Dropping pebbles of thought into our conservative echo-chamber

Archive for July, 2012

Bloomberg Has Lost His Mind

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has become the shining example of the reasons why we should never allow nanny-state politicians even the smallest measure of power.

Mayor Michael “Nanny” Bloomberg

From restricting the size of your soft drinks, to his inane comments on gun control, Bloomberg has typified the politicians that feel they have nothing better to do than to tell you how to live your life.  But he takes it to a whole new level…

Because none of his nanny policies make even a bit of sense.

I don’t like Michelle Obama going around the country telling us what to eat, because it isn’t her place to do that.  But at least she makes a good point; I can’t deny that my own diet is pretty poor.  However, Bloomberg’s policies are far worse, and he is actually in a position to make them law.

I don’t want to go too far into the policies I mentioned earlier except to say that nothing prevents someone from buying two 16-ounce soft drinks if they want more soda, and nobody really wants to hear a lecture about gun control policies from a man in charge of a city with an extremely high murder rate.

I’d rather focus on the latest adventures of Nanny Bloomberg.

Apparently, he has decided that he knows better than mothers how to feed their children.  He’s locking up the formula and hiding the key in the hopes that it will coerce more women to breast feed.  Sounds like something worthy of the full concentration of the mayor of one of our largest cities, right?

According to a story by Neil Munro of The Daily Caller (sorry, Neil, I didn’t set out to co-opt your work two times in one day, but I just can’t help it!) as of September 2nd, city hospitals will be required to hide the formula and encourage mothers to breast feed their newborns.  Hopefully, this policy stops at some point prior to the child entering high school.

Predictably, the reaction has been less than favorable.  Even breast-feeding advocates are shaking their heads.  But what are they going to do about it?  Probably nothing, except for maybe shooting off a few words to the comments section of The New York Times.  Like every other crazy policy in New York, it will go into effect and the people will come to accept it as part of the absurdity of life in the big city.  The politicians they elect will just move on to produce the next episode of “insane pet projects“.

Sorry New York liberals, you elected this guy and now you’re stuck with him.

Please don’t ever send him to Washington, DC.

Advertisements

Obama and Holder Become High School Principals

A Friday story in the Daily Caller by Neil Munro brings home to me several points; not just about liberal ideology, but about Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s race-based agenda.

AG Eric Holder with President Barack Obama

President Obama signed an executive order called the “White House Initiative on Educational Excellence” this past Thursday that is going largely unnoticed (read ignored) by the so-called mainstream media.  The order sets up a government panel (we can fix anything with a government panel!) to promote, among other things, “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

Seems that our illustrious president and his attorney general believe that black children get into too much trouble in school.  That being so, they have decided that the problem isn’t that black children are more likely to act out or break the rules, but that the rules themselves are being unfairly applied.  Nevermind that they have zero evidence to back up that assumption.  It should be patently obvious to any good liberal that if black children are getting into trouble in school more often than children of other races, it must be because those charged with disciplining them are racist.

Now, I have long held the opinion that school discipline policies border on the edges of insanity.  Most schools have been stuck in their “zero-tolerance” mindset for so long that we see idiotic things happening, like students getting suspended for taking aspirin.  But it is far worse than that.  Schools often opt to suspend and expel students at far too high a rate for my tastes.  I believe these forms of punishment to be extremely counter-productive, not just for the student and the school, but for society at large, and that they should be used as the very last resort.  We do have a lot of real problems.

And now President Obama is going to provide us with even more…

The Daily Caller quotes the report as saying that “over a third of African-American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African-American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects.”

Far be it for me to point out that the vast majority of these children are trapped in inner-city schools, and that the liberals are their captors.  The teachers unions have a stranglehold on city schools even stronger than the hold they have in the suburbs.  They have fought against conservative attempts to allow children to leave failing schools at every turn, and yet can not fathom why the children aren’t doing so well.

From the DC:

In February, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that “we’ve often seen that students of color, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and students with special needs are disproportionately likely to be suspended or expelled.”

“This is, quite simply, unacceptable. … These unnecessary and destructive policies must be changed,” he said in his speech, given in Atlanta, Ga.

I find myself in complete agreement with Eric Holder on one thing.  Suspensions and expulsions are indeed destructive, even when ultimately necessary.  But the notion that blacks are somehow being unfairly targeted is ludicrous.

