Gosnell, baby-killer and coward, dodges death penalty

DavenportThe conviction of Kermit Gosnell on multiple counts of first-degree murder reminds us of society’s foremost responsibility: protection of the innocent and defenseless. Only in a deeply flawed, perhaps mortally wounded culture can a “doctor” murder newborn infants and avoid capital punishment. (Let us remember that Joseph Mengele, Hitler’s “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz, was also a “doctor.”)

Gosnell, a former abortion provider in Philadelphia, was found guilty Monday on three counts of first-degree murder and several other charges, including infanticide and manslaughter. By what means did the “health care provider” snuff out the lives of newborns? He stabbed them in the neck and severed their spines.

It stands to reason that a man who butchered infants lacks the courage to face death himself. In order to avoid the death penalty, Gosnell, 72, agreed to waive his right to appeal. He will spend the rest of his life in prison. But this “deal” is a grave injustice that never should have been on the table. Gosnell should have been executed—not 15 or 20 years from now, but immediately.  

When discussion turns to the death penalty, many among us—including some conservatives—urge compassion, forgiveness, and mercy. They dismiss capital punishment as nothing more than vengeance–an outdated, barbaric practice that has no place in a civilized society.    

But a “civilization” worthy of the name establishes and preserves ordered liberty by every means necessary, including capital punishment. Some crimes are simply unforgiveable, and men who slaughter infants are not worthy of mercy. Our empathy and compassion, withheld from perpetrators, are rightly bestowed upon victims’ families.

And the “vengeance” charge? Sorry, but I don’t recoil from the term (or the concept). Although I use another word for it: justice. The difference is merely a matter of semantics. If denouncing capital punishment as “vengeance” enhances the forgiveness enthusiast’s bloated sense of self-righteousness, so be it. Vengeance it is.  

In a just world, offenses of incomprehensible cruelty and viciousness incur the wrath of a “vengeful” society, which demands that the perpetrator be put to death. Alas, ours is not a just world.

Charles Davenport Jr.

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

nch_7463The past week has been amazing for American political observers, and it probably has many Americans longing for the good ol’ days of government transparency and impartiality that we saw during the Nixon administration.  Though it has been long simmering, the scandals pot on the Obama administration’s stovetop is finally starting to boil over, and there’s little now that anyone in the executive branch can do about it.  After many long months (and in some cases, years), the people of this nation are finally seeing the dirty laundry, the web of deceit, that Obama and his underlings have been hiding.  For many conservatives in the “alternative” media and the blogosphere, there has to be a sense of vindication in the air, as their yeoman’s work of keeping the various Obama scandals before their readers and not letting them be swept into the mainstream media’s memory hole has finally paid off, and people are starting to realize that these conservative media sources were right all along. 

Many Americans – often apolitical, or perhaps even leaning towards Obama and his ideology – are finally starting to see the Obama administration for what it really is: the most corrupt, deceitful, scandal-ridden presidential administration since Harding’s.  I’m sure, however, that the more radical and partisan Democrats and left-wingers out there will try to argue that it’s much ado about nothing, that the Rethuglicans are just trying to stir up a tempest in a Teapot Dome. 

Regardless of what the left-wing fringe thinks, recent revelations – as well as things that some of us have known about for years but which the media kept hidden from the general public – clearly indicate that the current administration, from top to bottom, cannot be allowed to continue in office.  The level of corruption is astounding, even beyond what most conservative opponents of Obama thought would be possible.  The only solution to what we’re seeing in Washington DC is to impeach.  Impeach Obama, impeach Hillary Clinton, impeach Tim Geithner, impeach Eric Holder, and from there, work down the food chain.

In American history there have only been two Presidents who were impeached by the US House – Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (Richard Nixon was technically not impeached, since he resigned before the House could finish articles of impeachment against him).  In both cases, they were acquitted by the U.S. Senate.  Andrew Johnson was impeached, essentially, for working against Radical Republican efforts to make Reconstruction more painful for the defeated South after the Civil War.  Richard Nixon, as we know, was going to be impeached for his part in covering up the break-in at the Watergate Hotel in which GOP operatives tried to spy on Democrat planners.  Bill Clinton, for his part, was impeached for having sex…wait, that’s not it, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice (things that would have gotten any of us thrown in jail if we had done them). 

The magnitude of the scandalous and illegal behavior of the Obama administration makes all of these prior impeachments, as well as the many other scandals that have plagued the American government of the last two and a quarter centuries, look like child’s play. 

