Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   10/21/2014

Voting integrity and Ebola response

Tonight’s topic and guest speakers are focused on a timely statewide issue that nonetheless has local repercussions. The issue is election (or voter) integrity—cleaning up elections by purging voter rolls of dead and relocated voters. The guests will be Mike and Patty Smith of Corning; meeting starts at 6 PM, Westside Grange.
The Democrat left dismisses the contention that vote fraud even exists, let alone swings election results. The truth is that ballot boxes mysteriously disappear, or even appear; voters move but still vote in previous locations; students vote at home and at their campus precincts; felons and noncitizens get their names added to the rolls. This primarily benefits the Democrat Party and effectively cancels someone else’s legitimate vote.
There are numerous relevant and unflattering (to President Obama and his sycophantic party acolytes) elements to the Ebola story. Going beyond my last 2 columns, I found the events of last week to be astonishing. First, I’ll not over state or hype the situation because we don’t live in a backward, third world nation of poor health and medical practices. America’s path will not replicate a Hollywood disaster picture with infections spread by merely breathing on each other.
Locally, Ebola is an irrelevancy. Similarly, unless you have made poor decisions to use, buy, sell, manufacture or grow drugs, if you have no contact or interaction with the (unfortunately) ever-growing population of gang-bangers, if you haven’t made poor judgments by becoming personally hooked- or shacked-up with an abusive or psychotic partner, and if your world of contacts are people similarly situated to yourself, you have very little risk of being a victim of any violent crime.
By the way, I discovered in my last gun permit class just why it’s true: locally, being a victim of an “active shooter” in a public place or a home invasion by a stranger is highly unlikely. On average, there are about 1.5 gun permits per 1,000 Californians; in Shasta County (it’s likely similar for Tehama County) there are about 30 carry permits per 1,000 people. That means that a gun-carrying criminal is very unlikely to encounter an armed citizen in California—only one or two out a thousand people. Locally, however, the criminal can expect that, out of every 30 or so people, there will be someone with a concealed, legally carried gun. That means at least one in every restaurant, grocery store, business or church. Not the kind of odds favoring a long life for the criminal shooter.
Now, I’ll sum up the remarkable developments on the Ebola front: All of the arguments for not implementing travel bans, or at least restrictions, are bogus and, when uttered by anyone in the Obama administration, endanger the American people. It is irrefutable that, had travel by any non-U.S. citizen from the African nations plagued by Ebola been banned—had that ban been in place from the start, an infected Mr. Duncan would never have entered America and no American health workers would have subsequently become infected. That decision was on Obama alone to make and implement and he blew it to the detriment and ongoing expense of hospitals, doctors, nurses and our general public.
The minute that someone else becomes infected, traceable to Duncan or those nurses, the buck stops with Obama for those infections or deaths. I hope and pray that doesn’t happen; however, Obama can’t appoint his way out of responsibility or culpability. It’s ludicrous to state that authorities can’t track the travel history of anyone legally entering our borders (and once again a border fence could have been built by Obama; Congress voted for and funded it) because passports are stamped for precisely that purpose. I read that Obama is in an angry snit over the poor, pathetic response of his federal government—he should go yell at a mirror.
Then, to pile prevarication on top of outrage, Democrats—with a major assist by the Associated Press—drew first political blood by their Tourette Syndrome response blaming…the sequester. Some hack from the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, swung into action whining about budget cuts, “a 10-year slide in research support,” as an excuse for not having a vaccine. Then a funny thing happened on the way to figuratively lynching Republicans for heartlessly pulling the plug on medical research: The Truth Came Out!
Almost simultaneously, Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave the “GOP Cut CDC Funding” story his “whopper” rating—“four Pinocchios,” while the UK Daily Mail and others revealed that the NIH’s budget doubled from 2000 to 2008 and has remained around $40 billion per year for Obama’s entire term. That’s right, the global NIH budget, as well as the sub-budget for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, doubled under President Bush and remained elevated subject only to Obama’s request or a small sequester cut. That massive budget also funded a host of ridiculous projects: “Zombie Novella,” “Origami condoms,” “poop-throwing skills of chimpanzees,” “30-something binge drinking partiers,” “uncircumcised South African tribesmen,” and on and on.

