Connect with us

Opinion

Letters to the Editor — May 11, 2021

Published

on

Letters to the Editor — May 11, 2021

The Issue: A shooting in Times Square that left three bystanders injured, including a 4-year-old girl.

It is disheartening to read the front-page article “Times Square mayhem” (May 9).

But there should be no surprise here. We have one of the worst and most incompetent mayors, elected twice by the people of New York City.

This mayor supported defunding the police and has demoralized an entire police force.

Our policies seem to support criminals having easy access to guns.

As the Hosea 8:7 said: “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” I hope our next mayor will be a good deal more competent and smarter.

Martin Garfinkle

Staten Island

Times Square is no longer safe. All of Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s work to clean up New York City is down the drain.

When a 4-year-old girl and two women get shot in broad daylight, you know it’s bad.

Mayor de Blasio and the Democrats have ruined a once-great city.

Tom Scott

Spotswood, NJ

What a total disgrace it is that New York City has become an unstable, turbulent and crime-ridden location.

The once-secure, vibrant, adorned city has been transformed into a shooting gallery. The violent pandemonium that broke out in Times Square is reprehensible and indicative of a city submerged in ubiquitous depravity.

New York politicians and other proponents of reimagining and defunding the police as well as imposing bail reform have created unimaginable consequences — none more horrifically profound than a 4-year-old girl on a toy-seeking outing who was inconceivably shot and undoubtedly traumatized.

Denis David

East Rockaway

De Blasio is a disgrace. I don’t understand how he can sleep at night. This once-great city is a horror show thanks to him.

I have a message to people who are thinking of visiting: Don’t come. It’s unsafe. Wait until de Blasio is out of office and things get cleaned up again.

I can only hope that the next person who becomes mayor really wants to do what’s right for the New Yorkers who are trying not to flee.

And to all the New Yorkers who are still here: Maybe you should put a little thought into who you vote for this time.

Lance Lovejoy

Queens

Three more people shot, this time in Times Square. Another straphanger was recently shoved in front of a train. A 12-year-old boy was beaten, possibly on a dare, in school — and later died.

And the feckless Police Commissioner Dermot Shea says New York City is “still a safe city” but “we need help.” Why? If the city is safe, how do you need help, Mr. Commissioner?

Perhaps if you quit licking de Blasio’s boot, you’d see how far the city has fallen — under your watch, Shea. Quit whining and start policing.

Stephen Valentini

Bonita Springs, Fla.

De Blasio blamed the Times Square shooting on the flow of illegal guns.

Focus on the criminals. Bring back stop-and-frisk to get these illegal weapons away from the bad guys.

Every politician who voted to change the bail laws and support soft-on-crime justice reform: How do you sleep at night?

Kathryn Donnelly

Queens

Well, it has come to this: Times Square, the Crossroads of the World, became a shooting gallery Saturday in broad daylight. Among the victims were a tourist from Rhode Island and a 4-year-old.

This continued mayhem in our city is the direct result of bail reform, defunding the police and the elimination of the plainclothes police unit that concentrated its efforts on getting guns off the streets.

These policies were instituted by the Democrats, and as long as the citizens of Gotham continue to vote for them, this mayhem will continue.

Kenneth Fitzgerald

Hicksville

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to [email protected]. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

Published

on

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

When President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court last fall, hysterical Democrats declared millions of Americans would lose health coverage with her vote against ObamaCare — and immediately started talking about packing a court they called hopelessly divided.

Two big Supreme Court decisions last week proved reality turned out to be nothing like Dems’ fever dreams.

In a 7-2 decision in California v. Texas, the high court rejected a Republican bid to invalidate ObamaCare — and Barrett was not one of the two dissenters. It ruled that Texas and 17 other GOP-led states didn’t have standing to challenge the law’s individual mandate. The Trump administration had taken their side, while 20 Democratic-run states including New York and California, along with the Dem-controlled House of Representatives, took the other. Only Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented to the majority opinion the liberal Stephen Breyer authored.

How could this be? Last year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.” In her opening statement at Barrett’s confirmation hearing, then-Sen. Kamala Harris held up a picture of an 11-year-old constituent and accused Republicans of trying “to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take away health care from millions of people during a deadly pandemic.”

Democrats boycotted the final committee vote, filling their seats instead with posters of ObamaCare recipients, implying a vote for Barrett would put those lives at risk.

During the whole childish circus, they insisted Trump had picked Barrett and sped up her confirmation just so she’d be seated in time to hear arguments in the case and dismantle the law. They didn’t bother to look at her record and examine her judicial philosophy — they assumed this well-qualified woman would be the president’s puppet.

In the second important decision, Fulton v. Philadelphia, the court ruled unanimously that the city violated the Constitution’s free exercise clause by suspending Catholic Social Services’ contract because the group wouldn’t certify same-sex couples as foster parents.

Yes, all nine justices ruled in favor of religious freedom — putting paid to Democratic complaints the court is out of balance with too many conservatives. It’s far from the only unanimous decision already this term, either. Every justice signed on to decisions written by Gorsuch, Breyer, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, with two of the cases involving immigration issues.

That people of varying political stripes can agree on the law shouldn’t come as a surprise. Supreme Court justices take their jobs seriously — which is more than you can say for Democrats charged with helping choose them.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The undying myth of GOP ‘obstructionism’

Published

on

The undying myth of GOP ‘obstructionism’

The media have spent the Joe Biden presidency thus far pressuring moderate Democrats to join the left’s efforts to destroy the filibuster.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Big Labor’s gift to itself and other commentary

Published

on

Big Labor's gift to itself and other commentary

Libertarian: Unions’ Gift to Themselves

Big Labor spent millions getting President Biden elected — and now it’s seeking to enact a law “directing federal power and resources to boost flagging” union rolls, laments Reason’s Eric Boehm. The so-called PRO Act “is a grab bag of Big-Labor agenda items that would extend some of California’s awful independent contractor regulations nationwide” and “abolish so-called right-to-work laws in the 27 states that have passed them.” Biden and the unions insist this is about empowering workers, “but if workers were as eager to join unions as [they] seem to think, they wouldn’t need a powerful federal bureaucracy to encourage that outcome.”

Centrist: United Supremes

The most striking aspect of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on ObamaCare and religious liberty was the “absence of ideological divisions” from a high court that “Democratic leaders have declared hopelessly divided along ideological lines,” observes Jonathan Turley at USA Today. The largely united decisions mark “the final collapse of the false narrative that has been endlessly repeated like a mantra in Congress and the media.” Critics may continue to insist that the court is “dysfunctional, divided and needs to be radically changed,” but the justices aren’t “cooperating,” issuing instead an “inconvenient line of unanimous decisions.” Yet even as the court “seems to be saying a lot in one voice not just about the law, but about its own institution,” the media will undoubtedly continue to denounce it, “because politics demands it.”

Crime beat: A Wake-Up Call in Atlanta

The “mind-numbing randomness, brazenness and, even worse, casualness of violence afflicting Atlanta” has the upscale Buckhead neighborhood “wanting to break away from Atlanta to form its own city” with “its own police force,” writes The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Bill Torpy. Atlanta shootings are up 40 percent this year, but police often see “the same ne’er-do-wells walking the streets the next day,” thanks to a “broken” criminal-justice system. “Buckhead is almost three-quarters white,” yet “in black neighborhoods across the city, victims are widespread, and residents there want police to protect them, too.” But Buckhead can get attention, because its departure would “take away 40 percent of the city’s income.” It should be “one loud wake-up call.”

Culture critic: RIP, Janet Malcolm

At First Things, Helen Andrews assesses the complex legacy of veteran New Yorker magazine scribe Janet Malcolm, who died last week — and whose “cold, precise, unsparing” journalistic style recalled that of the great Russian writer Anton Chekhov. She was born to a psychiatrist father, and “psychoanalysis was a constant presence in Malcolm’s journalism.” The shrink’s couch formed her “eye for the telling detail” and “taught Malcolm a certain bleakness” about the world — and her own profession. Yet her “most famous line” — that “every journalist who is not too stupid or full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible” — helped spread cynicism about reporters. The result, Andrews laments, is that now “every trace of authenticity has been scrubbed from press interviews.” 

Media watch: Suppressing the Truth

“From the lab-leak theory to the Lafayette Square tear-gassing, anti-Trump bias blinded our news media,” declares Wilfred Reilly at Spiked Online. “Except perhaps for the Hunter Biden story,” there was no “potentially major and obviously newsworthy story more intensely suppressed than the lab-leak explanation for COVID’s origins,” but it was just “revealed quite possibly to be correct.” Pols and press called then-President Donald Trump “reckless” for touting hydroxychloroquine, yet “a major study” has found “it increases survival rates for COVID patients by almost 200 percent.” And the claim “Trump had ‘tear-gassed peaceful protesters’ ” to stage a photo-op turned out to be “complete nonsense.” Tellingly, all these facts only came out when Joe Biden became president. This “mainstream-media swiveling” causes “latent social distrust that has no imaginable upside.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Continue Reading

Trending