Category: Guest Authors

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

By Chris Freind Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Only one of two things is true:

A. Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment found their true calling in the comedic arts, or

B. They are, without a doubt, the dumbest people in America. And in a culture that values all things Kardashian, that’s saying something.

But given how serious Romney was Thursday – playing the role of elder Republican statesman in trashing Donald Trump – it is painfully obvious that stupidity “trumps” comedy in the GOP.

Too bad they didn’t do this before the Oscars. If they had, there would have been a plethora of movie remakes for this melodrama: “Dumb and Dumber,” “The Phantom Menace,” “Failure To Launch,” “Revenge Of The Nerds,” “The Jerk,” “Quantum Of Solace,” “Fury Road,” or even “Divine Secrets Of The Ya Ya Republican Sisterhood.”

But truth be told, even Hollywood couldn’t script this farce.

Trumpeting his own horn during the “big announcement” speech, Romney referred to Trump supporters as “suckers” in a desperate attempt to derail Trump and deny him the nomination. In doing so, Romney and the GOP hierarchy personified another movie: “Psycho.”

Let’s take a look at the how this epic blunder will completely backfire:

1. Granted, the list of credible Republican statesmen is short (a fault of the party’s own making because, ever since Ronald Reagan, it has focused solely on coronating candidates “whose turn it is” rather than developing charismatic leaders), but the single worst person to deliver such a message was Romney – especially since he sought, and received, Trump’s endorsement and money during his presidential runs.

Surprised? Don’t be. After all, Romney was the worst candidate that GOP elites could have chosen to take on President Obama in an election that should have been a slamdunk for the Republicans. Yet that’s exactly what they did.

The proof was in the pudding. Despite spending millions after his unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to secure the GOP nomination, Romney was still routinely losing seven of 10 Republicans in the 2012 primaries, even after he had all but locked up the nomination – and that was with a weak field. In other words, despite competing against a rag-tag cadre of opponents who had virtually no money or organizations, and who mathematically couldn’t win the nomination, he was faring worse than four years prior.

But did paternalistic party leaders listen? Nope. They, not the rank-and-file, knew “best,” and the coronation proceeded.

After staggering to the nomination, Romney ran an abysmal campaign. Despite Obama presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression, voters – including Republicans – still rejected Romney, as three million fewer voted for Romney than for John McCain. And the exit polls showed what common sense had already told us: A majority of voters believed 1. America was on the wrong track, and 2. government was too large. Yet more pulled for Obama. Why?

Because Romney ran to win an election, not the argument. He was incapable of relating to the middle class, and thus never sealed the deal. The “Anyone But Obama” strategy backfired, because it’s never enough to run against something. The Romney/Paul Ryan ticket was wholly unable to articulate what it stood for, resulting in, ironically, an “Anyone But Romney” backlash.

Throw in his numerous flip-flops, monumental gaffes (the $10,000 bet; talking about how many NASCAR team owners he knew; telling the unemployed he knows what it’s like despite a $300 million net worth; stating that companies are people, too; criticizing the “47 percent”), late release of his tax return, pandering to minorities, and an unprecedented aloofness, and his landslide defeat was easily predictable.

And yet, what did Romney and party leaders (including GOP “experts” Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, George Will and especially Dick Morris) do after that crushing defeat? They blamed Chris Christie, because he worked with the president in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. You simply can’t make this up.

Oh, and they came up with ways to “reinvent” the party and “win elections.” So it’s not without a bit of irony that the very same people who not only championed the abysmal 2012 campaign but guaranteed a Romney “landslide” were writing the playbook for how to win in 2016 – and who are now telling voters whom not to vote for.

Is it any wonder that the party that championed insomnia-curing candidates Bob Dole, McCain, Romney, and Jeb Bush is now being ignored by a majority of Republicans? The establishment’s credibility gap had never been wider than before Romney’s speech. But after his debacle, it has expanded into an almost unbridgeable chasm. Brilliant, Mitt.

2. Forgetting everything else, Romney looks like a jealous malcontent. First, his money, while substantial, is dwarfed by Trump’s fortune, and in that world, size matters. Second, Mitt is green with envy at the reception lavished on Trump – fervent crowds, standing-room-only arenas, passionate supporters. Romney never came close to inspiring Americans the way Trump has. But rather than looking inward, he instead feels compelled to criticize Trump for the success he never garnered. As the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher said, “The spirit of envy can destroy; it can never build.”

3. Romney’s speech may have been a trial balloon to gauge whether he should enter the race, especially if Marco Rubio loses his home state of Florida. While the filing deadline has passed in most states, Romney could still get on the ballot in several states, including moderate-leaning California (the biggest prize of all) and New Jersey. According to the strategy, Romney might be able to siphon enough delegates to deny Trump the magic number for victory, leading to a brokered convention, where all bets are off.

If that were to occur, it would, without exaggeration, be the end of the Republican Party. There would be a massive civil war, millions would permanently leave the GOP, and an inevitable third party candidate would assure a Democratic victory.

If Mitt Romney’s goal is to become the most reviled man in modern American history, jumping into the race would be his path forward.