Obama did take time from his endless golfing to appoint as an Ebola “Czar” political hatchet man, Ron Klain, who knows as much about medicine as I know about rocket science. Apparently, we are in the very best of hands, folks, and that’s the sad truth.



On Friday, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, complained that budget cuts had interfered with his agency’s ability to develop an anti-Ebola vaccine:
Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would’ve gone through clinical trials and would have been ready.
This sent Democrats into a twitter frenzy: sequester, here we go again! Ebola is the Republicans’ fault!
The Democrats’ argument is silly in almost too many ways to count, but let’s have fun with this one: has the NIH’s budget been stretched so tight that there was no money for high-priority projects like Ebola research? Or is this simply a case of misplaced priorities?
The Daily Mail answers that question in hilarious style:
The $30 billion U.S. National Institutes of Health blamed tightening federal budgets on Monday for its inability to produce an Ebola vaccine, but a review of its grant-making history in the last 10 years has turned up highly unusual research that redirected precious funds away from more conventional public health projects.
The projects included $2.4 million to develop “origami” condoms designed with Japanese folding paper in mind, and $939,000 to find out that male fruit flies prefer to romance younger females because the girl-flies’ hormone levels drop over time.
Other winners of NIH grants consumed $325,000 to learn that marriages are happier when wives calm down more quickly during arguments with their husbands, and $257,000 to make an online game as a companion to first lady Michelle Obama’s White House garden.
The agency also spent $117,000 in taxpayers’ grant dollars to discover that most chimpanzees are right-handed.
The same group of scientists determined, at a cost of $592,000 for NIH, that chimps with the best poop-throwing skills are also the best communicators. …
Part of a $666,000 NIH grant supported a University of Buffalo researcher who determined that watching sitcom reruns like “Seinfeld” or re-watching old movies helps older people feel re-connected with pseudo-friends from their past.
Another outlay of $181,000 went to University of Kentucky researchers who studied how cocaine use “enhanced” the sex drive of the Japanese quail.
That one is my favorite.
It took a different NIH department to see the value in giving a University of Missouri team $548,000 to find out if 30-something partiers feel immature after they binge drink while people in their mid-20s don’t.
“We interpreted our findings to suggest that, at 25, drinking is more culturally acceptable,” declared a doctoral student who coordinated the government-funded field work.
A generous $610,000 paid for a 120-nation survey to determine how satisfied people in different countries are with their lives.
A staggering $1.1 million funded research into how athletes perceive their in-game surroundings, including one Purdue University study that discovered golfers can putt 10 per cent better if they imagine the hole is bigger.
And $832,000 went to learn if it was possible to get uncircumcised South African tribesmen into the habit of washing their genitals after having sex.
This chart shows the funding of the National Institutes of Health in red, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the agency that is actually working on treatments for Ebola, in blue:
Note that NIAID’s funding has grown by more than 200% since 2000.
This episode reflects the fact that the Democrats simply aren’t serious. A worldwide epidemic threatens to kill thousands, potentially millions of people, and all the Democrats can think of: is there some half-baked way we can blame this on Republicans and get a boost in the midterms?
It also illustrates the fundamental problem with one federal agency after another: instead of sticking to its core mission and executing it competently, the agency goes down one trendy (and often politically correct) byway after another. It thereby dissipates its resources, loses its focus, and winds up performing its real mission poorly.

(Plus this followup)


John wrote yesterday about the alleged NIH “budget cuts.” Dr. Michael Rogers of Harvard Medical School/Children’s Hospital (Boston) follows up with a brief message providing a concise summary as well as a link to the authoritative CRS fact sheet setting forth a history of NIH funding (dated December 23, 2013):
Attached [at the link above] is a CRS analysis of the actual NIH budget for the last several years in inflation adjusted (real) dollars. It’s worth noting that after the Republican takeover in ’94, the NIH budget rose until the Dems took over Congress in 2006. The Pelosi/Reid Congress was the first to flatline the NIH budget in nominal dollars. If they’re not careful, someone might notice, take the Dems at their word that the decreasing NIH budget is the reason we don’t have Ebola drugs yet, and blame the Democrats.
He adds: “BTW, the increase in NIAID budget (which is congressionally determined) is a result of the post 9/11 anthrax scare.”

