tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60306500817859102342024-03-05T05:13:44.502-05:00The Right SlantNever afraid to be RIGHT!Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.comBlogger233125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-57489244841146651412012-08-19T16:40:00.002-04:002012-08-19T16:40:32.572-04:00Little League lawsuit epitomizes a Big League problem<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some things can't be fully appreciated unless compared to their opposites. We hold light dear because its absence is darkness. Crisp autumn mornings are sweeter when compared to summer's searing heat. Likewise, reward can't be fully valued without risk. The connection between risk and reward is a common element in economic and personal liberty, which somewhat explains why some people work so hard to disjoin them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Trial lawyers have certainly helped foster a reward without risk mentality. Frivolous litigation clogs the courts and cheapens the legal system. Of course, not all lawyers are crooked. Reputable lawyers are assets to their communities and credits to their profession. But shysters and their lamebrain clients are as devastating to personal responsibility as Josef Stalin was to Ukrainian agriculture.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I dare say most of us have attended a baseball game. When we passed through the gates we encountered the risk of a batted or thrown ball entering the spectator area. If we were attending a youth game -- perhaps in a league of 11-year-olds -- and sitting next to the bullpen, the chance of being struck increased. Like swimming in shark-infested waters, baseball presents foreseeable risks that rational spectators should expect in exchange for the rewards of watching a game. It's sad to say, but rationality doesn't always rule the day.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Elizabeth Lloyd was sitting next to the bullpen at a youth baseball game when she was struck by an errant throw. In harmony with the low risk tolerance common to modern America, she sued Matthew Migliaccio, the 11-year-old catcher who threw the ball. According to the lawsuit, Migliaccio intentionally assaulted Lloyd causing her "severe, painful, and permanent" injuries. Her suit also accuses the young ballplayer of "engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity" in Lloyd's vicinity. Now really, even in a litigious society, what could be a more appropriate sporting activity than for a catcher to throw a baseball in a bullpen?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Go ahead; roll your eyes at Lloyd's reasoning, or lack thereof. It doesn't mean you're denying or ridiculing her injury. Baseballs can hurt, and they can cause trauma. Both of my sons have played baseball and both have been plunked by beanballs and bad hops. As catchers, they absorbed more wild pitches and foul balls than I can recall. They accepted the potential for injury as the risk due to earn the reward, which was playing the game. Do spectators not also assume some degree of risk when they're in close proximity to the action?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">According to Bob Migliaccio, Matthew's father, "You assume some risk when you go out to a field." The comment is obviously directed toward the lawsuit against his son. But its inherent truth extends far beyond a catcher's error. There is risk in everything we do, in everywhere we go. There is risk in learning to ride a bike, drive a car, build a career, and live on our own, and each risk carries with it the potential for reward. Our society is increasingly litigious and dependent because of the childish belief that rewards can be realized without facing the risks, or that risks are someone else's responsibility.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even if separating risk from reward were possible it wouldn't be advantageous. When rewards are received without risk, or gains realized without effort, the value is diminished and the prize is unappreciated. Just consider the entitlement mentality. How often do welfare recipients publicly express gratitude for their monthly checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, EBT cards, or free school lunches? I can't recall a time either.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Elizabeth Lloyd's lawsuit epitomizes an attitude that goes far beyond the bleachers at Little League baseball games; it's at work throughout our culture. Utter contempt and disregard for the risk-reward connection is a rejection of personal responsibility, without which a free society cannot exist, much less thrive. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Generally speaking, the greater risks one accepts the greater the rewards: finer homes, nicer cars, bigger TVs, smarter phones, and greater economic security. The relationship between risk and reward is fundamental to personal and national economic well-being. But politicians, the intelligentsia, and other social elitists spent the better part of the 20th Century selling the notion that risks are unfair and rewards are a civil right. To our shame, those efforts have borne fruit. The predictable result is a greater dependence on government and more politicians willing to confiscate and redistribute the risk-taker's reward.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>This column first appeared at the American Thinker.</i></span><br />
Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-48984941934263672092012-08-05T13:21:00.002-04:002012-08-05T13:21:55.196-04:00Message to Chick-fil-A: Chicago has enough clucks<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why did the chicken cross the road? In Chicago, it was to
get to Logan Square. Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Alderman "Joe" Moreno
are turning the area into the city's first chicken sanctuary. In case you spent
last week on the dark side of the moon, let me explain: Chicago's rulers are
resisting Chick-fil-A's plans for a new restaurant due to its corporate
opposition to homosexual marriage.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Moreno vowed to keep Chick-fil-A out of his district. Emmanuel
was a bit more reserved, content to say the company doesn't measure up to "Chicago
values." Now, let's remember that Rahm is trumpeting the values of the
nation's most <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/chicago-most-corrupt-city_n_1278988.html" title="Huffington Post: Chicago corruption study">corrupt</a> political city.
How can Chick-fil-A reflect "Chicago values", provide free sandwiches
to every Chicagoan who rises from the grave on Election Day?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All kidding aside, Emmanuel and Moreno are perfect examples
of what's wrong with the political culture. Good government doesn't force businesses
to check corporate beliefs at the city limits. Their attitude should serve as a
warning to all businesses; if you want access to Chicago's marketplace you must
adopt approved positions on social issues. It sounds like bullying because it
is bullying, and the politicians practicing it are unworthy of the public trust.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let's get one thing straight; Chick-fil-A is discriminating
against no one. The company <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/14014414-761/chicago-chick-fil-a-owner-we-serve-and-hire-gays-with-honor-dignity-and-respect.html" title="Chicago Sun-Times">serves and hires</a> both heterosexuals and
homosexuals. Emmanuel and Moreno are the true bigots. Their opposition to
Chick-fil-A isn't based on anything but the company leadership's personal
beliefs, beliefs that electoral <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx" title="ncsl.org: National Conference of State Legislatures">results</a> suggest
are mainstream.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Suppose another city adopted Chicago's policy in reverse, refusing
to allow companies that support homosexual marriage -- like Nike, Levi's, and
Microsoft -- to conduct business in their municipalities? Would Emmanuel and
Moreno support that decision? Please! They'd be tripping over each other in a
mad rush to condemn that city's abuse of government power.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Emmanuel says Chick-fil-A's proposed restaurant would be a
"bad investment" because "it would be empty." If he really
believed his rhetoric he would put Chick-fil-A's building permits on the fast
track. Politicians love being right, and Emmanuel would look like a prophet if
Chick-fil-A was forced to close the restaurant due to a dearth of customers. Of
course, as much as politicians love being right they fear being wrong even
more. And evidence suggests that Emmanuel doesn't know what he's talking about.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2011 was the 44<sup>th</sup> consecutive year Chick-fil-A's
sales increased, reaching $4.1 billion and marking a 13-percent rise over 2010.
The company operates more than 1600 stores and will open another 77 during 2012.
Since Chick-fil-A restaurants aren't sitting empty elsewhere it's unlikely they'll
sit empty in Chicago.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If Emmanuel and Moreno prefer political correctness to
private enterprise, fine. There are plenty of places -- like the Chicago suburb
of Lombard -- that would welcome Chick-fil-A with open arms. The company should
take its restaurant plans, and resulting tax revenues, there. Besides, with
leaders like Emmanuel and Moreno, Chicago has enough clucks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-52378005983423098532012-07-29T19:19:00.000-04:002012-07-29T19:19:27.475-04:00There's no explanation for senseless violence<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It can be argued that mankind is nature's perfect contradiction. We seldom consider issues for which there are logical conclusions. Yet when confronted with senseless violence we'll make vain attempts to rationalize irrationality. But no matter how hard we work, satisfactory results are unachievable. Explaining the unexplainable is like pushing breakers back into the ocean. So it goes in the aftermath of the Aurora massacre, as pundit after pundit blames firearms and the Second Amendment for the carnage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While some people might gain momentary peace from blaming guns, or the Constitution, for deranged criminality, it is the ultimate nonsense. Firearms are no more responsible for violent crimes than Food Network is for gluttony. Guns are inanimate. They can't act of their own volition, determine right from wrong, or differentiate between just and unjust persons. Like knives, axes, and other tools, guns perform at their user's discretion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">True, a madman with a firearm can inflict more immediate casualties than one armed with a knife or an axe. But capability doesn't change the basic nature of a tool. Since tools are incapable of distinguishing good and evil, we must examine the operator. This simple truth forces humanity to face an unpleasant reality. Evil exists not in the objects we create -- guns, knives, axes, nuclear missiles, etc. -- but in us. Evil will survive as long as mankind survives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even so, there's no shortage of kneejerk responses from shortsighted and self-serving politicians who manipulate tragedy to enhance their power and that of the State. Those calls are thus far falling on deaf ears, which is quite refreshing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yes, the Aurora murderer used guns for an evil purpose. But thousands, perhaps millions, of like firearms are used for legitimate reasons, or not used at all, every day of the year. Privately held arms are intrinsic to liberty, their value far outweighing the evil found in the random lunatic. However, the peaceful use or nonuse of arms generates neither media headlines nor political opportunities. Those who offer vain explanations for senseless violence are hoping the country will favor their emotionalism over common logic.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Evil acts begin in an evil heart. Firearms, knives, axes, and clubs are just tools for expressing the evil within. Since one man expressed his evil with a gun, and many people died quickly because of it, it's easy to blame the tool. However, many people have died slowly, over time, at the hands of serial killers who used no gun. Those crimes are just as bewildering, the victims just as dead, and the perpetrators just as evil as if the crimes were committed with a firearm.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There's nothing defeatist in recognizing that evil won't be eradicated or fully understood this side of the Pearly Gates. To accept that fact is to choose reason over emotion and liberty over servitude. In Aurora's wake the fact that reason has thus far trumped emotion is about the best result we can hope for.</span><br />Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-29974571646539850212012-07-29T19:17:00.000-04:002012-07-29T19:17:10.568-04:00Tragedy of tragedies and no Shakespeare in sight<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Any debate centered on the greatest tragedy writer in literary history will invariably include William Shakespeare. Tragic theatrical literature is as integral to the Elizabethan Englishman's legacy as stately political analysis is to Thomas Jefferson's. However, while tragedy is a favored tool of adept playwrights, it's downright indispensable for political tyrants.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Playwrights benefit from weaving suspense into their scenes. Tyrants benefit from weaving dependence into the law. Of course, the playwright's and the tyrant's motives are as different as night and day. But their base tactic is analogous. Tragedy creates empathy, and empathy captivates an audience. The scene plays frequently on today's political stage. Emotional stories generate compassion among a sympathetic but uncritical audience.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ohio was the stage for a recent installment of this perpetual drama, where President Obama received tearful praise for enacting the Affordable Care Act. The emotional appeal came from a young woman whose sister succumbed to colon cancer four years ago. No one can argue that the scene isn't sad, even tragic, or that it's repeated far too often. But then life is filled with tragedy, and with people willing to use another's suffering for personal gain.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Admittedly, it seems crass to think a woman's death would be manipulated for political purposes. Yet the very nature of contemporary political discourse compels us to question scenes such as the one in Ohio. Was it genuine or fictional? Either way, it makes for prime political theatre.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyone who questions the scene's authenticity is quickly dismissed as the worst villain since Iago. What kind of person would suspect another of lending the death of a sibling to a political agenda? Only a cold-hearted boor could conceive such a conspiracy. However, the Ohio woman herself needn't be the actor for her tragic story to become an unintended performance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Remember Henrietta Hughes, a woman of unemployment, homelessness, and assorted woe? Oh, how the sympathy did flow. Hers was a supreme tragedy, with the leading politician -- President Obama -- basking in the spotlight. Right on cue, Obama promised to alleviate Henrietta's suffering. On stage he played the hero. Behind the curtain he did nothing to alleviate Hughes' problem. Hughes herself was but a role player, a dispensable character in an endless political tragedy. The same can be said for Cindy Sheehan, the late Rodney King, and everyone who has "fainted" during an Obama speech. Each and every one became part of the political script.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Stephanie Miller, the aforementioned Ohio woman, is now on stage. Whether she's a plant or a heartbroken sister grieving for a lost sibling is material only to her. On the grand stage Miller plays a bit role. Yet she's indispensable to the overall drama, which serves to enhance the State's image. Presenting Ms. Miller's grief to government's leading man promotes a relationship between personal suffering and government relief. The public's allegiance to the State builds upon such tragedy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ms. Miller believes she wouldn't be grieving today had the Affordable Care Act been in force when her sister fell ill. But Miller's dialogue contradicts the confidence she, or anyone else, should have in government healthcare delivery. Ms. Miller's sister, upon diagnosis, applied for Medicaid. Guess what? Her request was denied. And what is Medicaid if not a government healthcare program? Thus the gut-wrenching scene of a weeping woman thanking a politician for expanding the State's bureaucracy even after the existing State bureaucracy had failed the prior need. It's like taking a second dose of poison and expecting to be cured.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I believe Ms. Miller's grief is legitimate. But a politician's empathy is not. She is the latest in a long line of role players whose real life dramas fertilize the State's growth. Just as playwrights achieve success through the staged suffering of their characters, tyrants also capitalize on tragedy to enhance their stature.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">British statesman Edmund Burke said, "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." Tragedy, or its perception, is the most effective delusion available to political tyrants. Tragedy, often of the tyrants own making, dissolves personal responsibility and undermines liberty, resulting in a population becoming more dependent on the State to meet its basic needs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How shall we be secure from mortgage foreclosure and monetary devaluation if not for government bank regulation? Where will we find jobs if government doesn't subsidize industry? Will we be fed, housed, and clothed if not for entitlements? Can we receive medical care without a government bureaucracy? Political playwrights have spun these scenes into individual tragedies, thereby focusing the audience's attention on government solutions. No matter what happens to the supporting characters tyranny grows and the State is empowered.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Liberty necessarily declines when personal sovereignty submits to political rhetoric. Yet an increasing number of Americans are submitting to political tyrants who promise more of an increasingly insolvent bureaucracy. We are active players in an epic political tragedy, one Shakespeare himself couldn't have written better.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>The preceding article was first published at American Thinker.</i></span><br />Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-27411499969700903242012-07-25T21:46:00.000-04:002012-07-25T21:46:26.259-04:00Dropping the "i-word" ignores reality<span style="font-family: Arial;">A simple strategy for winning a political debate is to
ignore evidence and blur reason. Denial and obfuscation often frustrates an
opponent into surrendering. The "Drop the I-Word" campaign has
adopted this technique, apparently believing it offers the best defense for
illegal immigration. However, while dropping the "i-word" in
reference to illegal immigrants is long on rhetoric, it is short on good sense.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">According to Drop the I-Word </span><a href="http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/resources/en/toolkit.html?tab=orgpledgetab" title="Colorlines.com: Drop the i-word FAQ"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">activists</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">, referring to an
illegal immigrant as illegal is racist, dehumanizing, contrary to accepted law,
and detrimental to reasoned debate on the immigration issue. However, if there
were but one hurdle to logical discourse on immigration, it would be this kind
of nonsense. Illegal doesn't indict an alien's character; it identifies their status.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Illegal means contrary to law or statute, or forbidden by
same. Collins Dictionary defines illegal as a person who has entered a country
illegally. Under these terms, anyone of any race, religion, ethnicity, or
background can illegally immigrate, thereby becoming an illegal immigrant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Genuine racial epithets identify persons or peoples
according to skin color or heritage, not actions. For example, the "n-word"
is a derogatory phrase used exclusively toward black Americans without regard
to their character or status. The same can be said for the "c-word"
in regard to Asians and the "s-word" for Hispanics. Each term identifies
and denigrates based on nothing more than skin tone or ethnic heritage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Illegal describes a person who has violated accepted legal
procedures, nothing more. Thus illegal in terms of citizenship identifies
someone whose immigration has violated the law. I'll go as far as saying
"illegal" is completely race-neutral. Germans, Chinese, Kuwaitis,
Mexicans, and Americans can all become illegals simply by moving from one
country to another without navigating the appropriate bureaucratic red tape.
Since the word can be equally applied to any race, heritage, or ethnicity based
on their status, how can it be racist?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Actually, we have killed two birds with one stone. Since
illegal describes the status of the immigrant whereas immigrant, or alien,
describes the person, illegal is neither racist nor dehumanizing. The only time
racism and dehumanization can be equated with immigration status is when
someone with an axe to grind does so for political purposes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Another issue Drop the I-Word raises is the legal accuracy
of illegal. This, too, is misleading. We're not determining guilt in a civil or
criminal sense, but in the court of public opinion where the burden of proof is
miniscule. Even so, does illegal pronounce guilt without trial, or inhibit a person's
ability to defend their rights? We can answer an unequivocal "no" to
the first question and a conditional "yes" to the second.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I can't recall a single instance of widespread deportation
without the benefit of a hearing. The closest example I can cite is the
internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Even then, Japanese-Americans
weren't deported. Now, I'll admit that an illegal immigrant might have
difficulty protecting basic liberties, such as reporting crimes committed
against them. But the situation isn't unique to illegal immigrants; the same
can be said of anyone engaged in an illegal activity. Such people naturally fly
under the radar. Why? Because their actions are illegal, they recognize that
fact, and they fear discovery. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If illegal is a slur, how should we identify immigrants who
ignore both our borders and immigration laws? According to the campaign,
"unauthorized" and "undocumented" are acceptable alternatives.
But for how long? If the definition of illegal can be transformed into a
racial, subhuman epithet, you can bet the farm the "u-words" won't be
far behind.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Understand that Drop the I-Word isn't presently seeking a
legislated speech code whereby offenders are held civilly or criminally
accountable. Their goal is to convince journalists to drop the "i-word"
from their lexicon. And frankly, the journalism community possesses the right
to determine what words and phrases are acceptable in their writings and
publications. But opponents of using "illegal" to describe illegal
behavior should be intellectually honest about their attempt to change the
word's definition to fit their political stance.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Dropping the "i-word" allows journalists to feel
warm and fuzzy about their tolerance and open-mindedness. But they're ignoring
the elephant in the room. If journalists won't admit the obvious fact that illegal
immigrants have immigrated illegally, they have little to contribute toward
solving the issue.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><em>This article was first published in Creative Loafing - Charlotte.</em></span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-79417696080317025712012-07-05T18:54:00.000-04:002012-07-05T18:54:27.326-04:00Congress threw a wild pitch<span style="font-family: Arial;">Roger Clemens' trail is over and he has been cleared of all steroids
and perjury charges. The verdict opens the door for the "Rocket's"
detractors to cry foul while his defenders validate his storied career. So it
goes with celebrity trials. Each side remains convinced of their rightness no
matter the evidence or the jury's decision.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Clemens debate will turn to his place in baseball
history. Has the seven-time Cy Young winner been irreparably tarnished? Is his
name honored or disgraced? Will he enter the Hall of Fame or set-up shop at the
Cooperstown city limit with Pete Rose? If Clemens is enshrined what happens to
other tainted players from his era: Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, and Palmeiro? It'll
make for interesting hot stove discussions next winter. But the Clemens trial
raised a far more important issue than a ballplayer's legacy.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Clemens landed in hot water because he allegedly lied to
Congress about allegedly using allegedly banned substances. That's a lot of
alleging, especially since the jury's verdict proves Congress possessed no
convincing evidence for their allegations. Maybe that's why the public trusts
and supports Roger Clemens more than it does Congress.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Rasmussen </span><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/sports/june_2012/20_say_roger_clemens_should_be_banned_from_baseball_hall_of_fame" title="Rasmussen Reports: Support for Roger Clemens"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">polling</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> finds only
20-percent of Americans would bar Roger Clemens from the Hall of Fame, which
means 80-percent see no issue with him entering Cooperstown or simply don't
care. Conversely, only 7-percent </span><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/" title="Rasmussen Reports: Congressional Approval"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">approve</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of Congress'
performance while 63-percent disapprove and 68-percent would like to </span><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2012/new_high_68_would_vote_to_replace_entire_congress" title="Rasmussen Reports: Replace the entire Congress"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">throw</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> the bums out. Make
what you will of those numbers; it's quite clear that Roger Clemens is more
trusted than Congress, and with good reason.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Would the same jury that found no convincing evidence that
Clemens lied to Congress find ample evidence to convict Congress of lying to
us? I think so. Despite taking an oath to "bear true faith and
allegiance" to the Constitution, Congress has a long history of passing
legislation that conflicts with that pledge, and then lying about it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">When passed, the Social Security Act included no adjustment
criterion for future income or inflation variations and capped payroll
deductions at 3-percent of the first $3000 in annual income. Today's employees
pay 6.2-percent on all income, and their employers' "match" is
actually part of the employee's earned income that's never seen. The central
government's authority to withhold taxes from payroll was initiated during
World War II as part of the Victory Tax. The war ended 67 years ago, yet taxes
are still withheld. The Great Society promised to alleviate poverty and
strengthen families. In reality, it spawned dependence on government above
family and coincides with a 50-year rise in illegitimate births. Congress
argues that healthcare "reform" isn't a tax and then hails the
Supreme Court for upholding the law as part of Congress' taxing authority.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Roger Clemens threw </span><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml" title="Baseball Reference: Roger Clemens career stats"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">143</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> wild pitches
during his career. But if government lies were scored as wild pitches,
Washington has far outpaced Clemens. So, will taxpayers continue tolerating
such legislative "chin music?" Or will we "charge the
mound" come November?<o:p></o:p></span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-36314092315565220052012-06-17T20:42:00.001-04:002012-06-17T20:42:47.616-04:00Hopefully, the Obama camp is right about Romney<span style="font-family: Arial;">Obama's latest campaign </span><a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lacking-strategy-against-romney-democrats-revert-to-tried-and-failed-extreme-charge/" title="Mediaite.com"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">strategy</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">, outlined by White House advisor David Plouffe,
is rather baffling. The goal is to depict Mitt Romney as the Republican Party's
most conservative nominee since Barry Goldwater. Apparently, the Obama camp has
forgotten Ronald Reagan. That's especially ironic considering that Democrats
gave Reagan's conservatism its greatest confirmation. What better proof of a
man's conservative credentials can exist than for leftists to call him a racist
warmonger who hates the poor? Liberals called Reagan all of that and more.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In all fairness to President Obama, he has expended so much
energy attempting to </span><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/obama-reagan-could-not-survive-radical-gop-212525239.html" title="Yahoo: Obama says GOP to extreme for Reagan"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">rewrite</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/wwrd_what_would_reagan_do.html" title="American Thinker: WWRD, What Would Reagan Do?"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">co-opt</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Reagan's
legacy that he may not recognize the real "Gipper." That's the
problem with political spin; you eventually lose sight of the actual truth. It
may be debated whether the Obama camp believes its nonsense or is just tossing
about a ridiculous premise in hope of hitting upon a political advantage. But there's
no question they've missed the point of Reagan's presidency and the reason for
his popularity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Reagan's ease behind the microphone is legendary. His title
of "Great Communicator" wasn't bestowed; it was earned. But Reagan's oratorical
skills weren't rooted in intellectual superlatives. That's today's political trend,
where speakers adopt incomprehensible positions on every conceivable issue
until it's impossible to determine what they actually believe about anything.
Reagan didn't have that problem, although he was well-versed on intricate domestic
and foreign policy issues. Reagan succeeded because he presented a clear
message that resonated with his audience.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Ronald Reagan refused to complicate the simple. Rather he
stayed committed to three key themes: economic growth, America's image, and opposing
communism. He never struggled with his message because he spoke from those core
convictions, which recognized his audience's desires above his own.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Reagan wanted America to regain its economic confidence,
which produces growth. He accomplished that goal. Yet he was no magician; he
didn't rely on sleight of hand and favorable media coverage to create jobs and
boost the GDP. Reagan didn't worry about convincing the media or his Washington
colleagues that he was right; he convinced the American people that he believed
we were right. He developed a rapport with the public that forced even ardent
political adversaries to coalesce to some extent. Reagan bet on the
entrepreneurial spirit rather than on the political manure. It was a winning
hand . . . twice.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Reagan recognized and appreciated America's desire for
national pride. The Vietnam War, a deteriorating military preparedness, the
Iran Hostage Crisis, and a long economic malaise had taken a toll on America's
confidence and prestige. His military initiatives represented an approach to
national defense that everyone, friend and foe, could understand. Reagan's
"peace through strength" doctrine allowed him to take a </span><a href="http://www.historynet.com/president-ronald-reagan-winning-the-cold-war.htm" title="Historynet.com: Reagan and the Cold War"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">stand</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> when necessary and </span><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_4153000/4153013.stm" title="BBC: Withdrawal from Beirut"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">walk away</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> when practical.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Communism is invariably immoral and wholly incompatible with
liberty. Nowhere was that more apparent than in the Soviet Union, which Reagan
rightly recognized as the evil empire. Simply put, communism is political
bullying, and years of backing down to Soviet bullying had weakened America.
The Soviet leaders soon learned that Reagan differed from his predecessors. He
was determined to prove to the USSR, the world, and America itself that endless
supplication was no longer an option.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">That's not to say that Reagan was a stubborn mule. But he
saw no reason to hamstring America with one-sided arms treaties that banned our
revolutionary defense systems while requiring the Russians to abandon only
their obsolete technologies. Moscow threatened war over plans to deploy
Pershing missiles in Europe. Reagan called their bluff. The Soviets huffed,
puffed, and snarled, then folded their hand. Their harsh façade was irreparably
compromised.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">You'll seldom find me supporting an Obama initiative. But he
has, albeit unwittingly, given Mitt Romney a solid campaign strategy.
Conservatives should hope the Obama camp is 100-percent correct and Mitt Romney
is the most conservative Republican presidential nominee since Barry Goldwater.
Mitt can determine his own three core themes. But sincere conservatism carried
Reagan to two landside victories. There's no reason it won't work for Romney,
too, if he's willing to embrace it.</span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-32588436450302000422012-06-11T19:56:00.000-04:002012-06-11T19:56:02.229-04:00The odds are against John Edwards' rehabilitation<span style="font-family: Arial;">The justice system is apparently through with John Edwards.
But according to the former Senator and presidential candidate, God isn't. If
the Almighty needs a helping hand, Edwards -- the legal albatross removed from
his neck -- is ready to </span><a href="http://theweek.com/article/index/228745/can-john-edwards-make-a-comeback" title="The Week: Edward's comeback"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">help</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">. He began rehabilitating his image
the minute his trial concluded, vowing his devotion to selfless charity on
behalf of the children. And then there's the one about Little Red Riding Hood.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I'm not saying Edwards is beyond redemption. Numerous people
with checkered histories have undergone radical transformations. </span><a href="http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimonies/1135-norma-mccorvey-now-100-pro-life" title="Priests for Life: "Jane Roe" turns pro-life"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Norma McCorvey</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
comes to mind, as does </span><a href="http://www.shelleylubben.com/story-former-porn-star-shelley-lubben" title="ShellyLubben.com"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Shelley Lubben</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Neither woman may come up for sainthood.
However, their behavioral change is exemplified in their actions. John Edwards
is just shoveling the same manure that liberals shovel each time they need a
public relations boost: God, children, and poverty. In the aftermath of his
acquittal, Edwards seems determined to confirm everyone's worst suspicions
about him.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Frankly, trying John Edwards for corruption was a
redundancy. No sworn witness or jury conviction was necessary to understand
this man. We needed no testimony from the equally corrupt Andrew Young. John
Edwards' entire political career confirms his turpitude.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Edwards entered the political scene with a "Gee, Your
Hair Smells Terrific" coiffure and a smile worthy of the seediest used-car
salesman. He built his platform on a "Two Americas" class envy theme
so seasoned with nanny state hogwash that it would've made Lyndon Johnson barf.
Edwards presented himself as a "stand by your woman" man. Yet he used
his wife and her illness to gain public sympathy, and its related contributions,
for his presidential bid. Behind the scenes he was committing the "Big
A" with campaign staffer Rielle Hunter. He then blamed Rielle's pregnancy
on an associate whose moral compass was no more dependable than his own. Oh,
and he conned a </span><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139133/John-Edwards-trial-Bunny-Mellon-felt-euphoric-Senator-hated-wife-Elizabeth.html" title="Daily Mail UK: Mellon had a crush on Edwards"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">naive</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> old hag into
paying his hush money.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Edwards is corrupt whether he broke the law or not. Anyone
who failed to recognize his lack of character must've spent the last decade
with their eyes closed. Edwards is a world class narcissist and first rate con
artist. But alas, so are many politicians. Retrying him would prove as wasteful
of time and resources as it is uninteresting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, it will be interesting to see how far
"progressive" media hacks will go to aid Edward's rehabilitation. You
have to know they'll feign and fawn over this swine at the first opportunity.
Let Edwards hand a lollipop to one poor child while blaming Republicans for
defunding the federal free lollipop program and we'll be inundated with stories
about how this charlatan has reformed his image. In typical liberal fashion,
Edwards will seek redemption in phony charitableness while contributing nothing
of his own.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">God might indeed mend John Edwards. They say He moves in
mysterious ways. But politicians move in predictable ways. I'll wager that John
Edwards remains more concerned with cultivating a persona that plays well in
the media than stabilizing his personal integrity. Place your bets.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-74122853356700835322012-06-10T15:59:00.000-04:002012-06-10T15:59:20.339-04:00The lynching of George Zimmerman<span style="font-family: Arial;">George Zimmerman's public image took a blow when a judge
revoked his bond, alleging that Zimmerman willfully misled the court concerning
his financial situation. The fact that he's back in jail makes him appear
guilty in the publics' eye, and that's what matters. Whether or not Zimmerman
mislead the court is immaterial. In fact, his guilt or innocence is immaterial.
His trial has transcended justice; it's now about capitalizing on opportunity.</span>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Zimmerman has maintained since day one that Trayvon Martin
instigated their fatal confrontation. Zimmerman's various </span><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/16/autopsy-results-reportedly-indicate-trayvon-martin-suffered-injuries-to/" title="Fox News: Zimmerman's and Martin's injuries"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">injuries</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> coupled with
autopsy results revealing Martin's injured knuckles tend to support his story. That
evidence might be the reason he wasn't charged immediately after the shooting.
Yet he remains guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of many, including the
federal government and national media.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Could there be an orchestrated campaign between government and
media entities to see this man imprisoned, or even executed? While Florida
pursues the former, the federal government engages the later, all while the
media circus cheers them on. Despite the physical evidence of which we're aware,
an apparent lack of credible witnesses on either side of the case, and expert
legal opinion </span><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral" title="Breitbart.com: Alan Dershowitz criticizes prosecution"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">belittling</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Florida's case against Zimmerman, the FBI has launched a hate crime </span><a href="http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-15/news/31714266_1_crime-charges-special-prosecutor-angela-corey-robert-zimmerman" title="NY Daily News: Hate crime investigation"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">investigation</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> against him.
And it could stick.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">We might logically believe the Fifth Amendment's protection
against double jeopardy would compel the Justice Department to abandon the case
if Zimmerman is acquitted. Not necessarily. According to Cleveland State
Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich, Supreme Court precedent has established a
narrow threshold for claiming double jeopardy. “The double jeopardy clause
would not prohibit a federal prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman, even if he were acquitted
in Florida state court," Prof. Rich states, although he believes the
likelihood of federal prosecution following a state acquittal is small.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, FBI involvement means Department of Justice
involvement, which in turn means Eric Holder involvement. Mr. Holder's idea of
judicial impartiality is, shall we say, conflicted.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Under Holder's management the Justice Department engaged in
a gun-running operation that if done privately would've sent all involved
parties to the darkest of prisons. Imagine you or I being caught smuggling
weapons to Mexican drug lords and coercing legitimate domestic firearms dealers
to participate. And Holder's disregard for justice doesn't end there, nor does
the media's capitulation.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Not content to simply ignore the New Black Panther's voter </span><a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1179231/black_panthers_intimidate_voters_in_pg2_pg2.html?cat=49" title="Associated Content: New Black Panthers"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">intimidation</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> efforts, Holder
closed the ongoing investigation. Neither he nor his predecessor investigated a
hate crime when five blacks kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and mutilated
</span><a href="http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=10968229" title="WATE-CH 6, Knoxville, TN"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Channon Christian</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and Christopher Newsome.
There was no national outrage and no political speechifying. Their brutal
deaths barely registered with the national media.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">For example, a search for "Channon Christian" on
the New York Times website returned only 53 results, just three of which
addressed the murdered woman. Two of those stories were duplicates and the
third a synopsis of a television show that reviewed the crime. In other words,
the New York Times ignored Channon Christian's death. Conversely, a
"Trayvon Martin" search yields more than 4000 results.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">A black mob </span><a href="http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11507850-questions-raised-over-virginia-newspapers-delay-in-report-of-attack-on-reporters?lite" title="MSNBC.com"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">attacked</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> two white reporters in Norfolk, Virginia. Again, neither
Holder nor the media showed interest. Not even the newspaper where the
reporters worked reported the story. Four "</span><a href="http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/255240/250/VIDEO-US-Army-soldier-brutally-beaten-in-South-Tampa-" title="WTSP-CH 10, Tampa Bay"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">minorities</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">" beat a soldier in Tampa,
Florida and the result is deafening silence. The Justice Department hasn't
launched a hate crimes investigation and no civil rights leader has scheduled a
march.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">What benefit exists in practicing selective justice and biased
reporting? Why is black-on-white crime, like the Christian-Newsome murders, largely
ignored while white-on-black crime is overhyped? It's no mere oversight. Since
the "progressive" solution to every problem is more government, we
can expect bureaucrats and leftist politicians to demagogue racial issues. The
sympathetic press corps is content with being their cheerleaders.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The odds of Zimmerman's exoneration are fading even as the evidence
suggests his possible innocence. The Florida prosecutor may have </span><a href="http://politicalderby.com/2012/04/30/the-zimmerman-conspiracy/" title="PoliticalDerby.com: The Zimmerman Conspiracy"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">intended</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> to lose this
case from the start. But the hate crime investigation and selective reporting
from the national media serve to steer public opinion toward Zimmerman's guilt.
If you dare question the prosecution or media reports, well, you're just a racist.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Whether or not Florida has overstated its case against
George Zimmerman is still undetermined. He may be guilty as sin. But the
federal government and its media lapdogs have engaged an agenda that transcends
guilt or innocence. They've become co-conspirators in a quasi-lynching, which
serves to affect not only the lynched party but anyone who questions the
lynching or its motive. This trial is no longer about George Zimmerman, Trayvon
Martin, or even about justice. The goal is to create distrust and animosity along
racial, philosophical, and ideological lines.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">No matter how Zimmerman's trial plays out, whether he's
convicted or acquitted, the left has achieved tactical victories. They've sown
doubt regarding the right of an individual to protect life and limb. Each state's
authority to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes occurring within its
borders is compromised, which concentrates power in the central government. Racial
tension and division increases, too, which invariably leads to less liberty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The purpose of a lynching isn't to punish the accused
ne'er-do-well. It's to intimidate anyone who shares characteristics or
attitudes with the victim. George Zimmerman has been lynched no matter how his
case is adjudicated. But the message behind the lynching isn't for him; it's
for the rest of us.</span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-52842729572516130942012-05-28T17:06:00.000-04:002012-05-28T17:06:36.336-04:00Will she or won't she?<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">According to the savvy political observers, President Obama will
dump Joe Biden in favor of Hillary Clinton. On the surface it seems a plausible
strategy. Biden has all the flair of the Ford Pinto: pointless, ignorable, and
prone to explode at inopportune times. He's a gaffe-a-minute sideshow who
provides the Obama administration with all the style of a </span><a href="http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/05/23/poll-biden-unpopular-in-swing-states/" title="Tucson Citizen: USA Today/Gallup poll"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">leisure</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> suit. Hillary is the
name brand; the erstwhile queen in waiting who could breathe life into a </span><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-arkansas-kentucky-primary-vote-20120523,0,5265855.story" title="LA Times: Obama's sluggish primaries"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">lackluster</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> campaign.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If you'll recall, we heard similar speculation in 2004 concerning
the Bush-Cheney ticket. It was all swirl eight years ago, just media-generated
spin intended to create news where none existed. Likely as not, the "Dump
Biden" theory is also spin. The probability of Hillary joining the Obama
ticket can be assayed with a few simple questions. Is a change practical? Will
it help the campaign? Would Hillary accept the position?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It sounds cliché, but when horses were the primary source of
transportation it was considered imprudent to change mounts in midstream. If a
change was necessary it was made before entering the river. Had Biden been
removed from the ticket early in the race it might have been workable. Not now.
Effective campaigns must present confidence. To shake-up the ticket at this
point would undermine confidence. In fact, with the Republican challenger all
but announced, a change on the Obama ticket would convey desperation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Vice President serves little purpose other than to make
the presidential candidate look good. As long as Biden remains Biden, the "teleprompter
President" can maintain his image as a comparatively great orator, a
reasoned voice amid Biden's nuttiness. Therefore, from a strategic viewpoint,
dumping Biden seems both senseless and impractical.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Adding Hillary to the ticket might solidify Obama's image
with feminist voters, but few others. Ms. Clinton is only slightly right of
Obama if not his equal. Let's not waste time recounting Hillary's youthful
activism and questionable </span><a href="http://www.gopublius.com/HCT/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf" title="Hillary Clinton's thesis on Saul Alinsky"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">acquaintances</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">. Most
everyone has some embarrassing associations they can claim to have disavowed.
Besides, we needn't revert to the Woodstock era to uncover Clinton's ideology. As
First Lady, Ms. Clinton was a driving force for nationalized healthcare. She's
an open proponent of wealth redistribution, especially when the raided coffers
belong to the hated "</span><a href="http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2007/02/06/hillarys-i-want-to-take-those-profits-problem/" title="Real Clear Politics: Clinton plans to take oil profits"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Big Oil</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">."
Therefore, to say Hillary Clinton would moderate the Obama ticket is utter
nonsense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I’m not sold on this "Hillary is the world's smartest
woman" bit, but she's no fool. The last thing she needs is to be linked to
the scandal and ineptitude common to presidential second terms. There'll be no
Democrat incumbent in the 2016 election. So, although Clinton will be 69 by
then, she'll have the inside track to the nomination if she chooses to run.
Being linked to a four-year disaster will sully her image and ruin her
electability.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The obvious drawbacks of an Obama-Clinton ticket outweigh
the perceived benefits. So, will she or won't she? She won't; not for all of
the socialism in Western Europe.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-45443635720367025652012-05-26T11:37:00.000-04:002012-05-26T11:37:55.189-04:00I-95 runs both ways, Mayor Bloomberg<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">During a commencement speech at UNC-Chapel Hill, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg took a shot at North Carolina voters for having passed Amendment One, which amended the state's constitution to recognize marriage as a male-female relationship. Bloomberg believes North Carolina singlehandedly proved how many a mile the civil rights march has yet to trudge. But it was Bloomberg who displayed a level of ignorance exceeded only by his colossal hypocrisy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />Considering that Newsweek recently </span><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/13/andrew-sullivan-on-barack-obama-s-gay-marriage-evolution.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">created</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> our first gay president from whole cloth, Bloomberg might have been trying to score political points with the media. But he scored no points for integrity. If Bloomberg truly believes North Carolina voters dealt civil rights a setback, he would've condemned voters in 39 other states for previously </span><a href="http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">passing</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> similar laws and constitutional amendments. That list includes traditionally leftist states like Illinois, Hawaii, and Michigan. Even California voters </span><a href="http://oldsite.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/MarriageAmendmentVotePercentages.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">twice</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> passed laws preventing state recognition of same-sex marriage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />It's more likely Bloomberg was preaching to the ignorant hayseeds, hillbillies, and assorted bumpkins who call this allegedly backward Southern state their home. Being from New York City, he just couldn't resist telling the rednecks how things are done "up North." However, rather than displaying his intellect and tolerance, Bloomberg unveiled his utter contempt for the concepts of a constitutional republic.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In a perfect world, marriage would be the religious community's exclusive territory, free from government in all forms. But we don't live in a perfect world. So defining marriage is left to the best available option. Under that premise, marriage law is a state's rights issues. The U.S. Constitution delegates no authority over marriage to the central government, nor does it prohibit states from assuming that authority. Therefore, the Tenth Amendment reserves any government involvement in marriage to the states and the people.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Each state can unilaterally address homosexual marriage as its voters see fit, either through ballot referendum or their representative bodies. That's the beauty of a constitutional republic, wherein powers are decentralized and states enjoy wide autonomy in determining their own governance. If someone finds the statutory climate in their current state unbearable they're free to move to another state where their values are more accurately reflected.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />Bloomberg also faces conflict on another front. While the U.S. Constitution is totally silent on marriage, it's far from silent on the right to bear arms. In fact, the restriction on restricting access to firearms isn't limited to Congress alone; the Second Amendment is uninfringeable at any level. Yet Bloomberg, a man professing concern for civil rights, is one of the most vehement anti-gun politicians on the North American continent.<br /><br />Michael Bloomberg is a man fully consumed with his own importance. As such, he fails to realize that North Carolina's voters really don't care what he thinks about their state's business or how he does things "up North." As the old Southern adage holds, I-95 funs both ways, Mike. Find the on-ramp nearest you, and good riddance.</span>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-19437522843902203392012-05-25T22:27:00.000-04:002012-05-25T22:27:31.515-04:00Time cover reveals more than a nursing mom<span style="font-family: Arial;">Time magazine was once a driving force in world opinion.
Today it resorts to stunts to boost circulation. Thus we have a story about "extreme
parenting" with a cover photo of a young mother breastfeeding a
three-year-old boy. While the Time cover photo has been analyzed from myriad
viewpoints, one aspect has been overlooked. The cover introduces us to more
than just attachment parenting, it exposes a contemporary, in-your-face brand
of breastfeeding that would make grandma hide in the closet.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">"People have to realize this is biologically
normal," the Time cover model </span><a href="http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?id=19071030&ps=1016&cat=&cps=0&lang=en" title="AP"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">said</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">. "The more people see it, the more it'll become normal
in our culture. That's what I'm hoping. I want people to see it."<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This particular mother has adopted the militant's aggressive
brand of activism. There's no room for civil discourse, debate, or even hostile
argument. There's only room for her agenda, which desensitizes society until it
conforms to her views. She represents the unbelievable, the radicalization of breastfeeding.
Lactivists, as they're called, are transforming breastfeeding into a public
spectacle on par with an anti-war protest or a Jesse Jackson march. Not content
to nurse their children according to their own consciences, lactivist moms
demand not only acceptance of their decision to breastfeed but also public
approval to nurse anytime, anywhere, and under any circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Lactivist outrage is expressed through "nurse-ins"
aimed at businesses and public accommodations that ask them to </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101316.html" title="Washington Post: Nurse-ins at airports"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">cover</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> their breasts, nurse
discreetly, or remove to less conspicuous areas. Lactivists find such requests
an infringement on their rights. For instance, lactivists staged a nurse-in at
the Smithsonian's </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020805742.html?hpid=moreheadlines" title="Washington Post: Smithsonian nurse-in"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Hirshhorn Museum</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> after staff asked
a mother to exercise modesty while nursing her child. Upset over restrictions
that prohibit exposed breasts on Facebook, nurse-ins </span><a href="http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/moms-stage-nurse-ins-at-facebook-offices-over-breastfeeding-photo-policy/" title="CBS Houston"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">targeted</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> the social media giant's offices in various
cities across the country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">More examples of breastfeeding militancy are readily
available. But lactivism can be summarized in </span><a href="http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-lacma-breastfeeding,0,3011549.story" title="KTLA-TV: Los Angeles"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Katie Hamilton's</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> attitude. When staff at a Los
Angeles museum, acting on another patron's request, asked Katie to cover her
breast she responded, "It doesn't matter. That patron can look away. I
have rights." That's not the attitude of maternal tenderness; it's
selfish, irresponsible, and confrontational.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Before the next nurse-in occurs in my front yard, let me
state that I'm in favor of breastfeeding. I was breastfed, as were my two
children. Mother’s milk contains the requisite vitamins and proteins for proper
infant development. It's non-allergenic, and since the mother’s antibodies are
transferred through the milk it protects infants against various diseases and
infections. Breastfeeding is also believed to reduce the risk of certain </span><a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/93952.php" title="Medical News Today"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">cancers</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in both the mother and infant. What's
more, breastfeeding makes diaper changes more tolerable. There’s no doubt that
nursing is a natural and wise choice for feeding a baby.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, lactating moms should realize that public places
aren't their sole domain. There are other people in the public sphere as well,
and they also have rights. Decorum remains relevant despite modernity's best
efforts to antiquate it. Mothers who want their children to enjoy the benefits
of breast milk can accomplish that task without a combative attitude. There's
no reason children can't be nursed discreetly with respect to cultural modesty.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Mothers know when they’ll be in public places for extended
periods and enjoy several options for providing breast milk to their children. Electric
</span><a href="http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=10860442" title="Babies R Us: Evenflo electric breast pump"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">breast pumps</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> can be bought
for under $50. Fill a few bottles and store them. Breast milk remains fresh for
up to eight hours at room temperature and 24 hours in a cooler bag, and it's
easily warmed. Does it really burden mom to heat the bottle under warm tap
water? And why not use a nursing blanket? While lactivists accurately describe
nursing as an intimate act between mother and child, intimacy demands privacy
above openness. It's unlikely that most people will have a problem with tasteful
public nursing. But those same people just might take issue with the
hooray-for-me-and-to-hell-with-you lactivist.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The nature of any protest prompts the curious mind to
question the activists' fundamental motives. In the lactivists' case it is apparent
that the activism outweighs all other factors. Lactivism isn’t about nursing
babies, for there are many ways to breastfeed babies in public without drawing
attention to the activity. Lactivists have co-opted the natural and wholly
inoffensive act of breastfeeding to garner attention for their alleged cause.
It's a case study in militancy.</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I have no qualm with women who modestly nurse their babies
in public. Exploitation is the issue. Lactivist moms at public nurse-ins expose
far more than their breasts; they expose a self-promoting agenda. The attitude
driving militant lactivism brings greater dishonor to breastfeeding than the
occasional exposed mammary can produce prudish offence.</span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-68033257325214301952012-05-24T23:49:00.000-04:002012-05-24T23:49:21.212-04:00All corporations aren't created equal<span style="font-family: Arial;">"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal." What about corporations? Apparently, some corporations
are more equal than others, or perhaps some are "people" whereas
others aren't. It depends on how an individual corporation's political twig is
bent.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">A federal judge recently issued an injunction against a
Texas law that barred public funding of clinics that perform abortions. Planned
Parenthood is a chief plaintiff in the case, which only makes sense. According
to Planned Parenthood's figures, the federation performed 329,445 abortions in </span><a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf" title="Planned Parenthood services rendered - 2010"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">2010</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">, an increase of
25,135 over </span><a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf" title="Planned Parenthood Annual Report 2007-2008, p.9"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">2007</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and an average
of 902 per day. In all, 56-percent of the unintended pregnancies the
organization claims to have prevented in 2010 ended on the abortion table.
Planned Parenthood clinics, it would certainly seem, run afoul of the Texas law's
funding restrictions.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">However, abortion isn't the issue for this column. The eight
clinics involved in the lawsuit do not perform abortions, at least not on site.
The issue is Planned Parenthood's legal argument against the Texas law. The
organization alleges that its free speech has been abridged, and there can be
no more perfect example of modern liberalism. Isn't it the left that decries
corporate free speech and personhood?</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">You might recall the Supreme Court </span><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html" title="Cornell Univ. Law: Citizens United"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">ruling</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</i>. When the Court
ruled that corporations are legally protected under the First Amendment's free
speech provision the left cut flips. It represented a gross violation of
justice to define corporations as "people" capable of exercising free
political speech, or free speech in general. Where is that anger now? The left
isn't criticizing Planned Parenthood for asserting its corporate citizenship
and free speech rights.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">What is Planned Parenthood if not a corporation? Search
Planned Parenthood's websites; you'll find the federation repeatedly identified
as "incorporated." Articles of incorporation for Planned Parenthood
regional affiliates are available </span><a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppgwni/files/Greater-Washington-North-Idaho/Restated_Articles_of_Incorporation_2009_(filed).pdf" title="Planned Parenthood of WA & No. ID: Articles of Incorporation"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">online</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">.
There's no questioning Planned Parenthood's incorporated status, just as
there's no questioning its liberal political alignment. Yet we're to believe liberals
can't abide the thought of corporations exercising free speech. As is common to
liberalism, we have a contradiction.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If this were an isolated incident we might let it slide. But
Planned Parenthood isn't alone. Colleges and universities, among the </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html" title="Washington Post: Liberalism in academe"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">most liberal</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of all
institutions, incorporate for various purposes. Stanford University formed a
corporation to </span><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/scrl/organizational_info/Articles%20of%20Incorporation%20HTML.htm" title="Stanford Campus Resid. Leaseholders, Inc."><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">manage</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> its on-campus
faculty housing. Harvard University operates a </span><a href="http://www.hmc.harvard.edu/about-hmc/index.html" title="Harvard Univ: Harvard Management Company"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">financial</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> investment
corporation that manages funds to satisfy research and educational necessities.
Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros are all party to numerous
corporations. Not one of those people or institutions can be called
conservative.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Apparently, liberals don't view all corporations as created
equal. Some corporations are capable of exercising free speech, determining
their own expenditures, and behaving in an approved way. But acceptable corporate
personhood is based not on equal protection but ideological alignment. Now
we're left with one lingering question: do liberals suffer from
"corporaphobia," or are they just being two-faced?</span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-31996002759257630622012-05-13T19:26:00.000-04:002012-05-13T19:26:25.886-04:00Dealing with racial slurs the NHL way<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Most people look to the South whenever a case of racial intolerance makes headlines. While that stereotype isn't unfounded, the days when black Southerners -- and black Americans overall -- were legally relegated to second-class status are gone. Our black countrymen can come and go as they please, even attending NASCAR races at Talladega, Alabama. But what about hockey games in Boston, Massachusetts?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Admittedly, ice hockey isn't the toughest sports ticket in the black community, yet there are black hockey fans. So it's likely that some black fans were inside the Boston Garden for Game Seven between the Washington Capitals and the Boston Bruins. No problem, right? Right, until a black Capitals player netted the series-winning goal. The racial slurs then flowed like mint juleps on an antebellum Old South plantation.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To say that some Bruins fans didn't gracefully accept their team's early exit from the Stanley Cup playoffs is an understatement. In fact, disgruntled Boston fans transformed Twitter into a cesspool of boorish </span></span><a href="http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9UCSHKO0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1013/oAP: Racial slurs follow NHL game"><u><span style="color: blue; font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">commentary</span></span></u><span style="color: blue; font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: small;"></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">. Now, a few sore losers don't mean all Bostonians are card-carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan. However, the presence of racial slurs in Boston, a stronghold of liberalism, does prove that bigotry doesn't come with a "Made in Dixie" label.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The question isn't whether racial slurs are still part of the national lexicon, or in what part of the country they're most common. The question is what type of response racial slurs demand? Are more hate-crime laws the answer? Should the First Amendment be sacrificed to bureaucratic speech police? Maybe we should just emulate Joel Ward?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Who is Joel Ward? He's the black player who scored the Capitals winning goal. He bore the wrath of immature Boston fans. He's also my favorite hockey player, even though I'd never heard of him before this incident unfolded and know nothing about ice hockey. To me, a hockey broadcast makes as much sense as the evening news from the dark side of the moon. Joel Ward, conversely, makes perfect sense.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ward was initially stunned by the demeaning tweets, which is understandable. But he didn't book a performance of the Jackson and Sharpton Three-ring Civil Rights Circus. He didn't blame history, slavery, or the daily stress of being a black player in a mostly white sport, a feeling with which white </span></span><a href="http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2011/2011_NBA_RGRC_FINAL%20FINAL.pdf/oTIDES:%202011%20Racial%20and%20Gender%20Report%20Card%20-%20NBA"><u><span style="color: blue; font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">NBA players</span></span></u><span style="color: blue; font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: small;"></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"> can certainly empathize. Instead, Ward simply said, "It has no effect on me whatsoever."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A single statement can't fully define Joel Ward's character. It doesn't divulge his politics, his devotion to family, his charitableness, or if he eats all of his vegetables. It can, however, define his courage and confidence. Joel Ward refused to let a few thoughtless blowhards determine his worth. He dealt with their ignorance in an exemplary manner; a manner that people of all races should adopt as their own.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Successful bigotry -- an oxymoron, I know -- hinges on the ability to diminish another person's pride and self-confidence. When bigoted remarks prompt anger or offense, the bigot has gained the advantage. For instance, had Ward reacted rashly, or threatened retaliation, he would've granted Boston's bigots the sense of accomplishment they sought. Effective defamation demands its victims respond in equal thoughtlessness and hostility. When Ward dismissed the racial slurs he denied his antagonists the satisfaction of having provoked his ire. Here's the score: Joel Ward 1 Boston Bigots 0.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Joel Ward's words were simple, but the lesson within them is profound. When we yield to bigoted opinion we grant power to the bigot. Rather than reacting with anger or hurt feelings we should dismiss baseless accusations, thereby relegating our detractors to an inferior intellectual status. That's what Joel Ward did. He refused to empower his antagonists, proving that their views of him and his racial heritage meant nothing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We'll never rid the world of bigotry and its associated slurs. That's a pipe dream reserved for Utopian fantasizers. But if all races dismissed racial slurs with the same confidence Joel Ward exhibited we could reduce their effectiveness and frequency. We might even "form a more perfect union."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><em>A version of this column first appeared at American Thinker.</em></span></span>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-57875557285331435432012-05-09T22:43:00.000-04:002012-05-09T22:43:05.115-04:00The Zimmerman Conspiracy<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So George Zimmerman is going to trial, where a jury will
decide what actually happened between him and Trayvon Martin. Until the trial is
finished mulish minds on both sides will cling to their predetermined versions
of the truth. Such devout passions deserve their own conspiracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Generally, conspiracy theories represent easy explanations
for otherwise unexplainable events, or they promote a political agenda. Thus we
have "Truthers," "Birthers," and tyrannical secret
societies propagated by the Illuminati. However, just because most conspiracies
are built on fluff rather than substance doesn't entirely discount the reality
of conspiracies. We're witnessing one in Sanford, Florida.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Trayvon Martin's life was unquestionably squandered, whether
Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. That's the singular point upon which all sides
should agree; after that the facts are muddled. So let's focus on the
conspiracy rather than on rehashing divergent and unsubstantiated opinions. Doesn't
it seem odd for a prosecutor to file a second-degree murder charge after the
initial investigation produced no such evidence? Why would an experienced
prosecutor take such a stance?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bear in mind that I'm not raising this question; it's the question
respected legal experts have asked since photographic evidence was revealed
that supports Zimmerman's story. What did the prosecution know concerning those
photos prior to filing the murder charge?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">According to Harvard Law School Professor <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral" title="Breitbart.com">Alan Dershowitz</a>, the second-degree murder charge
against Zimmerman is "so thin it won't make it past a judge . . .
everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of
self-defense." Dershowitz also said the prosecution committed a
"grave ethical violation" if the photos were known prior to filing
the affidavit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mr. Dershowitz continued, "The whole country is
watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I won't pretend to instruct Mr. Dershowitz on the finer
points of law. However, I will argue politics to a certain degree. And politics
has forged public opinion about George Zimmerman from the outset. Therefore the
State benefits greatly from filing a second-degree murder charge against
Zimmerman . . . if the evidence confirms he acted in self-defense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Consider what a powder keg this case has been since day one.
Zimmerman and his family have been threatened. Race hustlers accused the
Sanford Police Department of a quasi-lynching and subsequent cover-up. Protesters
demanded not only Zimmerman's arrest but his conviction. The New Black Panthers
placed a bounty on Zimmerman and the pros and cons of self-defense and gun
control laws have been argued. The product of these variables is division and
potential civil unrest, which truly benefits no one.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The prosecution found itself in a tight spot. There was a need
to placate the mob mentality and avoid potential riots while also protecting
the rights of the accused and of self-defense. What could be a better solution
than filing a tough-on-crime charge that can't produce a conviction? The mob's
call for justice is answered without taking a chance on imprisoning an innocent
defendant or compromising the right of self-defense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's a tidy conspiracy. Any takers?</span><o:p></o:p></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-67582268087588432752012-04-30T18:09:00.000-04:002012-04-30T18:12:47.219-04:00Minister Farrakhan, the human conch shell<span style="font-family: Arial;">Most people believe you can hear the ocean roar if you place
a conch shell to your ear. I've always thought the sound was more like a steady
and annoying wind, the kind that blows endlessly in no particular direction.
When you think about it in that light, Louis Farrakhan is quite like a conch
shell. If you placed his head to your ear you'd likely hear the same sound.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Farrakhan, never a stranger to controversy, created quite a
stir with his recent ramblings about people killing their leaders, about Jesus,
David, and Solomon -- all Hebrews -- being African, and about Jesus himself being
a </span><a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/brother-aint-shooting-no-blanks-farrakhan-tells-blacks-breeding-with-whites-is-the-end-of-your-race/" title="Louis Farrakhan's racist rants"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Muslim</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> despite having preceding Mohammad
by six centuries. It's rhetorical flamboyance extraordinaire, but coming from Farrakhan
it's not surprising. For him to utter an odd word here and there is more the
rule than the exception. However, even Farrakhan can exceed his own high
standard for balderdash, and this is one of those times.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Sure, Farrakhan's remarks warranted a certain amount of
outrage. However, his greatest offense was his ignorance of, or absolute
disregard for, reality. While defending his claim that Jesus was a black man --
Jesus was a Jew and neither white nor black -- Farrakhan said, "You are
not trained to accept wisdom from a black person, no matter how wise that black
person is."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Oh Louis, how can you, a single man, be so wrong?</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There are people who readily accept wisdom from black people.
We call them conservatives. In fact, I would argue that a conservative's pursuit
of wisdom transcends the racial and ethnic spectrum. However, there's a catch.
Since the goal is to gain understanding, conservatives will ignore fools,
henceforth defined as anyone who makes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appear levelheaded.
Mr. Farrakhan does just that, which is why he's routinely dismissed as a
certified nutcase.</span><br />
<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">How can Farrakhan lodge such a charge when he himself
ignores wise individuals who share his racial heritage but shun his divisive
political ideology? For example, does Farrakhan accept wisdom from syndicated
columnist and George Mason University economics professor </span><a href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/favicon.ico" title="George Mason Univ: Walter E. Williams"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Walter E. Williams</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">? Does he
read </span><a href="http://www.tsowell.com/writings.html" title="Thomas Sowell's published credits"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Thomas Sowell</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">, a black man whose
wisdom propels him to write editorials, scholarly essays, and books as easily
as most of us tie our shoes? Does Farrakhan seek the wisdom of former Oklahoma
Congressman J.C. Watts, or Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or Shelby
Steele, or Kevin Jackson, or Star Parker?</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">While Farrakhan undeniably harbors delusions of intellectual
grandeur and fancies himself a serious contributor to public discourse, his
charge is as laughable as it is false. Maybe this tirade resulted from Farrakhan's
jealousy of black men and women who impart genuine wisdom with relative ease. But
most likely his rhetoric results from a mind that exists in a vacuum, where the
only sound is the steady and annoying wind that blows endlessly in no
particular direction.</span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-69345691733071913352012-04-24T17:07:00.000-04:002012-04-24T17:07:03.639-04:00The real story behind "Hilary Rosen-gate"<span style="font-family: Arial;">Hilary Rosen's </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/hilary-rosen-throws-mitt-romney-a-lifeline-in-war-on-women/2012/04/12/gIQAJVTqCT_blog.html" title="Washington Post: Rosen slams Ann Romney"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">feud</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> with Ann Romney is over.
Yet we've seen once again how quick a proponent of a woman's right to choose will
turn on another woman whose choice differs from liberal orthodoxy. Had Romney chosen
to abort her five kids she'd have been Rosen's heroine rather than her target. The
same can be said if Ann had shunned family for a career.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Rosen has since apologized, but not before receiving her own
share of "scorn" for belittling Romney's family devotion. While liberal
talking heads were </span><a href="http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/television/Jon-Stewart-Hilary-Rosen-Just-Made-the-Republican-Party-Pro-Choice-147717075.html" title="NBC Chicago: John Stewart"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">spinning</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> Rosen's inanity into a spoof of
Republicans, Democrat strategists </span><a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/david-axelrod-to-cnns-john-king-hilary-rosen-is-your-employee-not-ours/" title="Mediaite.com: Axelrod dismisses Rosen"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">ran</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> from her like she'd arrived
at the Baptist picnic toting a bottle of Jack Daniels. Yet Rosen's offense wasn't
her assessment of Ann Romney. Her actual faux pas arose when she said of the
"Republican War on Women":<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Well, first, can we just get rid of
this word, “war on women”? The Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama
does not use it—this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of
using, but they’re actually the ones spreading it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Unintentional error is excusable. But Rosen's false and illogical
opinions weren't unintentional. No rational person believes Republicans would
sabotage their standing with female voters by wrongly accusing themselves of
waging war on women. To accept Rosen's accusation as fact, one must also accept
that </span><a href="http://emilyslist.org/" title="Emily's List"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">Emily's List</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) are members of some
vast, right-wing cabal.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Emily's List has issued an endless stream of emails accusing
"ultra-conservatives" of "attacking" the organization's
preferred candidates, predominantly females. In a message dated March 23, 2012 Emily's
List supported electing women to "stop the Republican War on Women in its
tracks." On April 12 Emily's List claimed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had
"taken the Republican War on Women and made it his personal crusade."
The DCCC's director, Kathy Ward, issued a short message that mentioned
"war on women" four times, concluding with, "Let's make
Republicans regret they ever launched a War on Women." Even Vice President
Biden, certainly a part of the Obama campaign, said, "I think the 'war on
women' is real."</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Sorry Hilary; Republicans didn't create the "War on
Women" theme and everyone knows it, including you.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">So the real issue in "Hilary Rosen-gate" wasn't
Rosen's opinion of Ann Romney, as the pontificators have pontificated. It was
her blatant lie. Why would she issue a statement so nonsensical, so fabricated,
so refutable? There's a method to her madness. Rosen knows that large numbers
of liberal voters will accept her story as the unmitigated gospel, never
bothering to recognize or research the truth. Rosen was publicly pandering to a
segment of her party's base.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It only appeared the Democrat Party had tossed Hilary Rosen
under the bus. In baseball terminology she took one for the team. When the
heat's off the Democrat hierarchy will reward her loyalty.</span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-81063722516497844162012-04-21T10:27:00.001-04:002012-04-21T10:27:59.781-04:00Factual error clouds the Zimmerman verdict<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Factual error sounds like an oxymoron, similar to deafening
silence, dark lamp, or definite maybe. However, a factual error isn't so much a
matter of linguistic construction as of personal perception. Once error is
accepted as fact there's little chance that evidence will change public
opinion. Subsequent conclusions are then based on accounts that may or may not
be accurate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin saga produced the
perfect storm for factual error. An overzealous neighborhood watch volunteer, George
Zimmerman, pursued and killed an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman
uttered a racial slur and based his assumptions of Martin's criminal intent on
the youth's race. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Florida</st1:state></st1:place>'s
"Stand Your Ground" law condones vigilante murder and Martin's hoodie
made him a thug.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">But each aforementioned fact contains a startling array of
error. And each error could've been avoided simply by waiting for the story to
fully develop.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">NBC's creative editing of <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/08/MNIP1O0B4O.DTL">911
tapes</a> portrayed Zimmerman in a false light, and he apparently used no
racial epithets to describe Martin. Wearing a hoodie in the warm <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Florida</st1:state></st1:place> climate might be
odd but doesn't necessarily convey dubious intent on Martin's part. "Stand
Your Ground" laws recognize the basic right to counter an imminent threat,
even with deadly force. Yet "Stand Your Ground" conveys no right,
expressed or implied, to pursue or provoke someone who appears suspicious.
Depending on who ultimately attacked whom, either Martin or Zimmerman could
argue self-defense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">If Trayvon was innocent, then Zimmerman assailed, and
eventually took, Martin's right to life, to liberty, and to pursue happiness.
Would Trayvon not be correct in defending those rights? However, if Trayvon
assaulted Zimmerman, as some <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-shooting-details-emerge-facebook-twitter-accounts-180103647.html">accounts</a>
claim, then Zimmerman had every right to protect his life. At this point the
public has just enough fact and just enough error to substantiate an emotional
response, not to render a life-changing verdict.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">I'm not suggesting the protests are baseless. In fact, they
would be commendable if the intent was to prompt a more thorough investigation
of Trayvon's death. But are the marches geared toward a verdict based on
evidence, one way or the other? Not at all; their demand is George Zimmerman's <a href="http://www.workers.org/2012/us/million_hoodie_marches_0405/">conviction</a>.
Therefore the justice marches are undeniably conflicted. While angry that
Zimmerman allegedly denied Trayvon Martin his right to life and liberty without
due cause, they're demanding George Zimmerman be treated likewise, convicted
regardless the evidence. Protestors are practicing mob rule, which has no place
in legitimate jurisprudence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Zimmerman has now been charged. If the evidence warrants,
convict him. But he shouldn't be arrested, much less convicted, because street
mobs have predetermined his guilt. He shouldn't be prosecuted to appease Al
Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He shouldn't be imprisoned because <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-panther-rage-10g-capture-trayvon-killer-article-1.1050370">racists</a>
seek retribution on their own terms. Zimmerman is assumed innocent until the
State proves his guilt; Zimmerman himself needn't prove a thing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Trayvon's supporters have made a trustworthy verdict
improbable, perhaps unattainable. Due to reliance on factual error the case
against Zimmerman has been so politicized that no one will be satisfied with
its conclusion. Seating an impartial jury of Zimmerman's peers will prove
difficult at best, and confidence in the subsequent proceedings will be
minimal. The possibility of a fair trial is in doubt, as is the probability
that the mobs will accept Zimmerman's possible exoneration.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">No one knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.
Perhaps an overzealous Zimmerman doggedly pursued an imaginary problem in
Martin, belying his self-defense claim. Maybe Martin assaulted Zimmerman,
posing an imminent threat to his life and limb, which places Zimmerman in the
right. Had cooler heads prevailed from the outset we might have hard evidence
on whether Zimmerman acted defensively, and thus correctly, or offensively, and
thus criminally. Instead we have a situation where the end result, whatever it
may be, will prove nothing. If Zimmerman is convicted it will appear that he
was sacrificed to placate the mob mentality and subsequent unrest it portends.
Should Zimmerman be acquitted, institutional racism will be blamed for
exonerating an innocent black teenager's murderer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">There is one certainty in all this uncertainty. Zimmerman's
trial will produce neither racial unity nor cohesion. It'll only fuel the
people who profit from inflaming racial tensions, as have <a href="http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8795081/">previous</a> <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html">cases</a>. We
could've avoided this circus had we refrained from forming initial judgments
based on factual errors. We're in good position to gain wisdom that will help
us better address such future situations. But chances are we'll just end up
offended.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-49025507386395913562012-04-21T10:25:00.000-04:002012-04-21T10:25:50.088-04:00Racism with a side of fries<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Ever wonder how a post-racial <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> might look? Well, keep
wondering. Not only is racism a perpetual human flaw common to all races, but
some people will find it when it needn't be sought. They'll look where it's
least expected, where no normal person would notice, where Burger King filmed a
commercial with Mary J. Blige.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Burger King hired Blige to hawk their chicken tenders, and
judging from the hostile reception the ad received you'd have thought the
script called for Blige to sing <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><i>Massa</i></st1:city></st1:place><i>'s
in de Cold, Cold Ground</i>. The indignation flowed like honey mustard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Madame Noire, a website dedicated to black women, <a href="http://madamenoire.com/152765/an-open-letter-to-mary-j-blige-re-her-buffoonish-burger-king-commercial/">called</a>
the ad "unsettling" and stereotypical buffoonery. One pundit charged
Burger King with manipulating a black woman to sell chicken: "Because God
knows black folk won’t buy anything unless there’s a song, and preferably a
dance, attached to it.” Another wrote, "To see her (Blige) sing for
chicken is jarring.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The second claim is utter nonsense. Only an idiot would
believe Mary J. Blige sang for chicken. I'll bet she sang for money, and lots
of it. Good for her. But the "unsettling" affect, the stereotyping,
the idea of "black folk" shunning any product not tied to a song or
dance, that's a little trickier.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Granted, the comment about singing and dancing was offered
in sarcasm, which I can appreciate to a point. But the days when a blackface
minstrel chowing on chicken and watermelon was considered an accurate portrayal
of the average black person are long gone. While BK's ad was silly, silliness
isn't racism. The only thing the BK-Blige combo should insult is our
intelligence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Had Mary uttered a line such as, "Dis' here chicken
sho' do taste mighty fine," the outrage among Madame Noire bloggers might
be understandable. But for Pete's sake, take a walk on the real side. Today's
black Americans are multi-millionaire athletes, actors and actresses, and
performers of various kinds, like Mary J. Blige. They're business leaders,
executives, entrepreneurs, and -- dare I say? -- President. Blige simply used
her status and stardom to make a buck. Big deal! Why, in 21<sup>st</sup>
Century <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place>,
can't a black woman advertise chicken, or anything else, without self-serving
hacks taking umbrage?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Not all Madam Noire bloggers found offense in the ad. Yet
the ad remained racist. Just the anticipation of racism, it would <a href="http://madamenoire.com/153668/mary-j-blige-and-why-stereotypes-persist/">seem</a>,
causes fear of racism among blacks. But if merely anticipating the possibility
of racism constitutes racism, how then can any person interact with another
race? Whatever is said or done becomes racism if an aggrieved party perceives
it so. Harmony can't exist under such circumstances. But resentment can, and it
will.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Both Burger King and Blige have since <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/celebrities_gossip/146304313.html">apologized</a>
for the ad, which Burger King has pulled. But the people who should apologize
are those who created this issue from nothing. Racial divisiveness won't end as
long as publicity hogs profit from stirring up strife.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-16837270332624921952012-04-21T10:21:00.000-04:002012-04-21T10:21:11.404-04:00Government isn't the Creator of rights<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Whether a politician's words constitute a flagrant faux pas
or innocent slip of the tongue often depends on the offender's party
affiliation. Democrats can commit untimely gaffes with relative impunity. But
for Republicans to utter supposed misstatements is proof-positive that
conservatives are knuckle-draggers. By some <a href="http://wearemichigan.com/documents/GovernmentRights.pdf">opinions</a> Rick Santorum committed
such a verbal error while countering claims that government mandated healthcare
is a fundamental right.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">"Rights come from our creator," Santorum <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/rick_santorum_on_health_care_l.html"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">declared</span></a>.
"They are protected by the Constitution of this country. Rights should not
and cannot be created by a government because any time a government creates a
right, they can take that right away."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Think what you will about Rick Santorum, his record, and his
future prospects. But his transgression wasn't inaccuracy. His sin was daring
to challenge the fundamental leftist idea that rights originate in government.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">To assume human liberties, defined as rights, are products
of government is illogical. Since government produces nothing of its own
accord, and therefore possesses nothing, it can only distribute what it first
takes. Government can bestow retractable privileges but not inalienable rights.
For example, governments issue the driver's license, which is considered a
privilege. As such, governments can disperse the driver's license on their
terms, according to their will, or revoke the privilege altogether. A veritable
right is quite different.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Genuine rights are inalienable and self-evident. A right
exists without government permission and no expert translation is necessary to
understand its presence. Rational people instinctively understand their rights
and how government incursions weaken their liberties. So to recognize the
Creator as the source of liberty is entirely sensible. What a Creator has
granted no government can retract. Government may ignore a right, a too common
occurrence, but the right still exists for those who will undergo the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/c-04.htm">fatigues</a> of supporting it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The media is government's willing accomplice in undermining
rights and liberties. In fact, the two are working overtime to subvert our
natural right to determine our own happiness, and they're rewriting our
foundational history in the process. In the news story on Santorum's supposed
misstatement, the <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/03/rick_santorum_on_health_care_l.html">reporter</a> promotes the idea that
government can bestow rights, claiming that men placed our rights in our
Constitution. That reporter is either ignorant or an ideological puppet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The Founders never claimed to have invented or granted the
rights in the Constitution; they wrote so as to recognize preexisting rights
and to protect them from government abuse. The Constitution's purpose wasn't to
<a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">enumerate</a> each individual liberty common to free people.
Rather it was to restrain government from trampling not only identified rights
but any others that naturally exist. In order to establish a workable
government while maintaining inalienable rights and liberties, the Founders had
to recognize the source of rights as beyond government's ability.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">While big government advocates often belittle the idea that
rights are <a href="http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/12/rick-santorums-nightmarish-america/">natural</a>, dismissing it as the
theocratic ramblings of Christian fundamentalists, their argument is not with
our Creator alone. It's also with the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas
Jefferson. The man most credited with resisting an American theocracy also
believed rights emanated from a higher source than human government. In his
most obvious reference, found in <i>the Declaration of Independence</i>,
Jefferson readily acknowledged the Creator's work in mankind's inalienable
rights. Furthermore, and equally damaging to big government proponents,
Jefferson recognized this truth as "self-evident." He obviously
believed basic rights originated outside of human government and were
recognizable without its bureaucratic analysis. And lest we assume Jefferson's
positions in the Declaration were isolated, he left other references to confirm
his view.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">In <i>A View on the Rights of British America</i> Jefferson
again declared rights as self-evident and outside the so-called generosity of
governments. Jefferson knew that a free people would recognize rights as coming
from nature's laws, "<a href="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Jefferson_Rights_of_British_America_1774.pdf">and</a> not as the gift of their
chief magistrate." As in the Declaration, Jefferson confirmed his belief
that the principles of right and wrong were obvious to any reasonable observer:
"to <a href="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Jefferson_Rights_of_British_America_1774.pdf">pursue</a> them requires not the aid
of many counselors."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Jefferson believed people instinctively understood their
rights and the roots thereof. However, to remove any lingering concerns about
government's authority to grant or revoke rights let's again seek guidance from
<a href="http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Jefferson_Rights_of_British_America_1774.pdf"><i>Rights</i></a>: "The God, who
gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy,
but cannot disjoin them."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Possessing our rights is as natural as taking our next
breaths. To have life is to possess rights. Government, Jefferson's "hand
of force", can refuse to acknowledge our rights even to the point of
destroying both us and our ability to exercise liberty. But it cannot separate
one from the other; life and liberty are mutually inclusive. To take one is to
take both.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Rights exist whether or not a standing government is
sympathetic to their presence. Santorum's critics should then save their
breath. The idea of a Creator granting our liberty is radical only in the minds
of tyrants and slaves. It is, however, well within the Founding Father's
thoughts on the relationship between life and liberty, between citizens and
governments.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">The
preceeding column first appeared on <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/government_isnt_the_creator_of_rights.html">American Thinker.</a></span>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-57031403299652217942012-04-10T17:46:00.001-04:002012-04-10T17:50:14.210-04:00Supreme Incompetency on the High Court<span style="font-family:arial;">A Supreme Court justice should present an image of intelligence, competence, and wisdom. Such qualities identify sound judgment and inspire public trust. But two of SCOTUS's "progressive" purists have sullied that image. In fact, we might wonder if a grasp on reality remains requisite for a seat on the high bench.<br /><br />During ObamaCare arguments Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "What's wrong with leaving this in the hands of those who should be fixing it?"<br /><br />Were Sotomayor referring to the free market, which has been all but removed from the healthcare industry, we could admire her insight. But when we understand that she's referring to Congress, we must question her loyalty to, and understanding of, our Constitution. We might even question her sanity.<br /><br />The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to force citizens to purchase anything, including health insurance. Such federal power is neither expressed nor implied, therefore it doesn't exist. But even if Congress were authorized to provide, manage, or mandate health insurance, who in their right mind would defer to Congress' wisdom?<br /><br />The Congress that passed ObamaCare, to which Sotomayor would defer, was under Nancy Pelosi's direction, and Pelosi is contradiction personified. She recently told reporters that her Congress "wrote our bill [the Affordable Care Act] in a way that was Constitutional." That's beyond unbelievable, coming from the person who said ObamaCare must pass so we could discover what the bill contained. It's even more unbelievable when we consider that this same Nancy Pelosi piously dismissed a reporter's concern about Congress' constitutional authority to enact ObamaCare. And yet Sotomayor trusts Congress, which has proven inept at nearly every subject it addresses, to correct problems within the healthcare industry? That's psychotic.<br /><br />If Sotomayor's views were isolated, or represented a worst case example of judicial reasoning, we might dismiss them out of hand. But her opinions are neither isolated nor a worst case scenario. Justice Elena Kagan upped the ante. One of the key arguments against ObamaCare is its coercive nature, to which Kagan responded, "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?"<br /><br />Kagan possesses, at best, a warped appreciation for giving. A gift is, by definition, free. ObamaCare isn't free. The cost may be reflected in mandates, fines, or coverage for the uninsured, but ObamaCare carries an unavoidable price. State governments, insurers, medical professionals, and individuals must absorb the cost of Obama's supposed gift while navigating the regulatory maze the requisite bureaucracy will create. A gift with such strings attached is better left unwrapped.<br /><br />Because Sotomayor and Kagan are Supreme Court justices their opinions, however incredulous, are granted credibility. It needn't be so. Ronald Reagan warned us, "Don't be afraid to see what you see." While both Sotomayor and Kagan are educated, education doesn't invariably grant wisdom to its possessor. When we hear Sotomayor and Kagan speak on ObamaCare's constitutionality and benefit, let us not be afraid to see their incompetency and the threat to liberty it represents.</span>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-76440220148946819692012-04-05T22:54:00.000-04:002012-04-05T22:57:08.654-04:00Lights, camera, Sharpton!<span style="font-family:arial;">The classic image of the Hollywood movie set features a gruff director -- wearing a beret and chomping a cigar -- bellowing, "Lights, camera, action!" The actors then perform their roles. In Sanford, Florida the director might shout, "Lights, camera, Sharpton!"<br /><br />Although Al Sharpton is a devout blowhard, let's give the devil his due. Whenever there's race to hustle or cameras to hog, he never misses his cue. In the wake of Trayvon Martin's untimely demise, Sharpton delivered a </span><a title="CBS News" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57404609/trayvon-parents-son-disrespected-even-in-death/"><span style="font-family:arial;">timeless line</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> to the teen's parents: "they will try to make your son a junkie, thief, assaulter, everything else before this is over."<br /><br />It's theatrical history, Mr. Sharpton starring in a role for which he's uniquely qualified, dividing public opinion. His concern over that fateful night when one life ended and another was forever altered is purely professional. Sharpton is an actor, a caped civil rights crusader manipulating Trayvon's death to build his own street cred. It's a role he's played many times over.<br /><br />Remember the Duke Lacrosse case, when white lacrosse players were accused of raping Crystal Mangum, a black stripper? Al Sharpton declared the accused guilty without a shred of substantiating evidence. Rich, powerful, white men had abused a vulnerable black woman, as if the scene had played out on an 18th Century southern plantation. Anyone who questioned Mangum's story was racist, sexist, and probably a few other things.<br /><br />There was only one problem. Mangum wasn't a victim; she was a lying </span><a title="WRAL Raleigh, NC" href="http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8795081/"><span style="font-family:arial;">fraud</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">. Ensuing scenes found her convicted of child abuse and charged with the stabbing death of her boyfriend. But before Mangum's story reached its ugly climax Sharpton had long since left the stage.<br /><br />Sharpton played a similar role in Louisiana's Jena Six case. The script reverberated with racial injustice when Mychal Bell was arrested for beating a white classmate. The cameras rolled and Al delivered in all his demagogic glory. Sharpton's dramatic monologues declared Bell the victim of blatant racism at a racist high school in a racist southern town. However, Mychal Bell turned out to be everything his critics had said, and Jena's systemic racism was pure </span><a title="Christian Science Monitor" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">hype</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">. When the scene ended and the set fell dark, Bell remained in jail and Sharpton had disappeared quicker than September snow.<br /><br />Since Al Sharpton claims the title of reverend, it's fitting for his marquee to come directly from biblical </span><a title="BibleGateway.com: Matthew 7:15" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&version=NKJV"><span style="font-family:arial;">text</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." Al plays the role of the sympathetic civil rights crusader. Inwardly he's a publicity hog, Kim Kardashian without the buxom figure.<br /><br />Evidence to date can </span><a title="Daily Mail UK" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120096/Trayvon-Martin-case-Friend-Zimmerman-identifies-Neighbourhood-Watch-captain-screaming-help-911-call.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">neither</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> exonerate nor convict George Zimmerman for Trayvon's death. Jumping to either conclusion is foolishly immature. But identifying Al Sharpton as a race-hustler is verifiable. He flawlessly performs the black leader's role, only to vanish without a trace just prior to the scene's climax. Keep a close eye on Sanford, Florida. Al Sharpton's latest performance is can't-miss theatre.</span>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-71972428330299271242012-03-31T09:18:00.003-04:002012-03-31T09:28:14.196-04:00Pity the poor working chump<span style="font-family:arial;">Fifty years' worth of war on poverty has produced little benefit, save for a few valuable lessons. For instance, we've learned about the valiant struggle the disadvantaged wage against capitalist oppression. The homeless, the hungry, and the downtrodden are victims of free market greed. But there's one participant in Washington's war on poverty who's routinely ignored, one whose plight the pointy-headed elites never champion: the working chump.<br /><br />Lest anyone get the wrong idea, a working chump isn't identified by their intellectual prowess but by their productivity. Their status ranges from the professional to the tradesman, the rich to the poor. Such people are driven to meet their own needs and become agitated when others shun that responsibility. While such productive people represent a </span><a title="Heritage Foundation" href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government"><span style="font-family:arial;">declining</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> socioeconomic class, they are indispensable. The entitlement wagon is overloaded with passengers who favor the free ride. Did someone not pull that wagon, it would stall. No one would get what they need, much less what they want. Working chumps are the mules who pull the wagon.<br /><br />Leftists promote entitlement programs as necessary to meeting essential human needs, and there's an element of truth in their position, for there are essential human needs. However, leftists omit a key fact. There exists no right to receive life's essentials at another person's expense.<br /><br />Voluntarily contributing to a neighbor's well-being is charitable. Being forced to provide for another's needs is a form of servitude. How else can we describe someone who is forced to relinquish their property -- expressed as the return on their labor -- for their neighbor's personal benefit? Just as charity isn't a vice, forced contribution isn't charity, even when the needs of the "entitled" are life's necessities. How much more when entitlement extends from essentials to convenience?<br /><br />Perhaps you've heard of Assurance Wireless? If not, it's a program that provides clients with 250 minutes of free cellular service each month. More talkative Assurance customers can receive 500 minutes for $5 a month, and 1000 voice minutes plus 1000 text messages for $20 a month. But there's a flaw: Assurance isn't free. Someone must subsidize the free or reduced rates. That someone is the working chump.<br /><br />Assurance is funded through the federal Universal Service Fund (USF). Basically, the </span><a title="FCC.gov" href="http://www.fcc.gov/topic/universal-service"><span style="font-family:arial;">USF</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> is a tax that appears on phone and wireless bills. In theory, this tax is collected from communications companies to ensure affordable telecommunications services in remote or high-cost areas. In reality, customers pay the USF. Therefore, the working chump who pays the USF tax is subsidizing yet another welfare program.<br /><br />Now, labeling Assurance Wireless a welfare program is a stern accusation, one in need of substantiation. Fortunately, confirming </span><a title="Assurance Wireless Qualification Requirements" href="http://www.assurancewireless.com/Public/HowToQualify.aspx"><span style="font-family:arial;">evidence</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> is readily available. Qualifying for Assurance is as simple as participating in an approved entitlement program: Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, public housing, free school lunch, or low income energy assistance programs. To coin an old phrase, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Likewise, when a program's qualifying criteria is participation in a welfare program, and the program's cost is covered or subsidized through government imposed taxes or fees, it's a welfare program.<br /><br />The economy isn't technically in recession, but it's far from robust, causing many productive families to trim their budgets. One way to stretch their dollars is through no contract, or prepaid, cellular plans. While prepaid cellular options are sometimes limited, they are affordable. However, prepaid cellular customers work not only to maintain their limited services but also to provide the entitlement class with better cellular plans than they themselves can afford. Productive people are being played for chumps, working chumps. Count me in their number.<br /><br />Successful cultures aren't built upon a premise where unproductive people have the right to necessity or convenience at another's expense. But more and more Americans perceive themselves entitled. Whether it's necessities like food and shelter or luxuries like cellular phones, working chumps continue to meet the demands of an ungrateful entitlement class.<br /><br />The government, media, and intelligentsia are quick to defend those who ride in the entitlement wagon. Yet no one defends the working chump, whose productivity keeps that wagon rolling. But they can't pull the load forever. Someday the weight will become too great, and both the wagon and its riders will be left sitting by the side of the road.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><em>This article first appeared at </em><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/pity_the_poor_working_chump_comments.html"><em>American Thinker: Pity the Poor Working Chump</em></a><em>.</em></span>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-36960787036552261612012-03-19T17:40:00.001-04:002012-03-19T17:43:38.009-04:00Obama is no Ron Paul<span style="font-family:arial;">The Republican presidential nomination process is more than half complete, meaning Ron Paul's supporters must face a hard fact. Their candidate won't be the nominee. His delegate </span><a title="NPR Interactive GOP Primary map" href="http://www.npr.org/2012/03/06/147995414/map-republican-primary-and-caucus-results-by-state-and-county"><span style="font-family:arial;">count</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> is one-tenth that of Mitt Romney and only Maine has awarded Paul double-digit delegates. Even when Paul wins, he </span><a title="Houston Chronicle: Virgin Island caucus" href="http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/03/ron-paul-wins-popular-vote-in-us-virgin-islands-but-romney-dominates-the-delegates/"><span style="font-family:arial;">loses</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">.<br /><br />That's not to say Rep. Paul in inconsequential; he's not. But he has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as do the Pittsburgh Pirates of winning the 2012 World Series. So, where will Paul's supporters turn in the general election? Believe it or not, the Obama campaign believes it can court alienated Paulites, citing common ground on budget issues and foreign policy.<br /><br />Whatever the Obama campaign is smoking must be good stuff. Had it been available at Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love would've lasted a decade. Give the President's advisors an "A" in spin, but the idea of Paul's supporters voting Obama is pure fantasy.<br /><br />Rep. Paul pledged to cut $1 trillion from federal spending immediately upon taking office. He'd like to </span><a title="Ron Paul 2012: The issues " href="http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/"><span style="font-family:arial;">repeal</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> the 16th Amendment and abolish inheritance and capital gains taxes. Ron Paul might settle for auditing the Federal Reserve, but he'd prefer to eliminate it outright. And voters attracted to these fiscal positions will back Obama's reelection? Fat chance, Barry!<br /><br />It's true that Candidate Obama preached fiscal restraint, criticized Bush's "unpatriotic" deficit spending, and promised budgetary discipline. His campaign rhetoric left spendthrift Republicans little room to criticize tax and spend liberalism. But President Obama is accumulating debt at a rate that makes "W" appear cautious. Three years into Obama's presidency we've increased debt from $10 trillion to $15.5 trillion, give or take a hundred billion. Trillion dollar annual deficits are the new normal. Welfare and food stamp participation has </span><a title="Heritage.org: Obama's budget deficits" href="http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/"><span style="font-family:arial;">risen</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, and Washington has seized control of the healthcare industry.<br /><br />Obama and Paul are as far apart fiscally as the East is from the West. And the notion that Obama's foreign policies will appeal to Paul's base is even more far-fetched.<br /><br />Ron Paul is non-interventionist to the point of being isolationist. On Paul's ideal plane there would be no appreciable U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Asia, or Europe. And we certainly wouldn't commit forces to wars that Washington exhibits no apparent interest in winning. For right or wrong Ron Paul would bring home the troops.<br /><br />Obama is following the nation-building war strategy he once condemned. Yes, we've withdrawn from Iraq, but on a timetable determined before Obama took office. The mission in Afghanistan is muddled, American aircraft are bombing targets inside Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen, and the administration seems content to subvert congressional authority and seek </span><a title="CNS News: Admin seeks NATO/UN approval for military action" href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-blasts-administration-seeking-international-authority-congressional-authority"><span style="font-family:arial;">permission</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> from NATO and the UN to intervene in Syria.<br /><br />In terms of governing philosophy, Barack Obama is to Ron Paul what Karl Marx is to Thomas Jefferson. Only epic absurdity could prompt Obama's campaign to believe it can woo supporters from a man who is the President's ideological polar opposite.</span>Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030650081785910234.post-41165360863392224932012-03-11T21:31:00.003-04:002012-03-11T21:43:31.297-04:00Litigation is risky for Sandra FlukeRep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is one versatile individual. He proved his mastery of psychoanalysis when he <a title="Investors.com" href="http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2321-hoyer-tea-party-people-come-from-unhappy-families">diagnosed</a> TEA Partiers as products of dysfunctional families. He's now issuing free <a title="Philly.com" href="http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-05/news/31124469_1_rush-limbaugh-libel-lawyer-defamation">legal advice</a> to Sandra Fluke, urging her to sue Rush Limbaugh for "slander, libel, and whatever else might be involved."<br /><br />A dangerous precedent is established when politicians openly promote lawsuits between citizens. Such misuse of governmental influence belies a key concept of American liberty, wherein government is compelled to consider everyone equally before the law. Hoyer's attitude drives an unnecessary wedge between the populace. While he's legally entitled to support Fluke, he's not ethically entitled to encourage civil litigation. He has compromised his office's integrity, violated the public's trust, and possibly led Sandra Fluke astray.<br /><br />Hoyer's disregard for his responsibilities as a Congressman doesn't mean a defamation suit against Limbaugh has no merit. A libel attorney can highlight two reasons why Sandra is on solid legal ground. For starters, she's a private citizen victimized publicly by a powerful figure. Also, Limbaugh's disparaging remarks about her sex life established false statements of fact. But there are also flaws in this reasoning that could make litigation a risky path for Ms. Fluke.<br /><br />Is Sandra indeed a private citizen? When an activist publicly presents their opinions as expert testimony before Congress in an attempt to influence a particular legislative outcome, that person has entered the public forum Rush Limbaugh. But her public activism renders her a public figure of sorts. Therefore, hiding from criticism behind libel law is in question.<br /><br />What about the insults? Establishing Sandra as a public figure doesn’t open the season for character assassination.<br /><br />That's true enough. However, a libel suit could be Sandra Fluke's undoing. Instigating legal action entails arguing the case before a judge and jury. Settling out of court for a cool million from the well-heeled Limbaugh would be a smart move. But taking the case to civil court, where sworn testimony is presented, opens a can of worms that's best left closed. Sandra Fluke's background becomes fair game in court, including her sex life. Don't think the Limbaugh defense team wouldn't try to prove Sandra the biggest tramp since Mata Hari.<br /><br />Limbaugh can afford the highest flying legal eagles money can buy. They'll peek in every closet and look under every rock. Fluke's classmates, friends, and lovers -- from high school until now -- will be interviewed. The most damaging associates will be subpoenaed as witnesses for the defense. If Sandra Fluke is the least bit promiscuous we'll learn every intimate detail, right down to her favorite acts and preferred positions.<br /><br />Public opinion favors Sandra today. But the goodwill goes out the window if court testimony proves her everything Limbaugh said she was. Her lawsuit will be lost, the potential windfall of an out-of-court settlement gone, and her public reputation legitimately besmirched.<br /><br />That's the risk Sandra Fluke runs if she follows Steny Hoyer's advice. If she sues Limbaugh for libel and loses she'll appear even worse than Rush portrayed her. Maybe she should then sue Hoyer for bad legal counsel, and for attempting to build his political capitol at her expense.Anthony W. Hagerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12293930292984464155noreply@blogger.com0