Louis R. Avallone

Category: Columns

  • Denial Dems Blame All Others

    Denial Dems Blame All Others

    October 6, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Blame It On The Rain
    Milli Vanilli Only Scratched The Surface

    Perhaps not since 1989, when the number one song that year was Milli Vanilli’s “Blame it on the Rain,” has there been a more grand fraud, perpetrated upon the American people, than the incessant, obsessive, and child-like reasoning of blaming George W. Bush this election season, for everything from our economic challenges, to him being responsible for the BP oil spill in the Gulf, earlier this year.

    More on the specifics of all that in a moment. For now, it’s important to first understand the emotional distress that liberals are experiencing today. One of the mechanisms of denial is blaming others for our problems. So, faced with a growing majority of the electorate that is both informed on the issues and mostly diametrically opposed to the Democrat’s socialist policy initiatives, liberals are in full denial and, as a result, are blaming anyone, and anything, for their problems (other than themselves).

    You’ve heard Obama say repeatedly, “…it took nearly a decade to dig the hole that we’re in — and that it would take longer than any of us would like to climb our way out.”
 You’ve heard him blame the rising unemployment rate on Bush, saying that Bush left “an economy that was teetering on the brink of collapse.” You have also heard from Nancy Pelosi, who is likewise in denial. She’s blaming Bush for years of lax oversight from the federal government for offshore drilling, and suggesting that this contributed to the explosion and subsequent Gulf oil spill earlier in the year.

    She has also excused the nearly 10% unemployment rate, during the Obama administration, by saying that it is, at least, a “sharp turnaround from the 700,000 jobs per month lost under President Bush” (actually, this 700,000 jobs statistic was collected in November 2008, following the election of the current administration and Democrat controlled Congress). Still, nearly four million jobs were lost were lost the following year, the worst year for job losses since World War II.

    But wait, there’s more. Bush, apparently, has even been blamed for personal lapses in honesty. Rep. Maxine Waters blamed the Bush administration for her own ethics investigation, explaining that she had to use the power of her Congressional office to intervene with the Treasury Department so that federal bailout funds could be disbursed to a bank, owned in part, by her own husband (okay, and the dog ate my homework).

    Not to be outdone by the Waters’ revelation, media reports now reveal that Bush ultimately caused the break-up of the marriage between Al and Tipper Gore because of Bush’s winning of the Presidential election in 2000. As reported by CBS news, “Gore winning the popular vote for president but losing the electoral vote may have done the marriage irreparable harm.”

    The blaming of Bush, over and over again, for so many of their own shortcomings, reveals that liberals are simply behaving as an alcoholic, before deciding to get help. Like the alcoholic, before treatment, liberals are avoiding taking responsibility for their own actions, and pointing the finger at Bush (or at anyone or anything else). This helps them feel better about themselves. For the alcoholic, for example, blaming enables them to deny that their relationship with alcohol is the real cause of their problems. For example, if my job were not so stressful, I wouldn’t drink so much.

    The same is true for liberals. By blaming Bush, this helps them feel better about the unemployment rate that peaked around 10 percent in late 2009 and is now around 9.6 percent. It helps them feel better that one in every 381 U.S. housing units received a foreclosure filing last month, while home seizure rates reached a record level, for the third time in five months. And by blaming, they avoid honest communication and accountability for their own actions.

    So, it’s not real complicated, really. Pelosi told us herself what is going on. She explained that Democrats would only stop blaming Bush for the nation’s economic troubles “when the problems go away.” She gets credit for her honesty here, at least.

    However, if we’re still being honest, consider this: Since she became Speaker in 2007, the Congress passed a $700 billion financial bailout of the banks, over $1 trillion in economic stimulus, a $1.5 trillion health care expansion, a $447 billion omnibus spending bill, and a $15 billion Medicaid bailout. Discretionary spending has risen 25%. Despite this all, the unemployment rate continues to hover near 10%, nearly 1.1 million Americans have given up looking for work and our federal debt that is expected to rise to $20 trillion, by the end of this decade.

    It seems, however, that Americans are in the midst of conducting their own intervention, for the sake of liberals, and the future of our country. These Americans, regardless of party affiliation, are taking a stand that evading personal accountability, or avoiding honest communication, or otherwise blaming others, for one’s own irresponsible actions, will not be tolerated. As evidence, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that a growing number of likely voters are not going along with this administration’s “blame Bush” ruse.

    Milli Vanilli advised us to blame it on the rain. Liberals suggest blaming it on Bush. But I’m with the 19th century novelist Tolstoy, who once remarked, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” That makes sense. Enough is enough. This election season, how about a little more introspection first?

  • Numbing Down

    Numbing Down

    August 25, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    Kim Kardashian “Totally Fine” On Her Own
    Nation Breathes Sigh of Relief as Vienna Girardi Starts Dating Again

    Okay. I admit it. I did not already know that Snooki had recently been arrested for disorderly conduct in New Jersey last month. Or that Vienna Girardi, from “The Bachelor” was already dating again, after her very public break-up with Jake in June. Nor did I know just how devastated Heidi Montag was by the news of her plastic surgeon’s recent passing. Nor did I know that Kim Kardashian said that she is “totally fine” now on her own. And that fed-up flight attendant that took the “slip-n-slide” exit off of that JetBlue flight earlier this month? He’s a huge Barry Manilow fan. Who would have known?

    Maybe you didn’t know all of this either. And maybe it’s because you and I are just too serious about things. Or maybe not.

    Did you know that only two in 10 Americans know that there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Senate? Or only four in 10 know there are three branches of government (and also can name each of them)? Or that 53% of Americans don’t know who is the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court or, for that matter, even name a single member of the highest court in the land? Or that a National Geographic poll revealed that six in 10 people, aged 18 to 24, could not find Iraq on a map?

    As we rapidly approach this year’s election season, is there really any big surprise why voter turn-out continues to be so low in our nation? After all, with so many diversions to captivate our attention and occupy our minds, often with nonsense, it’s difficult to come home, pause, and give thoughtful consideration to nuclear proliferation. Or to the national security threat from our nation’s open borders. Or to the terminal consequences of increasing the national debt. In fact, as I write this, the top five trending/search topics on Yahoo’s Internet search engine are Natalie Portman, Zombie Ants, Tila Tequila, Erykah Badu, and Jay-Z. You familiar with all of these?

    Admittedly, when you are working longer hours to make ends meet; it’s hard to become interested in the significance of Russia loading uranium-packed fuel rods into an Iranian nuclear power station this week. It’s just not a priority when the children have their homework to finish, baths to take, and you have to balance the checkbook. And because we’re so tired, as a nation, we just want to relax and be entertained…not solve the world’s problems, right?

    Still, it’s not so much the “dumbing down” of America as it is the “numbing down” that is responsible for the continued low voter turnout facing our nation. To prove that point, you should know that 85% of adult Americans have at least a high school degree today, up from just 25% in 1940. Similarly, 28% have a college degree, which is five times the level in 1940. Today’s U.S. workforce is arguably the most educated in the world and the present 18- to 29-year-old generation will likely be the most educated in American history.

    Still, in 2008, about 100 million folks never voted. This means that the United States elected its President in 2008 with the votes from only about 25% of the voting-age population. This was true in 2004, as well as in 2000. However, in 1992 and 1996, this percentage was even lower…only 23% of the voting-age population, in those elections, voted for Bill Clinton.

    But why the low turn-out? Sure, you can blame television for the precipitous decline in voter turnout. After all, television became the predominant form of entertainment in the 1960s and, as television’s popularity grew, the importance of traditional, face-to-face social gatherings in the community declined. “Television is chewing gum for the brain,” said the famous architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. The same can be said today for Facebook, Twitter, and other social media channels.

    Maybe folks are also fed up with the longer, seemingly unending campaign seasons, filled with mud-slinging; where candidates are more interested in energizing their “base,” instead of demonstrating leadership to solve our nation’s challenges through our democratic processes.

    Low voter turnout may also be a product of decades of American contentment. Perhaps our country’s past prosperity has diminished the perceived significance of participating in our democratic process.

    Then again, part of it is our sense of helplessness. Many may feel that they have no influence on what happens, so why bother? Unfortunately, the “why bother” is pretty widespread. In fact, the United States ranks 139th out of 172 countries in voter participation.

    Regardless of the reasons, and whatever your politics this election year, just vote. Register to vote, if you are not already. And engage the privilege that is our democratic process, so that we might all preserve the promise of the American dream for future generations.

    Because, very plainly, between declining voter interest and the continued erosion of accountability in government, in the words of Yogi Berra, “The future ain’t what it used to be.”

  • Biden’s Big Deal

    Biden’s Big Deal

    April 7, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    BIDEN’S BIG DEAL
    Expletive Was More Polite Than The Alternatives

    Theodore Roosevelt had the “Square Deal,” a phrase that came to represent his administration’s ideas for the conservation of natural resources, increasing competitiveness in the marketplace, and improving consumer protection. FDR had the “New Deal,” which introduced banking reform laws and the seemingly permanent and persistent expansion of government, through work relief programs, union protection, and the Social Security Act. Then, Harry Truman had the “Fair Deal,” which was his administration’s policy initiatives, rooted in the notion that the federal government should guarantee economic opportunity and social stability.

    And now, apparently, Barrack Obama has the “Big Effing Deal,” the healthcare reform law that is estimated to reduce the number of uninsured U.S. residents, from current levels, by 32 million people, after the law’s provisions have all taken effect in 2019.

    That’s right. In case you didn’t know already, it was right after Obama signed this self-styled, historic, and largest peacetime expansion of the federal government ever, that Vice-President Biden leaned into Obama at the bill’s signing ceremony and proclaimed that this was all a “big [eff]ing deal” (expletive omitted). Those were Jefferson’s exact words after watching Washington sign the Constitution, I think.

    But in all fairness, and deference to Biden, there are some who say that Biden’s remark, into a live microphone, may not have been entirely clear, or intelligible. So, with all due respect, and in an effort to innocently explain to my seven year old daughter the missing letters (“****ING”) in the headlines reporting on Biden’s celebration of the “Big [Eff]ing Deal”, here are some other, similar sounding words that Biden may have said to Obama (in case Sasha and Malia Obama are around):
    F***TICAL: Biden may have said that this was “a big fanatical deal.” Fanatical is defined as surpassing what is normal or accepted in enthusiasm regarding a matter, or otherwise excessively or unusually dedicated or devoted. “Fanatical” is plausible, when describing the Democrats’ obsession with a single payer system, or universal healthcare coverage, even though this would result in the elimination of the private insurers altogether (eventually). “Fanatical” is right on point. After all, just last week Cuban dictator Fidel Castro had praised the passage of healthcare reform in the U.S. and admiringly characterizes Obama as “a fanatical believer in the imperialist capitalist system.” You have to be fanatical about governing this way when, according to a Rasmussen report last week, 54% of the nation’s likely voters still favor repealing this new healthcare reform law.

    F***ING: Biden may have also meant to say this was “a big fibbing deal.” After all, fibbing is defined as being deliberately unclear. And there is some fibbing going on here, for sure, according to the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”). After ten years of implementation, the cost of Obamacare will reach $2.5 trillion, at least, not $1 trillion as advertised by the White House.

    Another example of fibbing is that, for the first 10 years of revenue, from the taxes and fees required by this new law, there is only enough funding for six years of spending. And with Social Security paying out $29 billion more than it takes in this year, the CBO predicts that the federal deficit will actually grow by $562 billion, not shrink.

    F***KISH: Well, maybe Biden said that this was “a big freakish deal.” The dictionary defines “freakish” as markedly strange or abnormal. Come to think of it, this is the first time Democrats have controlled both Congress and the Presidency since Jimmy Carter, in the late 1970s (and we all know how well that turned out).

    F***NG: Finally, he could have said this was “a big filing deal.” The new healthcare reform law is over 2,000 pages. To keep up with enforcing the mandates, throughout this seemingly complex entitlement program, the federal government is hiring 18,000 more IRS agents and creating an estimated 111 more bureaucracies, largely to keep up with all of the paper. So, there will be lots of paper filing, Mr. Vice-President.

    Now, Biden is not the first politician to publicly use an “effing” expletive while in office. Most notably, in 2004, Dick Cheney used it in a verbal exchange, on the Senate floor, with Senator Pat Leahy. It was inappropriate then, as it still is now. Media reporting, back then, was fairly critical of Cheney for departing from proper decorum on the Senate floor. When Joe Biden uses an “effing” expletive, however, the media seemingly slaps him on the back and offers to get him another beer (even though Biden doesn’t drink).

    In the words of Abraham Lincoln, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” This is especially important now, considering the current fanaticism that governs against the will of the people, a growing federal government that is distrusted by the electorate, absolute power corrupting absolutely through a growing central government, and the dilution of American independence from the unconscionable and perpetually increasing national debt.

    But a mere expletive is the least of our nation’ concerns. It is least injurious to the preservation of our Constitution, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even though his “effing” expletive during the bill signing ceremony may not have been intelligible to all, Biden could have easily been heard to say “fanatical” or “fibbing” or “freakish,” or “filing,” in place of his “effing” expletive. They all would have been an appropriate fit. Ironically, though, Biden’s “effing” expletive may simply have been the most polite choice at the time.

  • Core Differences

    Core Differences

    March 24, 2010

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    There is a certain number of Americans that feel any criticism of the Obama administration’s policies are actually a personal affront upon the President himself. Their claim is often that such disapproval is, at its best, merely partisan or, at its worst, racist. Last September, former President Carter said as much, when he said that “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man…”

    From time to time, pundits and pontificators suggest the same of other critical thinking Americans, from the Tea Party to the Grand Old Party. Nevermind that a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last week indicated that 60% of Americans believe that the country is off on the wrong track. Or that only 17% of Americans approve of how lawmakers in the Democrat controlled Congress are doing their jobs. Or that 50% of Americans would vote to defeat every single member of Congress, including their own representative.

    So, with all that pushed aside, and for all of those Americans who believe that criticism of this administration reveals some psychological chasm, or deficiency, within the rest of us, let’s try illustrating how you can be quite disagreeable with someone’s actions (like the President’s), even if you don’t know their political party, race, or even gender.

    Let’s take the apolitical and mundane kitchen trashcan, in your office’s breakroom, for illustration purposes. Now, from time to time, this trashcan overflows (it happens). And instead of some folks simply emptying the trashcan, they seem content to just stack their garbage upon the already piled high garbage; like they are playing a rancid game of Jenga.

    And if your trashcan has one of those pivoting top lids, this adds a whole other level of complexity to the matter. Folks come by and shove empty pizza boxes, their 64 oz. foam drink cups, and their to-go box of seven day old kung pao chow chicken into the already capacity-filled trashcan, wedging it all into the little remaining space beneath the pivoting top lid. And when these folks decide that they cannot continue building the tower of trash to stretch any taller to the ceiling, these same folks will begin placing more trash around the trashcan; almost as if they are paying homage to the trashcan.

    At this point, if you are like me, you wonder why in the world someone just didn’t empty this overflowing trashcan already, instead of just jamming more trash into it. Now, I don’t often see the person(s) responsible for causing the overflow of the trashcan, and all of its aroma. It’s unsightly, and sometimes it smells. But this illustrates the point that any opposition to this unsanitary condition has nothing to do with the personality of the person who contributed to it. It does, however, have everything to do with their position on cleanliness, which according to an ancient Hebrew proverb, is next to godliness.

    Now, you simply not be in favor of participating as a bystander to this mess and want to clean it up yourself. I understand. You may speak out, post a memo in the break room, or send out an email to everyone in the company. In fact, Americans are responding the same way to the direction our country is moving, but not because of the personality, color, or political party of our President…it’s about the effect of his policies on our country’s future.

    Drawing out this analogy a little further then, there are only about two (2) main reasons for why this mess continues to persist in your breakroom (and in our country). First, folks apparently view emptying an overflowing trashcan as someone else’s responsibility (i.e. “It’s not my job”). They seem unconcerned how their obliviousness will affect the next guy that comes along. This is like Obama’s 2010 budget that, over the next decade, would raise taxes on all Americans by nearly $3 trillion and increase each American household’s share of the publicly held debt an additional $74,000.

    The second point is that folks may simply not have the time to properly dispose of their trash, like the members of Congress that were too busy last year to read the details of the $789 billion stimulus bill (before voting for it). Perhaps your co-workers intended to return and fix the mess that they left behind. The problem is, like Congress, tomorrow never comes, does it? This year, Social Security will pay out $29 billion more than it takes in. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported last week that Social Security will now be in the “red” in perpetuity. But we’re still expanding government.

    You see, despite those that say criticism of the White House is rooted in racism, or from animosity towards the President, they have it all wrong. The particulars of anyone that won’t take the time to empty an overflowing trashcan in the break room is insignificant, but it’s still not about their personality, skin color, party affiliation, etc… It is about the effect that the actions of a few will have on the many. And if we can have such fundamental differences regarding a relatively insignificant and benign matter as the sanitary quality of a break room trashcan, then for goodness’ sake, we can have the same fundamental differences on important policy initiatives set forth by this administration… and without being labeled or admonished for having them.

  • Healthcare

    Healthcare

    August 12, 2009

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    It was Shakespeare, in 1611, that may have been the first to write about how politics can make strange bedfellows. Well, pull back the covers and get tucked in, because if you happen to oppose the Obama healthcare initiative and are also pro-life, you may soon find yourself in bed with abortion rights proponents. In fact, you should both may even be sleeping on the same side of the bed. How? I’ll explain.

    During the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court created the right to privacy, through a series of cases. This right to privacy, between a woman and her doctor, was pivotal in the Roe. v. Wade decision in 1973, which of course, legalized abortion. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to privacy is guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

    With that principle established and laid down in Roe, every American is afforded the constitutional protection to make their own healthcare decisions, with the consultation of their doctor, of course. Constitutionally, then, according to the precedent of Roe, your medical decisions must be made, by you, free of judicial, legislative, or political, influence, pressure, or other encumbrance.

    Now stay with me. The fundamental, underlying premise of Obama’s healthcare initiative turns this principle upside down. In other words, now the federal government WILL manage the decision-making process of what kind of medical care is provided to you, and every patient, for that matter. Ultimately, the medical care you receive will be based more on the decision of a bureaucrat, than a collaboration between you and your doctor – weakening the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship – if this healthcare plan becomes law.

    If allowing a bureaucrat to make your healthcare decisions, or limit the healthcare that your children or parents may require, is problematic for you, then here is where you and abortion rights proponents should be on the same page, championing the virtues of preserving the doctor-patient relationship. You see, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court explained, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in referring to the significance of the doctor-patient relationship, that “these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life.”

    What could be more central to “personal dignity and autonomy” than a patient’s choice to preserve or extend life itself? If the 14th Amendment protects the right to privacy, with regards to access to abortion, how can the 14th Amendment selectively be ignored to then allow the federal government to grant, deny, or otherwise burden our access to other medical procedures, regardless of our age, the likelihood of success, or the costliness of the procedure?

    But the government will certainly try. Obama said so himself. He explained that sometimes the government may decide, for you and your doctor, that some treatments, may not be effective and that “(m)aybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” That maybe true, but how is this government decision, to keep grandma from getting the kidney transplant she needs, for example, any different than the government denying any woman access to abortion, which the 14th amendment would not allow to begin with? It isn’t.

    Wouldn’t this mean that a lawsuit could be filed against the federal government every time the government declines, or otherwise delays access to, a medical procedure for any of us? Would this not be the same violation of the constitutional protections offered by the 14th Amendment for abortions?

    In court case after court case, the 14th Amendment has been the pro-choice crowd’s battle cry. When a New York law threatened to limit access to contraceptives, Planned Parenthood of New York spoke out, saying such laws “are dangerous to women’s health because they interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and ignore a woman’s medical needs and decisions.” And when a Florida law was proposed to require doctors to perform ultrasounds prior to any abortion, Planned Parenthood of Florida objected, saying that it violates the “doctor-patient relationship”.

    But still these abortions rights proponents are hypocritically silent on the Obama healthcare initiative. The 14th Amendment argument is their “bread and butter”. It is what they rely upon, through the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, to ensure that a woman’s right to choose an abortion is a decision made between her and her doctor, without the government in the middle. That’s why it seems hypocritical for these proponents to stand idly by, even as Obama-care would allow the government to interfere in EVERY healthcare decision between every woman (as well as every man and child) and their doctor.

    I suppose the pro-choice crowd is willing to sacrifice their own principles, even much of the constitutional protection afforded their cause, in order to please Obama. It looks like the rest of the country may not be so concerned, however. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, taken late last month, indicated that 42% of Americans now call the healthcare initiative “a bad idea”. This rushed and ill-conceived healthcare initiative is obviously suffering from declining health itself.

    The Constitutional protection of the doctor-patient relationship can legally defeat this disastrous and dangerous healthcare initiative, which appears to be neither about health nor care. But now you see why those abortion rights proponents could be in bed together with those that oppose Obama-care. Surprisingly, though, the abortion rights proponents aren’t. So far, they’ve just chosen to sleep out on the sofa instead. I’d like to say that this is just as well for the rest of us…but this issue is more than about one’s politics or religion…it’s a matter of life or death, if anyone in Congress would bother to read the bill.

     

  • Hard Knocks School

    Hard Knocks School

    July 22, 2009

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    You ever heard, “What is good for the goose, isn’t good for the gander”? You haven’t? Well, please let me explain. Much has been written and considered recently regarding the importance of one’s life story, when being considered as a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Real life” experiences are valuable when on the bench, especially when, according to President Obama, you have “faced down barriers, overcome the odds, lived out the American dream…”

    So, after your father abandoned your family when you were just two years old, after living in a one-room shack with dirt floors and no plumbing, after being raised by your grandparents, and not living in a house with a toilet until you were seven years old, being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court is a tremendous accomplishment; a reflection of one’s hard work, talent, and perseverance; an inspirational story that is a powerful testament to the living embodiment of the American dream.

    While this is all indeed true, you may be surprised to learn that the life story described above is not that of the current U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Instead, it is the life story of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

    But while President Obama celebrates Sotomayor’s unlikely success story, considering her Puerto Rican father who worked as a factory worker, who didn’t speak English, had only a third grade education, and who died when Sotomayor was nine, the New York Times, in 1991, instead, found such life experiences to be quite unmentionable, when it was about a conservative nominee, at least. For example, they wrote, rather dismissively, and without much appreciation for Justice Thomas’ life experiences, as the Senate Judiciary Committee considered his nomination to the highest court in 1991.

    They wrote that “his rise from “poverty and racial isolation will be less interesting than how that experience has affected his regard for other Americans and whether he understands how their lives and rights are affected by law and official action.”

    Hmmm…but today, Sotomayor’s experience of growing up in a poor, Puerto Rican family in the Bronx is celebrated, even considered by most liberals as an important qualification for her nomination. In fact, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, speaking during the confirmation hearing last week, said to Sotomayor, “It actually gives me goose bumps to think about the path that has brought you here today and what it says about the nation.”

    And while the New York Times explains today how Sotomayor’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court would be a “special point of pride for Hispanic-Americans — as it was for Jews, blacks and women before them to see one of their own take a seat on the highest tribunal in the land”, please consider again that, in 1991, the same editorial board found such racial or ethnic pigeon-holing offensive. In fact, regarding the appointment of Justice Thomas, the New York Times wrote in 1991 that, “by nominating this black conservative, President Bush serves a narrow partisan interest when the public has a right to expect him to nominate a lawyer or judge of proven distinction.”

    Hmmm…but you would be hard pressed to find many journalists (term used loosely) in the mainstream media that have focused more on Sotomayor’s proven distinction as a lawyer or jurist, than her gender, ethnicity, politics, and the possible demographic attraction of new Hispanic voters for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, especially as Obama begins moving aggressively to give amnesty to illegal aliens later this year.

    It sure seems like one’s life experiences, ethnicity, or one’s otherwise graduation from the “school of hard knocks” are only important to the mainstream media, and liberals alike, when a nominee, candidate, or public servant is liberal enough to be called, well, a liberal.

    Not sure on that one? How many times did you hear news reports that would almost-romantically describe how Condoleeza Rice was the first black U.S. National Security advisor or that she grew up in Alabama during segregation? Hardly at all.

    Or how often did you hear it celebrated that Colin Powell was the first black U.S. Secretary of State, who grew up poor in New York? Again, not much, if at all. He simply was too conservative in his positions for the mainstream media (well, at least back then he was).

    Or what about the story of Alberto Gonzalez, who was U.S. Attorney General. Here was a Hispanic, Supreme Court hopeful, whose father was a laborer that passed away when Alberto was only a small child. His story is compelling, but it simply did not get much “press.” Again, Alberto was simply too conservative.

    So, as you can see, “What is good for the goose, isn’t good for the gander,” if you are a conservative, at least. For now, the gander is cooked. And the goose? She is about to be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • Be Vigilant

    Be Vigilant

    July 8, 2009

    By Louis Avallone
    –
    When is saying “no,” really “yes”? Let me explain. If you are like me, you probably find yourself saying “no” more often these days than usual. “No” to continued deficit spending by the federal government, “no” to government-run health care, “no” to higher and higher taxes, “no” to the redistribution of wealth by the government…the list seemingly goes on and on.

    But we are positive-thinking people, you may say. For us, the glass may always be half-full. Every day may not be good, but there’s something good in every day. Every cloud has a silver lining. Our attitude determines our altitude. We turn lemons into lemonade, and when one door closes, another one opens. If we can dream it, by golly, we can do it. A positive anything is better than negative nothing.

    So you understand, then, how weary it is for us, you and me, as well as millions of our fellow Americans to wake-up each day, and make a difference, in the direction our country is traveling, in a world that seemingly is spinning in the opposite direction. There’s just too many opportunities, these days, for common-sense thinking folks, where saying “no” seems the only rational response to the constant barrage of policy initiatives from this administration, even from millions of Americans who ordinarily believe the sun will come out tomorrow. What we are really saying is that we are “for” a better way…a better day.

    The chorus of “no” to the policy initiatives from this administration has become so routine that Democrat talking points now repeatedly characterize the Republican Party as the “Party of No.” But that’s just not true. Is the absence of debate, or opposing viewpoint, now the standard by which we measure our love of country or the wisdom of our ideas? How can this be? After all, in the words of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”

    And that’s the truth. Consider parenting, for example. We tell our children, as our parents told us, the wisdom of what they should not do. That they should not stay up until midnight on a school night. They should not eat a candy bar before dinner, or talk with their mouth full. That if they cannot say anything nice about someone, then they should not say anything at all. That they should not put all their eggs in one basket. Sure, it may not have made as much sense to us as children, but for most of us, it made much better sense to us all grown up. Mark Twain said it best: “When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.”

    For those whose ideology is different than the current administration’s tendencies of socialism, the road ahead is a long one and you may already have grown tired of saying “no.” But as a child, what if your parents had given up on saying “no” to you? What if they had given into silence about the things that matter? Grown weary of the debates and disciplining that shaped who you are today? Frankly, as a child, being told “no” taught us responsibility, honesty, and manners. It taught us that we have choices in life and that there was a difference between what we may have wanted…and what we may have needed.

    You see, the way I figure it, saying “no” is about defending our country against the policy initiatives, from the left side of the aisle to the other side of the globe, that seek to destroy our American free market system, dismantle private health insurance, redistribute wealth, increase taxes, reward irresponsibility, and redefine the American dream.

    If Republicans are relegated as belonging to the party of “no,” then count me in. Historically, honest discourse and opposition, by Republicans, to ill-conceived or unattractive Democratic policies resounds with voters. It led to Republican landslides in 1938, 1946, 1966, 1980, and 1994.

    When you grow weary of saying “no,” or uncomfortable expressing your opinion on this matter or that, from the barber shop to the coffee shop, remember the words of James Madison when he said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” When the road seems long and your eyes have grown tired, remember the words of Thomas Jefferson when said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Be vigilant. Stay informed. Your country needs you now…perhaps more than it ever did.