Category: Guest Authors

Pa Attorney General Race

Pa Attorney General Race
By Chris Freind

Well, primary election day is almost here, and some of the races have gotten downright nasty. From disingenuous, mean-spirited campaign ads to a Democrat masquerading as a Republican accusing his opponent of being a Democrat, there’s something to satisfy everyone’s entertainment needs.

Perhaps the ugliest race is the Democratic contest for attorney general, pitting a woman against a whiner: prosecutor Kathleen Kane and former congressman Patrick Murphy. Murphy certainly can’t run on his record (there isn’t one), so instead he has charged Kane with being a millionaire trucking executive. (Note: If you can figure out how being married to a trucking company owner would prevent a career prosecutor from being an effective AG, please let me know. Perhaps she would look the other way on the rampant truck-on-truck crime in Pennsylvania?)

Of particular concern to many is that Murphy, who as a congressman perfectly personified the deer-in-headlights legislator (remember the Hardball interview with Chris Matthews on the Iraq war?), is running for the state’s top law enforcement job despite never prosecuting a single criminal case in Pennsylvania.

Murphy will need all the help he can get to pull out a victory, and apparently that help has arrived. Sources tell me that elements of the Republican Party have been covertly (and even overtly) pulling out all the stops for the young doe. And for good reason: They see him as infinitely easier to beat in November than an articulate (and better-looking) female prosecutor.

***

Speaking of Republicans helping Democrats, for your reading pleasure I have a letter from Governor Tom Corbett pushing Steve Welch, the Obama-voting, Joe Sestak-supporting U.S. Senate candidate he personally endorsed (and strong-armed the Republican Party into endorsing). So in the spirit of accuracy, I’ve “corrected” the Governor’s letter to reflect the truth, though we will leave the bad sentence structure intact. My commentary in bold:

Dear Friend,

In less than two years we have turned the tide [by being just like Ed Rendell?], and are righting the wrongs of the liberal agenda here in Pennsylvania [yes, that same “liberal agenda” that, in fact, was passed by an overwhelmingly Republican state senate]. We brought a new way of thinking to Harrisburg after inheriting a recession and a $4.2 billion dollar budget deficit in 2011 [Sorry, Guv, but despite the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget, those deficits still exist because no one—Republican or Democrat—will address the issues that led to those deficits. Examples abound, such as the $400 million in I-80 tolls used to “balance” a prior budget—even though that interstate never became a toll road, and the money was never “repaid.”]. While we have witnessed others in the past attempt to solve our state’s problems by spending more of your hard-earned tax dollars, I have employed a fiscally conservative approach to our economic issues [Yes,by finishing Rendell’s spending legacy of bailing out the Philadelphia shipyard to build ships with no buyers, constructing a new stadium for the  [obviously poor] New York Yankees’ AAA baseball team, funding the multimillion dollar Arlen Specter library, spending Delaware River Port Authority funds [AKA taxpayer dollars] on projects having nothing to do with the bridges while tolls continue to increase … we’d love to continue, but column space is limited to 10,000 words].

Together with the General Assembly, we have put our state’s economy back on track [uhhh, the natural gas industry is leaving the state, in part because of no political leadership, and the unemployment rate has not measurably dropped], not by demonizing the private sector, but by lowering taxes [Really? The job-killing taxes haven’t been touched, such as the nation’s second-highest corporate tax and the 18 percent tax on every bottle of wine and booze to rebuild Johnstown from the flood—of 1936!], cutting government spending [let’s be honest—that’s only because the federal stimulus dollars dried up],balancing the budget on time and giving businesses the ability to create jobs and drive economic growth.

Unfortunately, we have a government in Washington, D.C. stuck in the same liberal trap that Pennsylvania was suffering in. We started the fight in 2010 by talking about real change and real reforms  [Very, very true. It was, and remains, all talk.] With your help and support, I was elected along with a Republican State Senate and House Majority, U.S. Senator Pat Toomey and 12 Republican congressmen to cut wasteful spending and promote economic growth. This year, we have to continue our efforts and send U.S. Senate candidate Steve Welch to join the fight! [The irony is just dripping here. Pennsylvania elects all those Republicans to stop the “liberal” Obama agenda—and Corbett is pushing an Obama-voter who was, until fairly recently, a Democrat. Go figure].

I endorsed Steve because he has the passion and ability to take our shared Pennsylvania values to Washington, D.C. and get our federal government’s reckless spending back under control. He is a businessman who has worked tirelessly to achieve the American dream, creating a successful living for himself and creating jobs for hundreds of others. In the private sector, Steve has helped young entrepreneurs achieve their own dreams of launching a successful small business [In keeping with the “dream” theme, who in their right mind could possibly dream that endorsing an Obama supporter would rally the Republican Party?]

Steve is running for the U.S. Senate because he believes in the same values you and I do! [Wait, whose values? Obama’s or Sestak’s? Or both? And do most in the GOP share those values? Admittedly, the Party’s pick for Prez is the architect of government healthcare, but still … ]Steve could no longer sit back and watch as President Obama and Senator Bob Casey continue to spend our way into oblivion and add more debt onto the backs of future generations [Damn! If only Welch didn’t vote for Obama, that line may have worked!!]. Steve wants to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington, D.C. and help others achieve the American dream, as he has. [Unfortunately for Corbett and Welch, that’s not going to happen. There are no points for second  [or third] place. Sorry, Bob Casey: It doesn’t look like Christmas is coming early for you.]

Remember that we have a great slate of statewide candidates including Steve Welch—David Freed for Attorney General, John Maher for Auditor General and Diana Irey Vaughan for Treasurer—who need your support over the next few days. You can visit www.pagop.org to learn how you can help.

Most importantly, I hope you will join me on April 24th and cast your ballot for Steve Welch for U.S. Senate and our entire statewide team! [Too bad Democrats can’t vote in the Republican primary, since that would at least give your man a fighting chance … ]

Sincerely,

Tom Corbett
Governor [well, at least until 2014…]

Pa Attorney General Race

Why Dominic Pileggi Gets a C+

I am the owner and sole founder of The Liberty Index and solely responsible for grading the Acts of the General Assembly and the Governor. I would like to provide a context for Senator Dominic Pileggi’s C+ grade.
Because The Liberty Index is graded on a curve, Senator Pileggi’s grade shows relative standing to other legislators.
Dominic Pileggi’s grade and position on the curve mean he is not as bad as his colleagues.
Given the State Senate’s own record, the grade must be interpreted as not as bad as a bad bunch.
Looking behind the grade at the actual votes, let us compare and contrast the rhetoric and the reality of the record.
Disappointingly, the alleged fiscal conservative Sen. Pileggi, who represents the 9th District, voted “YEA” for seven of eight Ed Rendell’s Bankrupting Budgets. It’s sometimes hard to tell the Democrats from theRepublicans, especially, when Republicans are in Leadership.With his “YEA” vote for Capital Budget Act 130 of 2011,
Senator Pileggi (and every otherPennsylvania State Senator) added $1.6 billion dollars in debt to Pennsylvania’s ForgottenTaxpayer’s financial burden and, simultaneously, voted millions for billionaire corporations: Comcast, Janney, Teva Pharmaceuticals, ShopRite, Franklin Mint and $850,000 toPhiladelphia Democrat Chaka Fattah’s Philadelphia House of Imoja and $1,970,000 to Philadelphia University‐Arlen Specter Library and $10,000,000 John P. Murtha Center for Public Policy in Cambria County.
Contrary to Senator Pileggi’s rhetoric, the reality of the record is that Senator Pileggi is not The Forgotten Taxpayer’s BFF.
Mr. Guzzardi of Montgomery County runs the watchdog blog LibertyIndex.Com.
Why Dominic Pileggi Gets a C+

Is Archdiocese Lying Or Just Incompetent On School Closings?

By Chris Freind

“I don’t know Chief…this shark is either very smart, or very dumb…”

So was the famous line uttered by the legendary Quint in Jaws, as he was trying to figure out the intentions of the great white.

After
the recent roller coaster ride regarding Archdiocesan school closings –
and now the many reprieves – Catholics across the Philadelphia region
are wondering the same thing. Is the church hierarchy very smart (in a
conniving way), or very dumb?

Or are they, and the “Blue Ribbon” school commission deciding the fate of so many, just downright incompetent?

There isn’t a fourth option.

At
issue is that a whopping 75 percent of Catholic elementary schools that
appealed their closings were successful, meaning that their doors are
staying open, at least for now.

Last Friday, it was announced
that of the 24 appeals, 18 won. While it seemed like a “Good Friday” to
many, something tells me it may turn into a day of regret, closer in
fact to a Black Friday.

This is not meant to rain on anyone’s
parade, as there is obvious cause for celebration for many Catholic
families. After all, they had been told last month that their beloved
schools – 49 of them -were slated for permanent closure. While there was
an appeals process, based solely on factual errors committed by the
commission, virtually everyone figured there would be very few
successful appeals, if any.

And with good reason.

In
January, the chairman of the Commission, John Quindlen, former chief
financial officer of DuPont, made it crystal clear why schools were
closing and consolidating.

“A lot of this should have been
done 10 years ago…(but)… naivete and an unwillingness to face reality”
kept many pastors and archdiocesan leaders from halting long ago the
“death spiral” of declining population and rising tuition at so many
schools, he said, according to Philly.com.
“They would say, ‘I can make this work … But we had to come along and
finally say, ‘God bless you, but this has got to stop.’ ”

Fast
forward one month to the church’s about-face, and Quindlen’s comments
tell a starkly different story. “I celebrate the results and pray they
all survive in the long term … Neither the commission nor the
archdiocese was in a rush to close schools. Our focus was on how to
sustain them.”

What? Did he seriously say that with a straight face?

How
can you make the leap from a “death spiral” to “celebrating the
results” and talking about sustainability in less than one month?

Give
the archdiocese credit for one thing: if they are trying to anger as
many Catholics as possible in the most bumbling manner while ignoring
all rules of good communication and PR, they are succeeding beyond their
wildest dreams.

Let’s cut through the emotions tied to school
closings and look at this situation objectively. In doing do, one has to
ask: Why the games? Why did the Church say one thing – that in
retrospect now seems very suspect – and then almost completely reverse
itself, all the while talking in platitudes that didn’t remotely address
the questions and concerns of many?

It has left many scratching their heads, and even more seething.

So
here are the questions that absolutely must be addressed in order for
the archdiocese to have any credibility moving forward, and to prevent
the exodus of loyal, but very bitter, Catholics:

1) Is Catholic
education too expensive to sustain in most if not all of the 49 schools
that were originally slated for shuttering? If yes – which is what the
archdiocese has been telling us, and selling us, for quite some time –
then how can three out of four appeals have been successful? What
changed? Did a billionaire step up and write a big check to keep the
schools open? If so, we don’t need a name, because charity should be
anonymous, but we do have a right to know if that happened (extremely
unlikely as it is).

2) If the opposite is true – that those
schools are in fact affordable – then why have we been told something so
radically different for so long? It’s like being pregnant: you are or
you aren’t. Either the church can operate these schools efficiently, or
they can’t. There is no in-between. But that’s exactly where this
situation is – in no-man’s land, and their equivocation has just added
to the confusion.

3) Is incompetence to blame for the
contradictory messages? We were told that appeals would only be
considered if factual errors were made in determining which schools
closed. Well, by that logic, that’s a heck of a lot of errors. If a
student makes “factual errors” on 75 percent of a test, his grade is a
25. Which, unless you attend a public school in Philadelphia, is an F.
Not exactly a stellar track record.

