SMOTHERED BY QUOTATION MARKS?

     Sheriff David Clarke, an elected Democrat for Milwaukee County, is often in conflict with the Mayor, a white liberal Democrat, and his appointed Chief of Police, a white who is probably liberal too.  Clarke is a Democrat, a Black but also for law and order.  He opposes gun control efforts and has urged the law-abiding to try to protect themselves.  He spoke at the 2016 GOP Convention and supported Republican Donald Trump for President.  Most Milwaukee Left-winger despise him.  On Sunday 21 May 2017 the Milw. Journal Sentinel ran an article discussing Clarke's "plagiarism", which I discuss below.  --  Hugh Murray

             In his article, “Clarke accused of plagiarism,” (Sun. 21 May 2017, p. 17A) John Fauber discusses the latest charge against Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke.  Fauber quotes the original CNN story, which conceded: “In all instances…Clarke credits [his sources] with a footnote, but does not indicate with quotation marks that he is taking the words verbatim.”  Clarke thus failed to conform to academic rules by omitting quotation marks.  Should Clarke be barred from a post with the Dept. of Homeland Security because he missed the marks?

            When it comes to plagiarism, there is little doubt that Rev. Martin Luther King plagiarized large parts of his doctoral dissertation.  No one noted it at the time.  Did anyone outside of his committee even read King’s dissertation back then?  Today, does anyone beside the small number on the academic committees ever read the dissertations and theses?  (Science and math dissertations may be the exception where new experimental knowledge can be advanced within dissertations.) 

            Should King have been barred from leading the Montgomery bus boycott movement because he had plagiarized?  Of course, not.  At that time, no one was aware of the plagiarism, but had they known, so what?  Today, we judge King not on his plagiarism – or other human failings – but on his great strength and courage to stand up for freedom when much of the government was adhered to oppression.  Indeed, it is only after King became prominent that anyone bothered to read and analyze his dissertation to discover plagiarism.

            Clarke should not be judged on his missing quotation marks – unless he is applying for a post to teach academic writing.  If CNN were not liberal, and Clarke not conservative, would CNN have bothered to dissect Clarke’s thesis?  (When Obama became President, many of his records, grades, and papers were removed from public scrutiny.  How would his work fare under critical testing?)

            Clarke should be judged as a lawman, as a sheriff who has inspired citizens to defend themselves, even arming themselves.  By contrast, our liberal mayor and police chief have pandered to mobs and sought to disarm law-abiding citizens, while excusing violent criminals.  Sheriff Clarke is a role-model for law-enforcement throughout the land.  The soft-on-crime crowd will use anything to discredit him, even smearing him with quotation marks.

THOMAS SOWELL on the Milwaukee Riots

    A CLASH OF POLICE POLICIES by Thomas Sowell from Frontpagemag, the David Horowitz site.

Amid the rioting in Milwaukee, there is also a clash between two leading lawmen there — Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and the city of Milwaukee's Chief of Police Edward Flynn. They have very different opinions about how law enforcement should be carried out.

Chief Edward Flynn expresses the view long prevalent among those who emphasize the social "root causes" of crime, such as income disparities and educational disparities, as well as the larger society's neglect of black communities.

Chief Flynn puts less emphasis on aggressive police action and more on community outreach and gun control.

Sheriff David Clarke represents an opposite tradition, in which the job of the police is to enforce the law, as forcefully as necessary, not to make excuses for law-breaking or to ease up on enforcing the law, in hopes that this will mollify rioters. Sheriff Clarke would also like to see law-abiding blacks be armed.

Differences of opinion on law enforcement are sharp and unmistakable — and have been for more than 50 years. However, as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts."

Unfortunately, facts seem to play a remarkably small role in clashes over law enforcement policies. And that too has been true for more than 50 years.

In his memoirs, the Supreme Court's Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that "all of us must assume a share of the responsibility" for rising crime rates in the 1960s because "for decades we have swept under the rug" the slum conditions that breed crime.

But the hard fact is that the murder rate in the country as a whole was going down during those very decades when social problems in the slums were supposedly being neglected.

Homicide rates among black males went down by 18 percent in the 1940s and by 22 percent in the 1950s. It was in the 1960s, when the ideas of Chief Justice Warren and others triumphed, that this long decline in homicide rates among black males reversed and skyrocketed by 89 percent, wiping out all the progress of the previous 20 years.

The same reversal in the country at large saw murder rates by 1974 more than twice as high as in 1960. This was after the murder rate had been cut in half from where it had been in the 1930s.

Ghetto riots, which erupted in the 1960s, were blamed on poverty and discrimination. But what were the facts?

Poverty and discrimination were worse in the South than in the rest of the country. But ghetto riots were not nearly as common in the South.

