by Michael Unless you are living under a bridge or you are eagerly drinking the kool-aid that the mainstream media is dishing out, you probably understand that the economy has been struggling.  Survey…

"Unfortunately, Mr. Biden starts from a disadvantage The post Hillary Clinton: Don’t Expect Biden to Debate Well appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Every fraction of a degree matters.

What's eating you?

Now we know what's fueling them.

Donald Trump faces on Thursday what Andre the Giant experienced most nights of his professional wrestling career: A handicap match. Lacking the decency of so many (including the Grand Wizard, Captain Lou Albano, and Classy Freddie Blassie) in the old WWF, CNN does not acknowledge the debate as a three-on-one match or even a two-and-a-half-on-one affair. Instead, they depict the tag team of Tapper and Bash as essentially referees when even their names indicate aggressive designs. It all recalls when a heel Andre the Giant defeated Hulk Hogan for the WWF championship via a quick count from referee Dave Hebner’s evil twin Earl. (READ MORE: Is Biden On The Way Out? I’m Not So Sure.) Tapper and Bash act as the Evil Twins here. Earlier this week CNN anchor Kasie Hunt killed the conversation when Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavett recounted some of what Tapper has said about Trump. Hunt mischaracterized this as an “attack” on her colleague to justify the CNNsorship. The attack came earlier, and often, from CNN against Trump. Tapper repeatedly called Trump a liar, compared him to Adolf Hitler, and for several years pushed propaganda paid for by the Democratic Party that claimed that Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the presidency in 2016. The misnamed “moderator” of Thursday’s debate shared a post diagnosing Trump as “100 percent insane,” oversaw a televised segment on Trump’s penis, and refused to cover a Trump speech live because of “potentially dangerous” words therein. To CNN, that interested observer strikes as an anchor, a moderator, i.e., not a talking head offering opinions but an even-handed journalist delivering it straight. If this were the penchant of CNN alone, then one could laugh it — and them — off. Most news networks regularly find partisans so extreme that they make their living at it and repackage them as dispassionate newsmen. This explains why so few trust them — and why their biased coverage no longer influences public opinion the way it once did. George Stephanopoulos worked as a top aide to Michael Dukakis, Dick Gephardt, and other Democratic officeholders before becoming an advisor and spin doctor for Bill Clinton. He specialized in containing what the campaign called “bimbo eruptions.” After leaving the White House following Clinton’s reelection, Stephanopoulos strangely found an enthusiastic employer in ABC News, for whom he now anchors Good Morning America and hosts its Sunday morning political program. Chuck Todd, long host of Meet the Press and NBC’s go-to guy on politics, got his start in journalism by working on the 1992 presidential campaign of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). His predecessor, Tim Russert, came straight to NBC News from the staff of New York Gov. Mario Cuomo. Some may object to the idea that one’s career in the press started by serving as a lackey to politicians but is that not precisely what members of the press now do? Remarkably, Todd objects vociferously to politicos staining the purity of his adopted profession even in commentary roles. (READ MORE: Trump Shouldn’t Cozy Up To Wall Street) “I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation,” he told Kristen Welker regarding her March interview with Ronna Romney McDaniel. “She is now a paid contributor by NBC News. I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn’t want to mess up her contract. She wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for her. So, she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who’s paying her?” NBC fired McDaniel. Todd, the former flunkey for liberal politicians, somehow remains under contract. Of course, the most biased members of the media do not necessarily come straight from politics. Journalism schools provide even greater insulation and incubation for left-wing ideas than do campaigns. So, whether Jake Tapper or Christiane Amanpour or Anderson Cooper or Jim Acosta moderates this presidential debate, it probably does not make a difference — the CNN representative would push issues (abortion, “democracy,” Trump’s legal issues) favorable to Joe Biden and suppress issues (inflation, illegal immigration, international disorder) favorable to Donald Trump. The media and consumers of media see things differently. Only about a third of the public agreed that the media covers the most important stories and reports accurately. About two-thirds of journalists, according to the Pew Research Center, believed these two separate statements about them. Three-quarters of the public think journalists should give equal coverage to all sides. Less than half of journalists agree with this. The vast majority still agree that media members should strive to leave their personal views out of their coverage but split 55 percent to 43 percent on whether they largely can do so or are often unable to do so. (READ MORE: Could a Biden