Flea Party Vs Tea Party II

Philadelphia Inquirer carried a large, front page story, Oct. 7, about the “Occupy Philadelphia” protest near City Hall which drew about 700 flea partyers.

Contrast this to the almost non-existent coverage it gave the Independence Hall Tea Party’s 4th of July event which brought about 1,500 to Independence Mall and featured Herman Cain and John Bolton as speakers.

One’s sure they have their reasons for the stories they choose to play up.

Update: Teri Adams of the Independence Hall Tea Party tells us that the turnout on July 4 was actually over 2,000.

Flea Party Vs Tea Party II

Irresponsible Leadership

                                                                                  The Roar

For too long, America has been under the leadership of a President who, for all intent and purposes, consistently opts for the wrong course of action.  This fact alone validates why our fuel prices have almost doubled, our unemployment hovers at or above nine percent and our housing market remains in tatters.  And, it is this consistency which raises eyebrows.

In a curious sidestep, it has recently become the fashion to center our ire against those Wall Street profit seekers.  The original gatherings of protest have since leap-frogged from the Big Apple to any and practically all metropolitan areas.  Again, the President’s choice of action regarding this development becomes highly questionable if the betterment of our Nation remains paramount.

It probably seems slightly redundant to echo the inescapable fact that from Obama’s earliest Presidential campaign overtures, our media has been overly accepting of any and all of Obama’s shortcomings.  This policy continues today as a local headline misleads, “Obama ups heat on GOP to pass jobs bill.”

While this jobs bill gains the reader’s initial attention, a more accurate headline may have read, “Obama once again shows impatience and Presidential irresponsibility.”  His frustrations were evident from the first sentence as he stated his desire for Congress to pass his jobs bill or  be “‘run out of town’ by angry voters.”  Actually, Ben Feller of AP left the key word of “run” out of the quote which once again softened Obama’s threat.

Now I ask you, is this any way to be Presidential?  Vote for what I want or you will be chased “out of town” by essentially a mob, which I condone?  And talking about mobs, we return to Wall Street where there might be career openings for organizing and training the mob mentality.

Once again, Obama’s actions are irresponsible as he not only supports but seems to encourage this mob sentiment against our Nation’s financial center.  While hyping his jobs bill, which is essentially just another stimulus package cut in half, he reflects the anticipated positions of both Republican Congressional leaders by a return to his former organizing skills.  They may be the heart and soul of community organizing but as a National leader, the overall betterment of the country should be first and foremost when being President of “all” the United States.  Not so with his embarrassing comment; “And, you know, all I can do is make the best arguments and mobilize the American people so that they’re responsive.”

Since the House became the purview of Republicans, the Obama Presidency has traveled rocky roads.  The American voter is now witnessing the sudden change from his first two years of grinning to his current  nine month state of perplexity.  And his frustrations are without pretense, as his recent remarks suggests.

One last observance offers credence to his uncertainties.  Supposedly, Obama’s unseen resume contains a reference to his professorship of Constitutional Law.  So, it might just be the heat of the moment for him to misstate, as Commander-in-Chief,” We have a democracy…”  Or, I wonder how many of his students got that question wrong in his tests?  Again, his baffling consistency.

Jim Bowman
Author of
This Roar of Ours

Flea Party Vs Tea Party

As the unwashed Obama supporters continue their protest on Wall Street against the washed Obama supporters, a story regarding the privately owned park in lower Manhattan where they are camping serves as a comparison between their movement and that of the Tea Party.

Brookfield Office Properties, which is the owner of Zuccotti Park, says the park has become a sanitation disaster with the protestors willfully ignoring the posted rules which are designed to guarantee all access to it.

Compare this to the much-larger Tea Party protests which famously left the Washington Mall spotless.

Signs Of Support For SB1

Signs of support for SB 1, the school choice bill pending in Harrisburg, have been popping up in Springfield and throughout Delaware County.

The bill has not been changed since April 11.

Many Tea Party activist feel it goes nowhere near far enough.


Arnold Trebach — Betrayal Of A Dream

Arnold Trebach, a 1960s civil rights activist who voted for Obama, has written an excellent article on PajamasMedia.Com about how corruption in the office of Attorney General Eric Holder has betrayed Martin Luther King’s dream.

It can be found here.


Steve Jobs R.I.P.

Written on a five-year-old MacBook Pro.

Montco Reagan Connections

Montco Reagan Connections

After his victory in 1980, Ronald Reagan chose the best, the brightest – and make no mistake – the most politically powerful to fill his cabinet. In an acknowledgement to the Republican might of Pennsylvania (a state he won), he chose three cabinet officials from the same county! Drew Lewis (who fired the striking air traffic controllers), Alexander Haig, and Richard Schweiker all hailed from Montgomery County.

In 1994, Pennsylvania was the most Republican state in the nation in terms of elected officials. The GOP controlled the two U.S. Senate seats, the Governorship, the state Legislature, all statewide row offices, and a majority of the congressional delegation.

And in 2010, five congressional seats flipped to the Republicans, Tom Corbett trounced his gubernatorial opponent, the state Senate remained in GOP hands, and Republicans seized control of the state House with a 10-set majority.

Yet the biggest prize of all has eluded the Party for a quarter-century: a win for their presidential candidate. Not coincidentally, the southeastern counties, home to nearly half the state’s population, have trended Democratic in that timeframe, with the former GOP strongholds of Delaware and Montgomery counties abandoning Republican nominees since 1988.

So it’s no surprise that leading Republicans, including Gov. Corbett and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of Chester, have come up with a plan to change how the state’s presidential electoral votes are awarded. Under their proposal, one electoral vote would be allocated for each congressional district a presidential candidate wins, as opposed to the current system, which is winner-take-all.

We’ll get to the real reason behind this naked political ploy, but first, let’s look at why the plan is a bad idea:

1) It politicizes the election process in an unprecedented way: Congressional districts would be gerrymandered like never before, drawn by the party in power to suit its candidate’s needs in order to win the most districts. This is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed the system, and most definitely puts the politicians ahead of the people. It’s supposed to be the other way around.

2) It sets the stage for the system to constantly change: Although labeled a plan offering “electoral fairness,” it is being pushed simply because the GOP now controls Harrisburg and wants to bolster the Republican nominee’s electoral total any way it can. Remember, the Democrats need Pennsylvania to win the White House, whereas the Republicans do not.

And since this change would be enacted by simple legislation, where does it end? If Pennsylvania Democrats regain control in 2014, and a Republican occupies the White House, would we then see the winner-take-all system come back into play? The electoral system in constant flux would only breed resentment and confusion, which could not come at a worse time.

3) It’s a wash on the national level: If enacted nationally, this system would ultimately be a wash, or even negatively impact the GOP. For example, Republicans would no longer win all of Texas’ 38 votes, perhaps only taking 25. Taking it even further, it is possible that in 2004, despite George W. Bush winning 31 states, he might have lost the election, since he only won the Electoral College with 16 votes to spare.

4) The system works as it is: It is not easy to pigeonhole the American people’s voting preferences. For example, Montana and North Dakota, both Republican states in most presidential elections, have Democratic senators, as did solidly Republican Georgia a short time ago. Indiana, with a GOP governor and legislature, had voted Democratic for president only once since 1940 — but that changed in 2008. Obama also won the normally GOP states of North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Missouri. Yet the Republicans are darn close to winning the traditionally progressive states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Bottom line: Voting patterns are not set in stone. The more competitive elections are, the more engaged the electorate. The Electoral College works, so why mess with a good thing?

5) It all comes down to having good candidates who can articulate a message with charisma and passion. When Republicans instead coronate those whose “turn it is,” they get clobbered. Bob Dole and John McCain are prime examples. Neither had any business being the presidential nominee. Not much has changed, as the GOP is in total disarray heading into what many Republicans call the most important election in history. The truth is, there are only two candidates capable of winning the nomination, both of whom carry tremendous baggage. Yet McCain, the party’s patriarch, just stated, “We have the deepest bench in the Republican Party now that I have ever seen.” And that says it all.

On the state level, it’s much of the same, as Lynn Swann and Mike Fisher proved all too well.

Which leads us to the The Pennsylvania story.

The GOP’s demise in the Keystone State can be attributed to two things: the lack of quality candidates and the colossal failure of leadership. Fix both, and they win the state — and the White House. But the electoral system shouldn’t be changed just because the entrenched Business As Usual GOP hierarchy is the poster boy for incompetence.

The combination of running untenable candidates, valuing insider contracts and solicitorships over issues and choosing laziness over grunt work has caused it to lose huge chunks of the political landscape.

There has been little effort to groom candidates, and absolutely no initiative to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-million vote deficits. As a result, the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains from the tidal wave of 2010, but taking a pass on challenging vulnerable Democratic Sen. Bob Casey. The GOP leadership doesn’t seem to realize that the big swings in 1994 and 2010 were not mandates for the Republicans per se, but a demand that real solutions be enacted to solve monumental problems.

When Republicans talk about the issues, they win – and win big. President Reagan innately understood that, which is why he won 44 and 49 states, respectively, with massive Electoral College victories. Even George W. Bush learned that lesson, as he too galloped to victory with 40 states and 426 electoral votes.

Thirty years ago, when someone moved into the Philadelphia suburbs, they were always greeted (usually within a week) by the local Republican committeeman. The conversation went something like this, “Oh, I see you moved here from the city. Well, we have safer streets, better schools, and lower taxes – because our municipality and county are run by Republicans. Here is a voter registration card. I’ll be back in a few days to see how we can work together.”

That recruiting effort built the Party into a well-oiled machine, and the county organizations could be relied upon to deliver for national and statewide candidates.

But all that ended, and with it, the GOP’s dominance. Issues gave way to power trips and petty infighting, the Party lost its energy and brand. Now, door-knocking and personal visits are virtually non-existent. And the numbers illustrate that failure: in the largest Republican wave since 1946, neither Tom Corbett nor Pat Toomey won Delaware or Montgomery County. Given that the GOP isn’t making the necessary changes, it’s a good bet that trend will continue, with Obama and Casey again winning the state.

Republican woes aside, letting the genie out of the bottle by fundamentally altering the hallowed electoral system established by our Founding Fathers – one that has served us so well -&nbs
p; for short-term political gain is anathema to everything uniquely American.

The folks pushing this change should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are truly the leaders they purport to be. If so, they should abandon this foolhardy plan and seize the day, winning the hearts and minds of the electorate the old-fashioned way – through hard work.

The Founding Fathers knew a thing or two about how government works best. Honoring them by not punting a good thing is the least we should do.

 

Montco Reagan Connections

Hopes High For Successful Pittsburgh RINO Hunt

Tea Party activist Bob Guzzardi is enthused about Evan Feinberg’s chances to unseat go-along-to-get-along, establishment-Republican Congressman Tim Murphy in the  primary election looming for April 24.

Murphy has represented the 18th District, which is near Pittsburgh, since 2003.  RedState.org points out that he has voted for just about every big spending bill that has come his way, and has consistently opposed reforms to combat waste and fraud.

Guzzardi notes that the  district voted 65 percent for Pat Toomey and “is a plus 6 or plus 8, that is, tends ‘conservative’.”

Feinberg told Guzzardi this morning, Oct. 4,   that he will be able to tap into national money to challenge Murphy.

“Evan Feinberg has filed his FEC papers and will be opening a bank account tomorrow,” Guzzardi says. “His website will be up in a few days.”

Good Guys With Guns Mean Safer Cities

John Lott, respected researcher and a resident of Swarthmore, is noting  that Supreme Court decisions overturning gun-control laws in Washington D.C. and Chicago have brought about significant changes in the safety status of the those cities’ residents. Good Guys With Guns Mean Safer Cities

Namely, they’ve become more so.

Lott notes that in the first six months 2011, there were 14 percent fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year   when having a handgun was illegal.

“It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982,” he writes.


He says that the murder rate in Washington D.C. is down 34 percent since the Heller decision in 2008, which overturned that city’s gun laws.

Thank you, President Bush for the judges you picked.

The same effect, by the way, can be seen closer to home. Harrisburg made “right to carry” applicable to residents of Philadelphia in 1995, a year in which there were 432 homicides. By 1999, homicides there plummeted to 292.

While there were some spikes in the ensuing years (406 in 2006)  it never reached the number of the gun-ban years.

Last year, there were 306 homicides in the city. The city’s population has been stable at a little more than 1.5 million over the last 15 years.

Of course, the ability to effectively protect oneself is not the most important marker for safety. A society that sincerely holds that people are designed and loved by a creator regardless of that person’s convenience to society will be a very safe place in which few will feel need to have a gun.

Believe it or not, Philadelphia once came fairly close to that ideal. In 1958,  the city — which then had population of 2 million — had just 117 murders.

Good Guys With Guns

Animal Abuse Petition Link

Animal Abuse Petition — Reader Kristina B asked me to post a link to a petition to make animal abuse a federal crime.

Here you go, Kris.