Monday, October 20, 2014

Answering Ted Olson

Answering Ted Olson
Changing marriage is not the way to secure dignity and respect for gay couples.
By Mona Charen

Elbert Guillory: Bear-Killer, Gadfly, Statesman

Elbert Guillory: Bear-Killer, Gadfly, Statesman
The now-famous GOP convert challenges Louisiana blacks to leave Landrieu and the Democratic fold.
By Joel Gehrke

The Other War on Women

The Other War on Women
By The Editors

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Thank You, ISIS

Thank You, ISIS 
The beheadings have achieved what all the warnings from conservatives never could. 
Image from ISIS-produced video of the execution of James Foley.

Beheadings of innocent human beings are unspeakable acts reflecting the barbaric savagery of the Islamic “holy war” against the West — against us. Yet despite the intentions of their perpetrators, they have had an unexpected utility. Their gruesome images have entered the living rooms and consciousness of ordinary Americans and waked them up.
The barbarity of the Islamic movement for world domination has actually been evident for decades: in the suicide bombing of the Marine compound in Lebanon in 1982, in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the suicide attacks on Jews — men, women, and children — during the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000, in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, and in the beheadings perpetrated in Iraq by al-Qaeda’s Abu al-Zarqawi and the Salafist group known as Ansar al-Islam during the Iraq War.
Unfortunately, the response to these barbarities on the part of the Democratic party and the liberal elites has been to condemn and marginalize anyone who called them barbarous. In their eyes, it is racist to use the word “barbarism” to describe the acts of any Third World people. To associate Islam with the Islamists wasIslamophobic. President Obama is still trapped in this time warp, denying in so many words that the Islamic State is Islamic. For America’s commander-in-chief to make such an obviously moronic statement about his country’s enemy in wartime reflects how deeply settled is the ideology of protecting the Islamists (and jeopardizing the innocent). Even Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, could not bring himself to describe the enemy as Islamic. Settling on “War on Terror” as a descriptive term was a way of eliding the fact that the savagery was motivated by not by nihilism but by Islamic faith. The Obama Democrats have gone even deeper into denial, eliminating “War on Terror” from the government vocabulary and replacing it with “overseas contingency operations.”

For more than a decade, a handful of conservatives, of whom I was one, tried to sound the alarm about the Islamist threat. For our efforts, we were ridiculed, smeared as bigots, and marginalized as Islamophobes. In 2004 I published a book called Unholy Alliance about the Islamist movement and the support it was receiving from the American Left. For my concern, Harvard professor and Islam expert Noah Feldman dismissed me as a “relic” in the New York Times Book Review. It was the last time the Times mentioned one of my books.
In 2006 and 2007, I organized nearly 200 “teach-ins” on American campuses, which I called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” weeks. The idea was to legitimize the term “Islamo-fascist” as a description of the enemy confronting us. These demonstrations were attacked by the Muslim Students Association, which is a recruiting organization for the Muslim Brotherhood, and by Students for Justice in Palestine, a front for the terrorist party Hamas. They also inspired the contempt of the liberal Left. Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo devoted two YouTube videos to ridiculing me for holding the demonstrations. Campus leftists called the students who organized them racists, bigots, and Islamophobes.
Resolutions denouncing critics of Islamic misogyny and terror as “Islamophobes” were unanimously passed by leftist-run student councils at UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, and a dozen other elite schools. Lengthy reports on the menace of Islamophobia targeted me and other speakers at our campus demonstrations, including Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes. These reports, costing tens of thousands of dollars to produce, were published by FAIR, CAIR, the egregious Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for American Progress — the brain trust of the Democratic party.
And then came ISIS. The horrific images of the beheadings, the reports of mass slaughters, and the threats to the American homeland have accomplished what our small contingent of beleaguered conservatives could never have achieved by ourselves. They brought images of these Islamic fanatics and savages into the living rooms of the American public, and suddenly the acceptable language for describing the enemy began to change. “Savages” and “barbarians” began to roll off the tongues of evening-news anchors and commentators who never would have dreamed of crossing that line before, for fear of offending the politically correct.
Virtually every major Muslim organization in America is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of Islamic terror. Huma Abedin, who was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and is still Clinton’s confidante and principal aide), comes from a family of Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Yet legislators who have the power to investigate these matters are still intimidated from even raising them. Representative Michele Bachmann, who did raise them, was excoriated as a racist not only by the Left but also by John Boehner and John McCain.
Language is a weapon in the battle against the threat we face. We cannot fight a war effectively when we cannot name the enemy or describe his methods or examine his influence on our own policy. The Islamic State has created an opportunity for common sense and realism to prevail. The tragedy is that it has taken the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and the ongoing extermination of the Catholic presence in Iraq to begin to wake people up. And, unfortunately, the president is still asleep or, less charitably, is hostile to American purposes, is hostile to the military that defends us, and identifies more with the Islamic world that has produced these forces who would destroy us than with the country he is sworn to defend.
— David Horowitz is the author of the recently published Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left (Regnery 2014).

Don't 'Vote for the Candidate'

There is a noble-sounding attitude that many Americans hold regarding whom they vote for. "I vote for the candidate," they say.
It sure sounds good. Voting for the best candidate, rather than the party, sounds as American as apple pie. But as the Democratic Party has become a doctrinaire left-wing party, this sentiment is no longer noble. It is actually foolish and dangerous.
There was a time when there were terrific Democrats whom an independent and even a Republican could vote for. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was such an example. He was a liberal -- he believed in the good that he thought an expanding government could provide -- but he was a hawk on foreign policy. 
What did "hawk" mean? Hawks were politicians such as Lieberman who believed that both for America's sake and in order to reduce cruelty on earth, America must be the world's most militarily powerful country, and that it must be prepared to use this power, when feasible, against the world's worst cruelest tyrannies.
Lieberman wasn't the only such Democrat.  
Another was the great U.S. senator from New York (served: 1977-2001), Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who coined the phrase that summarized the post-1960s steep decline in America's values: "Defining Deviancy Down," the title of an article he wrote in 1993 for the American Scholar (a conservative journal). 
Another such Democrat was Henry "Scoop" Jackson who served as U.S. Senator from Washington state from 1953 to 1983. Jackson was one of the leading anti-Communist "hawks" in American politics. 
But such Democratic politicians no longer exist. The left chased Lieberman and others out of the party. 
Therefore, voting for just about any Democrat for the House or the Senate, and almost as consistently for governor, is a vote for leftism. It is a vote for clones of President Barack Obama, Senator Harry Reid, and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, to mention just the leaders of the Democratic Party. 
Obamacare provides an excellent example of why "voting for the candidate" is an act of self-delusion. Every vote for this medical and economic transformation of America came from Democrats in the House and Senate; and every Republican, even the most "moderate," voted against it. Regarding the most destructive legislation in modern American history, "the candidate" didn't mean a thing. Party meant everything. 
This may be the primary reason Republicans do not do better in a country in which few of its citizens identify themselves as "left:" Republicans run against their opponents, rather than against the left and the Democratic Party. That's what Mitt Romney did. And that's why he lost an election he should have won. Romney never defined his presidential campaign as being opposed to the left or to the Democratic Party. It was solely against Barack Obama, a popular president at the time and the first black ever to serve as president, something that continued to mean a lot to many Americans who hoped that this fact would reduce black animosity toward white America. 
Had Mitt Romney constantly repeated that he was not merely running against Barack Obama, the man, but against Barack Obama, the most left-wing president in American history, and continually explained what that meant, he might well have won. But he never made the election about ideology or party. Instead it was about individuals. He, Romney, was the best candidate because he could fix things -- as he did in his business career and with the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. So the election was not about how big government undermines the whole American experiment; how big government makes citizens small people; how the left sees America as just another country; how the teachers unions have helped ruin public education; how the left changed our universities from places of education to places of indoctrination; or how cruelty -- mass murder, torture, slavery, and totalitarianism -- would inevitably take over as America retreated from more and more places. 
Which brings us to the present elections. The most horrific movement since Nazism and communism, violent Islamism, has taken over much of Iraq solely because America retreated from that country. Millions of Americans understood, and many of us wrote and broadcast, that if America leaves Iraq, a country that was becoming increasingly stable and peaceful, it would be transformed into a bloodbath -- which is exactly what has happened.
Why doesn't every Republican candidate remind voters that the Democratic Party supported the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq -- and that this made the Islamic State possible? 
Either the left succeeds, or America succeeds. Tell that to your constituents, Republican candidates. And then tell them that the left's political party is the one your opponent is proud to represent.



But the Obama administration refuses to impose a travel ban.

This summer, the U.S. government imposed a travel ban on Israel simply to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire agreement. But we can't put a travel restriction on countries where a contagious disease is raging.

It's becoming increasingly clear this is just another platform for Obama to demonstrate that we are citizens of the world. The entire Ebola issue is being discussed -- by our government, not the United Nations -- as if Liberians are indistinguishable from Americans, and U.S. taxpayers should be willing to pay whatever it takes to save them.

Maybe we should give them the vote, too! If Ebola was concentrated in Finland and Norway -- certainly Israel! -- we'd have had a travel ban on Day One.

The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Tom Frieden, justifies Obama's refusal to prohibit flights originating in Ebola-plagued countries, saying, "A travel ban is not the right answer. It's simply not feasible to build a wall -- virtual or real -- around a community, city or country."

What is it with liberals living in gated communities always telling us that fences don't work? THAT'S WHAT A QUARANTINE IS.

At the congressional hearing on Ebola last week, Republicans repeatedly pressed the CDC representative, Dr. Toby Merlin, to explain why Obama refuses to impose a travel ban.

In about 17 tries, Merlin came up with no plausible answer. Like Frieden, Merlin kept insisting that "the only way to protect Americans" is to end the epidemic in Africa.

Why, precisely, must we attack Ebola in Africa? Research on a cure doesn't require cuddling victims in their huts. Scientists who discovered the AIDS cocktail didn't spend their nights at Studio 54 in order to "fight the disease at its source."

Until there's a treatment, we can't put out the disease there, or here. The only thing Americans will be doing in Liberia is changing the bedpans of victims, getting infected and bringing Ebola back to America. When there's a vaccine, we can mail it.

Naturally, Obama is sending troops from the 101st Airborne, the pride of our Army, to Liberia. Their general should resign in protest.

Merlin further explained the travel ban, saying that if West Africans can't fly to America, "that would cause the disease to grow in that area and spill over into other countries." So instead of infecting people in surrounding countries, our CDC wants them to come here and infect Americans.

But that won't happen because the government assures us there's nothing to worry about with Ebola. They've got it under control.

Unfortunately, everything the government says about this disease keeps being proved untrue -- usually within a matter of days.

They told us that you'd basically have to roll in an infected person's vomit to catch the disease. Then, nurses at two first-world hospitals in Spain and the U.S. contracted Ebola from patients.

With no evidence, the CDC simply announced that the nurses were not following proper "protocol." The disease didn't operate the way CDC said it would, so the hospitals must be lying.

The government told us that national quarantines won't work, but then they quarantine everyone with Ebola -- or who has been near someone with Ebola, such as an entire NBC crew. To me, this suggests that there's some value in keeping people who have been near Ebola away from people who have not.

Quite obviously, the only way to protect Americans is to prevent Ebola from coming here in the first place. The problem isn't that Ebola will leap across oceans to infect Americans; it's that Obama doesn't want to protect Americans.

At least he's only putting expendable Americans on the frontlines of the Ebola epidemic -- doctors, nurses, members of the 101st Airborne.

At the moment, more than 13,000 West Africans have travel visas to come to the U.S. Having just seen an Ebola-infected Liberian get $500,000 worth of free medical treatment in the U.S., the first thing any African who might have Ebola should do is get himself to America.