Their solution to the problem is even more destructive, and it leads one to wonder if it may actually be intended to be destructive.  After all, the more people who are dependent upon the government, the more people the government can control, and liberals actually believe that is a GOOD thing.

The president’s panel is set to force several school districts to hand out punishments in line with the racial makeup of the population, regardless of the racial makeup of those breaking the rules.  This means that white and asian students, who operate within the rules more often, are likely to be punished more harshly when compared to black students for the same offenses.

That, my friends, is Obama and Holder’s idea of “equality”.

Krauthammer Wins Battle With White House

The man the White House loves to hate

Anyone who has followed President Barack Obama at all with even an ounce of objectivity knows that he has a serious problem when it comes to honesty.

In fact, this president has been so pathological with his deceptions that a list of instances where he has been honest would be a much shorter one to create, and those rare moments of truth are nearly always political miscues that he and his campaign would prefer never to have happened.

Among his latest and greatest hits is the whole “I didn’t really say what you quoted me saying even though I quoted myself saying it in my own campaign ad” fiasco, which has the Obama campaign in full damage repair mode.  Sadly enough, the Obama campaign is so cynical that they have released another series of ads that says the exact opposite of the entire speech that was met with such a negative reaction.  Really, it was Obama’s version of the “I’m Not a Witch” ad, made famous by Christine O’Donnell.

What is more sad is that many people will believe him, and his sycophantic supporters will likely go right along with the deceit, willingly.

But the newest “how stupid does he think we are” moment, for me, came just yesterday.

Syndicated Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer wrote an article in which he rightly points out that the Obama administration returned to the British Embassy a valued and respected bust of Winston Churchill soon after Obama moved into the White House.  This was never a secret.  Anyone paying attention to politics at the time knew about it.  It made national news everywhere except for the lap-dog media.

Apparently, the Obama administration saw their chance to re-write history–again.

Dan Pfeiffer

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer wrote a rebuttal to attack Krauthammer, saying that his claims were “ridiculous” and “100% false”.  Mediaite covered this part of the story in a Friday afternoon piece.  Within two hours they received confirmation from the British Embassy that Krauthammer was indeed correct.  The bust of Churchill had been returned to the British Embassy and currently resides in the British Ambassador’s residence in Washington, DC.

Krauthammer asked for a retraction and an apology from Pfeiffer:

Not going to happen, Charles.  A brilliant man such as yourself would know that they will never admit to spreading falsehoods.  They will either ignore it and hope it goes away, or they will double down on the stupid.

The real question is, why does this administration feel the need to make such an obvious lie?  The only answer I can propose is that they are so thin-skinned that they can not bear any criticism of their actions, no matter how accurate the criticism may be, or, perhaps their reaction is in direct proportion to the accuracy of their critics.

Either way, we have got to rid ourselves of this craziness and send Obama packing back to Chicago in November.

Update – Apparently Pfeiffer has apologized!  I stand corrected.  According to the brief blurb I saw from Charles in passing on Fox a bit ago, he received a mea culpa from Pfeiffer.  He was almost as surprised as I am.  Who knew..?

Update #2 – Okay, so apparently Pfeiffer’s apology was not quite so genuine as I thought.  Yes, he did send Krauthammer an email apologizing, but…  The email was sent quietly so as to attract as little notice as possible.  Pfeiffer’s “rebuttal” is still up at the link I posted above.  He did include an addendum to “explain away the confusion”, which, in liberal terms apparently means to lie your ass off while spinning as much as humanly possible.  Pfeiffer portrays the whole incident as an innocent misunderstanding.  He claims that the bust of Churchill was lent to the Bush administration at the start of his term and they sent it back with all of the other art from Bush’s Oval Office.  In reality, as Krauthammer originally wrote, the bust was sent to us as a show of solidarity after the events of September 11, 2001, and the British were less than pleased that we unceremoniously returned it.  They were offended, and rightfully so.

Honestly, I have to return to my original belief that Pfeiffer’s only intent in all of this was to deceive and run cover for his boss.

Tax Cut War Goes Beyond Obama’s Rhetoric

Friends, I am very tired.

Tired in the sense that I am sick of liberal crap enough to want to strangle every single last one of them.

President Bush signed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003

What set me over the edge (this time)?  Believe it or not, it is the subject of the “Bush Tax Cuts”.  I weary of this battle, which is perhaps exactly the way liberals want us all to feel.  But I am not weary in the sense that they had probably hoped.

