Tag Archives: Socialist

Plenty Of Blame To Go Around

The riots in Charlottesville, Virginia Saturday have been the topic of discussion all week, but most of the media discussion has been focused on President Trump’s response to it. The riots flared when a scheduled rally by several different organizations who planned to protest the removal of a statue of General Robert E. Lee, a confederate general in the Civil War, was met with counter protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement and the Anti-facist (Anti-Fa) movement. One woman was killed when someone drove a car into a crowd of protestors. The driver was arrested and identified as James Fields of Ohio, who had come to Charlottesville to join in the protest. The media was quick to single out the alt-right as the sole source of the trouble and blame them for the death. This is a complete propaganda campaign of the worst sort trying to control the public consciousness with lies and misdirection. Fortunately, President Trump isn’t playing along.

According to reports, the facts are that several groups clashed in the streets and began to argue and shout at and shove each other. Small skirmishes erupted all over the area around the demonstration which devolved into more serious violence as the day wore on. Police posted units all along the area, but according to witnesses, the police did not actively interfere until the car crash. The governor declared a state of emergency and the police cleared the area, making several arrests.

From the reports, this looks like a standard public disturbance issue with a tragic outcome culminating in the death of the young woman. Two additional deaths occurred when a police helicopter that was supporting the event crashed in the woods. The details of the cause of the crash have not been reported yet, but it is not likely the result of any action from any of the protestors since it happened away from the demonstration.

So, while this is tragic, to be sure, it is not worthy of the media coverage or social media coverage it has garnered. The reason it has gotten so much traction is that many of the groups protesting the removal of the statue are what the news media has labeled “Alt-Right” or neo Nazis or KKK. The socialist left is raising the volume on this in order to try to paint all conservatives as neo Nazis and KKK members. As if the mere presence of these groups is the sole reason for the violence that occurred.

I would never suggest that the Neo Nazi party, or the KKK embrace the true spirit of America. I do not condone any of these radical ideologies. By the same token, I do not condone the BLM or Anti-Fa movement either. Groups like the KKK and the BLM are the flipsides of the radical ideology coin. Unfortunately, the news media and the left (one in the same) favor the BLM/Anti-fa crowd and are portraying them as the victims in this melee.

They seem to forget that it takes two to fight.

Sarah Bosner, a blogger for Rolling Stone magazine mentioned observing a white man punch a black woman as though that was an example of the whole ordeal.

Shortly before the car ramming, I see a man marching with the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi group, punch a black woman who had thrown ice from her cup at him. Bystanders intervene, but the police do not respond.

Her point seems to be that a big bad Nazi beat up a poor defenseless black woman. She glosses over the fact the woman assaulted the man first by throwing her drink at him. I can imagine that prior to that, she had probably already peppered him with plenty of vitriol to raise his boiling point that level. In that regard, maybe it is indicative of the whole ordeal. A lot of people got insanely angry and acted like fools. Everyone involved should be held accountable…on both sides of the issue. In fact, BLM organizers deliberately bussed in demonstrators to counter the protest. The only reason to do such a thing was to foster a conflict and in doing so, they had to know that violence would erupt. In fact, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the violence was the expectation. They wanted a conflict to promote their leftist message and to try to paint the right in as bad a picture as they could.

President Trump seems to have a handle on this concept. His initial condemnation said that people on both sides were to blame for the violence, which is clearly true. The BLM movement already has a history of violence and killing police officers, so they clearly bear some of the blame for the violence in Charlottesville. Trump addressed the incident on Saturday:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides,”

This covers not only the violence from the Alt-right, but also from the BLM and the Anti-Fa, who also bear equal responsibility for the violence. But this wasn’t good enough for the left-leaning media or the neo socialist on the hill, who circled the wagons to roast Trump for “supporting Nazis.” Trump’s advisors quickly coerced him into revising his statement and singling out the “Nazis” because they are so vile they must be to blame for all the problems that happened. Trump did so, but then backtracked to his original “both sides” statement, much to the frustration of the left.

