Posts Tagged ‘current-events’

Liberals Paint Themselves Into a Corner

September 9, 2013

We have been inundated with the liberal meme that criticizing Obama means you are a racist. Fear of being labeled a racist has produced silence from many who would otherwise speak against his policies. Now, that meme is backfiring on liberals as Obama is on the verge of attacking Syria.

Radical leftist Ed Asner let the cat out of the bag when he told the Hollywood Reporter that there is little outcry in Hollywood over Obama’s war efforts because “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama”. They have painted themselves into a corner with their racist meme and are now dumbfounded.

The silence from the likes of Matt Damon, Tim Robbins, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Janeane Garofalo, and so many more anti-war Bush bashers is deafening. These are people convinced of the idealistic notion that the only valid reason to resort to war is if free birth control is withheld from grade school kids. Now, fear of opposing their liberal, black hero, has them biting their tongues.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic – and it sure is pathetic. Liberal accusations of conservatives criticizing Obama because he is black have been turned around and proven to be a reason the left backs everything Obama does. Does that make them racists? In their twisted world, it certainly would, but most conservatives know better. It is just hypocrisy fueled by the two burning fires of liberalism: guilt and idealism.

David J. Hentosh

The Return of Back-Alley Abortions?

August 28, 2013

Progressives have used the scare of “back-alley abortions” to promote legalized abortion for years. Every time there is a move to limit abortion in any way, this scare is pulled off the shelf, dusted off, and shoved into everyone’s face as a direct consequence from limiting abortions. Now, progressives are opening the door wide for a re-birth (no pun intended) of those amateur, back-alley abortions.

A bill has been approved by California’s State Senate allowing non-physicians to perform abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. This approval brings the bill one step closer to becoming a law and brings back-alley abortions one step closer to revival.

The bill allows nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants to perform the procedure, but we all know that the “slippery slope” is alive and well. We saw how legalizing only “medicinal” marijuana in California slid quickly down that slope into a pot free-for-all environment. It will happen with abortions, too, putting women at more risk rather than less.

California does not provide abortion reports to the federal government, so the exact number occurring in the state is not accurately known. Whatever that number is (and we can assume it is huge), it is not large enough to satisfy progressives’ desire for more. It wouldn’t be surprising to find this bill to be a proactive attempt to offset the dearth of doctors that Obamacare is sure to cause in order that abortions can continue undiminished. Such is the progressive’s thirst for abortions.

Unintended consequences from progressive policies abound because the idealism behind those policies requires blinders. Even when consequences are predicted, as with Obamacare, the blinders remain in place blocking reality. This California abortion bill is loaded with unintended consequences that our children will have to fix. The slippery slope is greased and waiting.

David J. Hentosh

War on Words

August 6, 2013

The continuing war on words is currently being waged in Seattle where City Hall officials are considering “brown bag” and “citizen” to be offensive and in need of being banned from official records. The idea that “brown bag” is racist can only come from a far-left mind obsessed with race and racism. This innocent term has been used for as long one can remember and it is curious that anyone would consider it racist.

This obsessiveness with words being racist is nothing new. A Portland school principal argued that the mention of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich found in a lesson plan was subtly racist because others, such as Somali or Hispanic students, may not eat such sandwiches. What, then, must we do about tofu, prime rib, arugula, or foie gras?

Banning the word “citizen” so as not to offend is just more politically correct foolishness from Seattle. How many non-citizens can there be, not institutionalized, who are so sensitive that the word “citizen” upsets them? Who said it is the government’s responsibility to protect everyone from being offended anyway?

Many of the words that have been banned from standardized testing require a major stretch to rationalize removal, such as: dinosaur, disease, hunting, or abuse. These are common words with common meanings, and sheltering someone from their use does nothing for education.

It is fear of offending rather than the actual act of doing so that is at the root of this foolishness. This fear combines with guilt and an idealistic notion that the world can be made fair for all, creating a need to be a proactive champion of a minority that may consist of only a few people.

Words are not racist, people are, and banning words in an attempt to stop racism is nonsense. It is also nonsense to think that everyone needs to be protected from being offended. There are some who are offended by almost anything that’s said and catering to their sensitivities advances the victimization that permeates today’s society. We need to stop seeing ourselves as victims.

David J. Hentosh

Stand Whose Ground?

July 18, 2013

The emotional chaos in the aftermath of the George Zimmerman trial is an offshoot of the social chaos the entire country is mired in. Rationality, logic, and good sense have been overrun by emotional judgments springing from personal beliefs and political agendas that care little for the common good.

Having no evidence to substantiate a personal belief in Zimmerman’s guilt, “Stand Your Ground” laws have become the fall guy for disappointment in the verdict even though Zimmerman’s was a self-defense case not revolving around those laws. From Stevie Wonder’s refusal to perform in Florida to Attorney General Eric Holder’s public denouncement of those laws, the misguided bandwagon has been loaded and is now running amok.

Should this race-based attack against “Stand Your Ground” succeed, it will be ironic, and sad, that the black community could suffer the most from the effort. Had opponents dared look at statistics as did Patrick Howley of the Daily Caller, they would have found that “…one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time” and that “African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population”.

As with many other issues now fracturing society, facts concerning “Stand Your Ground” have no effect on the emotional certainty dictated by an idealistic agenda. Many of the progressive tactics, rules, and policies from the Obama administration will come back to haunt those who approve when they are in the hands of a future Republican administration. That, however, is much too far-thinking for so-called “progressives” who view progress through a racial and emotionally restricted lens.

“Stand Your Ground” has now, pathetically, become a racial issue. Thank you Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Eric Holder, and so many foolish others for ensuring that the promised Obama post-racial era remains as just another burst liberal bubble. It provides, at least, some consistency.

David J. Hentosh

Illegal Immigration Reform

July 5, 2013

“Comprehensive Immigration Reform” is a deliberately misleading and manipulative name for what is nothing more than “Illegal Immigration Reform”. There is nothing comprehensive about the current bill under consideration in regard to our immigration policy, but there is much “reform” concerning illegal immigration.

This issue was manipulatively framed long ago when immigration reform became synonymous with amnesty, even in the minds of the GOP. Consequently, there is little attention being paid to immigration as amnesty is the only political football being passed around, regardless of the quarterback.

The pre-requisite for an attempt at true immigration reform is a secure border, but that has become a bargaining chip for amnesty rather than a requirement. Catering to 11 million illegal immigrants, a very small percentage of people in the country, cannot be considered “comprehensive” in anyone’s mind, but it has become all there is.

What about assimilation? Past immigrants came here for a new and better life, eager to adopt this country as their own. All they wanted was an opportunity, and assimilation was a means of increasing opportunity. Handouts were an embarrassment to those immigrants willing to work if only given a chance. Assimilation was eliminated by the “progressive”, non-judgmental attitude of society and needs to be re-instated.

“Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free…” is engraved on the Statue of Liberty, but it is not a law and it is not part of the Constitution. Times have changed and we are forced to be more discriminating about who we allow into the country. Does the comprehensive immigration reform bill insure that immigrants are desirable, or just that they are poor, tired, or illegal? Should not those who have skills to offer be put ahead of those who have none?

Many current immigration policies in dire need of reform are being ignored by the current bill and will be further abused due to the consequences of amnesty. When another “comprehensive” bill is needed to address those problems in the future, the current bill’s inadequacies will seem obvious. By then, however, those unaddressed problems could grow too big to fix.

David J. Hentosh

Schumer’s Victory Dance

June 14, 2013

Sen. Chuck Schumer gleefully said on the Senate floor that “illegal immigration will be a thing of the past” once his immigration bill is passed. Where, exactly, is the pride in solving an illegal act by making it legal? Is that the best we can do? Apparently, it is, and it is one more sign of our escalating decline.

There is little doubt that if Schumer’s “solution” is put into place, border crossings will increase by those seeking the amnesty Schumer is eager to offer. Crossings are already rising in Texas. Schumer’s promise of securing the border later is as meaningful as “you can keep the health insurance you have”. Our government has a long history of reneging on promises and cutting funds.

When society stigmatized divorce, we made divorce easily obtainable. Today, 50% of marriages end in divorce and the family unit is crumbling. When illegal alcohol spurred out-of-control organized crime, we made alcohol legal again and organized crime flooded the country with drugs. We “solved” illegal gambling by making it legal through casinos and membership in Gambling Anonymous is steadily rising. When teen pregnancies increased, we handed out condoms in elementary schools and began actively encouraging their frequent use, resulting in a single motherhood epidemic. We “solved” the problem of dangerous back-alley abortions by making abortion legal, resulting in more and more abortions that have gone so far as murder outside the womb.

There is a pattern here. Society and our “leaders” are solving difficult problems with easy fixes and no forethought to consequences. The current easy fix being generated for our runaway drug problem is to make drugs legal. Does anyone really believe flooding the free market with legal, dangerous drugs (and that will surely be a result) will curtail their usage?

Chuck Schumer’s victory dance is not only premature, it is ridiculous. Amnesty, especially before securing the border, is a politically expedient fix for a difficult problem that will cause more problems. Obamacare is a perfect example of a hasty, politically expedient fix resulting in a nightmare.

When will we ever learn?

David J. Hentosh

Ignoring the Law

April 21, 2013

Obama’s directives for the non-enforcement of immigration laws legitimized disrespect for the law. His continuing skirting of rules, laws, and regulations with executive orders and political maneuvering has displayed an arrogant disregard for the rule of law and has been a top-down example many are following.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano emulated Obama and blatantly ignored the law by issuing a memo offering a deferred action and employment authorization to illegal aliens which was part of the Dream Act that Congress refused to pass.

Deportation of non-citizens who commit crimes has been ignored under the current push for amnesty for all. This type of non-legal amnesty is being expanded and enforced more than current immigration laws, putting society at risk. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the dead terrorist who bombed the Boston marathon, is the latest example of someone who should have been deported (having been convicted of domestic violence) but was not.

The Northern District of Illinois has the lowest firearm prosecution rate of all federal court districts while Chicago, residing in that district, has one of the highest rates of gun-related murders. The cry for more gun laws continues, but current gun laws are not being enforced. They are being ignored.

In Denver, a publically announced and planned rally celebrating marijuana, which is still illegal to smoke in public, was held. Allowing (and ignoring) 80,000 people to openly break the law is a slap in the face to the rule of law. What signal does this send to our children? How can respect for the law survive?

Laws are to be followed, enforced, altered, or removed, but they should never be ignored. Judges may have discretionary powers when enforcing the law, but they have no right to ignore laws or make up new ones; nor does the president. Unfortunately, the example has been set and consequences are sure to come. Don’t be surprised when the hit.

David J. Hentosh

Pre-writing History

March 24, 2013

Repetition, repetition, repetition – It is the method being used by the left to forge public perception and pre-write history. The bombardment of false perceptions has taken root in many, and future historians may not be able to discern the truth. The squeaky wheel of the left may get the historians’ grease.

According to the progressive left (including, of course, the media): Dick Cheney is evil; the GOP is racist; the rich pay no taxes; Bush wrecked the economy; the Catholic Church promotes pedophilia; Obama has superior intelligence; the US is the most terroristic nation in the world; socialism works well; Castro is an humanitarian; there is no deficit problem; taxing the rich for their “fair share” will solve the deficit problem; limiting abortion is a war on women; Obamacare costs less; etc., etc.

The list goes on and on, with reality never making an appearance. Yet, these things are accepted by a lot of people, and they vote, sometimes more than once. Obama was elected, then re-elected, by an overflow of uninformed voters inundated with talking points from the media, celebrities, and progressive politicians. Nothing negative was attributed to Obama and, consequently, may not appear in future history books, either.

Before thinking this is too pessimistic, look at how many in the GOP have panicked and are now abandoning conservative principles in an effort to become “relevant” with what they perceive to be a progressive majority. They see the writing on the wall as: “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. For them, abortion is losing its ugliness, immigration reform is beginning to sound like amnesty, same-sex marriage suddenly appeared in the Constitution exactly where the right to bear arms disappeared, social issues are becoming the government’s main responsibility, and Obamacare is beginning to look cheap at twice the original estimate.

If the Republican Party caves, only one, distorted view of history will survive and it is currently being written. Historians will have to drink the Kool-Aid because it may be the only drink available.

David J. Hentosh

Another Feel-good, “Make History” Election?

March 19, 2013

Former Democrat Party spokeswoman Karen Finney tells us that a 2016 presidential ticket of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama “…would truly be a dream team for America…Both women are proven effective leaders who’ve raise children”.

It seems that making history by electing (then re-electing) totally inexperienced Barack Obama felt so good that doing it again is even more desirable. Breaking the “glass ceiling” with a woman president would again make history, and combining it with a woman vice president would be a great historical twofer to cherish.

Michelle Obama’s absolute lack of professional political experience is irrelevant. After all, she “raised children”, proving she is an “effective leader”. (Sadly enough, that may be more of a real accomplishment than Barack had when he was chosen to make history.) Hillary, of course, proved her qualifications by becoming a Senator with no political experience and then was anointed Secretary of State – perhaps because she also “raised children”.

It has always been a fault of our election process that popularity played such a key role, but it was mostly the popularity of politicians. In today’s politics, popularity is bestowed upon whomever the progressive media decides is worthy, and combining that with a desire to make history is a recipe for disaster.

Should Hillary decide not to run, the media could push Michelle to the forefront and bring in Sandra Fluke as candidate for vice president. She, too, has no political experience but was made a celebrity by the progressive media because…well…one isn’t quite sure – much like one isn’t quite sure why Kim Kardashian was made into a celebrity. It’s a media thing and people follow.

There’s the frightening thing: People buy into it. Voters elected Obama with no experience because of media endorsement, then re-elected him because the media ignored negative results of his inexperience. The media has already decided making up news is part of its job, so making history is a natural progression. Michelle becoming president would not be a fluke, but Fluke could very well be vice president.

We may be doomed.

David J. Hentosh

Food Stamps for Pets

February 26, 2013

There is a newly launched, NY-based, non-profit organization providing food stamps for pets to qualifying pet owners. In just two weeks, the organization has received 12,000 requests for assistance.

This is not surprising considering the poor economy, joblessness, and the amount of people receiving food stamps (which cannot be used for pet food). This organization, however, is run by a private citizen, Marc Okon, concerned for the welfare of animals owned by those in need themselves.

Considering that Americans spent $53 billion on pets in 2012, up 5% from 2011, it is a good bet that this pet food stamp program will catch on. Americans love their pets, often more than they love their neighbors. That’s also why PETA rivals the ACLU in fighting on behalf of perceived victims.

The lesson here, however, is that private citizens (Americans) DO care and if the government curtailed handouts, any assistance gap would eventually be filled by caring citizens. That is also evident by the many homeless kitchens and church food drives providing needed food assistance in their communities. They do not rely on taxes. They rely on the American Spirit.

The current, and rising, record number of people receiving food stamps (over 47 million) is labeled as necessary help from the government. However, there are many instances where the government’s “help” stopped or inhibited private citizens’ attempts to feed the homeless on their own. Left alone and fully encouraged, a citizen-based approach could make food stamps disappear or, at the very least, decline in numbers.

Food stamps for pets will most probably be embraced and succeed, especially if the government can stay out of it. Since pets do not vote, yet, the government has no interest in getting them hooked on assistance. However, pet owners do vote and they may find themselves getting government handouts for their pets in the near future. That will depend on the next election’s polling.

David J. Hentosh