In this year of 2020, during our time of virus difficulty, riotous outbreaks against law and order, the U.S. Attorney General, William P. Barr, agreed to come before a governmental committee for questioning on various topics. From the airing of the TV portion of this process, some on the committee tried very hard to verbally “throw him under the bus.” From his opening statement, it was obvious that Barr was aware of their motives.
In case you have any interest in what Mr. Barr had to say, I am including his address to the committee in this post.
In his opening statement and before questions were addressed to him, he tries to address the importance of laws and order for all citizens of our country. Unfortunately, some of the members of the committee used their time to make speeches before asking a question, leaving little time for any meaningful dialog.
At various times, the answers to the questions just asked, were rudely interrupted by the person asking. Maybe this is why England’s Parliament just simply YELL at each other. It was not much different here with all the bias ranting that made it difficult to get to the point. Even though they had asked him to come and answer questions, he was hardly allowed to talk. As things continued to get worse, Barr asked the chairman of the committee if he could “take a 5 minute break.” Jerry Nadler, representative of the N.Y congressional district said, “No.” After a little debate about common courtesy, it was finally granted.
Most people that said they had watched all of it were greatly disgusted and felt that there was nothing productive at all. Why did the committee ask him to speak in the first place? You probably know the answer to that question…to discredit him. If their interruptions were in order to NOT ALLOW him to give answers…nor to allow him to convince the American people, before the coming election, that Barr was doing his job without being controlled by anyone, the committee was successful….successful only in acting like bullies and showing their inability to conduct such an investigation with dignity.
Why am I including this written document by Attorney General Barr?
It is simple. I would like you to know what he actually said about all of our concerns here in the country most of us love.
If you, the reader, did not hear Barr’s full opening statement or any of his answers to the questions, but only looked at excerpts from national news media… you will only hear a one-sided view with exaggerations and distortions. All Americans and anyone in other countries, who read his statement given below, will know exactly what Mr. Barr had to say. To help you, I have highlighted some of the topics that he is discussing.
Written Statement of William P. Barr, Attorney General
Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here this morning. I accepted an invitation to testify before this Committee in late March, but it was postponed as a result of the pandemic that continues to pose challenges to us all. I know some other hearings this week have been postponed to honor your late colleague, Congressman
John Lewis of Georgia. On behalf of the Department of Justice, I want to pay my respects to Congressman Lewis, an indomitable champion of civil rights and the rule of law. I think it is especially important to remember today that he pursued his cause passionately and successfully with an unwavering commitment to nonviolence.
We are in a time when the political discourse in Washington often reflects the politically divided nation in which we live, and too often drives that divide even deeper.
Political rhetoric is inherent in our democratic system, and politics is to be expected by politicians, especially in an election year. While that may be appropriate here on Capitol Hill or on cable news, it is not acceptable at the Department of Justice. At the Department, decisions must be made with no regard to political pressure—pressure from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, or from the media or mobs.
Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus “Russiagate” scandal, many of the Democrats on this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions. Judging from
the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda today. So let me turn to that first.
As I said in my confirmation hearing, the Attorney General has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice. He must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally and that criminal cases are handled even-handedly, based on the law and the facts, and without regard to political or personal considerations.
I can tell you that I have handled criminal matters that have come to me for decision in this way. The President has not attempted to interfere in these decisions. On the contrary, he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right. That is precisely what I have done.
From my experience, the President has played a role properly and traditionally played by Presidents. Like his predecessors, President Trump and his National Security Council have appropriately weighed in on law-enforcement decisions that directly implicate national security or foreign policy, because those decisions necessarily involve considerations that transcend typical prosecutorial factors. Moreover, when some noteworthy event occurs that potentially has legal ramifications – such as leaks of classified information, potential civil rights abuses by police, or illegal price fixing or gouging – the President has occasionally, and appropriately, confirmed that the Department is aware of the matter. But the handling of the matter and my decisions on criminal matters have been left to my independent judgment, based on the law and fact, without any direction or interference from the White House or anyone outside the Department.
Indeed, it is precisely because I feel complete freedom to do what I think is right that induced me serve once again as Attorney General. As you know, I served as Attorney General under President George H. W. Bush. After that, I spent many years in the corporate world. I was almost 70 years old, slipping happily into retirement as I enjoyed my grandchildren. I had nothing
to prove and had no desire to return to government. I had no prior relationship with President Trump.
But as an outsider I became deeply troubled by what I perceived as the increasing use of the criminal justice process as a political weapon and the emergence of two separate standards of justice. The Department had been drawn into the political maelstrom and was being buffeted on all sides. When asked to consider returning, I did so because I revere the Department and believed my independence would allow me to help steer her back to her core mission of applying one standard of justice for everyone and enforcing the law even-handedly, without partisan considerations. Since returning to the Department, I have done precisely that. My decisions on criminal matters before the Department have been my own, and they have been made because I believed they were right under the law and principles of justice. Let me turn briefly to several pressing issues of the day.
The horrible killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis understandably jarred the whole country and forced us to reflect on longstanding issues in our nation. Those issues obviously relate to the relationship between law enforcement and the African-American community. Given our history it is understandable that, among black Americans, there is at least some
ambivalence, and often distrust, toward the police.
Until just the last 50 years or so, our laws and institutions were explicitly discriminatory. It was not until the 60’s that the Civil Rights movement finally succeeded in tearing down the Jim Crow edifice. Our laws finally came to formally embody the guarantee of equal protection. Since then, the work of securing civil rights has rightly focused on reforming our institutions to ensure they better conform to our laws and aspirations. That work, it is important to acknowledge, has been increasingly successful.
Police forces today are far more diverse than ever before; there are both more black police chiefs and more black officers in the ranks. Although the death of George Floyd – an unarmed black man – at the hands of the police was a shocking event, the fact is that such events are fortunately quite rare. According to statistics compiled by the Washington Post, the number of unarmed black men killed by police so far this year is 8. The number of unarmed white men killed by police over the same time period is 11. Some unarmed suspects, moreover, were physically attacking officers or threatening others at the time they were shot. And the overall number of police shootings has been decreasing. Nevertheless, every instance of excessive force is unacceptable and must be addressed, as is happening now in Minneapolis.
Apart from their numbers, I think these events strike a deep chord in the black community because they are perceived as manifestation of the deeper, lingering concern that, in encounters with police, blacks will not be treated even-handedly; they will not be given the benefit of the doubt; they will be treated with greater suspicion than a white person would be in the same circumstances.
Senator Tim Scott has recounted the numerous times he has been unjustifiably pulled over on Capitol Hill. As one prominent black professional in Washington said to me, African Americans often feel “treated as suspects first and citizens second.” I think these concerns are legitimate.
At the same time, I think it would be an oversimplification to treat the problem as rooted in some deep-seated racism generally infecting our police departments. It seems far more likely that the problem stems from a complex mix of factors, which can be addressed with focused attention over time. We in law enforcement must be conscious of the concerns and ensure that we do not have two different systems of justice. In a pluralistic society like ours, composed of many races and ethnicities, we all must strive not to reduce each other to stereotypes or to allow those stereotypes to govern our treatment of our fellow citizens. Rather, we have a basic and overriding obligation to treat each other as individuals, created equal and entitled to the benefit of the doubt rather than assumptions based on skin color.
A recommitment to that principle, particularly by those entrusted with the weighty responsibilities of law enforcement, would be a worthy response to George Floyd’s death. It would ensure that good comes out of bad. The Justice Department will honor that commitment. Among other steps, we are implementing the President’s Executive Order, which outlines a number of
measures to propel continued professionalization of the police, including setting clear standards for appropriate use of force.
Unfortunately, some have chosen to respond to George Floyd’s death in a far less productive way – by demonizing the police, promoting slogans like ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards), and making grossly irresponsible proposals to defund the police. The demonization of police is not only unfair and inconsistent with the principle that all people should be treated as individuals, but gravely injurious to our inner city communities.
There is no harder job in America today than being a police officer. When officers respond to an emergency, whether a catastrophe like 9/11 or an everyday crime, they do not set out to protect white people or black people. They risk and sometimes give their lives to protect and serve all people, and all people owe them thanks.
When a community turns on and pillories its own police, officers naturally become more risk averse and crime rates soar. Unfortunately, we are seeing that now in many of our major cities. This is a critical problem that exists apart from disagreements on other issues. The threat to black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater than any threat posed by police misconduct. The leading cause of death for young black males is homicide. Every year approximately 7,500 black Americans are victims of homicide, and the vast majority of them –around 90 percent – are killed by other blacks, mainly by gunfire. Each of those lives matter.
And it is not just that crime snuffs out lives. Crime snuffs out opportunity. Children cannot thrive in playgrounds and schools dominated by gangs and drug pushers. Businesses do not locate in unsafe neighborhoods. When the police are attacked, when they are defunded, when they are driven out of urban communities, it is black lives that will suffer most from their absence.
It is for that reason that, in select cities where there has been an upsurge in violent crime, we are stepping up and bolstering the activities of our joint anti-crime task forces, which have been successful in the past. In those cities, we are adding experienced investigators, firearms and ballistics analysts, and experts at apprehending violent fugitives. We are also offering funding to support more police who can be assigned to these anti-crime task forces. To be clear, this initiative has nothing to do with the problem of violent mob rioting that I will discuss in a moment; it is instead designed to help state and local law enforcement to meet their basic responsibility to solve crimes and keep their communities safe.
Finally, I want to address a different breakdown in the rule of law that we have witnessed over the past two months. In the wake of George Floyd’s death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims. The current situation in Portland is a telling example. Every night for the past two months, a mob of hundreds of rioters has laid siege to the federal courthouse and other nearby federal property. The rioters arrive equipped for a fight, armed with powerful slingshots, tasers, sledgehammers, saws, knives, rifles, and explosive devices. Inside the courthouse are a relatively small number of federal law enforcement personnel charged with a defensive mission: to protect the courthouse, home to Article III federal judges, from being overrun and destroyed.
What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the Government of the United States. In recent nights, rioters have barricaded the front door of the courthouse, pried plywood off the windows with crowbars, and thrown commercial-grade fireworks into the building in an apparent attempt to burn it down with federal personnel inside. The rioters have started fires outside the building, and then systematically attacked federal law enforcement officers who attempt to put them out—for example, by pelting the officers with rocks, frozen water bottles, cans of food, and balloons filled with fecal matter.
A recent video showed a mob enthusiastically beating a Deputy U.S. Marshal who was trying to protect the courthouse – a property of the United States government funded by this Congress – from further destruction. A number of federal officers have been injured, including one severely burned by a mortar-style firework and three who have suffered serious eye injuries and may be permanently blind.
Largely absent from these scenes of destruction are even superficial attempts by the rioters to connect their actions to George Floyd’s death or any legitimate call for reform. Nor could such brazen acts of lawlessness plausibly be justified by a concern that police officers in Minnesota or elsewhere defied the law. Remarkably, the response from many in the media and local elected offices to this organized assault has been to blame the federal government.
To state what should be obvious, peaceful protesters do not throw explosives into federal courthouses, tear down plywood with crowbars, or launch fecal matter at federal officers. Such acts are in fact federal crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress. As elected officials of the federal government, every Member of this Committee –regardless of your political views or your feelings about the Trump Administration – should condemn violence against federal officers and destruction of federal property. So should state and local leaders who have a responsibility to keep their communities safe.
To tacitly condone destruction and anarchy is to abandon the basic rule-of-law principles that should unite us even in a politically divisive time. At the very least, we should all be able to agree that there is no place in this country for armed mobs that seek to establish autonomous zones beyond government control, or tear down statues and monuments that law-abiding communities chose to erect, or to destroy the property and livelihoods of innocent business owners.
The most basic responsibility of government is to ensure the rule of law, so that people can live their lives safely and without fear. The Justice Department will continue working to meet that solemn responsibility. (All words are by the Author, Attorney General William P Barr)
LAW, ORDER and JUSTICE….are words that may not be easily comprehended UNLESS we are all part of the equation. Turn up your sound for a prayer for all of us.
Almost everyone I know in Virginia owns a gun or has a permit to carry one. These are upstanding, law-abiding citizens, church goers who love people and America. There is no doubt in my mind, if gun control laws should be changed in the USA to try to prevent the terrible tragedies we have seen recently and throughout the years, they would stand their ground to maintain their “Constitutional Right” of the 2nd Amendment. Yet, each time the mentally ill or a person with evil intent goes on a rampage, harming innocent children and adults in our country, the debate over guns begins again. The reason, of course, is that everyone wants an answer to what may be unanswerable.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE FACTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA?
Mass shootings are considered any shooting where more than 3 people are shot. This does not include the injured whose lives are often forever changed. Neither does it account for the emotional harm or fear that Americans experience. After mass shootings, most Americans try to go on with their everyday lives. To change what they do in attending a movie, club, or sporting event because of the fear of terrorism or criminal activity, would be giving in to the perpetrator. That would not be the American way.
Here are a few examples of mass shootings from the 1980’s to the present:
- McDonalds 22 died
- Columbine High School 59 died
- Virginia Tech 32 died
- Sandy Hook Elementary 28 died …very small children and teachers
- Orlando nightclub 49 died
- Church Shootings: Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. 9 dead and 1st Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX 26 dead
- Las Vegas 58 died
- Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Fla., 17 died…children and teachers
In the 1990’s 159 people died and in 1994, there was an assault weapons ban. During the 2000’s, there were 20 incidents of mass shootings taking the lives of 170 people.
Many cities in the USA, like Chicago, Baltimore and Philadelphia experience single shootings every day…sometimes every hour. Gangs are armed and the Assault Weapons Ban has done little good when criminal elements are at work. As far as mass shootings, since 2010, the U.S. has experienced at least 40 incidents, killing over 350 innocent people.
Law enforcers who try to control areas and situations are also victims. The number of deaths of law enforcers has also increased because of gangs, border crimes, and local offenders. Their job of trying to keep our communities safe is a most difficult one. Their weapons are essential in apprehensions…and hopefully, do not have to be used. One can take a look at the listings on memorials and see the terrible effect on those who serve and their families.
Slides of Some Memorials to our Police who have died in the line of duty by a violent offender.
GANG VIOLENCE and Drugs
When little children are involved, it is even harder to understand the motivation for violence. Gang members, who shoot from their cars at random, aim at little children walking to or from school. Adults take a chance with their own lives as they often accompany the children. We know for certain that there will be a great judgment for those who harm children. (Mark 9:42 in the Holy Scriptures “And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone was hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”) See memorial to Sandy Hook children and victims at end of the video.)
The law enforcers, FBI, and even parents cannot be everywhere at all times. Schools, theaters, concert halls, sports events and even churches are having to up their security. This is not only about the fear of terrorist attacks but for the insane or criminal element who would plan to do something terrible to average citizens. Unfortunately, it was not enough for the Florida High School even though teachers were told to not allow the shooter on campus with a backpack and the FBI had been notified of his social media postings with no real results.
I was a teacher for years in Florida and we were trained on lockdown situations, but how in the world is a teacher suppose to confront a perpetrator bent on killing as many as possible, and ask him/her to “take your backpack off campus”. Throughout the nation, most school employees have taken training courses on what to do if attacked. Others have called for the arming of teachers.
After the church massacre in South Carolina of an African American congregation, some citizens who keep their eye on odd behavior have armed themselves. Others opposed carrying weapons into the house of worship. If so, some states require a sign outside stating their opposition to bringing weapons inside the church.
Here is a quote around this issue: “Before the Sutherland Springs shooting, several major church groups in Texas, including leaders of the United Methodist Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Texas, had advised their membership to ban weapons from services. Citing the Catholic doctrine that the real presence of Jesus Christ exists inside the sanctuary,… dioceses in major cities, including Dallas, San Antonio and Houston, banned guns. But in the aftermath of Sutherland Springs, church leaders of various denominations have faced pressure to reconsider their positions on weapons. In November, just a day after the shooting in South Texas, the Diocese of Dallas said it would not formally lift its ban on the open or concealed carry of firearms inside its churches, but it advised its parishes to consider removing outdoor signs that advertised the prohibition on guns out of fear it would make the churches more vulnerable to attack. But the move effectively allowed the carry of weapons, since state law requires any business banning guns to install a public sign formally stating that policy…” (taken from article by Holly Bailey)
How tragic is it that one can’t feel safe in their place of worship or at school!
One article that I read in my research said that there are so many guns in America, both criminal elements and the law-abiding, that no decision on gun control will help the situation. The criminals are fully armed. The insane usually can find a way to get a gun, which may be within the home of people with good mental health.
Various organizations have opposed labeling anyone as a “mental risk”. We ask people to get psychological help if depressed or have other concerns, but some may be hesitant to go to a psychiatrist for treatment. Why? The fear is that government may eventually require names of patients who are seeing the physician…just to determine if John Doe is a security risk to the community or nation. What about HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act) which is an act to protect your privacy? It may be a good thing to read who HIPPA allows having information on you.
Do the mentally ill have rights under the HIPPA laws? According to Mental Health America is the following statement: “While providers generally follow their clients’ wishes, there are emergency situations when a provider may disclose relevant, protected health information to an outside party, including family members or law enforcement. These special circumstances include times when a provider believes there is an imminent threat of harm to self or others, or where an individual is deemed “incapacitated,” lacking the ability to make one’s health decisions, and sharing information is in the best interest of the client’s care”. (Mental Health America link)
Parents may not look at their minor teens as a public security risk, but feel that their odd behaviors are “going through a phase” which they expect will eventually be outgrown. In the Sandy Hook incident, the mother allowed her son to have weapons, which was used to kill her and the children of Sandy Hook Elementary. Some feel that even beefed up mental health improvements could have some problems. Others wonder if they can trust the government to guarantee their Constitutional rights. It is all most complicated.
Police recommend over and over “Say Something if You See Something”. Our hat is off to the young man who photographed the threat made as a comment about “being a professional school shooting” online and talked to the FBI. This young man had no connections and lived in another state from Florida. Yet he spoke up, saying “I just couldn’t let that go by.” Teens communicate almost exclusively through social media. They are aware many times of who is sending out signals of desperation, hatred, and intents. Parents also need to keep an open conversation and awareness with their children.
Another call is for a renewed effort on mental health. It will also take people beyond government or medical intervention to change the mental attitudes in American. The clergy can bring faith and understanding. Parents should get off their phones and get involved in real, everyday conversation with their children. All people in communities should keep their eyes open and be unafraid to speak out when needed. We are all in this together. Nevertheless, the debate goes on about gun control and mental health because the grief is real and most Americans hope that there can be an answer to the insanity.
VIDEO ON THE HISTORY OF GUNS IN AMERICA (Turn up sound)
As our children are growing up, we compliment them when they are doing the right thing. I have never heard of a parent paying a child to be good. Yes, we may have given them allowances of a few dollars, but that was for tasks that they were expected to do. Not doing them…meant no allowance. Through that allowance, a child may be encouraged to buy something that they especially want; save part of it for a “rainy day” and give some (maybe 10%) to the poor or the church.
Things have changed drastically it seems. Some children have grown up to be adults and have decided that “crime pays”. To keep these people from killing each other, one city has decided to PAY them to be good. You can read all about it in an article written by Tim Murphy . Crime was so bad in Richmond, CA that the cry was “do anything…to stop it”.
This is when they came up with the idea of paying criminals not to kill each other or anyone else. DeVone Boggan became the director of the Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS). His committee members combed the streets of Richmond, making a list of criminals that they would approach with a financial offer. The police, at one point complained about the ONS because their policy was not to pass any information to the police department. Some criminals who agreed to try the ONS’s proposals were being paid up to $1,000 a month for this arrangement.
At the onset, the crime rate went down about 10%, but by the end of writing his article about Richmond, Mr. Murphy came to his conclusion on the policy of paying for good behavior:
“…Three weeks after I met with Boggan, the city’s 137-day murder-free streak ended. A 38-year-old man was killed in a drive-by shooting, and over the next few weeks, Richmond seemed to be sliding back to the bad old days. A 43-year-old woman and a 24-year-old man were gunned down within 24 hours of each other. A 30-year-old woman shot the 16-year-old father of her child in a dispute over his new girlfriend. A robber was shot and killed during a break-in. None of them was on Boggan’s list.
It appears that some City Councilmen, who spoke out about the validity of the program of payment to criminals for good behavior and asked for a investigation into use of finances in Richmond, CA, were threatened.
Mr. Hoggan writes “…In 2014, we celebrated the lowest number of firearm assaults and homicides in more than four decades. Richmond recorded a 76 percent reduction in homicides and a 69 percent reduction in firearm assaults from 2007, when the Office of Neighborhood Safety was created. In reality, we’ve achieved these results not simply by the cash incentive. Our change agents work with about 150 clients a year, at a cost of about $20,000 per person, which pays for daily mentoring, coaching and companionship. By comparison, it costs our city about $200,000 to hire one new police officer.” (The ONS is funded by the people of Richmond and at time asks for donations.)
According to writer, Megan Walsh, The police do not work with ONS, though, and there have been tensions and, sometimes, embarrassments. In 2011, a brawl broke out when rival gang members arrived at City Hall to pick up their checks. The ONS staff refused to hand over the names of those involved. Bill Johnson, director of the National Association of Police Organizations, says that can send a message that police aren’t part of the solution — which in turn could be “corroding the social fabric we all have to live under.”
Maybe this is why people do not speak out to what is wrong or degrading to the moral values of the communities around us. Fear is a weapon that not only terrorist use but by those who have “sold their soul” to evil ways.
Michael Linsin gave some advice to teachers about not bribing their students with rewards if they will do their best work. I think his advise could also be applied to any town, state or nation that might be considering a similar program as Richmond. Here it is in part:
“Rewards lead to entitlement. When you offer rewards(money) in return for good behavior, you create a peculiar sense of entitlement. They’ll feel entitled to receive something for merely doing what is expected….
Rewards cheapen the intrinsic motivation to behave. Being rewarded to behave cheapens the intrinsic merit of being a valued citizen. In other words, it puts a price tag on the priceless.
Rewards lead to more and more and more. When you put a price tag on good behavior by offering rewards… will demand higher and more frequent payments. Rewards, you see, are not only ineffective in the long term, but they weaken over time.”
Mr. Linsin concludes: “The Ultimate Reward Good behavior is its own reward because it offers one self-respect and confidence…”
If a person has no confidence or self-respect…or has never been taught right from wrong, how will paying him change his heart or motivation to not kill, steal or commit crimes?
One has to ask, “What is our society coming to?” Have we become so callused and insensitive to what is right and wrong that we no longer have conscience? Yes, there is a big problem with incarceration and an over-crowded jail system. Has this problem become so big that “Do the crime…serve the time” no longer has meaning?
Is parenting so bad among many parts of our society that we are no longer teaching right from wrong to our children? Are we allowing impressionable minds to watch so much violence on T.V. and video games, that even our young people are becoming de-sensitized? This would also apply to children who must endure alcoholic, drug addicted or abusive parents…to them or to each other.
When I was an Assistant Principal to elementary students in Florida, there was so much misbehaving in the classroom that I had to take care of. When taking a child to my office, I would ask them to lay down on a blanket that I had next to my desk. Within minutes, the child would be totally asleep and stay that way sometimes for hours. A security officer at one of my schools, told me that I should ride with him some night into the community. He said I would see little children from ages 5-10 out on the street with parents who were gathering for who knows what reason. Children did not do homework; read with parents, or get the sleep they needed. Of course the same students came to school hungry the next morning for the free government provided breakfast. Even if some children are not roaming the streets late at night, they may be left in their rooms with a TV or computer as a sitter, with no expected time to crawl into bed for a good night’s rest. More and more is being exposed of teens who are finding themselves victims of the internet crime. America, we must wake up!
Are we ignoring teaching our children because we also have an addiction to the electronic devises around us?
How much time do we spend reading and sharing conversation that teach values to our children or grandchildren?
Drug addiction has reached a new high, even among the middle class and elite that often leads to crime to feed the habit. Will we also begin to pay the dealers not to deal? Is that also what Richmond is doing? Of course that would not work, for the profit margin difference to deal or not to deal would be ridiculous. So many questions…and so few answers to a society that needs new spiritual and moral revival We must have an awakening within ourselves and our communities. It will take leadership as well as the ordinary person to make a difference. It is not easy to work hard; get an education and then find a job to support oneself. Fast money is alluring and deceptive. The rich and famous like sports stars and entertainers, who are looked up to by much of our society have a responsibility to speak out to the value of hard work and perseverance.
I hope that Richmond, CA will find an answer to their criminal element…and for all communities that suffer from the problem of crime. Paying the criminal to be “good men and women” may not be the answer. In most cases, no amount of bribery will change a soul. Only God can do that. Perhaps Dr. Phil says it best, “When are we going to stop rewarding bad behavior?”