Archive for the ‘debate’ Category

Going Whole Hogg

April 3, 2018

It has always been said that “power corrupts” and one need only look at David Hoggs to see the validity of that axiom. With the help of an agenda-driven media, Mr. Hogg transformed quickly from a student “activist” into an angry, self-righteous firebrand demanding the world change to fit his views.

His experience of surviving the Stone Douglas High School shooting qualified him in the media’s eyes to be held up as an authority on gun-control issues and because he is so young he has also been granted immunity from criticism. The media has, of course, shunned fellow students who do not agree with his agenda. Hogg has now become convinced of his infallibility and is wielding his power with fist-pumping speeches filled with revolutionary rhetoric that will result in the sale of t-shirts bearing his image.

Mr. Hogg lashed out at Laura Ingram for daring to criticize him and then brazenly called for (demanded?) a boycott of Ingram’s show. Several advertisers acquiesced to the bully tactic, forcing Ingram to apologize – an apology Hogg quickly rejected. He also had the ego-driven audacity to refuse going to the White House to talk with president Trump, saying that the president should come to him if he wanted to talk. His arrogance is expanding with media coverage.

Eighteen-year-old David Hogg has now attacked or blamed president Trump, Governor Rick Scott, Senator Marco Rubio, Laura Ingram, Senator John McCain, and the NRA, all targets approved by the progressive agenda. He has placed no blame on his high school’s policy of not relaying information to police about troubled students, a policy that allowed shooter Nikolas Cruz to avoid a criminal record and pass a background check to purchase the weapon for the murders – a policy that could have prevented the massacre.

Some may sympathize and say the media is using David Hogg like a puppet but that is not the whole picture. He is a Teenlink reporter for Broward County’s Sun Sentinel who transferred to Stone Douglas High School because of the television production classes offered, so he has been actively engaged in pursuing a career in the media. This, then, looks much like a career move for Mr. Hogg which begs the question: Who’s using who?

High school students are now encouraged to go “whole Hogg” with walkout protests and it is not hard to imagine how quickly this could get out-of-hand. Progressive educators will certainly be selective concerning approval of the issues being protested but they will gleefully allow walkouts. They will be considered college preparation and credits will be earned with each walkout.

David J. Hentosh

Profiling & Spin From the Left

November 6, 2017

The Left has a myopic view of profiling much like it has with almost everything. They consider profiling to be discriminatory and sometimes downright evil but it is overlooked or rationalized when they engage in it. They don’t believe they profile but actions tell a different story.

White males are profiled and demeaned by the Left and current complaints of “white privilege” take it even further to include all white people. Black Republicans are profiled as traitors to their race and women Republicans are profiled as traitors to women. Trump voters are profiled as dumb, ignorant racists; rioters in the street are profiled as social justice warriors; the rich are profiled as heartless, Christians are profiled as white supremacists; and illegal immigrants are profiled as ordinary immigrants.

There is no limit to the spin the Left will use to frame issues. Facts are ignored, news stories are manufactured, and words are re-defined. Thus, racism exists only in white people; illegal immigrants are undocumented workers; killing a fetus is pro-life; climate change means man-made global warming; comprehensive immigration reform is nothing but amnesty; free speech means shutting down opposing views; and voter ID is suppression.

Rights are even created to further the leftist agenda. Health care, banning opposition speech, free college education, birth control, and destructive civil disobedience have all been claimed to be “rights”. Meanwhile, our basic right to free speech has been deemed valid only for leftist views and all else is considered “hate speech”.

Rational debate has been replaced with hateful and personal attacks making it impossible to move forward or find compromise on issues. Washington has become ineffective because of categorical resistance from Democrats toward president Trump and his administration. False accusations and continuous calls for investigations keep elected officials from governing and hate is openly expressed toward the president.

This is a mess and people are finally getting tired of it. The country is suffering and the Left is losing respect, credibility, and relevance but they continue to ignore their self-inflicted demise. It needs to stop.

David J. Hentosh

Trump: The Good, Bad, and the Ugly

March 7, 2016

Donald Trump tapped into the frustration many have concerning lack of leadership and the direction this country has taken. His refusal to bow to political correctness has been a breath of fresh air for a populace weary of rhetorical gymnastics, guarded speech, and fear of offending. He opened the door to realistically discussing illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, and the runaway progressive agenda – issues that have been blanketed by PC foolishness far too long. This is the ‘good’ that Trump brought to the presidential campaign.

His ego and thin skin, however, cause him to lash out with personal attacks against anyone daring to criticize or challenge him. These attacks have brought a lot of media attention that has helped his rise in popularity; therefore, they have continued and become a major tactic of his campaign. Other candidates have begun emulating the personal attacks in an effort to gain media attention and, consequently, issues and policies are not being given the attention they need. This is the ‘bad’ Trump has wrought.

The entrenched establishment of the GOP does not like Trump and is trying to derail him, splitting instead of unifying the party. Sophomoric insults between candidates along with Mitt Romney’s out-of-character speech attacking Trump have brought ugliness to the GOP campaign – and that can only alienate voters.

Trump may very well end up to be the GOP candidate but he will lose to Hillary if he does not get his ego in check, eliminate the brash insults, and provide substance rather than empty, feel-good rhetoric. He has certainly been entertaining but he is running for president of the United States, not auditioning for a role in a Hollywood movie. We need serious leadership.

It is sad that running for president has become such a circus that only a fool would enter the ring. Thus, we may end up having to vote for Hillary or Trump. This is not the best we can do; it is just what apathy has allowed.

David J. Hentosh

CNBC vs GOP

October 30, 2015

The recent Republican debate conducted by CNBC turned into a battle between the candidates and the biased moderators. The candidates won handily, in more ways than one.

It was established from the beginning, after Ted Cruz forcefully chastised moderators for bias, that the candidates were not going to succumb to gotcha questions or start foolish squabbling among themselves. There seemed to be a concerted effort on their part to keep the debate about issues and differences between the parties, particularly, differences with Hillary.

The moderators, on the other hand, had an agenda to embarrass the candidates, start arguments between them, and try to trip them up. Some questions were pertinent but many were hostile towards the candidates, displaying a disdain for Republicans that permeates CNBC.

After hearing much liberal media babble (wishful thinking?) about the GOP falling apart with infighting, lack of alternative solutions, and poor qualifications, the candidates displayed a unity not seen in prior debates. Serious problems facing the nation were defined and though plans presented to address those problems were different in details, they were cut from the same cloth: Government is too big, spending is out-of-control, taxes are too high, and the middle class needs a break – not more government interference.

Perhaps it was only having a common enemy, the CNBC moderators, that forced the candidates to circle the wagons, but they seemed to do just that. When Huckabee was baited with a question meant to urge him to attack Trump, he put on a show of solidarity by complimenting him instead. Chris Christie jumped onto the bandwagon by taking the moderators to task over a foolish question about fantasy football. Even Ben Carson got in a few licks that elicited applause from an audience aware of the bias.

It is often difficult to establish who really won a debate but the GOP clearly won this one. CNBC may have had good ratings for airing this debate, but it proved why its otherwise dismal ratings are warranted. Perhaps other networks will learn from this and allow a debate to be about the candidates. That would make us all winners.

David J. Hentosh

Democrat Debate, Enter Stage Left

October 15, 2015

“Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?” What the hell kind of debate question was that? Requiring an either/or answer is flat out ignorant and foolishly irresponsible. It panders to a political movement that is fomenting racial unrest and tacitly (sometimes explicitly) encouraging anarchy and the killing of police. Lives have been lost because of this movement but, apparently, those lives aren’t supposed to matter.

Jim Webb was the only candidate who courageously broke from the pack by responding: “As a President of the United States, every life in this country matters”. In fact, Webb was the only candidate not attempting to be as far left as possible. He came across as “old school” in that he seemed to have integrity, class, and reasonable responses – all sorely missing in the other candidates. He was surprisingly impressive but certainly not to the far left, so he will be raked over the coals by the media and ousted quickly. He would fit more comfortably with the GOP. The Democratic Party has no place for him.

Sanders was Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist and as such, a favorite of the far left. He told us that climate change was our greatest national security threat, a view also held by our socialist-leaning president. Social issues, of course, dominated the debate, as they are the focus of the Democratic Party and the current administration. More “free” stuff from the government was offered to entice voters. Foreign affairs and policies, Democrat’s largest failures, received little attention.

Hillary dominated the debate as expected, having little competition from the candidates on the stage. She was not seriously questioned about the scandals dragging her polling numbers down. Her e-mail fiasco was sneeringly dismissed, allowing her to treat the debate as a personal campaign rally, eliciting applause from an adoring crowd.

This debate did little more than show how far left the Democrat Party has traveled. The middle ground has been deserted in search of far left votes. So, too, has the good of the country been deserted.

David J. Hentosh

Thoughts on the Debatable Debates

August 9, 2015

The recent Republican presidential candidate debates may have been good TV and more entertaining than many political events, but they often leaned towards a TV reality show more than a serious debate.

In the early show debate, it was obvious to all that Carly Fiorina is a serious candidate who knows how to make sense and succinctly express concerns of conservatives. Her knowledge and gravitas was impressive and, hopefully, she will gain momentum. She certainly ran away with this debate and deserves to be on the main stage.

In the prime time debate, Donald Trump’s ego and arrogance crowded the already crowded stage, providing a circus sideshow ambiance. His in-your-face and direct approach to major issues has been refreshing for many conservatives and it has put the other candidates on notice that drifting to the left and appeasing progressives is not the way to go. However, his insults, attacks on critics, and overall crude behavior is already getting stale and his threat of running as an independent is arrogantly dangerous to the GOP.

A mini debate broke out between Christie and Rand with true animosity being displayed. Rand’s sneering facial expressions and rolling of his eyes did not make him an attractive candidate. Christie showed more restraint and self-control, but both seemed ready to go at each other’s throat and turn the debate into a Jerry Springer show. Neither gained ground in the exchange.

Bush was listless and seemed out of his element. Rubio’s youth and manicured look accompanied by his fluid speaking ability was reminiscent of JFK, making him very appealing. John Kasich brought a moral outlook to the debate and made sense on the controversial gay marriage issue and the frustration many Americans feel. Walker sounded reasonable in his responses but still came off as an also-ran candidate while Huckabee was Huckabee, a decent candidate but somehow unelectable.

Ben Carson helped his chances by remaining calm, collected, witty and knowledgeable on a stage where the chaos of Trump always loomed. His obvious intelligence was on display but he seemed to lack the passion needed for a sustained campaign. Perhaps a bump from this debate will convince him to jump in with both feet and go for the gold.

These debates will result, hopefully, in weaning out a few candidates. It was interesting and revealing that many social issues progressives seem obsessed with were never mentioned. That’s a good sign because they need to take a back seat to the more serious and dangerous issues plaguing the country. One can only hope the Republican candidates will keep that in mind and not get sucked into the progressive agenda.

David J. Hentosh

Arrogant Overreach

November 13, 2014

Fingers are being pointed and excuses are being drummed up as Democrats scramble to find reasons for the beat-down they received in the mid-term elections. If they would step outside their agenda for a moment they would see the one basic reason: arrogant overreach.

Arrogance is a far-left characteristic that Obama brought to the White House and it infected his administration and the entire Democrat Party. It fueled the false beliefs that Obama had a “mandate” to transform America and that his far-left social engineering agenda was acceptable to the majority.

Because of these false “beliefs”, Obama was given free reign from Democrats and the media to do whatever he wished. This allowed Obamacare to get hastily passed into law by a Democrat Congress ignorant of its contents and willfully blind to the deceit used to sell it.

The quick and successful passage of Obamacare convinced Democrats they had a righteous infallibility and when combined with arrogance, it compelled them to overreach on almost every issue. Critics were demeaned, silenced, and ignored as free birth control, abortions, open borders, amnesty, higher taxes, troop pullout, drones, part-time jobs, bailouts, increased food stamps, school lunch programs, and much more was dumped onto society.

Obama and Democrats arrogantly forced too much too quickly. It was political overreach. Failure of many of Obama’s foreign policies can also be attributed to overreach. The world doesn’t accept change any quicker than society does, especially without investigating the consequences.

This mid-term election was proof of the adage that “pride comes before the fall”. One can debate whether pride or arrogance comes first, but they are almost always found together. One can also debate Jonathan Gruber’s claim of taking advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” but it is a known fact that taking voter stupidity for granted can be perilous. Just ask any Democrat.

David J. Hentosh

Myth Busting

October 2, 2014

Many believe progressive left-wingers hate Ann Coulter because she is an outspoken conservative, but the real reason is because she uses facts to disprove religious-like beliefs they blindly follow. Her latest column will once again cause outrage because she shows a few more “beliefs” to be nothing more than myths.

Coulter rips apart a meme based on a study saying “the purchase of a handgun was associated with 2.4 times the risk of being murdered and 6.8 times the risk of suicide”. No, it is not true and neither is the belief that emergency room admissions for domestic violence spike on Super Bowl Sundays, an oft-heard feminist mantra. Coulter shows these to be nothing more than convenient falsehoods used to help advance an agenda.

Another myth currently making the rounds due to the recent White House crasher is that Obama gets more threats than any other president (because he is black). Coulter uses facts to disprove that, too, adding the inconvenient and politically incorrect truth that those “most likely to assassinate a president are leftists, socialists, communists, Palestinian activists, crazed environmentalists and communitarians”.

Those upset with Coulter because of this column will undoubtedly use insults and demeaning names to ridicule her. They will not counter with facts because there are none backing up these “beliefs”. Name-calling is their standard retort.

The progressive left’s agenda is filled with myths: Democrats freed the slaves; there is a war on women; Republicans are racist and have no compassion; liberals are tolerant; the rich hate the poor; man-made global warming is a fact; voter ID means voter suppression; a fetus is not a living being; pro-life is anti-women; all religions are the same; the economy is doing well; Obama has superior intelligence; etc. etc.

It seems much of the left’s progressive agenda is based on what they believe “should be” and reality just gets in the way. Ann Coulter excels at delivering reality – and rubbing their noses in it.

Give ‘em hell, Ann.

David J. Hentosh

Liberal Retorts

March 10, 2014

Commentator Mike Barnicle, appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, proudly commented: “…what does it say about a group, CPAC, where the most popular speaker they had, the one who received the most rousing reception is a moron, Sarah Palin?”

Derisive name-calling is the standard retort of the left. Criticism and differences are viciously attacked rather than rationally debated because much of their agenda is based on “belief” rather than reality. Calling Sarah Palin a moron has become a standard of the left and many who are clueless about Palin repeat this proudly as if it is an original thought, but it is pure ignorance.

Often, we find hypocrisy accompanying ignorance such as this because these elite and superior intelligent “believers” never look at themselves and never question what they are fed. Thus, Barnicle scoffs and sneers at Palin’s reception from CPAC, conveniently forgetting that Sandra Fluke, an unaccomplished college student, spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2012 and was their star speaker, treated as a hero – just for whining about having to pay for her own birth control.

Chris Matthews, a perfect example of blind belief, called the CPAC a “whole tapestry of weirdness”, a “crazy right-wing economic agenda” attended by a “crazy car”. How’s that for unbiased, informative reporting? Of course, Matthews has long ago lost credibility, becoming a caricature of himself while turning “Hardball” into “Screwball” on a nightly basis.

Routinely, we hear liberals echo the talking point that Fox News lies or, more specifically, that Bill O’Reilly lies. Yet, there are never examples given and most will proudly reveal that they never, ever watch O’Reilly. This discrepancy is a “nuance” overlooked by liberals who get serious talking points from comedians Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

If you mention these things, you’ll just be called stupid, ending any chance at rational debate. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is also stale and very tiring.

David J. Hentosh

Expanding Torture

March 24, 2013

The United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, is trying to take human rights to a level that will interest far left progressives and stun those who are more reasonable. He is attempting to define certain medical actions and omissions along with some national policies as “torture”.

Specifically, Mendez zeroes in on abortion, wanting us to believe “…restrictions on access to abortion and about absolute abortion bans as violating the prohibition on torture and ill treatment.”  Mendez even suggests that denying prenatal testing could be considered torture because it “is imperative to a woman’s ability to exercise reproductive autonomy”.

Mendez takes his idea to an even more absurd level by considering prostitutes (“sex workers”) or anyone else to be tortured when required to undergo mandatory HIV testing. Furthermore, he considers drug addicts being tortured when deprived of parental rights because of drug use. One can easily imagine where he stands on Mumia Abu-Jamal.

This removes water boarding as the prominent torture controversy and, intended or not, labels the pro-life movement a crime against humanity. Equating the abortion issue with slavery no longer seems as ridiculous in comparison, but one can expect that the so-called “pro-choice” crowd will embrace it.

The UN will take this seriously but, thankfully, fewer and fewer people take the UN seriously. The international community, however, may embrace such an idea in its quest for a universal government that can legislate all nations down, or up, to an equal level. That, certainly, is desirable with progressives in the US, so don’t be surprised if this idea begins to grow legs. It is dumb enough to become popular.

David J. Hentosh