Now that the lid has been blown off, I get a sense that the average low-information voter is even starting to become informed about what the executive branch has been doing, and is getting angry about it.  At the end of last week, I had something unusual happen at work.  One of my co-workers, an almost stereotypical “twenty-something” – unmarried, doesn’t follow politics very much, socially liberal, supports gay marriage, probably voted for Obama, and so forth – started a completely unsolicited conversation with me about Benghazi.  He was very angry about the way the administration allowed four Americans to die, about how they could have come to their rescue but didn’t, and that they then tried to downplay, minimize, and cover it up.  In fact, my co-worker had been listening to the Benghazi hearings live-streamed from C-Span – something I wouldn’t have even thought of doing.  I think he knew more about the scandal than I did.  The coverage was having a very definite and negative effect on his opinions about the Obama administration.

Maybe Mike Huckabee was right when he said a couple of weeks ago that the Obama scandals were about to explode on the scene, and would result in impeachment.  At the time, I sort of shrugged it off, figuring that the media was just going to keep covering up and word would never get out.  Yet, it’s starting to look like this might happen.  I’m definitely hoping that it will. 

So what are all the scandals that are finally seeing the light?

The most obvious one if Benghazi.  Obama and his minions knew that our embassy was under attack by an organized terrorist group, they even watched the assault, and they stood by and did nothing as our ambassador, one of his aides, and two Navy SEALs were murdered by the terrorists.  A rapid-reaction force was ready, and told to stand down.  The general in charge of the units involved was relieved, apparently because he disagreed with the administration’s decision.  Obama and his lackies tried to claim that the assault was done by an unorganized crowd protesting some penny ante Youtube movie about Islam, and that there was nothing they could do.  An innocent man who did nothing illegal – the guy who made the Youtube movie – was nevertheless jailed (and remains that way) so he could serve as a fall guy for the President and his crew.  When called to account earlier, Hillary Clinton – the pinched, shrewish hag that she is – brushed it all off and asked, “What difference does it make?”  To add insult to injury, the families of those lost have been condescended to by the administration, their questions about what really happened the day they lost their loved ones ignored by heartless hacks from the State Department. 

Then, of course, there is the recent revelation that from as far back as late 2010, the IRS was targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups, as well as Jewish pro-Israel groups.  In essence, the administration was sicking the IRS on its political opponents, subjecting them to special scrutiny and dispreferential treatment in their applications for tax-exempt status.  Keep in mind that one of the articles of impeachment that was being prepared for Nixon before he resigned was for using the IRS against his political opponents – so there’s definitely precedent for going after Obama on this.  This is a big deal – it cuts at the very heart of free speech, free association, and free thought.  It’s government overreach on a massive scale – using its own power to specifically attempt to limit and hinder the free ability of its opponents to participate in the political process.  The fact that it was not just confined to “low level employees” in Cincinnati, but in fact goes all the way to “top officials” in Washington DC indicates that this was coming straight from the top.  Some of these top officials even lied to Congress when asked if this type of activity was going on in 2011.  Obama and the officials involved need to be removed from office.

Indeed, this IRS scandal further casts doubt on the legitimacy of Obama’s election in November 2012.  As I’ve pointed out previously, there are strong reasons to consider the results of last November’s election to be fraudulent and illegitimate.  The IRS scandal makes that case even further.  Consider this – by systematically preventing or delaying Tea Party and other conservative groups from obtaining the same sort of tax exempt status that left-wing groups routinely obtain, the IRS was essentially helping to hinder the ability of these groups to participate and to deter donors from contributing to these groups.  By doing so, the IRS was helping to depress the vote for Romney and Republicans, while commensurately tipping the field in favor of Obama and Democrats.  That could certainly have helped to swing thousands of votes to the Democrats and away from Republicans in swing states that were especially competitive.  Could these actions by the IRS have resulted in Obama winning states that he might otherwise not have won, had Tea Party and other conservative groups been able to direct more money, time, and organization into these states, but which they could not because of IRS hobbling?

But now it turns out that this isn’t all there is to the scandal.  It seems that one left-wing media “watchdog” group, ProPublica, was given confidential information regarding the applications for tax-exempt status of several Tea Party groups.  This is, of course, quite illegal.  It’s also part of a disturbing trend on the part of the Left toward using left-wing organizations as legitimized bullies for harassing and attacking their political opponents, much the same way the US Department of Justice uses the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other far-Left supporters of domestic terrorism as tools for attacking conservative groups. 

Also not surprising are the revelations that other government agencies besides the IRS appear to have been involved in the official intimidation of conservative opponents of the government, including the FBI and BATFE. 

There are other scandals that are not as generally well-known, but hopefully will be exposed to greater scrutiny as the heat is turned up on Obama and his cronies.  For instance, you have Katherine Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, essentially shaking down health care companies for funds, using the tremendous discretionary powers that she has been granted under ObamaCare to lean on them to “do the right thing,” thus attempting to circumvent the funding limitations that Congress has imposed via its constitutional budgetary powers.

Then, there is the Fast and Furious / Operation Gunwalker scandal that the media have been able to largely hide so far.  This one involves the Obama administration leaning on gun store owners to sell weapons to government straw purchasers, guns that were then transported into Mexico and given to drug gangs.  These drug gangs have subsequently committed over 500 murders – including a US Border Patrol agent – using these guns.  The purpose for all this?  To give the Obama administration a “legitimate” reason to “crack down” on guns and call for more gun control legislation to solve the “problem” of gun violence in Mexico caused by guns purchased in America (this took place before the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings gave him more convenient excuses to push for gun control). 

There is, of course, the scandal over the Pigford Settlements – another one that hardly anyone has heard about, but which involves the misuse and misappropriation of public monies.  Ostensibly these settlements were intended to be monetary remedies to black farmers who had supposedly been discriminated against in the allocation of government farm loans between 1983 and 1997, a result of a class action lawsuit filed against the US Department of Agriculture, Pigford v. Glickman.  However, it has since been found that many of those who claimed “discrimination” and were collecting their $50,000 shares of the settlement were not farmers and had no actual claim on the money, but were apparently being encouraged to fraudulently claim discrimination in the giving of the loans.  Multiple claims were often filed in the same handwriting, many of the addresses listed were in urban areas nowhere near farmland, and in several counties across several southern states, more discrimination claims were made than there were actual farms in the counties.  In essence, it turned into a great big trough of government money that many black Americans, apparently encouraged and assisted by elements within the Obama administration, could use as a nozzle for tapping free government cash, using the charge of “racism” as a cover for their activities. 

Now, we find out that the Justice Department illegally seized several months worth of telephone and other communication records from the Associated Press, even though there was no specific investigation that any of these applied to (which would normally be required to obtain the warrant necessary to grant access to these records).  While there have been some claims that the government is investigating supposed media leaks of information regarding a foiled terrorist plot about a year ago, the use of subpoena’s to obtain such a wide range of communications has been enough to even make the normally Obama-friendly ACLU call foul.  In essence, the Justice Department overstepped its constitutional investigative powers and strong-armed information for which it had no legitimate need.  While I think we can see the irony in a media outlet that has continually played the patsy for Obama finding itself on the receiving end of Obama administration overreach, the danger that this sort of behavior presents to anyone who might investigate the actions of or write against the Obama administration surely ought to bother us greatly.   This is doubly so as we now have a reporter in St. Louis alleging that after he asked Obama some difficult questions last year, the IRS suddenly began pressuring him. 

We’ve also found out, just today, that the EPA has made a routine practice out of charging prohibitively expensive fees to conservative groups that requested information from the agency, while waiving these same fees for “friendly” environmentalist groups.  This is yet another example of politically-motivated disparate treatment by government (which is supposed to be neutral and impartial) designed to both hinder its political opponents while at the same time providing to itself the cover of bureaucratic opacity. 

So much corruption from the administration of a President who once claimed he’d have the most transparent government ever.  It’s a good thing – a very good thing – that this is all coming out into the light of day, finally.  I’m sure that Obama and his administration will always have its bevy of supporters, partisan hacks who will ignore even the most egregious misuse of government power if it provides them even the most transient political benefit, who will claim that Republican investigations into the many misdeeds of Obama and his underlings are just racist “witch hunts” designed to go after America’s First Black President™.  Regardless, anyone who actually cares about good government needs to support turning this entire crew – Obama, Holder, Sebelius, Clinton, Giethner, and the rest – out on their ears, and possibly into a federal penitentiary.  Dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, abuse of government power, conflict of interest, lying to Congress – these are all high crimes that can and should result in impeachment.  It’s time to direct the river of truth through the Augean stables of Washington, D.C.

Tim Dunkin is a Guardian columnist.

Voter Freedom Act: It’s time

Dr. Joe GuarinoOne piece of legislation in which I have acute interest is HB 794– the Voter Freedom Act.  And there is some good news to report.  The bill just passed its third reading in the North Carolina House of Representatives.  That means it beat the “crossover deadline,” and is headed over to the North Carolina Senate for consideration.

The Voter Freedom Act would begin the process of fixing a longstanding inequity in the state of North Carolina.  Currently, our state has enormous legal barriers erected that are designed to prevent participation by third parties in the political process.  The legislation passed this week by the House would mandate the study of ballot access reform, and ultimately lead to recommendations for the General Assembly to adopt.  (The language in the bill, however, is a bit muddy.)

Yes, this is a gradual process.  But it is apparently what was politically achievable this year.

Disclosure: I happen to be affiliated with the Constitution Party of North Carolina.  A number of other third parties, however, also have an interest in seeing such legislation adopted.

It will now be very important for the North Carolina Senate to consider this legislation in good faith, and allow a vote.

My understanding is that some Republicans in Raleigh are concerned this type of legislation would represent a threat to the Republican Party.  Perhaps that is why the Voter Freedom Act is only a “study bill.”  But improved ballot access would also help third parties on the left side of the political spectrum–not just the right.