Of all the reasons people have for coming here -- welfare, drug-dealing, Medicare scams -- "I have Ebola and I'm going to die, otherwise" is surely one of the strongest. The entire continent of Africa now knows that this is a country that will happily spend half a million dollars on treating someone who just arrived -- and then berate itself for not doing enough.

Thomas Eric Duncan's family may be upset with his treatment, but they have to admit, the price was right. Medical bill: $0.00. Your next statement will arrive in 30 days.

And now we're going to have to let in entire families with Ebola, because the important thing is -- actually, I don't know why. It's some technical, scientific point about fences not working.

Republicans -- Americans -- have got to demand Frieden's resignation. If only we could demand Obama's.

1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Proactive Policing Is Not ‘Racial Profiling’

Proactive Policing Is Not ‘Racial Profiling’ 
If officers back off from legitimate police actions, residents in high-crime minority neighborhoods will be the first to suffer. 
Marchers in St. Louis protest the shooting of Vonderrit Myers Jr., October 9, 2014. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Here’s the latest definition of “racial profiling:” taking legitimate police action against a black criminal. This definition comes to us by way of St. Louis, where a new set of property-destroying protests have broken out, in addition to the daily agitation in Ferguson, Mo. The protest trigger this time: An officer killed a black teenager who had been shooting at the officer with a stolen handgun. This latest agitation and the rhetoric around it are a troubling indication that the demagoguery against the police is spinning dangerously out of control
According to the police report, on Wednesday night, an off-duty officer waspatrolling a St. Louis neighborhood for a private security company searching for suspects in a recent home invasion. The officer was in uniform and presumably driving a marked car. When a group of three men saw the officer, one took off running. The officer made a U-turn in his car, and the other two men started running as well. The officer noticed that one of the men was holding his waistband as if he had a gun, and the officer then pursued on foot. The suspect, 18-year-old Vonderrit D. Myers, got into an “intense struggle” with the officer, according to the incident report, then shot off three rounds at him. The officer responded with fire as Myers continued to pull the trigger; Myers’s gun jammed, and the officer killed Myers.
Myers, predictably being portrayed as a Boy Scout by his family and friends, was already wanted by the law for serious crimes. He was facing trial in November for the unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest. In June, after a car in which Myers was riding led the police in a high-speed chase, Myers ditched the car and threw a loaded pistol into a sewer. In this latest incident on Wednesday, according to the protesters and Myers’s family, this innocent (who was wearing an ankle bracelet to ensure his appearance in court) had simply gone out to buy a sandwich before getting shot.
The officer’s initial interest in Myers this week was perfectly legal. An officer’s suspicion is legitimately raised when someone in an area recently plagued with crime takes off running upon seeing the police. The officer’s turning the car around was a justified response to the flight — it allowed the officer to further observe the men’s behavior. After the officer noticed Myers hitching up his waistband, he had more than adequate grounds for pursuit. And yet protesters are now denouncing the officer’s proactive response as “racial profiling”: “White police officers are fearful of young black males, but that doesn’t justify profiling them each and every day when they’re out and about,” said state senator Jamilah Nasheed, quoted in the New York Times. Leave aside the insulting claim that the officer’s suspicion was based on “fear.” If the officer “feared” Myers, why did he pursue him? Contrary to the claims of protesters, the officer did not focus on Myers initially simply because he was “out and about,” but because he was fleeing from him in the area of a recent crime. If officers can no longer take note of such behavior, then there will be no more public safety, period. The only way to avoid what the protesters and Senator Nasheed label as “racial profiling” is to stop proactive policing entirely.
Myers’s potentially lethal assault on the officer may have been provoked by his pending court case, but it may also have been provoked by the building animus against the police, animus that has already resulted in shots being fired at officers in and around the Ferguson protests. This hostility carries a huge set of consequences, including — most critically — putting officers’ lives at risk. But if the police back off from proactive policing, law-abiding residents of minority neighborhoods are going to be hurt the most. Everyone who has turned the Ferguson shooting into a symbol of widespread police racism, from Al Sharpton to Eric Holder, bears responsibility for this escalating crisis of police legitimacy.
— Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute.