woody58.com Blog

     It has become increasingly difficult for the average person to discern any semblance of rationality emanating from both politicians and scholars these days. The things they say in the interests of themselves leave one scratching one’s head with increasing frequency. Perhaps most irritating is the notion that they obviously think us so dimwitted that we cannot see the hypocritical dialogue for ourselves.     For example, our politicians began setting aside large portions of land for “preservation” a few decades ago because the environmentalists wanted to protect the flora and fauna from man’s destructive ways. Oddly enough, these same people didn’t seem to give a fig about the indigenous species of say, Saudi Arabia. Apparently it was just a-OK to destroy the Saudi’s environment so long as we could still drive and heat our homes without rankling a few caribou.

     When the Arab Oil Embargo hit, Congress’ knee-jerk reaction was to release oil from our reserves to lower the rapidly increasing cost per barrel. Today, certain members of congress are making the same pleas, even while they deny that the spiraling costs have anything to do with supply. The question is, then; how will increasing supply ease the cost if supply and demand has no bearing, as they claim? And why won’t harvesting our own oil do the same, if we can flood the market with crude?     Moving on, we also have members of the left claiming that in order to save ourselves from Global Warming, we have to implement radical and painful changes in the way we live, as well as to our economy. When they are confronted with conflicting evidence, they claim that virually everything is because of Global Warming. Cooling, warming, more rain, less rain, fewer storms, more storms, etc. The position is, how shall I say, very convenient.

     Now, back from the love affair abroad, he tells the people that things are looking pretty good in Iraq but that Afghanistan needs help. How does he propose that we make that situation better? You guessed it; more troops!     Color me confused. And confounded…

     Justice O’Connor was the quintessential “swing vote” for years, allegedly a Republican due to her nomination by Ronald Reagan. More often than not, she ruled on the liberal side of key issues. She has now been replaced by Justice Kennedy, the new “swing vote”, another Reagan appointee and of late, another dismal disappointment.     His most recent crucial opinion bears out that disappointment in that he decided for all of us that child rapists do not deserve a punishment more “cruel and unusual” than their crimes. What the High Court neglected to interject was that at the very least, these bastards deserve equal punishment at the hands of some of societies other unsavory miscreants while living forever behind bars.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

     Those words have been argued ad nauseam for longer than I can say. The anti-gun lobby has historically focused on the first four words while true patriots have focused on the first five after the second comma: the right of the people. Today, for the first time, the Supreme Court of the United States settled the argument.     Now the lawsuits are beginning to roll; the case before the court was centered on the Washington D.C. ban on owning a handgun…by anyone. Other cities across the nation are going to be sued en masse in short order, and mayors are already firing opening salvos as to their own interpretations of today’s decision. The words “reasonable restrictions” will be part of the average person’s lexicon by this time tomorrow, and the debate will rage on, despite what has been made clear; the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

     Look for a plethora of similar suits to follow, as the mainstream of America enjoys a rare victory over the insane encroachments they have endured for the last 50 years.     It may just be possible that the mentality of the ’60’s people has worn off, and the move to Europeanize America has been thwarted. I am filled with a renewed hope today.

     I suppose it is human nature to cherish more that which is earned than that which is given. The fruit is always sweeter when attained through hard work and perseverance. Perhaps that is why seeking the truth is considered such a noble pursuit while we refuse to accept it when it slaps us in the face. Sometimes, when the truth seems so absurd, it can be shouted from the rooftops and no one will believe it.     In the case of Barack Obama, there is so much evidence suggesting that he would be a nightmare at the helm of America that it seems inconceivable that it could possibly have any merit. Even when, in his own words, he says something that would indicate that he does not have America’s best interests at heart, people refuse to believe it and go out of their way to either dismiss the words in their own minds or defend them to others.     Obama is being quoted from a book as saying “‘I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” In his book, Audacity Of Hope, he writes this on page 261:

     Hillary has revealed a bit more of her sinister side. In fact, the New York Daily News’ Michael Goodwin had this to say:

“We have seen an X-ray of a very dark soul.”

     One has to wonder, with the string of people surrounding the Clintons either going to jail or meeting untimely demises, just how deep the malignancy is rooted.     Her comments about staying in the race because hey, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, may have confused some people who might see it as being merely insensitive, but the ominousness of it gives one pause. She claims that the current malady afflicting Ted Kennedy had the family on her mind and that is why she thought of Bobby. But she said the same thing to Time Magazine nearly three months ago.     Another thing she mentioned was that her husband Bill Clinton didn’t wrap up his 1992 nomination until June of that year, which is also false. Paul Tsongas was the only real challenge to Clinton at the time, and he dropped out of the race in March, leaving only Jerry Brown to beat. Clinton had already reached the half way mark in delegate count and had a 7-1 edge over Brown, so effectively, Clinton had it wrapped up well before June. In early April, after telling leaders of New York City’s Jewish community that if selected he would take Jesse Jackson as a running mate, Brown won no more primaries.

     Back in the 1960’s, a band called The American Breed had a hit single called Bend Me, Shape Me. How were they to know that the song would aptly describe a future presidential candidate?

-Woody

     Perhaps the only positive spin one could put on the ill-advised “peace” junket that Jimmy Carter is currently engaged in with Hamas and Syria is that it demonstrates the futility of discussions with certain groups. Carter should realize by now that Hamas doesn’t care one bit what he has to say or offer, and that they don’t care what Israel has to offer, except for the death and destrucion of every Israeli. This is not a viable option for the Israelis.

     Even as Carter is embarrassing his nation by giving credibility to violent and hateful groups, in the misguided hope of achieving peace, his hosts have launched yet another attack on Israel. Hamas blew up two jeeps full of explosives at a Gaza crossing.

Carter should also remember the Armistice Agreements Of 1949 and all the good they did Israel. It wasn’t peace the Arabs wanted then, it wasn’t peace the Arabs wanted after they lost the 6-Day-War, and it’s not peace they want now. The lead up to the 6-Day-War saw Israel doing everything it could to negotiate peace with her Arab neighbors, but the pleas fell on deaf ears. The Arabs were too busy listening to the mis-information campaign being waged by the Soviets, and too busy provoking Israel into war.
 

     Carter is wasting his time. People who viewed the very creation of an Israeli State as “al-Nakba” (the catastrophe) cannot be counted upon to negotiate in good faith. This trip by a former (and failed) president should show the world that which they refuse to see. Hamas will never rest until Israel is a faded memory. Hopefully Jimmy Carter will be one long before that day. And hopefully, if it comes down to it, Israel will enjoy the same success it did in the 6-day-war.

-Woody

     I am constantly amazed that someone once described as “the smartest woman in America” is not only very easily duped, but has been so many times. It’s an endless parade of one trick after another being “pulled” on this hapless woman. Couple that with her extremely faulty memory and what’s truly frightening is, she wants to run the country.

     Whenever it’s politically expedient for her faculties to fail, she doesn’t see the danger in freely allowing them to do so. She basically admits that she’s not all there or not involved in things that she damned well should be. For a smart woman, she sure is dumb for not seeing this. And yet, she’s sometimes too smart for her own good.

     For example, when the stories started swirling around Barack Obama’s cozy relationship with Bill Ayers, a former fugitive from justice for his participation in the dealings of the Weather Underground, Hillary saw an opportunity to take her adversary down a peg. So smart was she that she recognized that she could use the growing controversy to her advantage. But…she wasn’t smart enough to remember that she was also a part of history where this group was concerned. Or, she never knew it. Yeah.

     So when it came out that her husband, Bill Clinton, commuted the sentences of two former members of the Weather Underground and it looked like it would be a serious hit to her own campaign, she once again feigned innocence. But according to a New York newspaper, she could not have possibly been unaware of the commutations. From Newsday:

On October 19, 2000, as Hillary was hunting for Senate votes throughout New York, Rockland County’s biggest paper, the Journal News, ran a front page story reporting that imprisoned radical Susan Rosenberg — linked to the 1981 Weather Underground Brinks robbery that left two Nyack cops dead — was seeking clemency from Bill Clinton.

The next day, the widows and fellow state and local police attended a memorial service for the two dead cops at the site of the killings. Also in attendance: Sen. Chuck Schumer, who in that fall was frequently campaigning with Hillary. According to another front page story, on Oct. 21, he made a pledge to the widows to fight the clemency: “I intend to take our opposition as high as I can in government.”

On December 16, 2000, after Hillary became New York’s Senator-elect, the paper did another Page 1 story about an upcoming 60 Minutes episode on Rosenberg’s clemency application. It included a quote from one of her new constituents, Diane O’Grady, wife of one of the dead cops: “This is a woman who has taken lives.”

On December 17, 2000, the “60 Minutes” piece on Rosenberg’s case and clemency request ran.

So, Clinton — in her effort to avoid being connected in any way to the case — now says she knew nothing about it.

     What this says is that this woman who would become leader of the free world is either a pathalogical liar, delusional, or a complete tool who has been kept in the dark about almost every important event in her political and professional life. Personally, I opt for number one. In any event, I don’t think she should ever set foot in the Oval Office.

-Woody

     New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg had an idea. He called it “Congestion Pricing” and it was ostensibly designed to ease traffic in Manhattan and cut pollution. Ah, what a lovely sound; cut pollution. Why, we all want to cut pollution, right? Too bad this idea was nothing more than a politician’s money-grab, which would have done nothing to cut pollution and would have raped the outer borough people to the tune of at least $160.00 per month. And that’s on top of the normal tolls.

     The plan would have forced commuters who drive to work to pay an eight dollar “fee” to cross onto the island of Manhattan below 60th Street. Some would say that that’s not so bad, but then some probably don’t know that the last place to cross from the east is the 59th Street Bridge, unless one drove to the northern tip of Manhattan and crossed there from the George Washington Bridge. That would mean, however, that someone living on or near Queens Boulevard (which is at the 59th Street Bridge) would have to drive up to the Bronx and pay the toll at the Throgs Neck Bridge, drive the length of the unGodly Cross Bronx Expressway, pay another toll to get back into Manhattan from the George Washington Bridge, and sit in traffic all the way back down to say, 61st Street, if that’s where they worked.

     This may sound ridiculous, but New Yorkers can be pretty hard headed when they want to prove a point. Not everyone would go to such lengths, but there are a lot who would. They are mostly the ones who would absolutely not pay the fee and who also would not switch to mass transit if it meant trading a 20 minute drive in the comfort of one’s own vehicle for an inconvenient hour plus trip on a dirty transport where they would have to deal with whoever else was on said transport.

     Another point, and one I think would have been a major one, is that vehicles with commercial license plates (you know, the people who deliver all that stuff to Manhattan) would have had to pay twenty one dollars, per day! Imagine…$420 per month for the privilege of driving into an area and having no place to park, all while trying to get necessary goods to the people of New York? I would have been a strong defender of an all-out strike by every delivery driver to simply refuse to bring the goods across the bridges. I wonder how long the kingdom of Bloomy could have withstood such a thing.

     Fortunately, the State Assembly pulled the plug on the whole idea. Oh yeah…New York City will now forfeit $354 million in federal aid as a result. Talk about a win-win situation. The taxpayers just saved $354 million and commuters saved a bundle on this Royal Fee.  

     If you really want to get technical, we can another “win” to the win-win…the people of manhattan won’t be forced to walk across the bridges to the outer boroughs to collect the stuff that wasn’t delivered. And don’t feel bad for the City losing all that revenue. Bloomberg will just raise taxes on cigarettes another buck or two they’ll be just fine. Kings can do that, you know.

-Woody

Posted in Simply Political | No Comments »

How Long Untouchable?

Monday, March 31st, 2008

     Presidential children have historically been off limits to any form of criticism. That is, at least until George W. Bush’s family took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The media was somewhat subdued in their coverage of the Bush twins, but not exactly following of protocol.

     One thing the Clintons were emphatic about (and “Clintons” includes the main stream media, one big, happy “family”) was the absolute protection of Chelsea. I never had a problem with that formula, as I believe that the kids should remain off-base. But what about after the kids become adults?

     Again, I think they are entitled to their dignity and privacy despite the fame (or notoriety, as the case may be) bestowed upon them by virtue of being a “first child”. But when they utilize the recognition that would have been otherwise nonexistant but for their own doing, I equate that with an open-door policy. They have invited us in for a tour of their souls, so hands-off no longer applies.

     However poorly the Clintons may or may not have performed as parents, they have done a magnificent job at one thing; raising an only child who is just as radically opposed to her country as her Mom and Dad. They must be so proud. This is evident in the recent acceleration of her involvement in her mother’s campaign. Now the question is, if Chelsea is going to actively work on her mother’s election campaign, as an adult, should she remain a protected species?

     My conclusion is no, for if Chelsea is permitted to say whatever she wants unfettered on behalf of Hillary, it will be akin to a mother using her child as a shield, and I for one want no part of a President that would engage in any such practice. One thing that has emerged quite clearly as a result of Chelsea’s recent stumping is a palpable desperation on the part of the Clinton campaign.

     Yet another trait in a President that is undesirable; putrid cowardice, coupled with virtually no sense of shame.

     It rather reminds one of Dr. Zachary Smith from the ’60’s television show Lost In Space. It’s also a title that quite adequately describes not only the trajectory of Hillary’s campaign, but also the platform of the entire Democratic Party.

-Woody

Posted in Simply Political | No Comments »

« Older Entries