Debate Disaster Propel Newsom to the Nomination?) Remarkably, Pew neglected to ask the journalists they polled about their partisan and ideological leanings. When sociologist John Johnstone surveyed journalists in 1971, he found about a 10 percent gap separating the number of Republicans from the greater number of Democrats working in the field. In the most recent decadal iteration of this study, which came out in 2022, the researchers conducting it report 10 times the number of Democrats in the media as Republicans. Knowing this, the question becomes not why do citizens allow partisans masquerading as journalists to moderate presidential debates but instead why do we give monopoly power over the polity’s most important and watched discussions to the very people most likely to abuse it. Even the WWF did not allow Mr. Fuji to referee Don Muraco’s matches with Ricky Steamboat. The post Donald Trump’s Match Is Handicapped appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I’ve watched for the last week since Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed an overwhelmingly passed bill from his state’s legislature which would promulgate the Ten Commandments in all public classrooms in the Bayou State from kindergarten to the public universities, as the Left has absolutely melted down. It’s been fun, for all kinds of reasons. But the schadenfreude of seeing the Left’s Moses Derangement Syndrome has to be tempered by some disappointment that we’re not getting the meaty discussion of what the bill’s passage into law signifies. (READ MORE: Rep. Jamaal Bowman and the Toxic Rot of the Squad) Not yet, at least. But there is reason for optimism that we soon will. The declining James Carville, who isn’t quite as incapacitated as Joe Biden but is rapidly losing his communicative powers along with his political relevance, went on CNN a couple of days ago and called the passage of the bill the “stupidest waste of time I’ve ever seen.” That’s a decent summation of the general argument Democrats are making about the new law, and it’s anything but profound. Of course, reading more into their statements than is actually there, some deeper meaning can be derived. One of Scott’s Inevitable Political Axioms is that all “conservative” victories are fleeting, while all “liberal” victories are permanent. It’s one reason I’m trying to stop calling myself a conservative and I suggest that if you agree with me, you join me in adopting the “revivalist” moniker instead. Revivalists don’t accept that axiom. Revivalists are determined to play offense against the Left. And the Ten Commandments bill in Louisiana is a great example of this. Carville thinks the bill is a waste of time because he believes that the Supreme Court has already said putting up the Ten Commandments on public school classroom walls is unconstitutional. When the Left imposes a victory via the Supreme Court, overturning hundreds of years of American experience with religion in the public square as the Brennan Court did with Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 and Stone v. Graham in 1980 (the latter case threw out a Kentucky law nearly identical to the one just passed in Louisiana), that victory is set in stone every bit as dense as those tablets Moses carried down from Mt. Sinai. This is bunkum and claptrap, of course. The Left doesn’t get to impose law out of whole cloth through courts they turn into super-legislatures without ultimately having to defend their logic. That delusion failed in the Dobbs case which overturned the horrid judicial reasoning of Roe v. Wade, and the legislators, governor, and attorney general in Louisiana are betting the same will happen here. And not without reason. Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law is a direct assault on Stone v. Graham. It’s important to understand how huge this is, instead of blindly accepting the shallow construct the James Carvilles of the world would impose on this debate. (READ MORE: SCOTUS Takes on Congressional Malaise and Executive Branch Overreach) This is about going on offense and tearing down the pillars of the Left’s reality. In a sane America, this bill wouldn’t even be controversial. A sane America would recognize that a state legislature has the inherent power to shape the lessons being taught to public school pupils within its jurisdiction, and that if such a legislature believes that the document from which all Western law and morality flows should be included in those lessons that is the end of the matter. The Ten Commandments were ubiquitous within (and without) the confines of American education for hundreds of years, from before the nation’s founding to practically five minutes ago. That was Stone v. Graham, and in that case, the Court’s majority used something called the Lemon test, which was a formulation it had laid down in the prior case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. The Lemon test has three parts: Secular Purpose: The government action or law must have a legitimate secular purpose. In other words, the purpose must be unrelated to the advancement or inhibition of religion. Primary Effect: The government action or law must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. The court must consider whether the action or law has a neutral or secular effect. Excessive Entanglement: The government action