The most deadly ghetto riot of the 1960s occurred in Detroit, where 43 people were killed — 33 of whom were black. In Detroit at that time, black median family income was 95 percent of white median family income. The unemployment rate among blacks was 3.4 percent and black home ownership was higher in Detroit than in any other major city.

What was different about Detroit was that politicians put the police under orders that restricted their response to riots — and some rioters said "the fuzz is scared." It was black victims who paid the highest price for letting rioters run amuck.

By contrast, Chicago's 1960s mayor Richard Daley came on television to say that he had ordered his police to "shoot to kill" rioters who started fires. There was outrage among the politically correct across the country. But Chicago, with a larger population than Detroit, had no such death rate in riots.

In later years, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's aggressive police policies in high-crime neighborhoods cut the murder rate down to a fraction of what it had been before.

But, in England, opposite policies prevailed, with what London's "Daily Telegraph" newspaper referred to as "politically correct policing" that has police acting "more like social workers than upholders of law and order."

Although England had long been regarded as one of the most law-abiding nations on Earth, riots that swept through London, Manchester and other British cities in 2011 were virtually identical to riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other American cities. Most of the British rioters were white but what they did was the same, right down to setting fire to police cars.

But do facts matter anymore?

BALTIMORE COPS ARE POLITICAL PRISONERS

(Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a Democrat, provided searing analysis of the recent charges against the police in Baltimore by the new states attorney, Marilyn Mosby.  Clarke is Black and a Democrat, but he is not politically correct like the Milwaukee Mayor and Chief of Police, both liberal whites.  Of course the drive to prevent police and law-enforcement officers from enforcing the law is a prime objective of Pres. Obama, former Atty. Gen. Holder, the new Atty. Gen. Lynch, the mayor of Baltimore, and now States Atty. of Baltimore Marilyn Mosby.---Hugh Murray)

by IAN HANCHETT1 May 20152323

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (D) declared the charges brought against six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray “George Zimmerman and the Duke Lacrosse case all over again” and said “these cops are political prisoners,” offered up as human sacrifices, thrown like red meat to an angry mob” on Friday’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on the Fox News Channel.

Clarke said of the charges, “it’s a miscarriage of justice. This neophyte prosecutor stood up there and made a political statement, Neil, and I say that because she’s chanting or voicing some of the chants from this angry mob. Her job is to tune that out. She said, I hear the voices. She’s not supposed to hear anything as she reviews this case that is not consistent with the rule of law and our system of justice. Look, I’m an experienced and a veteran homicide detective. I’ve had — I’ve participated in charging conferences. There is no way I have ever gotten a criminal charge within 24 hours after taking over all the reports and evidence to a prosecutor. A prosecutor who is thorough needs several days to sift through hundreds of pages of reports. They usually want to interview some of the witnesses themselves, in person, and they have to sift through all of the evidence, piece by piece, and they have to wait for some of the forensics evidence to conclude, to come back and that’s why I say on a minimum, three to four days. She just got this case yesterday. This is political activism. She’ll never prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, and I’m not going to silently stand by and watch my brother officers, offered up as human sacrifices, thrown like red meat to an angry mob, just to appease this angry mob.” And that “she rushed this thing through.”

After his interview was cut off to carry a Fraternal Order of Police press conference live, he continued, “she knows she’s not going to be able to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. This is George Zimmerman and the Duke Lacrosse case all over again. A politically active district attorney or state’s attorney, you can tell the emotion in her voice, she almost did this with glee. And that’s why I believe, like they [the FOP] do…she needs to remove herself from the case. I hope the state’s attorney general gets involved in this, and sees the error of her ways. The smart thing for her to do is recuse herself and name a special prosecutor.”

He added that “there may be and probably are, some civil torts here, but what little I know, and I don’t know all the facts, but I’m listening to the emotion in their voice, and listening to those political statements that she made at the end of that news conference, that’s political activism, it’s wrong, it’s probably in violation of her code of ethics as a lawyer. And again, I’m going to take my time with this, but I’m not going to sit idly by, and I want to call out to every law enforcement officer in the country to pay attention to this. Because, I see a pattern, at least demands from an angry mob, that we be offered up as human sacrifices. We don’t do that in our system of justice in the United States just to please an angry mob. And I sense from what I heard her say, Neil, that that’s what is going on here.”

Clarke concluded, “there are some things I find in this case — what little I know — that are problematic from a procedural standpoint, but Neil, it doesn’t make it criminal. These cops are political prisoners. I’m calling them political prisoners because this state’s attorney, stood up there and made a political statement at the end, talking about she hears the voices, and no justice and no peace.”

MILWAUKEE SHERIFF AT NATIONAL RIFLE ASSN.