3. Sound crazy? Sure, but since when has that ever factored into the establishment thinking of both parties? It has been a long-held rule, especially in big city machines, that it’s better to lose an election than lose control. That mindset, while warped, is nonetheless becoming the de facto policy of a Republican National Committee hellbent on stopping Trump at any cost – President Hillary notwithstanding. 4. Romney’s pomposity will backfire, as such theatrics always do. It will cause Trump’s base to dig in, motivating them even more to crush the establishment they feel has betrayed them so often. And it will cause many undecideds to break Donald’s way – not necessarily because they wholeheartedly support him, but that they despise arrogant leaders giving marching orders.

Donald Trump has substantial baggage, from his business practices to outlandish insults. Maybe a Trump candidacy assures a Clinton victory, and maybe The Donald as GOP standard-bearer leads to big Republican losses in Congress. But with a wildly unpredictable electorate, and Hillary Clinton being the ultimate insider at a time when anti-Washington feelings are at a fever pitch, it would be a mistake to write off Trump.

The smartest course for the GOP would be to let the chips fall where they may, stop playing God, and take a hard look in the mirror. If it doesn’t, the “elephant” in the room may be on the verge of extinction.

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Tomlinson Funeral Business Called Conflict

Tomlinson Funeral Business Called Conflict By Leo Knepper

In early January, we noted the conflict of interest between Senator Robert “Tommy” Tomlinson’s (R-6) role in the legislature and professional life as a funeral director:

“These two careers shouldn’t interfere with each other, but Sen. Tomlinson’s role as chairman of the Senate of Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee is putting his two jobs in conflict, raising profound ethical questions that should concern Pennsylvania taxpayers. Tomlinson Funeral Business Called Conflict

“Despite no documented consumer complaints, his committee and the Senate have approved SB 874, pushed by Sen. Tomlinson and his fellow funeral directors to stop legitimate competition with cemeteries in the area of pre-need sales. The name of the committee is ironic since the legislation would create less competition and higher prices for families burying loved ones.

“While he isn’t the prime sponsor of SB 874, Capitol insiders refer to it as ‘Tommy’s bill.’ Many are rightly calling this bill a product of a ‘turf war’ between southeastern Pennsylvania funeral homes and a company called StoneMor.”

Rather than backing off of the legislation that would benefit him personally, Senator Tomlinson has not only doubled down he is now using his position as Chairman in an attempt to extort the House:

“He has warned lawmakers he will not run certain bills out of his committee until his counterparts in the House Consumer Affairs Committee pass the cemetery bill, a source said. As a result, two water companies, which have no connection to the funeral industry, are lobbying the House to approve the cemetery bill so their bills, already approved by the House, get a fair shake in the Senate, that source said…Rep. Robert Godshall, R-Montgomery, chairman of the House Consumer Affairs Committee, declined to comment, saying he did not want the situation to get worse for the Legislature.” (Emphasis added)

Sen. Tomlinson denies that he is using his position to benefit his family business. Despite statements from the Federal Trade Commission indicating that the changes are unnecessary and would result in higher prices, Tomlinson insists that he wants to change the law for the benefit of consumers.

We will keep you informed about the legislation if there is any movement, or if Tomlinson can explain how higher prices and reduced competition are good for you.

Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Tomlinson Funeral Business Called Conflict

Political Incorrectness Path To Success

Political Incorrectness Path To Success By Chris Freind CHRIS FREIND

Barring a catastrophic collapse, it appears that Donald Trump could well be the Republican presidential nominee. Yet for all their theories about how he achieved his unlikely success, most pundits are still missing the biggest reason: Trump is winning as much because of his bluntness as his opponents’ lack thereof. And the same is true of Bernie Sanders.

People are sick of Washington politicos talking down to them, bickering about miniscule partisan advantage and regurgitating tired talking points on the minutiae of trade agreements, health care and tax policy with inside-the-beltway jargon.

What they seek is a leader who talks in plain English. While Trump and Sanders have, at times, been short on specifics, their willingness to tackle subjects in a conversational way has electrified the electorate.

There’s no doubt that if the Republican nominee tackles the lunacy invading America’s culture – perpetuated by a small extremist movement hell-bent on off-the-wall social engineering – he will gain a significant advantage in the general election. Many of these issues transcend party lines, but it would seem only a Republican – as part of the “lesser politically correct” party – will have the courage to use his bully pulpit to inject common sense into the debate.

Consider these four recent examples, and the traction that could be gained by addressing them head-on:

  1. The Sandy Hook parents’ lawsuit against the gun manufacturer. It goes without saying that no one can imagine the pain of parents who lose a child, especially in a senseless killing spree. While some motivations of the killer will never be understood, we should be working toward real-world solutions that could help prevent another such tragedy. Casting blame the gun manufacturer on the grounds that it was somehow complicit solves nothing, and only derails serious efforts to discover the root causes.

Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole her legally owned guns and ammunition. Therefore, he, and only he, is responsible for the massacre. Not his mother. And certainly not gun manufacturer Remington. Period. That’s like a car company being held liable because a reckless driver kills someone, or a beer maker incurring responsibility for an individual who drinks to excess. The Sandy Hook parents do not think the weapon used in the murders should have been legal. Fine. That’s their opinion. But indisputably, it was legal. This case should have absolutely no legal standing. A presidential candidate who, while showing empathy, focuses on real solutions instead of placating those who refuse to accept the truth, would find immense success.

