How Giuliani Proved Them Wrong
Posted December 10th, 2007 by Da King
Liberal policies of coddling criminals are responsible for the murders of more americans in the last 50 years than the totals of all americans killed in all wars during the same time period. Liberal notions of blaming crime on society rather than on the perpetrators, of eschewing punishment for criminals, of fighting against the police instead of the criminals, all contributed to the unnecessary murders of hundreds of thousands of americans, the majority of whom were poor and/or black. Liberals went from their crowning achievement, the success of the civil rights movement, to the depths of their own depravity in near record time, as crime came to be seen as a sort of social protest, a reaction against "the man". 1960's riots in Watts and Detroit weren't even met with much of a response from the police. In the words of Ramsay Clark, uber-liberal attorney general with the Johnson administration, "punishment as an end in itself is itself a crime in our times…Rehabilitation must be the goal of modern corrections. Every other consideration should be subordinated to it". Or listen to James Vorenberg, a member of Johnson's' crime commission, "To a considerable degree, law enforcement cannot deal with criminal behavior". It is no coincidence whatsoever that with the mainstreaming of liberalism, the 1960's, the violent crime rate in the US increased 226%. The murder rate increased 122% from 1963 to 1980. The number of violent crimes jumped from 1 million in 1960 to 2.9 million in 1970, while the number of prison sentences handed out by the liberal courts went from 40,000 in 1960 to 37,000 in 1970. In inner cities all over the country, people were afraid to go out of their houses at night. Liberals were coddling the criminals, but they weren't doing a whole lot for the ever-increasing number of victims, who were overwhelmingly the very people liberals claimed they wanted to help, the poor and minorities. Those people were virtual prisoners in their own homes, as gangs and thugs ruled the streets of their neighborhoods.
The poster child city for failed liberal crime policy was New York. The decaying, graffiti-covered city was a cesspool of crime. At a time when the citizenry of inner-city america was getting sick of living in fear, Rudolph Giuliani became the mayor of New York. He started by cracking down on what he termed "quality of life" crimes. He cleared the thugs out of the subway system and cleaned up the subway cars. He increased the number of police by 7,000. He targeted the high-crime areas that the police had previously steered clear of. Subway crime dropped by two-thirds in four years. His police chief Willian Bratton closed down chop shops, fences, drug and prostitution rings. The results were amazing. Within five years, felonies in NYC declined by 50 percent. Murder had decreased by 68 percent. The 2,600 murders in the city in the early 90's dropped to less than 800 by 1997. In five years, crime in Harlem fell 39%, in the South Bronx it fell 42%.
The liberals were utterly perplexed. The NY Times wrote, "The continued divergence between the shrinking crime rate and the rising rate of incarceration raises a series of troublesome questions, said criminologists and law enforcement experts". The Times was trying to blame Giuliani for taking criminals off the street and locking them up, thus making New York a far safer place. What probably really ticked them off was that Giuliani had single-handedly disproved all the liberals soft-on-crime bilge, for which libs will probably never forgive him.
Giuliani's methods were widely copied in the rest of the country. The liberal policy-inspired three plus decade countrywide crime wave ebbed. By 2002, there were 21 million fewer american crime victims than there were in 1973. Liberals still haven't figured out what happened, but they are sure Republicans did something wrong (yeah, they stopped listening to the liberals, and they made poor and minority people safer instead, along with the rest of us).
The data for this post came from Mona Charen's excellent book, Do-Gooders.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Yes … Rudy not only drastically reduced the crime rate in NYC but his methods and leadership served as an example for other city throughout the country, enabling them, too, to reduce their crime.
And because of this, liberals in NYC and elsewhere hate Rudy. Why?
Sad to say, but Liberals [progressives] seem to have a love affaire with violent criminals — expecially if they are black. Here's a current example. Look at what is going on regarding that cop killer in Philadelphia, Mumia Abu-Jamal.
This animal was convicted of cold bloodily executing policeman Danny Faulkner in the 1980s. And today, the liberal elite like Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon, Whoopi Goldberg, Oliver Stone, etc. are agitating for this mutts release from prison. There's a whole cottage industry in Philly dedicated to freeing this cop killer.
And why? Good question. There is no shread of evidence indicating that Abu-Jamal is not guilty. The fact of the matter is that liberals want him released on principle. I guess to the lib mind, what's so bad about killing a middle class cop, anyway?
The truism is again evident — liberalism is a mental disease.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:47 am
I never did understand that whole 'Free Mumia' movement. I can only imagine what Danny Faulkner's family must think when they hear that stuff. Talk about adding insult to injury. It's horrific. The nitwit celebs would excuse cold-blooded murder just because Mumia does a spoken-word album, as if that makes any difference. To my knowledge, Mumia has never even apologized for what he did to Faulkner.
A mental disorder indeed. That is the perfect example of the libbies view of violent crime as societies fault, and the resultant havoc and death that attitude brings.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Mayor Giuliani has sent the police out to round up Jesus and Mary. "It's either off to the homeless shelter or off to jail" … "Your choice".
December 11th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Your analogy fails.
Mary, Joseph and the Christ Child were NOT homeless in Bethlehem. They were travelers looking for lodgings.
.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Buy Vince, don't you understand that most liberals are involved heavily in secularism which may well have a lot to do with how Tom thinks about the Christmas story? Most of THEM just can't figure out that they are so obvious when they try to use that story to advance their thinking.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
King, this is a really good story and you tell it so well. I can't wait for one of those led by Red to come stomping in refuting all those figures, since they always do try to to so when someone discusses those numbers.
How about our girl friend from NYC who detests Giuliani with her whole being? I wonder if it isn't this very thing about liberal thinking that has caused her to dislike the man so much. How can they even try to argue with numbers like these? I guess we may well have been right all along about THEIR intelligence or lack thereof.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Interesting that like Charen, you fail to mention that crime was down throughout the country in the 1990s and that the 7,000 cops you said he brought in were paid for by federal money. Remind me, who was president then? Because of the state of the economy then, crime was down everywhere. Also interesting is that you didn't mention how many of his appointees ended up involved in scandal or how the heroic firefighters who risked their lives during 9/11 were forgotten by him. But hey, whatever works.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
If Mona Charon thinks that Ramsey Clark was responsible for shaping Democratic policies on law enforcement, that tells me *a lot* about Mona Charon.
Apparently, you don't know that the crime rate rose during period you cite because there was a spike in population of young men during that period (the baby boomers). That demographic causes crimes. The crime rate naturally decreased when that demographic aged, grew up, and established normal lives.
Can you put a finer point on this: [quote Da King]The Times was trying to *blame* Giuliani for taking criminals off the street and locking them up, thus making New York a far safer place. [/quote]?
In my experience, I was pretty impressed with Prosecutor Giuliani for having broken up the mafia. At the moment, though, I think Giuliani is *way overextended* trying to make his "mayor of 9/11" image into the "president of 9/11".
[note to Vince: it's a *joke*]
December 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Da Truth, you better change your screen name to Da Spin, because the numbers behind Giuliani's crime crackdown don't lie, and you can't change them. Trying to pass the credit off to Bill Clinton gave me a hearty laugh though. Thanks.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Roy, I don't know how they can argue with Giuliani's performance on crime in NYC either, but they still do. I think it's pretty funny to watch them try to grab at straws and spin it. What's so difficult about the truth ? It's plain as day for anyone to see.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Tom, you can go ahead and tell yourself that the severe drop in NYC crime in four years under Giuliani was a coincidence if you want, but you won't have much credibility if you stick with that story. Giuliani literally transformed NYC. It was like night and day.
"Can you put a finer point on this: [quote Da King]The Times was trying to *blame* Giuliani for taking criminals off the street and locking them up, thus making New York a far safer place. [/quote]?"
I thought I made the point you are asking for with my NY Times quote right before that statement. The Times and many other NY liberals as well, found it troubling that the incarceration rate was going up at the same time the crime rate was going down. Instead of seeing what anyone could plainly see, that taking criminals off the street was the reason why the crime rate was going down, the libs flipped it around to more or less say, 'well, if crime is down, then there's no reason to keep imprisoning so many people', as if there was no correlation of one to the other and Giuliani was somehow just throwing folks in prison on a whim, or worse (and what the Times was really shooting for, the classic liberal discussion stopper), because Giuliani was a racist.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Da King,
I suggest you re-read you responses to the libs and see how futile it is to engage them.
Liberalism really is a mental disorder, and their narrow minds are closed. Facts mean nothing to these loons; they live in a world of their own creation; that is how drunk they are on Relativism.
It was not for nothing that Ann Coulter titled one of her best selling books "How to talk to a liberal (if you must)."
December 11th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Boy did that book sell well, Vince! I wonder how many of them bought a copy just to see what she said about them that they could refute with their dreamed words.
I preferred her Godless book since they really couldn't handle any of it except the part about the four happy widows. I still read parts of that one just to keep myself laughing at them.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Yes sir, Roysoldboy, "Godless" is precious. It's an investment that keeps on given.
And didn't Miss Coulter nail the libs by noting that libralism is the religion of the godless?
December 12th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Vince, it sure is futile to argue with them, but I enjoy exposing their nonsense. It's easy and it's fun ! Plus, it makes me laugh. There is no fact that liberals will not ignore. Did you get a load of the poster who tried to give Bill Clinton the credit for Giuliani turning around NYC ? That one alone was worth the price of admission. Classic liberal spin. How the libs expect anyone to believe such claptrap, I can't say.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
"Can you put a finer point on this: [quote Da King]The Times was trying to *blame* Giuliani for taking criminals off the street and locking them up, thus making New York a far safer place. [/quote] ?"