I copied this from the Glenn Beck site, The Blaze.  Many of my posts are critical to the Democratic Party, but Sheriff David Clarke is one Democrat whom I vote for.  When the liberal white Democratic Mayor, Barrett, urged anti-gun legislation in Milwaukee, Barrett was seconded by the appointed politically correct Police Chief, Flynn, also white.  They just had a gun-buy-back in Milwaukee a few days ago with Barrett and Flynn leading the effort to rid Milwaukee of guns (not crime, just guns).  About a year ago when the white liberal Democrats were indulged in another anti-gun campaign, Democratic Sheriff produced ads for radio warning,  that if you are in trouble, calling 911 might not suffice.  The police might not get their in time to save you.  You should rely on your own weapon.  Naturally, such a sensible ad incensed the politically correct liberal Democrats.---Hugh Murray

Wisconsin Sheriff Reveals the Seven Words He Would Use to Change the Second Amendment

Apr. 25, 2014 3:17pm Jonathon M. Seidl

·         Tweet This

·          

·          

INDIANAPOLIS — Sheriff David Clarke Jr. may not be a household name…yet. But he’s well on his way after his rousing speech at the 2014 NRA convention. Consider the standing ovation he received after revealing the seven words he would add to the Second Amendment: “Keep your hands off our guns, dammit.”

  ( Unfortunately, I was unable to copy the photo of the Sheriff.  Clarke is an elected Democrat and he is Black.---HM)

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (Source: TheBlaze)

Clarke, the outspoken gun proponent who heads the sheriff’s office in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, was easily one of the most popular speakers during the convention’s leadership forum. His comments about amending the Constitution were aimed at former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who said in his recent book that he would change the Second Amendment by adding five words in the middle: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

“My reaction was, ‘What!’” Clarke said, adding, ”Just what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ does Justice Stevens not understand?”

That comment drew another standing ovation.

But he wasn’t done there, going on to say he was sick of the Second Amendment being the ”bastard child of the Bill of Rights.”

“The armed citizen made America free and the armed citizen will keep America free!” Clarke said, also calling the armed citizen the “great equalizer” and giving examples of three such instances in his area.

“Those firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens saved people’s lives,” he added, declaring he “damn well meant it” when he took his oath to defend the Constitution.

“We’re partners now,” he said in closing after calling on people to join pro-gun groups. He also warned them that the fight to defend the Second Amendment will be a tough, never-ending one.

“Are you ready?”

The answer seemed to be found in a final standing ovation.

January 2013 Comments: Berlusconi, Mussolini, China's One Child...

·  Berlusconi defends Mussolini, draws outrage from political left

·  

3users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down1users disliked this comment

Hugh Murray

One only need read Jonah Goldberg's book on Liberal Fascism to see all the Western leaders who praised Mussolini in the 1920s and 30s, including Winston Churchill and many stars of the Left. Some of the leaders of the Fascist Party in the 20s were Jews. Only after the alliance with Hitler did Italy begin to impose racial laws against Jews. Read Jonah Goldberg for comments more favorable to the Duce than Berlosconi's, and uttered by liberals and progressives.

Collapse Reply

• 
  

0users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down1users disliked this comment

Repeat Offender  •  3 hrs ago Report Abuse

Goldberg is a bit nuts. In his book, "Liberal Fascism" he calls the administrations of Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton "fascist"

Liberals in the 1920's worked to get women the right to vote, while people like Hitler and Mussolini believed they should raise children, stay in the kitchen, and go to church, hence the Nazi slogan: "Kinder, Kirche, und Kuche" (Children, Church, and Kitchen). Liberals also opposed racism and militarism.

Any intersection of values or policies between liberals and fascists was scant and short-lived, at best. The #$%$ held strongly rightwing beliefs: nationalism, militarism, and corporatism.

In the 1920s and more in the 1930s when women fought for "equal rights," they were more likely to be Republicans.  The liberals always favored "protection" for women, even in sports.  Competition was bad for women, according to liberals, and they sought to change sport competitions into more fun, less competitive displays.  Liberal labor views, even with Sec. Perkins in FDR's Cabinet, was more to get men to have a wage sufficient enough for him to support his family.  And there was nothing against the church in the New Deal.  Big government and monuments and the art that accompanied them seem almost identical in the US, Germany, Italy, and the USSR - exceptions, the postal murals in the US.

Big government, socialism, was an attribute of all in the 30s.  Nationalism was certainly part of the package, even in the US.  And FDR in his first 2 terms certainly did not disturb segregation and racism in the South or elsewhere in the US.  The NRA was big government joined with the big corporations to crush the small business.  Corporatism.

Liberals generally admired Mussolini in the 20s and 30s up to his attack on Abbysinia, and some even after that.

