By Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
For a year now, protesters have been squatting on trees at UC-Berkeley's Memorial Stadium to protest plans to build a $125 million sports training center. When protesters fall from the trees and break their bones, as has happened at least twice, people laugh and liberals start to wonder if perhaps there is a god.
Over the years, activists have lodged many protests to fight severe injustices in the world, such as racial inequality and genocide. At times, I've disagreed with protesters -- on the Iraq war, for example -- but I at least had to respect their commitment to make a difference on a life-and-death issue.
In the case of the "People's Perch" -- as some are calling the year-long Bezerkley tree-squat -- never before has so much been done for a cause so trivial. The tree-sitters argue that in fighting to save some 100 trees, they are protecting "a healthy, functioning native oak ecosystem." One problem: The stadium property is not pristine wilderness. Most of those trees owe their existence to UC landscaping.
"People call us crazy monkey hippies," one tree-squatter told The San Francisco Chronicle's Carolyn Jones, "but this is the greatest thing I've ever done." Except the tree squatters have achieved nothing. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Barbara Miller issued an injunction that barred the university from felling the trees. The squatters could have walked away 11 months ago, and the trees would still be standing. It's lawyers, not aging adolescents swinging in the trees, who have kept UC chainsaws at bay.
While the tree squatters have called UC "arrogant" and allmighty, in fact, it is the oak activists who take the prize for arrogance and rule-breaking. A judge ruled that UC has to postpone the development project until she makes a final ruling, and UC complied. Judge Richard Keller issued an injunction in October barring protesters from living in the trees, with which they would not dream of complying. Activists trespass on university property, set up illegal homes, break fire rules by cooking with propane tanks in the treetops -- and they know they have little to fear from campus police, probably the most politically correct police force in the country.
Their cause is so ludicrous that a student newspaper editorial faulted a TV story on the tree-sitters' Thanksgiving among the branches for failing to mention "the police officers who had to miss Thanksgiving with their own families because they had to patrol the oak grove."
Frustrated alumni, donors and taxpayers have let UC administrators know they'd like to see campus police do more than dodge human feces, write feckless citations and escort injured protesters to the emergency room.
Have you thought about tear gas? I asked UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof. He answered that "certain tactics" that would fly in corporate America or other areas "simply don't mesh with the culture, character and traditions of this university."
And, "Eventually, this protest will end, but we have to bring it to an end in a matter that is consistent with our values and our very strong desire not to have anyone injured in the process."
The university finally has put up chain-link and barbed wire fences to isolate squatters from their supporters. At night, the university now shines floodlights into the trees. The tree-squatters have responded hysterically, charging that the university had turned the oak grove into Berkeley's "Guantanamo."
The People's Perch is a perfect example of the infantilization of the American Left's protest movement -- and I say this aware that many good liberals are appalled at this spectacle.
Like young children, the tree-sitters have no sense of proportion. They can leave at any time. They eat and mix with others as they will. The worst they have to fear is five days in jail. Yet they equate their plight with that of Gitmo inmates?
It's a Peter Pan protest. Activists go by kiddie names -- Running Wolf, Redwood Mary, Midnight Matt. And they have a child's sense of what is important. In a world darkened by genocide, starvation and ignorance, they see fit to champion the cause of landscaped trees, which, by the way, UC has offered to replace on a three-to-one basis.
In short, the tree-sitters have picked an unworthy cause. Given Judge Miller's injunction, their squatting is irrelevant. They could work to make the world a better place, but they've chosen to waste other people's time and money.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
More "Defeats" For George Bush
By Rich Galen
Monday, December 3, 2007
As we've discussed before, everything that happens, anywhere in the world is now being described a "a defeat for George Bush."
Two such "defeats for George Bush" came to light this past week - and I'm not even counting West Virginia's loss to Pittsburgh which helped vault LSU and Ohio State into the BCS title game in January.
First came the news that John Murtha (D-Pa) who has been mentor to, and ally of, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) had changed his mind on Iraq.
For years Murtha has been among the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq. According to Investor's Business Daily, Murtha said that President Bush's surge strategy was "delusional to say the least." "I'm absolutely convinced right now the surge isn't working," and "there's no way you're going to have success," he told ABC in June.
According to Politico.com in July, Murtha (who is also Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee) told CNN's Wolf Blitzer "As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better."
But, after visiting Iraq last month he said "in a videoconference from his congressional district office, 'I think the surge is working.'"
And what will Speaker Pelosi be swayed by this Murtha revelation? Again, according the Politico:
"This could be a real headache for us," said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Pelosi is going to be furious."
A senior aide publicly admits that the Speaker of the House is rooting for America to fail in Iraq and it goes virtually unnoticed by the media (or, for that matter, by any of the Candidates for President).
The Murtha Conversion: Obviously, a defeat for George Bush.
The second defeat for the US President came just last night when it was reported by, amongst others, CNN:
"Venezuelan voters narrowly rejected a constitutional referendum that would have bolstered President Hugo Chavez's embrace of socialism and granted an indefinite extension of his eligibility to serve as president."
Venezuelan voters, according to the LA Times, "defeated a package of constitutional reforms that could have indefinitely extended President Hugo Chavez's grip on power here. It was a shocking electoral loss for the strongman, his first in nine years at the helm."
This is the guy, you remember, who called President Bush "the Devil" during a formal speech at the United Nations and is an avowed Socialist.
According to the LA Times,
"Even Venezuelans living below the poverty line -- the bedrock of Chavez's power base -- have grown increasingly skeptical about the reforms and disenchanted with Chavez."
It seems that even with all the oil revenue from Citgo, which the Voice of America calls "the American arm of Venezuela's state-owned oil company," the poorest in places like Caracas are being shortchanged.
Again, from the LAT:
"Ill feeling was being driven by higher prices and scarcities of basic foods, including milk, chicken and beans. Last week, people waited three hours in lines to purchase staples at some government-run grocery stores."
Anyone who visited an Eastern Bloc country before the fall of Communism will tell you the same story of people standing in long lines outside of a shop in Sofia, Bulgaria because a rumor had spread that butter, or milk, or toilet paper was being delivered that day.
Or walking into a pharmacy in Bucharest where there were two shopkeepers but only one item on the shelves. Not 273 copies of the same item … One item. Period.
Socialism is failing in Venezuela in the 21st Century just as it did in Eastern Europe in the 20th.
If this isn't a "defeat for George Bush," I don't know what is.
Monday, December 3, 2007
As we've discussed before, everything that happens, anywhere in the world is now being described a "a defeat for George Bush."
Two such "defeats for George Bush" came to light this past week - and I'm not even counting West Virginia's loss to Pittsburgh which helped vault LSU and Ohio State into the BCS title game in January.
First came the news that John Murtha (D-Pa) who has been mentor to, and ally of, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) had changed his mind on Iraq.