Every year or two, we are drawn back into the same old debate that should have been settled nearly a decade ago.  It isn’t the debate itself that irritates me so much as the reason for having it.  I also grate at the so-called mainstream media, who portray the issue as “tax cuts for the rich” every year, instead of what it truly is; liberal Democrats pushing for tax hikes on a full-time basis.  What further annoys me is the new liberal strategy of declaring that we should all join together to pass the parts upon which we agree, and fight over our differences later.  Like every liberal position and talking point, it sounds great on a superficial level, but in translation it amounts to “give us everything we want and we’ll just sit back and ignore you later”.

The problem is this:  Every since the original legislation was passed, Democrats who vote for–or refrain from blocking a vote on–the bill will do so only on the condition that it never becomes permanent.  Their reason for doing this is far more maddening.  It isn’t because they truly believe that the legislation is bad, or they would never have voted for it in the first place.  The real reason is that liberals and their media lap-dogs believe that they have discovered a shiny, brand new way to deceive the American public.

Throughout their entire history, the Democrats have had the desire to raise taxes and expand government.  Thus, the term “tax and spend” has haunted them, especially during election years.  Unfortunately, early in George W. Bush’s first term, the Democrats found a way to remove that stigma from themselves, and the Republicans unwittingly abetted them.

Conservatives can make the argument every time that we are not actually debating tax cuts, and the failure to extend the Bush legislation would actually amount to a massive tax increase.  However, I fear that this argument is largely lost on the American public, who are more likely to see the battle every year as one being fought over tax cuts, like the media constantly tells them.

Now every year, instead of Democrats being correctly pilloried for their constant desire to increase taxes, they are free to portray themselves as champions of the poor and the middle class, while demonizing conservatives as being beholden to those evil rich.  It a cynical ploy on the instinctive human nature, to which all of us are susceptible, for people to envy those more successful than themselves;  Class warfare.

So, what do we do about it?

There are only three paths:

1.  Make the original legislation permanent

2.  Allow the tax cuts to expire completely

3.  Give the Democrats what they claim to want

The second one is off the table entirely.  It would be a public relations disaster for Republicans, but it would also be a disaster for the American public, which is far more important.  Still, the political implications are sad, because if it had been left to Democrats, none of these cuts would ever have existed, and it is only because of the Democrats that the legislation is at risk of expiring.  But the Republicans would be the ones blamed if such a thing were actually to come to pass.

The third option is off the table largely for the same reasons as the second.  While the Republicans are far less likely to face negative political consequences in this scenario, the damage to the American economy would still be devastating.  Even the most squishy Republicans would not allow this to happen, and, oddly enough, they would likely be joined by at least a few Democrats to prevent it, despite the rhetoric coming from the DNC and President Obama.

That leaves only the first option, but how do we make it happen?

I could do with seeing less of this guy.

Well, that’s the real trick, isn’t it?  Obviously, it could never happen with Obama in the White House, and so he must go.  It also could never happen with Harry Reid leading the Senate, and so conservatives must turn out in record numbers this year to take the Senate back from the Democrats.  Large as they may seem, these are not the biggest obstacles to the goal of making permanent the Bush legislation.

Even if we take back the Senate, we will almost certainly not be able to obtain a 60-vote majority.  Unfortunately, the Democrats that would be likely to join us in avoiding a massive tax hike on those evil rich people who run small businesses across the country would be just as likely to balk at the notion of making things permanent.  They’re not likely to easily let go of their pretty new political toy.  They would try to block any effort to take their toy away from them, even to the point of filibuster.

In order to get this done, we must make the notion of temporary extensions politically toxic in such a way as to prevent liberals from blocking a vote to make this legislation permanent.  That isn’t going to be easy, but I believe that it can be done.

We all know President Obama is only bringing up the matter of taxes to avoid having to address his horrible performance on the economy.  It’s just his latest in a long line of distractions.  The issue isn’t really on the table until after the elections, anyway–during the lame-duck session.

But the time to start our drum beat is still NOW.  We need to use the opening he provided us to hammer the point home, over and over, that the uncertainty caused by the constant debate over this legislation is having an extremely negative effect on our economy.  This has the virtue of being true.  I believe it will resonate, and should be repeated as often as possible.

Assuming we do take back the White House and the Senate, we must aggressively take this battle to the Democrats during the lame-duck session of Congress.  We must demand that these cuts finally be made permanent, and refuse to budge.  If the Democrats still won’t give in, then we should threaten to let the entire legislation expire, and inform the American public that we will reinstate it once our newly elected representatives are seated.  That would still be time enough to prevent a tax hike from effecting the American people in April.

My friends, it is time to reverse the roles here.  It is time for us to put the Democrats in the position that they should rightfully hold; that of being in favor of raising taxes on everyone.  We must put them on the defensive.

Do Republicans have the strength of will to act this aggressively?

I honestly do not know.

But they are our only chance to take this fight to the Democrat’s doorstep.

Why Chick-Fil-A is Different

My readers probably already know the basics: 

The Chief Operating Officer of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, has committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of liberals and gay activists.  He has dared to disagree with them, without actually being one of them.  You see, apparently it is okay to publicly oppose something on the gay agenda as long as you are one of the people that they adore, like Barack Obama.  No such luck, there, Dan…  You’re a filthy Christian and you must be exposed as the “hate-filled bigot” that you are.  It doesn’t matter that you hold the same position that our illustrious president held a mere few months ago.  You and the business that you operate deserve to be destroyed.

I’ve wanted to write an article about the whole Chick-Fil-A debacle since the episode began.  It’s a very compelling story, and so I was hardly alone.  There have been a lot of news stories and articles on the subject.  The problem with writers, and even lowly bloggers like me, is that we want to feel unique.  We really want to feel as though we are bringing a fresh perspective to a story, even if we really aren’t.  So, I felt bad.  Here was a story about which I had very strong feelings, and yet I couldn’t bring myself to write about it because I had nothing new to bring to the table.

In a moment of weakness (which may have involved a beer or two) I reached out to my Twitter friends and voiced my frustration.  Two of my fellow Twitter conservatives, @JonahCrossing and @SundevilSal, gave me some responses that made me think about the subject a little bit more…

Why does this story bother me so damned much?  We all know that liberals love to boycott and attempt to silence anyone who goes against their ideology.  From #StopRush to Target and many others along the way, the far left always attempts to remove from the public sphere anyone that dares oppose them.  This is nothing new.  It has been happening for generations.

What is different about this that grates on my nerves..?  I didn’t put my finger on that until I asked someone else, even though the answer was always right in my face.  And, though I know that others have brought this up, and I am hardly the first, it does scratch that “journalistic itch” buried somewhere inside me.  Or, maybe I’m just a hack blogger happy to have worked out why this particular episode resonates so much more than any of the similar episodes of the past:

At no time in our history, at least that I can recall, has any politician attempted to deny a company the right to operate a private business based solely on the fact that the owners were Christian.

Liberals boycott businesses all of the time, and even seek to deny them permits to build new locations.  But even the Wal-Mart protests centered around the fact that they were non-union and supposedly mistreated their workers, or that the giant chain would kill the poor mom and pop businesses that we all know liberals couldn’t care less about.  The liberals had a smoke screen, at least!

Now they have dropped all pretense.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston have come out to make statements that they would deny Chick-Fil-A the right to operate their business in those cities.  Apparently, being Christian does not fit the values of Chicago or Boston, which isn’t really surprising, given that both cities are liberal hell-holes that are being destroyed from within by, ironically, the lack of the very Christian values that their mayors decry.  As of this writing, both mayors have had to step back somewhat from their comments, but that changes nothing.  We all know that they only did so because of the spotlight that was placed on them by the rest of the country.  They got hit by a backlash, and rightfully so.  But don’t be fooled…

We can NEVER let this happen, and this notion WILL come into their heads again.  A quote from the movie Serenity comes to mind:  “A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief…”  Malcolm Reynolds was speaking about the evils of engineering society, and I honestly think that fits here.

And, like the wayward crew of Serenity, we should all “aim to misbehave”.

Sad Reaction to Twitter Crash

So, as usual, I stayed up all damned night.  When “normal” people are just waking up, something in my body chemistry reacts to the new sunlight of the day and finally allows me to go to sleep.  Sometimes I really wonder if there wasn’t some kernel of truth to those old vampire stories.  I really do hate garlic, or to be more precise, it hates me.  Thus, I was a little surprised to find myself waking up before noon.