or law must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion. This includes situations where the government is too closely involved with religious institutions or activities. In Stone v. Graham, the Court found the Kentucky law lacked a legitimate secular purpose. Apparently, the founding document of Western law and morality is only relevant as a religious relic. That’s what William Brennan, the far-left kook who wrote the opinion in the case and who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time, would have you believe. The good news is that the current majority of the Supreme Court has very, very little resemblance to, and not quite much more respect for, the ideological positions espoused by Brennan. A case from two years ago, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, involved a high school football coach in Washington State who took to midfield to pray after games. He got fired for his trouble and sued. According to the Lemon test, having school employees praying, even if not under the color of official action, would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, the Court ruled that the Lemon test doesn’t apply to unofficial individual actions. And Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Kennedy was a good bit less complimentary than that, disparaging Lemon as having “invited chaos in the lower courts.” That’s a decent indication a fuller reversal of the Brennan court might be coming when John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch get an opportunity to vet this Louisiana law. Given the current jurisprudence, what Louisiana has done is to invite America to return to sanity. And with the ACLU suing less than 24 hours after Landry signed the bill into law, giving the governor precisely what he asked for when he said “I can’t wait to be sued” at the signing ceremony, we’re now on the road to a full repudiation of Stone v. Graham. More importantly, in the crosshairs is the idea that leftist judges can rob states of their ability to impose the moral traditions that built Western society simply by constructing emanations and penumbras out of a constitution that exists only in their minds. (READ MORE: Joe Biden’s Executive Amnesty Is Illegal, Unjust, and Self-Defeating) If Landry and the Louisiana legislators aren’t all wet, what this new law would do would be to help reset the relationship between the states — which are supposed to be sovereign under our constitution — and an obnoxious federal government dominated by busybody leftists who disparage the traditions the country is founded on. Remember, John Adams said our constitution is “made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Do you think Adams would object to the posting of the Ten Commandments in public classrooms? Buddhists and Satanists weren’t on his mind when he issued that quote, you know. So how can the Decalogue posted in the classrooms be unconstitutional? The Ten Commandments are not identified with any particular religious denomination. The Decalogue applies to every Christian sect. It’s a fundamental precept of Judaism. It even applies, although a bit differently, in Islam. So how is it an establishment of a state religion to promote something that cuts across the vast majority of the religious tracks Americans follow? News flash: It isn’t. The only way you get there is if you hate religion as a whole. Nobody seriously argues that moral instruction in those schools has improved since God was banned from the classroom. Instead what you get is name-calling, essentially that religious people are intolerant bigots and that it’s a threat to various groups that they might gain some influence in those schools. But the results are absurd. School districts are firing football coaches for praying on the field after the game while those districts are dealing with scandal after scandal surrounding grooming and sexual abuse of kids in their care. These same people are putting gay porn in school libraries and calling critics of that activity “censors” and “book burners.” Of course, there is the bait-and-switch afoot here, which is that William Brennan promised us an enlightened America in which the public square would be a neutral place observant of a diversity of faiths and traditions and individuals could choose which track to follow out of their informed reasoning. Instead, what we were given was a woke totalitarianism where climate-change moonbattery, LGBTQ Pride activism, Critical Race Theory, and other insipid horrors flying directly in the face of Judeo-Christian moral teachings were enshrined as the new cultural hegemony. If you’re unfortunate enough to work in corporate America or on a college campus you’ll see how aggressively evangelical the woke religion can be, your own faith-based objections notwithstanding. The ACLU will tell you the Ten Commandments are taboo but Drag Queen Story Hour is protected speech. This is not the neutral public space you were promised. Accordingly, a revivalist position, which is superior to the conservative one, holds that since the Left broke Brennan’s promise, there is no requirement — and there should be no desire — to simply attempt to return to that faux neutrality in the public square. The Left used it as a cover for imposing a culture on the rest of us that practically nobody wants, so it’s time to roll