[quote Da King]I thought I made the point you are asking for with my NY Times quote right before that statement. The Times and many other NY liberals as well, found it troubling that the incarceration rate was going up at the same time the crime rate was going down. Instead of seeing what anyone could plainly see, that taking criminals off the street was the reason why the crime rate was going down, the libs flipped it around to more or less say, 'well, if crime is down, then there's no reason to keep imprisoning so many people', as if there was no correlation of one to the other and Giuliani was somehow just throwing folks in prison on a whim, or worse (and what the Times was really shooting for, the classic liberal discussion stopper), because Giuliani was a racist.[/quote]
(1) You are avoiding responding to the demographic trend that has been making crime decrease "everywhere" in the US. It's not that Giuliani was some kind of coast-to-coast "inspiration".
(2) Yeah, I could see that you think the crime rate went down because Giuliani locked up a lot of New Yorkers.
However, for you to take that information and say the NY Times is accusing former Mayor Giuliani of a racist campaign is absurd.
(3) The lot of you right wingers are not aware of this: most "libs" and Democratic voters don't even know who Mumia is. You republicans are *losing* to a real, strong progressive movement and you cannot even figure out what the real issues are. This comment by Vince is stupid and racist in itself: [Vince quote] Liberals [progressives] seem to have a love affaire with violent criminals — expecially if they are black. [/quote] I hope no newspaper ever gives you a "blog". You are one nasty, insulting "piece of work".
December 12th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
King: If you got a laugh out of what "da truth" said….you're gonna' be rolling on the floor after my comment.
Joe Biden pushed the "100,000 new cops" initiative in the 90's, Clinton was president during the 90's, and signed the 100,000 new cops law, and crime rates were falling before Giuliani took the mayor's job. Those are facts.
Blend in the oh-so-unconservative gun regulations ol' Rudy favored and imposed on Gotham City. Add to that fact a whole bunch of small time offenders being incarcerated for vicious life threatening crimes such as jaywalking, sleeping on the sidewalk while homeless, soaping up driver's windows, etc…..which increased the number of incarcerated…..and it's very clear to see that Giuliani, hated in his own city and state, is what he is.
An opportunist with a big mouth, surrounding himself with thugs and criminals and pedophiles. How that's being "tough on crime" is what's really laughable.
Keep grasping for "Republicans are good leaders" straws…..maybe you'll chance on something, you know, believable.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Ghost: You are one crazy cat….do you know Hammer of the Sunklhammer clan?
"The truism is again evident — liberalism is a mental disease."
Jeebus….liberalism has made America what it is today…..at least the admirable qualities still present in our country.
Democratic leadership won WW2. Preserved and provided for the nation's needs during economicly disastrous times caused by conservative greedmongering. Supported unions and labor which enabled the creation of the middle class. Extended rights to minorities and women. Pushed for Mdicare for seniors. The list is endless.
If that's freaking mental disease…..would that the entire country became mentally ill.
Over against the numerous good things liberalism has given our country can be set Republican's contributions…..deficits, favoring the tiny minority of the rich and, of course, violating the Constitution with wars of choice and profits.
Now, who was it that was suffering from mental illness again?
December 12th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
To Reverend and fellow like-minded liberal spinners,
Who do you guys think you are fooling ? This is pathetic. De-nial ain't just a river in Egypt, you know, and y'all are engaging in a whole bunch of it. Yes, the crime rate fell in the 90's, but NOT AT ANYWHERE NEAR THE RATE THAT IT DID IN NYC !!! In 1997, there were 1,932,700 violent crimes in the USA. In 1997, there were 1,634,770, according to statistics from The Disaster Center. That is a decrease of approximately 15%. GIULIANI DECREASED VIOLENT CRIME BY 50% during the same time period. Y'all crack me up. You have to do better than that, deniers. Why is it so hard for you to admit the truth ? Vince must be right. Liberalism IS a mental defect. You guys are proving it in spades.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
We are not proving anything, just citing facts, just like you. Why is it that you cite certain facts you ignore others? I never gave Mr. Clinton credit for anything; I simply asked you to remind me who was President when FEDERAL MONEY was used to bring crime down in New York. If Mr. Giuliani were all you say he is, wouldn't he be able to beat the master of the obvious, Mr. Romney? Crime was down everywhere, you admitted that yourself.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Da Truth,
Read my previous post. If you think there is no difference between the 15% drop in crime nationally and the 50% drop in crime in New York city under Giuliani, then you may have a point.
Which is why you don't.
Giuliani is leading Romney, but Romney has a pretty impressive resume as well, much more impressive than anyone on the Democratic side. Speaking of facts.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Ronald Reagan had an "impressive" resume. If Mr. Romney were up for CEO, yes, I might be impressed. But he's running for President.
And, again, you ignore the fact that the money Mr. Giuliani used to clean up NYC came from the Feds. Which is why I do have a point.
December 15th, 2007 at 10:07 am
It wasn't money that cleaned up NYC, it was Giuliani's leadership. If was only about money, then the wealthiest city in our country wouldn't have had a crime problem to begin with.