Search Results

December 7, 2023 | townhall.com The political landscape is changing in an unprecedented way: An increasing number of men of color, particularly Black and Hispanic voters, are becoming more receptive to Republican ideologies. This shift, underscored by concerns centered on economic opportunity and financial sustainability, suggests these men are seeking an environment that empowers them to fulfill their roles as providers and active community members. The growing consensus is that under Republican leadership, the economic outlook is generally more favorable, aligning with a philosophy that values economic freedom, liberation and growth -- principles rooted in the conservative thought traced back to Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations." Recent polling data, including an ABC News-Washington Post poll, further highlights this trend. Conducted from April 28 to May 3, 2023, the poll indicates a significant decline in President Joe Biden's support among Black voters, dropping from 82% approval at the start of his presidency in 2021 to just 52%. This 30-point decrease marks the lowest approval rating of Biden's presidency and signifies a broader sentiment of dissatisfaction within the Black community. Additionally, 27% of Black voters have expressed a probability or definite intention to support former President Donald Trump, more than doubling his 12% support in the 2020 presidential election. This shift in political allegiance among Black men is not merely a reaction to current events but reflects a deeper alignment with conservative values, particularly in economic policy. Core principles of conservatism, such as promoting a pro-business environment, advocating for lower taxes and reducing regulatory burdens, are in sync with aspirations for economic growth and stability. The conservative emphasis on self-reliance and individual responsibility is also resonating within the Black community, which seeks to move beyond a narrative of dependency on government assistance. For the GOP, this evolving landscape presents a unique opportunity to engage with Black voters in a meaningful way. This requires more than a critique of the Biden administration; it demands a consistent presence in Black communities, engaging in dialogue and building relationships beyond election cycles. Advocating for policies that promote economic growth within the Black community, such as supporting small businesses and job creation initiatives, is crucial. Addressing criminal justice reform is vital for the GOP to build trust within the Black community. Historically viewed as tough on crime, a commitment to addressing systemic inequalities in the justice system can help bridge gaps and build rapport. Amplifying diverse voices within the GOP, particularly those of Black conservatives, is crucial in providing perspectives that resonate with the Black community and demonstrate the party's commitment to inclusivity. Advocating for school choice and educational reforms is also important, aligning with the desires of many Black families seeking better opportunities for their children. The decline in Biden's support among Black voters, especially men, signals a more profound shift in the community's political landscape. This moment calls for a genuine, sustained effort by the GOP to understand and address the concerns of Black voters. Through a nuanced approach that emphasizes economic growth, educational opportunities and criminal justice reform, the GOP can effectively engage with the Black community, presenting a compelling alternative to the current political status quo. This opportunity allows the GOP to showcase its commitment to inclusivity and diversity in its policies and ranks, reflecting a deep understanding of the diverse needs and aspirations of the Black community. In addition to the shift among Black voters, the ABC News-Washington Post poll also reveals a similar trend among Hispanic voters. Only 40% of Hispanics approve of Biden, with 43% expressing a likelihood to support Trump or lean toward him in a potential rematch. This marks an 11-point increase from the 32% of the Hispanic vote Trump received in 2020. This data further underscores the broader realignment occurring within these key demographics, emphasizing the need for the GOP to present a robust, inclusive and responsive political alternative.

December 7, 2023 | patriotpost.us In times of great tragedy and moral turmoil, there has always been a peculiar strain of moral equivocation that can be as troubling as the events themselves. It’s a sentiment that suggests an evasion of responsibility, an attempt to retreat to the comfort of neutrality and a refusal to acknowledge the stark realities of history. Today, as we grapple with the weight of our past, it is essential to address a rather disturbing inclination: the reluctance to take sides during moments of profound human suffering. History bears witness to the grievous consequences of those who chose to stand on the sidelines when confronted with profound injustices. During the era of slavery in the United States, there were those who argued for “neutrality,” claiming that they wished to remain uninvolved in the moral and political conflicts of their time. Such neutrality, however, was tantamount to complicity in the perpetuation of a system built upon the brutal oppression and dehumanization of an entire race. To remain neutral was to side with the oppressors. Similarly, the Holocaust stands as a stark reminder of the cost of neutrality in the face of evil. In Nazi-occupied Europe, millions of innocent lives were systematically extinguished while the world watched, and some chose to remain silent. A refusal to take sides, even in the face of such grotesque and undeniable horrors, was nothing short of a moral failing. In the context of Irish history, particularly during the Troubles, some chose to maintain an apathetic stance. The conflict in Northern Ireland was characterized by violence, political turmoil and religious tensions, and some chose to simply wash their hands of the matter. But in doing so, they overlooked the suffering of individuals on both sides of the conflict, perpetuating a cycle of violence by refusing to engage with the complex realities on the ground. In all these cases, the inclination to avoid taking sides is often rooted in a desire to escape discomfort or controversy. It may be tempting to think that neutrality represents a higher moral ground, but it ultimately falls short of the moral courage that these historical moments demanded. It is not enough to merely bear witness to tragedy; one must actively engage with it. Tragic events and moments of moral crisis call for us to take a stand, to speak out against injustice and to support those who are suffering. This does not mean blindly choosing a side without consideration for the complexities of the situation, but it does mean that we must not be passive observers. We must be willing to confront the difficult questions and grapple with the harsh realities that confront us. It is crucial to acknowledge that we continue to face numerous challenges that demand our engagement and advocacy. The refusal to take sides persists as a troubling inclination, especially in a world marked by divisive politics, social inequality and human rights abuses. Consider, for instance, the ongoing global refugee crisis. Millions of people are fleeing their homes due to conflicts, persecution and economic hardship. They seek refuge in foreign lands, often facing hostility and indifference. Some argue that they should be left to their own devices, that they are not our concern. But this is an inadequate response. When we fail to take a side in favor of helping these vulnerable individuals, we perpetuate their suffering and the callousness of our own hearts. Moreover, within our societies, we confront issues like racial discrimination and systemic inequality. To say, “I don’t want to take sides,” is to disregard the pain and struggle of marginalized communities. When we turn a blind eye to these problems, we perpetuate the injustices they face and effectively side with the status quo. Inaction in such instances is a passive endorsement of inequality. The refusal to take sides is not solely a matter of political ideology or personal comfort; it is a question of moral responsibility. It is an evasion of our duty to stand up for what is right and to confront the wrongs that plague our world. To shy away from taking sides is to betray the principles of justice and compassion that ought to guide our actions. This is not a call for unthinking partisanship or a rush to judgment in every complex issue. It is an appeal for thoughtful and informed engagement. To take a side does not require one to abandon reason, critical thinking or a nuanced understanding of the situation at hand. It means recognizing that, when confronted with moral dilemmas, we should not retreat to the hollow sanctuary of neutrality. We must consider the enduring lesson of history: that inaction and neutrality can have devastating consequences. When we abstain from taking sides, we relinquish the power to affect positive change. The moral arc of the universe does not bend toward justice on its own; it requires our active participation. In conclusion, the reluctance to take sides during tragic events is a failure of moral courage and a betrayal of our responsibility to make the world a better place. Whether in the context of historical atrocities or contemporary challenges, neutrality is often a thinly veiled excuse for inaction. It is a choice to look the other way and ignore the suffering of others. History has shown us the consequences of such indifference, and we must learn from those lessons. As George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” We must remember the past, not just as a matter of historical knowledge but as a guide for our moral compass. When faced with tragedy and injustice, we must have the courage to take a side, to speak out and to stand up for what is right. To do otherwise is to perpetuate the very injustices we should be working to eradicate. COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM

December 4, 2023 | https://nebraska.tv The following is an editorial by Armstrong Williams. Once hailed as a hero of the right during the COVID-19 pandemic, Florida Gov. and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has now become a villain to many of his formers fans. The reason why is tragically obvious: DeSantis is rivaling Donald Trump, a man who many on the right view as a deity – much more than a hero - for the 2024 ticket . Regardless, DeSantis should not be underestimated in this race. Despite the numerous attempts to take him down by both the right and the left, he has stood strong, taking on his rivals and showing up when others haven't. Let’s look at a few examples. During the pandemic, DeSantis showed his strength by making it clear that he would not bow to the mainstream media, the World Health Organization, corrupt Big Pharma, or Big Brother government. He forged his own path, taking a stance of a commonsense interpretation of the science rather than blind allegiance to the media's interpretation of it. In the face of an onslaught of criticism, DeSantis showed strength. When he was told that masks and closing businesses would stop the spread, he didn't implement mask mandates, instead, he kept businesses open – unlike other states, and he refused to penalize and vilify businesses when they kept their doors open. In sum, his efforts showed that lockdowns and restrictions were, to a large extent, meaningless and that there was little rhyme or reason to higher or lower rates of death among states. Florida had the 11th lowest deaths per 100,000 persons among the states in 2020 (though there was a practical three-way tie around their ranking), and the 18th highest deaths per 100,000 persons among the states in 2021, and now, like every other state, COVID-19 is essentially a nonissue. On the other hand, New York, one of the most restrictive states, had the highest rate in 2020 and the 21st lowest rate in 2021. And, once again, COVID-19 is not a significant issue today. Of course, this didn’t stop every pro-mandate person and organization from going after DeSantis. Florida was practically the talk of the left during the pandemic, with activists skewing the numbers in a feeble attempt to “prove” that mandates worked. When it comes to education, DeSantis has also showed his strength. He firmly refused to degrade the Florida educational system by banning pornographic content from schools and by refusing to allow an excessive focus on sexual orientation in the classroom. This common-sense approach to public health and morals demonstrated that DeSantis understood that the loudest people are often in the minority. It's clear that the relentless teachings of transgenderism have little to do with respecting them and much more to do with trying to convert people to their ideology. So, as a prize for his efforts to protect children from being brainwashed by this ideology, DeSantis was smeared by the media and activists who referred to his law, which banned the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity in classrooms, as the "Don't Say Gay" law. This deliberately misleading name dragged DeSantis' already vulnerable name through the mud and emboldened liberal activists and the media to rally against him with even more strength. People are beginning recognizing the clear benefits of living in Florida and other conservative states. They are realizing that they are in the minority in liberal states, and so many are choosing to vote with their feet, moving to states like Florida instead of staying in places like New York or California, where they are constantly oppressed by liberal policies and forced to deal with potential violence and the erosion of their children's identities. Liberal cities have become havens for crime. Consider detailed crime data, which shows the five most dangerous cities. Four out of these five cities have Democratic mayors. Even when you expand the scope, 16 out of the top 25 cities have Democratic mayors. It doesn't take a genius to see the impact that liberal policies have on crime. And it's not just crime either. Take the now well-known map of public feces in San Francisco, which conclusively reveals that the city is not just a crime haven but also serves as a public restroom for the states ever-expanding homeless population. Now, the only question that remains is whether DeSantis can actually win the Republican nomination. DeSantis’s numbers don’t look too great. He is currently in second place, but by a wide margin – 60% to 12.6% versus Trump. No doubt he has an uphill battle. But let’s not forget, in the 2008 cycle, then-candidate Barack Obama was polling nationally in the low 20s with Clinton at nearly 40% and Obama ended up winning. DeSantis is up against a foe who will stop at nothing to destroy his name. If he is to win, DeSantis must draw upon the resilience and strategic acumen he has honed over the past four years. He must take notes from this period, which was marked by heavy fire from the mainstream media, Big Pharma, and special interest groups. Should he successfully leverage these experiences, DeSantis stands a strong chance of not only holding his ground against Trump but also distinguishing himself among other Republican contenders and ultimately winning the nomination. ___ Mr. Williams is Manager/Sole Owner of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast Owner of the year.

November 9, 2023 | patriotpost.us In these tumultuous times, our beloved United States finds itself at a crossroads of division, rife with political strife, cultural clashes and social discord. It’s a challenging moment in history, one that begs for leadership that transcends the partisan bickering and personal animosities that have marred our recent political landscape. Former President Donald J. Trump, a polarizing figure for many, stands at a unique crossroads himself. The question is not whether he should seek revenge, but whether he can rise above and adopt a more presidential and unifying posture. The future of our nation depends on his choices, and the path he takes from hereon. It is undeniable that Trump has his legions of supporters who revere him for his plain-spoken approach and his commitment to shaking up the political establishment. Yet, it is equally undeniable that he has his detractors, who decry his divisive rhetoric, name-calling and past prolific use of Twitter to air grievances and settle scores. To chart a path back to the presidency, Trump must reckon with these realities and work to become a different person, one who seeks unity rather than division. First and foremost, Trump should embrace the wisdom that comes from experience. The presidency, one of the most challenging roles in the world, demands a level of decorum and restraint. It necessitates a focus on the welfare of the nation as a whole, rather than the settling of personal scores. To truly become presidential, Trump must rise above the urge for revenge and name-calling. The United States deserves leaders who can prioritize the greater good over personal vendettas, and Trump needs to rise above and be the type of leader his detractors don’t think he’s capable of being. Trump has always been a fighter, and that’s a quality his supporters admire. But in this moment of division, the fight should be for the unity and prosperity of our nation. Trump can channel his energy into constructive change and the betterment of American lives. He can do this by focusing on his policy achievements from his time in office, whether it be tax reform, deregulation or reshaping the federal judiciary. It’s through policies and accomplishments, not personal feuds, that he can build a legacy that endures. To that end, Trump should put the constant social media attacks behind him. His use of social media has been a double-edged sword, rallying his base and providing a direct line of communication to the American people, while also exacerbating divisions with inflammatory tweets. In his quest to become presidential, Trump must adopt a more disciplined approach to communication, one that prioritizes thoughtful discourse over impulsivity. Instead of reacting to every slight and provocation, he should engage in measured, substantive discussions, and avoid the kind of social media warfare that exacerbates our already fragile national unity. Trump should reach across the aisle, bridging the divide that separates Republicans from Democrats and conservatives from liberals. It is not an easy task, but it is a necessary one. The political polarization that plagues our country has become a major impediment to progress. Trump can show true leadership by working with Democrats on issues of common concern, such as infrastructure, health care and immigration reform. It’s by embracing a spirit of cooperation that he can help mend the fractured political landscape. On the cultural and social front, Trump must also strive to be a unifying force. Our nation is marked by its diversity, and a president must be a leader for all Americans, regardless of their race, religion or background. Trump has an opportunity to be the kind of leader who respects and values the differences that make our country strong. He can set a tone that encourages respectful dialogue and fosters a climate where differing opinions are considered and appreciated rather than vilified. One key aspect of becoming presidential is a commitment to moral and ethical leadership. Our nation has been sorely tested in this regard, with scandals and controversies that have eroded trust in government institutions. Trump can help restore that trust by adhering to the highest ethical standards and by promoting transparency in government. He should surround himself with advisers who share this commitment and work tirelessly to root out corruption and impropriety in all levels of government. The United States stands at a critical juncture, with political, cultural and social divides threatening to undermine the very fabric of our nation. To once again seek the presidency, Donald Trump must rise above the urge for revenge and divisiveness. He can choose to be a different person, one who embodies the ideals of unity, decorum and moral leadership that our great nation deserves. It’s a path that requires strength, humility and a commitment to the greater good. Only then can we hope for a more harmonious and prosperous future for our beloved United States. COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM

November 2, 2023 | patriotpost.us If you assumed that the oceans separating the United States and the war between Israel and Hamas would make you safe, think again. Terrorists are not simply at America’s doorstep; they’re in the house, and our leaders are too unprepared and afraid to stop it. Hezbollah, one of the largest terror organizations, boasting over 100,000 members, is on its way into America, fueled by the foolish open border policies that the Biden administration has championed. Hezbollah began in Lebanon, emerging in the early 1980s following the Lebanon War. Today, it stands as a major extremist group. Driven by a religious mandate, they view America and Israel as parallel adversaries, both nations they believe should be obliterated. Their mission is to destroy freedom wherever it thrives. Hezbollah has a global footprint, but a significant fraction of its operatives is based in Venezuela. Reports suggest a collaboration between Hezbollah and the Venezuelan government in an attempt to transform the country into a nexus for international crime. Surprisingly — or perhaps not — Venezuela tops the list for migrant entries in the U.S. with around 55,000 apprehensions in September by Customs and Border Protection, more than double that of Mexican migrants. These operatives undoubtedly manage to cross our borders quite openly, only to be detained, provided with essentials like a phone, food and transport, and a distant court date — which most fail to show up to. Terrorists, it seems, may actually be given preferential treatment to American citizens. Who would have thought? This scenario has paved the way for an alarming spread of terrorist cells within the United States, and our unwavering quest for privacy has inadvertently provided groups like Hezbollah with even more avenues to undermine our security. Consider apps such as Telegram, Signal or Discord. These platforms offer users the ability to establish anonymous, encrypted accounts for secure messaging. Messages can be erased at the user’s discretion, leaving no remnants once deleted, unlike many other popular applications. Naturally, there is immense value in privacy. However, when universally accessible tools can be wielded by bad actors, we must grapple with a challenging question: Where do we draw the line on privacy? Should there be mechanisms allowing law enforcement, with proper warrants, to access messages, generally? I suspect opinions are divided; many might agree, while others firmly disagree. In our digital age, the battle over privacy stands tall at the intersection of politics and social discourse, with risks of terror threats often falling behind the wants of Americans to communicate and use the internet without Big Brother’s watchful eyes on them. Regardless of where we land on this debate, it is crucial to remember that there are extremist terror factions within America aiming to transform bustling cities like New York and Los Angeles — already strained with high migrant intake and limited tracking capacities — into war zones resembling Gaza. Their ambition is to instigate conflicts that could challenge even the formidable strength of the U.S. military. They are here already, and America is in such a divided and strained state that they would have no problems taking advantage of us. Inciting political discord, using the most extreme and vocal individuals to influence and polarize public opinion, is just one of the many things that they can use against us. Their objective is undoubtedly to drain our resources, compel us to prioritize outsiders over our own citizens, and intensify unrest in our major cities. Given the trajectory the United States is on, it appears increasingly likely that Hezbollah, along with any allied extremist groups, truly could transform one of our major cities into Gaza faster than we think. America needs to be tough; this is why we need stronger border policies. It is undeniably true that outsiders need help and that most people crossing our border are in a bind. But America’s interests are more important; we need to protect our own before we protect everyone else. There’s a reason why conservatives call for closed borders. It’s not because they don’t think people ought not be given help, but because they know that opening our borders puts us at risk to people with bad intentions infiltrating our country. We’ve seen it already, with gangs like MS-13 and the like proliferating, committing disgusting, satanic acts such as beheading people and eating their hearts. At this point, it’s only a matter of time before enough terrorists cross over our border into our nation and strike us when we least expect it. Yet, this time, it won’t be local news; it will be international news. Tragically, only then will the Biden administration — or whoever is in power at the time — realize that a wall needs to go up, and it needs to stay up, lest our nation fall under attack once more. COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM

October 23, 2023 | amsterdamnews.com Jews and Arabs have been violently disputing over Middle East territory including Judea and Samaria for more than a century under the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate, in the  Arab-Israeli War of 1948, 1956 Suez Crisis, 1967 Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, the First and Second Intifadas,and the current grisly war between Hamas and Israel. The conclusion of one conflict is simply an intermission before a new conflict is born over irreconcilable religious convictions and territorial claims. According to Nahum Goldmann in his book “The Jewish Paradox,” Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion explained the dynamics that have found expression in chronic upheavals in Palestine as follows: “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true, God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” There is an escape from the dilemma voiced by Ben Gurion.  But it requires a revolution in understanding. First, every national boundary in history has been drawn by the sword. Justice or morality are helpless spectators. Might makes right. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.  Borders change intermittently through war or the threat of war.  Examine the Earth under a microscope. There are no national borders to be seen except those that have emerged from the barrel of a gun. No border is sacred. All borders are artificial. They are presumptively honored to diminish the likelihood of conflict, but the presumption is dishonored whenever the aggressor believes the potential benefits of conquest or annexation exceed the risk of international ostracism or losing a war. If Jews and Arabs are ever to cease fighting over Palestine, both must renounce the counterfactual, counter-historical conviction that God or God’s prophet gave one or the other territory for them to exclusively occupy and rule. To make God the final arbiter of all national boundary disputes is to regress the species into a Hobbesian state of nature earmarked by a war of all against all and by lives that are poor, brutish, nasty, and short. Every individual could proclaim a right to rule the word conferred through surreptitious communications from God and begin slaughtering opponents accordingly. Second, there are no chosen people or master races who command a superior position in the human hierarchy. There are no good guys versus bad guys. There are only bad guys equally eager and willing to kill and slaughter at the first opportunity. Thus do the oppressed effortlessly segue to become oppressors when the option arises. The DNA of the species is the same irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or otherwise.  The DNA dictates that hormonal gratifications, not the cerebral faculties, will inform the human narrative—including a lust for power, money, sex, celebrity, creature comforts, and self-righteousness. In sum, no tribe or group is superior to any other. They all occupy the same level of human depravity or sordidness. With consensus on these two philosophical starting points, there is a pathway to stable peace in the territory demarcated by Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Israel and the Palestinian Authority each appoint an arbitrator to demarcate the boundaries of Israel and a Palestinian state.  The two will then jointly choose a third arbitrator to prevent deadlock. The Palestinian Authority must agree in advance on a constitution for a Palestinian state that prohibits armed forces (as in Costa Rica), and the use or threat of force in international relations (as in Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution). Moreover, the United States should be authorized to intervene militarily in the Palestinian state if its constitutional order came under attack. Redrawing boundaries may displace hundreds of thousands, but it is a cure superior to the disease. Greece and Turkey exchanged 1.6 million nationals after World War I in 1923 to diminish the likelihood of renewed conflict.  Ditto for Pakistan and India in 1947 following British partition. Twelve million Germans were expelled from European countries after the defeat of Hitler in World War II. These ideas are orders of magnitude outside of mainstream thinking. But the latter has brought nothing but war and misery to the Middle East for two centuries.  To stick with mainstream thinking is to guarantee an unending succession of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Support our Racial Equity Journalism Amsterdam News is renowned for its reporting of the news of the day from a Black perspective for 113 years. Donors who choose to give monthly or annually will receive Amsterdam News’ Weekly E-Edition and acclaimed free weekday newsletter Editorially Black delivered by email.

November 14, 2023 | themessenger.com President Joe Biden and the United States have been forceful in their support for Israel in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack by the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. Biden’s remarks on Tuesday were powerful and unequivocal. His condemnation of Hamas was clear-sighted and forthright. There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. His message was spot-on. Biden called the Hamas attacks “pure, unadulterated evil” and noted that Hamas is “a group whose stated purpose for being is to kill Jews.” He did not flinch from describing the atrocities that Israelis suffered: “Parents butchered using their bodies to try to protect their children. Stomach-turning reports of … babies being killed. Entire families slain. Young people massacred while attending a musical festival to celebrate peace. …Women raped, assaulted, paraded as trophies. Families hid in fear for hours and hours, desperately trying to keep their children quiet to avoid drawing attention.” The “bloodthirstiness” of Hamas is reminiscent of “the worst rampages of ISIS,” Biden said. He warned other parties — notably, Hamas’s supporter Iran and its other proxy army, Hezbollah — to stay out of the conflict. In this moment, Biden has displayed remarkable leadership. “[W]e must be crystal clear,” he said. “We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel. And we will make sure Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, defend itself, and respond to this attack.” He backed up his words with action, sending a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the eastern Mediterranean and delivering munitions and military equipment to Israel, including interceptors to replenish the Iron Dome missile defense system. He dispatched both Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to Israel for meetings with Israeli leaders. Additionally, the Department of Defense (DOD) has warned Iran and Hezbollah to back off, underscoring that the United States is prepared to come to Israel’s defense. The contrast with some of the radical ideologues of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and leftist student groups on college campuses — among others whose statements appeared to support Hamas — could not be clearer. BLM’s Chicago chapter posted a graphic of a paragliding Hamas terrorist with the words “I Stand with Palestine” emblazoned under the image. The group also shared online an infographic in which supporters of Hamas “educate” those who say Hamas’s hostage-taking was a bad thing: “The few Israeli ‘hostages’ are in fact Israeli soldiers and Israeli army generals who are responsible for keeping Palestinians hostage in the world’s largest open air prison, Gaza. The 2.4 million Palestinians held hostage are all civilians.”

October 10, 2023 | amsterdamnews.com Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, ruthlessly killing over one thousand Jews in the name of their God and in furtherance of their desire for Israel’s land. These savages—as they may aptly be called—in concert with Iran and their disjointed Palestinian allies, have a single-minded goal: to obliterate Israel and its people. The good news for Israel is that this might be the extent of the attackers’ capabilities. However, despite Israel’s overwhelming might and strength, they were caught off-guard. The pressing question on everyone’s mind is how this could happen given Israel’s extensive spy network and technology that taps into conversations from every corner of the Middle East. How did they miss this? The ongoing regional conflict, tracing its roots at least as far back as the early 1900s, witnessed another episode when Hamas launched an attack on Israel. We must acknowledge that this isn’t necessarily a failure of U.S. or Israeli intelligence. The nature of the attacks experienced by Israel suggests the work of a group more akin to a militia rather than a truly centralized, coordinated effort. Militias present a unique challenge. Their lack of centralized coordination, ironically, often renders their actions more unpredictable and thus harder to anticipate. This dynamic can be seen in places like Afghanistan, which has been colloquially termed as the “the graveyard of empires.” The region’s heavy reliance on militias to confront adversaries creates a treacherous environment for invading forces. The unpredictable nature of militias, with their varying degrees of sophistication, numerous units, and dispersed operations, leaves armies essentially navigating in the dark, relying solely on the immediate intelligence gathered by their frontline troops. 9/11 serves as a reminder that even the mightiest superpowers can be caught off-guard by small militia groups, no matter the intensity of their defense mechanisms. The events of that day were orchestrated by mere men armed with knives, and the fallout was arguably the most significant tragedy in American history. The U.S., in many ways like Israel, has thwarted countless plots—many more than the general public would likely want to be aware of. However, it only takes one overlooked detail, one lapse in intelligence, to lead to immense repercussions. In the current scenario, we see individuals soaring into Israel on motorized gliders, brandishing AK-47s. This is not a conventional army; it’s not a group that can be sat down for negotiations. It’s a stark contrast to the times of Henry Kissinger, where diplomatic shuttling could lead to treaties and conflict resolutions. In this situation, there’s no room for such traditional diplomacy. The most viable course of action appears to be defense and retaliation, with the hope that lessons are learned. This way, if caught off-guard again, the response can be more swift and effective. The behavior exhibited by certain pro-Palestinian activists celebrating this brutality is nothing short of appalling. These aren’t advocates for peace or any noble cause; they seem to have lost all touch with humanity. Their behavior is akin to savages, taking pleasure in violence and parading their heinous actions as if collecting trophies. When groups like the New York Democratic Socialists of America rally in support of these actions in places like Times Square and outside the Israeli consulate, like they recently did, it’s a chilling reminder of the depths of depravity to which some are willing to sink. The terrifying reality is that there are backers for this kind of barbarity right on our doorstep. There’s a thought-provoking sentiment I recently encountered that offers a unique perspective on this conflict situation. It asks: “If both sides had the power to do whatever they wanted, what would they do?” Undeniably, Israel has a formidable military. They have the means, if they so choose, to exert overwhelming force. In a day, Palestine could be wiped from the face of the Earth. Yet, they show restraint. This restraint is not merely out of fear of international condemnation but rooted in their national and humanistic values. These savages are different. If the roles were reversed, they would undoubtedly kill every Jew and Israeli; seeing dead Israeli bodies paraded around Palestine proves this point. Advocates of this indiscriminate slaughter do so on the grounds that they consider it to be morally justifiable. The rationale behind engaging in ransacking followed by rape, murder, and subsequently parading bodies is beyond my comprehension. Nevertheless, even assuming it was somehow justifiable, we must remember that this is wholly based on a lie. These fringe organizations frequently express their support despite the fact that the media, which is remarkably more pro-Israeli today, disseminates false information about this regional conflict regularly. The notion that Israel intentionally targets Palestinian children and adults for slaughter is an absurdity that defies the facts. Each time armaments and missiles are directed towards Israel, they retaliate by immobilizing these weapons. But, alas, these terrorists house these weapons in schools and residential buildings. Does Israel bear responsibility for Hamas deliberately storing those weapons in schools with the intention of using the bodies of children as a defense mechanism? Must Israel simply allow their own children to continually be bombarded by rockets? These behaviors are consistent with criminal savages, not saints, and they are certainly not deserving of adoration. However, they are given it, and in this world we will perpetually contend with savages and those who support them. Savages are doomed to exist. They are unreceptive to rationality. It’s pertinent that we dispel this myth that the conflict in Israel is being treated as the same by the media as Ukraine. Drawing parallels between the two is an oversimplification that doesn’t do justice to the unique histories and relationships each nation shares with the United States. Israel has been a steadfast ally to the U.S. for many decades, strategically positioned and boasting the brightest minds. Their contributions, both past and present, make them an indispensable ally worth defending. In contrast, while Ukraine’s sovereignty and safety are essential, U.S. interest in Ukraine often centers on countering Russian aggression, rather than a longstanding symbiotic relationship. The geopolitical implications of Russia overpowering Ukraine are indeed concerning for the U.S. and many of its allies. Lumping the two situations together or seeing them as similar can lead to misconceptions. It’s unfortunate that many on the right have embraced this idea that situations with vague similarities are completely alike. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, like people everywhere, are good-hearted individuals seeking peaceful lives free from the constant shadow of conflict. The world needs more voices championing love over territory, unity over division. We should be promoting understanding and coexistence, instead of allowing narrow political agendas to dictate our future. We must rise above the strife, come together, and shape a future filled with hope and prosperity for all. Support our Racial Equity Journalism Amsterdam News is renowned for its reporting of the news of the day from a Black perspective for 113 years. Donors who choose to give monthly or annually will receive Amsterdam News’ Weekly E-Edition and acclaimed free weekday newsletter Editorially Black delivered by email.

The following is an editorial by Armstrong Williams. There are fundamental laws, deeply entrenched not just in culture and society but also in religious tenets, that are universally repudiated. Crimes such as murder, adultery, and theft top this list. Yet, as countless unsuspecting citizens have discovered, there's a sinister form of theft lurking in the shadows, sanctified by the very government that's supposed to protect us: civil asset forfeiture. Strip this term of art, and the grim reality stands exposed: law enforcement, when corrupted, becomes a band of robbers in uniform. If you naively believe, "This won't happen to me. After all, I've done no wrong," brace yourself. More often than not, it’s the innocents who find themselves trapped, with no trial or conviction — just barefaced, brazen theft. To give a semblance of fairness to this discussion, yes, there might be scenarios where confiscating assets without trial is warranted, say to prevent criminals from using their ill-gotten gains. Such actions would be somewhat palatable if the assets were returned once innocence was proven, or the prosecutors didn’t indict. But alas, that's rarely the case. Between 2000 and 2019, a staggering $68.8 billion was taken away through civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture might be tolerable with stringent checks and balances. However, in its current grotesque form, it indiscriminately swallows the assets of both the innocent and the guilty. A horrifying 80% of these forfeitures are executed against individuals never even charged with crimes. The Washington Post's 2014 investigation laid bare nearly 62,000 forfeitures executed without indictments. State law enforcement brazenly set up veritable cash-grab traps disguised as legitimate checkpoints, to raid and pillage people’s assets within their vehicles with impunity. The rational is to discover criminal activity by looking for various “indicators,” which, as the Washington Post article, may be as trivial as trash found on the floor of a car, or a nervous driver. Take the recent case of an FBI raid on a safety deposit box facility. Under the pretense of investigating the laundering of drug money, they ransacked boxes, one of which belonged to a 79-year-old retiree who had thousands of dollars of cash saved and $110,000 worth of gold coins. Despite being neither charged with nor accused of a crime, this man became yet another victim of the FBI's legal piracy. He got his cash, but he had to sue the FBI to get it back, ultimately spending $40,000 on attorney’s fees to do so. And his gold coins? Vanished into thin air. The FBI had no idea where they went. Consider the heart-wrenching saga of a Colorado couple whose only crime was owning a home that happened to be broken into by an armed shoplifting suspect. Their home became collateral damage after the police destroyed the interior with armored vehicles, explosives and bullets, and then they were slapped in the face by a judicial system that denied them compensation. These aren’t rare aberrations but a recurring nightmare. A cursory online search paints a harrowing picture of law-abiding citizens robbed of their homes, businesses, cash, assets and vehicles by those sworn to protect them. Thieves are thieves no matter whether they wear a badge or uniform. The job of law enforcement is to protect the public not rob them blind, and not use them as piggy banks to fill the coffers of their departments and agencies. How can you legitimately say that you are protecting the public when you take their assets, refuse to charge them with a crime, and then make them go through a painful, expensive process to get their assets back? I urge government official who takes a person’s money with no intent of charging them with a crime to rip their badge off their chest and seek employment elsewhere; you are not needed, you are worthless and should be ashamed to wear your badge. I am a staunch defender of law enforcement, but I will never defend any officer who abuses the privilege of their badge and shields themselves behind unjust civil forfeiture laws. Theft is theft, regardless of the legal jargon or post-9/11 policy contortions used to justify the laws that make it legal. People's very livelihoods, their life's work, are being ransacked and stolen. The fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is trampled by unjust laws. In the twisted world of these law enforcement officers, your assets are free game even if you're never formally accused. We need accountability and oversight, and more certainty that innocent civilians who are never accused of crimes can get their assets back without having to ask. Innocent people shouldn't be dragged through hell to reclaim what’s rightfully theirs.

In our criminal justice system, we frequently confront the question of how severely we should punish children for criminal acts. Whenever any person advocates for leniency, they often point out that children’s minds aren’t fully developed, preventing them from fully understanding the consequences of their actions. Yet, as we’ve seen in Maryland, this leniency comes at a grave cost to the innocent, resulting in innocent bystanders being victims of repeat and violent crimes. The leadership of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services, under Secretary Vincent Schiraldi, is a case in point in the cost of children’s crimes running rampant. Under his watch, youth crime has surged, all culminating in a tragic mass shooting by teenagers. This incident, in which two people died and 28 were injured, was the largest shooting in Baltimore’s history. The secretary’s leadership has only further magnified Maryland’s challenges, lending further credence to the idea that some politicians might be inadvertently promoting a criminal culture that keeps the public in perpetual fear — a new criminal enterprise. In Maryland and many other regions, juvenile crimes have been especially problematic, notably in underserved communities and predominantly those populated primary by Black Americans. In many of these areas, children grow up without father figures, stable family structures or positive role models, often falling under the influence of gangs or peer pressure. This scenario breeds environments where large numbers of children resort to criminal activities, with their communities feeling a lack of legal intervention or protection. Such conditions create the perfect storm for the perplexing scenario where criminals can get away with their crimes even when they are caught. It also creates an environment where children become the perfect vessels for adults to use to commit crimes for on their behalf. Gangs frequently recruit them, capitalizing on the realities that penalties for juvenile offenders are typically less harsh than those for adults — if there are any at all. These children are often in a double bind: They do not fully grasp the consequences of their actions, and they are also unaware that they are being manipulated and utilized as tools in the hands of unscrupulous adults seeking to avoid accountability in the criminal justice system. In addition, one of the most pressing matters in relation to this issue is not only within the confines of the criminal justice system: Within their own neighborhoods, these young kids face consequences outside of the law at the hands of their own peers. In Baltimore, about a dozen juveniles have been victims of homicides in the past year, and there have been 70 nonfatal shootings involving juveniles. Young kids aren’t just shooting young kids for no reason. These are not random. They are targeted assassinations of children by children or adults who have been harmed in some way by these children. Accountability isn’t merely about meting out punishment for its own sake. It serves as a deterrent, aiming to protect children both from perpetrating crimes and from falling victim to them. While a lenient approach might prevent young offenders from facing incarceration and aligns with the notion that immature minds shouldn’t face the same penalties as mature ones, it risks other significant downsides. Such an approach could result in these immature minds never maturing at all — being struck down in their youth — leading lives that lack purpose and productivity, or cycling in and out of prison, becoming more of a charge to society rather than a contributor to it. Remember: Behind every crime, there’s a victim. Why should someone who genuinely contributes to society, strives to uphold community values, or merely goes about their daily life face the traumatic experience of falling prey to crime? It’s unjust for law-abiding citizens to live in fear, reluctant to step outside their homes, while perpetrators brazenly continue their wrongdoings, ever emboldened by lax criminal penalties to seek their next target. That isn’t the balance of fairness, and it certainly isn’t justice. While it may not be appropriate to treat children exactly as adults in many situations, there needs to be a level of harshness in our response. The ultimate goal is evident: to rehabilitate these children, ensuring that once they’ve served their sentences, they aspire to lead productive, law-abiding lives. While I may not possess a definitive solution, it’s evident that our current policymakers are not enacting policy that brings us closer to this goal. It is without question that refusing to hold children accountable for their crimes achieves the exact opposite of this goal. No person should ever have to become the victim of a crime. We live in the world’s most prosperous nation that has abundant opportunities; everyone should be able to seize their potential. By refusing to hold children accountable for their actions, we are undoubtedly denying them the chance to become law-abiding citizens and seize these opportunities, too. Ordinary citizens, the very people who bear the brunt of these actions, deserve better. The children themselves better, too. However, whether our policymakers genuinely desire this for them remains an open question. Armstrong Williams is a conservative columnist and nationally syndicated radio host.

As the cost of living continues to rise in America, many families are struggling to make ends meet. Inflation and wage stagnation have made it increasingly difficult for everyday Americans to keep up with the rising costs of necessities, such as housing, gas, health care, and food. The severity of this issue is affecting millions of hardworking Americans looking for relief amid economic uncertainty. “Over the last three decades, American families have experienced a rise in the costs of many necessities that has made it difficult for them to attain economic security,” said a 2021 brief by the Council of Economic Advisers. “Researchers estimate, for example, that 80% of families saw the share of budgets dedicated to spending on needs such as housing and health care increase by more than 7 percentage points between 1984 and 2014, potentially crowding out spending on other categories, like leisure, longer-term investments in education, and saving for retirement.” Inflation has also played a significant role in the rising cost of living. In July, consumer prices were 3.2% higher than the year before. This has increased the cost of goods and services, making it more difficult for families to afford their basic needs. Wage stagnation has further compounded this issue. “Since the early 1970s, the hourly inflation-adjusted wages received by the typical worker have barely risen, growing only 0.2 percent per year,” according to a 2017 Harvard Business Review report. This means that while the cost of living has continued to rise, wages have not kept pace, leaving many families struggling to make ends meet, and it’s even worse for those who live in large cities. The impact of these economic trends on everyday Americans cannot be overstated. A recent Primerica survey found that three-quarters of middle-income Americans said their earnings aren’t enough to pay for their cost of living. Many are cutting back on expenses, such as restaurants and takeout meals, while others are skipping upgrades to their phones and other technology because of inflation. The rising cost of living affects millions of Americans, making it increasingly difficult for them to attain economic security. It is time for policymakers to take action to address this issue and ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to thrive. The burden of the rising cost of living falls disproportionately on vulnerable populations. Low-income families, in particular, are grappling with the harsh reality of choosing between essentials, such as rent and health care. The lack of affordable housing options and the soaring costs of medical treatment have turned these decisions into impossible dilemmas. Children growing up in such circumstances often face limited access to proper nutrition and quality education, hampering their chances of breaking the cycle of poverty, and often leading to a life of drugs, crime, or a combination of both. However, it’s not just younger Americans who are feeling the wrath of today’s cost of living; it’s also our nation’s senior citizens on fixed incomes. Today’s seniors are finding it increasingly challenging to cover their medical expenses and maintain a decent standard of living, eroding their retirement savings at an alarming rate. The geographical disparities in the cost of living further exacerbate the issue. While inflation and stagnant wages affect everyone, those living in metropolitan areas face even greater financial strains due to the inflated costs of housing, transportation, and other necessities. The dream of city life, once synonymous with opportunities and advancement, is now accompanied by the harsh reality of financial stress and the constant struggle to make ends meet. This phenomenon also has wider societal implications, as the diversity and dynamism that urban areas bring to the cultural landscape are threatened when only a privileged few can afford to partake in them fully. The current state of affairs demands a multifaceted approach from policymakers, community leaders. and businesses alike. Policies aimed at boosting affordable housing initiatives, wages that keep pace with inflation, and health care can significantly alleviate the challenges faced by American families. Investments in education and workforce development are equally crucial, as they empower individuals with the skills needed to secure higher-paying jobs and navigate the evolving economic landscape. Additionally, fostering an environment that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation can create new avenues for economic growth and job creation, potentially counteracting some of the negative effects of the rising cost of living. The rising cost of living is a pressing concern that demands immediate attention. It is a multifaceted issue rooted in factors such as inflation, wage stagnation, and the lack of affordable resources. The impact is far-reaching, affecting families across income levels and geographical locations. Addressing this challenge requires a comprehensive approach that includes policy reforms, investments in education and health care, and efforts to stimulate economic growth. By working collectively toward a more equitable and sustainable economic landscape, America can ensure that all its citizens have the opportunity to thrive and lead dignified lives. COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM

There is no worse example of a biased, tendentious mainstream media with ulterior motives than the castigation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during the past half-year. The latest example stems from flyspecking Justice Thomas’s amended financial disclosure reports, repeating what has never been disputed and attempting to cast a dark shadow on otherwise innocent, normal conduct — that the man has affluent friends, and these friends engage in activities with their friends, which is typical of those with wealth. Apart from the shameless and intentional misinterpretation of this reality, what is omitted from the reporting truly speaks volumes. There are neither accusations nor even circumstantial evidence that the 700-plus opinions Thomas has written over his career, the 2,800-plus cases he has voted on, and the millions of words he has authored have been compromised in any way to benefit his friends. Even the “bombshell” article by ProPublica, which detailed Thomas’s relationship with his friend Harlan Crow, conceded that “Crow and his firm have not had a case before the Supreme Court since Thomas joined it.” Throughout his tenure, neither the media nor any litigant appearing before Justice Thomas has alleged that he shortchanged justice in any case for hidden motives. Yet, this ProPublica article and its subsequent echoes desperately attempt to construe a narrative that mere friendship with an affluent individual, and receiving treatment no different from that given to other friends, somehow signifies that Justice Thomas harbors ulterior motives. The arguments presented vacillate between being feeble and outright juvenile. The cornerstone ProPublica piece, for example, musters the claim that “the details of [Crow’s] discussions with Thomas over the years remain unknown, and it is unclear if Crow has influenced the Justice’s views.” In essence, the exposé — heralded as a revelation of Justice Thomas’s alleged indiscretions — ended not with a bang but a whimper. If the mainstream media endorsed Justice Thomas’s opinions, any whining over his financial disclosures would be muted or inaudible. When liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly and injudiciously assailed Donald Trump’s candidacy in 2016, describing him as “a faker” and criticizing both his “ego” and his decision not to release his tax returns (comments for which she later apologized), most in the media winced for a few seconds but moved on. Ginsburg remained in its judicial Valhalla, without an adverse footnote, even though she didn’t recuse herself from numerous cases involving the Trump administration that subsequently came before the court. And when Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to recuse herself from a case in which her book publisher was before the court, there was nary a peep from the media. The obvious problems that could arise from these two instances warranted far more concern from media watchdogs than Justice Thomas’s case. After all, why should liberal justices be held to a less exacting standard than he? All of the justices take the same oath to support and defend the Constitution; all should be role models for the nation’s youth. Indeed, when the liberal bloc of the court held sway, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor were far more influential than Justice Thomas, who was regularly relegated to writing pointed, devastating dissents that, unfortunately, had no precedential weight. Of course, Justice Thomas is not above criticism. His judicial handiwork is fair game, as is that of every other justice; you can question his reasoning or his adherence to precedents. As former president and, later, Chief Justice William Howard Taft instructed, “Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their decisions and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act of theirs is to be subject to the intelligent scrutiny of their fellow men, and to their candid criticism. … In the case of judges having a life tenure, indeed, their very independence makes the right freely to comment on their decisions of greater importance because it is the only practical and available instrument in the hands of a free people to keep such judges alive to the reasonable demands of those they serve.” Journalists, of course, should be evenhanded in their analysis and critiquing of the opinions of all the justices. Clarence Thomas should not be singled out for special treatment, nor should any ideological bloc of justices be. Journalists should report and analyze fairly, no matter which justices’ opinions or actions they are analyzing. Supreme Court reporters, in particular, should be trained in law to distinguish between the Constitution and partisan politics; they should avoid turning fleas into elephants or shrinking elephants into fleas. The Supreme Court bears the profound responsibility of interpreting a document penned more than 250 years ago by the most visionary minds of their era. Justice Thomas, having personally endured the deep scars of racism stemming from misinterpretations of this very text, embodies the gravity and significance of this responsibility. Armstrong Williams is manager/sole owner of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast Owner of the year.