Here’s the thing: He’s right about that. Sure, Nazis are bad. Sure, KKK is bad. Sure, we had a war to stamp out the Nazis in 1945. And, sure, it is terrible that people try to align themselves with that movement today. But here’s the rest of the thing: They have every right to do that. It’s called the first amendment. Citizens of the US have every right to think however they want to, never mind how stupid that think may seem. After all, so many people still think Obama was a good president. They have a right to think that. The government cannot do anything about it. The government similarly cannot do anything about stopping people from joining the Nazi party or the KKK, no matter how repugnant it may be. Just because people align themselves with the Nazis or the KKK doesn’t mean they are criminals or terrorists or that their planning to murder people. It just means they are idiots.

Where these people, Nazis, KKK, BLM, what have you, go wrong is when they commit crimes like assault or vehicular homicide because of their beliefs. On Saturday, everyone there, from all of the different groups, are to blame for the carnage and all of them should be held accountable.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

Culling the Herd

This blog has been silent of late, due, in no small measure to my own laziness, but also and more significantly by my ennui about all things political. Public reactions to the issues of the day and the coverage of the media have left me stunned silent and unable to articulate a response. I cannot grasp how an intelligent person can think the way that so many people seem to be thinking lately. I cannot follow how rational minds can accept the overreach of the judiciary and the executive branches of government without so much as an outcry about checks and balances. But before I go completely into rant mode, I do want to answer a political question my niece asked me in response to a comment I made on a friend’s Facebook post.

My pastor, Randy White, wrote a blog in which he analyzed the Fox news republican “debate.” I put that in quotes because it was not so much a debate as an attempt by Fox to rank the candidates. I won’t spell out Randy’s entire post here, but suffice to say he and I agreed on almost every point. This is a lot of why he has been my pastor for the past 9 years. He’s leaving the church now and I am very upset about it.

The debates are supposed to help the public find a candidate to support. This should allow the field of candidates be winnowed down to a reasonable number. We started the campaign season with a record seventeen republicans; too many to appear on one stage at the same time. Fox divided them up according to their polling numbers, which is no small statement about their viability as a candidate.

The candidates I feel have a shot:

Ted Cruz: He’s a long shot, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that he could pull off the nomination with some money and a good CM.

Mike Huckabee: One of the best speakers in the field. He communicates well and he has a lot of good ideas. His biggest weakness in the election is his strongest asset to his base: his faith. As an ordained minister, a lot of people are not comfortable with someone so strong in his faith leading the country, which is a shame. We need more like him.

Marco Rubio: Young, energetic and Latino. I differ from Randy on this one. The pundits like him and they love to categorize him as the republican’s best hope for relevance in the future. His youth may work against him unless he gets a crack team on his campaign. My biggest problem with him is his support for amnesty for illegal aliens.

Jeb Bush: Pros: Experience, name recognition, good speaker. Cons: Name recognition, waffler, past support for Planned Parenthood. I’m not a big fan of the younger Bush, and a lot of moderates are similarly unimpressed. Liberals will shut him down out of spite for GW’s administration. He has the best chance, however, of sustaining a campaign thanks to the established power base within the party.

Kasich: Was on the stage as a nod to Ohio only. He had some good responses to the questions he was soft-pitched, but he hasn’t spelled out his policy platform yet, aside from commenting on the media issues of immigration and abortion. He doesn’t have enough wide-spread support to maintain a campaign.

Rand Paul: The hothead. A lot of bluster and good interchange between him and Trump and Bush. Makes for good television, but that’s all he’s good for. He reminds me of the one guy hollering at the back of a crowd that desperately wants him to shut up, even if they know he’s right. I don’t see him riding it out until the end. He doesn’t have a presidential bearing.

Ben Carson: I loved his responses and I love his message. If no one had to actually hear him say it, he would go a long way. As it is, he looked unsteady on the stage, pale, almost sickly and tentative in his tone. He did not look presidential, even though he had some of the best things to say. If he gets an image consultant, he may last it out, otherwise not.

Donald Trump: I may be alone on this, but I hope not. Trump is NOT a republican candidate. Trump is on the Clinton campaign. His mission is to split the vote, and he is well on his way to doing so. Allow me to elucidate.

The current Democratic Party contest consists of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders is an admitted socialist running as a democrat (semantics, I know, since they have become one and the same) and not a genuine candidate. The party just has to have someone else to look like they are having a real primary since they have no incumbent. Hillary took a dive in ’08 so the party could elect the first black president in history with a proviso that she would be the candidate in ’16. There will be no other viable candidate on the democratic ticket unless Hillary gets convicted.

Now, the democrats are well aware that Obama has lost a lot of the moderate and independent voters that helped get him into office. Since those voters are up in the air, the only way to ensure Hillary gets elected is to prevent those independent and moderate voters from voting republican. The best way to do that is to give them an alternative: enter Donald Trump. Trump is spouting the republican battle cry like a seasoned general—almost like he actually believes it. Heck, I like what he’s saying. I agree with most of what he is saying. The problem is that I don’t think he actually believes what he is saying.

He won’t get the nomination. He will announce as an independent. He will do his best to keep the support he drums up through the republican primary, thereby weakening the republican candidate’s support. If you do not want Hillary in the Whitehouse, do not support Trump.

The second tier candidates had a mini debate before the main show and none of those are likely to survive the first wave of cuts. Rick Perry’s campaign is already on the rocks financially. Fiorina has a lot going for her if she can get more exposure. If she can get her numbers up, she may ride it out. My biggest problem with her is her support of abortion as a “women’s health” issue. You will find that she won’t tow the party line on abortion and she will probably duck the issue the whole way through the campaign. I anticipate the campaign will be narrowed to ten before Thanksgiving, and four or five by Caucus time.

It is too early to pick a candidate now, however. Always use the whole primary period to research all the candidates and when voting time comes, then make your decision. Please do NOT rely solely on the media for this information. It would be akin to buying a car solely on the salesman’s pitch. Look the information up yourself.

Happy voting.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

Any Choice is the Better Choice

You are an idiot. This is what the liberals and socialists are telling you. They would have us all believe that they know far better than we what is good and healthy and will better our lives. The mayor of Boston and a Chicago area school principal are on a crusade to improve the diets of their charges by limiting the food choices people have at their disposals.

Boston Mayor Thomas Merino said his decision to ban sodas at all city buildings and departments, including Fenway Park, is an attempt to curb the city’s obesity rates to “create a civic environment that makes the healthier choice the easier choice in people’s lives, whether it’s schools, work sites, or other places in the community.” While this notion sounds laudable—that of making the healthier choice an easier choice—the implementation of it is tantamount to tyranny. Mayor Merino is basically making enjoying a coke and a smile a criminal activity on city property.

Elsa Carmona, a public school principal in Chicago, in an effort to “protect students from their own unhealthy food choices,” has deemed that school kids cannot bring lunches from home. Parents are now forced to buy the school lunch for their children. Anyone who has eaten in a school cafeteria knows that the food—despite claims that it is healthy—is a bland mass of processed, second-hand ingredients provided by the lowest bidder and assembled by rejects from fast food restaurant kitchens.

There is nothing wrong with wanting people to be healthy. We all want our loved ones around us for a long time and we often encourage healthy choices by our friends and family. Of course the problem with choice is that for every good choice, there is at least one bad choice. As children, our parents limit our choices as we learn in order to protect us. As we get older and wiser, they allow more choices, but guide our decisions with suggestions and incentives. This continues until we are adults and are capable of making decisions on our own. This is a right. This is a freedom. This is liberty.

Liberals are now telling us that we are no better than children and we need our choices limited to protect us from ourselves. They began by banning smoking. Now they wish to ban soft drinks and home-packed lunches. A parent in Chicago cannot determine what their children eat at school. A Red Sox fan can’t enjoy a soda with their Cracker Jack during the game.

Last year, San Francisco banned the inclusion of toys in happy meals (in reality they banned marketing fast food to children) in an effort to curb childhood obesity. The liberals think that since people cannot be counted upon to make the smart decision (as determined by the liberals), then the decision must be make for them. This is not freedom. This is tyranny. This is one more step toward the death of our nation.

Of course, we also need to take responsibility for the consequences of our decisions. We cannot blame our obesity on the availability of fast food or soda, but on our own decision to eat it. We cannot blame our bad health on the makers of the products we decide to use, but on ourselves for using them. If we continue to dodge personal responsibility, we give the liberals ammunition to make these decisions for us.

People need to stop being satisfied with hearing about these abominations of policy on the news and pay attention to city councils and state legislatures as well as the federal government in order to prevent these idiotic notions from coming to pass. Demand your representative government rights. Call your councilmen and senators and show them that we are adults and can make decisions for ourselves.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Society

Legislating From the Pulpit

Interfaith services were held across the country today to raise awareness of the plight of the “undocumented worker” (illegal alien in plain language). This was part of Pelosi’s ask for the religious leaders to support Obama’s initiatives. Immigration might sound on the surface like a good and proper thing for members of the religious community to support, but nothing is further from the truth for so many reasons it is hard to list them all. But I’ll try.

One, a person who has entered this country without a passport or visa is committing a crime and it does not matter why they did it. Just as we do not care why a man robbed a bank or why a man shot his neighbor, it should not matter why he or she entered this country illegally. Break the law, get punished.

Two, Nanci Pelosi—a progressive liberal and Osama Bin Bama’s left hand—approached the religious leaders of the country and asked them to support the “progressive” (Socialist in plain language) agenda. This from the liberals, who are the first to cry out for the separation of church and state. Now why is this not just ironic? Well, I’ll clue you in on a little known non-secret: the founding fathers never envisioned that the government and religion would never cross. In fact, the founding fathers established our country on Christian principals and it has been the act of every progressive, liberal administration since to undermine that philosophy and drive Christianity out of the political realm, thus distancing it from the public consciousness. Now Pelosi is asking for not just Christian leadership, but every religious leader to support the progressive (socialist) agenda—an agenda that is expressly anti-religion. It seems that they can accept religion when they can use religion to subvert the common will of the people. This is precisely why separation of church and state was written into the bill of rights. So the government does not use the pulpit to sway public opinion. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” If congress or the president is preaching from the pulpit, it is establishing a religion of itself.

Three. If some interfaith or ecumenical agency wants to help the plight of the criminal, let them minister to them while they are in a detention facility awaiting deportation. Or even better, let them ride the bus with them back across the border. You cannot minister to a criminal in the act of committing a crime by excusing the crime.

Four. The media is covering these interfaith services and portraying those who support the criminals as being compassionate and those who support the law as being hard hearted. This is because the media has long ago thrown their full support behind the socialist agenda.

It seems that people want to throw open the borders of this land and welcome anyone who wishes to come in. That may sound laudable, but it is in fact foolhearty. We cannot absorb the masses who would want to come here. Our infrastructure would collapse under the burden of all the refugees we would encounter. Also, you have to consider the fact that if so many people refuse to refute their country of origin you have major culture clashes happening in the streets as we find in France and Great Britain. One of the requirements of citizenship in this country is to renounce citizenship in your country of origin. You have to assimilate into the American culture. No, we cannot welcome all the huddled masses without some kind of controls, such as we currently have in place.

Not everyone can get in. That is for a reason and it is a good idea. We as a nation cannot afford it.

But think about this: if we dissolve our borders and let anyone come in as Obama all but suggested in his speech with the Mexican president, then what kind of nation do we have? Our nation is in fact defined by our borders and those borders must be protected and respected. Most importantly, the government should not be using the pulpit to sway the will of the people.


Filed under Media, Politics, Religion, Society