Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Yes, Chafee is That Awful

I recently posted an article called “RI’s Lincoln Chafee: Awful Awful”. I could not resist writing a delicious send-up against the former governor, likening him to the signature Rhode Island ice cream beverage.
 
I received a lengthy comment from one detractor who actually defended the former Governor and current Presidential candidate, even though he cannot raise any money, and literally no one is voting for him in current Democratic primary polling.
 
The preliminary remarks began with the usual Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals suspects: personalize, polarize, demonize:
 
Dumb people hate what they don't understand. Whoever the Author is [sic], I bet they [sic] think they are god's gift to earth, and Rhode Island. In the opening paragraph they had to tell the reader how smart he was, but it only took another paragraph to realize they were just fancy with words. Ignorant bandwagoner, it’s so easy to beat up on Lincoln Chafee when you are simple minded.
 
My criticisms of Lincoln Chafee are wrong because I am stupid, or I am going along with the opinions of others. Really? No initial response my arguments. By the way, with all the spelling and grammar errors, the commentator ought to watch the windows in his own house before throwing stones at others.
 
His post does list reasons why Chafee was so great:

"Lack There of" ... Talking about Lincoln Chafee's Record. Um HELLO... He is the only Presidential Candidate to serve on all three levels of government.... I think the writer should stick to writing about food and forget about politics, because he is doing a disservice to the country and making everyone else dumber. I bet he's the type of person the comes [sic] to Rhode Island to enjoy the beaches with his metal detector. Never done anything for the community, except maybe read about it.
 
 
 

So, I should go back to being barefoot and dumb in the kitchen, and keep my mouth shut. What is it about apologists for the Left? They are interested not in dialogue, but dominance. They do not want to discuss; they want to end the discussion, or promote the fraud that the discussion is over because the science or the evidence has been settled.
 
But back to Chafee. The writer points out that the former Governor “is the only Presidential candidate to serve on all three levels of government.” Granted, Chafee worked at the local, state, and federal level, though not in that order. He also lost re-election to the federal seat, and decided not to run for re-election as governor.
 
In itself, this argument based on authority or experience is as tired as the climate alarmism mantra spewed out by US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Once, the junior US Senator from Rhode Island listed all the major corporate and government entities who sponsor climate change as a major issue. Yes, even Pope Francis of the Vatican preaches on climate change, but the list of dignitaries (dignified or otherwise) does not upend that the science is not conclusive, and even refutes the prevalent alarmism buoying bureaucrats to push more regulations.
 
Furthermore, a long resume in government does not necessarily transfer into qualifications for higher office. One of the most experienced presidents in terms of public “service”, James Buchanan, has been deemed one of the worst and most ineffectual chief executives in this country’s history. Ironically, Buchanan’s extensive prior experience aided his ongoing justification not to act while individual states were breaking into civil unrest (“Bleeding Kansas”), then while entire states decided to secede from the union over slavery.
 
The commentator does provide a list of Governor Chafee’s accomplishments one term in office:

Lincoln Chafee played an integral role in:

Legalizing Gay marriage
 
How this is a success remains debatable. The redefinition of marriage by legal statute met with heavy resistance from Rhode Islanders throughout the state,  and brings into question the long-term efficacy of state governance into the realms of redefining cultural realities. Chafee argued that gay marriage would boost commerce. Did not happen.





Marijuana decriminalization

 
Chafee wanted “pot for potholes,” but he did not decriminalize marijuana.

Setting up one of the best state insurance exchanges
 
This statement is so false as to be laughable. Rhode Island lawmakers cosponsored a bipartisan bill last term to end the state exchange and let the federal government take over.

Reforming the pension system (not really a progressive thing, but it was an accomplishment)
 
Those reforms met serious opposition not just from the labor unions, but from the very lady who helped engineer their passage in the state legislature: current Governor Gina Raimondo. How many times did the unions challenge these reforms, then withdraw again to the ballot box to vote on the extent of the reforms?

Preventing the capital (and several other cities) from going into receivership
 
 
 
Does this commentator read the news? Woonsocket is descending into a morass of socialism, with more welfare recipients than wealth creators. Providence has already defaulted on its pension debt.

We saw more investment into the state university system
 
This argument distorts the definition of “investment”. Tax dollars from property owners and businesses are not investments, since they had no choice. “Redistribution of wealth” is more accurate. The more celebrated universities, like Brown, are private institutions, and should remain private if they wish to prosper.

And this year, we're projected to have a surplus in the tens of millions, thanks to his budget.
 
If there is a surplus, why did Raimondo want to tax Taylor Swift’s mansions, then raise bridge tolls and truck fees? Why pressure taxpayers for a baseball stadium in Providence?
 
Final Comments
 
Mayor, Senator, and Governor Chafee has a record of losses and near-misses, and his latest foul-ups on the campaign trail upend argument that the former governor will be a strong contender for the Democratic nomination, let alone the Presidency.
 
Yes indeed, Rhode Islanders, Lincoln Chafee is a bad kind of “Awful Awful”, so much so, that even his ardent supporters cannot help but make him look. . .awful.
 

Monday, July 27, 2015

The Democratic Party: Movin' Like Bernie

The Democratic Party: Movin' Like Bernie
Independent Socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is rising in the polls, threatening Hillary Clinton along her left-flank.

As soon as he announced, the jokes started flowing about "Weekend at Bernie's", and this writer could not help himself.

Researching "Weekend at Bernie's",  I discovered  rap song "Movin' Like Bernie", based on the not-so-stellar sequel to the movie. In that film, a couple of goons brings Dead Bernie Lomax to life, and as long as he listens to music, he starts moving along with his head tilted back until he finds a buried treasure off the coast of an island. Such is the ideology of socialism. People can listen to music and do nothing, then suddenly find easy wealth.

Of course, that wealth ends up being taken by force, and redistributed to others. I


The song could become the anthem for the Democratic Party entering 2016, as the leftist element has taken over the Democratic Party, causing them walk with their heads held back, dead men walking holding up a decayed ideology which died for lack of life in the late 1980s.

Here is "Movin' Like Bernie":

Like Bernie
Like Bernie
We're like Bernie
(Movin' like Berney, we movin' like Bernie
Well it's the weekend, we movin' like Berney) x2

Hey! yeah, so awesome, got a dance too
You gon' start movin' even if you ain't plan to
Believe it or not it's easy as steps one two,
Hold yah head back like a nosebleed comin' through


The socialist ideology of Bernie Sanders will make a lot of heads and noses bleed. It is a violent political force, in which the state takes from creators and makes more takers. Men and women riot in the streets when they don't get what the government promises them


Knowin' you, you already want somethin' new,
Get loose off the vodka, pass me the Goose,
Is it true? You ain't never been to the boo?
Here's a scoop: We can make it do what it do
This is church, it's a family, not a group


Socialism is like a church, in that it promotes a fanatical ideology which no one can take seriously once looking into its specifics. Bernie Sanders is a cult phenomenon, too, for a country filled with economic and historical illiterates who have not learned or read up on the fallout of socialist policies and their communistic culmination.

Other brothers from other mothas, and still cool.
Otha colors, with otha struggles and still move
These motha bustas, they try to rush us and still do
We don't dance no mo, but we will groove
I'm so fresh, so fresh, lookin' real smooth,
shawty real cute, take a pill, ooh
and I'm likin' how she walk in high heel shoes


What 'cha drinkin'? Gon' let it sink in, we do this every weekend,

We move it like Berney
What 'cha thinkin'? I'm thinkin' bout freakin', we hit it to the beat and
We move it like Berney

[Movin' like Berney, we movin' like Berney
Well it's the weekend, we movin' like Berney] x2


Socialism has an allure to it, and Grandpa Bernie attracts large and growing crowds more interested in this strange phenomenon. They are moving toward Bernie, and then start "movin' like Bernie": old and slow, going nowhere with their eyes in the air, and their hands hanging down.

I'm off the deep end, stomach needed treatment,
slur when I'm speakin', heads they done turnin',
I call from cheifin', eyes started leakin',
walkin' like i'm geekin', bud steady burnin'
we on the journey, movin' like Bernie
If it ain't about money, then it really don't concern me
you might as well tell, go 'head confirm it,
I'm tight as hell, sell spells, new bread for churnin'
I lost it once, second time, more determined,
I'm tryin' to make my cheese stay clumped like Sherman,
I'm big wormin', got the game squirmin',
If you don't know me by now, need ta learn it,

The Democratic Party has gone off the deep end, and the Bernie-mania is clear-cut proof. Anyone who looks closely at their party platform will feel sick to their stomach, too. The party has endorsed the restructuring of marriage and endorses abortion at any time on the taxpayer dime.

The party attacks gun owners and shopkeepers, mothers and fathers, and children who want to learn.

 "If it ain;' about money, then it really don't concern me." The Democratic Party has been co=opted by Big Labor and Big Business, both of which are all about other people's money, spending taxpayer revenue on crony projects and buoying special interests.

What 'cha drinkin'? Gon' let it sink in, we do this every weekend,
We movin' like Berney
What 'cha thinkin'? I'm thinkin' bout freakin', we headed to the (beacon?)
We movin' like Berney
[Movin' like Berney, we movin' like Berney
Well it's the weekend, we movin' like Berney] x2


What are the Democratic partisans drinking in their heedless pursuit and support for Bernie Sanders? The koolaid, no doubt about it.

While you peacin', the step before the beat end,
We do it in a sequence, We move it like Bernie
She couldn't believe it, she started, it was easy,
add a little teasin, start groupin' to the Bernie,
We like a army, move it like Bernie


Socialism has a militancy to it, aided and abetted by university professors and media outlets pushing a Big Government agenda. An army of unthinking left-wing activists, young and old, are marching to the Bernie rap.

Listen to every verse, screwed, chopped, even germin'
I'm off the scale, male comin' and permin'
I never fail, bail, dale take it to the turn an'
we gon' try all the way to course and journey,
single file the crowd, preach it to 'em like a sermon
I'm Howard Stern & people eat the game like yes indeed,
with cheese, rush yah feet like Herman


Howard Stern has declared war with the Democratic Party. There is no way that he will be "Movin' Like Bernie".


Howard Stern not "Movin' Like Bernie"


What 'cha drinkin'? Gon' let it sink in, we do this every weekend,
We movin' like Berney
What 'cha thinkin'? I'm thinkin' bout freakin', we headed to the (beacon?)
We movin' like Berney
[Movin' like Berney, we movin' like Berney
Well it's the weekend, we movin' like Berney] x2


While misguided youth and aggressive left-wing partisans are drinking who knows what and Movin' Like Bernie", the rest of the country is moving away from eight years of state-sponsored, elitist, zombie-like socialism. They want liberty, they want a renewal of this country's founding principles.

WashPo Calls Friedrichs "Bush v. Gore II"

The Washington Post seemed comfortable buoying the enfeebled efforts of Big Labor.

The latest political commentary to come forward about the Friedrichs v. California decision suggest that the Supreme Court will tip its hand in some unfair way, as if SCOTUS is going to overthrow the popular elective franchise.

The following title from Harold Meyerson, who also runs the "PostPartisan Blog", suggest as much and more:

Is the Supreme Court headed for ‘Bush v. Gore’ II?


Opinion writer   

About a month ago, the Supreme Court closed out its term in a blaze of nonpartisan glory. Or nonpartisan obloquy, depending on one’s reaction to the court’s legalization of same-sex marriage and its upholding of Obamacare — but nonpartisan either way. A court with a Republican-appointed majority upheld a Democratic president’s health insurance program and a marital policy that most Republican officeholders felt obliged to oppose (even if most Republican political consultants felt relieved to see gay marriage rendered a fait accompli).

Nonpartisan glory? I don't think so. Anthony Kennedy has conspicuously placed himself as a swing  justice so that he can wield untold press authority. People are constantly wondering what he ad one or two other justices are going to say about this or that issue. Why should this small set of bad lawyers in black dresses be deciding so many issues in the first place? For the record, gay marriage is not a fait accompli  no more than abortion.
 
But that was then. In the term that will begin this fall, the court has a splendid opportunity to deliver the most partisan decision it has rendered since Bush v. Gore. When the court rules in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association , which will be argued in the coming months, the Republican-appointed justices will be able, if they so choose, to create a long-term advantage for their party over the Democrats.

 
Why would the decision be partisan? The same set of justices would render a decision which the author does not agree with.
 
Friedrichs is a case brought by a California teacher who objects to paying dues to the union that has bargained the contract that secures her pay and benefits. The union does not collect any money from her to support its political activities, but, by virtue of the court’s 1977 Abood decision, and hundreds of later decisions based on Abood, she is obliged to pay that portion of her dues that goes to bargaining and administering her contract.


 
 
I have never read such a bold-faced fraud: "The union does not collect any money from her to support its political activities." Oh yes it does! Many teachers have to endure seeing their money taken from them and then diverted to these offensive causes. Teachers unions spend the  money on flyers and political ads to stop school choice and vouchers, to close down charter schools and to prevent school boards from enact teacher reforms to grant higher pay but without tenure.
 
Rebecca Friedrich

Last year, however, in an opinion breathtaking for its chutzpah, Justice Samuel Alito invited union opponents to bring a challenge to Abood before the court. The case in which he ruled — Harris v. Quinn — concerned whether home-care workers, employed jointly by individuals and the state of Illinois and covered by a union contract, were required to pay dues. While the majority confined its ruling to home-care workers, Alito devoted most of his opinion to arguing that no public employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement should be required to pay dues.

Good for Alito. It is time for the Supreme Court to reverse its perverse ruling in the Abood case. The Court has been wrong many times before, and here is another example. The  basic argument that members of the union would become free riders is just not true. Members are forced riders, since they cannot choose another endorsement or bargaining unit on their behalf. They seek a job, and are told up front that they must join a union in order to keep the job. That is not a free rid, that is a coerced jaunt.
 
On the final day of its term last month, the court accepted that challenge by announcing it would hear Friedrichs. Friedrichs’s proponents argue that the case is about the free-speech rights of public employees who don’t want to support the union that represents them. The reason the union represents them at all, of course, is that a majority of the employees in their unit have voted to give the union that power — and they can vote to strip it of that power if they so choose. Absent effective union representation — a real possibility should the court reverse Abood and the union’s resources diminish — they lose the one kind of speech that most matters to workers: the collective voice that workers gain through unions and that enables them to bargain with their managers.

 
Members who join unions because the terms of employment have not voted on the union. Many times, they are not permitted to. The recertification process gets frustrated over and over. Individual teachers have often reported
 
As private-sector unions have dwindled in the face of four decades of employer opposition, public-sector unions have become the nation’s largest and most powerful labor organizations, its leading advocates for a fairer economy and, come election time, a significant source of the legwork for get-out-the-vote operations for progressive Democratic candidates. Their concerns extend well beyond their members’ immediate welfare. The Service Employees International Union, for instance, is the main funder and organizer of campaigns to raise the minimum wage for low-paid (almost entirely non-union) workers and has played a central role in the battle to legalize undocumented immigrants. All the large public-sector unions have devoted significant resources to opposing Republican-backed state laws that suppress minority voter turnout. For decades, they’ve financed and mounted voter registration and turnout campaigns among their own members and in minority communities.
Meyerson does not realize it, but he has given a number of reasons why public sector union bullying has to stop. They are supporting egregious, left-wing agendas which have nothing to do with working conditions, rights, pay, or other workplace issues.
Unions, both public and private, have taken their power to unjust lengths, taking money from working people without their consent and pushing illiberal, even anti-worker agendas. For example,  a number of unions support immigration ""reform", read amnesty. Such policies would hurt local and statewide communities because it would upend the rule of law and drag on the public sector. 40% of union members are Republicans, and they are pro-life and pro-marriage, yet unions support Planned Parenthood and homosexual marriage. These are offensive policies, and indeed individual workers' First Amendment rights are getting trampled on.

Before it took on its nonpartisan patina at the end of its last term, the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., had already tilted the political playing field toward Republicans by striking down key portions of the Voting Rights Act and extending a string of rulings that are drowning our elections in billionaire dollars, thereby creating policies (for instance, our tax code) that only a billionaire could love. Ruling for the plaintiff in Friedrichs would whack not only labor — for all its weaknesses, the nation’s only real anti-plutocratic force — but the Democrats as well. Bush v. Gore decided a single election. Should the GOP-appointed justices go partisan again, Friedrichs could decide elections for years to come.
The specious comparison of Friedrichs with Bush v. Gore demonstrates the heavy partisanship of this "PostPartisan" blogger. Bush v. Gore was a one-time election flap because of mismanaged voting issues in a few Florida counties. Seven of the nine justices ruled to stop the recount: more than post-partisan. Friedrichs is a policy issue, more than partisan. It's about the Constitution. Should First Amendment rights be trumped by Big Labor?


WaPo Hate Toward Scott Walker

Forget Washington Post Fails. Let us just call the latest set of attack articles in the WaPo what they are:

WaPo Hate.

The first article could not be clearer in its condescending bitterness:

Richard Cohen: Is Scott Walker ignorant by choice?

Some of the startling remarks in the article include:

I have a question for Scott Walker. At what point did he decide to be heterosexual? At what age did he decide that he would not be homosexual or, if he had the energy, bisexual? I know for myself that I am unaware of making such a decision and did not mark it down — as I now would — in my Google Calendar or tweet it to much of America and the ships at sea.

Why are we discussing sexual behavior? This country needs leadership which will constrain government and spending, not individual personal behaviors (or perversions). Even gay activists and libertarian-leaning conservatives are getting fed up with all the gotcha questions about sex and sexuality.

Ted Cruz is right: the media are obsessed with sex. So is the government.

Cohen continues:

I ask these questions of Walker as a way to clarify his befogged mind. The man is running for president of the United States. He is governor of the state of Wisconsin. He is a husband and a father and a former Boy Scout, and yet he cannot say — or he will not say — whether he thinks being gay is a choice.
 
President Bush also punted on the issue during the 2004 Presidential debates. I would submit that homosexual conduct is not a choice, in the sense that people wake up one day and decided to have same-sex relationships. Yet the argument that people are born gay has no scientific basis either.
 
A better question: with the economy still stagnating and with so many willing people forgoing or forgetting about marriage, when is the leadership in Washington going to scale back the huge state apparatus barraging its way into our daily lives?
 
And when will the federal government defund Planned Parenthood, an odious, immoral, and unpopular waste of taxpayer dollars?
 
“I don’t have an opinion on every single issue out there,” the Republican candidate told CNN while campaigning recently in Iowa for the nation’s loftiest office. “I mean, to me, that’s I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that question.” I see.

To Cohen's credit, he does not pile onto the "Not one of us" elitist rag regarding Walker's lack of a college degree:

Much has also been made of Walker’s lack of a college degree. He dropped out of Marquette University, and, to some people, that means he is not intellectually qualified to be president. Others, though, like the common touch in all of that and insist, rightly in my view, that not having a college degree is not in itself proof of dullness. It would, however, make him a rarity among American presidents and, just for the record, the astoundingly inarticulate George W. Bush graduated from Yale, a very fine school, and led his nation into a war from which it is not yet fully extracted. Boola Boola!

Articulation and rhetorical influence require more than a college degree. Education is more than what one draws out of a classroom. Like many Facebook uses, Walker learned more from the School of Hard Knocks than Fort Knox.

Next.

Then there is this attack article:

Paul Waldman: Walker shows why he’ll never be president

So confident is he? Well. Why won't Walker become the next President, in Waldman's view?

Scott Walker wants to drug test food stamp recipients. That shows why he’ll never be president.

This reform is highly popular, actually. Men and women who work for a living are tired of subsidizing those who do not work, and instead use the time and money to get high. These reforms have passed in a number of states. Time limits and resources for welfare-to-work are a necessity, too.

What is Waldman's deeper frustration with Walker and welfare reform, anyway?

Sixteen years ago, George W. Bush presented to America his vision of “compassionate conservatism,” and in response he received an absolute torrent of glowing articles in the media calling him a “different kind of Republican” — conservative, to be sure, but not so mean about it.
Well those days are long past. In the 2016 GOP primaries, it’s compassionless conservatism that’s in fashion.

Government cannot be compassionate, since the state relies on force to accomplish its ends. Compassion requires voluntary submission and investment. Individuals can be compassionate, and so can private charities and churches. The government should not be in the business of compassionate anything.

Walker has already distanced himself from the Big Government Republicanism if the WaPo writer chooses to fault him as "not compassionate". Conservatism is not mean, anyway, since removing the state from influencing and imposing its agenda shows diligence and respect for the common man.

The WaPo hate continues, with compassion:

Or at least that’s what Scott Walker seems to think, because among other things, he is hell-bent on making sure that anyone who gets food stamps in Wisconsin has to endure the humiliation of submitting to a drug test. First the Wisconsin legislature sent him a bill providing that the state could test food stamp recipients if it had a reasonable suspicion they were on drugs; he used his line-item veto to strike the words “reasonable suspicion,” so the state could test any (or all) recipients it wanted. And now, because federal law doesn’t actually allow drug testing for food stamp recipients, Walker is suing the federal government on the grounds that food stamps are “welfare,” and welfare recipients can be tested.

This report shows that Walker is compassionate. . to taxpayers. He is actually being compassionate toward the welfare recipients, too. There is no worse life than bankrupted dependence, living from one fix and high to the next. Walker should be commended for blocking out "reasonable suspicion". Any reason is acceptable for drug-testing welfare users. The WaPo writer claims that "submitting to a drug test" is humiliating. Being dependent on state subsidy should be humiliating, and any step that local and state governments can take to root people out of dependence is a good thing.

We need to reinstate a worthy recognition of a work ethic in this country.

Waldman tried to justify his Walker hate with references to "context":

First, some context. The drug testing programs for welfare recipients are usually justified by saying they’ll save money by rooting out all the junkies on the dole, but in practice they’ve been almost comically ineffective. In state after state, testing programs have found that welfare recipients use drugs at lower rates than the general population, finding only a tiny number of welfare recipients who test positive.

Here is the bigger problem: why are so many people on welfare to begin with? Even as the economy has improved, however so slightly, more people are taking on food stamps. What gives? The entitlement mentality is spreading fast in this country. How much longer do people think that the free ride is going to last?

The last set of comments deserve a severe rebuke especially:

What does this have to do with Walker’s chances of winning a general election? What George W. Bush understood is that the Republican Party is generally considered to be somewhat, well, mean. It’s not welcoming, and it spends a lot of energy looking for people on whom it can pour its contempt. You can argue that this is an inaccurate representation of the party’s true nature, but it is nevertheless what many, if not most, voters believe.

That is not true, and with the Big interest groups having gotten bigger in Washington including the socially regressive homosexual lobby along with Big Business and Big Labor, the real nasty element in Washington politics belongs to the Democratic Party. There is nothing more cruel and mean than forcing people to pay higher taxes and fees for fewer services, and to frustrate commerce and economic growth in the pursuit of vain social justice goals.

And keeping people dependent, giving them a hand-out from the state instead of giving them a hand up.



The last WaPo blast is particularly disappointing, coming from the token Republican commentator:

Jennifer Rubin: Walker’s non-defense of gay bashing

Oh really? Rubin writes:

Yesterday, I took issue with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s slur of gay men when he suggested the previous Boy Scout ban on gay troop leaders was needed so children would be “protected.” On Tuesday evening, a spokeswoman for Walker’s campaign had this reaction: “The previous policy protected Scouts from the rancorous political debate over policy issues and culture wars. Scouts should not be used as a political football on issues that can often be heated and divisive.”

It is not a slur to suggest that young people should not be alone with adults abusing their bodies and not living in accordance with proper sexual practices. Would parents allow an adult male to hang out with girl scouts on a camping trip? Gay adults are making the decision to identify with their sexual feelings and behaviors. They have placed their bedroom on the front doorstep of their lives, and they have to absorb the consequences.

The Boy Scouts was founded as a Christian organization. How can this group open up its membership to ideas and conduct which have nothing to do with Biblical revelation or scientific reality?

Walker is right, though, and boys should not be exploited politically. Children should not be exploited at all, and yet the Democratic Party and homosexual activists are abusing children every time they use them and their affiliation in private groups to further an agenda. Not just regarding sexual behavior, but also when these same groups bow to pressure from Big Green as well. How many children have been bombarded with the lie that the earth is going to disappear in the next five years under a polar icecap flood? Kids have been lied in to believing that every tree will be cut down if businesses and communities expand, or that over-population will wipe out the planet, too.

Perverse Big Government agendas have infiltrated a number of these otherwise wholesome community groups, and Walker was right to say the Boy Scouts should not be "used as a political football".

One more comment on Rubin's comments:

The first rule of social media is that you ultimately have to be held accountable for everything you say as a candidate. There is always someone listening and whatever is said is preserved — forever. You cannot show one face to one set of voters and another to different voters.

It is true that candidates cannot say one thing to one audience then turn around and say something else to other people. The other side of this argument, however, has to bring in the truth that the media has spent most of time throwing softballs to Democratic contenders while throwing stink bombs at Republican candidates.  I wonder when the press will start asking Bernie Sanders about his strong pro-gun record, or Martin O'Malley about all the black people he just locked up repeatedly in Baltimore during his mayoral tenure, followed by his non-action to help impoverished communities during his governorship.

Final Reflection

Big Media is looking for any easy opportunity to catch Republican candidates making foolish or wrong-headed comments. The same assiduousness should be directed at Democratic candidates, the same ones who either want to advance the Obama agenda for another four to eight years. Walker has been a major target because he has pushed back against one of the biggest, most violent special interest: the public sector unions. He defeated them in one major clash in 2011, then beat them a second time when he overcame the recall in 2012 and again in 2014 when he won reelection in his own right.


The Washington Post brings a view point which deserves to be vetted with the same unending scrutiny with which it assaults Republican candidates, including Scott Walker.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

The Sins of History, and Misplaced Grace


Misunderstanding the Grace of God
 God is not dedicated to or destined to destroy countries because of the sins of men.

Nations are still operating and have their hold in the world because of the grace of God.

Yet there is a time limit to God's grace.

He cannot wait forever.

Either man will submit to God's goodness, or he will choose eternal death and separation.

Abraham had more sense than most church people today

He prayed for an entire city beset with sin and shame, Sodom and Gomorrah, pleading with God to spare the city of fifty, forty, thirty etc. were righteous. If Abraham has reduced his request to one righteous person, then God could have spared the city, for the sake of Lot.

Now, today, there are men and women deciding to redefine marriage, as though me and women can do whatever they want with their bodies and not suffer consequences.

The above picture, posted on a local Democratic club, also equates homosexual conduct with lynching. Very strange.

Now, the argument from this post suggests that the American people should not fear the judgment of God because the country was not judged for the repeated lynchings against African-Americans.

The fact is that there will be no specific judgment from God against this country or any other.

Why? Because Jesus Christ absorbed all the righteous indignation of God the Father, so that we would be forgiven of all sins and fully justified:

"38Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. 40Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;" (Acts 13: 38-39)

and also

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5: 17)

and thus

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corithians 5: 21)

and that is why:

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5: 17)

I am a new creation, a new species in Christ Jesus, a son of God (1 John 3: 1-3)

With this revelation in mind, we have the response to arguments about homosexuality as identity or an acceptable stance in life:

"9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

- - -

"18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 18-20)

The grace of God is not God's message to a fallen world to stay that way. The grace of God is more than God not punishing us for our sins. It is God's gift to restore us to justified creations, and to promote us into kings and priests before Him in His Son (1 Peter 2: 9)

John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, could not have written it better:

"Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4: 17)

No one can ignore that there have been many sins committed during the history of the United States. Yet just because the country did not get wiped out because of one set of sins does not justify the perversion of marriage.

The grace of God is not license to sin, but freedom no longer to sin but receive Jesus' glory, standing, and life.

Trump Stumps For and Against Walker

Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore)

Real estate mogul and reality TV show host Donald Trump is running for President as a Republican, despite years of supporting Democratic candidates and causes. California’s Republican National Committeeman Shawn Steel reduced “The Donald” to a played out circus act  who has engaged the more serious candidates to discuss issues positively.

Ultimately, Trump’s side-show is boosting other candidates, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Bloomberg News interviewed the savvy, strangely-coiffed reality show favorite-of-the-month a few weeks ago. His support and criticism for other Republican Party hopefuls were somewhat interesting and intriguing, not because he spoke warm and factual statements, but because of his thinly-veiled attacks, especially toward Walker.

Trump made unsparing, yet barely meaningful remarks:

He has got a lot of problems in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has got tremendous problems. The debt and the difficult problems that they have going on in Wisconsin that a lot of people don't understand and know about. Tremendous borrowings.

Walker faced a lot of problems when elected, but faced them. The argument that he created those problems is not true, and Trump never alludes to that fact in order to nail down that argument. In fact, throughout his interview, Trump spent more time dodging from one set of answers to another, and rarely settled on any straightforward response. He is very much a celebrity, and the media following resembles the Breaking News mentality of cameramen and reporters rushing to an ugly car accident along a busy freeway.

Incidentally enough, The Wisconsin State-Journal reported Trump’s donation to Walker's gubernatorial campaign in 2014:

Despite his criticism of Walker, Trump has been a supporter in the past. He contributed $10,000 to Walker's campaign in 2014, the maximum allowed for a contribution to a gubernatorial candidate.

The Manhattan, NYC socialite loves to talk about the plaque Walker gave him for supporting his reelection, too. Trump also spoke highly of Walker before his own campaign for President. Left-leaning Politico reports:

Trump praised Walker for taking on public employee unions in Wisconsin. “I think he’s going to be a very interesting candidate,” he said. “I believed what he was doing was the right thing.”

Most Republican Presidential candidates have talked about doing the right things. Republican Governors in general, and in some cases the US Senators, have done things to advance the conservative cause. The above praise of Walker's labor reforms certainly undermines Trump’s hollow criticism, devoid of specifics, regarding the Wisconsin governor and his "problems."

Now he is attacking front-runners in Iowa. The New York Times describes Trump’s brazen begging for Republican voters’ support, then announces his switch from targeting Washington DC to the Wisconsin Governor.

On Saturday, he said he felt free to add Mr. Walker to his hit list after a Walker supporter called Mr. Trump “DumbDumb” in a fund-raising appeal.

For more information on the "DumbDumb" flap, read the Wall Street Journal article here. To be accurate, the Walker supporter from New Hampshire called Trump a "dumbdumb", not the Presidential candidate himself. The real estate mogul cannot justify attacking a candidate because of one supporter's private email.

The New York Times report continued:

“I said, ‘Finally, I can attack him,’’’ Mr. Trump said to laughter. He went down a list of criticisms that seemed the result of an overnight opposition-research effort. “Wisconsin is doing terribly. The roads are a disaster because they don’t have any money to rebuild them, and they’re borrowing money like crazy.

There was borrowing in the last budget, yet the borrowing has decreased significantly, too.  Nothing crazy here. As for the deficits, they existed only in relation to the number of government demands placed by different lawmakers. The final budget just signed by Walker balances out without raising taxes or fees. Most partisans and analysts forget that the Wisconsin Governor took over a state overrun by Democratic policy hegemony with nothing but massive debts to show for their efforts. Red state Walker has been bringing in vast improvements to state running under regressive policies for decades.

Trump also went after Walker on Common Core:

He also accused Mr. Walker of flip-flopping on the Common Core education standards, having once supported them. “Scott Walker changed when he saw he was getting creamed, so now he’s not in favor,’’ he said.

This allegation is patently false. Read this link for more information. How was Walker “getting creamed”? Once again, Trump fails to explain the nature of this attack.

Still, does Trump’s trumped-up charges look likely to upend the governor’s chances?

Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner also suggests that  candidate Trump is helping presidential contender Walker.  Because of the Big Labor fights during the first two years of his governorship, followed by  two more elections in two years, and the budget fights he has pursued this year, Walker did not have the time to study up and prepare long-term policies agendas on taxes, health care, and foreign policy. With "The Donald" sucking up all the media attention, Walker will have time to lay low, campaign, and reach out to voters and major decision-makers.

Come debate time, Trump may find himself outdone as well as outmatched against Walker and his Republican challengers. Even Trump admitted as much: 

“I’m going to be there much to the chagrin of many people, but I’m no debater.

Indeed. When the media hype declines, primary Republican voters will tell Trump: “You’re Fired!” and the reality show star will have himself to thank.

 

 

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Lincoln Chafee: Awful in Every Way


Political writing, journalism, and commentary are a relatively new calling for me, yet as a hobby I have been sharing my opinions since, forever. For years I have been writing to the local press on local, state, and national issues. I found myself particularly drawn to blogging and political writing with Election 2012, which would lead to my first national foray into writing, focused on Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the smallest state with the longest name, and the most Democratic representation.  Like Karl Rove and Howard Dean before him, I recognized the need for a fifty-state strategy to revive, restore, and promote conservative Republican chance for 2014 and beyond. Patch, Go Local Prov, local internet blog sites, and recently the Providence Journal has published my work.

My journalistic happenstance is now paying off. For the first time in national history, a Rhode Island native son is running for President: Lincoln Chafee. “Stumbling” is more accurate, since shortly after declaring an exploratory committee, he fumbled into making himself a full-fledged candidate, and all the campaign finance hoopla which accompanies it. A one-term Republican US Senator, then one-term Independent Governor, Chafee entered Presidential Election 2016 as a Democrat. Confused? Cable news program Common Sense openly derided his ambitions: “Are you kidding me?” MSNBC took his campaign seriously enough, asked him serious questions, and Chafee already looked like a deer in headlights. Joining the repeal of Glass-Steagall then, and the Housing Crisis that followed, Chafee now admits that he voted for something he didn’t read.
 
Lincoln Chafee, Presidential Candidate
 

Washington Post columnist George Will gave him a back-handed boost (he had summarily diminished the Independent In Name Only Bernie Sanders). As the most left-leaning of Republican US Senators, Chafee voted against the Iraq War and a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning. Incidentally, he voted against George W. Bush more than Senator Hillary Clinton, before losing to “greenhouse guru”  Rhode Island attorney general Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006.

Today, Chafee rightly calls Clinton “a war hawk” and holds her responsible for the chaotic cauldron of multiple Islamic extremist movements which threaten Israel and the Middle East. Then again, his dubious dalliances with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and his appeasements efforts with for with deceased Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, will also invite penetrating and embarrassing questions. His simplistic idealism, and his plainspoken honesty (read, naivety) would merit approval if not for his fatuous praise of President Obama and his moribund, myopic foreign policy.  Chafee suggested: “Make more friends and fewer enemies.” Not much better than “Don’t do stupid stuff!” or “What difference does it make?” Chafee’s domestic policy will be more of Obama drama, plus the adoption of the metric system. With one foot (or meter) in his mouth, Chafee advocated to bring Edward Snowden home without punishment.

Rhode Islanders have likened the former governor to an empty-headed deer in headlights. Others have mocked him as “Governor Gump.” Too bad he cannot compare to Ocean state Founder Roger Williams, who bucked the impure Pharisaical Puritans, then established a colony based on religious toleration. Chafee embraced a secular, progressive agenda. The capital city, Providence, has the morally bankrupt distinction of “least Biblically literate”, plus the fiscal bankruptcy soon to hit. He even christened May First “Reason Day”. His reason? To placate atheists. He made war on Christmas by renaming the state Christmas tree a holiday tree, the attempted to justifying this decision on Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone.  Roger Williams paid the native inhabitants for their land, Chafee has transformed Rhode Island into a Sanctuary State, not for religious and political dissidents, but illegal aliens, welfare recipients, and public sector unions.

Rhode Island was the first colony to break away from the British Crown, the last to adopt the US Constitution, and site for the American Industrial Revolution. Under Chafee, Rhode Island has turned into a launch pad subsidiary for federal take-over, government overreach, and unconstitutional governance. Industry and manpower are fleeing, too.

I have mentioned Rhode Island’s unique history. Littly Rhody has interesting cuisine, too. From pizza strips and Johnny cakes, to Del’s Lemonade and clam bakes. The more I read, the more I want to visit. In sharp contrast, the more one reads Chafee’s record (if once can call it that), the less one would want him to pursue Presidential aspirations.

One Rhode Island delicacy best symbolizes Chafee’s bad bid: The Awful-Awful.

SoRhodeIsland descibes this sweet treat:

Not quite a milkshake, definitely not a frappe, this creamy creation has delighted Rhode Island kids and adults for decades. When Newport Creamery opened its initial location in Middletown in 1940, they used this name for their drinkable ice cream treat, but it wasn’t until the ‘70s that they officially owned the “Awful Awful” brand. Whatever your flavor preference (vanilla, chocolate, coffee, mocha, strawberry, chocolate mint, cookies and cream), it’s going to be “awful big, awful good.”

Chafee’s lamentably liberal views belong in the 1970s, along with the economic and foreign policy malaise of Jimmy Carter. Like a different flavor of the month, from his Republican US Senate days, to his liberal Independent status as governor, then his Presidential aspirations as a Democrat, Chafee is not quite a milkshake or a frappe. Nothing solid or certain, tasty to left-wing progressives, Chafee is the light and airy after meal treat, but will not feed the American need for real leadership looking to right a ship sinking under heavy regulations, economic job growth, and diminished prestige on the global stage. He can’t even raise money, and has polling so low in Democratic Presidential polling, he could sit in a room with his family, and ask: “Who’s against me?”
 
Big Blue Bug drinking an Awful Awful (Annie Babineau)
 

To sum up Chafee’s Presidential bid and election chances: “Awful bad; awful sad.”

For this California Conservative writing on Rhode Island and national politics, I am awful glad. Chafee’s campaign (along with the rest of the slapstick Democratic bench) is a not-so-guilty pleasure, allowing conservatives to expose to a still unaware nation how extreme, and extremely disturbing yet unserious, the Democratic Party has become.

WaPo Hate: Walker is Dangerous (to Big Everything)

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post published his latest Big Media screed against Scott Walker. The desperation of the personal and political attacks from Big Media, as well as Big Labor and Big Business, should show beyond any doubt that Scott Walker is indeed dangerous. . to every Big special interest taking advantage of individual liberty, state sovereignty, and the Little Guy in general.

Why Scott Walker is so dangerous

 

Scott Walker for President Logo


Dana Milbank
Opinion writer   
— “First off,” Scott Walker proclaimed, “we took on the unions, and we won. We won!”

Taking on the unions is usually first off for Walker, the Wisconsin governor and Republican presidential candidate. It is the very rationale for his candidacy. And on Thursday, he took a detour from the campaign trail to appear here before the annual meeting of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators dedicated in large part to defeating unions.
Of course Walker talks about taking down the unions. His political as well as moral courage in taking down the collective bargaining units in Wisconsin, the heart of the progressive labor movement, commanded incredible respect and awe. I knew that Walker was presidential material the moment that he defeated the Big Labor cartels which had throttled business, investment, and individual liberty for decades.
 
ALEC, which inspired many of Walker’s anti-labor efforts in Wisconsin, drew several hundred union protesters as legislators arrived here this week for its annual conference — and this delighted Walker. “I understand you had a few protesters yesterday,” he told the conservative legislators. “For us, that’s just getting warmed up. That’s nothing. We got 100,000 protesters.”
Like many liberal journalists, Milbank plays the ALEC card. I guess they have grown tired of calling Walker a Koch Brothers puppet, especially since a number of Democrats have been outed for taking Koch Brother money. Not only that, but their efforts and policies support more libertarian causes. They are also pro-choice and pro gay marriage, views which align with the Democratic Party.

Walker then went on to celebrate his triumphs over the demonstrators who objected to his dismantling of Wisconsin’s public-sector unions, portraying the pro-union forces as violent thugs. “Those big government interests — they believe they can win by intimidating elected officials,” he said. “There were amazing things they did to try to intimidate us. The good news is we didn’t back down. We remembered the reason we were elected was not to serve the few in our state capitol, but to serve the masses.”

Excuse me? Walker did not portray the public sector unions cabal as thugs, as though they are not. Those unions are thugs, they are violent, fraudulent syndicates which lied about being sick so that they could avoid going to work and engage in non-stop protests at the Wisconsin state capital.

This is the essence of Walker’s appeal — and why he is so dangerous. He is not as outrageous as Donald Trump and Sen.Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), but his technique of scapegoating unions for the nation’s ills is no less demagogic. Sixty-five years ago, another man from Wisconsin made himself a national reputation by frightening the country about the menace of communists, though the actual danger they represented was negligible. Scott Walker is not Joe McCarthy, but his technique is similar: He suggests that the nation’s ills can be cured by fighting labor unions (foremost among the “big government special interests” hurting America), even though unions represent just 11 percent of the American workforce and have been at a low ebb.

Oh, so Walker is now like Joe McCarthy, another Wisconsin Republican. McCarthy rooted out communistic elements in the United States federal government. Today, these elements still linger in the country through the "useful idiot" labor unions, especially the public sector unions. Any collective which forces people to join and pay, then force them to sit and watch as they spend their dues on candidates and causes which they do not support: that is the height of illiberal tyranny and must be stopped.
And Walker put a stop to it in his state.

Earlier this year, Walker likened the union protesters in Madison, Wisc., to the murderous Islamic State: “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.” Before that, he described public-sector union members as the “haves” taking advantage of the “have-nots” — the taxpayers.


 
No he did not. This is a false argument twisting the points which Walker made. "If I can take on labor unions, I can take on ISIS." In fact, Walker's win over the unions was harder fought, because he relied on the free, voluntary democratic process. To defeat terrorists, all it takes is guns and bombs. There is no need for persuasion of voters, along with legal demonstrations
 
For the record, labor unions have routinely restored to violent, illegal tactics in pursuit of their goals. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union killed "scabs" and shut down entire cities. They celebrate these atrocious deeds every year on "Bloody Thursday". As mentioned above, public sector unions are the dangerous element in many states. 

He denounced the protests against his efforts to undo the unions as “thuggery.” He described collective bargaining as a “corrupt system” and diagnosed union leaders as having a “sense of entitlement.” After beating public-sector unions and surviving recall, Walker this year signed anti-union Right-to-Work legislation. He has said he doesn’t think the minimum wage serves a purpose, and he has opposed prevailing-wage and living-wage requirements.

 
They are thugs. Period.
ALEC, which championed many of Walker’s anti-union policies, provided a friendly reception Thursday. ALEC official Leah Vukmir (R), a Wisconsin state senator, introduced him by talking about the “unhinged wrath of the forces” who opposed him, and their “unprecedented vile behavior.”
Not just ALEC, but every Alec, Arthur, Tom, Dick, Harry, Patty, Paul, Jodi etc. tired of Big Labor and Big Government working with Big Business to take advantage of the Little Guy -- all of us championed Scott Walker's pro-worker policies. Amazing yet not surprising, Milbank casts a negative slant on his successes: "anti-union". The truth is that if unions were doing their job, and properly representing the best interests of their members, then all of these reforms would not affect their standing and influence. Unions are not about workers, however, and they never really were. They are all about the union bosses and connected business interests which rely on this corrupt collusion with Big Government.

The bulk of Walker’s stump speech to the Koch-brothers-financed ALEC was about how his “big, bold reforms took the power out of the hands of big government special interests” — namely, unions. Left unmentioned: how his big, bold reforms produced only half the number of jobs he promised, and resulted in delayed debt payments and deep cuts to education to overcome a budget deficit.
Walker, describing the bargain shopping he does at Kohl’s department store, said he would do the same with taxes. Arguing that “few people could afford” high tax rates, he proposed that “we can lower the rates, broaden the base, and increase the value of people participating in our economy. Years ago, a plan like that worked pretty well . . . We called it the Laffer Curve back then. Today, I call it the Kohl’s curve.”

Walker asks Milbank and the Public Sector Unions. . .
Oh, there it is "Koch-brothers-financed ALEC". How sad. At least Milbank talked about Kohl's. Also missing from this report: the WaPo reported failed to admit that they had mishandled Walker's statement about buying his  sweater at the Wisconsin-based department store. He did buy it there, yet Big Media tried to make a big deal about it, as though he lied. Now, about job growth in the state of Wisconsin. Walker and his Republican colleagues have advanced pro-growth  policies as fast as they can in their state. No elected official can create jobs, but they can create conditions better for freedom of trade and promotion of growth. Furthermore, the union agitations in 2011 and 2012 hampered business development, plus decades of regulations and taxes frustrated small businesses and individual entrepreneurs in the Dairy State. Red State Walker had a lot of work ahead of him turning around blue state Wisconsin.

It was a zany analogy. Kohl’s offers discounted merchandise for middle and low-income consumers. The Laffer curve, as the basis for supply-side economics, meant huge tax breaks for the rich that never trickled down.
Petty editorializing. "Zany"? Why?

But deception is the demagogue’s tool. Walker spoke Thursday about “the death threats not just against me and my family but against our lawmakers,” and about the nails put in the driveway of one lawmaker to puncture his tires. Such behavior is beyond the pale — though hardly unique to Walker’s opponents. And some of Walker’s claims — including the alleged threat to “gut” his wife “like a deer” and of protesters “beating” and “rocking” a car he was in — could not be substantiated by independent authorities.


 
Now the bigger question: what deception? Scott Walker has been telling the truth and exposing the true face of Big Labor and other Big Interests hurting everyone else. Milbank puts up a bunch of strawmen arguments, but has nothing to back up his hollow assertions. I have never ready such over-heated illiberal rhetoric with such a separation from facts.
 
No wonder Justice Antonin Scalia stopped reading the Washington Post and denounced its journalism as "shrilly, shrilly liberal".



Such deception, however, is only in the service of the larger deceit at the core of his candidacy: By scapegoating toothless trade unions as powerful and malign interests, he enlists working people in his cause of aiding the rich and the strong.

 
Major correction needed her. Trade unions are toothless only because of Walker's steel resolve and the reforms which he and his legislative colleagues passed. Here, Milbank tried to portray them as the weak and beggarly element in the political process. After five  months of protests, including threats in front of Walker's family, plus the years of buying up support and getting laws passed which favored their narrow interests at the expense of the public interest, unions finally got beaten down.
 
 
 
Milbank's widely wild editorializing is desperate as well as shameful, deceptive and unserious. Walker is indeed dangerous, but not because of falsehood and fraud, but because of his frank truth-telling and reform-minded resolve to do what is right for Wisconsin and for the country.