things back to what our Founding Fathers envisioned, which worked pretty damned well for a quarter of a millennium on these shores. We’re still a Christian country — or at least a Judeo-Christian one. Even people who don’t go to church or synagogue enjoy the benefits of the society that its moral code constructed. The anti-Christian bigots at the ACLU and other leftist organizations, parasitical to the core in sharing in those benefits while actively seeking to destroy that which underpins them, do not represent a majority outside of the cities their allies have utterly destroyed. It’s entirely reasonable for a state legislature and governor to turn to the most ecumenical moral document available to recenter its educational system. It’s also entirely reasonable that the legislature and governor in question would have the power to do so. This is a real fight about big things. It’s a fight worth winning. Revivalism is about starting as many of them as possible until James Carville has to recognize that his victories are no more permanent than ours are. The post Good News in Louisiana: Ten Commandments Revivalism appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Democrat Party has a serious problem on their hands regarding their ambiguous nature of belief regarding Israel and the Palestinians. This stands to cost Democrats much more than the GOP will lose from disagreement over Ukraine.  This division, and the militant lawlessness that took over college campuses and major American cities under a Palestinian banner, echoes the Democrat split over the Vietnam War in 1968 and spells trouble for the Left heading into yet another August convention held in Chicago. Unfortunately, for the Left, Israel is not the only issue where Democrat attempts to be all things to all people is failing. While there have been GOP divisions over Ukraine, there are very few Republicans that openly side with Moscow.  The GOP has had a robust, but relatively civil debate over Ukraine.  Even President Trump, who might be the most prominent figure in his ambiguity regarding Ukraine, has said the Russian reinvasion would not have happened under his watch, which can only lead to the conclusion that he knows the Russian invasion was, and remains, a terrible transgression. (READ MORE from Larry Provost: Palestinians Cheered 9/11) The issue is different with support for Israel. The Jewish state almost literally moves Heaven and earth to minimize civilian casualties but still bears from the Left a much bigger scope of responsibility, one that no nation at war could meet.  Yet, Palestinians are not given the same degree of scrutiny that American leadership gives to Israel and its internal politics over their response to Hamas terrorism. In war, no one is perfect and responsibility is to be shared, but there are also sins of greater consequence, including the deliberate targeting of civilians as practiced by Hamas. Thank God the boys going ashore at Normandy would not have been under the banner of today’s progressivism. If so, they would have been told, one can imagine, “Make sure you don’t say anything derogatory about the Nazis, even as your buddies are dying.  And definitely don’t call them “Krauts.” They have legitimate grievances because we were too harsh on them at Versailles.” John Fetterman, hardly a beacon of conservatism, has had the audacity in the minds of the progressive Left to support Israel and condemn Palestinian terrorism.  The Democrat split over Israel does not bode well for that party, as typical American voters look disgustedly at the rise of anti-Semitism and the increasing militance of the Palestinian movement worldwide. This lack of clarity among many prominent Democrat leaders, or at a minimum the outright hostility and even hatred towards Israel among progressives, has once again verified to a large segment of the American population, including Democrats, that their party is concerned more with the discounted legacy of identity politics as opposed to doing the morally right thing.  It is ironic, though not historically surprising, that Jews in America have long voted strongly, though not exclusively, for Democrats. For a group so often considered astute, Jews have rarely been adept at gauging anti-Semitism on the Left. Republicans have been quick to give their opinion on support of Ukraine, whether it be for or against, and have been almost universal in their steadfast support of Israel to defend itself as it sees fit. Unfortunately, for the Left, Israel is not the only issue where Democrat attempts to be all things to all people is failing. African Americans feel it as their expense that the Left’s leadership gives time, attention, and government benefits to those who come into the country illegally. Struggling black low incomes families have been in America for hundreds of years, yet the Left does not make them a priority. Citizens obey the laws, pay taxes, and earn the right to vote while progressives continually push for foreigners to vote in our elections and to retain all the rights of citizenship. Veterans feel it when they earned their education benefits but see those who have never lifted a finger in defense of our nation — but coincidentally old enough to vote — have their loans forgiven. The Democrat Party, supposedly once the party of the people, has instead become a party of expanding voter base simply for the sake of getting re-elected, principles be damned. They have done this while taking its existing base for granted, as we have seen with unions (debased by Democrat support of NAFTA), African Americans, and, perhaps more than any other issue, Jews on the issue of Israel. (READ MORE: Ukraine Is Not Vietnam) It is a much bigger problem than the GOP is having regarding any policy debate within its own party and could prove costly in November and in the long term.  