2. The elimination of Valentine’s Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas in schools. Incredibly, the banning of “dominant” holidays – whatever that means – is becoming more commonplace, ostensibly because they may “offend” those unfamiliar with them. Really? That’s what educators think is best for our children? In point of fact, we are mandating close-mindedness in our kids while crushing their natural inclination for discovery. In other words, we are teaching them to be wholly intolerant of other people, cultures and traditions. If that warped mindset remains unchecked, it’s only a matter of time before the last truly free country on Earth collapses.

The vast majority of Americans – despite their collective silence on these types of issues for fear of being labeled insensitive bigots – would respond favorably to a candidate rejecting such mandates by asking:

• Since when is a holiday celebrating love and friendship “offensive?”

• Why is it wrong to celebrate holidays like Christmas and Hanukkah – without pushing religious beliefs – in what has always been a Judeo-Christian country?

• And how can the uniquely American holiday of Thanksgiving – rooted in peace and friendship between Europeans and Native Americans – be eliminated in America?

While the role of commander-in-chief is not to intervene on the local level, using the office as a bully pulpit to shine light on policies gone awry is eminently presidential.

3. Transgenders using bathrooms of their choosing: Bowing to political correctness, schools and city councils are allowing transgender people to use whatever bathroom with which they most “identify.”

Extremists aside, what parents in their right minds – Republican and Democrat alike – would feel comfortable sending their young daughter into a “ladies” bathroom where a man, who on “feelings” alone, can freely use the same facility?

How could such a regulation possibly work in the military? Or the workplace, for that matter?

Tolerance and inclusion are admirable, but forcefully pushing back when things go too far would be met with resounding applause.

4. Nevada high school athletic associations suspending coaches for being successful: This isn’t an early April fool’s prank, but a rule that has made a joke of high school athletics. The Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association has created a mandate – supposedly to encourage sportsmanship and prevent embarrassing scores – stipulating that a team can’t win by more than 49 points, and if, God forbid, they do, “coaches are required to submit documentation explaining how it happened and how they tried to prevent it. If it happens three times in a season, the winning coach is suspended. The rule also institutes a running clock in the second half after a lead gets to 40 points,” according to ESPN.

What has America come to? No one likes to be on the losing end, especially when a contest is lopsided, but having to document why a team wins? Seriously? That punishes players and coaches who worked hard to achieve success, and, ironically, humiliates the losing team that much more, as the better team often just holds the ball in what amounts to a patronizing move.

The answer is not to penalize those who earn success, but encourage those on the losing end to work harder – the best form of motivation, and the way it’s always been. It makes no difference whether a team loses by 49 or 69. A loss is loss, but to mandate a mercy rule at the high school level is ludicrous.

What next? Will we see mandated running plays in football if the margin exceeds 50 points? Will running backs simply fall down on their own? Will winning basketball teams be required to give their opponents 20 straight scoring opportunities while playing tepid defense so the losing players can feel good about themselves?

Don’t laugh. Grade school athletic programs have been doing this for years: Up by five in soccer? Pull your goalie and no shooting. Leading by 1- in baseball? Purposely strike out. And of course, give everyone a trophy. So the push for homogenization at the expense of individual achievement marches onward.

Enough is enough. If a presidential candidate advocates re-instilling traditional American values, with common sense as a guide, the keys to the Oval Office will be his, or hers. For all our sakes, here’s hoping.

Political Incorrectness Path To Success

Real Cold Forgotten By Modern Americans

Real Cold Forgotten By Modern Americans

By Joseph B. Dychala

“You don’t know what cold is”.

I can still hear my father saying these words to me now.

“You don’t know what cold is”…and he is right.

Today we move from our heated homes, to our heated automobiles (with heated seats) to our heated offices and complain about the cold we are exposed to for five minutes or less in many cases. Imagine sleeping on a steam vent in a big city, while people walk by you as if you don’t exist. We have the most plentiful and varied resources at our fingertips, oil, coal fired electricity, thermal technology, chemical packs when crushed can provide hours of heat inserted in our socks and gloves. Natural gas has never been so plentiful or inexpensive as it is today.

“You don’t know what cold is”  and he is right. I thought heat came from turning a dial or pushing a button, heat isn’t free he would often remind me.

We live in a nation of plenty, all types of natural and man made fabrics readily available as coats, gloves, blankets and so forth. No shearing sheep for wool, no spinning on a loom. Just go to the nearest store and purchase what you need. But everyday I see clothing discarded on the streets, as if there was no value to the items. As if the legacy of cotton is king means nothing. Same plantation, different location. Occasionally I wonder why some professional athletes and Hollywood personalities continue to bring up the stain of slavery that is the reality of the United States yet have no remorse in taking large sums of money from sneaker companies to promote a product that is essentially made with slave labor somewhere in the developing world.