4) Were we lied to from the
get-go? And if so, why? Was the threat of closings a grand conspiracy to
flush out big contributors as well as lighten the wallets of the
rank-and-file even more? Don’t scoff. The archdiocese has a history of
not being straightforward.

Just look at its red face regarding
its mishandling – and lack of truthfulness – involving one of its
schools in Philadelphia. According to a news report, a group starting a
public charter school stated that it was assured by the archdiocese that
it could rent Our Lady of Mount Carmel school for that purpose – two
months before the commission recommended closing the school! Mount
Carmel appealed its closing. Any guesses as to how that turned out? It
begs the questions as to why the archdiocese would even allow the school
to appeal when its fate had apparently already been determined.

Since
we are on the topic of education, perhaps a refresher is in order. The
8th Commandment tells us that we should not bear false witness against
our neighbor. In layman’s terms, playing loose with the truth – and
outright lying – doesn’t bode well for a Church preaching morality and
in desperate need of credibility and trust.

5) What about the
folks at all the other schools who wanted to appeal but were dissuaded
from doing so because the odds were so long for success? Common sense
tells us that if they had known such a large number of schools would win
their cases, many others would have appealed. Now, those parents and
students feel even more burned than they did a month ago – a remarkable
feat in itself.

6) The appeals have thrown schools that were
thought to be “safe” into chaos. Nativity BVM in Media, for example, was
originally intended to stay open, absorbing students from St. John
Chrysostom in Wallingford. St. John’s won their appeal though, and now,
in a stunning reversal, Nativity is shutting its doors and the new
school will be located at St. John’s.

Not only do parents and
teachers feel completely betrayed by this out-of-nowhere blindside, but
there’s an even more unjust twist: Nativity apparently does not have the
ability to appeal like all the other schools did. Talk about rubbing
salt in the wound.

And it’s exactly that type of move,
accompanied by virtually no communication, which drives fuming
parishoners to leave the Church. Hence the decline in church attendance
and school enrollment.

7) How can the church push for school
choice when it does not allow choice for its own members at the
elementary school level? So some families in Annunciation parish in
Havertown, for example, whose school closed because its pastor refused
to file the appeal that so many parents begged him to do, must send
their children all the way across town to St. Denis, when in fact they
live within walking distance to Sacred Heart? How ironic that the very
church fighting the image of hypocrisy born from the sex scandal now
engages in more hypocrisy: fighting for school choice as long as it
doesn’t apply to its own flock. When will they learn?

8) There
are no guarantees in life, but what assurances can the church give that,
in the next few years, those 24 schools, as well as any others, will
not close? Since it is impossible to believe that the problems of
declining enrollment, rising costs and overall unsustainability have all
been solved in the last 30 days, woe to those parents who take the
recent reprieves to be a sign of long-term viability, for they may well
be revisiting this exact situation in the near future. And that just
isn’t right.

•

The point of this column
is neither to agree with nor criticize the specific school closings and
successful appeals, but to implore the archdiocese to come clean with
all the facts.

Quint had to figure out what the shark was doing
and why. For all the blood, sweat and tears Catholics have shed for
their Church over the years, they should never have to question the
motivations of their Catholic leaders. They only seek the truth, and
deserve no less. It’s time to give it to them.

And that’s no fish story.

 

Is Archdiocese Lying Or Just Incompetent On School Closings?

Would Bon Jovi Get Half Staff

Would Bon Jovi Get Half Staff

By Chris Freind

With the sparse media coverage of Whitney Houston’s death
and funeral, it’s not surprising that her years of military service
have gone largely unnoticed, as were her activities as an undercover cop
in New Jersey (was she really killed after a sting went bad?). After
all, she must have done these dangerous things to warrant all
New Jersey state flags being flown at half-mast in her honor, as ordered
by Governor Chris Christie.

Because the opposite simply defies common sense. If Houston was not a
police officer gunned down in the line of duty, nor a military hero
killed in a war zone, that means that the hugely significant act of
lowering the flags in deference to her was because she was … a singer?

Really, Governor? A singer? That’s what it’s come down to in Jersey?
Sure, Whitney Houston was a Jersey native, proud of her Garden State
roots. And undeniably, she was one of the most dynamic pop stars of all
time, changing the musical landscape forever and inspiring some of the
brightest performers of today.

But she was just a singer. That’s not to minimize her
accomplishments, as they are many, but let’s cut through the emotion and
talk brass tacks. She was a popular singer, past her prime, with a
not-exactly-stellar personal history.

Play word association with most people about Whitney Houston, and they will tell you two things: great singer and crack addict.

That’s reason enough not to elevate Houston to god-like status. While
Christie can’t control the media’s nauseating coverage of all things
Whitney, he certainly could have sent a message by NOT lowering the
flags for her. By doing so, Houston is now perceived, more than she ever
has been, as a special role model, one for whom the government has
issued its seal of approval.

Where does it end? What is the litmus test for getting flags lowered on your behalf—once
the hallowed territory of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in
service of their country? Christie has changed the rules forever.

If Jon Bon Jovi happens to meet his maker next week, will the Guv give him the same special treatment? And what is the threshold? Record sales? Movie appearances? Rehab stints?
More ominous is to ponder Bon Jovi’s flag fate had he died before
Whitney. Would Christie have honored him the same way? And if not, would
that have been because Bon Jovi wouldn’t have provided the same
perceived political benefit?

Houston fans will take this as a personal affront to Whitney and her
family, but the point remains a valid one, and that bring us to two
possibilities.

1) Is Christie’s move a political calculation,
pandering to constituencies that are not in his camp? And if so, is the
Governor’s attempt at making inroads with the black community and young
hipsters done to seem more “moderate and compassionate,” both perceived
necessities if Christie is running for president or vice-president?

If that is the case, it is a massive miscalculation on three counts.
First, he won’t win over those constituencies because he lowers flags.
He can only do so by sticking to his core convictions, explaining to
them why his vision will benefit them more than failed Democratic
policies will. Second, he has now alienated an influential part of his
natural base—active and retired police and military personnel. Last,
such perceived political posturing doesn’t sit well with the vast
majority of regular, non-political citizens. They may not see his
motives as politically calculated, but many see his decision as a total
lack of good judgment.

2) Of course, there may be absolutely no political calculation
whatsoever, with Christie making his decision on a human level only. I,
for one, would certainly like to think so, as no media commentator has
defended Christie’s bulldog approach to tough issues more than Freindly Fire (and, to be fair, hammered him when he was wrong, such as “HelicopterGate”).

But that is exactly why politicians should not be lowering flags and
honoring anyone they happen to like. The nature of politicians is such
that everything they do is perceived to be calculated, that behind every
move is an ulterior motive to curry favor with a particular
constituency.

Why wasn’t the solemn act of lowering flags to honor real heroes left
intact? Why is nothing sacred anymore? Why is common sense so
incredibly uncommon these days, even by those from whom we expect more?

Perception is reality, and the growing perception—from both the
media’s nonstop Whitney coverage and Chris Christie stamping his
imprimatur on her entire life—is that she should be emulated and admired
as one of the nation’s great role models.

Drug Testing Public Workers Isn’t So Far Out. Man.

Drug Testing Public Workers Isn’t So Far Out. Man.

Randomly testing all public workers is simply common sense

Random drug testing of welfare recipients and public workers is racist, discriminatory and blatantly unconstitutional.

And if believe any of that, you’re smoking something.

Once
again, the drug testing issue is making headlines in Pennsylvania, as
such a program is now underway. Unfortunately, because the Legislature
dragged its feet (what else is new?), the current initiative is a
scaled-down version of the original bill, and has been put into effect
via an emergency budgetary order from the Governor. It only applies to
welfare recipients who have been convicted of a felony in the last five
years or are currently on parole or probation.

Too bad. It should include every single non-elected person receiving a paycheck courtesy of John Q. Taxpayer.

(The
only officials who should be exempted from mandated drug testing are
elected officials, though that position is sure to generate hoots and
hollars from the cheap seats. The rationale is simple: they are elected
by the people. They are not collecting government assistance checks,
nor are they hired as civil service workers. True, much of what we see
from elected officials leaves us wondering if they’re all on drugs. And
yes, at first glance it seems hypocritical for lawmakers to enact laws
that they themselves do not have to follow, but they are in the unique
position of being employed directly by the people. What’s next? A State
Rep fails the test and is stripped of his seat? Not practical, probably
unconstitutional, and a very dangerous precedent. Would these elected
office holders be smart to voluntarily take a drug test? Absolutely,
because if they don’t, they’ll be unsuccessfully explaining themselves
all the way to the ballot box.)

Remember the point of
state-mandated drug testing: to ascertain whether someone receiving
money — given to them by hardworking Pennsylvania taxpayers — is
breaking the law by using those funds on illegal drugs. It is not to put
people behind bars, but to ensure that they are clean and not abusing
taxpayer dollars.

Proof that this is not a conspiratorial
police-state tactic designed to incarcerate the state’s drug users, but a
program to simply ensure responsible stewardship of the people’s money?

Consumption
of drugs is not illegal. Manufacturing, distribution and possession of
illicit narcotics is. And since having drugs in one’s system is not
legally considered “possession,” no one failing a drug test would be
arrested.

Taxpayers have an absolute right to know that their
money isn’t going to welfare recipients’ drug habits. No one has a gun
to his head to go on public assistance, just like no one forces people
to work at a private sector company that mandates drug tests. It’s part
of the deal— take it or leave it.

Seemingly lost in the debate is
that drug testing isn’t a discriminatory act against select individuals,
but is increasingly common throughout all of society. Many companies
require applicants to pass a drug test as a condition of employment, for
obvious, common sense reasons. No business wants drug users on the job,
as they would be high-risk, untrustworthy employees who would
undoubtedly threaten not just productivity, but company stability.

It’s
key to remember that public assistance is supposed to help the
recipient and his/her family survive; it should never be used
carelessly, especially for something illegal. Since drugs are illegal,
if recipients can’t prove themselves to be clean, they should receive no
benefits. It’s that simple. Public benefits are a privilege, not a
right, just like driving or flying. If people choose not to abide by the
rules, that’s fine. But it’s simply arrogant to think one is entitled
to these benefits without any conditions.

Here are some of the more disingenuous arguments the pro-druggie side likes to use:

Argument: Welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.

Answer:
Who cares? That’s completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the
percentages are, although that claim is certainly suspect. The majority
of the population isn’t directly receiving taxpayer-funded benefits.
For those who are, drug testing should be the rule. Don’t like it?
Fine. Get a job. And if you have a public sector job, be thankful you
do and act responsibly to keep it. You work for the people. It’s their
money.

Argument: Drug testing is expensive.

Answer: If the government starts operating like a business, and aggressively negotiates volume discounts with private testing companies, the price
isn’t that high. This common sense expenditure would surely even pass
Tea Party muster. By definition, Government must spend money, but
should do so smartly and efficiently. The testing should be for all new
applicants, and random testing of the entire public pool thereafter,
somewhere in the five to ten percent range.

And financially and ethically, what is the cost of having taxpayers subsidize a crack addict’s drug habit?

Argument:
The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug testing program as
unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients
violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable
searches, labeling it “intrusive.”

Answer: That’s insulting to
every citizen NOT on the public dole. First, the anti-testing folks,
including legislators and the ACLU, are not Supreme Court justices, so
it’s not up to them to determine constitutionality. Second, odds are
certainly favorable that given the makeup of both the state and U.S.
Supreme Court, mandatory drug testing would be upheld. Welfare
recipients aren’t being forced to do anything. They choose to apply for
welfare. After that, they must abide by the conditions placed upon
them in return for receiving public money.

Argument: Random drug testing is
thinly-veiled racism, and an attempt to demonize public sector workers
by lumping them into the (false) public perception that all welfare
recipients are drug-using, inner city dregs of society.

Answer: I
wouldn’t have believed these accusations could be made with a straight
face, but that’s exactly what was thrown at me during two televised
debates on this issue. Such weak arguments only serve to bolster what
most people instinctively know: random drug testing of those receiving
taxpayer money is sound policy that serves to weed out bad apples and
preserve the integrity of “charitable” giving.

Given that a
Democratic Senator, John Wozniak, is the prime sponsor of the
Pennsylvania bill, and his Party loves to bill itself as the defender of
the poor, minorities and public sector workers, those charges don’t
stand up for a second.

They are so ridiculous on their face that
they shouldn’t need rebutting, but it bears repeating: this issue has
nothing to do with race (many on public assistance are White), and zero
to do with demonizing public sector workers and unions (as many in the
private sector are tested as well). It has everything to do with the
reasonable expectation of taxpayers that their money be used for
humanitarian purposes (public assistance) and an intelligent, stable and
productive workforce (public sector employees).

The Daily Show
With Jon Stewart ran a comedic segment, with one of its “reporters”
interviewing the Florida legislator who sponsored a similar bill, and
Rick Scott, the Sunshine State’s Governor who also championed the drug
testing cause. Both men are right on the issue, but may have lost the PR
battle, looking downright foolish at times. That’s a shame, because
it’s communication miscues like those in that interview that sets the
issue back in other states, giving credence to otherwise baseless
arguments that should have been smoked from the get-go.

It’s not
what you say, but how you say it. So in Pennsylvania, let’s say it loud
and clear: “This is your paycheck (a lot of taxpayer money). And this
is your paycheck on drugs: Absolutely nothing!”

Finally something worth inhaling.

Behind the Scenes

The Roar

Behind the Scenes

In light of Obama’s attempt to trample upon our religious freedoms, can anyone explain why the House voted 254-173 for granting this lawless leader the highly questionable “line item veto” authority? If I’m reading this correctly, this amid the ongoing Catholic Church uproar?

This one act underscores the need for a renewed House cleaning.  What began in 2010 must continue as many examples of the RINO persuasion are still working their mischief.

There exists an obvious chasm between the 2010 Tea Party “upstarts” verses the  more deeply rooted establishment figures.  As noble as was their election, those sixty some hard chargers are mere fingers in the dike, waiting for re-enforcements to arrive.  This latest indefensible tally, affording Obama with additional power, seems to be in sync with his attempt at establishing a dictatorial voice over our First Amendment’s religious rights.  The normalcy of asking “what were they thinking” now takes on irrelevancy when confronted with this “in your face” vote.

The reach of Obama’s intent is limitless, as he himself validates on almost a daily pace.  To grant him this incursion to Congressional authority, in light of his ongoing intention of religious intimidation, is insulting and once this roll call is known, should be remembered in November.

This unmasking of collusion, which has for too long hidden the chummy behind the scenes  political embracing, is now finally the culprit exposed.  However, in view of the timing, the question of “why now” surfaces?  Certainly, the uproar surrounding this contraceptive issue has brought undo scrutiny and public indignation.

Already, Obama’s most resilient alternative to our Constitutional format comes from his abuse of an Executive Order option, which was originally designed solely for extreme situations.   Also, consider his recent and blatant affront to constitutional dictates concerning “recess appointments.”  The fact that Congress was indeed in session mattered little as he ruled, and without any Congressional opposition, that Congress was not in session.  This one act, again left unopposed, should stiffen the resolve of voters in November.

This is the perplexing landscape to which voters are now attempting to select which candidate best offers solutions to what must be considered an overbearing if not out of control administration.  Who best to initiate reforms and have the confidence from the voter?  We can ill afford to spend our primary season in defense against what might or might not be a conservative candidate.  In the end, past practice is undebatable.  The old axiom, talk is cheap, led us to this threatening situation.  How much smooze will we consume before we act like free Americans with individual thought?  Let us embrace the truth, which often hurts, and proudly select the most conservative of choices.

While Obama presents a clear danger if re-elected, based upon the obvious lack of second term accountability, the latest dereliction with regards to this line item vote presents more November challenges.  When realizing that such authority is even Constitutionally questionable, its passage insinuates future treachery if the current status quo remains unchanged.  Along with what is obviously needed at the White House level, the chant RINO Must Go, should become loud and clear throughout our Country.

Jim Bowman, author of,
This Roar of Ours

A Basic Solution

The Roar

A Basic Solution

Obama served notice to all when he said, and I’m paraphrasing , America is not a Christian nation.  Consider the magnitude of this statement.  Certainly comparable with his recent assault on the Catholic church?  How in hell does an elected President, who is facing a re-election defiantly turn against an Amendment which he swore to “preserve, protect and defend?”  If he is to be re-elected, what then might curtail his future lawlessness?   Could there be a message within his infamous upward glance, with his jaunting jaw and upturned nose?

The limits on government, as explicitly enumerated on the pages of our Constitution, are not to be ignored, for this is our “law of the land” and the rock of our Constitutional Republic.  For too long, Americans have reacted in an apathetic manner against government encroachment.  No longer are we of that nature and for good reason.

During these last three years, it’s become increasingly clear that we indeed elected a menace, a clear and present danger to our Country.  As such, this November is like no other election since the usual republican verses democrat choice have lost its sheen by a need to preserve our blessings of freedom and liberty.

What we have drifted from are the origins of our Country.  Our government was to be limited in that it would protect our freedoms and inalienable rights, along with providing a unifying defense against invasion.  Our Constitution was ratified based upon the agreement that a listing of individual rights would follow.  These rights were directly fused to Thomas Jefferson’s classification in his Declaration of Independence that indeed, our rights were unalienable, meaning that they were from our Creator.  As such, what became known as our Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to our Constitution, were thus above governmental mischief based upon their unalienable status.

While Obama is not the first President, he is certainly the most aggressive with his blatant disregard of our Constitutional safeguards.  This week’s assault upon our inalienable right of religion will forever stamp Obama as a Constitutional foe.  This is not conjecture since his actions could even  conjure up thoughts of a possible impeachment proceeding.

Many have marveled and even praised the American instincts which formulated the American Tea Party.  Consider the mid term elections of 2010 without it.  Ironically, consider its possibility without Obama on the scene.  However, simply waving Tea Party banners will not bring change.  Change will come from an informed electorate, versed in the original intent of our Founder’s creation.

As America is under attack from all sides.  We must resume the responsibilities of our freedoms and inalienable rights. We also must reclaim the cornerstone of parenthood.  Nurturing, caring for and educating our children must return to the individual family.  Also good manners, nutrition and self respect comes from the love and guidance of family, not from paid employees at public institutions.

As government grows, so does its attraction to subterfuge.  How many “assistant to the assistant secretary” positions are there?  And of course, do we have a final count as to the number of tsars? All these are unelectable positions, each with it’s own little uncontrollable fiefdom.

As Americans, what it comes down to is just that, being an American.  Haven’t we had enough of a Supreme Court member degrading our Constitution to foreigners?  Do we want a President who thinks that America consists of 58 States or who denies that we are a Christian nation?  How much more legislation will first need passing to know what it contains?  And, just what else is left to be regulated?  It’s time to admit that the course to follow is the course of our Forefathers.  Small is useful, inexpensive and controllable and is the exact opposite from what we have now.  God Bless America, her troops and all her religions.

Jim Bowman, author of,
This Roar of Ours

Americanism Rules By Jim Bowman

 Americanism Rules

The Roar

Americanism Rules

Could it be that the Tea Party has finally found their man?  Since the 2010 mid-terms, this growing voice has been linked and often identified with Bachman and Paul.  All seemed settled as Cain was embraced.  Even Perry’s initial draw siphoned momentary support.  However, times have changed since the  media’s trumped up candidate, Mitt Romney, never caught on.

This reaction of indifference, from the most conservative element of his party, may impart a sort of public obstinacy against a heavy handed media.  The political playing field has undergone dramatic change since the media’s last endorsement of McCain.  Significantly absent from the never ending diatribe of talk media, comes the fact that this current primary season now features the awareness of a RINO presence which was previously unknown.

In hindsight, Rick Santorum may well have been the most unswerving conservative yet he remained out of the media spotlight for just that reason.   Last night’s triple whammy represents a significant Tea Party upswing towards our Constitutional renewing.  As such, the battle is twofold.  In addition to the election of a President, what is taking place is the “establishment’s refusal to relinquish the reins of the Republican Party.

I cannot over emphasize what has taken place in the Republican corral during these last few years.  And it is mainly due to the public’s awakening and ensuing unification under the Tea Party banner.  This entity applied pressure to political quarters which previously went unnoticed.

Back in 2010, while the media took delight with their reporting of an O’Donnell and Angle loss, the drastic measures employed, ala Rove/Krauthammer/Perrino and company, exposed their behind the scene mannerisms and sinew of political enforcement and control.

In an ironic turn of events, it might well have been a human nature response which started this political unraveling.  Newcomer and unknown O’Donnell challenged and overcame Mike Castle’s ageless incumbency.  This brash and unexpected result brought the establishment RINOs out from the shadows and, in conjunction with the emerging  Tea Party, which at that point was nothing more than the butt of insider jokes, incited these captains of political intrigue to finally undress in public.  Their venom validated and strengthened the Tea Party’s commitment.  The 2010 midterms, from a Tea Party perspective, may well have formulated a “remember the Alamo” resolve.

This background now sets the stage and fortifies our journey.  Yesterday’s triple win ushers in a significant notice to all who align with the status quo.  The Republican branch of the establishment has been revealed.  So has Obama’s socialistic design and illegal rule.  His recent betrayal from his Notre Dame pledge, concerning his contraceptive Healthcare mandate in 2013 epitomizes his lawless disregard for Constitutional restraint, not to mention his word.  In short, his unworthiness becomes his one constant.

I shudder to envision America without this Tea Party voice.  Where and how it emerged is almost mystical, maybe even an offshoot from our Forefather’s belief of Divine Intervention during the Revolutionary War.  Maybe our Nation has been blessed once again.  And it is particularly interesting in that this is a period in which the forces we face are formulating a hard charge, an all or nothing effort, which has as its final reward,our capitulation.  Examples abound.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg denounces our Constitution’s worth abroad, notwithstanding her qualification to serve during times of “good behavior.”  Yesterday, the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals once again reversed the will of the people by stating that California’s Proposition 8 in unconstitutional.  This conclusion not only breaks from our Constitution and its reliance upon past legal precedence, it attacks common sense and logical thought.  And the recent recess appointments Obama rammed through is classic and routine from a President that detests and/or ignores our law of the land.

The times in which we live are more than interesting, they are dire if our children and their children are to experience true American blessings.  The forces now aligned against what is America are determined, ruthless and cunning.  They have as their number one weapon the ability to corrupt through offerings and the enticement from promises.  They will attack and use the pulpit of authority and expertise to sway and weaken our resolve.  Their campaign will be as saturating as was their 2008 messages of hope and change.

Last night ushered in a sense of Constitutional solidarity.  It seems that our message and mission was best explained with Sen. Santorum’s reference to our Declaration of Independence.  For in the end, freedom and its perpetuity is not only our right but our duty to maintain.  Our Forefathers began with their pledge of their lives, fortunes and scared honor.  That price remains ageless.  And for Americans, the price has always been paid, and on time!

Jim Bowman, author of,
This Roar of Ours

 

 

Americanism Rules

Ed Rendell Media Mogul Has Problem

Ed Rendell Media Mogul Has Problem

By Chris Freind

Famed political strategist James Carville once referred to Pennsylvania as two major cities with Alabama in between. What an insult to Alabama.

The folks in the nation’s fifth-largest state – all of them – are the backwards ones, the sad result of refusing to hold their leaders accountable for broken campaign promises and abject failures. All the while, their neighboring states – AKA “the competition” – continue to make gains at Pennsylvania’s expense.

Ohio and West Virginia are successfully courting natural
gas and oil companies, which are beginning to exit Pennsylvania.
Indiana is thriving after enacting comprehensive statewide school choice
and becoming a Right To Work state, where compulsory unionism is no
required as a condition of employment.

New Jersey (yes, Jersey!)
can woo companies across the river because of faith that a real leader,
Chris Christie, is righting the ship. Everyone else on the planet can
buy liquor easier and cheaper than Pennsylvanians. And corruption, both
criminal and institutionalized, remains rampant, killing optimism and
trampling the hope that you can beat City Hall.

From Ed Rendell
to Tom Corbett (is there a difference?), a lack of leadership has left
Pennsylvania on the precipice, its citizens staring into the abyss of
permanent mediocrity, paralyzed by fear to take the risks necessary to
forge ahead. Such a malaise is anathema to employers looking for
economic stability, a less hostile atmosphere and a better educational
system.

While that lack of leadership is inexcusable, there is
another, even more important factor as to why the state finds itself in
such a precarious situation: a media that has sold its soul, forsaking
its most basic mission of holding everyone accountable, with a “no
sacred cows” approach. For far too long, stories that needed to be told
were relegated to the dustbin. And unsavory politicians and business
leaders counted on that. Without an aggressive press, it was, and
remains, the Wild West where bad guys operate with impunity.

There is no better example of the media’s fall from grace than that of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Once a paper of national significance that took a bulldog approach to
its reporting, it has since become a shell of its former self, an
also-ran full of AP feeds and local fluff stories of virtually no
interest.

The Inky really jumped the tracks  when it was “led”
by Brian Tierney, who, along with investors, paid over half a billion
for the paper (and the Daily News) in 2006.

Mired in debt,
Tierney did the unthinkable – he approached then-Gov. Rendell for a
taxpayer-funded bailout to keep the papers afloat in 2009, a story that
Freindly Fire broke ( http://freindlyfirezone.com/home/item/43-possible-inquirer-bailout-draws-ire
) and was picked up by the Wall Street Journal in its harshly-worded
editorial “Bad News In Philadelphia – The Worst Bailout Idea So Far:
Newspapers.”

WSJ Link

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353263226537457.html

Predictably,
Rendell was ready and willing to lend that helping hand. But as
negative fallout for the bailout plan grew, the deal fell apart and the
papers filed for bankruptcy.

Despite what common sense
unquestionably tells us – that a taxpayer-funded newspaper would in fact
be an “adjunct of the state,” as the WSJ so adroitly described it – the
players in that ill-fated bailout attempt saw nothing wrong with their
actions.

Thankfully, Tierney is out of the picture, having lost
the papers to an investor group who held much of the original debt. But
incomprehensibly, the situation has come full circle. Now the current
owners want out, and it has been reported that none other than Ed
Rendell has been approached to put together an investor group to
possibly buy the papers.

Really? Ed Rendell? How is that even remotely possible?

Where
is the journalistic integrity in working with the very man who stood
cocked, ready to unleash millions in taxpayer funds to bail out an
“independent” media entity? It’s no secret that it has become
increasingly difficult for papers to make a profit in the age of The New
Media, but having Rendell as your “Go-To” man underscores just how
desperate the situation has become.

Taking marching orders from elected officials destroys the very essence of being a journalist and jeopardizes the unique constitutional protections afforded to media members. Sure, Ed Rendell is a private citizen now, but his mentality – how he sees the role of the government working hand-in-hand with the media – has undoubtedly not changed.

The last thing the region
needs is an investor group led by political insiders and
ideologically-supercharged individuals with aggressive personal agendas.
As painful as it would be for the thousands of hard-working folks at
the those newspapers, it would be better for the entire entity to close
its doors than be associated with folks who may, at any given time, make
a pitch for public financing.

And while past performance is not indicative of future results, it’s a damn good bet.

Better
to have no paper at all than one that prostrates itself at the feet of
the very people it purports to objectively cover. And since the
Philadelphia newspapers have been anything but a watchdog over the last
six years, churning out less than a handful of quality investigations,
the bad guys would see virtually no difference, since they’re not
exactly sweating investigative reporters knocking on their doors.

But the behavior of the Inquirer’s
ownership should come as no surprise, given that it recently accepted a
$2.9 million loan from the City of Philadelphia to assist the company
move to a new headquarters. Yes, the same city, the same Mayor and the
same City Council that the newspapers are supposed to be objectively
covering. Is nothing scared anymore?

Where The Media Went Wrong

The
sad reality is that The Fourth Estate has abdicated its sacred
responsibility of keeping American institutions honest and true. No
longer respected as the entity which holds feet to the fire and follows
investigations wherever they may lead, the American media has instead
become part and parcel of the Establishment. Too many journalists play
the “go-along, get-along” game – some because it’s easy, others because
they want to be liked, still others who are afraid they will lose
“access” if they ask the tough questions.

These people have
forgotten that their profession does not lend itself to having
“friends,” since nothing and no one should ever be off the table. The
result of these close alliances is blatant conflicts of interest, both
personal and professional. Once that line is crossed, it is nearly
impossible to return.

No medium is immune from this malady. Those
in television, radio, newspaper and internet are all complicit. As an
entity, the media has fallen down on its most basic journalistic
responsibilities, losing its integrity, and ultimately its credibility,
along the way.

Consequently, the public’s view of the media is at
an historic low. And while complaints abound that the media is biased,
which to a certain extent it is, this is but a symptom of a much greater
illness. A slant towards liberalism or conservatism is wrong, to be
sure, but inherent laziness and, by extension, incompetence, are the
first problems that must be rectified. Competence and vision will trump
bias every time.

Resurrecting the media’s image is a Herculean
task. And when the free press reaches the point where it is no longer
believed, it stands on the edge of becoming completely irrelevant.

Whether
it is nauseating nonstop coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s funeral
procession or feel-good fluff stories in our nation’s pre-eminent
newspapers, the lack of hard-hitting investigative reporting and
aggressive interviews with top national and international leaders is
appalling. Producers and editors are constantly looking over their
shoulders at the competition, choosing to push out content to be like
“every other station,” passing on golden opportunities to be different,
to be journalists – to be leaders.

These people spend more time trying to keep their jobs than actually doing them.

There
is a certain irony here. If media executives produced the quality work
that the American people expect, their ratings would skyrocket, and
advertisers would pay a premium. The biggest myth being propagated about
the bankruptcy of media companies is that they are victims of the
economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They are victims of their own ineptitude.

Americans
still have an unquenchable thirst for the news, but they are
increasingly tuning out the mainstream media because the content is
utterly lacking of substance.

The solution is simple – it’s just
not easy. Nothing and no one should be off the table. Not politicians,
government officials, businessmen, media personalities, sports stars,
nor celebrities. With no agenda except the truth, the media should
pursue stories with no boundaries and no restrictions.

Americans
don’t gravitate to question marks, but exclamation points. It’s time to
put the exclamation point back in the American press, not through new
technologies and gimmicks, but by pursuing the only thing that matters:
the truth.

As the voice in the classic baseball movie Field Of
Dreams commanded, “Build it and they will come.” In the same way, if the
media gets off its duff and starts producing content worthy of the
world’s best press, readers and viewers will come – in unprecedented
numbers.

Unfortunately, if Ed Rendell takes over Philadelphia’s newspapers, the ballpark will be empty before the new game even begins.

 

Ed Rendell Media Mogul Has Problem

Seeing is Believing

The Roar

Seeing is Believing

I sadly mentioned, “never say never” and “seeing is believing” in my last submission.  These cautious phrases, from an article that was a bit presupposing, became regrettably pertinent to the ruling in the recent Obama ballot hearing in Georgia.

With this stunning decision, we all should take a step back and consider its magnitude.  Just how, in light of the evidence submitted, did Judge Mahili arrive at such a unprecedented conclusion.  His finding placed a recent State court decision over a Supreme Court ruling which has stood for well over 135 years.  This conclusion was so distant from the rule of law that it appears to be more of a case of judicial banditry rather than judicial deliberation based upon the defense of our nation’s Constitutional law.

Who can ignore the arrogance and Obama’s intent to deceive when entering a political contest in which he had to realize that he could not pass its constitutional requirements?  How does one gain the support from a major political party when it must be assumed that along with the aspiring candidate, others too were fully aware of the candidate’s shortcomings?  How to proceed? Why would this endeavor take place, when in fact that same political party had a popular and experienced alternative with immeasurable voter appeal?

That was approximately four years ago.  Now, the “whys” not only continue but take on a completely different shade of meanings.  We are compounding this obvious violation as if this monumental slip never took place.  Instead of saying, “oops, we made a mistake which we will rectify,” pro Obama forces seem arrogant with their continuation of such a basic and easily verified Constitutional violation.  Their position conveys a “so what” stance.

Combating our pre Civil War history, by proving that we are indeed free of such lingering sentiments, the democrat party wedged this appeal into our public subconscious and rode the ensuing emotional wave to victory.  Obama’s appeal seemed both personal and historical.

Only one problem.  Their creation became a hungry tiger which they tried to hold by its tail.   While the stratagem bore the expected election results, the subject threw off his reins for a head turning fevered pace.  This impatience out distanced the gradualist policies of his promoters.  Looking back to day one, this seems to be the probable case.

Today, after years of virtually never ending claims of an illegal Presidency, the requirement of being a “natural born citizen” has finally overtaken the bluster and fury from the birth certificate debate.  Comparing the two, it becomes evident that the birth issue was a stalling tactic which diverted much attention and weakened the public zeal for any conclusion with Obama’s birth qualifications.  Now, seemingly out of the blue, comes the issue of meeting the Constitutional requirements of being a “natural born citizen.”  Aside from its validity, the public now has a notion that it also will fail.  Also, the puzzling absence of Trump stirs futility.

Now consider just how patently easy the answer is to this question.  Even the absurd admission from Obama himself, that his father was not a citizen, is now ignored by this latest judicial injustice.  In its place, Judge Mahili cites a 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals ruling which incorrectly redefined the term “natural born citizen” to be children born within in the U.S.  This is insane since the Constitution explicitly differentiates between citizen and “natural born citizen” through its stipulation of “natural born.”

Judge Mahili is just the latest to emerge into the light of day while supporting this illegal Presidency.  At this late stage, it seems that the decision to support and defend Obama’s re-election bid has been made.  As such, any and all measures are now on the table.  This is not necessarily the manner in which this ongoing American transition was meant to take place but once this stallion was foolishly unbridled, the party had no other choice than to ride it to the end

Faced with an impatient President who very well may have America’s decline on his “things to do” list, what stands between his conquest and our freedom’s future may well rest upon those who place country over self, truth over promises.  The truth is that the constitution requires that presidential candidates must be “natural born citizens.”  This has been upheld and defined by our Supreme Court in 1875.  It is unbelievable that Obama first entered into this charade but more so, now that this issue has come out of the shadows, his audacity is something more than just a normal ambition.   It reflects upon  lawless actions!

One Presidential ballot in the sovereign State of Georgia may lead the charge for Constitutional integrity.  And its banner is truth and peace through a lawful remedy.  Sign me up.

Jim Bowman, author of,
This Roar of Ours