder. He had a gun, a knife, pepper spray, and tools to break into the home — he freely admitted that he was there to kill Kavanaugh. Thanks to brave police officers, the threat was taken care of. But the situation never should have happened in the first place. Unfortunately, this attempted assassination can be traced directly to a longstanding pattern of violent rhetoric from Democrat officials.

Think back to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s incendiary comments about the Supreme Court in 2020. Speaking to a crowd of enraged activists, Schumer poured gasoline on the fire, shouting that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would "pay the price" for refusing to rule the way liberals wanted. "You won’t know what hit you," Schumer raged, in a stunning example of a high-ranking political leader openly threatening members of another branch of government. Similarly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised left-wing activists for channeling "their righteous anger into meaningful action." Joe Biden condoned this rhetoric by refusing to condemn it, illustrating that he’s comfortable with calls to violence from his party’s leadership.

This week, a deranged left-winger came dangerously close to following Schumer’s orders. And it comes in the wake of House Democrats refusing to pass legislation to expand security protection for Supreme Court justices and their families. They know that violence may continue to occur, but don’t want to take tangible steps to stop it. Why? Elected Democrats may not be committing violence themselves, but they are creating an environment that makes it likely to occur.

This is a widespread pattern. Just a few weeks ago, when asked if he condoned protests at the homes of justices, Schumer answered "yes." When asked a similar question, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to condemn the threatening protests, saying "I know that there’s an outrage right now." She was speaking for Joe Biden and refusing to defuse an obviously dangerous situation. Pelosi also dodged the question and refused to condemn the protests – but then again, this is the same person who suggested there should be "uprisings all over the country" in 2018 because she disagreed with President Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

It’s stunning to write this, but let’s be very clear: showing up at someone’s private residence to harass and intimidate them into carrying out your political agenda is unacceptable. Violent rioting is unacceptable. Political violence is unacceptable.

Democrats’ comfort with violent rhetoric and conduct should disappoint you, but it shouldn’t surprise you. Think back further. Remember in 2019 when Rep. Maxine Waters instructed a crowd of angry activists to harass members of the Trump administration if they saw them in person? How about when a crowd of protestors attacked Senator Rand Paul and his wife as he walked the streets of Washington, DC in 2020? Or in 2017, when a Bernie Sanders devotee shot and almost killed Rep. Steve Scalise – along with four others – having been driven to commit unspeakable violence by angry, divisive far-left propaganda?

Every American remembers the devastating riots that took place in the spring and summer of 2020. However, Democrats would like you to forget the role they played in stoking the fires of resentment that led to billions in damage and dozens of deaths. Then-candidate Kamala Harris said that the riots "are not gonna stop…and they should not," shortly before promoting a bail fund for violent rioters.

We all know that there’s a reason we don’t hear much about the left’s pattern of violence: their allies in the mainstream media carry water for them. Who could forget the infamous shot from CNN in which a reporter stood in front of a burning city with a headline describing riots as "fiery, but mostly peaceful?" Just imagine the media coverage if a gunman had shown up at a liberal justice’s house instead of Justice Kavanaugh.

Nothing can conceal the truth: today’s Democrat party is more than comfortable condoning, encouraging, and demanding violence to achieve its political aims. The American people understand this radicalism for what it is — and they won’t forget it come November.

**************************************************

Bye bye Massachusetts

Jeff Jacoby

A FRIEND of mine who lived for many years on the North Shore of Massachusetts relocated to Kentucky in 2018 and has rejoiced ever since that it was among the best decisions he ever made. Compared to the Bay State, he reports, the housing where he lives now is more affordable, the taxes are lower, the winters are milder, the people are friendlier, and the politics are more congenial. Not even the tornadoes that tore up western Kentucky last month have dampened his satisfaction in no longer having to put up with all the things that he found so irksome about life in Massachusetts.

My friend's experience isn't anomalous. Each year, more people leave Massachusetts for other states than move to Massachusetts from other states. According to the Census Bureau, between April 2020 and July 2021, the population of Massachusetts shrank by more than 45,000. Only three other, much more populous, states — California, New York, and Illinois — experienced a greater net outflow of residents.

When it comes to domestic migration — the movement of people within the United States — Massachusetts has been on the losing team for quite a while. Back in 2003, the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts noted with concern that over the previous 12 years, Massachusetts had experienced a net loss of more than 213,000 people (not including foreign immigrants). The out-migration hasn't stopped. While the influx of people moving into Massachusetts from elsewhere in the United States has been steady, the Boston Business Journal observed in 2020, the tide of those moving out has swelled by 24 percent. And where are they going? The numbers fluctuate from year to year, but the Journal identified Florida and New Hampshire as the two "top states draining Massachusetts of the most residents."

Real-world evidence confirms that far more people relocate from Massachusetts to Florida or New Hampshire than the other way around.

Consider U-Haul's rental rates. To rent a 26-foot truck for a one-way move from Boston to Orlando this month will cost you $5,325, but the rate is just $887 for a move from Orlando to Boston. Why the steep disparity? Because the demand for one-way trucks from Boston to Florida is very high, while demand for trucks going in the other direction is very low.

The imbalance shows up even for destinations as close as Massachusetts and New Hampshire. U-Haul's rate to rent a truck from Boston to Manchester is $473. But it's just $208 if you're driving from Manchester to Boston.

To be sure, the choices Americans make about where to live and work are affected by all kinds of individual considerations — school, work, weather, family, cost of living. But the persistent attraction of Florida and New Hampshire also reflects the fact that they offer something Massachusetts doesn't: Could it be that neither imposes an income tax? When the states are ranked by overall tax burden, Florida and New Hampshire are among the least onerous. That can't be said about Massachusetts. Taxes are not the only reason that people pull up stakes and move, of course. But the steady (and costly) flow of Massachusetts residents to the Granite and Sunshine states speaks for itself.

Economist Mark Perry, who analyzes national domestic migration patterns, shows that on a range of economic and political measures, the Top 10 "inbound" states (currently Florida, Texas, Arizona, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, Utah, and Nevada) differ significantly from the Top 10 "outbound" states (California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Louisiana, Maryland, Hawaii, Minnesota, and Michigan). By and large, inbound states have lower taxes, Republican governments, cheaper energy, greater fiscal stability, and a more pro-business environment. Outbound states are more likely to lean the other way.

Admittedly these are only broad patterns, and no state in either category fits the description precisely. And, as noted, every family's decision to move from one state to another is shaped by personal circumstances. But the data keep reinforcing the patterns. "There is empirical evidence that Americans and businesses 'vote with their feet' when they relocate from one state to another," writes Perry. "The evidence suggests that Americans are moving from blue states that are more economically stagnant . . . to fiscally sound red states that are more economically vibrant."

Massachusetts certainly has its charms and advantages; countless Bay Staters would never consider moving anywhere else. But plenty of their neighbors feel differently. Year in, year out, tens of thousands of Massachusetts residents leave for good, and their numbers aren't replenished by newcomers from other states. My friend in Kentucky is happy he left, and he's clearly not alone.

****************************************

Peter Gleeson: Some people are born bad so let the grubs rot in jail

Comment from Australia

There’s an 18-year old man languishing in a jail cell right now, having killed a young couple and their unborn baby while driving a stolen car, high on alcohol and drugs.

Before that fateful killing in Brisbane on Australia Day last year, the perpetrator had a 12-page rapsheet, a juvenile delinquent in every sense of the word.

We can’t name him because he was 17 when the offence of manslaughter was committed. So he will retain his anonymity for a crime that shocked the country.

He will also be out of jail on Australia Day, 2027, having served six years for a crime so heinous – so far reaching and evil – that it has sparked an outpouring of anger and grief. The teen ran a red light and collided with a truck before rolling and hitting the couple as they were out on an afternoon walk.

The families of Kate Leadbetter and Mathew Field gave victim impact statements to the sentencing court that were as raw and emotional as they were shocking.

Kate’s mother Jeannie Thorne said she is now living another life – the life that she never wanted. “I should be in my other life, the one that’s been ripped away,’’ she told the court.

All she wants is her old life back with her daughter, son-in-law and the prospect of being a grandmother to the boy they were going to call Miles.

Instead, they are living every parent’s worst nightmare, having to lay to rest two beautiful young souls, taken in the prime of their lives by a young man who was a menace to society and an accident waiting to happen.

It is little use debating the pros and cons of soft sentencing. On any measure, serving six years in jail for the callous disregard and loss of human life experienced during this tragedy is clearly not in keeping with community expectations.

Everybody knows a similar case in their own backyard.

But Judge Martin Burns has a job to do, noting no sentence would ever be enough for the families, giving the offender a sentence commensurate with what the law allowed.

Here’s what I think. Throw the key away for the little grub. Let him rot in a jail cell forever. Change the law. Mandatory life for such a terrible crime.

This cretin should never enjoy the comforts and luxuries afforded to law-abiding people. His social licence has been revoked. Some people are just born bad. He is one of them.

Mind you, vigilantism is never the answer. Yet, I’ve had several emails in the last few days from men suggesting they’d take justice into their own hands if it was their daughter and son-in-law. It’s an emotive and some would say entirely natural response.

But the big question remains; How do we weigh up the rehabilitation prospects of a young man who clearly has no regard for the law, or for the general wellbeing of people?

Is this person capable of redemption, of being able to go straight and learn from this enormous tragedy?

Or is he to be forever consigned as bad to the bone, a threat to society, a person who will die early, either through his own actions or those of somebody else?

My sense, my fear, is that this guy is evil. As such, when he gets out in 2027, he’ll go back to his old ways.

Hopefully, I’m wrong. However, the real truth in this sad story is that two families, and the many friends of the dead couple, are living a life of sheer hell. For that, there will never be justice.

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Too bad so many of the people moving out of those ruined states have still not figured out that voting for Democrats is how those states were ruined.