I crawled out of bed, slid into my chair, and rolled over to my computer; all things that I do instinctively even when I’m barely awake.  Of course, the first thing I did was type Twitter’s address into my browser.  Yes, I am still using the standard browser API, mainly because it seems to react faster than Tweetdeck does, and I haven’t gotten around to trying any of the other ones.  But Twitter wouldn’t load.  Had to be something wrong with my PC, right?  But everything else was loading just fine. 

After a quick Google check I found a plethora of articles, written just minutes before, announcing that Twitter was indeed down.

For some reason, reading three different articles was not enough for me, and I found myself skimming through the comments below.  One user was wondering how he would survive the day without Twitter.  I can relate to that sentiment.  Then someone else responded with a reply that messed my entire day up before it even got started:

“How were you surviving when Twitter had not been developed?”, he asked.

I had to read that four times.  I’m still not sure how to answer…

I CREATED MY TWITTER ACCOUNT LESS THAN FIVE MONTHS AGO!!!

Seriously, Twitter, what the hell..?  Some hardcore illegal drugs have a slower build cycle to full-blown addiction.

Oh, thank God…  Twitter is back up now.

Is Bruce Wayne Liable for the Aurora Tragedy?

There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about the connection between the shootings in Aurora and violence in movies, video games, and other media.  Many on the left and, sadly, some on the right, have tried to draw a correlation between extreme violence in real life and the violence we see in television and movies.  I have even heard a few say that perhaps The Dark Knight Rises shares some of the blame for the tragedy in Aurora.  One of the victims, Torrence Brown, Jr.–who was not shot in the incident–is reportedly considering suing the theater and Warner Bros. for damages.  What he seeks is currently unclear.

Torrence Brown, Jr.
(picture from TMZ.com)

While he certainly has a point about the liability of the theater, I would point out that the shooter never even saw the movie, and thus could not have been influenced by any violence that was involved with it.

The theater itself could very well be liable.  They required that their patrons forgo the right to carry legally concealed firearms in order to gain entry, as is the theater’s right.  But in doing so, the theater must assume the responsibility of providing adequate security to those patrons; something that they clearly did not do.  By all accounts there was no alarm set off when the shooter propped opened the emergency exit to the theater, which allowed him to go outside and bring his weaponry into the theater with little notice.  I have not heard a single report of any armed security present at the theater.  Cinemark could easily be shown to be liable in court for its failures on those counts.

I can only guess that Brown’s lawyers are considering adding Warner Bros. to such a lawsuit because of Warner’s deep pockets and their likely unwillingness to endure a drawn-out court battle against a victim that could damage their reputation with the public.  The movie itself could not have been the cause.

But could other movies have been to blame..?

As much as I hate to admit it, I have seen many people–mostly the very young–try to imitate the things that they see in movies and music videos.  It ranges from people who act like little “gangstas” (which is largely hilarious until they get older and actually join real gangs), imitating Al Pacino’s Tony Montana character stereotype (which I find mildly offensive), to acting as though they are inside The Matrix.  We’ve all probably seen it.  Personally, I have always felt that those who imitate the Jackass movies are most deserving of a Darwin Award.

But does that have anything to do with the violence that horrified Americans and the rest of the world last week?

The answer has to be a resounding NO.

Someone like the shooter in Colorado, driven to such extreme violence, is not under the drunken influence of a mere movie or music video.  Anyone who thought it through, or watched the footage of the shooter in court (I still refuse to give his name validity) would clearly see that there is something much deeper at work here.  Something went VERY wrong along the line.  There is a much more serious issue at hand here, and we are being very foolish as a nation if we neglect to address it.

Yes, the theater may bear some of the blame for lacking adequate security, but our real focus should be on the shooter.  Why did no one bother to find out why a PhD candidate just fell off the map?  Wasn’t there anyone that picked up on any warning signs?  I can not believe that there wouldn’t be at least someone who had a few red flags raised.  But our overly-PC culture currently prevents us from pursuing such red flags, and people who attempt to do so are often castigated for their efforts.

The left continually tells me how much they care about the people, but no one at the extreme-leftist University of Colorado, a long-time home to the infamous Ward Churchill, even bothered to find out what happened to one of their own when he abruptly changed course.

As a nation, we have got to stop trying to find convenient scape-goats for violent acts, or we’re highly likely to see many more of them.  I certainly don’t have all of the answers, but no one will until we get our hands dirty and stop avoiding the real issue…

And it isn’t gun control or violence in the movies.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: