John Boehner is not a Coward

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/hannity-rips-cowardly-boehner-being-145947372.html

Mr. Hannity is a Gruber. He started the show with the obvious intention to attack Speaker Boehner. He then proceeded to tell each guest that Speaker Boehner was wrong to work toward a budget. Mr. Hannity said that he believed the House of Representatives could have gone with a Continuing Resolution (CR) which would put them into the New Year when they would have super majorities in both Houses. However, Mr. Hannity did not explain what Hannity would do about balking Democrats and rebellious Tea Party Conservatives. He also did not explain how putting off the budget deal would have better served the nation. He seemed to think that the only reason the Republicans had a majority was to defeat Democrats and thwart President Obama. It seemed to this writter that Mr. Hannity proposed a totally partisan answer to the budget without regard for Democrats. However, this writer thinks that a key message from the 2014 election was to get Congress working again and not to merely promote a Conservative Republican political agenda.

It is impossible for anyone to describe this episode of Hannity as “fair and balanced.” It was a small minded intolerant attack on the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was personal and Mr. Hannity made no apologies for the “mano y Mano” nature of his assault. But is it really fair to attack Speaker in this way? The speaker was not there to defend himself and as a public official he has very little recourse for an answer. For the Speaker of the House of Representatives to directly answer Mr. Hannity would be to give Hannity way too much respect. This is especially true since Sean Hannity acted so disrespectully toward John Boehner by never addresing his comments to the “Speaker”. Instead, he preferred to use the dismissive title “Boehner”. But in references to Rep. Pelosi, he called her by her first and last name.

Does anyone need to even honor Mr. Hannity’s insulting use of the word “coward” or “cowardly”? Such comments by Mr. Hannity should be rejected and this viewer thinks that an apology is required.

All the guests on Hannity were partisans and could be expected to agreed with Sean, and they did. The one guest to disagree was Mr. Karl Rove, who was cut off by what (I hope) was a hard commercial break and not Mr. Hannity’s control board?!

One last word from here; Mr. Hannity accused Speaker Boehner, who is third in line to the Presidency, of being a Gruber. This reference to thinking that you could fool the American people because they are stupid, is more true of Mr. Hannity than Speaker Boehner. Mr. Hannity seems to feel that he can come on the TV, attack the Speaker of the House of Representatives as a coward, as acting cowardly and of being a Gruber. Well, Hannity can do that but at the risk of infuriating his viewers and of tarnishing the reputation of the news network for which he works. He further hurts himself because its shows his personal and passionate dislike for Mr. John Boehner. At the least, Mr. Sean Hannity should stop such shameful treatment of Speaker. Maybe all future reporting on the Speaker should be handled by someone else.

Ohio Law Second in a Popular Revolt Against Tyranical Unions

Progressive Politics

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ohio-union-plan-like-rb-215366419.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

The Ohio statue for limiting the negotiation privileges of Public Employee Unions is the second in a popular and publicly supported wave for Responsible Government. The problem with having Unions for government employees is that the Unions apply their money to the support of candidates that favor them. This results in a closed and circular system. The Unions automatically support Democrat candidates who in turn are obligated to support Unions. This means that an agency of government is obligated to support a fraction of the population ad versus the rest of the non unionized population. The result is a prejudice against the non unionized in favor of the unionized. This prejudice uses favorable actions of the Executive and legislative branch to singularly favor unions and thereby exclude the majority population which is non union. This prejudice of the government in favor of the unionized means that the majority…

View original post 153 more words

Rand Paul or Tom Cruz

It seems to this writer that every time Sean Hannity interviews Senator Rand Paul that he treats Senator Paul with suspicion. There is just something in the way Mr. Hannity asks the questions or states the problem. I get the impression that Senator Paul does not meet what I will call “the conservative talk show host’s validity test.” There seems to be a “true believer” test on the part of Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. The test, when applied to Senator Ted Cruz, comes up “yes” but when applied to Senator Paul, it comes up either “no” or “maybe”! Your blogger is concerned about this because, as I have stated in previous Posts after the 2012 election, I believe that the conservative talk show hosts were the people who lost the election for Romney. Firstly, they gave Barrack Obama daily news coverage while seldom covering Romney. This free news coverage, although often critical of President Obama, still put him, his face, his program and his positions before the American electorate. Essentially, the conservative talk show hosts gave Barrack Obama three free hours from Rush, three free radio and one TV hour from Hannity and three from Levin. Romney was seldom mentioned. I remember an axiom that President Clinton used, it was that he didn’t care the reason for the news coverage as long as he was first and front page every day. Secondly, in the 2012 election the conservative talk show hosts, never fully supported Romney. I seem to remember that they were constantly questioning the conservation “credentials” of Romney. This effectively put a “buyer beware” warning sign over Romney’s head. Third and last, this writer believes that the conservative talk shows and the recalcitrant stubbornness of Santorum, RON (not Rand) Paul, and Newt Gingrich effectively doomed the Romney campaign. They never rallied to his campaign, thereby, encouraging their followers to stay home and not vote. Why? It could have been that they were willing to deal with President Obama rather than with a less than “pure” Republican conservative. I am afraid that we may be seeing the same defeat happening again. Senator Rand Paul is more centrist and therefore more acceptable to the electorate. He is conservative but is he conservative enough to win over the talk show hosts? It is time, to step to the center and away from an ultra conservative political agenda. Senator Rand Paul is actually the mentor that Senator Cruz studied before Senator Cruz’s symbolic filibuster. It is Senator Paul, who has been placing before the American people a powerful agenda for renewing and strengthening the American economy, health care, foreign policy. It is Senator Paul who has been unabashedly bold in defending the disenfranchised workers of Kentucky, Michigan, Wisconsin and elsewhere. And it is Senator Rand Paul who places his personal Christian faith alongside his credentials as a physician and surgeon.

Rand Paul is a Brave Senator who Defends Persecuted Christians

http://visiontoamerica.com/16061/sen-paul-worldwide-war-on-christians-is-being-waged-by-a-fanatical-element-of-islam/

Senator Rand Paul is courageous to stand up and stand out attempting to stop persecution of Christians. Senator Paul is a man of conviction and a man of courage who is bold in his defense of people, like the Christian minories in Moslem countries, who are being murdered, displaced and forced to flee for their lives. -Sadly, the ELCA, the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod are silent. Maybe America based Lutherans don’t care about the welfare or fate of other Christians. The silence of the Churches further weakens their moral authority in an age where it is almost non existent anyway. However, Senator Rand Paul, who is only tolerated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Marc Levin, is a brave, honest and outstanding political leader who is not beholding to the talk show pundits. Seems, Rush, Sean and Marc prefer Ted Cruz to anyone else. Yet, it has been Rand Paul who had led the fight for fairness in government. Senator Rand Paul should be recognized by the major conservative radio hosts as the best candidate for President there is. Senator Paul however is viewed by them with suspicion because he refuses to mouth the same words they do. I guess, Senator Rand Paul does not EXACTLY fit their definition of Republican or Conservative. And that is to their discredit because they define too narrowly the people with whom they are willing to work.

Rand Paul and Paul Ryan

I still think the team of Romney and Ryan was a wonderful opportunity for America. As of now I think it could be Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. I know a lot of people are angry at Congressman Ryan for budget matters. But the key is that he wanted to pass a budget in order to get control of spending back to the Congress. The Democrats have succeeded in using the Continuing Resolutions process to NOT pass a budget and thereby hand over complete control of spending to President Obama. That is why Obama was able to spend so much money. Now that we have a budget, imperfect though it be, the congress and budget committees can control and reign in the spending and President Obama no longer has a blank check to write. They have already corrected the mistake about military retirement pensions. They will do more. As for Rand Paul’s libertarian leanings, so what?! He doesn’t want war? Great. He believes in the rule of reason and law? Good. He thinks that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted? Fantastic. He thinks that government must be reduced in size and more actual power returned to State and Local governments. Bravo. He loves America and does not seek to fundamentally transform it into a socialist welfare state? Awesome. Let’s get behind the Republican candidate and not do the Gingrich, Santorum, even Ron Paul (Father to Rand) and fight till the convention and then go home to Va. Pa. and Tx. without giving wholehearted support to the candidate (Romney and Ryan.) I believe that we lost because those three groups fought too long, refused to donate to the candidate, refused to work for him, and stayed home on election day. I also blame Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin for seeking a so called PURE Conservative instead of supporting the best team we could field. Let’s not do it to ourselves again. By the way I like the sound of the two names, Rand Paul ( a R and a P ) and Paul Ryan (a P and a R ).

Why the Republicans Lost in 2012

Rick Santorum and the conservative right are the reason the GOP lost the last election. They refused to back the agreed upon front-runner. They did not work for him after he was chosen and they refused to vote for him on election day. The conservative right complains that the left will not cooperate but it is equally true of them. Santorum attacked Romney so viciously that Rick couldn’t honestly overcome the visceral nature of his attacks. So, he and his followers and moneyed backers simply licked their wounds and went home sulking to come out and fight again this time. The same is true of Gingrich, Ron Paul, (not Rand) and of most other conservatives. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin never really backed the agreed upon candidate. Limbaugh eventually agreed that although Romney was not really a Limbaugh conservative (and therefore, not really conservative enough) nonetheless, Limbaugh agreed that Romney was the best Republicans had. It was a veiled rejection of Romney, I believe. Hannity, never really backed Romney until the very end, and then only with the same caveats as Limbaugh. Levin, the same. I guess, you need to believe, like Obama does, that you are the only person who is right and pure and righteous. I guess you need to believe that the 595 members elected to the Congress by the people are the enemy. And, like Obama, you can rule the nation with your selected ideas, subjecting the people to your imperial will. So, here we go again with various factions of the electorate rallying to their narrowly defined “preferred” candidates…all good, that is the American way….but if the Republicans agree to one of them at the convention and then the factions refuse to work for the candidate, refuse to donate and just go home, sulk and refuse to vote, then the Republicans will lose again.

The good news is that the Republican party is a society of thinkers, poets, progressives, moderates, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and many others. It is not a party of single minded thinking and locked in step obedience to the leader. The Republican party is a true reflection of the American people who are themselves a people with varying opinions, religions and political philosophies. The Republican party are fighters for their beliefs. This also is good news because we need people of conviction willing to wrestle for their positions in the public square of ideas. Sadly, this writer believes, that the Democrat party is of one mind. It is the mind that is defined by the leadership and to which all Democrats bow. The Democrat party is not reflective of the variety of positions within the populace. Oh yes, individual Democrats may personally believe this or that idea, or think that this or that method is better than the one officially endorsed by the party. But the Democrat will always support the official position of the party no matter their own personal beliefs. This locked in step obedience to the party is why Democrat Senators and Congress persons were willing to pass Obama- care without reading it. They were told by “you cannot know what is in the bill until you pass it…” Nancy Pelosi and “Dead on Arrival if it does not agree with me” Harry Reid…that they must vote yes. And all Democrats did as they were told to do. Obama and the Democrat party leadership said to jump and they responded, “how high and how fast?”. It didn’t matter if the Democrat person thought that Obama-care was good or bad. The only thing that mattered was the decision of the Democrat party leadership. That decision was to be obeyed without question.

Too bad for America that our people seem to think that absolute obedience to the Democrat party leaders is better than public debate, public wrestling and public disagreement. We are a people growing too willing to live in the cartoon world of Barney and Dora and the Disneyland of fairy tales without any difficult characters. Is that the result of the Disney iszation (I know it is not a word) of our society? Some say, we are becoming too soft minded, all messy inside our heads. Some say, that males are being tamed and “feminized” and that the wilderness character of people like Davey Crochett, Kit Carson, Abraham Lincoln, Lewis and Clarke is lost. In response, the tea party movement has tried to revive interest in our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison- seeing in them the successful nation that arose from their religious, philosophical and political struggles.

America today is facing an election for the House and Senate. Hopefully, there will be lively and vibrant debate. However, it must be a debate about ideas. The presentations must be cogent, coherent and convincing. The facts must be true and not created by “talking point” mentors who tell our politicians what to say to which group today, only to slightly modify it for the next group tomorrow. And there absolutely must be an end to name calling, stereotyping, and feigned co-opting which has been so readily apparent with Obama, who says that Republicans must cooperate with him because he wants to cooperate with them, but, the same day, he tells the crowds that the Republicans are recalcitrant, red necked, backward and obstructionist who are to be blamed for everything from the state of the economy to the state of the weather. (Did you notice how adroitly the Democrat party crafted the narrative that hurricane Katrina was the fault of the Republicans. Katrina was President Bush’s hurricane and by careful inference, they said that all of results of Katrina were his fault. And have you noticed that Mayor Nagin, the Democrat hero of Katrina, fled to Texas during the storm and is now under Louisiana and federal indictment for criminal activity before, during and after Katrina? Amazing, to this writer, that Nagin’s indictment is getting meager coverage by the major news media!!)

The run up to the 2014 election must reject the prevalent immorality of our Obama administration which evidently knew that Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack against our embassy with the intention of murdering our ambassador, yet went to the United Nations and blamed it on an amateur You Tube video. The 2014 election debates must refuse to accept the concept that our UN Ambassador must be promoted to the National Security Council because she obediently went on the Sunday Talk Shows and repeated the lie that the Obama Administration wanted all of us to believe. We must reject political advertising that portrays people like Congressman Ryan as pushing our wheel-chaired grandmothers over the cliff. And most certainly, we must reject the guilt be association that blames Hilary for President Clinton’s having oral sex with a young female White House intern. And we must also reject life style morality debates, especially over gay and lesbian and transgender issues. However, as least for this writer, I do think that the place of these issues in the public school curriculum and the methods and age appropriateness of what is taught about these issues,- I believe, these to be legitimate issues for research and high level discussion and debate. Yes, even political debate, although it is all too often not high level.

Finally, I’d like to make a simple statement about the race issue. It should be a non issue. As long as we keep it in the forefront as an issue, then racism continues. Do we see a yellow man or a man who’s ancestry is Asian? Do we see a black woman, or a woman who’s ancestry is black skinned. What is an African anyway? Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccan’s, Tunisians are Africans but they are not black. Is African a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? Is Africa a continent or a country? Is a Nigerian the same ethnicity as a Congolese? What is black, anyway? Is it a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? New Guinea aboriginals are black but they are not African. Many peoples in India are dark brown or even black skinned but they too are not Africans. I know Italian friends who get really dark skinned in the Summer. The race debate is meaningless and President Obama, who thinks that many American citizens reject him because he is black skinned, is not helping. I remember when the Cambridge Massachusetts police arrested a university professor. President Obama said openly that the white policeman acted wrongly. Obviously, our President saw it as a racial issue because he cast it as a white policeman acting wrongly against a black university professor. That was the start of racial division politics from then till now.

Ok, I think I have wandered a little in this blog. But at least it is out there for you to read, ponder and respond, if you care to engage.

There is a lot a stake in our nation. We are under going a national wrestling match which may result in a “pin” or a technical win. But to use another metaphor, it will not result in a knock out punch. Nor should it. Because a pin in wrestling is a win of strength that does not unduly hurt nor seek to destroy the opponent. A knock out is a knock out. ( Yes, I know this is not the best analogy. If you care for another share it.! I just hope you get the idea.) I think we need to wrestle with each other but we do not need a fist fight and definitely not a brawl.

Christie’s Political Enemies Continue Attacks

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201401/carl-lewis-chris-christie-new-jersey-politics

The writer states at the beginning that “…New Jersey politics is a full contact sport…” Yes, it is. No different from Obama politics with the buying of Senators to vote for Obama care. No different from Hilary Clinton and the Benghazi scandal. With Obama the nation is paying a huge price and forced to give up freedom of choice in healthcare. With Hilary four great Americans are abandoned in a firefight and die. And although this writer believes that it was not Christie personally who set up the traffic cones on a small access lane to a bridge, nonetheless, nobody died and its didn’t cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Come clean news writers, reporting is a blood sport and you think you can take Christie down so to clear the field for Hilary. Just another example of news media facilitating their favorites (Hilary)by destroying their rivals (Christie). PS..Hiliary will be 70 years old by 2016. I am 66 and I have had enough of the old politicos. Let’s move down to the forty and fifty years olds for our Presidents. Enough with the geriatric Harry Reids and the old Senate crew. Some of the elderly in the Senate are into their eighties!!! Pack it in boys, give somebody else a chance.

Rand Paul is Correct about the Today’s Rules for Speaking

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-seeks-dismiss-criticism-plagiarism-120740932.html

Senator Rand Paul is correct in asserting that speeches do not carry the same rules of attribution as written material. If speeches followed the same rules then the speaker would never get past the first sentences. Much of what is thought has also been thought by someone else. When written material such as books, journals and the like were the main sources of information, we were trained to cite the source title, date, place of publication and author or editors etc. However, in the age of cinema and Wikipedia, and Internet, the possibility is very high that someone somewhere has written the same thoughts as you have, (like I am doing now). If the item to be spoken is exactly literal, it may be a good idea to mention the person. But just because The Rev.Dr. Martin Luther King said, “I have a Dream” does not mean that no one can ever use those four words again. Although if the reference is to Rev. Dr. King and to the civil rights movement it may be a good idea to mention him and his speech. Yet, even here a case can be made for the use of allusion in speech whereby we evoke the image of the other person and their words while intentionally not mentioning them by name. This is a valid technique to tease the mind of the listener to make the needed connection. Rachel Maddox knows this. She is a college grad. She is a published writer. She is a public speaker. Her comments about Senator Paul should be taken in the context of her need for publicity and her need to attract audiences for her shows and her book. This is not to dismiss her questions or demean her objections but it is to place her comments in a wider and interesting context concerning the rules for writing and public speaking today.

Christians are Being Persecuted

http://visiontoamerica.com/16061/sen-paul-worldwide-war-on-christians-is-being-waged-by-a-fanatical-element-of-islam/

It amazes me that Senator Rand Paul is courageous enough to stand up and stand out attempting to stop persecution of Christians when the ELCA, the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod are silent. Maybe America based Lutherans don’t care about the welfare or fate of other Christians. The silence of the Churches further weakens their moral authority in an age where it is almost non existent anyway. However, Senator Rand Paul, who is unrecognized by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and March Levin, is a brave, honest and outstanding political leader who is not beholding to the talk show pundits. Seems, Rush, Sean and Marc prefer Ted Cruz to anyone else. Yet, it has been rand Paul who had led the fight for fairness in government. I believe it was Rand Paul who not only was an inspiration for Ted Cruz’ speech, but also an advisor, mentor and supporter. Yet not a word of recognition by the major conservative radio hosts. I guess, Senator Rand Paul does not EXACTLY fit their definition of Republican or conservative. And that is their downfall they define too narrowly the people with whom they are willing to work.