Aaron Sorkin in 2011. Photo courtesy WEBN-TV.

Current Commentary By Larry M. Elkin, CPA, CFP®,

Larry M. Elkin, CPA, CFP®, has provided personal financial and tax counseling to a sophisticated client base since 1986. He is President, Palisades Hudson Financial Group LLC, and
President, Palisades Hudson Asset Management, L.P.

If I awoke one morning to find a stolen car parked in my driveway with the keys in the ignition, I would not pull it into my garage or drive it to work. I don’t think you would, either.

If an email appeared in my inbox claiming that an attached file contained a list of all of my competitor’s clients, complete with their contact information and financial details, I would probably just delete the email. I certainly would not open the attachment, even if I were not worried about infection with a computer virus (which would be a serious concern in this situation).

And when intimate photos of celebrities are hacked from their devices and posted on the internet, I do not seek out or look at those images. I agree with actress Jennifer Lawrence, who was victimized by such a crime, that each uninvited viewing by a stranger is a continuation of a sexual assault. I would not want to be associated with any outlet whose stock in trade is such abuse.

I am therefore sympathetic to executives of Sony Pictures who, through their attorney David Boies, have demanded that news outlets stop downloading, hosting and reporting on the trove of confidential information that was stolen from hacked Sony computers and posted online by the thieves, who are apparently either sponsored by or aligned with elements of the North Korean government. North Korea, which has taken deep offense to a forthcoming Sony film, has denied involvement in the hacking but praised its results.

I am likewise sympathetic to screenwriter and producer Aaron Sorkin, who is the subject of some of the stolen material and, in a New York Times op-ed, called its dissemination “morally treasonous and spectacularly dishonorable.”

Sorkin was right to suggest that readers “imagine the hackers sitting in a room, combing through the documents to find the ones that will draw the most blood. And in a room next door are American journalists doing the same thing. As demented and criminal as it is, at least the hackers are doing it for a cause. The press is doing it for a nickel.”

Before I get all holier-than-thou, there are a few apparent wrinkles in my ethical reasoning that I need to smooth out. One is that I do not object to reporting about the fact, the nature and the extent of a data theft; such reporting is important to help society, notably other businesses, understand the threats we face. I think the New York Times was off-base when it cited a Bloomberg story that reported about highly personal medical records of Sony employees and their families that were among the data released online, without naming any names. (Disclosure, I have a daughter who works at Bloomberg, though to my knowledge she has not been involved in covering the Sony breach.)

On the other hand, I thought Bloomberg crossed the line with another story that reported on an approach to Sony by a group purporting to represent some Middle Eastern princes who supposedly wanted to invest $7 billion in the studio, under certain conditions. The details of that interaction were Sony’s private business and none of the public’s. The distinction between the two stories is a fine one, though not one that I have much difficulty in drawing.

My attitude about publishing the contents of stolen documents at all is more ambiguous, and thus more difficult to reconcile. I have no trouble at all with the fact that, 40 years ago, newspapers including The Times and The Washington Post chose to publish the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. The documents described the history of American involvement in the Southeast Asian military conflicts that began in the 1950s. We were in the midst of the Vietnam War, which was one of the most important and controversial public issues of its time; of course the government’s own history of that war was important to the public. It never should have been classified at all.

Similarly, I am not distressed that news outlets reported on many aspects of the surveillance and data collection techniques that Edward Snowden disclosed via the documents he took from the National Security Agency last year. Americans were misled about the scope and nature of the data that was being accumulated in the name of the fight against terrorism; thus, we were deprived of an opportunity to debate and legislatively weight the trade-offs between security, privacy and the risk of that data’s abuse. Snowden now has asylum in Russia. There is room for disagreement about what should happen to him if he ever comes under U.S. jurisdiction again, but I don’t see any legitimate argument that the press should have refrained from reporting on his disclosures.

On the other hand, I had (and still have) serious reservations about much of the reporting on information that originated with the service member formerly known as Pfc. Bradley Manning, now imprisoned under the name Chelsea Manning. Her data dump, which was published by WikiLeaks initially with the collaboration of several prominent American and foreign media outlets, had much less material of genuine public concern, except to the extent that the public chose to concern itself with confidential State Department and Pentagon cables and other materials that basically showed diplomats and soldiers doing things that diplomats and soldiers do. Unlike Snowden, who was deeply concerned about a privacy question of significant public interest, there was no particular issue or objective that animated Manning.

Why do I question journalists using Manning’s purloined material but not Snowden’s? Reporters are not, and should not, be in the business of evaluating their sources’ motivations; they are in the business of reporting news. The only unifying principle I can find to explain my views is that I thought there was a great deal of valuable news in Snowden’s disclosures, but not in Manning’s.

This principle is what news outlets have used to defend their publication of material taken in the Sony hack. The problem is that what they call news isn’t news, unless “news” means anything that someone, somewhere, is willing to look at. This would include pretty much anything gossipy or prurient, as Aaron Sorkin and Jennifer Lawrence, among many others, know all too well.

I don’t think Sony’s lawyers will have much luck stopping the traffic in stolen goods. Our First Amendment protections, which are fundamental to our freedom, are too strong to permit that. But just because we can publish something does not mean we should. Those who purvey gossip posing as news, and those who consume it, are the sort of people who will do anything for a nickel. I want to be better than that.

Larry M. Elkin, CPA, CFP®, has provided personal financial and tax counseling to a sophisticated client base since 1986. After six years with Arthur Andersen, where he was a senior manager for personal financial planning and family wealth planning, he founded his own firm in Hastings on Hudson, N.Y., in 1992. That firm grew steadily and became the Palisades Hudson organization, which moved to Scarsdale, N.Y., in 2002. The firm expanded to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in 2005 and to Atlanta in 2008.

The post CURRENT COMMENTARY: Trafficking In Stolen Documents By LARRY M. ELKIN appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

Jim Maisano, Esq., Westchester County Board Legislator representing District 11, comprised of the communities of Pelham, Pelham Manor, and New Rochelle.

My community, New Rochelle, NY, has an excellent police department. My family is pleased with the safety we enjoy thanks to the brave men and women in blue. I serve as a Westchester County Legislator and am also impressed by the excellent work of the Westchester County police. The job of police officer is as difficult as any in our society. Each day when police officers leave their homes, they put their lives on the line to protect all of us. In their duties, the police deal with the most evil aspects of our society: murder, assault, human trafficking and prostitution, domestic violence, drugs and others, which must negatively impact them in various ways. And yet, they keep heading out there to protect us. Most police officers do their jobs very well. Yes, mistakes are made and it’s a tough job to perform perfectly all the time. And yes, there are some bad cops out there, as in any profession. The officers that make mistakes can be punished in a court of law or through internal discipline procedures, and we certainly hear about cops being punished in the media.