Political liberty is inconsistent with North Carolina’s status quo that allows only two political parties to possess a near-stranglehold on ballot access.  Voters ought to be free to choose from a wider range of options across the political spectrum.  And third parties should be free to compete.

North Carolina Senate– it’s your turn!

Dr. Joe Guarino is the Guardian‘s senior columnist.

The taxman cometh

“On Friday, a top IRS official said the agency was ‘apologetic’ for what she termed ‘absolutely inappropriate’ actions by lower-level workers in selecting some conservative groups for extra scrutiny to determine whether their applications should be approved.

“The new details suggest that agency workers also were examining statements in the groups’ applications to determine whether they had a political leaning.

“Tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code are allowed to engage in some political activity, but the primary focus of their efforts must remain promoting ‘social welfare.’

“IRS officials said last week that the focused review of conservative groups was initiated by lower-level civil servants in the IRS Cincinnati office, not by political appointees in Washington, and was not politically motivated. Instead, they say it stemmed from a misguided effort to centralize review of a growing number of applications for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status.” – “IRS Scrutiny Was Deeper Than Thought,” Wall Street Journal, 05/12/2013 (1)
 

Think about the argument being put forth:
 
(1) Johnny and Janie Taxman,

(2) low level taxmen in the taxmen pyramid,

(3) decide to create extra work for themselves by becoming extra and especially concerned with “…a growing number of applications for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status.”

Argument points 1-3 become the basis for the conclusion put forth: “….not by political appointees in Washington, and was not politically motivated.”

Yes, it’s a plausible argument. However, the plausibility seems rather shallow:

(1) Johnny and Janie, low level taxmen, in a vast, vast bureaucracy, where time is one’s best promotion avenue [towing the line and eventually, over time, making six figures -and- along the way many benefits and a nice retirement accruing] decide individually and acting individually (a non-bureaucratic attribute),

(2) act individually by adding extra work (yet another non-bureaucratic attribute),

(3) the creation of aforementioned extra uncompensated work based upon a heightened concern over the phenomena of a growing number of applications for 501(c) subsection four status,

(4) the growing number of applications, a phenomena much more akin to concerns/stratagem of management (upper level taxmen), not low level taxmen,

(5) somehow [go figure] all ends in a misguided quest with no political motivation nor Washington political appointees involved.

Yes, it was merely a case of over-altruism and the process of the non-self-interested public employee attempting to dispense the public good. It is a 1955 political science argument of the altruistic dispensers of the public good somehow getting off path ever so slightly.

We have a problem, Houston. It is not 1955, we have the entire works of James M. Buchanan, we have public choice theory, and there isn’t such an animal known as the non-self-interested altruistic dispenser of the public good. Yes, the self-interest of the supposed non-self-interested exists! Oops! 
 

“[Peter] Stillman … points out that those who see ‘a strong central government or a strong ruler’ as a solution implicitly assume that ‘the ruler will be a wise and ecologically aware altruist,’ even though these same theorists presume that the users of CPRs [common-pool resources] will be myopic, self-interested, and ecologically unaware hedonists.” – Governing the Commons, Elinor Ostrom, page 218

Hence someone’s self-interest lurks and it is very, very likely such self-interest is not some bottom-up emergent order in a top-down organization. More like top-down self-interest in a top down organization.
 
Notes:
 
(1) IRS Scrutiny Was Deeper Than Thought, Wall Street Journal, 05/12/2013
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Bill Heasley, a local economist, writes an occasional column for the Guardian.

Rove at NC GOP Convention: The Week, 05/11/13

Dr. Joe GuarinoThe announcement that Karl Rove will be giving the keynote address at the NC GOP state convention was a stunner.  Rove was part of a group of national party insiders who anointed Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee last year; and who proceeded to engineer the party’s epic defeat at the polls in November.  Rove represents the establishment/moderate wing of the party; and his feelings regarding consistent conservatives have been quite evident.  Some among the party’s rank-and-file are doubtless seething over this announcement.

Pittman vs. Tillis

An interesting drama unfolded when conservative Rep. Larry Pittman openly questioned whether House Speaker Thom Tillis is screening bills to be considered by the General Assembly according to whether they will help or harm his anticipated U.S. Senate candidacy.  The Daily Haymaker reminds us that Tillis was initially recruited to run for the state legislature by Richard Morgan– a man who undermined the interests of conservatives in Raleigh over an extended period of time. 

And now there is a question as to whether Pittman is being disciplined and targeted for defeat from within his own party.  There is apparently a price to be paid for verbalizing what many others are thinking.  Tillis justifies his screening of legislation by suggesting that he needs to protect Republicans from swing districts that lean Democratic.  Is this really what needs to drive conservative legislating in the House?

Conservatives and U.S. Senate Race

The prospect of Tillis running for Senate must be taken seriously.  Conservatives need to learn from the horrendous 2012 Republican presidential primary sequence.  If numerous conservatives run for the Senate seat– and conservative voters split among these candidates– it is a surefire recipe to nominate a moderate.  Tea Party and conservative groups throughout the state need to coordinate, and together get behind a viable conservative relatively early in the primary season.  And other conservative candidates need to drop out at that point.  Otherwise, the splintered conservative vote might produce a moderate nominee like Tillis.  And we can be sure establishment forces within the NC GOP might try to anoint one of their own.

We will need a strong conservative senate candidate who offers a clear contrast to Kay Hagan.  Remember, she has much of the state’s mainstream media working for her as her de facto press secretary.  She will benefit mightily if the Republican nominee does not represent a real choice for conservative voters.

Adams, Watt and Sex-Selective Abortion

Rep. Mel Watt, the Democratic socialist who represents part of Greensboro in the U.S. House, has been nominated by President Obama to direct the US Housing Finance Agency.  This is a classic case of the fox being nominated to guard the hen house because Watt was responsible, in part, for the governmental encouragement of loose lending standards and the phenomenon of “moral hazard” at Fannie and Freddie.  In addition, Watt has made various impolitic statements over the years.  His nomination has generated considerable controversy at the national level.

Meanwhile, N.C. Rep. Alma Adams from Greensboro has announced her intent to run for Watt’s U.S House seat.  Only last week, Ms. Adams had argued strenuously against the bill that would make illegal the practice of abortion to select a baby’s gender.

In our local media, these stances are utterly uncontroversial.  Greensboro residents who rely on our local media are completely unaware of the issues surrounding Watt’s nomination.  And they are left uneducated regarding the amoral nature of Adams’ position on sex-selective abortion.

Apparently, there is no such thing as a left-wing extremist in the eyes of our local media.

County Commissioners and the Budget

All eyes need to be on the five RepublicanGuilfordCounty commissioners.  Over the next month, each one of them has the power to undermine attempts to reduce county expenditures and deliver property owners a tax cut.  Concerned citizens need to follow these events closely.  These five commissioners all need to understand that we expect them to score a victory for limited government.  That means they must be willing to set aside personal agendas to make the overall effort succeed.

Vaughan vs. Perkins

The Greensboro mayoral race between Robbie Perkins and Nancy Vaughan is shaping up to be a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.  These two politicians will be attempting to differentiate themselves from each other.  But the reality of their respective voting records and alliances suggests they are nearly indistinguishable on the merits.

I found a recent incident to be fairly chilling, however. George Hartzman raised appropriate ethical questions at a council meeting as to whether folks like Vaughan and Perkins can vote on downtown issues.  After some discussion, Vaughan contemptuously pronounced, “This conversation is really done.”  By what authority does she get to make such a declaration?

Pro- Breakdown-of-the-Family

It has not been uncommon for supporters of gay marriage to point out the mess that heterosexuals have made of the institution of marriage.  Fair enough.  But we need to remember that some of the biggest supporters of gay marriage have also tended to support policies that cause the breakdown of the family; and have oft been aligned politically with forces that engineered that change in our society.

Last week, the News and Record featured prominently a column on the front page of its Sunday Ideas section.  It was written by Dr. Jeff Paschal, the pastor of a local Presbyterian USA church.  It was written in opposition to a General Assembly bill that would increase the waiting period for divorce to two years.

The liberal mainline church bears enormous responsibility for the dissolution of the family in our culture.  From that standpoint, Paschal’s column was rather unsurprising.  But perhaps it is time for the proponents of gay marriage to stop using the collapse of heterosexual marriage– which they themselves helped engineer– to rationalize making the situation worse.

“Subsidiarity”

The media/left complex in our state has expressed concerns about the Republican majority in the state legislature intervening in matters that are traditionally the province of local government.  They invoke the principle of subsidiarity, which suggests that decisions should be made closest to the people. 

It is interesting, however, that they tend not to invoke that principle when we consider unconstitutional usurpations by the federal government.  That, after all, is different.

The Plight of the Young

The New York Times had an article this past week that highlighted the difficulties young Americans face finding good jobs.  The article cited the fact that the same problem has existed in Europe; but the situation in the United States has now become worse than it is in Europe.

The article claims that “the root causes remain elusive.”  But the author does not even entertain the possibility that Eurosocialism– in Europe and now in the US– is a key contributor.

It is always surprising when those who master the technical art of writing lack insight and wisdom.  But the state of denial among those on the left is getting profoundly silly.

Dr. Joe Guarino is a Guardian columnist.

