|
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Liberal Media to blame for Obama Fiasco
Surprise, surprise, surprise, Obama is just another left-wing politician.
Obama cannot win. If he had been properly vetted by the liberal media last February, before super Tuesday when over twenty states held primaries and caucuses, Obama would have been long gone and the Democrats would now be ready to nominate a real contender for the White House. Obama was given a pass then and now the Democrats are stuck with a losing candidate. Liberals are hoisted on their own petard.
Americans are no more likely to elect a left-winger to the presidency that they would elect a right-winger. Some view George W. Bush as right-wing and some view Jimmy Carter as left-wing but both actually governed closer to the center. This has been true of every American president in history. Franklin D. Roosevelt governed to the left of center while Ronald Reagan governed to the right of center.
Obama almost passed himself off as a left of center moderate but the truth has a way of trickling out. First Michelle Obama stated that she felt proud to be an American for the first time in her adult life. Than the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor mentor and friend, described 9/11 as "America's chickens coming home to roost" among other gems. Then Obama commented that he would not want his daughters to be "punished by a baby" as a result of an unwanted pregnancy. Then came his comment that small Midwestern towns are bitter and are therefore turning to religion guns and racist reaction to illegal aliens. Then we find out about his association with left-wing terrorist William Ayers.
Obama is not the first presidential candidate to reveal a career ending far left outlook. The Willie Horton scandal spoke volumes about Michael Dukakis and his attitude toward crime. As governor of Massachusetts, Dukakis signed a law that allowed convicted first degree murderers out on unsupervised weekend furloughs. On one of those furloughs, convicted first degree murderer Willie Horton raped a women in front of her husband who he had bound, gagged, and castrated. Other examples include John Kerry's smear against the American military before Congress after his return from Vietnam and then his failure to respond to the serious charges made against him by the Swift Boat veterans.
Americans don't elect left-wingers to the presidency because leftism does not resonate with the vast majority of Americans. Not too many Americans, as examples, relish the idea of high taxes, big government meddling, the welfare state, open borders, socialized medicine, legalized vice, and a gradual move toward authoritarian socialism. This is why liberals, knowing that they will rarely be able to elect lawmakers, rely instead on unelected judges and bureaucrats to do their bidding by creating laws undemocratically and out of thin air.
Maybe next time the democrats will wake up and nominate a candidate that is moderately left of center as opposed to one who is clearly an extremist. Maybe next time. It's too late for the Dems this time around.
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Liberal Agenda of the Teachers Unions
Harassment by teachers unions of city and town governments is rapidly increasing across the country and most of these public tax-funded unions are affiliated with the National Education Association. Each year the NEA holds a national conference where the latest initiatives are endorsed and sent down to the local affiliates for implementation to the degree that local conditions permit. Teaching methods are recommended and liberal political causes that have nothing to do with education are pushed.The NEA is allied with ultra liberal special interests.
The philosophy of the taxpayer funded NEA was articulated as early as 1934 when NEA Executive Secretary Dr. Willard Givens wrote "We are convinced that we stand today at the verge of a great culture...But to achieve these things many drastic changes must be made. A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed, and all of us, including the owners, must be subjected to a large degree of social control."
In 1967, NEA Executive Secretary Sam Lambert stated "the NEA will become a political power second to no other special interest group. . . . NEA will have more and more to say about how a teacher is educated, whether he should be admitted to the profession, and whether he should stay in the profession."
The NEA and its local affiliates use their enormous financial resources in support of their political friends and in opposition to their political enemies. Taxpayer derived funds are thus used to promote political agendas and education methods that fail to take into account the best interest of the children of the taxpayer. The result has been a behemoth political machine that bestrides the whole country, the largest and richest in the history of this nation. The taxpayers are paying for this political corruption and It's time to put an end to it.
It's time for municipalities to offer their public school teachers individual contracts that stipulate that the teacher resign from the union. The teacher will immediately get a pay increase as the money previously going toward union dues would go directly into their paychecks. Cities and towns should offer their teachers contracts that include incentives for the teacher to leave the union. The teachers would make more money and the municipality would save money by eliminating the union officials, most of whom are not teachers, along with their expensive perks. The savings could be then applied to extra curricular programs related to art, music, and athletics.
The elected school boards ought to re-assert their authority as representatives of the community by voting on education methods. If a city or town wishes to implement a liberal style of education they should have the right to do so and vise versa regarding a more conservative model. The school door should be opened up, secrecy should end, and the taxpayer should have a direct say in how their children are being educated.
If the people of Lexington, Mass, as an example, favor teaching same-sex marriage or if the people of Newton, Mass. favor a graphic style of sex education, that should be the right of the residents of those communities. If a more conservative community wants an abstinence curriculum, or a curriculum that introduces the US Constitution as a high school text, that should be their right as well. Citizens must assert their natural right to determine the best means of educating their own children. We should trust in our ability to exercise the levers of freedom, liberty, and common sense.
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Abolish the Nashua Teachers Union
Nashua New Hampshire is still being rocked by the threat of a public school teachers strike. Nashua union chief honcho Bob Sherman threatened a strike by March 31 unless the city acceded to a contract that included retroactive pay going back to 2006 and an enhanced health insurance package. While the strike has been averted for now, the phenomena of public teachers unions holding municipalities hostage with their various demands is being played out in cities and towns across the country.
In the case of Nashua, the terms of the contract that averted the strike has not been made public which raises several questions. How much does Bob Sherman and his staff, none of whom are teachers, cost the taxpayers of Nashua? What sort of extra financial perks are being afforded to the union management? Why is the teachers union opposed to merit pay increases for good teachers? Is there a clause in the contract that would assist in the removal of bad teachers? Does the contract include tenure and, if so, who qualifies and what are the terms? What pensions are offered in the contract?
As a Nashua radio talk show host I weighted in by calling on Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau to fire the union and to offer the teachers individual contracts that would include pay raises based on merit and that would be within the previously approved city budget. I contend that the teachers would be better off in the long run without the union as the Nashua taxpayers would no doubt be willing to pay more than competitive rates to good teachers. Nashua is a very civic minded community, one that appreciates the value of high educational standards and one that would prefer to maintain property values.
The very existence of public teachers unions is a conflict of interest. Public unions try to get the best deal for their members which means they've got a vested interest in advocating for the expansion of the city budget and this can only be accomplished by raising taxes. This explains why public unions put their political muscle behind candidates who support high taxes and why union dues go toward indirect "in kind" support of candidates who promise to do their bidding. It also explains why public unions overwhelmingly support the tax and spend Democratic Party. The result has been a classic definition of corruption and the taxpayer fueled corruption is spreading like wildfire across the country as public unions grow in numbers and in financial clout.
The teachers unions are more than just giant political machines funded by taxpayer money. They are also heavily invested in influencing education itself and this influence almost always tilts in the liberal direction. In this regard, teachers unions accept their marching orders from the National Education Association which sends out annual memos following their national convention. Both the NEA and the local affiliates contribute large sums to liberal causes that have nothing to do with the education of children. Funds also go toward stopping competing educational systems such as charter schools, home schooling, and tax vouchers for inner city students.
Whether or not the local taxpayer prefers a more liberal or a more conservative education for their children is beside the point. The democratic approach is for the local taxpayer to re-assert control over the education of their own sons and daughters by driving out the nationally directed public unions which feed on tax money. Let the local school committees, elected by the citizens, determine the mode of education for the children in the community, a mode that reflects the values of the community whatever they may be, and let the elected school committee determine teacher pay and benefits. Perhaps the savings that would result in dumping the union could go toward music, art, and athletic programs. Lets behave like a confident democratic society and get rid of the un-democratic public teachers unions.
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Friday, March 28, 2008
Jerry Williams knew the power of Talk Radio
In "Burning up the Air - Jerry Williams, Talk Radio, and the Life In Between" Steve Elman and Alan Tolz, former producers of the radio legend, have ably told the story of how Jerry Williams virtually invented talk radio. Jerry knew how to use the force of his personality to influence politics and culture in Massachusetts. He harnessed the power of the purist and most democratic form of mass communication by connecting with people.
I became a conservative as a result of listening to Jerry and I know others who credit Jerry with re-enforcing their liberalism. A typical liberal in the 1980's, I was scanning my radio dial for rock music when l randomly came across Jerry yelling at someone about legislation that would've required prescriptions for vitamins. The very idea of opposing the big and benevolent government and doing it so brashly was astonishing to me back than. I was hooked.
Twenty years later, after having been inspired by Jerry, I was hosting my own radio talk show at WROL-Quincy when I read an article in The Boston Globe about Jerry who had by that time been off the air for a decade. I called him up and told him how much I loved him and missed him. He agreed to join me on the air and I proceeded to help him to get a radio gig at WROL. He passed away in 2002, a few months later.
Jerry was never mean. He did, however, mercessly skewer the powerful and the influential with caustic sarcasm. He could not abide those who felt that they knew better than the rest of us in terms of how we should live and he abhorred those who tried to translate that arrogance into government edicts. Jerry would explode with rage when secrecy was involved.
In Massachusetts, the elite liberal establishment was known for its attempts to use the power of law to recast society in their image. One example of this that could be sited was when Governor Michael Dukakis allowed Willie Horton, a convicted first degree murderer, a weekend furlough. When Horton repaid the privilege by raping a women and assaulting her husband, Dukakis refused to admit that he was wrong, something liberals never seem to do, and he even refused to meet with the terrorized couple. Liberal notions of "justice" involve "rehabilitation" for the criminal as opposed to justice involving punishment and public safety as the first priority.
As I became religious, I became incensed by what I viewed as the secular subversion of laws and customs that had served western civilization for thousands of years. Liberals seemed to think that they knew better and they sneered with contempt at those who accepted long established moral codes as divinely inspired. It was no accident that these same liberals often displayed totalitarian tendencies in their agenda to uproot tradition. This observation was one of the main motivators for me to run for Congress against Barney Frank in 2004 when I became aware that he was the chief sponsor of legislation that undermined one of the most fundamental tenets of national sovereignty, the right of our nation to deny visas to known foreign enemies.
Jerry Williams cleared the path for such great radio talk show hosts as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Howie Carr, Jay Severin, and Michael Graham. Liberals are often heard griping about talk radio as being too conservative but the very nature of talk radio, which is direct interaction with the man on the street, dictates that conservatism would predominate as conservatism resonates with average people. Liberal ideas, such as more taxes, more rules and regulations, surrender abroad, and judges who dictate from the bench don't exactly resonate with the average concerns of working people. I suppose liberals will always find their refuge in such venues as newspaper editorial boards and government backed "non profit" media outlets.Labels: Jerry Williams
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Friday, March 21, 2008
Race is not a factor in this election
Americans would love to elect an African-American as President. When General Colin Powell, who happens to be black, became Secretary of State in the Bush Administration the vast majority of Americans applauded. People may have disagreed with Powell over policy, or because he was seen as either too liberal or too conservative, but his race was never a factor. The same is true with regards to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as well as with African-American governors, congressmen, corporate CEO's, and others in positions of leadership. There was no negative reaction to the Powell appointment, no Klansmen donning white sheets, no neo-Nazis on the march.
The fact is that most Americans don't care about the race of their President. What concerns Americans most are issues such as the price of gasoline, the quality of their kids education, Judges who let convicted sex criminals out of jail early, high taxes, illegal immigration and foreign wars. Americans would like to elect a president who has a plan and they would prefer a president who has a life story that includes impressive accomplishments. If that candidate also happens to be black than this would be an added bonus.
Members of the liberal media are obsessed with both the race and the gender of the candidates this year and they insist that the rest of us share that obsession. Two examples out of the many that I could site in Boston are the Boston Globe, which almost exclusively frames the political discussion on race and gender and WTTK radio talk show hosts Jim Braude and Marjorie Eagan who incessantly banter on about race and gender. It should be noted that a liberal magazine chose to publish a cover that depicted a degrading image of Supreme Court Justice Clarence dressed like a lawn jockey.
The Obama and Clinton campaigns are fostering a disconnected and artificial sense of race conflict as they desperately seek to extract a kernel of justification for their vacuous candidacies. Every comment or gesture from either side is weighed and parsed for race or gender bias. The focus of the controversy swirling around Barack Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright focuses on comments he made that actually were racist against whites. This focus, however, side-steps the real problem with Pastor Wright which is his far left-wing views and anti-American utterances.
At their core, liberals believe that people of different races and genders actually posess different consciousnesses. This bizarre construct is being ingrained into the students who attend many of the elite liberal Colleges and is a particular feature of African-American and women's studies. While the left obsesses with false constructs, the rest of the country is preparing to elect a President who is the most competent in the field.
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Barack Obama, his Minister, and the Wellstone Funeral
The hate filled rhetoric of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who Senator Barack Obama has described as “a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith” poses as a threat to the presidential ambitions of the Democratic candidate not because of the undeniably racist nature of the minister’s comments, but, rather, because the rhetoric is yet another naked and crude display of old fashioned left-wing agitprop.
The inflammatory rhetoric of Obama’s minister, and the indignant reaction to that rhetoric by the public at large, reminds me of the October 2002 memorial rally that followed the funeral of the iconic liberal Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone who was tragically killed in a plane crash. The left-wing political pep rally that followed the funeral, attended by approximately 20,000 people, included televised images of well known liberal icons such as former President Bill Clinton, former Vice Presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore, and Senators Hillary Clinton and Teddy Kennedy sneering from their seats and engaging in such antics as waving their fists in the air as a succession of speakers mounted the stage to regurgitate predictable left-wing slogans.
It has been generally acknowledged that the Wellstone funeral, in which Vice President Richard V. Cheney was dis-invited to attend and in which Senator Trent Lott was booed, was a disaster for the Democrats in the 2002 mid-term elections. The negative reverberations were felt during the 2004 presidential campaign of Democratic Senator John Kerry.
The left just doesn’t get it.
They just don’t realize that most Americans are simply not burdened with the same malevolent hatred for this country that is the hallmark of their debased outlook. Most Americans don’t damn their country, as did Obama’s minister, or do they blame their country for the ills that beset other countries, many of which suffer under the stultifying yoke of the very same left-wing systems that are so admired by the elites who dominate the Democratic Party and by the likes of the rabble rousing spiritual councilor to Barack Obama.
No, in fact, most Americans embrace a more positive view of the American way of life. Most average Americans aspire to achieve the kind of success that has been experienced by Barack and Michelle Obama, by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and by the insufferable gang of liberals who attended the rally following the Wellstone funeral. Most African-Americans appreciate the gains they have been able to achieve as they enter the middle and upper classes in increasing numbers. While much progress still awaits, most Americans understand that the best hope for the future lies in capitalism, patriotism, and in an embrace of the traditional values that have provided the undergirding for genuine progress.
The vile speeches of Obama’s minister, like the Wellstone rally, provide rare examples of left-wing arrogance on display for all to see in all of it's ugliness. These candid moments, more often covered up by liberals, often even within themselves, are instructive and revealing. Let’s examine these events very carefully and lets remember these unguarded moments of unvarnished honesty. They provide an opportunity to learn the true nature of many of those who seek to influence our culture and public policy. These unguarded moments are a gift and a blessing in disguise.
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sunday, March 16, 2008
It's All Over for the Democrats
Due to an obsession with race and gender, the Democrats have completely blown it this time around. The focus on the race and the gender of Senators Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the threat that is associated with any close scrutiny of the two because of their race and gender, caused the Democrats to fail to properly scrutinize their candidates for president as they would have otherwise been scrutinized. According to the liberal gospel, the two Democratic candidates are to be viewed as members of protected groups. The two candidates themselves refused to properly scrutinize each other for the same reason. Now the race obsessed Democrats have been hoisted on their own petard.
As a result, we know precious little about the character or the background of the two potential leaders of the free world. Only now, after Barak Obama has almost clinched the Democratic nomination, do we learn that for 20 years he attended a church that was presided over by a black version of David Duke. Minister Jeremiah Wright, who presided over Barak and Michelle Obama's wedding and the baptism of their two daughters, has a long record of spewing racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American sentiments such as "God Damn America." Barak Obama accepted gifts from Tony Rezko, a notorious Chicago real estate developer presently on trial at the Chicago Federal District Court. These issues, and maybe others yet to percolate through the wall of protection, are emerging too late to stop the Obama nomination. Barak Obama will be the nominee and he will face face off against the Republican Senator John McCain who has been investigated and questioned in the traditional manner.
Plenty is already known about the notoriously corrupt dealings of Hillary Clinton and her husband, the impeached former president Bill Clinton, but again, Democrats are too polite to broach such subjects when it comes to liberal champions. Hillary will not be accused of using her position as the wife of a governor to enrich herself or of some of the notoriously unethical dealings she has been involved in overmany decades until the present time. The Clinton cool-aide drinkers are still intoning, after all these decades, that the Clintons didn't, after all, break any laws. They still comfort themselves by turning toward some bizarre notion of a right-wing conspiracy to explain it all away. If Hillary were not a women she would be seen for exactly who she is, an ethically challenged corporate lawyer on the take.
There would be unquestionably great merit to the idea of electing an African-American or a women to the American Presidency. The overriding consideration, however, comes down to who would be the best commander in chief of a nation at war and during a time of economic uncertainty. The Presidency is unique and the office holds extraordinary power. A president can determine the future course of our country and society for generations. When it comes to the presidency, character, personality, style, and other intangible factors are as important as experience, intelligence, and a record of hard public policy decisions that has been studied and developed over a long period of time. No doubt, a fit candidate for the Presidency who also happens to be an African-American or a woman will hopefully emerge in the future, but only after having gone through all the traditional rigors of any other candidate for the job.
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Monday, March 3, 2008
Understanding Gaza: Pain And Perfidy Under International Law - By: Louis Rene Beres
It is easy to feel sorry for the Palestinians in Gaza. Televised and print images of their apparently unrelieved misery suggest Israeli cruelty in the creation of shortages and in the use of armed force. Exactly the opposite is true. The moment that flagrantly illegal Hamas rocket attacks upon Israeli noncombatants cease, no harms of any kind will be imposed by Israel.Hamas commits other egregious violations of international law. It is always a codified war crime to use civilians as “human shields.” As my readers in The Jewish Press already know, this cowardly act has a precise legal name – “perfidy.”
By persistently placing their most impoverished women and children in harm’s way – especially in those areas from which they launch terrorist rockets into Israel – Palestinian terrorist leaders deliberately create Palestinian casualties.There is more here than meets the eye. Several Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, are forging conceptual and tactical bonds with al-Qaeda. These criminal organizations are now actively planning for mega-terror operations against Israel. If they cannot be stopped – perhaps because of continued one-sided and selective coverage of Palestinian suffering in Gaza – such attacks would involve (at a minimum) chemical and/or biological weapons of mass destruction. Over time, especially if Iran should begin to transfer portions of its growing inventory of nuclear materials to selected terror groups, Israel could also face Palestinian-directed nuclear terrorism.
What government could be expected to sit back passively and render its population vulnerable to instantaneous mass-slaughter? Would we, in the United States, sit quietly by as rockets rained down upon American cities from terrorist sanctuaries somewhere on our southern borders? Would we allow such carnage to continue with impunity? Can capitulation and surrender ever be the proper or excusable reaction of a sovereign state sworn to protect its populations? For as long as political philosophers have written about the essential obligations of sovereignty, no state responsibility has been as important as the fundamental assurance of protection.Although not widely recognized, Israel has always been willing to keep its counter-terrorism operations in Gaza consistent with the settled standards of humanitarian international law. Palestinian violence, on the other hand, still remains in violation of all civilized rules of engagement. And all this after Israel very painfully “disengaged” from Gaza on the U.S.-backed promise that the Palestinians – finally – would put an end to their relentless barrage of terror.
Significantly, this barrage also remains strategically senseless, as it does absolutely nothing to advance any vital Palestinian interests.International law is not a suicide pact. Rather, it offers an authoritative body of rules and procedures that permits states to express their inherent right of self-defense. When terrorist organizations celebrate the explosive “martyrdom” of Palestinian children, and when Palestinian leaders unashamedly seek religious redemption through the mass-murder of Jewish children, the terrorists have no legal right to demand sanctuary. Anywhere.Under international law, terrorists are always hostes humani generis, “Common enemies of humankind.” Even according to the most ancient sources of international law, such murderers must be severely punished wherever they are found. For their arrest and prosecution, jurisdiction is “universal.”
Palestinian terrorism, even during its present “slow” period (when contending Hamas and Fatah factions are simply too busy murdering each other to kill Jews), is far worse than most people ever imagine. Using bombs filled with nails, razor blades and screws dipped in rat poison; the killers maim and burn Israeli civilians with abundant cheers from their neighbors, and with warmest blessings from local clergy. As for those “commanders” who actually direct and control the suicide bombers, they typically cower for protection in assorted hiding places. At times they issue loud calls for their wives, mothers and daughters to stand between themselves and the Israelis.This is the amply documented “heroism” of Palestinian terrorism. What is unknown to most observers is that carefully trained IDF counter-terrorism units operate in exactly the opposite fashion. These Israeli soldiers always identify and target only the terrorist leaders.
They always seek to minimize collateral harms. There are times, of course, when such harms simply can’t be avoided. Even the IDF, which follows its code of “Purity of Arms” far more stringently than any other nation’s army, including our own, cannot undo the deliberate barbarism of Palestinian perfidy.Deception can be legally acceptable in armed conflict, but The Hague Regulations forbid placement of military assets or personnel in heavily populated civilian areas. Further prohibition of perfidy is found at Protocol I of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. It is widely recognized that these rules are also binding on the basis of customary international law. Perfidy represents an especially serious violation of the Law of War, one identified as a “grave breach” at Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV. The critical legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian terrorist leaders is to immunize Israel from any responsibility for inadvertent counter-terrorist harms done to Arab civilians.
Even if Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad and their several sister terror groups did not deliberately engage in perfidy, any Palestinian-created link between civilians and terrorist activities would always give Israel full legal justification for defensive military action.International law – as I have pointed out in several earlier columns here in The Jewish Press – is not a suicide pact. All combatants, including Palestinian terrorists, are bound by the Law of War of international law. This requirement is found at Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and at the two protocols to these Conventions. Protocol I applies humanitarian international law to all conflicts fought for “self-determination,” the stated objective of all Palestinian fighters. A product of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (1977), this Protocol brings all irregular forces within the full scope of international law. In this connection, the terms “fighter” and “irregular” are charitable in describing Palestinian terrorists.
These fanatics are plainly criminals who intentionally target civilians, and whose characteristic mode of “battle” is not purposeful military engagement, but primal religious sacrifice.In the final analysis, Israel faces a Palestinian terrorist enemy who embraces violence not for land, and not for national self-determination, but for religious faith. For this determined Jihadist enemy, terrorism is now a plainly sacred expression of worship. Israel, like every other state, has the indisputable right and obligation under international law to protect its citizens from such an enemy. Why, indeed, should this even be controversial?
LOUIS RENÉ BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism and international law, including some of the earliest major books on nuclear terrorism. He is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.
Chuck Morse
Archived Page for Article Above
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
