my comment quotes Ali A. Rizvi's direct address to leftists

so it's Rizvi you're calling "Ms. Krauthammer," but Rizvi is an atheist Muslim - he's also a liberal, unlike Krauthammer & you

but thanks for demonstrating that you're content to put Donald Trump in charge - Marine Le Pen, too, for that matter

about 25% of Muslims worldwide believe in using violence to advance their religion's goals and purposes.

That is enough to cause very bad problems.  There are neighborhoods in France which are alleged to be no-go zones, places where outsiders rarely enter due to the likelihood of Muslim attack against them . . .

The New York Times reported in April 2002, "Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders." And Newsweek said in November 2005: "According to research conducted by the government's domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 `no-go zones' around the country-and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27.

And now that Jeralyn has limited you to 4 comments per day (not per thread, but total, blog-wide, per day

However, I don't know at this point what post it was that was the allegedly bigoted rant!

I do know that often when I post, I attempt to substantiate as much as reasonable by referring to objective sources and/or factual information.  I assume that at least some of you notice that many of my posts link to other sources of information . . .  and I try to link to objective information.

Did I inadvertently say something negative about Muslims--on a % basis--without quoting and linking to a Pew Research study or to a Ben Shapiro youtube video which generally uses Pew Research studies to help substantiate its positions?

Maybe I did; I am not infallible!

Is the youtube video The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority considered a bigoted rant, or is it considered ok because it is factual and based on Pew Research?

By the way, I see that I was restricted in the number of post on or about 12/6 and today is 12/10.  I have been busier at work for the past few days . . .  Forgive my not noticing the limitation on posting number prior to today!

But reporting on Sunday by The Sun's Luke Broadwater shows there's much more to the story than that. Baltimore has a long history of paying out large settlements and judgments in cases when detainees were injured in the back of police vans, and that fact was apparently not lost on the department's top commanders. According to documents obtained through the Maryland Public Information act, cutting down on such injuries through the use of seat belts has been a departmental priority since 2012 when then-Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III became concerned about the issue. The documents Mr. Broadwater obtained show that the department stressed the need to seat belt detainees in communications with commanders, conducted training on the issue and performed spot checks for compliance -- all well before Gray's fateful arrest.

Funny they were auditing for something that didn't exist:

The push for seat belts wasn't just a one-time memo from a former commissioner; Mr. Bealefeld's successor, Anthony W. Batts, also took up the issue. In February 2014, Deputy Commissioner Jerry Rodriguez ordered a top Internal Affairs commander to publicize the seat belt policy at roll calls and said the department would be auditing officers' compliance.

What's more, all the attention to seat belt use appears to have had some effect. When Mr. Bealefeld first ordered an audit, in May 2012, officials checked 18 vehicles transporting 34 passengers, none of whom were belted. Two years later, under the Batts administration, an audit found 20 of 22 detainees wearing seat belts. A follow-up audit in September found 17 of 17 detainees in seat belts.

The most sensational case in Baltimore involved Johnson, a 43-year-old plumber who was arrested for public urination. He was handcuffed and placed in a transport van in good health. He emerged a quadriplegic.

Before he died, he complained to his doctor that he was not buckled into his seat when the police van "made a sharp turn," sending him "face first" into the interior of the van, court records state. He was "violently thrown around the back of the vehicle as [police officers] drove in an aggressive fashion, taking turns so as to injure [Johnson] who was helplessly cuffed," the lawsuit stated.

Johnson, who suffered a fractured neck, died two weeks later of pneumonia caused by his paralysis.

[...]

In 1997, Alston became paralyzed from the neck down in a van after being arrested. Alston said he told the officers he couldn't breathe, but they refused to give him an inhaler for asthma.

Officers said the 32-year-old repeatedly rammed his head into the side of the van, freed himself from a seat belt and thrashed some more.

Alston sued, and at the trial, Dr. Adrian Barbul, a Sinai Hospital trauma surgeon, testified that Alston had no external head injuries when he was taken to the emergency room.

[...]

Alston's attorney, Philip Federico, said Thursday that the Gray case brought back memories of Alston, who died about eight years ago. What jumped out was that both men had asthma and were denied when they asked police for inhalers, he said.

The question is this: if the severe injury occurred after the 5th stop, then the police provided him medical care as soon as they were aware of it.  If the injury occurred earlier (as presented by the state), then the cops may have delayed providing him with care, and that's the crux of the case.

The state's witness, the ME, however testified that Gray's injuries happened between stops 2 and 4.

To say they are confusing is an understatement.

On the new I-10, they have HOV/pay to drive in.  Although idiotic, I am sure they are designed this way, there is no barrier between the NOV/Pay lanes and regular traffic.  You can merge in at any time.

I don't use it ever, but I would imagine they write tickets all day long of people either confused or jumping in when traffic gets thick.

Mr. Cruz's second problem has to do with words like sincerity, earnestness, ingenuousness. His conservatism is serious--fully thought through, studied, internalized. But who is he? I think of the comment of one of his fellow conservative senators: "He's a complete charlatan, you know." He did the shutdown, said that senator, not because it might work or help but because it served his breakout plan: be the guy who convinces the base he's the only one they can trust. The senator's implication: It's a game to this guy.

It is not hard to notice that every Cruz conversation, every interview, seems to be the rote performance of a speech. In public, and often in private, he moves his hands and face and modulates his voice like a TV pro. Politicians have to be actors, but the trick is to be an actor without being a phony.

Slickness is not a virtue in a politician, and obvious oiliness is a drawback. Mr. Cruz needs some awkward lessons. Maybe he can call Rick Perry.