For years Murtha has been among the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq. According to Investor's Business Daily, Murtha said that President Bush's surge strategy was "delusional to say the least." "I'm absolutely convinced right now the surge isn't working," and "there's no way you're going to have success," he told ABC in June.
According to Politico.com in July, Murtha (who is also Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee) told CNN's Wolf Blitzer "As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better."
But, after visiting Iraq last month he said "in a videoconference from his congressional district office, 'I think the surge is working.'"
And what will Speaker Pelosi be swayed by this Murtha revelation? Again, according the Politico:
"This could be a real headache for us," said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Pelosi is going to be furious."
A senior aide publicly admits that the Speaker of the House is rooting for America to fail in Iraq and it goes virtually unnoticed by the media (or, for that matter, by any of the Candidates for President).
The Murtha Conversion: Obviously, a defeat for George Bush.
The second defeat for the US President came just last night when it was reported by, amongst others, CNN:
"Venezuelan voters narrowly rejected a constitutional referendum that would have bolstered President Hugo Chavez's embrace of socialism and granted an indefinite extension of his eligibility to serve as president."
Venezuelan voters, according to the LA Times, "defeated a package of constitutional reforms that could have indefinitely extended President Hugo Chavez's grip on power here. It was a shocking electoral loss for the strongman, his first in nine years at the helm."
This is the guy, you remember, who called President Bush "the Devil" during a formal speech at the United Nations and is an avowed Socialist.
According to the LA Times,
"Even Venezuelans living below the poverty line -- the bedrock of Chavez's power base -- have grown increasingly skeptical about the reforms and disenchanted with Chavez."
It seems that even with all the oil revenue from Citgo, which the Voice of America calls "the American arm of Venezuela's state-owned oil company," the poorest in places like Caracas are being shortchanged.
Again, from the LAT:
"Ill feeling was being driven by higher prices and scarcities of basic foods, including milk, chicken and beans. Last week, people waited three hours in lines to purchase staples at some government-run grocery stores."
Anyone who visited an Eastern Bloc country before the fall of Communism will tell you the same story of people standing in long lines outside of a shop in Sofia, Bulgaria because a rumor had spread that butter, or milk, or toilet paper was being delivered that day.
Or walking into a pharmacy in Bucharest where there were two shopkeepers but only one item on the shelves. Not 273 copies of the same item … One item. Period.
Socialism is failing in Venezuela in the 21st Century just as it did in Eastern Europe in the 20th.
If this isn't a "defeat for George Bush," I don't know what is.
We Are Americans
By Douglas MacKinnon
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Presidential scholars may look back at New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's desire to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens as one of the defining moments of the 2008 election. For it was the pushing of that issue that not only threw the Clinton campaign off its tightly controlled script, but may have finally awakened the silent majority of American voters to the issue of their time.
Americans, by and large, are a fair and forgiving people. But over the last couple of years, some on the left, and some who favor amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, have exhausted that well of fairness and forgiveness with a steady stream of invective and ugly accusations aimed at those with whom they disagree.
If you are a U.S. citizen who believes in sovereign borders, believes in the rule of law, worries about terrorists coming across our southern and northern flanks, does not want his or her city to become a "sanctuary" city and therefore a magnet for illegal aliens, and does not want U.S. employers exploiting illegal aliens while denying jobs to Americans near or below the poverty line, you are often times categorized as a "racist and a xenophobe."
While the pandering and tortured answers of Spitzer and Clinton clearly raised the profile of illegal immigration, the name-calling has not gone unnoticed by millions of good and decent people who have done nothing more than express the view that the laws of their nation should be observed, respected and enforced.
I have written on this subject in the past, and for my efforts, I've been labeled "anti-Hispanic," "anti-Mexican," and a "bigot." Had those bloggers and emailers known I am married to a Hispanic-American, speak Spanish and have written columns outlining how our nation has been strengthened and improved because of legal Hispanic immigration, I'm quite sure some of them still would have made the same accusations. For those on the fringes of the left and the right, the politics of personal destruction trumps the truth, common sense and decency. Sadly, the subject of illegal immigration has become the place where the haters intersect.
An example of all that is wrong with this critically important issue was played out on the Nov. 8 segment of the Glenn Beck program on CNN. Beck's guests were Webb County, Texas, Sheriff Rick Flores and Democratic U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar from the 28th Congressional District of Texas.
During the course of the conversation among the three, Beck said to Cuellar, "Please tell me you're not for sending $1.4 billion (of U.S. taxpayer money) down to Mexico and give them surveillance technology so they can listen in. Are you telling me we really trust these people?"
Cuellar responded, "(Mexico's) President Calderon has taken some very brave and very bold steps to fight this — we've got to keep in mind that it's our own self-interest to help them."
To which Sheriff Flores, whose life has been threatened by the Zetas and other drug cartels, said, "Well, instead of investing money in Mexico, they (our Congress) should start investing money on the U.S. side — where we need financial assistance to be able to upgrade our departments and hire additional people to put additional boots on the ground." Later in the discussion the sheriff went on to say, "I want to ask the congressman (Cuellar), who is he representing? President Calderon or his district here in Laredo, Texas, where we haven't received any resources at the local level to be able to combat the problems on the border?"
At that point, instead of taking the high road, the congressman decided to condescendingly put the sheriff in his place. "Well, first of all, let me say this, Mr. Sheriff, what we're looking at is you have got more money than you've ever gotten in the past, and we've got to keep in mind that the border will be patrolled by the Border Patrol and by the federal agencies. We will work with the local law enforcement — but your job is to be a county sheriff, not a U.S. congressman, which is a big difference. My job is to look at the big picture. Your job is to look at the smaller picture."
Flores shot back, "I'd like to find out how much money has a congressman allocated to our county. How much money have you allocated for border security for Webb County or from the counties from Brownsville all the way to California? ... Nothing."
Beck then wrapped up that part of the debate by saying, "I have to tell you Congressman, shame on you for that response. That was the most belittling response I have ever heard. Shame on you."
Shame indeed. Border security and immigration have now been catapulted to the top of the issues list for tens of millions of American voters. False charges and character assassination are not going to compromise their principles.
We are either a nation of laws and borders or we are a dream that was. Time will quickly tell.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Presidential scholars may look back at New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's desire to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens as one of the defining moments of the 2008 election. For it was the pushing of that issue that not only threw the Clinton campaign off its tightly controlled script, but may have finally awakened the silent majority of American voters to the issue of their time.
Americans, by and large, are a fair and forgiving people. But over the last couple of years, some on the left, and some who favor amnesty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, have exhausted that well of fairness and forgiveness with a steady stream of invective and ugly accusations aimed at those with whom they disagree.
If you are a U.S. citizen who believes in sovereign borders, believes in the rule of law, worries about terrorists coming across our southern and northern flanks, does not want his or her city to become a "sanctuary" city and therefore a magnet for illegal aliens, and does not want U.S. employers exploiting illegal aliens while denying jobs to Americans near or below the poverty line, you are often times categorized as a "racist and a xenophobe."
While the pandering and tortured answers of Spitzer and Clinton clearly raised the profile of illegal immigration, the name-calling has not gone unnoticed by millions of good and decent people who have done nothing more than express the view that the laws of their nation should be observed, respected and enforced.
I have written on this subject in the past, and for my efforts, I've been labeled "anti-Hispanic," "anti-Mexican," and a "bigot." Had those bloggers and emailers known I am married to a Hispanic-American, speak Spanish and have written columns outlining how our nation has been strengthened and improved because of legal Hispanic immigration, I'm quite sure some of them still would have made the same accusations. For those on the fringes of the left and the right, the politics of personal destruction trumps the truth, common sense and decency. Sadly, the subject of illegal immigration has become the place where the haters intersect.
An example of all that is wrong with this critically important issue was played out on the Nov. 8 segment of the Glenn Beck program on CNN. Beck's guests were Webb County, Texas, Sheriff Rick Flores and Democratic U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar from the 28th Congressional District of Texas.
During the course of the conversation among the three, Beck said to Cuellar, "Please tell me you're not for sending $1.4 billion (of U.S. taxpayer money) down to Mexico and give them surveillance technology so they can listen in. Are you telling me we really trust these people?"
Cuellar responded, "(Mexico's) President Calderon has taken some very brave and very bold steps to fight this — we've got to keep in mind that it's our own self-interest to help them."
To which Sheriff Flores, whose life has been threatened by the Zetas and other drug cartels, said, "Well, instead of investing money in Mexico, they (our Congress) should start investing money on the U.S. side — where we need financial assistance to be able to upgrade our departments and hire additional people to put additional boots on the ground." Later in the discussion the sheriff went on to say, "I want to ask the congressman (Cuellar), who is he representing? President Calderon or his district here in Laredo, Texas, where we haven't received any resources at the local level to be able to combat the problems on the border?"
At that point, instead of taking the high road, the congressman decided to condescendingly put the sheriff in his place. "Well, first of all, let me say this, Mr. Sheriff, what we're looking at is you have got more money than you've ever gotten in the past, and we've got to keep in mind that the border will be patrolled by the Border Patrol and by the federal agencies. We will work with the local law enforcement — but your job is to be a county sheriff, not a U.S. congressman, which is a big difference. My job is to look at the big picture. Your job is to look at the smaller picture."
Flores shot back, "I'd like to find out how much money has a congressman allocated to our county. How much money have you allocated for border security for Webb County or from the counties from Brownsville all the way to California? ... Nothing."
Beck then wrapped up that part of the debate by saying, "I have to tell you Congressman, shame on you for that response. That was the most belittling response I have ever heard. Shame on you."
Shame indeed. Border security and immigration have now been catapulted to the top of the issues list for tens of millions of American voters. False charges and character assassination are not going to compromise their principles.
We are either a nation of laws and borders or we are a dream that was. Time will quickly tell.
Liberal Media is Hillary’s Secret Weapon
By Amanda Carpenter
Monday, December 3, 2007
Hillary’s Clinton’s secret weapon to win the 2008 election isn’t her former president husband.
It’s the liberal media, according to L. Brent Bozell, III, president of the Media Research Center.
Bozell and Tim Graham, MRC’s director of media analysis, document how Clinton enjoys “unprecedented media favoritism” in their new book Whitewash. Bozell and Graham say the “establishment” media makes no secret of actively supporting Clinton’s political ambitions with favorable articles, interviews and news reports.
Townhall spoke with Bozell about his book over the phone last week. Here is the edited transcript of the interview:
In the book you start right away by talking about the Lewinsky affair-
When people think of Clinton scandals that is the most prominent one, but as we point out in the book, it is my belief others are much more serious than that. I believe it is far more serious they were holding the FBI files of 400 Republicans. And as any other scandals involving the Clintons, the media has refused to try to get to the bottom of any of them. They’ve left them all alone.
What new information have you turned up?
Hillary Clinton flat-out lied in her book and the media never called her on it. Probably the most quoted passage in her book dealt with how she was gasping for air, et cetera and et cetera on August 15, 1998 when she heard about Monica Lewinsky. That’s a flat-out lie. Why do we know that’s a flat-out lie? Never mind the fact that’s she’s a woman, back in her Arkansas days, who hired detectives to follow her husband. She knew more about her husband’s philandering than anyone in America, other than her husband. Put all that aside. Look at the date, August 15, 1998. That’s two weeks after the July 29th date. Why was that date important? That’s the date we learned about the blue-stained dress. So, therefore, Hillary would like us to believe that she didn’t know what all of America knew, two weeks after all of America knew it. And she dictated this, actually dictated this passage in her book. Why would she do that? Because this is the same Hillary Clinton who went on national television accusing a vast-right wing conspiracy of having come up with this story about Monica Lewinsky. She tried to blame conservatives for it. So now she had to act the victim. That she had just learned and had no idea. It is documented that it is untrue.
Even though she says things like this, people believe she’s a moderate. Why do you think the media labels her as a moderate? How does she pull that?
This gets to the heart of the matter. The media are packaging her the way she wants to be packaged. She wants to be a moderate because it advances her presidential aspirations. All you have to do is look it up. How hard is this to do? It would take a reporter about five nanoseconds. When you’ve got an “F” from the National Taxpayers Union, a zero from the National Tax Limitations committee, an eight from Citizens Against Government Waste, a twelve from the American Conservative Union, an “F” from the Gun Owners of America, how are you moderate? When you’ve got a 95 from the ADA, when you’ve got a 100 from the Brady campaign against guns, a 93 from the AFL-CIO, a 100 from the State and County Municipal Employees, that doesn’t make you a moderate! You know what it makes you? It makes you someone who had a voting record almost identical to Ted Kennedy’s, but you look at that and the media says “that’s a moderate.” So they are either lying, or it shows you unequivocally, how far to the left they really are if they consider that a moderate position. It can’t be anything else, Amanda!
Let’s talk about the debates. Do you think Tim Russert did a good job? Who do you think of the moderators are giving her the fairest shake?
I don’t know that anyone is doing a good job because no one is talking about substance. Diamonds or pearls? Boxers or briefs? Here we go again. The networks are doing a great disservice to the public when they will not focus on the issues, and the formats of these debates are silly with the one minute answers. Hillary Clinton is a genius at speaking for an entire minute without saying anything. She’s very, very good at this. No one ever pins them down. To me, it’s not the question that’s important, it’s the follow-up question. Go back to her pink dress press conference when the media just had a unanimous orgasm over her that night in the news about the wonderful performance that she put on, and it was just that: a performance. She didn’t answer any questions, but the incredible thing was if you go back and look at it, whenever she gave a non-answer to a question, no one ever challenged her on it.
This is, allegedly, the most brilliant woman on the face of the earth unless she has to answer a question. She says, “I don’t know how the Rose Law Firm records got into my bedroom. I don’t know how those FBI files ended up in the White House. I don’t know who hired the guy I hired.” And then they accept it!
So why is that? Does it have anything to do with the fact that she’s a woman and they don’t know what to do with her?
I don’t know that. I don’t know that it is a negative gender situation; I think it is positive gender situation. I don’t think they treat her with kid gloves because she’s a woman. That was never the case with Marilyn Quayle. It never applied to Jean Kirkpatrick. That doesn’t apply to Laura Ingraham, or Ann Coulter, or you. It doesn’t apply to conservative women ever. So that’s not the issue. I think it’s exactly the opposite. It’s because they are so supportive of her. They don’t want to ask her tough questions.
There is just a gaggle of pom-pom queens from the network that Hillary can turn to and does turn to every time she has a problem and they just run interference for her.
One of the themes we found in the book is that every time someone raises a criticism of her, that person is put on trial for the audacity of bringing it up. Look at the way they’ve handled books about her. She dismissed it all as old news, but when she wrote her book, giving her side of the story, every red carpet in town came out for her.
Who do you think gives Hillary the most softball questions, who is the worst interviewer? Is there one?
I would say the worst one because she is so pathetic is Maria Shriver, but quantitatively probably Katie Couric. If you go through the book and read some of the transcripts of he interviews you see it is embarrassing, just embarrassing that this woman was hired as a “reporter.”
But don’t you think these reporters come into it with the attitude that if we’re not nice to Hillary we won’t get interviews with her? How does this access angle play into it?
We know that is an absolute fact of life. We just saw it again last month with the GQ article on Bill Clinton that was killed because word came down if they ever wanted access to them they needed to kill that article that had critical things to say. So, they killed it. If a conservative or a Republican tried that that person would have hell to pay, but that’s a fact of life. It’s an intimidation factor.
As she gets closer to the presidency the press might be more willing to go after her because just because she’s in power. Is she getting as taste of that now?
She’s getting a taste of it, Amanda, but it’s been manically blown out of proportion. The “taste” that she’s getting is NOTHING compared to the “taste” Cheney gets every day. The reason it stands out is because she’s gotten no taste of it. Isn’t it interesting when a reporter with the audacity to ask her a single question of substance that reporter is vilified. Look at what happened to Tim Russert when he asked her about the driver’s licenses for illegals. He was vilified for this. Now, go to the book and you’ll find that is exactly what happened to the very same Tim Russert when he asked her in 2000 why she wouldn’t apologize to conservatives for the slanderous “vast-right wing conspiracy” accusation?
The way the media has fawned over her had led to the development of alternative media, like what you’re doing and Townhall and others. Has this helped the conservative movement?
I’ve said this many times and I will say it again. God help this country if there weren’t an alternative media at this point. God help this country if there wasn’t talk radio and the internet because what you would be getting is nothing more than the press releases of the left.
But the establishment media has become radicalized because of the new media. They are far more aggressive in promoting a left-wing agenda in this country. Witness their coverage of the war. And, if it weren’t for the alternative media the country wouldn’t know anything about Hillary Clinton other than what her press releases say.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Hillary’s Clinton’s secret weapon to win the 2008 election isn’t her former president husband.
It’s the liberal media, according to L. Brent Bozell, III, president of the Media Research Center.
Bozell and Tim Graham, MRC’s director of media analysis, document how Clinton enjoys “unprecedented media favoritism” in their new book Whitewash. Bozell and Graham say the “establishment” media makes no secret of actively supporting Clinton’s political ambitions with favorable articles, interviews and news reports.
Townhall spoke with Bozell about his book over the phone last week. Here is the edited transcript of the interview:
In the book you start right away by talking about the Lewinsky affair-
When people think of Clinton scandals that is the most prominent one, but as we point out in the book, it is my belief others are much more serious than that. I believe it is far more serious they were holding the FBI files of 400 Republicans. And as any other scandals involving the Clintons, the media has refused to try to get to the bottom of any of them. They’ve left them all alone.
What new information have you turned up?
Hillary Clinton flat-out lied in her book and the media never called her on it. Probably the most quoted passage in her book dealt with how she was gasping for air, et cetera and et cetera on August 15, 1998 when she heard about Monica Lewinsky. That’s a flat-out lie. Why do we know that’s a flat-out lie? Never mind the fact that’s she’s a woman, back in her Arkansas days, who hired detectives to follow her husband. She knew more about her husband’s philandering than anyone in America, other than her husband. Put all that aside. Look at the date, August 15, 1998. That’s two weeks after the July 29th date. Why was that date important? That’s the date we learned about the blue-stained dress. So, therefore, Hillary would like us to believe that she didn’t know what all of America knew, two weeks after all of America knew it. And she dictated this, actually dictated this passage in her book. Why would she do that? Because this is the same Hillary Clinton who went on national television accusing a vast-right wing conspiracy of having come up with this story about Monica Lewinsky. She tried to blame conservatives for it. So now she had to act the victim. That she had just learned and had no idea. It is documented that it is untrue.
Even though she says things like this, people believe she’s a moderate. Why do you think the media labels her as a moderate? How does she pull that?
This gets to the heart of the matter. The media are packaging her the way she wants to be packaged. She wants to be a moderate because it advances her presidential aspirations. All you have to do is look it up. How hard is this to do? It would take a reporter about five nanoseconds. When you’ve got an “F” from the National Taxpayers Union, a zero from the National Tax Limitations committee, an eight from Citizens Against Government Waste, a twelve from the American Conservative Union, an “F” from the Gun Owners of America, how are you moderate? When you’ve got a 95 from the ADA, when you’ve got a 100 from the Brady campaign against guns, a 93 from the AFL-CIO, a 100 from the State and County Municipal Employees, that doesn’t make you a moderate! You know what it makes you? It makes you someone who had a voting record almost identical to Ted Kennedy’s, but you look at that and the media says “that’s a moderate.” So they are either lying, or it shows you unequivocally, how far to the left they really are if they consider that a moderate position. It can’t be anything else, Amanda!
Let’s talk about the debates. Do you think Tim Russert did a good job? Who do you think of the moderators are giving her the fairest shake?
I don’t know that anyone is doing a good job because no one is talking about substance. Diamonds or pearls? Boxers or briefs? Here we go again. The networks are doing a great disservice to the public when they will not focus on the issues, and the formats of these debates are silly with the one minute answers. Hillary Clinton is a genius at speaking for an entire minute without saying anything. She’s very, very good at this. No one ever pins them down. To me, it’s not the question that’s important, it’s the follow-up question. Go back to her pink dress press conference when the media just had a unanimous orgasm over her that night in the news about the wonderful performance that she put on, and it was just that: a performance. She didn’t answer any questions, but the incredible thing was if you go back and look at it, whenever she gave a non-answer to a question, no one ever challenged her on it.