·  Wis. sheriff urges residents to get gun training

·  

14users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment

Hugh Murray

How lucky I am to reside in Milwaukee County. Despite the pro-crime policies of the Democrat Mayor Barrett (he ran against GOP Gov. Walker, and lost, twice in the past few years) and Chief of Police Flynn, Sheriff Clarke, a Black Democrat has a sensible view. Barrett and Flynn lead the anti-gun, pro-crime crowd. Sheriff Clarke is a reasonable Democrat, willing to disagree with the liberals who seek to disarm the honest citizens and let the criminals run wild and free.

·  What's Behind the GOP's Fixation on Benghazi?

·  

2users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down1users disliked this comment

Hugh Murray  

Hillary assured relatives of the murdered Americans in Benghazi that the maker of the video would be arrested. She and Obama were in an advert in Pakistan stressing the horrible nature of the video. They lied to the American people and the world about the video, blaming free speech in America for acts of Muslim terrorists.
Hillary and Obama cheered the Arab Spring, which is a continuing disaster. They assured us that fanatical Muslim Morsi, who is now Pres. of Egypt, and his Muslim Brotherhood were moderate. Morsi calls the Israelis descendants of apes and pigs.
The Obama/Hillary foreign policy is leading the world to war. Their pro-Muslim policies have encouraged the terrorists - to the killers in Algeria and Mali in the past few days.
Americans have made a terrible mistake by reelecting Obama and his pro-Muslim, even pro-fanatical Muslim, policies.

·  High school senior comes out as LGBT while accepting award

·  

3users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down2users disliked this comment

Hugh Murray  

Being gay IS normal. It is as normal as being left-handed rather than right-handed. Why are there gays? Why are there lefties? Prejudice against left-handers once deemed them sinister. Prejudice against gays considers them sinners. It is the same absurd prejudice.

·  King 'content of character' quote inspires debate

·  

1users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down1users disliked this comment

Hugh Murra

King's speech was part of the movement of the early 60s to end discrimination, to treat people without regard to race, creed, or color. That was one of the slogans of the era. King was in DC to promote a civil rights bill. That bill created an equal opportunity commission - NOT a commission to grant preferences to this pet group or that.
Nixon made affirmative action a national policy, and too many Republicans refuse to repudiate this outrageous discrimination against poor and middle class whites.
Giving scholarships to poor performing Blacks and denying them to better qualified whites is racial discrimination. It is racist.
And if we have illegal alien amnesty, most illegals jump to the front of the immigration line, AND to the front of the employment line because of affirmative action.
Why should an illegal have affirmative action preferences over an American citizen?
Nixon, the EEOC, and the Democrats have created a nightmare from King's dream.
Obama gave many speeches about how we should all play by the same rules. Affirmative action insures that we DO NOT play by the same rules; preferences for this group, more preferences for that group; and ignore and humiliate white men.
For a just society, we must destroy affirmative action.

·  Actress-turned-activist Eva Longoria says Republicans have reasons to back immigration deal

·  

12users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down3users disliked this comment

Hugh Murray  •  7 days ago Remove

How nice for a Democratic activist to give free advice to Republicans! If the Republicans ever want to win, they should not cave to the illegals and the supporters of invasion. They should demand equal rights for all citizens, and an end to affirmative action that insures that we do NOT play by the same rules. If illegals get amnesty, they will get a-a preferences over most American citizens, in college admissions, scholarships, jobs, promotions, etc. It is outrageously unfair.
Of course, one expects such injustice from the Democrats. But keep your destructive advice to yourself.
The GOP should be the party of equal rights for all citizens. Unfortunately, 7 of 8 Hispanics voted against equal rights. That is not the fault of the GOP - it shows the selfishness of most Hispanic voters.

·  Egypt: Ton of explosives seized on way to Sinai

·  

12users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down1users disliked this comment

Hugh Murray  •  7 days ago Remove

Obama's Arab Spring - more persecution of Christians in Egypt in the past few days, and tons of weapons on way to attack Israel, Israel is a nation composed of descendants of apes and pigs, according to Egyptian Pres. Morsi, This Middle Eastern nightmare is in part the result of Hillary's policies and those of her boss.
All thanks to Barack Hussein Obama!

·  The 'Undesirable Impact' of China's One Child Policy

·  

1users liked this commentThumbs UpThumbs Down0users disliked this comment

Hugh Murray  •  11 days ago Remove

If there are fewer workers entering the work place, wages may have to rise - and that is an economic effect of the policy. Some of the effects, I question. Many pupils attend boarding schools, where they have several room mates, who become like brothers and sisters. At university, they will have 7 other roommates for the full 4 years. Again, they may become like brothers and sisters, trusting, etc.
In the rural areas, the 1-child policy was not adopted, so there were usually two children.
"Oppressed" minorities were allowed to have as many children as they wanted. The leader of the terrorist Muslim Uigers had 8 children. China would do better by abolishing its affirmative action policies for ungrateful minorities.