Real Cold Forgotten By Modern Americans“You don’t know what cold is”…and he is right. Turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater if you are cold he would say to me…

Imagine the pain of the bitter cold at Valley Forge, Ypes, Verdun, Ardennes in the winter of 44- 45 one of the coldest recorded, the “Brotherhood of the Frozen Chosin”, imagine the heartache of waking up huddled next to your foxhole buddy who died from exposure over night perhaps wondering why him and not you. Losing toes or fingers to frostbite and having to continue on to do your job. I’ve never know such things, and try as I may to imagine I can never fully appreciate their sacrifices.

“You don’t know what cold is”…and he is right. Camping in the frozen mud without a tent while wearing a summer uniform and leggins instead of proper boots, that is what he endured for two brutal winters in the Italian Alps with Nazi artillery raining down on them…

The Rapido, Moletta, Cassino, Anzio, Mussolini Canal, The Winter Line, The loss of the entire 142nd Regiment, the blizzards and drifting snow, zero visibility. Pack mules because the terrain was impassable to any other other form of supply lines. There are a few pictures of my father from the war wearing a rather colorful scarf, I can only imagine that was one of his most prized possessions and may have literally saved his life from the cold as sure as a dog face’s helmet could potentially stave off German shrapnel.

“You don’t know what cold is”…and he is right. Stop your complaining and eat a hot bowl of oatmeal, it will warm you up and stick to your ribs he would say to me after coming in from playing on a snow day off from school…

So please remember in your thoughts and prayers this weekend from the comfort of our heated home or business, while sipping a hot beverage, with shorts on and the thermostat set to 75 degrees that the only reason this is possible is because the simple fact that there are good, descent, honorable folks that aren’t going to promise you free health insurance or a free college education or other economic impossibilities but that there were and still  are good people willing to lay down their very lives for their country and love of fellow man and make that which seems impossible a reality.

Better still, turn down that thermostat and put on a sweater.

Most of us will never truly know what cold is. Be thankful, be very thankful for that.

May God Bless you and yours and may God Bless the United States of America.

Happy Saint Valentine’s Day!

Real Cold Forgotten By Modern Americans

New Wolf Budget Also Burdens Little Guy

New Wolf Budget Also Burdens Little Guy By Matthew J. Brouillette

Yesterday, Feb. 9, Gov. Wolf doubled down on his tax-and-spend agenda. Here are five facts you need to know about how Gov. Wolf’s budget would affect your family and our state:

1. It’s more of the same. Wolf’s proposed budget mirrors what he repeatedly offered—and lawmakers repeatedly rejected—last year: Massive tax hikes and record spending increases. Wolf New Budget Also Burdens Little Guy

2. It’s the biggest spending increase in 25 years. Wolf’s $33.3 billion General Fund budget (including pension payments) represents a 10% increase over the budget passed by the legislature in December and is the bgigest spending increase since 1991-92.

3. Wolf’s tax hike = $850 more per family four annually.

4. Wolf’s budget includes $1.1 billion more for public schools, on top of the record-high level of funding passed by the legislature in December. This comes with no accountability measures and with punitive cuts to public charter schools.

5. At least eight different tax hikes are in the budget. This includes an 11% personal income tax hike—retroactive to January 2016 (in other words, you already owe the state more taxes).

Wolf talked about ‘saving’ the taxpayers of Pennsylvania. Instead, he’s taxing us backwards and forwards.

Join us in telling Gov. Wolf, “Please, no more taxes!” Get all the budget facts—and a catchy decal—over on our site at Commonwealth Foundation.

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of Commonwealth Foundation.

Wolf New Budget Also Burdens Little Guy

PTCC Praised By Freedom Group

PTCC Praised By Freedom Group

By Robert Small PTCC Praised By Freedom Group

At the 24th Annual Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet, Dec. 15, the winner of the 2015 Bill of Rights Award was David Baldinger of the Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition (PTCC). Carris Kocher, Founder and one of the main drivers of the Bill of Rights Bicentennial Committee, said David was chosen for his dedication to the 4th and 5th Amendment Rights to property.

Though one might characterize the BRBC as conservative, their
2013 Honoree was one Edward Snowden who, as Carris dryly remarked was “unavailable to personally accept this award”.

They seek to honor persons who have stood up for the Bill of Rights at great personal risk.

Their mailing address is Bill of Rights Bicentennnial Committee, P. O. Box 912, Concordville , Pa., 19331 or kochercj@verizon.net.

The Cyber Coalition has taken a stand on property tax reform and notes on its  website that HB/SB 76 is pending in the Pennsylvania Legislature. This bill would shift the school funding burden to the Sales tax by increasing the rate to 7 percent (8 percent in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) and taxing more goods and services.

It would raise the personal income tax rate from 3.07 percent to 4.34 percent.

Within two years, this would abolish the school property tax, except to the extent necessary to pay off existing school district debts. It would authorize school districts to levy a new tax on income (subject to referendum approval), to be collected by local authorities. However, these new provisions would also tie this funding to the vagaries of the economy.

On Nov. 21, SB 76 garnered a 24-24 tie vote in the Pa. Senate. The tie-breaking vote against it was cast by Lt. Gov. Mike Stack.

Having heard this, I spoke to my two local Pennsylvania Legislature members.

According to the office of State Rep. Leanne Kruger-Braneky (D-161), this bill will not come to the State House at this time. They also added that no other property tax relief is in the latest proposed budget. There is nothing else particularly in play regarding property tax relief. We are still awaiting a return call or email from State Senator Tom McGarrigle (R-26) after two weeks.

According to the PTCC, some of the major newly taxed goods would include much food and clothing items, and newly taxed services would include all or nearly all professional or technical (except business-to-business), personal, transportation, finance and insurance services.

As one reviews their website, there may be some caveats to a few of the items added to the taxable base, primarily magazines and newspapers many of whom, in this computer age, are barely financially viable. However, the majority seems reasonable, especially considering they would exempt items covered by WIC, etc. Obviously no piece of Legislation will have everyone’s approval on everything.

Some items that seem to be common-sensible, as opposed to government sensible, are all schools will be funded at their current levels and This Property Tax Independence Act completely eliminates the ability of local school boards to tax real estate, except to pay off their own district’s outstanding debt.

Furthermore, an analysis of the 2011-2012 version of the Property Tax Independence act by the Pennsylvania Independent Fiscal Office indicates the plan is financially viable.

There had been two Delaware County branches of the PTCC,
Delaware County 55% Coalition and Delaware County Taxpayers Coalition, but they both seem to have become inactive.

Nothing else will likely happen until the Pennsylvania Budget is passed.
We share with Illinois the distinction, if one can call it that, of going the longest in 2015 without passing a budget.

Mr. Small is a resident of Swarthmore. He can be reached at writ1@verizon.net

PTCC Praised By Freedom Group

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

By Chris Freind Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

Sometimes life imitates art so perfectly that even Hollywood couldn’t script it.

Now is such a time. And how ironic.

Hollywood – long perceived as a bastion of unwavering liberalism – is now being accused of playing the race card, employing discrimination in how Academy Awards nominees were selected, or, more accurately, not selected.

Of the 20 actors nominated for an Oscar this year, none are black, for the second consecutive year.

Now director Spike Lee (whose movie wasn’t nominated) and actress Jada Pinkett Smith (whose husband Will Smith was not nominated) are boycotting the award show and asking others, especially the black acting community, to do likewise.

And here is where this saga jumps the rails. Lee and Smith are shooting from the hip more than John Wayne, ignoring the concept of “presumed innocent,” and insinuating that the men in black simply have the wrong creed to win an Oscar. Their arguments are so mind-numbingly off-base they could give you a concussion.

Let’s take a look at Tinseltown’s latest controversy:

1. Did the academy, admittedly an organization shrouded in secrecy, deliberately snub black actors two years in a row simply because of skin color?

Don’t know. Translation: Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. But that’s the whole point. Labeling one of the preeminent Hollywood institutions racist, and by extension calling its members bigots, are mighty powerful charges to be leveled without a shred of evidence beyond the “sight” test. As such, it should be incumbent upon those making such accusations to back up what they allege.

But they didn’t. No leaked internal documents showing racism, no secret recordings of backroom deals to keep the blacks out, no smoking gun. Just their opinions.

As a result, their message, especially to our youth, is that it’s OK to shoot your mouth off and demonize anyone you choose – lack of facts notwithstanding and people’s reputations be damned – just because you don’t like the way something pans out. (Of course, it’s a whole lot easier to do such things when you’re wealthy and powerful, a lesson surely lost on their followers who risk job and security when acting similarly.)

Using one’s platform to draw attention to a cause is admirable, but only when it doesn’t impugn the character and reputation of others without justification.

Smith and Lee’s actions are highly questionable, since they reinforce the do-and-say-whatever-makes-you-feel-good entitlement attitude sweeping America. Good role models, they are not.

2. If there is such strong institutional racism within the academy, how to explain the numerous black actors who have been nominated for past Oscars? That includes Will Smith – twice. And Spike Lee – twice, as well as being the recipient of an honorary Oscar just last year. The same Oscars, incidentally, that are being hosted by a black comedian (Chris Rock) and overseen by a black producer (Reginald Hudlin).

These pesky facts have, apparently, been forgotten by Smith and Lee. How convenient.

And how to explain, for the second consecutive year, a record number of black nominees and winners, especially black women, for the Emmy awards? It was a 64 percent gain from the previous year, which itself had been a record.

The Golden Globes have had no shortage of black nominees and winners, nor do any of the other awarding institutions, including the Black Reel Awards, the Black Film Awards, the American Black Film Festival, and Black Entertainment Television.

So let’s get this straight. Despite black actors being nominated by the academy for years, it’s acceptable to cry “racism” because your film, your husband, and other black actors didn’t happen to make the cut this time?

Too many actors in Hollywood become insulated from real life, leading many to forget where they came from, and how they got there. But this is too much, even for Tinseltown. With all the problems we face, from terrorism to hunger to real racism, we’re supposed to care about whining millionaires who didn’t win yet another award? Please.

3. So why did no black actors get nominated? Who knows? Maybe their performances simply weren’t that good, or that their films didn’t measure up. Maybe some were beaten out by better actors in better flicks in a year that simply didn’t go their way. Guess what? That’s called life, and it isn’t always right or fair, especially when human subjectivity is involved. But is complaining and using divisive language the answer? Do these narcissists really believe they have a right to be coddled, and that we should jump every time they feel slighted?

4. Some are claiming that the Oscar ratings were down 16 percent last year because of the alleged racism. They are wrong.

The reason people aren’t tuning is much simpler: Besides many bad movies, the Oscars have become long and boring, featuring self-aggrandizing actors reading incoherent speeches and thanking people we’ve never heard of. Throw in corny hosts telling painfully unfunny jokes, and it has all grown very old. There’s an invention called cable TV, and people are using it to turn the channel. To paraphrase “Field Of Dreams:” If they change the content, viewers will come. But they haven’t.

5. One of two things is true:

– If racism is involved, it would show those in Hollywood to be ultimate hypocrites. They talk the talk by using liberal pyschobabble buzzwords such as tolerance, inclusion and diversity, but when it comes time to walk the walk, they run the other way.

– Or racism played no part in the academy’s decisions, in which case they chose what they believed to be merit over skin color, knowing their actions, while correct, would nonetheless create controversy. A gutsy move – who’d have thought?

6. Where does the push for “diversity” end? Will we see quotas for minority actors next year? And will there be ones for ethnicity, gender and sexual preference, too? And what happens to those deserving of an award but who get shafted because they happen to be the wrong skin color, since overt reverse discrimination would be the new rule?

It is not without irony that the Oscar controversy was raging on the holiday celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps the boycotters would do well to recall his timeless words about what America should be, instead of hurling racial barbs around the town that gave them fame and fortune: “… a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Unfortunately, this fight looks to get uglier before it gets better, as the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences president is already caving in to the boycott. And that means for this story, there won’t be a happy-ever-after Hollywood ending.

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town.

Chris Freind — Obama Gun Orders Sensible

 Obama Gun Orders Sensible By Chris Freind Obama Gun Orders Sensible

It’s not exactly taking a shot in the dark to predict that the sniping over President Obama’s executive orders on guns will intensify. As the elections draw near, both sides will aim to put the issue directly in their sights and blast away at those who disagree.

But like most important issues, there’s too much rapid-fire rhetoric and not enough common sense, which serves only to move the debate off-target. If the politicians truly care about reducing violence, both sides would holster their weapons and keep their powder dry, and instead hone in on the real problems with sharpshooter precision.

Let’s look at the smoking guns in this latest firestorm:

• Policy: The president, stating he was fed up with a Republican Congress that he saw as doing nothing to tackle gun violence, announced executive orders to increase the scope of background checks for prospective gun buyers, including sales conducted online and at gun shows. Anyone selling firearms would be required to obtain a federal license, and the loophole allowing individuals to buy weapons through a trust or corporation without a background check would be closed.

The GOP, predictably, has been shooting from the hip about how such measures violate Second Amendment freedoms.

One question: How?

How does requiring a criminal background check using the FBI’s database in any way violate one’s rights? Put another way, do these people really believe we shouldn’t have background checks at all? Talk about firing blanks.

Contrary to claims by conspiracy theorists, background checks are not federal gun registries. Neither do they lead to them.

For those who believe that expanding background checks will lead to gun registries, where have they been for the last decade? Background checks aren’t new, so, by definition, if we are simply expanding and modernizing an existing system, then under the critics’ rationale, wouldn’t we already have such a registry? They can’t have it both ways.

Background checks are not a conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat issue. And since they do not infringe upon a law-abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm, it’s not “gun control.” It’s criminal control.

Undeniably, such checks work. There have been 1.8 million denials since 1998. In 2010, half of those denied had felony convictions or indictments, almost 20 percent were fugitives, and 11 percent had violated state laws.

To allow convicted felons or the mentally ill to buy a gun with quasi-legal impunity is crazy, since savvy criminals will choose the no-background-check loophole rather than risk getting caught in an undercover sting. It’s a no-brainer.

But while background checks are useful, they are not a panacea. The FBI database is only as good as the information it receives from states. If criminal and mental health records aren’t routinely sent and/or updated, it won’t be as effective, which is why the administration is boosting its efforts to have states increase their records reporting. It’s also why the president is mandating the FBI upgrade its NICS database system, and providing for additional manpower to staff it. That modernization will greatly reduce the number of gun applicants who, by law, are permitted to take possession of a gun if their background check isn’t completed within three days.

Background checks certainly aren’t perfect, but that’s not a reason to opposes expanding them. Nothing will ever fully prevent lunatics from engaging in a shooting spree, but a background check system is a solid first line of defense.

Political: While idiocy is not illegal, it would behoove some gun-rights people to get a shot of common sense. For example, don’t show up at a gun rally or counter-protest with AK-47s on full display, as some routinely do. And don’t blame the “liberal media” when they post that shot on the front page. Do you want to look cool by touting guns in public, or do you really care about protecting gun rights?

The two never go hand-in-hand. Leave the guns at home, wear something that isn’t camouflage, and articulate a reasonable message with a calm demeanor. You’d be surprised how much more effective you’d be at convincing the Great American Middle – and it is they who will ultimately decide this issue.

Take it to the bank, expanding background checks is a winning political issue.

• Principle: Here’s the problem: President Obama’s executive orders may well get shot down by the courts faster than a speeding bullet – as they should. The Constitution makes it abundantly clear that presidents are elected to implement laws passed by Congress – not do end-runs around the legislative branch.

By no means is that criticism leveled simply at Mr. Obama, since both Republican and Democratic presidents have used executive orders. But wrong is wrong.

The GOP would do well to remind itself of that the next time one of its own occupies the Oval Office, as many will undoubtedly shelve their criticism of executive orders when it happens to be on an issue near and dear to them.

(As an aside, the most egregious executive order of this administration was its agreement with Iran. What is clearly a treaty – which legally should have been subject to ratification by the Senate – was accomplished instead by executive fiat. While the GOP-controlled legislature tried to kill this via legislation, they were unable to muster enough Democratic support to overcome the 60-vote cloture rule in the Senate. Having said that, the question remains why Congress has not filed suit to undue the usurping of its powers.)

• Practicality: Whether executive orders or Congress-passed laws, these measures, while valuable, will simply not stop terrorists and mass killers, and to think otherwise is stunningly naïve. From the San Bernardino terror cell to the Sandy Hook shooter, these people have no regard for laws in the first place, and won’t be deterred by gun restrictions or background checks, especially when they know they won’t live to see another sunrise. All too often, they steal and kill in their quest to obtain weapons.

The answer to stopping these attacks isn’t rooted in limiting magazine size or types of weapons. It’s finding out what we’ve done that has destroyed empathy in many of our young people and fostered a mentality that killing with abandon is somehow a viable option.

Remember that this mass violence didn’t happen in the 1950s – or even the 1980s or most of the ‘90s – when access to guns was considerably easier than now. We didn’t bolt school doors a generation ago, we didn’t have lockdowns, we didn’t whitewash everything, we didn’t constantly coddle our kids, and we didn’t get a trophy even when we lost. And we didn’t kill people when something didn’t go our way or we had hurt feelings in a warped but somehow romanticized outlook of going out in a “blaze of glory.”

There is no single cause for these mass shootings, and it will take a comprehensive effort to stop such tragedies, from increasing efforts to identify and assist the mentally ill to stemming the entitlement mentality of coddled youth.

A good start would be would be to stop sniping at each other, and instead keep our eye on the real target – the bad guys.

Obama Gun Orders Sensible

Kathleen Kane Hearing Theater Of Absurd

Kathleen Kane Hearing Theater Of AbsurdKathleen Kane Hearing Theater Of Absurd By Leo Knepper

Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Governor can request the removal of certain “civil officials” outside of the impeachment process. After the suspension of Kane’s law license, and refusal to resign, a Special Committee on Senate Address was convened to determine if Kane should remain in office without her law license. On Tuesday, (Jan. 12) the Special Committee on Senate Address held its final hearing on Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The hearing was eye-opening, to say the least. Although Attorney General Kane did not testify, her Chief of Staff, Jonathan Duecker, addressed the Committee in her stead. Duecker was frequently backed into a corner, mainly because his positions defied logic and were self-contradictory. When his statements didn’t put him into a corner, they were hedged and revealed how little Duecker knew about the operations of the Attorney General’s office. For example, Duecker had no idea what Kane’s day to day schedule was and couldn’t say for sure when she had last worked in Harrisburg. He also didn’t know if Kane had provided written instructions to the Attorney General’s legal staff about changes to procedure after she had her law license suspended. Duecker also was unable to answer fundamental questions about the contracting process Kane went through when she appointed a “Special Prosecutor” related to her investigation into pornographic emails. His unfamiliarity with the details of this contract comes as a surprise considering its high profile and the controversy it caused among the legal staff in the AG’s office.

If you have two and a half hours and want to watch the testimony, it can be found here. However if you wish to maintain any confidence in the operational capacity of the Attorney General’s office, you should probably skip it.

Rounding out the hearing was testimony from Ed Rendell. He didn’t exactly speak in defense of Kane. Rather, he talked about his time as the Philadelphia District Attorney and how a large part of his work did not require him to have a law license. Although Rendell seemed to enjoy his walk down memory lane, his testimony was only marginally relevant because District Attorneys are not subject to the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. The Act defines the role of the AG as an elected position and what legal responsibilities it has in the Commonwealth. Despite Rendell’s commentary, his experience as a District Attorney is hardly relevant to Kane’s ability to function with a suspended law license. He also urged the General Assembly to go through the impeachment process, instead of the Senate utilizing the Special Committee on Senate Address to resolve the issue of Kane’s suitability for office.

The Senate Committee will issue its final report by the end of January and make its recommendation to the full Senate.
Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Kathleen Kane Hearing Theater Of Absurd

Biggest Losers 2015

Biggest Losers 2015 By Chris Freind Biggest Losers 2015

It’s time to name 2015’s biggest losers. Not surprisingly, this list is always much longer than the “winners,” and, truth be told, a lot more fun:

•

Bill Cosby: Sure, he’s innocent until proven guilty. But one verdict is already in: Cosby is truly one of Hollywood’s most smug, arrogant and despicable stars – and that’s really saying something in Tinseltown. However, while his star will continue to fall, and with it his storied career, Cosby will more than likely be a “winner” when his trial in Montgomery County is said and done. His case was the centerpiece of newly-elected District Attorney Kevin Steele’s campaign, which will draw not-without-some-merit “politically motivated” arguments from the defense. Throw in the fact that successfully prosecuting a 12-year-old case is extremely difficult in the best of circumstances, and Cosby’s chances for an acquittal are high.

But that won’t make him any less of a creep. Too bad Dr. Huxtable was only a TV character.

•

Charlie Sheen: Just because.

•

Philadelphia Eagles and owner Jeff Lurie: The NFL wanted parity, but it got mediocrity, as 19 of its 32 teams finished the season at .500 or below. Yes, the Eagles were one of them, which is especially disappointing given the legitimately high pre-season hopes for the team. And why were expectations high? Because now-fired coach Chip Kelly had turned around Andy Reid’s disastrous 4-12 showing in 2012 by compiling consecutive 10-6 seasons, including a division title. Kelly pushed for and received control over player personnel at the beginning of 2015, so undeniably, many of this team’s shortcomings landed on his shoulders. But fair is fair: Kelly shouldn’t be held responsible for many of the bush-league mistakes his players made, from blown coverages to a seemingly unprecedented number of dropped passes. If those errors aren’t made, resulting in the Eagles winning just one or two of their close games, then Kelly would be entering playoffs with a team capable of big surprises. Instead, he was booted by an ungrateful owner.

It was Lurie who gave Kelly his power, and he should have allowed the coach at least one more year to fine-tune his system. If at that point the Iggles fell short, fine – “Chip’s Ahoy,” to quote the Daily Times headline. But given Kelly’s significant success in just two seasons – especially in light of how long Reid was allowed to hang around despite never winning The Big One – Chip deserved another shot.

You fumbled, Jeff. Now, watch for the Eagles to be mired in mediocrity for the foreseeable future.

•

The personal touch: No one wants to stand in the way of progress, but there’s a fine line between convenience and laziness. Take Christmastime. Not long ago, people spent many frustrating, but eminently worthwhile, hours going “Clark Griswold” with outside decorations and penning short notes on their Christmas cards.

Now? They are remnants of a bygone age, casualties of our aversion to anything that takes effort. First, we had the way-too-easy icicle lights (which look nothing like icicles) that took mere minutes to hang. Then net lights came along, which involved nothing more than heaving a few sets haphazardly over some bushes. And now, lasers, the point of which still eludes, as they are just a bunch of spots in the trees and have nothing remotely to do with the holiday season. But shove them into the ground, flip the switch, and – voila! Back to Reality TV in less than two minutes!

And a handwritten note on cards, or God forbid, people actually signing them? No surprise, since we can’t even talk to each other at the dinner table or coffee shop because our heads are buried in phones, breathlessly following every one of Caitlyn Jenner’s updates. The personal touch seems gone forever, and with it much of our humanity.

•

“Star Wars:” To quote C3PO, “Oh dear!” With an unlimited budget and unprecedented fan base, there was no excuse for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” to be anything but stellar. But Harrison Ford’s performance notwithstanding, it’s a boring re-telling of the first film, which succeeds only in blasting the film into the orbit of mediocrity. A new hope will be for the directors to awaken and use some good old-fashioned creativity to make high-caliber films worthy of the “Star Wars” name. And may the force be with them – please!

•

Carly Fiorina: Here was one of the few promising Republican candidates, a successful businesswoman with presidential gravitas who was positioning herself to be the year’s big surprise. Yet she abandoned all good sense – and shattered her credibility – by pandering to the Iowa caucus vote. No, it wasn’t flipping on ethanol subsidies or a farming issue. It was worse – she disavowed her alma mater Stanford, and publicly rooted for the Iowa Hawkeyes in the Rose Bowl.

In doing so, she got the worst of all worlds: infuriating Stanford alumni – many of whom have big bucks – and gaining nothing but contempt from Iowans for her naked political calculation. It also gave pause to many GOP undecideds who now view Fiorina as just another pol who will say anything to win, and who compounded the situation by claiming it was a joke, when everyone knows it wasn’t.

People may not understand deficits or trade agreements, but they intuitively know when someone lacks sincerity, and it’s often a deal-killer. Some will laugh off such criticism as irrelevant, but it’s often the little things that have the biggest impact. And if that’s the case, the joke’s on Fiorina.

And by the way, Carly, here’s something to stick in your ear (of corn): If you’re going to pathetically pander for a team, you better be damn sure they don’t get humiliated, as Iowa did, 45-16. Ouch.

•

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf: You call yourself the “education governor,” yet it took six months to release funding for our schools, including aid to the non-publics for much-needed textbooks? Shame on you, Guv. You almost make Tom Corbett look good. Almost.

•

Donald Trump: Sure, he also made the “Winners” list for his unique ability to change the political landscape. But had he exhibited even a modicum of restraint by not insulting damn near everyone, he could have been a viable contender. America needs a businessman to shake up the failing status quo, and Trump could have been that guy. But instead, he valued making a mockery of the process – and his issues – over being a serious candidate. As a result, voters are about to send Trump a familiar message: “You’re fired.”

Biggest Losers 2015