This is, allegedly, the most brilliant woman on the face of the earth unless she has to answer a question. She says, “I don’t know how the Rose Law Firm records got into my bedroom. I don’t know how those FBI files ended up in the White House. I don’t know who hired the guy I hired.” And then they accept it!
So why is that? Does it have anything to do with the fact that she’s a woman and they don’t know what to do with her?
I don’t know that. I don’t know that it is a negative gender situation; I think it is positive gender situation. I don’t think they treat her with kid gloves because she’s a woman. That was never the case with Marilyn Quayle. It never applied to Jean Kirkpatrick. That doesn’t apply to Laura Ingraham, or Ann Coulter, or you. It doesn’t apply to conservative women ever. So that’s not the issue. I think it’s exactly the opposite. It’s because they are so supportive of her. They don’t want to ask her tough questions.
There is just a gaggle of pom-pom queens from the network that Hillary can turn to and does turn to every time she has a problem and they just run interference for her.
One of the themes we found in the book is that every time someone raises a criticism of her, that person is put on trial for the audacity of bringing it up. Look at the way they’ve handled books about her. She dismissed it all as old news, but when she wrote her book, giving her side of the story, every red carpet in town came out for her.
Who do you think gives Hillary the most softball questions, who is the worst interviewer? Is there one?
I would say the worst one because she is so pathetic is Maria Shriver, but quantitatively probably Katie Couric. If you go through the book and read some of the transcripts of he interviews you see it is embarrassing, just embarrassing that this woman was hired as a “reporter.”
But don’t you think these reporters come into it with the attitude that if we’re not nice to Hillary we won’t get interviews with her? How does this access angle play into it?
We know that is an absolute fact of life. We just saw it again last month with the GQ article on Bill Clinton that was killed because word came down if they ever wanted access to them they needed to kill that article that had critical things to say. So, they killed it. If a conservative or a Republican tried that that person would have hell to pay, but that’s a fact of life. It’s an intimidation factor.
As she gets closer to the presidency the press might be more willing to go after her because just because she’s in power. Is she getting as taste of that now?
She’s getting a taste of it, Amanda, but it’s been manically blown out of proportion. The “taste” that she’s getting is NOTHING compared to the “taste” Cheney gets every day. The reason it stands out is because she’s gotten no taste of it. Isn’t it interesting when a reporter with the audacity to ask her a single question of substance that reporter is vilified. Look at what happened to Tim Russert when he asked her about the driver’s licenses for illegals. He was vilified for this. Now, go to the book and you’ll find that is exactly what happened to the very same Tim Russert when he asked her in 2000 why she wouldn’t apologize to conservatives for the slanderous “vast-right wing conspiracy” accusation?
The way the media has fawned over her had led to the development of alternative media, like what you’re doing and Townhall and others. Has this helped the conservative movement?
I’ve said this many times and I will say it again. God help this country if there weren’t an alternative media at this point. God help this country if there wasn’t talk radio and the internet because what you would be getting is nothing more than the press releases of the left.
But the establishment media has become radicalized because of the new media. They are far more aggressive in promoting a left-wing agenda in this country. Witness their coverage of the war. And, if it weren’t for the alternative media the country wouldn’t know anything about Hillary Clinton other than what her press releases say.
Chavez's Electoral Coup
The dictator may have overplayed his hand.
Wall Street Journal
Sunday, December 2, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Political coups don't always wear khaki. Sometimes they take the form of populist politicians who use "democracy" to consolidate their power. That's the case in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chávez is promoting a national referendum today that would give him vast new authority. If he gets away with it, we hope his many American enablers will acknowledge their contribution.
Voters are being asked to approve 69 "reforms" that amount to an overhaul of the country's constitution. Mr. Chávez has promoted the vote, despite the view of many constitutional scholars--some of whom are his former allies--that these amendments require the election of a constitutional assembly. No matter. The president announced the referendum and had his rubber-stamp Congress approve it.
This is ironic, since Mr. Chávez all but wrote the 1999 constitution himself. But he has tired of its checks and balances, especially its decentralized power. He now wants to restore more authority to his central government. Communal councils will rule locally, but their members will not be elected; they will be appointed by the Chávez government. His name for this is "participatory democracy," which he prefers over the "representative" kind.
A "yes" vote will give the executive control over central bank reserves. To promote his "productive economic model," Mr. Chávez is also modifying private property rights. The new standard of ownership will be "mixed properties held between the State, the private sector and the communal power, so as to create the best conditions for the collective and cooperative construction of a Socialist Economy."
The state will have the right to occupy any private property that it plans to expropriate in advance of any judicial review. Any property deemed by the state to be nonproductive could be transferred to "public corporations, cooperatives, communities or social organizations." Perhaps you thought this sort of thing went out of style about 1989. But Mr. Chávez believes socialism didn't fail; it just wasn't tried with enough gusto.
Moving right along, the reforms would give Mr. Chávez the right to be re-elected indefinitely, and he will be able to name multiple vice-presidents to govern with the communal councils. The President will gain new powers to suspend due process during emergencies, and the legislature will lose its role in determining how long those emergencies last. To make all this go down with voters, Mr. Chávez has included in the referendum a 36-hour work week, a reduction in the voting age to 16, and more generous welfare benefits.
Mr. Chávez wouldn't be close to pulling this off if he hadn't already used his nine years in power to neuter Venezuela's independent political institutions. To gain control of the Supreme Court, Mr. Chávez increased the number of justices to 32 from 20. Then he fired the National Electoral Council (CNE) and named his own version, which presided over a crooked and non-transparent August 2004 recall referendum.
Former President Jimmy Carter nonetheless blessed that fraud, and the Bush State Department went along too. For their part, Venezuelans have so little faith in an honest vote that they boycotted the 2005 legislative elections; chavista candidates won 100% of the seats.
In 2002 Mr. Chávez also purged the military after it refused to fire on protestors and briefly removed him from power. In that event, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd rushed to support Mr. Chávez while ignoring the pleas of labor unions, human rights activists and religious leaders that he was abusing his power. Another enthusiastic supporter is Joseph P. Kennedy II, who in exchange for discounts on Venezuelan oil has been promoting the president as a benefactor to America's poor.
Despite this help from abroad, Mr. Chávez's popularity at home has been dropping sharply as Venezuelans rebel against this electoral putsch. Students have been pushing back hard against limits on free speech, and even former ally General Raul Baduel has called the referendum a "coup against democracy" and joined the opposition.
Polls show most Venezuelans are also opposed, but a genuinely fair vote may be impossible. The President's electoral council controls the voter rolls, the voting machines and the ultimate count. Yet whatever today's outcome, the real story of this referendum is that Mr. Chávez's days as a Venezuelan hero are over. His grab for power is so blatant that it has aroused a passive public, as shown by the huge and peaceful "no" rally in Caracas on Thursday. Maybe his American friends will even figure it out.
Wall Street Journal
Sunday, December 2, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Political coups don't always wear khaki. Sometimes they take the form of populist politicians who use "democracy" to consolidate their power. That's the case in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chávez is promoting a national referendum today that would give him vast new authority. If he gets away with it, we hope his many American enablers will acknowledge their contribution.
Voters are being asked to approve 69 "reforms" that amount to an overhaul of the country's constitution. Mr. Chávez has promoted the vote, despite the view of many constitutional scholars--some of whom are his former allies--that these amendments require the election of a constitutional assembly. No matter. The president announced the referendum and had his rubber-stamp Congress approve it.
This is ironic, since Mr. Chávez all but wrote the 1999 constitution himself. But he has tired of its checks and balances, especially its decentralized power. He now wants to restore more authority to his central government. Communal councils will rule locally, but their members will not be elected; they will be appointed by the Chávez government. His name for this is "participatory democracy," which he prefers over the "representative" kind.
A "yes" vote will give the executive control over central bank reserves. To promote his "productive economic model," Mr. Chávez is also modifying private property rights. The new standard of ownership will be "mixed properties held between the State, the private sector and the communal power, so as to create the best conditions for the collective and cooperative construction of a Socialist Economy."
The state will have the right to occupy any private property that it plans to expropriate in advance of any judicial review. Any property deemed by the state to be nonproductive could be transferred to "public corporations, cooperatives, communities or social organizations." Perhaps you thought this sort of thing went out of style about 1989. But Mr. Chávez believes socialism didn't fail; it just wasn't tried with enough gusto.
Moving right along, the reforms would give Mr. Chávez the right to be re-elected indefinitely, and he will be able to name multiple vice-presidents to govern with the communal councils. The President will gain new powers to suspend due process during emergencies, and the legislature will lose its role in determining how long those emergencies last. To make all this go down with voters, Mr. Chávez has included in the referendum a 36-hour work week, a reduction in the voting age to 16, and more generous welfare benefits.
Mr. Chávez wouldn't be close to pulling this off if he hadn't already used his nine years in power to neuter Venezuela's independent political institutions. To gain control of the Supreme Court, Mr. Chávez increased the number of justices to 32 from 20. Then he fired the National Electoral Council (CNE) and named his own version, which presided over a crooked and non-transparent August 2004 recall referendum.
Former President Jimmy Carter nonetheless blessed that fraud, and the Bush State Department went along too. For their part, Venezuelans have so little faith in an honest vote that they boycotted the 2005 legislative elections; chavista candidates won 100% of the seats.
In 2002 Mr. Chávez also purged the military after it refused to fire on protestors and briefly removed him from power. In that event, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd rushed to support Mr. Chávez while ignoring the pleas of labor unions, human rights activists and religious leaders that he was abusing his power. Another enthusiastic supporter is Joseph P. Kennedy II, who in exchange for discounts on Venezuelan oil has been promoting the president as a benefactor to America's poor.
Despite this help from abroad, Mr. Chávez's popularity at home has been dropping sharply as Venezuelans rebel against this electoral putsch. Students have been pushing back hard against limits on free speech, and even former ally General Raul Baduel has called the referendum a "coup against democracy" and joined the opposition.
Polls show most Venezuelans are also opposed, but a genuinely fair vote may be impossible. The President's electoral council controls the voter rolls, the voting machines and the ultimate count. Yet whatever today's outcome, the real story of this referendum is that Mr. Chávez's days as a Venezuelan hero are over. His grab for power is so blatant that it has aroused a passive public, as shown by the huge and peaceful "no" rally in Caracas on Thursday. Maybe his American friends will even figure it out.
Democrats Make a Bad Trade
By Steve Chapman
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Democrats yearn for the bounteous days of Bill Clinton's presidency, when the economy was flourishing, there were good jobs at good wages, and poverty was on the wane. So it's a puzzle that on one of his signature achievements -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the party's presidential candidates are sprinting away from his record as fast as they can. It's as though Republicans were calling for defense cuts while invoking Ronald Reagan.
Even Hillary Clinton can't bring herself to defend the deal her husband pushed through. Asked during a recent debate if she thought it was a mistake, she did everything but deny she'd ever met the man.
"All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts," she chortled, in possibly the least believable statement of the 2008 campaign. "That, sort of, is a vague memory." In the end, though, Clinton declared that "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."
She has plenty of company. Barack Obama is on record as saying he "would not have supported the North American Free Trade Agreement as it was drafted." John Edwards has flogged the treaty like a rented mule, calling it "a complete and total disaster." And Dennis Kucinich thinks all copies of NAFTA should be humanely shredded and used as compost on shade-grown fair trade coffee, or something like that.
What did NAFTA ever do to deserve this abuse? Critics claim it destroyed a million jobs -- forgetting that its implementation coincided with the longest peacetime expansion in American history. During that period, the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since the Vietnan War. If that was a disaster, I'm Hannah Montana.
Ordinary workers, contrary to myth, benefited from NAFTA. In the decade before it took effect, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) fell by 5 percent. In the decade after, they rose by 10 percent.
Even supposing the deal did eliminate a million jobs, that actually doesn't amount to much. Every year, millions of jobs vanish and millions materialize, as old companies cut back or close and new ones sprout. What counts is net growth, and since 1994, the total number of jobs in this country has risen by 26 million.
Candidates blame NAFTA for pushing American companies to close plants here and move production south. But from 1994 through 2001, reports the Cato Institute, U.S. manufacturers invested $200 billion a year at home -- and only $2.2 billion a year in Mexico. After NAFTA passed, U.S. manufacturing output soared, and it's now at the highest level ever. American farmers have seen their exports boom.
From listening to the Democrats, you'd never guess that our exporters got more out of the deal than Mexico's did. NAFTA actually made it easier for U.S. companies to stay here and sell products in Mexico. How? By phasing out tariffs on goods shipped there -- which, on average, were 2.5 times higher than ours. We gave nickels to get dimes.
Edwards and Co. hold fast to the superstition that tariffs and other trade barriers are essential to our prosperity. Reality is that admitting imports makes Americans more prosperous by reducing prices of consumer and capital goods. It also strengthens American companies by forcing them to be more efficient and innovative.
So why do so many people, including approximately 100 percent of those who turn up at Democratic debates, hold this and other trade agreements in such contempt? One obvious reason is they want to appeal to labor unions, which generally prefer protectionism.
But Gary Hufbauer, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, suspects one reason lies in a different issue: illegal immigration. Some NAFTA supporters thought it might generate enough growth in Mexico to keep Mexican workers at home. When the tide of illegal immigrants grew, it bred resentment here.
That reaction partly helps to explain the Democratic retreat. By denouncing NAFTA, the presidential candidates can appeal to Americans alarmed about our porous borders without offending Hispanic voters.
But they should remember two crucial things: Bill Clinton presided over an era of enviable prosperity, and he did more to expand free trade than any president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. If they want to get back to the land of Oz, Democrats would be advised to follow the same Yellow Brick Road.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Democrats yearn for the bounteous days of Bill Clinton's presidency, when the economy was flourishing, there were good jobs at good wages, and poverty was on the wane. So it's a puzzle that on one of his signature achievements -- the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the party's presidential candidates are sprinting away from his record as fast as they can. It's as though Republicans were calling for defense cuts while invoking Ronald Reagan.
Even Hillary Clinton can't bring herself to defend the deal her husband pushed through. Asked during a recent debate if she thought it was a mistake, she did everything but deny she'd ever met the man.
"All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts," she chortled, in possibly the least believable statement of the 2008 campaign. "That, sort of, is a vague memory." In the end, though, Clinton declared that "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would."
She has plenty of company. Barack Obama is on record as saying he "would not have supported the North American Free Trade Agreement as it was drafted." John Edwards has flogged the treaty like a rented mule, calling it "a complete and total disaster." And Dennis Kucinich thinks all copies of NAFTA should be humanely shredded and used as compost on shade-grown fair trade coffee, or something like that.
What did NAFTA ever do to deserve this abuse? Critics claim it destroyed a million jobs -- forgetting that its implementation coincided with the longest peacetime expansion in American history. During that period, the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since the Vietnan War. If that was a disaster, I'm Hannah Montana.
Ordinary workers, contrary to myth, benefited from NAFTA. In the decade before it took effect, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average hourly earnings (adjusted for inflation) fell by 5 percent. In the decade after, they rose by 10 percent.
Even supposing the deal did eliminate a million jobs, that actually doesn't amount to much. Every year, millions of jobs vanish and millions materialize, as old companies cut back or close and new ones sprout. What counts is net growth, and since 1994, the total number of jobs in this country has risen by 26 million.
Candidates blame NAFTA for pushing American companies to close plants here and move production south. But from 1994 through 2001, reports the Cato Institute, U.S. manufacturers invested $200 billion a year at home -- and only $2.2 billion a year in Mexico. After NAFTA passed, U.S. manufacturing output soared, and it's now at the highest level ever. American farmers have seen their exports boom.
From listening to the Democrats, you'd never guess that our exporters got more out of the deal than Mexico's did. NAFTA actually made it easier for U.S. companies to stay here and sell products in Mexico. How? By phasing out tariffs on goods shipped there -- which, on average, were 2.5 times higher than ours. We gave nickels to get dimes.
Edwards and Co. hold fast to the superstition that tariffs and other trade barriers are essential to our prosperity. Reality is that admitting imports makes Americans more prosperous by reducing prices of consumer and capital goods. It also strengthens American companies by forcing them to be more efficient and innovative.
So why do so many people, including approximately 100 percent of those who turn up at Democratic debates, hold this and other trade agreements in such contempt? One obvious reason is they want to appeal to labor unions, which generally prefer protectionism.
But Gary Hufbauer, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, suspects one reason lies in a different issue: illegal immigration. Some NAFTA supporters thought it might generate enough growth in Mexico to keep Mexican workers at home. When the tide of illegal immigrants grew, it bred resentment here.
That reaction partly helps to explain the Democratic retreat. By denouncing NAFTA, the presidential candidates can appeal to Americans alarmed about our porous borders without offending Hispanic voters.
But they should remember two crucial things: Bill Clinton presided over an era of enviable prosperity, and he did more to expand free trade than any president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. If they want to get back to the land of Oz, Democrats would be advised to follow the same Yellow Brick Road.
In Praise of Spanking
By Doug Giles
Saturday, December 1, 2007
This week in the uber-liberal state of Massachusetts (y’know . . . the one Romney used to govern) another dense liberal has come up with one more dumb idea to potentially add to their states’ stack of stupidity.
The brain fart the libs pulled out of their booty this time was the proposal to make it illegal for parents to spank their unruly kids’ backsides. The culprit: Democratic Representative Jay Kaufman. The proposal: House Bill 3922 which would make it unlawful for parents to use corporal discipline on their children within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
It would also create a presumption that any spanking is child abuse and neglect. And this Kaufman critter is pro-abortion. Let’s see, according to Jay, it’s wrong to spank an eight year old who drowns puppies in the toilet, but it’s okay to crush the skull of a pesky unborn child. Okay, Jay.
Now, for the record, I am against child abuse and neglect (duh) and feel sorry for kids who have been the recipient of Mommie Dearest’s coat hanger. That said, I have no problemo with cool and modulated tough-loving parents wearing their kid’s butt out, if necessary, for bad behavior. To me and my admittedly warped worldview it’s child neglect and abuse for the parent not to apply the paddle when the little punk—I’m sorry, precious darling—needs it.
Question: How many of you have had the displeasure of being exposed to the kids whose parents didn’t spank them? If you haven’t seen one of these little hellions or you’re unsure if you have, just go to church, the mall, or Barnes and Noble and simply stop, look and listen for a moment. The kid who’s wailing like a siren or stamping his feet and holding his breath with his arms crossed, telling his grandmother to F--- off because she won’t buy him a seven pound chocolate chip cookie, a bucket of coke, a $900 cell phone and the new Wii . . . FYI . . . that’s the kid who has not been spanked.
Kids who do not get spanked when they need it turn out to be nightmares on Elm Street, and we all know it. That’s why the Massachusetts moron and his house bill (and all others like it) should be shouted down and booed and hissed by the good parents of the USA like Donald Trump would be if he stumbled into a plus sized lesbian Tupperware soirée hosted by Rosie O’Donnell.
Generally speaking, undisciplined (read unspanked) kids ruin every atmosphere they enter. Whether it’s in school, or a family reunion, or at the pool, or during church, or just a quiet evening of simply trying to suck down some spaghetti at Macaroni Grill, the kid who hasn’t had his clock regularly cleaned by mom and dad, when needed, is a disaster we can count on to regularly pee on the public’s peace. Speaking of restaurants, why can’t we have a “Non-Screaming Kid” section? These little fiends and their coddling parents bug me way more than a thick cloud of second hand smoke ever could.
Now, not only should we have a Non-Screaming Kid section in restaurants, but we should also make it illegal for parents to refrain from smacking their children when they behave badly. I’m a thinkin’ that most of the crap the Left comes up with is bass akwards in regard to common sense and traditional values anyway so . . . ipso facto . . . we should, as good conservatives, volley into the legislative court the proposal that if your kid acts up in public and you don’t spank them then we fine or imprison you. We could call it House Bill 666: The Anti-Little-Damien-Act.
If after this law goes into place and some parents are a wee bit squeamish to spank their children or have been cowed into obedience to their toddler, the private sector could provide spanking stations throughout the city by every Starbucks, shopping mall, Toys R Us, Blockbuster and McDonald’s, where with parents’ permission, their Johnny could be yanked into line.
Inside the spanking station we’d employ only big black mamas who have no problem whatsoever beating the white, black, yellow or brown off the backsides of rebel children. The parents would bring their child to the station, tell big mama what the kid did, and big mama would spank the child with the weapon of the parents’ choosing for, say, three minutes for fifty bucks. What do you think?
Hey Kaufman, kids today are out of control. They cuss, spit, hit, scream, brandish weapons and throw fits, and parents don’t do squat. Consequently, we have a generation of entitled 13-year-old miscreants who have no problem killing their parents in their sleep for not letting them get their genitals pierced or their face tattooed with a Maori warrior tribal sign.
Look folks, nothing works like a loving rap on the butt of a stubborn kid. Time outs don’t work. You might think they do, but we all know while the little angel is in the corner for thirty minutes with the TV off he’s not thinking about what he did wrong but rather how he can get a lawyer to sue you or which set of drapes he’s going to light on fire when you go out for your afternoon jog.
In addition, reasoning with a kid doesn’t work either. Attempting to convince a four-year-old who eats his boogers that he really shouldn’t pull his 14-month-old sister’s eyelashes out is an exercise in futility.
Also, bribing your sweetie with gifts gets both old and expensive and yields no fruit except an obese, gadget glutted, entitled 12 year old who has a BMW he’s too young to drive.
Parent . . . just spank ‘em. They won’t die. They’ll get the message and respect you for it in the long run. Or if you don’t want to spank your kid, you can get a leash and walk them around like a dog—and if it gets really bad you can put them on drugs.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
This week in the uber-liberal state of Massachusetts (y’know . . . the one Romney used to govern) another dense liberal has come up with one more dumb idea to potentially add to their states’ stack of stupidity.
The brain fart the libs pulled out of their booty this time was the proposal to make it illegal for parents to spank their unruly kids’ backsides. The culprit: Democratic Representative Jay Kaufman. The proposal: House Bill 3922 which would make it unlawful for parents to use corporal discipline on their children within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
It would also create a presumption that any spanking is child abuse and neglect. And this Kaufman critter is pro-abortion. Let’s see, according to Jay, it’s wrong to spank an eight year old who drowns puppies in the toilet, but it’s okay to crush the skull of a pesky unborn child. Okay, Jay.
Now, for the record, I am against child abuse and neglect (duh) and feel sorry for kids who have been the recipient of Mommie Dearest’s coat hanger. That said, I have no problemo with cool and modulated tough-loving parents wearing their kid’s butt out, if necessary, for bad behavior. To me and my admittedly warped worldview it’s child neglect and abuse for the parent not to apply the paddle when the little punk—I’m sorry, precious darling—needs it.
Question: How many of you have had the displeasure of being exposed to the kids whose parents didn’t spank them? If you haven’t seen one of these little hellions or you’re unsure if you have, just go to church, the mall, or Barnes and Noble and simply stop, look and listen for a moment. The kid who’s wailing like a siren or stamping his feet and holding his breath with his arms crossed, telling his grandmother to F--- off because she won’t buy him a seven pound chocolate chip cookie, a bucket of coke, a $900 cell phone and the new Wii . . . FYI . . . that’s the kid who has not been spanked.
Kids who do not get spanked when they need it turn out to be nightmares on Elm Street, and we all know it. That’s why the Massachusetts moron and his house bill (and all others like it) should be shouted down and booed and hissed by the good parents of the USA like Donald Trump would be if he stumbled into a plus sized lesbian Tupperware soirée hosted by Rosie O’Donnell.
Generally speaking, undisciplined (read unspanked) kids ruin every atmosphere they enter. Whether it’s in school, or a family reunion, or at the pool, or during church, or just a quiet evening of simply trying to suck down some spaghetti at Macaroni Grill, the kid who hasn’t had his clock regularly cleaned by mom and dad, when needed, is a disaster we can count on to regularly pee on the public’s peace. Speaking of restaurants, why can’t we have a “Non-Screaming Kid” section? These little fiends and their coddling parents bug me way more than a thick cloud of second hand smoke ever could.
Now, not only should we have a Non-Screaming Kid section in restaurants, but we should also make it illegal for parents to refrain from smacking their children when they behave badly. I’m a thinkin’ that most of the crap the Left comes up with is bass akwards in regard to common sense and traditional values anyway so . . . ipso facto . . . we should, as good conservatives, volley into the legislative court the proposal that if your kid acts up in public and you don’t spank them then we fine or imprison you. We could call it House Bill 666: The Anti-Little-Damien-Act.
If after this law goes into place and some parents are a wee bit squeamish to spank their children or have been cowed into obedience to their toddler, the private sector could provide spanking stations throughout the city by every Starbucks, shopping mall, Toys R Us, Blockbuster and McDonald’s, where with parents’ permission, their Johnny could be yanked into line.
Inside the spanking station we’d employ only big black mamas who have no problem whatsoever beating the white, black, yellow or brown off the backsides of rebel children. The parents would bring their child to the station, tell big mama what the kid did, and big mama would spank the child with the weapon of the parents’ choosing for, say, three minutes for fifty bucks. What do you think?
Hey Kaufman, kids today are out of control. They cuss, spit, hit, scream, brandish weapons and throw fits, and parents don’t do squat. Consequently, we have a generation of entitled 13-year-old miscreants who have no problem killing their parents in their sleep for not letting them get their genitals pierced or their face tattooed with a Maori warrior tribal sign.
Look folks, nothing works like a loving rap on the butt of a stubborn kid. Time outs don’t work. You might think they do, but we all know while the little angel is in the corner for thirty minutes with the TV off he’s not thinking about what he did wrong but rather how he can get a lawyer to sue you or which set of drapes he’s going to light on fire when you go out for your afternoon jog.
In addition, reasoning with a kid doesn’t work either. Attempting to convince a four-year-old who eats his boogers that he really shouldn’t pull his 14-month-old sister’s eyelashes out is an exercise in futility.
Also, bribing your sweetie with gifts gets both old and expensive and yields no fruit except an obese, gadget glutted, entitled 12 year old who has a BMW he’s too young to drive.
Parent . . . just spank ‘em. They won’t die. They’ll get the message and respect you for it in the long run. Or if you don’t want to spank your kid, you can get a leash and walk them around like a dog—and if it gets really bad you can put them on drugs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)