Give me literature, or give me death

DavenportApproximately 20 percent of North Carolina’s adults are “functionally illiterate,” which means they struggle to perform such fundamental tasks as reading a newspaper or filling out a job application. They are “Level 1” or “Level 2” readers. According to the Educational Testing Service, this means they do not have “the skills…to gain access to high-wage jobs or to actively participate in civic and political life.” And it gets worse: The functionally illiterate are three times more likely to be on food stamps (75% of food stamp recipients read at the lowest two levels), and ten times more likely to live in poverty.

Researching the matter is quite depressing. One learns, for instance, that nearly one-third of American adults don’t read well enough to understand a newspaper article written at an eighth-grade level; that 14% of American adults read at a fifth-grade level or lower; and that the nation’s literacy rate has declined from 97% in 1950, to 80% today. We can bicker about the statistics (which vary, depending upon the source), but the fact of the matter is this: Even if only one American citizen were illiterate, it would be a national disgrace.

Illiteracy is, of course, more common among the poor, and among minorities. Studies suggest that only one-third of low-income parents read to their children every day (the actual fraction, I’ll wager, is much lower than that); the comparable figure among affluent parents is two-thirds. You don’t need to be a social scientist to predict which children are likely to fare better.    

Those of us who have built much of our lives around the written word can only with difficulty imagine life without it. Scribblers of the loftiest rank–George Gissing, Russell Kirk, and Bill Buckley among them—have shaped my philosophy and led me down enchanted paths I never would have discovered otherwise. I dare say it is debatable whether a life free of literature–one of life’s simple, yet exquisite pleasures—is worth living at all.

Charles Davenport Jr.      

Straight, proud, and unapologetic

Ada FisherOkay now I’m confessing to a poorly kept secret — I am a heterosexual black female who loves men and has achieved some modicum of success.  So, now will President Obama, Bill Clinton and others give me a call for coming out and openly expressing my sexual preference?

Though I haven’t been asked and no sensible inquiring minds particularly want to know, suddenly everyone wants to tell that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or of some other sexual preference.  Who truly cares?

My scientific brain has always appreciated that there are some who may come into the world with much sexual ambiguity such as the more than 10,000 hermaphrodites born annually.  Whether homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or a trend is still debated in some scientific circles.                                                                                  

The thing which is most unsettling is the desire to overturn social policy based on so little outcome data but instituted simply because these are things people may want to do–from gay marriage, to their adoption of children, or making babies through often inconceivable measures with unclear legal ramifications.  Is this not what is also being done on the legalization move for marijuana?  This attitude follows the no-harm, no-foul logic.  

There have been few reliable longitudinal studies to determine the negatives for others such as children who are brought into these situations.  Appreciating that gays who adopt usually get older kids, hard to place infants, and those usually last picked, their willingness to engage in parenthood is often applauded.  None the less are we looking at the evolution of childhood thinking and future choices which will be impacted by this move?

My psychological side of this brain is disturbed by the further negative impact of changing gender roles in undermining already fragile black families.  With Lyndon Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” came the requirement that families not live as a unit with a man in the house if they were to receive public assistance.  This has had a disproportionately negative effect on black families.  With prison populations hitting black males hard, another segment of consorts is thereby again removed.  The infiltration of drugs and that alternative, misogynist “gangsta” culture, which degrades women and uses them as pawns, further distances black men from black women.  And now, the secret as well as black men in the closet are coming out, or remaining on the down-low, which may be perceived as another blow to viable relationships with these men, at the expense of black women.  So where are the companions to be found for black women looking for a good straight man?

I have learned to accept that there are people in the world who don’t share my values, including some in my own family; but on this issue, I’m still sticking with the Torah and commandments handed down by God.

Dr. Ada M. Fisher is a physician, licensed teacher in secondary education—Mathematics and Science, former School Board Member and as well as the NC Republican National Committee Woman. Her book, Common Sense Conservative Prescriptions Solutions for What Ails Us, Book I may be ordered through any bookstore or purchased on line through Amazon.com or thecreatespaceStore.com or on Kindle. Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; DrFisher@GETADOCTORINTHEHOUSE.com

Public ed. squeezes the spongy conduit of taxpayer funds

Public education, a completely broken model that produces abysmal results, still has politico advocates. Step back and ponder that proposition: a totally broken model with ever-increasing inputs resulting in ever-falling output still has politico advocates. Huh? Intuitively, one would think a politico would disassociate with failed programs. (1)
 
Enter three phenomena: political constituency-building programs, barking cats, and bestowing taxpayer money on institutions rather than the end user.
 
Politico advocates of broken models, their actions thereof, are actions directly associated with past, present and future political constituency- building exercises through taxpayer dollars. The broken model advocates see part of their purposely-built political constituency threatened if such model is replaced, and hence want to find ways to retain such constituency. It is a rational response for those in the politico class faced with political time horizons. In the case of the last-stage collectivist model of public schools, the politico advocate of the broken model has passing interest in the education of students, or else why would one advocate a broken model? The interest of the politico, in the main, is based in the political constituency of said broken model. (2)
 
Enter the barking cat. The politico advocate of the broken model, given the threat of their political constituency being reduced if the broken model is replaced, deploys the barking cat. You see, if we merely do A or B then the broken model will produce results X or Y and all is wonderful in the world. The model remains broken, but the hoped for new results, X or Y, produce the cat that barks. ”The error of supposing that the behavior of social organisms can be shaped at will is widespread. It is the fundamental error of most so-called reformers. It explains why they so often believe that the fault lies in the man, not the ‘system,’ that the way to solve problems is to ‘throw the rascals out’ and put well-meaning people in charge. It explains why their reforms, when ostensibly achieved, so often go astray.” – Milton Friedman (3)
 
Now consider the phenomena of bestowing taxpayer money on institutions rather than the end user. The advocate of the broken model wants taxpayer money to continue to be bestowed upon the institution which is the broken model. One has to step back for a moment and consider that in many cases a common thread of the broken model is that the end user of such model [institution] does not get served–the model gets served, but the end user is not served.
 
Have you ever heard the phase, regarding public schools, that “the money never reaches the class room”? That is, the money never reaches the production floor, also known as the educational process. Resources never reach the student. Yet the student’s education is the aim. Or is it?
 
Consider Milton Friedman’s 1955 essay, “The Role of Government in Education.” This particular essay is generally pointed to as the birth place of educational vouchers, leading to the charter school concept. Fair enough assessment. However, an often missed point within the essay is the bestowing of taxpayer money upon the institution, the
phenomena thereof, which is the basis for vouchers. (4)
 
Politicos want to bestow taxpayer funds upon institutions for political constituency-building purposes. The politico, through the mechanism of government, then becomes the bestowing entity of largess. As the bestowing entity of largess upon the institution, the households that make up the institution are now beholden to the politico. Yes, politically built constituency through taxpayer dollars.
 
Moreover, once the taxpayer dollars are bestowed upon the institution the concept of the “spongy conduit” of taxpayer dollars comes into play. The institution now bestows largess upon itself and the collection of households making up the institution. Hence the spongy conduit lends to the shenanigans of top-heavy and very well-compensated bureaucracy within the institution. In the public school setting, the few remaining dollars are then allocated to the classroom.
 
The “voucher concept” within the educational institutional realm is merely reversing the process. That is, the taxpayer money is bestowed upon the student and not the institution. Bestowing the resources upon the student ends the environment for shenanigans based upon the spongy conduit of taxpayer dollars. Stated alternatively, the money reaches the classroom first, and what ever is left over, funds the administration.
 
Now one must return to the advocating of broken models by particular politicos. One can see that, if the politico is not seen as the entity bestowing largess, the spongy conduit is then ended, and the purposely built political constituency, the political building exercise thereof, ends, and the politico is threatened. The threat comes in the form of past, present, and future political constituency-building exercises no longer being a route to a voting block given the politico’s political time horizon [next election].
 
Is one viewing the advocating of a public school concept, or the advocating of a politico insidiousness concept?
 
Notes:
(1) Proposed Charter School Board Faces Test in Senate, Defenders of traditional schools wonder why independent board needed. Carolina Journal, 05/07/2013.
 
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=10137
 
(2) Government Failure, Tullock, Seldon and Brady, CATO Institute, 2002. Published London, 2000, Institute of Public Affairs.
 
(3) Barking Cats, Milton Friedman, Newsweek Magazine, 02/19/1973.
 
http://www.johnlatour.com/barking_cats.htm
 
(4) The Role of Government in Education, Milton Friedman, 1955.
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173402/posts

Bill Heasley, a local economist, writes an occasional column for the Guardian.

Raleigh protests a shadow of what they used to be

nch_7463It was with great interest that I read yesterday on WRAL.com a story about the ongoing saga of protests and arrests at our state’s capitol.  For those not following the story, the past week has seen demonstrators attempting to disrupt the workings of the legislature in Raleigh, remonstrating against what they perceive to be horrible abuses against the civil rights of North Carolinians, or at least those North Carolinians who feel themselves entitled to other peoples’ money.  According to the story, the protestors have,

“…directed their anger at the GOP-controlled legislature, which has refused to accept federal dollars to expand Medicaid to provide health insurance to more poor people, has cut unemployment benefits, has ended the earned income tax credit and has passed new voting restrictions.”

As with most of these made-for-TV events that liberals try to engineer, the actual gatherings have been less than impressive.  As the article notes, a massive throng of, well, 80 people “crowded” into the legislative building’s rotunda, before many of them were arrested.  Among those who were detained was Rev. William Barber, the President of North Carolina chapter of the NAACP.

It occurs to me as I observe all of this that protesting just ain’t what it used to be. 

It wasn’t so much the small size of the crowd showing up to make known the resounding “voice of the people.”  After all, it is to be expected that protestors opposing what the large majority of North Carolinians voted for in the last election, and have in many cases specifically said they wanted, would find themselves in diminutive company.  Rather, it was the diminished purpose and goals of these protestors that struck me – how small and petty their objectives are, as compared to the grandiose and noble language they use in their attempts to arrogate moral stature to themselves.

What was it that the highly esteemed Rev-ah-rend Barber was arrested for?  Was it in fighting for the right of his people to vote, or to be able to participate fully in American society, or to be free from legal strictures that place his people at a systematic and structural disadvantage compared to others in this nation?  Well, no.  What he and others were protesting for was, when you boil it down to the basics, the “right” to pick other peoples’ pockets and to appropriate to themselves more and more government cheese off the backs of taxpayers and working citizens who are already struggling because of the multi-year Democrat-induced economic downturn that currently afflicts our nation.  Rev-ah-rend Barber and his followers were protesting to maintain the right to be able to illegally vote multiple times in as many precincts as they can get away with it.  Why else would they be opposing common sense voter ID laws such as the one just passed in our state, and lying as they do so?

Certainly it is legitimate to have a conversation about whether, and to what extent, we should expend public monies for assistance for the poor.  I am not opposed to providing temporary help to those who genuinely need it.  I am, however, opposed to providing permanent assistance to those who refuse to help themselves – and that, unfortunately, is what happens far too often with public assistance programs. 

However, to arrogate to the cause of welfare and unemployment programs the mantle of “civil rights,” as if receiving a check from the government is of the same caliber as being legally emancipated to sit, live, or work where you want, is an insult to the actual civil rights marchers of the 1960s. 

Likewise with the disingenuous effort to cast the voter photo ID law as a “poll tax,” especially in light of the fact that courts (who have struck down actual poll taxes) have upheld voter photo ID laws and dismissed the “poll tax” argument.  It is doubly ironic that many of these same people trying to argue that the ID law is a “poll tax” and imposes an “undue burden” on people wanting to vote fail to realize that to obtain the unemployment and other benefits that they’re also arguing as civil rights, you have to…show photo ID. 

It stands to reason, then, that anyone who can obtain government bennies ought also to be able to vote without any problems.  They just can’t vote under false names in multiple precincts – which is likely the real reason that Democrats don’t like the new law.

So if these “civil rights” protests are stumping for much diminished purposes than what their more legitimate predecessors in decades gone by used to struggle for, what do these folks really hope to accomplish?  I think this question can be answered, in large part, by one word – “fundraising.”  By appearing to “do something” and “be arrested” for the cause (so they can spend a night in an air-conditioned jail watching cable TV), they have “street cred” that can be used to craft the hysterical sort of emails and flyers designed to whip up the far-Left base of the Democrats and its organs like the NAACP and get them to send in more money for “the cause.”  After all, those finely-tailored suits that folks like the Rev-ah-rend Barber fancy are expensive. 

From foundational freedoms to fundraising – North Carolina’s political protestors have come a long way, but in the wrong direction.

Tim Dunkin is a Guardian columnist.

“We can handle the truth.”

choice5Supreme Court Judge Robert H. Jackson once stated, “It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”

Stationed on the corner Saturday at the busy intersection of Battleground and Pisgah Church Rd., three citizens demonstrated a “call for Benghazi truth.” They held signs towards the profusion of traffic that read: “Benghazi, honk if you demand the truth.” Random assembles of horns began to orchestrate, echoing along US 220 evidence that the controversy continues.

The attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11th of last year, which left four Americans dead, were strongly condemned by the US and Libyan governments, as well as many countries around the world. Victims included Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Stevens was the first US ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since 1979.

Over the last several months the Obama Administration has faced increasing questions over its response to the attack. President Obama admitted in an interview in December that they are “identifying severe problems in diplomatic security,” while reassuring that, “We’re going to solve this.”

Right-wing and left-wing politics aside, our emblem of freedom flies with both. The American Eagle perches in the center of the Ambassador’s flag, promising democracy throughout the world. “We’re doing a thorough review,” Obama said, “…in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect these embassies.”

Responsibility and accountability are on the table. Despite continued threats, repeated requests for additional security from the mission went unheeded by the State Department for reasons that remain unclear.

The investigation continues on Wednesday, when several witnesses will speak at a congressional hearing. Witnesses include the deputy chief of mission during the time of the attacks, Gregory N. Hicks; former Marine and acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, Mark I. Thompson; and diplomatic top security officer, Eric Nordstrom.

”The American people–we can handle the truth,” said Lynn Bensy, one of the demonstrators. “The truth has no agenda.”

Hannah Williams is a documentary journalist/photographer in Greensboro.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers

%d bloggers like this: