Thugs in the White House - Cowards in the media
For over 75 years, I've been aware of thugs among labor union spokesmen. The most recent example being when Rev. Charles Williams II, a Detroit-area pastor and liberal activist, at a pro-union rally warned Michigan Governor Rick Snyder: "Just know one thing, Rick Snyder. You sign that bill, you won't get no rest. We'll meet you on Geddes Road. We'll be at your daughter's soccer game. We'll visit you at your church. We'll be at your office."
Now a senior White House Spokesman has threatened a reporter for reporting and later commenting on a news event which we now know to be true.
"It was said very clearly, 'You will regret doing this,’” the reporter told CNN last night. This was no cub reporter at some obscure media outlet, it was Bob Woodward, a serious, veteran journalist with a major Washington newspaper, The Washington Post.
Then, to make matters worse, several notable voices in important media outlets, piled on, criticizing Woodward for daring to express disapproval of their beloved president. I find it incredulous that media luminaries would criticize a fellow journalist for reporting the truth, with no criticism of the bullying tactics from the White House!
Long ago, Claudia Alta "Lady Bird" Johnson, First Lady of the United
States during the presidency of her husband Lyndon B. Johnson, headed the first major legislative campaign launched by a first lady: the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Declaring advertising billboards to be eyesores, she sought to have them prohibited by federal law.
In radio broadcasting at the time, we broadcasters believed we could do without the competition for advertising sales posed by the billboard industry. But we believed more intensely in the First Amendment protection of free speech, and freedom from government intrusion in general. We vigorously opposed the proposed Highway Beautification Act.
How things have changed!
While past presidents have largely done their bullying below the radar of media scrutiny, they now do it openly in government email channels and are joined by media 'watchdogs'.
We are witnessing what Victor Davis Hanson, classicist and military historian, today called 'the American recessional'.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Farewell February
The months seem to fly by. Now we see another relegated to the past. Good riddance February, from a weather perspective. Winter took one last, severe swipe at America in its waning days. But there are February anniversaries I would rather forget.
One hundred years ago on February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment to The Constitution was ratified, creating income tax. The same month, The Federal Reserve was born. Thanks, President Wilson!
In the state of Oregon, the first tax on retail sale of gasoline was instituted: 1¢ a gallon! Who could object to 1¢ a gallon? Even though that may have been near 10% at the time. Today, in California, gasoline tax is about 68¢ a gallon, more like 15% of gasoline's now highly inflated price.
But, on February 3, 1870, there was a blessed event as the 15th amendment to the Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing voting rights to all citizens regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude! Can you today imagine that that prohibition ever existed? Especially in light of the 9th Amendment which sated that the inclusion of enumerated rights shall not deny or disparage other rights, and the 10 amendment which stated that powers not prohibited by The Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Constitution never prohibited voting rights based on race or color.
February also brings us Valentine's Day, an observation of the gift of personal love!
Hope your March arrives as a lamb. We'll worry about the nature of its exit next spring... in 31 days!
The months seem to fly by. Now we see another relegated to the past. Good riddance February, from a weather perspective. Winter took one last, severe swipe at America in its waning days. But there are February anniversaries I would rather forget.
One hundred years ago on February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment to The Constitution was ratified, creating income tax. The same month, The Federal Reserve was born. Thanks, President Wilson!
In the state of Oregon, the first tax on retail sale of gasoline was instituted: 1¢ a gallon! Who could object to 1¢ a gallon? Even though that may have been near 10% at the time. Today, in California, gasoline tax is about 68¢ a gallon, more like 15% of gasoline's now highly inflated price.
But, on February 3, 1870, there was a blessed event as the 15th amendment to the Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing voting rights to all citizens regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude! Can you today imagine that that prohibition ever existed? Especially in light of the 9th Amendment which sated that the inclusion of enumerated rights shall not deny or disparage other rights, and the 10 amendment which stated that powers not prohibited by The Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Constitution never prohibited voting rights based on race or color.
February also brings us Valentine's Day, an observation of the gift of personal love!
Hope your March arrives as a lamb. We'll worry about the nature of its exit next spring... in 31 days!
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Women in Combat
Women are different from men in many ways. I know that, still, I like women. As boys mature, they develop muscles, hence strength, and they search for ways to use that advantage. Women, generally of more delicate frame, usually lose out in physical encounters, so they learn to finesse the situation... as boys grow muscles, girls grow brains. Boys learn to push. Girls learn to maneuver.
I am speaking generalities, of course. There are women who can push very hard. There are women too dumb to outmaneuver a turnip. But those are exceptions.
Now there is talk of putting women in military combat roles. Some women consider that an opportunity to advance their careers. Perhaps. It is terribly unfair to deny women equality at any level. But remember, women are not always equal. Only women, throughout all of recorded history, have been targeted for sexual exploitation and abuse. Only women can develop a fetus, carry it to maturity, and give birth to our next generation. Only women have the breasts to suckle their infant. And, women add a certain quality to human life which seems to be their exclusive ability. Isn't that enough? Must we also ask them to fight for our defense?
Women already serve in many vital military roles. Until now, they have been roles a bit less likely to lead to their capture by truly evil people. They fly our aircraft, and fly on our spacecraft. They serve in many command and intelligence positions. The nearest military installation to my home, White Sands Missile Range is commanded by a Army General who is, yes, a woman. Isn't that enough? Do we have to send women crawling through the mud with rifle and bayonet?
A noted college president once explained that a man is sometimes chosen over a women to fill an important job, because the man graduated from a more prestigious university. Never mind that, at the time, women had been refused admission to that particular university. That is cheating. Declining to send women into 'boots on the ground' combat roles, is not.
Women are different from men in many ways. I know that, still, I like women. As boys mature, they develop muscles, hence strength, and they search for ways to use that advantage. Women, generally of more delicate frame, usually lose out in physical encounters, so they learn to finesse the situation... as boys grow muscles, girls grow brains. Boys learn to push. Girls learn to maneuver.
I am speaking generalities, of course. There are women who can push very hard. There are women too dumb to outmaneuver a turnip. But those are exceptions.
Now there is talk of putting women in military combat roles. Some women consider that an opportunity to advance their careers. Perhaps. It is terribly unfair to deny women equality at any level. But remember, women are not always equal. Only women, throughout all of recorded history, have been targeted for sexual exploitation and abuse. Only women can develop a fetus, carry it to maturity, and give birth to our next generation. Only women have the breasts to suckle their infant. And, women add a certain quality to human life which seems to be their exclusive ability. Isn't that enough? Must we also ask them to fight for our defense?
Women already serve in many vital military roles. Until now, they have been roles a bit less likely to lead to their capture by truly evil people. They fly our aircraft, and fly on our spacecraft. They serve in many command and intelligence positions. The nearest military installation to my home, White Sands Missile Range is commanded by a Army General who is, yes, a woman. Isn't that enough? Do we have to send women crawling through the mud with rifle and bayonet?
A noted college president once explained that a man is sometimes chosen over a women to fill an important job, because the man graduated from a more prestigious university. Never mind that, at the time, women had been refused admission to that particular university. That is cheating. Declining to send women into 'boots on the ground' combat roles, is not.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Why do Progressives win elections?
Yes, they have the majority of the black vote. They have the majority of the Hispanic vote. They have the majority of the Asian vote.
But why?
That early-on Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, was elected as a Republican, but he was a solid Progressive. A despicable little wimp, Roosevelt first appeared in the legislature wearing a purple velvet suit which caused snickers all around. But Teddy was a smart, conniving politician, so he created a bogus macho image for himself. The public bought it. After the Filipinos successfully overthrew their Spanish conquerors, Roosevelt turned his back on them, refusing promised independence and called them "our little Pacific Negroes". Why do Hispanics vote for Liberal Progressives today?
In the 1940s, another Progressive Roosevelt, Franklin D., rounded up innocent, patriotic Japanese Americans and threw them all into 'Concentration' camps. No trial, no judge, no jury, no evidence. Just blatant discrimination. Why do Asians vote Democrat today?
In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower, fought hard to get Civil Rights legislation passed. He was only partly successful due to the vicious opposition of Democrat Senator Lyndon B. Johnson.
Yet, when Johnson himself became president, (like Teddy Roosevelt, upon the assassination of the elected president, William McKinley before Teddy, John F. Kennedy before LBJ). Johnson saw a political opportunity. A steward on Air Force One at the time, reported hearing Johnson declare "I'll have them Niggers voting Democrat for 100 years."
Now, to cut Johnson a little slack, any political observer of his Presidency will recall that dark-skinned Americans of African descent were still being called Negroes at the time. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used that expression in his 'I Have A Dream' speech. Given Johnson's Texas drawl, he pronounced the word "Niggras", which could be misunderstood. Nonetheless, it was apparent to all that his great Civil Rights efforts were toward a single goal: assuring the Black vote for Democrat politicians. Why do Blacks vote Democrat today?
I believe the Progressives learned their lesson from Teddy. A New York dandy (and one-time Governor) Teddy simply became what turn-of-the-20th century Americans admired, a rugged, individualistic he-man. If you ain't got what the people want, create for yourself that image. If your opponent does have what the people admire, do whatever it takes to destroy their image.
Granted, neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney offered what Sarah Palin called "set our hair on fire" rhetoric, but either man was infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Barack Obama. But the Obama campaign succeeded in destroying the image of both opponents.
When I took Infantry training in the Army, I was taught that you have to prepare for the way your enemy is going to fight you. Marquess of Queensberry Rules do not apply in military hand-to-hand combat. Your enemy wants to kill you: know that, understand that and prepare accordingly.
The Progressive Liberal Democrats have infiltrated the news media. They have infiltrated academia. Even with those institutions solidly on their side, they will still break every rule to win. Republicans should not engage in rule-breaking, but they must understand how the Dems are going to fight, and prepare.
Yes, they have the majority of the black vote. They have the majority of the Hispanic vote. They have the majority of the Asian vote.
But why?
That early-on Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, was elected as a Republican, but he was a solid Progressive. A despicable little wimp, Roosevelt first appeared in the legislature wearing a purple velvet suit which caused snickers all around. But Teddy was a smart, conniving politician, so he created a bogus macho image for himself. The public bought it. After the Filipinos successfully overthrew their Spanish conquerors, Roosevelt turned his back on them, refusing promised independence and called them "our little Pacific Negroes". Why do Hispanics vote for Liberal Progressives today?
In the 1940s, another Progressive Roosevelt, Franklin D., rounded up innocent, patriotic Japanese Americans and threw them all into 'Concentration' camps. No trial, no judge, no jury, no evidence. Just blatant discrimination. Why do Asians vote Democrat today?
In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower, fought hard to get Civil Rights legislation passed. He was only partly successful due to the vicious opposition of Democrat Senator Lyndon B. Johnson.
Yet, when Johnson himself became president, (like Teddy Roosevelt, upon the assassination of the elected president, William McKinley before Teddy, John F. Kennedy before LBJ). Johnson saw a political opportunity. A steward on Air Force One at the time, reported hearing Johnson declare "I'll have them Niggers voting Democrat for 100 years."
Now, to cut Johnson a little slack, any political observer of his Presidency will recall that dark-skinned Americans of African descent were still being called Negroes at the time. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used that expression in his 'I Have A Dream' speech. Given Johnson's Texas drawl, he pronounced the word "Niggras", which could be misunderstood. Nonetheless, it was apparent to all that his great Civil Rights efforts were toward a single goal: assuring the Black vote for Democrat politicians. Why do Blacks vote Democrat today?
I believe the Progressives learned their lesson from Teddy. A New York dandy (and one-time Governor) Teddy simply became what turn-of-the-20th century Americans admired, a rugged, individualistic he-man. If you ain't got what the people want, create for yourself that image. If your opponent does have what the people admire, do whatever it takes to destroy their image.
Granted, neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney offered what Sarah Palin called "set our hair on fire" rhetoric, but either man was infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Barack Obama. But the Obama campaign succeeded in destroying the image of both opponents.
When I took Infantry training in the Army, I was taught that you have to prepare for the way your enemy is going to fight you. Marquess of Queensberry Rules do not apply in military hand-to-hand combat. Your enemy wants to kill you: know that, understand that and prepare accordingly.
The Progressive Liberal Democrats have infiltrated the news media. They have infiltrated academia. Even with those institutions solidly on their side, they will still break every rule to win. Republicans should not engage in rule-breaking, but they must understand how the Dems are going to fight, and prepare.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Violence,
a natural behavior.
I enjoy nature films and have seen many depicting violent behavior among wild beasts. Animals fight over food, territory and, most often, for mating rights. Humans are no different. We know the biblical story of Cain and Abel and their fatal encounter. That behavior has continued to this day.
Along the way, humans gained the ability to think and to reason. They learned ways to co-exist and developed codes of behavior. "Thou shall not kill" scorned violence. But the trait remained.
Violence and killing are okay under clearly defined circumstances, like war. Periodically, entire nations have been outraged at the behavior of citizens of other nations, sometimes for rather trivial reasons. Declaring war, they engaged in wholesale killing. The most effective killers being deemed heroes. Terrible and ever more sophisticated weapons have developed to aid in that cause - or to defend against it.
Violence in humans is often attributed to some abnormality, specifically a mental disorder. Actually, violence occurs in humans any time one or more humans abandon the ancient codes of peaceful co-existence.
They reach this point in many ways. We have seen and heard many 'experts' explain the possible reasons for individual acts of human violence. But, as Hillary Clinton famously said, "What does it matter?" Someone exceeds the bounds of acceptable human behavior and violence occurs. A victim may still be dead, regardless of what cause is finally attributed.
In my unlearned opinion, there is a way to prevent it. We must somehow strengthen those bounds. I believe it must start early in one's life. For example, I grew up with four sisters. Like all siblings, we squabbled over petty things, but, early on, I was taught that a boy does not hit a girl. Call her names, throw an earthworm in her lap, but never strike her. As an octogenarian, I am still tightly bound by that rule. I cannot conceive of a reason why I would hit a girl.
So, where do we start? My lesson about not hitting girls was learned from my family. From a loving, caring father who sought to teach me to become a man, a real man, not a grown-up boy. From a loving mother whose entire life was wrapped up in Christian principles. And, from my squabbling sisters, who may mistreat me, but were always there for me when needed.
So, family is where we start. We must end abortions and teach a deep respect for all human life. We must curtail divorce by making it harder to marry. Young people must be required to think long and hard about that life changing decision. No more rushing to the altar because hormones are popping.
Using DNA if necessary, we must always hold men responsible for the care of children they sire. No way out of it... father a child and you will support that child until adulthood, like it or not. And, somehow, we must enforce responsible parenting. Yes, that is a tough one, but we must at least create a climate that fosters loving parental care.
Strengthen the family and you may erect bounds of behavior that can withstand anger, greed, jealousy, or even some real or imaginary mental disorder.
a natural behavior.
I enjoy nature films and have seen many depicting violent behavior among wild beasts. Animals fight over food, territory and, most often, for mating rights. Humans are no different. We know the biblical story of Cain and Abel and their fatal encounter. That behavior has continued to this day.
Along the way, humans gained the ability to think and to reason. They learned ways to co-exist and developed codes of behavior. "Thou shall not kill" scorned violence. But the trait remained.
Violence and killing are okay under clearly defined circumstances, like war. Periodically, entire nations have been outraged at the behavior of citizens of other nations, sometimes for rather trivial reasons. Declaring war, they engaged in wholesale killing. The most effective killers being deemed heroes. Terrible and ever more sophisticated weapons have developed to aid in that cause - or to defend against it.
Violence in humans is often attributed to some abnormality, specifically a mental disorder. Actually, violence occurs in humans any time one or more humans abandon the ancient codes of peaceful co-existence.
They reach this point in many ways. We have seen and heard many 'experts' explain the possible reasons for individual acts of human violence. But, as Hillary Clinton famously said, "What does it matter?" Someone exceeds the bounds of acceptable human behavior and violence occurs. A victim may still be dead, regardless of what cause is finally attributed.
In my unlearned opinion, there is a way to prevent it. We must somehow strengthen those bounds. I believe it must start early in one's life. For example, I grew up with four sisters. Like all siblings, we squabbled over petty things, but, early on, I was taught that a boy does not hit a girl. Call her names, throw an earthworm in her lap, but never strike her. As an octogenarian, I am still tightly bound by that rule. I cannot conceive of a reason why I would hit a girl.
So, where do we start? My lesson about not hitting girls was learned from my family. From a loving, caring father who sought to teach me to become a man, a real man, not a grown-up boy. From a loving mother whose entire life was wrapped up in Christian principles. And, from my squabbling sisters, who may mistreat me, but were always there for me when needed.
So, family is where we start. We must end abortions and teach a deep respect for all human life. We must curtail divorce by making it harder to marry. Young people must be required to think long and hard about that life changing decision. No more rushing to the altar because hormones are popping.
Using DNA if necessary, we must always hold men responsible for the care of children they sire. No way out of it... father a child and you will support that child until adulthood, like it or not. And, somehow, we must enforce responsible parenting. Yes, that is a tough one, but we must at least create a climate that fosters loving parental care.
Strengthen the family and you may erect bounds of behavior that can withstand anger, greed, jealousy, or even some real or imaginary mental disorder.
Saturday, February 02, 2013
Thoughts
I keep hearing opinions about President Obama's approval. He is said to be likeable. Highly intelligent.
He is the former. He is not the latter. The likeable part is a hangover from his demeanor before he announced as a candidate for President.
Just a few years ago, when George W. Bush was president, the Congressional Record shows that Senator Obama said this: "I rise, today, to talk about America's debt problem. The fact that we are here to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure and our government's reckless fiscal policies."
The most ardent Conservative would like that attitude. Today, with the debt doubled, he says we do not have a debt problem. Not "no longer have a debt problem", as though the bills had been paid.
I think Barack Obama started out as a likeable guy. But his handlers, advisers, consultants - whatever you wish to call them - have completely taken over and he is now a sock puppet.
One can imagine him being told: "We got you elected and re-elected. Now shut up and read the teleprompter."
As for the intelligent part, his "misspeaks", unlike those by W. are not just mangled pronunciations, but displays of ignorance. Like, "57 states". Has he never looked at a U.S. flag?
Then the other day he said Hillary Clinton was "one of the best secretary of states we have ever had." Really? What would those states be?
I keep hearing opinions about President Obama's approval. He is said to be likeable. Highly intelligent.
He is the former. He is not the latter. The likeable part is a hangover from his demeanor before he announced as a candidate for President.
Just a few years ago, when George W. Bush was president, the Congressional Record shows that Senator Obama said this: "I rise, today, to talk about America's debt problem. The fact that we are here to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure and our government's reckless fiscal policies."
The most ardent Conservative would like that attitude. Today, with the debt doubled, he says we do not have a debt problem. Not "no longer have a debt problem", as though the bills had been paid.
I think Barack Obama started out as a likeable guy. But his handlers, advisers, consultants - whatever you wish to call them - have completely taken over and he is now a sock puppet.
One can imagine him being told: "We got you elected and re-elected. Now shut up and read the teleprompter."
As for the intelligent part, his "misspeaks", unlike those by W. are not just mangled pronunciations, but displays of ignorance. Like, "57 states". Has he never looked at a U.S. flag?
Then the other day he said Hillary Clinton was "one of the best secretary of states we have ever had." Really? What would those states be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)