The large rallies that President Trump is receiving in cities with traditional Democrat constituencies is an indication that a new generation of voters are no longer buying the leftist playbook. Views expressed in this article are those of the author and not of any group, agency, or organization.  The post The Democrat Split on Israel appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I cannot tell President Trump how to debate Joe Biden, but here is what I would do if I were him. I would not interrupt him, even if my mike were not shut off, per the rules. He will be pumped up before this debate — not with natural adrenaline but with every substance banned in the Olympics, baseball, football, and ballroom dancing. To that, he probably will add 100 grams of prednisone, ten bottles of Sudafed, and all the Adderall, Ritalin, Didrex, Bontril, Preludin, Fastin, Adipex, Ionamin, Meridia, meth, and cocaine that Hunter can acquire for him from the friends he has made over the years. (Now you know why Biden has allowed so many people associated with M-13 and South American drug cartels across the border and ordered their “catch and release.” Only the best for The Big Guy.) He presumably will wash it all down with Red Bull. In his search for stimulants, he may even contact Nike to ask whether they have any “leather uppers.” (READ MORE: Is Biden On The Way Out? I’m Not So Sure.) Really, for this debate, each candidate should have to undergo a mandatory drug test. I would let him talk uninterrupted because the longer he talks, the greater probability that he will bamboozle himself, start mumbling and doddering, and get into one of those . . . uh, uh, uh, you know — the thing! But mainly I would let him talk uninterrupted because, as he starts to settle in, he will start lying. He can’t help it. He is a congenital liar, a pathological liar. It is in his lifeblood. Therefore, that is where I would be especially focused: to catch him in his lies. Don’t let them slip by. Because if I were focused only on what I have to say, I would miss the red meat he would be serving. So, yes, I would have my ducks in a row for talking about illegal immigration, the porous southern border, the double-digit millions of illegals, Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, and Jocelyn Nungaray murdered by illegals. Inflation soaring wildly and food prices so high that American families now skip one meal a day, some occasionally eat dog food, and cannot afford an occasional stop at a coffee shop. Gasoline is twice the price it was four years ago. The mess in Ukraine happened because Putin saw America now is led by a befuddled wimp who talks about beating up people in a woodshed but leaves 13 American servicemen and women to be killed as he abandons Afghanistan, tail between his legs, and needs a rabbit to guide him off a stage. (READ MORE: Could a Biden Debate Disaster Propel Newsom to the Nomination?) I would remind him that America had become a net exporter of energy before he came in. That the world was buying our fuel, and we no longer had to beg dictatorial apartheid Arab oil sheikhdoms to buy their filthy oil. That our drilling in ANWR and our hydraulic fracturing was not hurting the environment, but was adding American jobs and clean energy. That we were making oil, clean gas, and clean coal affordable at home because of the law of supply and demand. I would remind him that we had choked Iran and its mullahs with our intense and severe sanctions while cutting off their oil sales as we made clear to countries everywhere that we would sanction them if they patronized Iran. I would remind him that those sanctions left Iran unable to finance terror worldwide with the same unlimited purse that they now have to finance Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and every terrorist in the world who wants to murder. I would remind him that practically no one had heard of Houthis before him, except when mistakenly ordering Tutti-Frutti-Houthi at an ice cream parlor. I would remind him that, under my administration, we created the Abraham Accords, and one Arab Muslim country after another after another after another made peace with Israel. And then he came in, and not a single additional Arab country joined the Abraham Accords during his entire term. Instead, Hamas butchers invaded Israel and murdered 1,200 men, women, children, and babies, raping women left and right, cutting off heads, putting babies into ovens and baking them alive. I would note that Putin never started a war during my four years because he understood me and that he invaded Ukraine on Biden’s watch because he understood him. I would remind him that, under my leadership, inflation was low, housing was affordable, and blacks had their lowest unemployment numbers ever, as did Latinos and women. And I would remind him of his lies, I would listen for new ones or just reflect on his Golden Oldies. Take, for instance, the speech of Aug. 23, 1987, when he looked people in the eye and passionately talked about his personal life and biography, about his father working in the coal mines and his wife who never got a chance because she had no platform — and then it turned out that he was not telling about his own life but simply lifting a speech from British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock about his life, Kinnock’s progenitors in the coal mines, Kinnock’s wife without the platform. I would remind him how he called the Hunter Biden laptop “Russian misinformation,” but now his own federal prosecutors have used that laptop as verified evidence in federal court. How he told everyone he had been arrested at a civil rights anti-apartheid protest in South Africa while trying to visit Nelson Mandela — a lie. How he told reporters he attended law school on a full academic scholarship when, in fact, it was only half a scholarship based on financial need, not academics. How he bragged that his IQ was so high that he graduated law school in the top group of his law school class when, in fact, he graduated at the bottom, 76th of 85 students. That he was caught plagiarizing in law school. That he lied, claiming he participated in civil rights marches, boycotts, and sit-ins — or that he used to drive an 18-wheeler. His lie that he visited the Pittsburgh temple after a terrorist attack or his lie to Naval Academy graduates was that he, too, had applied to the Naval Academy. (READ MORE: Joe Biden’s Executive Amnesty Is Illegal, Unjust, and Self-Defeating) How he falsely claimed he risked his life in Afghanistan under gunfire to personally hand deliver a medal to an American soldier when he never did anything of the kind. Or that he was shot at in Iraq. Or the unnecessary lie that he saw a Pittsburgh bridge collapse. Or his bogus story about an uncle eaten by a cannibal (even before food became so expensive under Bidenomics). Or that his house burned down, almost melting his Corvette and killing his wife, dog, and cat (there was a small fire in the kitchen). And I would tell him that the left-leaning Snopes fact-checker finally had debunked his lie about what I said at Charlottesville, when I explicitly condemned Nazis and White Supremacists, while he claimed that he decided to run for president because he said I said other things I never said. His claim that he took over as president when inflation was 9 percent, when it was only 1.4 percent, and he then grew it out of control. His lie that he stood at Ground Zero the day after the Twin Towers fell. Biden is a pathological liar. He can’t stop. Three lies in one speech. The Hill reported he told seven lies in one week. In an interview with Erin Burnett at CNN, he told just under one lie per minute: 15 lies in 17 minutes. That is an Olympic-quality pace, worthy of a Wheaties box, like Bruce Jenner or whatever he calls himself now. It will be interesting to hear what he fabricates on Thursday night. If he gets caught, he should not be released. No “getaways” on Thursday night. Subscribe to Rabbi Fischer’s YouTube channel here and follow him on X (Twitter) at @DovFischerRabbi The post Here’s How Trump Should Debate Adderall Joe appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I grew up in New York City, in Queens, in a neighborhood that few people outside of the borough have ever heard of: Middle Village. It’s relatively unknown because it’s always been relatively quiet and peaceful. It consists of tree-lined blocks on which the narrow brick houses, built just about a century ago, all look almost exactly alike. It’s a place where people keep an eye on one another’s homes when they’re away on vacation and where they fly the flag on the Fourth of July. (READ MORE: Willie’s Joy Was Contagious) In establishing shots in some episodes of The King of Queens, you can actually see the house I grew up in. Most of the thoroughfares in Queens have numbers, not names. The ones that run roughly north to south are called streets, places, or lanes, and the ones that run east to west are avenues, roads, drives, or courts. I grew up on 82nd Place, on a block bounded by 63rd Avenue and Penelope Avenue, which many of the locals pronounced to rhyme with “cantaloupe.” When I was growing up, one of my friends on the block was a boy called Peter Schmiemann. He was a nice kid from a nice family. He was one of five siblings. His older brother and sister were Matthew and Mary. He had a twin brother, Tommy. And the youngest of the five was Paul. Their mother, Marilyn, was kind. She was a friend of my mother’s. And their dad was a cop, Hank. Hank was one of two members of the NYPD who lived on our block. The other was Pete Conticelli, who lived two doors up from the Schmiemanns and directly across the street from us. He and my dad were good friends. He gave my dad one of his old badges to keep in his wallet so he could flash it to a police officer in case he got stopped for a busted headlight or something. Pete and my dad used to talk a lot about how one day they would retire and get the hell out of New York. Pete actually did it. He, his wife, and their three kids moved to Socorro, New Mexico. By all accounts, he had a great life there. HEADER Hank Schmiemann wasn’t so lucky. Early on the morning of June 20, 1974, during the ignominious mayoralty of the lilliputian — in every sense — Abraham Beame, Lt. Henry Schmiemann was a few blocks from home on his way to work when he was shot to death in cold blood by a man with the most banal name you can imagine: John Smith. Everyone who lived on the block at the time remembers that day and the days that followed vividly. I remember sitting in the Schmiemanns’ kitchen an evening or two after the murder with a bunch of other neighbors when Jerry Rosenberg — who was a New York celebrity at the time because of the TV commercials for his chain of appliance stores, famous for the catchphrase, “What’s the story, Jerry?” — showed up, uninvited, purportedly to give his condolences, and hung around for a while and made a lot of noise and pretty much took over the situation. That’s life, I guess: Tragedy is always mixed, to some extent, with farce. (READ MORE: New York Businesses Are Fleeing Wall Street. Blame Bad Policy.) I also remember the funeral at Resurrection Ascension Church on Woodhaven Boulevard, where most of my Catholic friends went to school, and where on that beautiful sunny morning 1500 police officers lined up to pay tribute to their fallen colleague. As the New York Times reported at the time, the mourners included “members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 18 other police departments from Long Island, Westchester County and New Jersey. The Suffolk County police provided a motorcycle escort of 36 officers, who later accompanied the cortege to Pinelawn National Cemetery, in Suffolk County, for burial.” The extraordinary spectacle of all those men in blue uniforms, lined up along the narrow street facing the church and standing at perfect attention with solemn looks on their faces, has never left me. Never before had I experienced such a moving sign of respect, of solidarity, and of perfect brotherhood. One person who didn’t bother to show up for the funeral was the mayor, Abe Beame, a despicable little party hack who in his campaign ads had emphasized his supposed support for the police. Anyway, all that happened 50 years ago. Half a century. For many, a lifetime. Since then, a lot of people on the old block have died or moved away. And many new people have moved in. But some of the old neighbors remain and still remember. My sister, who after decades in California moved back into our family home after our father died, is one of them. Another is Paul Schmiemann, Henry’s youngest son, who now lives with his wife and children in the house in which he grew up. Middle Village, I should say, is a neighborhood — and I think this is probably very unusual in New York City — where houses aren’t constantly being sold and resold, but are typically passed down from generation to generation. It’s a neighborhood with an unusually strong sense of community — and an unusually strong sense of communal memory. So it was an event of very special importance to many people on 82nd Place when, on Saturday, June 22, the block I grew up on was renamed — or, more correctly, given an extra name — in honor of our long-since fallen neighbor. It is now not only 82nd Place. It is also Lieutenant Henry O. Schmiemann Way. Renaming streets, or parts of them, after worthy New Yorkers is a time-honored tradition. The block of 50th Street in Manhattan between 8th Avenue and Broadway, for example, is also called Gershwin Way, after the songwriters George and Ira Gershwin. Now Henry Schmiemann, who dedicated his life to the safety and security of his fellow New Yorkers, has also been accorded this honor. 82nd Street renamed for Lieutenant Henry O. Schmiemann (Carol J. Bawer for The American Spectator) On Saturday there was a ceremony at the corner of 82nd Place and Penelope Avenue to mark the occasion. My old friend Peter delivered what my sister described to me as an eloquent tribute to his father. Another part of the event was especially meaningful. Paul, the youngest of Henry’s five children, has a son whom he named after his father. Young Henry, it turns out, is a recent graduate of the Police Academy and a new member of the NYPD. At the ceremony honoring his grandfather, he was presented with a shield bearing his grandfather’s shield number. (READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Nostalgia Is Coming Back to New York City) The New York Post quoted him as saying: “I feel like I’ve been given a responsibility greater than what is behind the NYPD, which is immense.” Isn’t it moving, encouraging, and (yes) surprising to hear a fledgling police officer, in this day and age, talk like that? My old friend Peter told the Post: “Our father left way too early, but we know that Henry is going to get the guidance and help from my father as he does his job.” And given what New York is today — namely, something not terribly unlike the hellscape presided over by Abe Beame, in which Henry Schmiemann was gunned down senselessly in what, then as now, was one of the city’s most tranquil quarters — young Henry will need all the guidance from his grandfather that he can get. May he have a long, happy, rewarding, and safe career in the noble service of what was once, and what may yet again, God willing, become the world’s greatest metropolis. The post Remembering Sacrifice in New York appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.