I believe we should stand with our police when they are unfairly criticized – and that time is now. You cannot watch the protesters from Ferguson to New York City (“NYC”) and not see examples of hatred towards police. Not every protester is bashing cops, but many are. This past weekend in NYC, protesters were caught chanting: “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” It’s impossible to understand how anyone could chant such hateful words.

We all must support freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble to protest about issues, and many people are doing so across the country. However, other protesters are crossing the line into violence and other illegal actions. In NYC this past weekend, we had a protester mob attack two police lieutenants. The New York Post reported:

“The violence erupted shortly after the two lieutenants attempted to stop one of the angry agitators from hurling a garbage can at other cops standing in the walkway below, police said.

That’s when other demonstrators intervened and attacked the officers — knocking them to the ground and kicking and punching them before trying to steal their jackets and radios, according to police.”

Mayor DeBlasio recently stated, “People need to know that black lives and brown lives matter as much as white lives . . . The relationship between police and community has to change.” Is this based on empirical research? No, it’s not. It’s just his flawed opinion. His views are at odds with the fact that over the past 25 years the NYC police have made it the safest big city in our country (confirmed on Politifact.com) and crime decreased in every neighborhood. And by the way Mr. Mayor, who wrongly stands with the protesters instead of the police, I personally don’t know a single person that is not fully aware that “black lives and brown lives matter as much as white lives.” As a Catholic, my faith has taught me this fundamental truth since I was a little boy. It’s never been in doubt to the vast majority of New Yorkers.

Like so many others, I’m troubled by the Eric Garner video. To me, Mr. Garner’s crime was minimal and he did not appear to be resisting arrest that much. But as an attorney, I respect the rule of law and recognize that those accused of a crime may rely on their constitutional rights in their defense. I and all the protesters were not on the grand jury, and we did not review all the evidence presented. Regardless of our opinion on the grand jury’s actions, we must accept the result of their deliberations, while being saddened by the death of Mr. Garner.

So while it appears mistakes were made by the police in the Garner death, I don’t believe their actions can be deemed racist in any way, and it does not appear they intended to kill Mr. Garner. I expect that the police officer who caused the death will face police discipline and sanctions. But I also noticed on the news another group of protesters chanting, “Hey hey, ho ho, these racists cops have got to go!” Who are the racist cops they are referring to? I don’t have an answer.

This cop bashing is wrong in the face of the facts and a slander of many brave police officers regularly placed in dangerous situations to protect us. It’s time to vocally stand with our police against reckless and erroneous attacks – stand with them on social media and when you hear someone slandering them, and also by saying “Thank You” when you see a police officer protecting our streets. I will do so right now – thank you to the New Rochelle and Westchester County police for protecting my community and my family so well.

Jim Maisano, Esq.,  is Westchester County Board Legislator representing District 11, comprised of the Pelham, Pelham Manor, and New Rochelle communities.

The post OP-ED: It’s Time to Stand with Our Police By JIM MAISANO appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”

– The Quran, Surah 9:5

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law.

Islam is anything if not ironic.

“A teenaged bomber on Thursday targeted a Kabul auditorium packed with people watching a drama condemning suicide attacks,” reports Reuters. “Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the bomber targeted the event because it was staged ‘to insult Islamic values and spread propaganda about our jihad operations, especially on suicide attacks.’”

And so, in defense of “Islamic values” and to dispel “propaganda” about “suicide attacks,” Muhammad Jr. blows himself into pork-sausage, killing one and wounding 16.

Ah, Islam.

Merriam Webster defines “phobia” as, “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”

“Progressives” are crafty little buggers. One of their favorite sleights of hand is to disingenuously brand as “phobic” anyone with reasoned moral disapproval of their very unreasonable and immoral social deconstructionism.

It works like this: Take any objective evil, say, homosexual sin. State its prefix, “homo.” Just add “phobia,” and voila! The person who holds to the millennia-old precepts of authentic biblical sexual morality is no longer a “Christian,” but, rather, is magically transformed into that mythical creature called “The Homophobe.”

Cute.

The same applies to so-called “Islamophobia.” It’s not an “illogical fear” if they really are trying to kill you. Islam is the “religion of peace” in the same way that rape is snuggling. A central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that minority category tagged “moderate Muslim,” are also infidels.

“Moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terms. It is intrinsically oxymoronic. Whereas “moderate” (read: liberal) “Christians,” such as those belonging to the PCUSA, embrace certain apostasies that run directly counter to the biblical teachings of Christianity (which is the true “religion of peace”), “moderate Muslims,” likewise, embrace an apostate version of Islam that runs directly counter to the clear teachings of the Quran.

Whereas devout followers of Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate, are characteristically peaceful; devout followers of that child-raping, woman-beheading “prophet” Muhammad, who was demon incarnate, are characteristically violent.

Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative. While Christianity brings eternal life to those choosing to surrender to Jesus, who alone is “the Way, the Truth and the Life;” Islam brings eternal death to those who surrender to “Allah,” who is “the best of deceivers” (“[A]nd Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” [see Surah 3:54]).

It’s worth mentioning here that the Bible similarly calls Satan a deceiver. Revelation 12:9, for instance, explains that he “deceives the whole world.” Even though it is often claimed that Muslims, Christians and Jews “worship the same God,” nothing could be further from the truth. Allah is not God. Allah is the deceiver, and insofar as Christianity, true Christianity, spreads peace, love and truth – Islam, true Islam, spreads violence, hate and deception. Allah is definitely real. He’s just not God. Though he wanted to “ascend above the tops of the clouds” and “make [himself] like the Most High” (see Isaiah 14:14), Allah, most assuredly, is not God.

Which brings us to ISIS – Head-chopping, man-sodomizing, child-torturing, Jew-killing, Christian-sawing, women-enslaving ISIS. The Islamic State is not the exception to the rule; the Islamic state is the rule. ISIS is Islam and Islam is ISIS.

The aforementioned secular-”progressives” love Islam. While the mainstream media won’t adequately cover it – it doesn’t fit their narrative – you need only look to the new media to see that the Middle East runs red with the blood of Christian and Jewish martyrs. These are peaceful men, women and children, no different from you or me, being slaughtered by the tens-of-thousands at the wicked hands of the Islamic faithful.

And so the media busy themselves with Kim Kardashian and “hands up don’t shoot!”

While there are exceptions, the left is overwhelmingly anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. Liberals and Islamists, such as those belonging to the American-Islamic terrorist group CAIR, as well as Obama’s pals in the Muslim Brotherhood, have forged a bizarre and notably incongruous sociopolitical partnership I call the “Islamo-’progressive’ axis of evil.” The only explanation for this, as far as I can tell, is best illustrated by the maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

The common enemy, of course, is likewise signified by an alliance. It consists of Christians and Jews worldwide. It, too, is built around a shared cause. But this cause, unlike that of the Islamo-progressive axis, intends freedom, not tyranny – representative democracy, not control. Most importantly, this Judeo-Christian cause is built upon the rock of truth given us by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God of the living, not the dead. The great “I Am.”

The common enemy to both the Muslim and the “progressive” is truth.

The common enemy is Christ.

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

The post BarbWIRE®: Muslim go BOOM! By J. MATT BARBER appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

Dr. John A. Sparks

When Case Western University law professor Jonathan Adler testified before a House subcommittee on July 31, 2013, he had no idea that his analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) could bring that gigantic piece of legislation to the Supreme Court for yet another review.

Adler told the committee that the language of the ACA gives individual states an option when it comes to setting up health care insurance exchanges—marketplaces where citizens can buy health insurance under the ACA. States could create them, or more importantly, could elect not to create them. In fact, only 16 states chose to establish exchanges while the remaining 34 elected not to. Under the ACA, that means the federal government must establish and operate exchanges in those states which have failed to create them. However, as Adler pointed out, there is a significant difference between the federal and state exchanges. The ACA clearly says that insurance purchasers on exchanges “established by the State” receive generous subsidies (in the form of tax credits that are advanced to them), thus significantly reducing the cost of health insurance. On the other hand, the language of the ACA does not offer subsidies to purchasers on federal exchanges because the language of the statute speaks only of exchanges “established by the State.” This is what Adler pointed out over a year ago to Congress.

The IRS, the administering agency for the ACA, also saw the problem. The IRS solution was to rule that the subsidies could go to purchasers without regard to whether the exchanges were state or federal. That ruling was legally challenged and produced two different federal court decisions. In July, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (Halbig v. Burwell) that the language of the ACA does, indeed, restrict taxpayer subsidies to state exchanges. Simultaneously, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying that because the language was ambiguous, the federal government could exercise its discretion in interpreting the language (King v. Burwell). That decision, in effect, supported the IRS’ expansive interpretation.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear King v. Burwell largely because of the gravity of the issue—subsidies for an estimated 5 million people hinge on the outcome as well as other consequences. The key issue is a matter of “statutory construction.” Congress has passed a law, albeit a long and complex one, and in that law there is language which has a plain and unambiguous meaning on its face. The subsidies which reduce the cost of health care insurance for the purchaser are only available for health plans “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311” of the ACA. The federal exchanges are not established by the state. Therefore, plans purchased on those exchanges do not qualify for the subsidies.

The government argues otherwise, citing other provisions of the ACA, legislative history, and the broad purposes of the ACA. Both appellate courts—the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit—have considered these arguments.

The Fourth Circuit opinion concludes that the subsidy statute in question “is ambiguous and subject to at least two different interpretations.”  The court’s solution is to defer to the IRS, asking only whether the IRS interpretation is reasonable. The opinion finds it to be reasonable because that interpretation “advances the broad policy goals of the Act.”  As partial proof, the court offered the heading of Title I of the ACA, which reads, “Quality, Affordable Health Care for all Americans.” This means that the Fourth Circuit opinion is reduced to relying upon the claim of universal coverage in a heading, while rejecting the clear language of a provision of the act itself!  This is certainly a stretch, since the heading of a statute is generally viewed as the weakest kind of proof of legislative intent, if it is considered at all.

The D.C. Circuit opinion covers the same ground, but concludes that when Congress provided tax credit subsidies for persons who had purchased health insurance plans on state exchanges, that is precisely what it meant to do. The opinion exudes judicial restraint: “We do not disregard statutory text lightly. The Constitution assigns the legislative power to Congress and to Congress alone … and legislating often entails compromises that courts must respect.”  Citing the Chevron case, the court says that “when the words of the statute are unambiguous … judicial inquiry is complete.”

Though the government argued that a literal interpretation created an “absurd” result, the opinion writer, Judge Thomas Griffith, responded that such an interpretation of the statute “does not render other provisions of the ACA unworkable, let alone so unreasonable as to justify disregarding … plain meaning.”

The government also attempted to invoke legislative history to support the broader availability of subsidies, but the D.C. Circuit saw no evidence that such a history was at odds with the plain meaning of the actual subsidy portion of the ACA. Though the court does not say so, what may have happened here is that the drafters of the ACA did not anticipate that the states would be so uncooperative in establishing exchanges, even if it meant risking the loss of subsidies for their citizens. Perhaps the ACA writers thought the subsidy carrot would be enough.

The matter is now left to the Supreme Court. This case is greater than the practical survival of Obamacare. It is a case about the separation of powers. If Congress passes a law, can an administrative department, aided by the courts, work its effective amendment?  The answer given by the court should be a resounding: No.

Dr. John A. Sparks is the retired dean of the Calderwood School of Arts & Letters, Grove City College, Grove City, Pa., and teaches constitutional history and business Law on a part-time basis. He is a member of the State Bars of Michigan and Pennsylvania and is a fellow for educational policy for The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

The post CENTER FOR VISION AND VALUES: Obamacare on the Defensive Once Again By Dr. JOHN A. SPARKS appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

Marilyn Elie, enjoying The Massachusetts Berkshires landscape. Photo by and courtesy of Roger Witherspoon.

Police arrest more black men than white. They also shoot more black men than white. The stats across the country are clear. What is not clear are the reasons behind the actions. The December issue of Mother Jones does a fine job of teasing out the answers to what turns out to be a complex series of attitudes and actions. It seems that scientists have been studying this issue since the 40’s and have discovered a lot about how behavior can be influenced by prejudice and discrimination.

The title of the article is: The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men And how to Reform our Bigoted Brains. It is subtitled Are You A Racist? www.motherjones.com/print/265386. The author Chris Mooney details his own experience in the lab dealing with these attitude experiments and to his horror discovering his own prejudiced attitudes. His journey is well worth reading.

Still the questions remain. Where did all of this come from? What was the leading scientific thinking at the turn of the last century? How did it affect politics and the thinking of everyday people? How does it affect attitudes today?

It was difficult to tease out this kind of information until the term eugenics popped up in a cross reference. It was then that a window was thrown open that allowed a glimpse into what people were thinking and talking about in regard to race. (Eugenics – rising of the race – lynching 1915) It is clear that race was talked about a lot from about 1875 to 1925. There was great trust in what was perceived as scientific knowledge. Bank runs, corruption, and wars set aside, it was an upbeat, bustling and busy time in American history, if you were white. Cities were just beginning to grow. The first city to have electric street lights was Wabash, Indiana in 1880. There was a grand town ceremony when the lights were finally turned on and some people fell to their knees in amazement. We were a primarily rural nation and transportation was still mostly by horse. At one point there was talk of closing the patent office since everything of importance had already been invented. This was on recommendation of the NYT editorial board.

Darwin’s influential book Origin of the Species was published in 1859. It had given rise to a popular version of Social Darwinism that applied the idea of survival of the fittest to humans. Keep in mind that things moved much slower in those days. One school of thought which subsequently developed by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, said that charity and philanthropy meant to aid the poor was misplaced and only increased misery and dependence by enabling the birth of more who were unfit. This cast those deemed inferior as a burden on society for those of superior intellect and stature to take care of. Many felt that it was best to prevent these unfortunate births in the first place for the good of the race. Eugenics arose from this background and was soon the scientific truth of the time endorsed by scholars, educators, politicians and progressive activists. Galton coined the term eugenics in 1883 from the Greek word meaning “good birth.”

This was the thinking of the day and the common knowledge that provided the background for the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v Ferguson. This case was a landmark in race relations and provides a good starting point for looking closely at early issues of race in this country. While the promise of “40 acres and a mule” made after the Civil War to black soldiers and former slaves did not materialize, Reconstruction provided more economic opportunity for a rising, prosperous class of black entrepreneurs. As the years went by Jim Crow laws were instituted throughout the South and West to curtail this black advancement in proportion to its success. Discrimination was rife in the North as well but was less frequently enacted into law. In 1896 Homer Plessy, a black citizen of Louisiana, challenged some of these newly enacted restrictive laws. The case went to the Supreme Court and the Court upheld the state law. It found against Plessy for sitting in a whites’ only railroad car. The court went on to institute the doctrine of separate but equal, which it found was compatible with the United States Constitution. One of the justices, Edward Douglass White, was a member of the Crescent City White League, a paramilitary organization that enforced white supremacy. In a frequently overlooked aside the court legalized an enforcement mechanism that was already in use. The rule of law and the right to trial was deemed to apply to all individuals. However, it did not apply in the face of mob violence. A mob could not be construed as an individual so the law could not be enforced. A wave of lynchings throughout the South followed this decision. During this period Chinese were also considered an “inferior race” and barred from American citizenship. Native Americans were also considered inferior by the majority of the white population.

Scientists were keen to methodically study other races and find indisputable proof that the white race was superior. The easiest way to do that was to send explorers to Africa to bring back “specimens “for study. The first human zoo was established in this country in 1903. It was an immediate success and soon the practice spread to Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities. Footage of the time shows “natives” performing dances for amazed city folks who mingled among them exclaiming on the differences in the races. At one zoo women were forbidden to enter because they were prone to touch those on exhibit. It is clear from the writing of the times that the public saw such exhibits as confirmation of white superiority. To see the actual footage from the time watch the YouTube video:

Science’s Dirty Little Secret:

View the four-part  “documentary film” footage on the history of the relationship between evolutionism, Social Darwinism, racism and eugenics: The Human Zoo – Science’s Dirty Little Secret in 4 parts.

In October of 1906 Margaret Sanger, founder of what is now Planned Parenthood, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States. She wrote: “Birth control is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator … the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’ is admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization … The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” Professorships in Universities in London, New York and Germany were established and worldwide conferences were held to discuss this threat. The First International Eugenics Congress was held at London University in 1912 made it clear that improving the “germ plasma” of the human race was the scientific goal of the time. The consensus was that this was best done through preventing the birth of more children from “undesirable stock” so that the white race would not be overwhelmed.

Early birth control programs were designed to reduce the birth of nonwhite babies. Another option was sterilization, sometimes voluntary, sometimes not. The majority of sterilizations took place mainly in public mental institutions, where the poor and ethnic or racial minorities were housed in disproportionately high numbers. Eventually 18 States had laws that legalized this process and laid out a protocol for women to be sterilized without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge. The doctrine of the eugenicists included: racism and white supremacy, promoting birth control among the dysgenic, restricting immigration, sterilizing the handicapped, promoting euthanasia, and searching for ways to increase the number of genetically well-endowed individuals. They worked hard to make these ideas part of public policy.

Most unions of the time endorsed Jim Crow and were fiercely anti-black. Mostly the black community did not participate in strikes or the benefits that finally flowed from early union organizing.   In 1912 union organizers prepared for a strike at Lawrence Textiles. The song Bread and Roses is associated with this strike. The phrase “give us bread but give us roses too’’ is said to have first been included in a 1911 speech by Rose Schneiderman, a union organizer. Inspired by her words, James Oppenheimer wrote the poem which later became the lyrics of the song. One line “the rising of the woman means the rising of the race” has proved contentious for some musicians who currently sing the song. Some have changed the lyrics, others prefer to sing the song as written feeling that the phrase refers to the rising of the human race. Given the context of the time it is highly doubtful that the rising of race refers to anything but the white race.

In 1915 the first talking movie Birth of A Nation was released. President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House. The film glorified the Ku Klux Klan and denigrated blacks. It portrayed the period of Reconstruction as blacks dominating southern whites with black men forcing themselves on white women while the Klan was the Savior of the South. After seeing the film Wilson remarked, “It is like writing history with lightening, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” Black audiences openly wept at the film’s malicious portrayal of their race and northern audiences cheered wildly. The film swept the nation and showings were frequently followed by riots with whites roaming the streets attacking blacks. Thomas Dixon, the author of The Clansman, the book the film was based on, confessed that his purpose “was to revolutionize Northern audiences that would transform every man into a Southern partisan for life.”

Lynchings remained a common practice and were frequently associated with a community affair such as dedication of a new building or structure. In 1908 one of the most prominent black businessmen in town was hung when the new Dallas Court House was opened. The story that has been handed down in the family of the man who was hung is that the sheriff wanted to buy his bar and the property where it stood. The owner refused to sell and there was a standoff. When the bullets stopped flying the sheriff was dead and the black owner was wounded. He was patched up and taken to jail by the deputies so that he could be hung as part of a civic ceremony for the opening of the new court house. Post cards of the event show the body hanging in the background and smiling white citizens in the foreground.

One of the most frequently cited sites for hanging was the “Twin Niggers Bridge” in Houston where black couples were frequently hung together. Pictures were taken for family albums, post cards were made. Newspapers of the time covered the events like a ball game and provided graphic details about what was done to the black men and women who were tortured and hung. These events were a common, accepted part of the culture in a wide region of the country and mostly ignored by the rest of the white America.

Other incidents include the burning of Rosewood and Tulsa. Both were both prosperous middle class black communities. Tulsa was called the Black Wall Street of the West because its residents were so well off. The community deliberately patronized black businesses and kept their dollars circulating inside of their own community to the consternation of white merchants. In 1921 this community was wiped out by local whites aided by the police and the National Guard based on a rumor that a white woman had been attacked in an elevator by a black man. More than 300 black men, women and children were killed and dumped into a common grave.   In Florida, Rosewood was burned to the ground two years later in 1923. There had been simmering tensions between the black and white communities for over a year over the lynchings of four black men. The death of a fifth black man who was shot while trying to register to vote sparked a riot. The town had its own railroad station and many residents escaped north by train the same day. The next day white citizens came back and burned all of the buildings to the ground. Neither the black section of Tulsa nor Rosewood was ever rebuilt. Many similar incidences of white riots against black communities and black individuals followed as segregation became entrenched by custom and by law. (Paul Robeson, as Vice President of the Progressive Party, made appearances for Henry Wallace during his presidential bid in 1948 to call attention to this problem. Lynchings and violence against blacks were common in the South through the 1960’s.)

Woody Guthrie was a young redneck growing up in Oklahoma when there was a hanging in his home town. It has been rumored that his uncle participated. Later, when his family left because of the dust bowl and made the journey to California he went looking for work and was shocked to see signs in store windows that said “No Niggers or Okies Need Apply.” It was the beginning of a personal journey that, along with the radicals and revolutionaries he met there, led him to sing for working folks, justice and equality. He became the master songwriter for all America because of this personal transformation.

Here are some quotes by prominent people of the day, now mostly forgotten, that provide a snapshot of the tenor of the times:

Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History from 1908 to 1933, wrote about evolution in a well-received book on Social Darwinism titled From the Greeks to Darwin. In 1923, during a national debate on restricting immigration, Osborn spoke enthusiastically about the results of intelligence testing carried out by the Army: “I believe those tests were worth what the war [World War I] cost, even in human life, if they served to show clearly to our people the lack of intelligence in our country, and the degrees of intelligence in different races who are coming to us, in a way which no one can say is the result of prejudice. … We have learned once and for all that the Negro is not like us.

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind,” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the majority opinion of a landmark eugenics case in 1926

“… I think we can safely say that in the sixty-two families that we have studied…”blood has told,” and there is every reason to believe that it will keep right on “telling” in future generations. “Running water purifies itself.” The stream of germ-plasm does not seem to.” Henry F. Perkins Lessons from a Eugenics Survey of Vermont, Western Abenaki Indians, 1927.

“Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit,” editors of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote in 1934, a year after Hitler became chancellor.

Many think that the Eugenics Movement in the United States waned after World War II because of its association with Nazi Germany. However, it was 1954 before Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by Brown v Board of Education and ended the fiction of separate but equal at least on paper. Certainly court cases, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s and the Civil Rights Act eventually made it clear that public policy had shifted and so had the opinions of most leaders and elected officials. Nonetheless, William Shockley, the Stanford professor who invented the transistor and won the Nobel Laureate prize for his work began actively promoting the idea of eugenics and sterilization for nonwhites in the 1980’s. His work paralleled the work of Nazi geneticists. Today we have a recent book The New Jim Crow which details how the echoes of old ways of thinking persist. We also have a political party that has taken over a range of States that greatly mirrors the Old Confederacy. Racism is an obvious and sometimes overt part of their appeal. Old ghosts die hard. Supporting them in any way – weather by ignoring loaded words or standing aside in silence – is no longer acceptable. As the song goes, “We who would join in can stand aside no longer, now let us all begin.”

Here are a portion of the most striking readings used in this report. If you have trouble with the links, try googling the titles.

Lynching 1915 – Image Results:       https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVyN9RoNUfakA.vZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0c2FlOGY5BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDU0OF8x_adv_prop=image&fr=mcafee&va=lynching+1915

Yale Study: U.S. Eugenics Paralleled Nazi Germany. February 15, 2000. Yale Study. Eugenics by David Morgan. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/302.html

Marilyn Elie is an environmentalist, anti-nuclear activist, gardener, school librarian (retired). A member of Clearwater, co founder of WestCan, and original member of IPSEC. Follow her Tweets @marilynelie

The post Forgotten Through the Years: Race at the Turn of the Century BY MARILYN ELIE appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

Hon. Lee H. Hamilton was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

We are one glum country.

Trust in the federal government is at historic lows, according to Gallup. More than half of the respondents to an October Rasmussen poll think our best days are behind us. And just a few weeks ago, an NBC/Wall St. Journal poll found that the one thing Americans agree upon whatever their race or circumstances is that the system is stacked against people like them.

Scratch an American, it seems, and you’ll get a litany of complaints about our representative democracy.

I see this defeatism all around me. When I speak to classes of university students, I almost always ask for a show of hands on whether these young people believe the U.S. is in decline or on the rise. Every time, the room is evenly split. That’s a lot of people who are losing faith in our system.

So I have just one thing to say: Could we all take a deep breath?

For one thing, we deal with our challenges from a position of strength. We have friendly neighbors to the north and south, oceans to the east and west, and a growing, relatively young population. We possess abundant natural resources, the world’s most capable military force, a nuclear arsenal second to none, and a deterrent power envied by every other country on earth. We face no existential threat from foreign powers. We can choose the role we want to play in the world.

We created the major mechanisms for world stability — the United Nations, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank — and we still help maintain them. We lead the way in pressing for open markets and free trade. Our fundamentals — from our military to our technology to our system of higher education — remain strong. We’re doing better economically than any other major industrialized nation, and have put more people back to work since the recovery began than the rest of the industrialized world combined. Does that sound like a once-great nation on its knees?

Our people possess strengths in abundance. We have a remarkable reservoir of talent both in the workforce and, to judge by the students I encounter every day, preparing to enter it. We’re blessed with a strong entrepreneurial tradition that nurtures inventiveness and creativity, and that draws countless people from abroad eager to make something of their future. Though we’re hardly perfect on this score, we have friends across the globe who genuinely admire our accomplishments.

I’m not blind to our shortcomings — if you read this column regularly, you know that — or to the severe challenges we confront. But in the face of extraordinary difficulties, we adapt, persevere, and eventually emerge stronger.

After decades of trying, we have begun to wean ourselves from foreign oil. Our response to the ebola crisis was initially halting and clumsy, but the federal government and the nation’s hospitals reformed their protocols remarkably quickly for a set of complex institutions. It’s taken a long time to put a coalition together to fight the Islamic State, but international coalitions are difficult to create, and by dint of hard work we’re better off now than we were a year ago. In the end, government may act slowly, and it’s often well behind where you’d wish it to be, but it does act.

All these things give our society a resilience to keep in mind the next time you see a news story or commentary hyping a pessimistic view of our future. The world around us is in turmoil, under enormous and even volcanic pressures that explode most every morning somewhere, yet we remain an island of stability. We may be disenchanted with our government, yet we’ve come out of the downturn stronger than any other country in the world — a testament not just to our private sector, but to the public policies that supported it.

We have a long way to go, there’s no doubt about it. But I’m reminded of a young woman a few years ago who asked me, after a bleak speech I’d given laying out the problems of the world, “Is there any hope?” My answer now is the same as it was then: Yes, of course there is.

Lee Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

For information about the Center on Congress at Indiana University educational resources and programs, explore www.centeroncongress.org. Go to Facebook to share your thoughts about Congress, civic education, and the citizen’s role in representative democracy. “Like” them on Facebook at “Center on Congress at Indiana University.”

The post HAMILTON COMMENTARY: It’s Not As Bad As You Think By Hon. LEE H. HAMILTON appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman.

ON THE THREAT OF MORTGAGE RESCUE SCAMS: Every day struggling New Yorkers who are behind on their mortgages — facing foreclosure, and desperate to keep their heads above water — are bombarded with TV and radio ads promising lower interest rates or a reduction in their mortgage principal if they “call now!” Too many New Yorkers who make that call end up even deeper in debt, victimized by a mortgage rescue scam instead of getting the help they need.

Since I took office as Attorney General almost four years ago, I have made it a top priority to help New York families hurt by the crash of the housing market in 2008 to avoid foreclosure and get back on their feet. We have been able to provide housing counseling, legal assistance, and even small loans for thousands of New York families — all paid for by the banks whose misconduct caused the crash. As a result, New Yorkers have gotten more than $2 billion in mortgage principle write-downs, lower interest rates, and other relief — real help to keep families in their homes.

ON HELPING NEW YORKS IDENTIFY SCAMS: This week, we launch an innovative new way for New Yorkers to get help to identify and avoid mortgage rescue scams. It’s a web based app: AGScamHelp.com. Easily accessible from smartphones, tablets and other devices, AGScamHelp allows users to quickly search the name of any organization offering mortgage modification assistance.

ON HOW THE APP WORKS: The app will show that an organization is “Trusted” if it is part of the Attorney General’s Homeowner Protection Program, or has been approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Searching an organization that has not been approved by HUD or my office will produce a “Caution!” message advising that the group is not government-vetted. It will also warn consumers of some of the hallmarks of mortgage rescue scams, including guaranteeing a positive result, asking for an upfront fee or telling a homeowner to stop paying your mortgage and pay them instead.

The app also includes an interactive map to help consumers find their nearest trusted housing counselor or legal services organization closest to them, tips on avoiding scams, and an easy-to-use tool to report potential scammers to my office, so that we can investigate.

ON CRACKING DOWN ON SCAMMERS: My office recently secured a judgment against a network of Long Island- and Florida-based companies that were found to be preying on vulnerable families. They were ordered to pay $2.5 million in penalties and costs, provide full restitution to their victims, and cease their illegal conduct. We have other cases ongoing, and with the help of tips from consumers using the app, we can stop many more scammers.

With the AGScamHelp app, we can make New York the safest state to avoid mortgage rescue scams, and the easiest state to access free foreclosure prevention help from trusted sources. But we have to make sure we get this message out to vulnerable homeowners before the hucksters do. That’s why we will be mailing out tens of thousands of postcards on an ongoing basis to every household that receives a 90-day foreclosure notice letting them know how to avoid getting conned, and how to get real help.

ON KEEPING NEW YORKERS IN THEIR HOMES: My office has committed $100 million over five years to fund a network of roughly 90 housing counseling and legal services agencies in every region of New York State through the Homeowner Protection Program. In just over two years, the HOPP network has provided free, high quality housing counseling and legal services to roughly 35,000 families statewide. More than 11,000 families already have mortgage modifications pending or approved.

New Yorkers who were hurt by the crash of the housing bubble of 2008 still need someone on their side. Whether it’s taking on the big banks that caused the crisis, or cracking down on scammers that are still preying on the victims of the crash, we are committed to working creatively and aggressively until every New York community that was knocked down by the foreclosure crisis is back on its feet and thriving.

First published by The Huffington Post on December 5, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-t-schneiderman/spot-the-scammers-save-yo_b_6277016.html

Eric T. Schneiderman is the Attorney General of New York State. Follow Eric T. Schneiderman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AGSchneiderman

The post OP-ED: Spot the Scammers, Save Your Home By ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

John Kirkwood is a son of Issachar. He is a Zionist, gun-toting, cigar-smoking, incandescent light bulb-using, 3.2 gallon flushing, fur-wearing, Chinese (MSG) eating, bow-hunting, SUV driving, unhyphenated American man who loves his wife, isn’t ashamed of his country and does not apologize for his Christianity.

Until That Time, Mi Spes en Deo

Jewish parents living in a hostile land will prepare their children from a very young age for the unfriendly treatment they are likely to endure. Our Christian brothers and sisters in places like Mosul and Egypt will do the same, but here in America we have never known nor often have we taught the cost of discipleship.

Our children simply aren’t prepared for the treatment that the world will afford the true disciple of Christ. Youth group is busy about pizza, scavenger hunts, and running around a circle and diving for a bean bag. Hardly a Spartan’s training for a future soldier of Christ. Upstairs, “adult” church is hardly better – pastors blowing sunshine in the thirsty ears of self-absorbed illiterate Christians, anxious to learn the latest incantation that will bring God out of his genie bottle.

“I gave as an offering my all to Him who had won me and saved me. My property, my fame, my health, my very words… In considering all these things,” wrote Gregory of Nazianzus, “I preferred Christ. And the words of God were made sweet as honeycombs to me, and I cried after knowledge and lifted up my voice for wisdom. There was moreover the moderation of anger, the curbing of the tongue, the restraint of the eyes, the discipline of the belly, and the trampling under foot of the glory which clings to the earth.”

Persecution of Christians.

What a marked difference between the sentiment of Gregory and the “Eat the cookie, buy the shoes,” “Every day is a Friday,” and “Your best life now,” freeology of the modern church. One is occupied with a Savior and magnificent grace, the other with what Schaeffer called, “Personal Peace and Affluency.”

Soothsayers con sheeple into believing a new gospel: that Christ died to set you free from obesity, complacency, mediocrity, and insolvency. That indeed “Jesus Saves,” – saves you from loneliness, alienation, beer bellies, and remaining “broke, broke.” That which the Apostle called dung and less than loss in order to win Christ is now proffered by tele-charlatans who with feigned words make merchandise of us.

Modern Churchianity proclaims, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and dine,” reducing Bonhoeffer’s maxim on discipleship into nothing more than a Pampered Chef invitation. Is this the major contributing factor in the Barna research that has found 7 out of 10 evangelical children forsaking the faith after their first semester of college?

So, what do we tell our children to prepare them for the way?

As a Pastor I’m often asked, especially by young people, how to discern the will of God for their lives. Here’s part of my answer:

God’s will is for you to be hated among men, to be seen as vile, a reproach, to be lied about, to be abused in every conceivable manner socially, emotionally, financially, and possibly even physically. And then God’s will for you is to not return the hatred, the lies, and the vitriol, but to lead with his heart, to offer an open hand, and if you must – to be willing to part with your head.

Does that fit into your Jesus-as-a-fortune-cookie relationship? Did you learn that in Sunday school or AWANA?

How do we prepare our children for the way and raise the next generation of faith heroes? Tell them the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Let them ponder the words of the Apostles and those of Christ. Don’t avoid what was forewarned to be the world’s reaction to Godly men. And at the same time instill in them that we have this glorious privilege of bringing pleasure to God through it all.

George Shultz, Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, was famous for inviting Ambassadors who had just been appointed into his office before they deployed to their assignment and saying, “Show me where your country is on that globe?” Most would find it an insulting exercise in geography and roll their eyes. Only when the globe stopped and their index finger landed on Japan, Zaire, or Brazil did they find out it was actually a lesson in Duty, Honor, Country.

To their utter amazement, Shultz would frown, announce that their answer was wrong, and spin the globe until his index finger rested on these United States. “No, young man, this is your country,” and then he would exhort them to never forget that a U.S. Ambassador is the eyes, the ears, the hands, the feet, the very voice of our nation on foreign soil. While you may be an Ambassador to Japan, Zaire, or Brazil, you represent the United States of America. Never forget it!

We are Heaven’s ambassadors on loan to planet earth. We have a higher priority but that shouldn’t lead to less involvement or less interest in our natural citizenship. On the contrary, the Grace of God and the privilege to serve the King of Kings where we are is the highest service imaginable. But let us not take lightly how the world will react.

Do you think the American Ambassador to Germany, Japan, and Italy was showered with admiration and affection just prior to the break out of hostilities? No, the faithful Christian will be treated as Leonidas treated the Persian Ambassadors, after all, “This is Sparta!”

Speaking to a few dozen young Christian boys and girls who had just graduated the eighth grade, I assigned each child a descriptive from a list of Bible verses that describe discipleship. I shared with them the warnings from Jesus and his Apostles that describe what the faithful would go through, how they’d be perceived, and what they would suffer; and then I asked them to remember the one word that I had assigned to them. At the end of the lesson, I asked them to stand and shout their particular word or phrase.

It sounded like this:

Accused!

Mocked!

Forsaken!

Mournful!

Weak!

Foolish!

Troubled!

Weeping!

Full of Sorrow!

Perplexed!

Base!

A Spectacle!

Reviled!

Defamed!

A Reproach!

Separated!

Despised!

Hungry!

Thirsty!

Naked!

Destitute!

Cast Down!

Cast Out!

Filth!

Off-scouring!

Suffering Evil!
Hated!

Afflicted!

Persecuted!

Imprisoned!

Tormented!

Beaten!

Scourged!

Tortured!

Marked for Death!

Condemned!

Stoned!

Sawn Asunder!

Beheaded!

Killed!
Til this very day, some of them tell me that they still remember their word. The truth is, as you see it play out around the globe, the faithful disciple will fulfill many of those words. Remember, God’s Honor Roll and Satan’s Radar are the same list. You won’t be on one without being on the other.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “As to the abuses I meet with, I number them among my honors. One cannot behave so as to obtain the esteem of the wise and the good without drawing on oneself at the same time the envy and malice of the foolish and wicked, and the latter is testimony of the former. The best men have always had their share of this treatment, and the more of it in proportion to their different and greater degree of merit. A man, therefore, has some reason to be ashamed of himself when he meets with none of it.”

*Discipleship Verses (partial list): (Isaiah 5:20); (Matt. 5:4,10); (Matt. 10:14,22); (Matt. 24:9); (Matthew 26:5,6); (Matt. 27:12); (Mark 13:9,13); (Mark 14:50); (Luke 6:21,22); (Luke 21:17); (Luke 23:10); (Acts 7:58); (Acts 17:32); (Acts 22:19); (Acts 26:12); (1st Corinthians 1:27,28); (1st Corinthians 4:9-13); (2nd Corinthians 4:8,9); (2nd Corinthians 11:25); (Philippians 1:29); (Heb. 11:35-38); (James 5:6); (1st Peter 4:4); (2nd Peter 2:2,10); (Jude 8) ; (Rev. 20:4)

John Kirkwood is a son of Issachar. He is a Zionist, gun-toting, cigar-smoking, incandescent light bulb-using, 3.2 gallon flushing, fur-wearing, Chinese (MSG) eating, bow-hunting, SUV driving, unhyphenated American man who loves his wife, isn’t ashamed of his country and does not apologize for his Christianity. He Pastors Grace Gospel Fellowship Bensenville, where “we the people” seek to honor “In God we Trust.” He hosts the Christian wake up call IN THE ARENA every Sunday at Noon on AM 1160 and he co-hosts UnCommon Sense, the Christian Worldview with a double shot of espresso on UncommonShow.com. He is the proud homeschooling dad of Konnor, Karter and Payton and the “blessed from heaven above” husband of the Righteous and Rowdy Wendymae.

The post For My Name’s Sake By JOHN J KIRKWOOD appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

In addition, many media outlets, including social media, broadcast and print, seem to question why Janay Rice would stay with him given how he treated her.  As Executive Director of Hope’s Door, an organization that has worked with thousands of domestic violence victims over the years, I can’t tell you specifically why she or any other victim stays with a violent partner, as there are as many reasons as there are victims. However, in our support groups, we hear women state that they stayed because they wanted: a father for their children; the relationship they had in the beginning; or to believe his apologies and promises to never do it again. Others stayed or returned after leaving because they faced enormous financial barriers or the very real threat of escalating violence. In fact, 75% of domestic violence homicide victims are murdered after leaving or announcing a serious intention to do so.

The NFL should implement and strictly enforce a zero tolerance intimate partner abuse conduct policy.  The public must do their part not to just look the other way when someone they like or admire is abusive. We must continue to hold businesses, celebrities, friends and family members accountable. Together we can end domestic violence.

For more information on domestic violence or the warning signs, go to www.HopesDoorNY.org or call our hotline 888.438.8700 for 24/7 help.

Sincerely,

CarLa Horton

Hope’s Door

Executive Director

The post LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The Ray Rice Suspension By CARLA HORTON appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.

Weir Only Human Columnist Bob Weir.

When I see the videos and read about the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, it brings me back to my 20 years as a cop in New York City. As a white cop, working in high-crime areas of the city that were predominantly black, I can relate to the situation in Ferguson. It happened to me a thousand times, except for the firing of my weapon; to which I say, ‘there, but for grace of God, go I.’ A typical scenario would be that I stopped someone on the street in connection with a police action. Let’s say I came across a guy from a wanted poster. After establishing the correct identity I tell him he’s under arrest. That’s when the potential for serious injury or death occurs.

“You ain’t takin’ me nowhere, motherf….r!” he says. Okay, whatever happens from that moment on was brought about by the person resisting arrest. Keep in mind that the officer represents the law. He has performed his sworn duty by stopping and identifying a person wanted for the commission of a crime. He has told the person that he’s under arrest. There’s simply no turning back! Hence, if the person refuses to submit; what would we expect the officer do; walk away? You think the streets are unsafe now? Imagine if cops were cowed by the bad guys into backing away from the lawful pursuit of justice? It’s bad enough that so much crime is not preventable, but, when a cop is facing it right in front of his eyes, he must take action.

In the Ferguson case it appears that Brown was stopped by the officer and a fight ensued. Reports are that Brown was struggling to get the officer’s gun just before the shots rang out. If that’s true, it’s not hard to imagine the ultimate outcome. What would have happened if Brown had gained possession of the gun? Would the cop be dead? If he had been murdered by Brown, would the looting and rioting have occurred? Would the NAACP have held an emergency meeting? Would Al Sharpton have traveled to that little Missouri town to rile the residents? If you answered ‘no’ to those questions it’s because you, like most of us, have seen this circus act before.

After making hundreds of felony arrests during my police career I can tell you that no cop starts his tour of duty looking for an opportunity to shoot someone. Nevertheless, every time a cop wears that badge and gun he represents something larger than the individual. Without law and order we may as well arm ourselves and put bars on our windows, and even that is no guarantee of our safety. I’ve been involved in countless incidents in which the person being arrested became violent and had to be physically subdued. When that happens to a cop, the first thing he fears is that the assailant will take his gun and use it on him. Again, what happens after that should not be blamed on the cop. Anyone vicious enough to fight a cop for his gun is vicious enough to use it on him.

One of the things you learn early as a cop, especially in high-crime areas where some people have multiple arrests on their records, is that anyone willing to fight you is willing to kill you. That’s because another arrest could mean a prison cell for the rest of their lives. Here’s the thing; you may not know how desperate they are, but, you’d better assume they are extremely dangerous if they try to get your gun. First of all, what type of person gets violent with a police officer? Even if you feel the cop’s action is wrong, you’re unlikely to take a punch at him. What kind of civilization would we have if everyone decided to resist the law with violent behavior toward its enforcers? Cops are there to protect and serve, not to be abused, beaten or killed. Most cops just want to do their job and go home safely to their families. If the facts come out in the Brown case the way it’s been reported so far, it seems like another Trayvon Martin type of tragedy. The president has already weighed in on it, so it’s like déjà vu.

Sooner or later we must arrive at a consensus in this country about the police and the communities they serve. Residents of every city must decide if they want order or anarchy. Yes, cops can make mistakes and some can abuse their authority. However, a sensible person doesn’t respond by resorting to violence. There are numerous ways to report inappropriate police behavior; ways that can result in the cop’s termination, or worse. Police organizations are very sensitive these days, so complaints are taken seriously. The average citizen has a lot more clout than he may realize. If you think a cop has treated you unfairly; write a letter to the chief or to a newspaper. Trust me; cops fear that type of criticism because it may be a deciding factor in their future advancement. One thing you should never do is fight the guy wearing the uniform. If it doesn’t result in a death, it might result in a prison term. Either way; it’s a losing proposition for the pugnacious citizen.

Bob Weir is a veteran of 20 years with the New York Police Dept. (NYPD), ten of which were performed in plainclothes undercover
assignments. Bob began a writing career about 12 years ago and had his first
book published in 1999.  Bob went on to write and publish a total of seven
novels, “Murder in Black and White,” “City to Die For,” “Powers that Be,”
“Ruthie’s Kids,” “Deadly to Love,” “Short Stories of Life and Death,” and “Out of Sight.” He 
also became a syndicated columnist under the title “Weir Only Human.”

The post WEIR ONLY HUMAN: Fighting Cops is a Losing Proposition By BOB WEIR appeared first on Yonkers Tribune.