The Common Sense Czar’s Tweetable Christmas List

In keeping with the times, I've created a "tweetable" Christmas List.  Please feel free to cut and paste the "tweets" of your choice and send them on their merry way across the endless bounds of the Internet.

A Hearing Aid for Congress: to help them listen to the People

A New Broom for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): to clean out her office and provide her with transportation since they took away her jet

A Box of Tissues for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): to help him make it through an interview

A Conscience for Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL): to help him make better advertising decisions

A Dictionary for Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL): because it just seems right

A 365-Day Calendar for Sec. Janet Napolitano: so she can mark which day the Dept. of Homeland Security gets to take off

A Tax Accountant for Sec. Timothy Geithner (Treasury) and Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY): because mistakes happen

A Sympathy Card for Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY): because how was he supposed to know the rules of his own Committee after only 39 years

A Happy Meal for President Obama’s Children: because their mother won’t let them have one

A Backup Generator for the TelePrompTer for President Obama: so he won’t be left speechless

A New Name for Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY): need I really explain?

An Unsinkable Island for Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): so he won’t have to worry about Guam

A Nice Vacation for First Lady, Michelle Obama: because she never gets to take one

A Map of the United States for the President: so he can keep track of how many States there really are

An American Housekeeper and Gardener for Sec. Janet Napolitano: so she won’t need a translator

A Personality for Press Secretary Gibbs: so reporters will actually want to attend press conferences

A Much Shorter Mustache and an Outfit from Jesse James for Senior Advisor, David Axelrod: so he can win the look-alike contest

A Toad, Bat Wing and Eye-of-Newt for Christine O’Donnell: since the Congressional gig didn’t work out.

A New Accent for Sarah Palin: so people outside of Alaska, Minnesota and the upper New England States can relate to her

A Countrywide-Refi for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): who already has 7 while presiding over ethics investigations of Senators Dodd and Conrad

An “Office” Next to Blago’s for Rahm Emmanuel: since they share so much in common when it comes to Chicago politics

A Home in the Hamptons for Sen. John Ensign (R-NV): since he’s put so much into the relationship to date

A Gift of Freddie and Fannie for Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): in appreciation of the way in which he chose to mortgage his career

An Earring of Some Sort for Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY): for his record breaking earmarks … including those for the benefit of his family

A Senate Seat for Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL): since he wasn’t able to buy one from Blago despite his best efforts

A Bank Loan for Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) (or a job for her husband): so that her work on behalf of lobbyists and banks won’t go unrewarded

A Series of Dance Lessons for Tom Delay (R-TX): so he can learn new skills while performing his ground-breaking new government job

A Presidential Pardon for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) (should he ever need one): in return for some real estate in Ireland.

A Deck of Cards to entertain Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): so he’ll stop playing games with our country

A Relaxing Retirement for Sec. Hilary Clinton: since she swears she will never run for office again

An Apology from the Rest of the World to All Americans: just because it would be nice for a change

Merry Christmas to All ... and to All a Good Life!

***** 

Copyright © 2010 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Taxing Our Patience

I don’t quite understand what all of the hubbub is about on Capitol Hill when it comes to taxes.  Taxation seems to be the one thing at which Congress is really good.  After all, they’ve been taxing our patience for years.

It seems that the Party of “Yes We Can” … “Can’t” anymore.  It’s funny how that happens when freedom intervenes in the form of an election and a monopolistic majority is emasculated into a soon-to-be-forgotten relic of the past.  No problem!  The Democrats will just have to switch hats with the Republicans and become the Party of “No” … just like they were when Nancy Pelosi served as the Minority Leader from 2003-2007.  I distinctly remember her announcing, as she assumed that mantle, that she would oppose whatever the Bush Administration was proselytizing at the time because “that’s what the Opposition is supposed to do.”  Welcome back, Nancy!

Apparently, many of the outgoing Democrats have already switched hats … and why not?  It’s not as if they’re going to be relevant after January 5^th.  On a positive note, the Party that was going to establish a new level of bipartisanship in Washington can continue to meet behind closed doors and draft legislation unilaterally; the meetings just won’t be as big and the legislation will probably never make it to the floor.  I say this because I believe the Republicans will probably need to be given a lesson in humility as well.  John Boehner may “get it,” but there will be others who don’t.  We’ve already seen an attempt to eliminate pork from the diet of our political menu fall short, and now we’re seeing how strong-armed tactics continue to prevail. 

I love the rhetoric.  Again, the Party of “Bipartisan Accord” can’t even seem to get along with itself.  The President tried to broker a reasonable resolution to the impending expiration of the Bush tax breaks and got slammed for it.  My personal favorite was when a few Democratic Senators did their Andy Warhol “thing” in a press conference this past week.  Among them, Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) likened the attempt at reaching a bipartisan agreement to terrorism:  “Do you allow yourself to be held hostage and get something done for the sake of getting something done, when in fact it might be perverse in its ultimate results?  It's almost like the question of do you negotiate with terrorists."  Well, almost …except that no one got tortured, killed, or had their body desecrated as is the case with terrorist hostage situations.  Who could blame Bob for a little hyperbole?

Then, there’s Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who tried to smooth things over by saying, "I'm trying to figure out how anyone can keep a straight face and say they are for deficit reduction when they insist on a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, completely unpaid for.  If they think it is okay to raise taxes for the embattled middle class because they are going to pout if we don't give more money to millionaires, it really is time for the people of America to take up pitchforks."  Nice try at establishing a higher level of bipartisan accord, Claire … and thanks again for trying to reinforce a class-divide for political purposes.

So, let’s look at what the tax debate is all about to see if the Common Sense Czar can bring some clarity to it.  At its core, it calls for a simple extension of the Bush tax cuts for two more years.  A failure to do this would seemingly jeopardize the fragile economic recovery we are presently trying to navigate.  Seems simple enough to me!

But wait!  This means treating Americans equally … at least to the degree that the present tax cuts would remain in place.  We can’t have that!  If we treat everyone the same, we won’t be able to exploit class warfare for our political gain.  We just can’t allow that to happen.  After all, no less of an authority than Thomas Jefferson, stated in the Declaration of Independence that:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created with disproportionate responsibilities based upon their ability to pay, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness upon whatever basis of distribution we elitists in Washington shall deem to be appropriate.”  Oh, I know what you’re saying … those aren’t Jefferson’s words.  Of course, you’re right.  I deleted the phrase “by their Creator” because President Obama seems predisposed to do it whenever he quotes the Declaration.    I’m pretty sure the rest of the quote is correct because that’s what opponents of the solution seem to be focusing upon.

You see, the rich should pay more … because they can.  How else can we reduce the massive debt that Congress has irresponsibly incurred on our behalf and on behalf of our children?  You can’t seriously expect them to curb their spending!  I thought they sent us a clear message on that issue when they refused to eliminate earmarks.

So let’s focus on the relevant issue:  how can we disproportionately tax a small segment of the electorate without losing campaign funding? I know!  Let’s set a fictitious level of income that sounds high to most people … as long as there aren’t enough votes or political donations in that small segment of society to meaningfully impact our base and financing.  That’s where $250,000 a year comes into play.  It just feels right.  So, let’s run with that premise and see how it goes.

An adjusted gross income of $250,000 a year sounds like a lot of money.  After all, it’s twice as much as $125,000.  Speaking of which, the $250,000 applies to couples filing jointly (i.e., one very successful spouse … or two hard working but more modestly successful spouses).  So, if you’re single and making $125,000 … congratulations … you’re rich!  What … you don’t consider someone making $125,000 to be rich?  Well, let’s check into that.

Adjusting for inflation, that’s the equivalent of $9,897 a year in 1929 (I picked 1929 as an index just in case all this economic recovery stuff doesn’t work).  Gee, that doesn’t seem to be all that much.  No problem!  The Democrats can just start referring to the 3.1 percent of households that presently earn $125,000 or more (and pay approximately 48 percent of our taxes) as “millionaires and billionaires.”  Yeah, that’s the ticket.  If the Republicans are stupid enough to try to preserve the tax cuts for the “rich people” in the “upper tax bracket,” the Democrats can just generically refer to all those in that bracket as “millionaires and billionaires.”  That will reinforce the “Robin Hood strategy” that I describe in my book, The Left isn’t Right / The Right is Wrong.   You know, “rob from the rich and give to the poor” … or in today’s jargon, give to the “middle-class” … because the “poor” are no longer fashionable since they don’t donate or vote in large enough numbers to matter to either of the major parties.  And just as an aside for all the politicians out there who have problems with decimal places:  $1 million dollars is 4 times as much as $250,000 and $1 billion dollars is 4,000 times as much.  So, if I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a trillion times, please call me if you’re going use numbers to label people … or if you’re thinking about spending tax dollars.

Hey, while we’re on the subject of adjusting for inflation … how about adjusting for the cost of living?  The Common Sense Czar has this theory:  it costs more to live in Manhattan than it does to live in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  Let’s check that out!

According to various cost-of-living calculators that are available on the web, if you live in Manhattan, you’d have to earn $639,671 to have the same buying power as a household with $250,000 of adjusted gross income in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  Said another way, a household that earns $97,707 a year in Fort Smith has the same buying power as one that earns $250,000 in Manhattan … pre-tax.  Remember:  the Manhattan household is considered to be “rich” and can be taxed well in excess of the rate that would apply to the “middle-class” household in Fort Smith.  It’s even better if you’re single and living in Fort Smith because you only have to earn $48,853 to enjoy the same tangible rewards as your counterpart in Manhattan … plus, you can avoid the stigma of being called “rich.”  How cool is that?  So, let’s hear it for Fort Smith, Arkansas!  Of course, even though they’re getting screwed, New Yorkers will probably chalk it up as some sort of compensatory adjustment for not having to live in Arkansas. 

This raises a critical issue:  when should society judge a person to be “rich?”  And don’t give me any of that namby-pamby “you’re rich if you’re happy and you have your health” stuff.  We’re talking money here!  It’s an important issue because it allows the parties to isolate you into a minority status that even the Left won’t defend.  No one wants to stand too close to the “rich” from a political perspective … unless they’re looking for campaign contributions.  Then, every fat cat on Wall Street is apparently a friend of the Republicans, and every over-paid celebrity in Hollywood who couldn’t get a job outside of their “craft” is a devotee of the Democrats.

At this point, I have to express a degree of sympathy for the President.  The bastion of bipartisanship, transparency, and accountability is now caught in the middle.  From a “bipartisan” standpoint, he isn’t getting a lot of sympathy from the Republicans for all of the wonderful “bridge-building” he did during the first two years of his term.  They continue to rebuke his current efforts in that regard.  Perhaps they would have been more receptive had he merely placed an olive branch in their hands during the first half of his term rather than trying to shove the entire tree up their collective orifice.

And now, the President doesn’t even have the support of the Left.  For some reason, he’s at least temporarily abandoned all hope of “redistributing the wealth” to the degree that we all earn the same amount, drive the same cars, and eat the same food.  While I say, “Vive la liberté,” the more progressive among us seem to think that Obama has lost his Presidential Ayers … uh … I mean his Presidential airs!  He needs to get his swagger back.  He needs to tell Americans what they think … like he did with Health Care Reform.  He shouldn’t cave into the Republicans just because he’s going to be running for reelection next time around and saw what happened to his brethren in November when they ignored the will of the people.  To paraphrase a Latin Proverb: “A fool learns by his own mistakes; a wise man by the mistakes of others.”  Rest assured, President Obama isn’t a fool and his conciliatory motivation is quite “transparent.”

So, what should he do to resolve the current tax dilemma?  Well, I think the answer is obvious.    He should play to his remaining strength:  accountability.  After all, it is the Bush tax cuts that are causing his political headaches.  So … he should just hold Bush “accountable.”   It’s not like he hasn’t done that in the past, so we’re all conditioned to accept it.  Yes, that’s definitely the way to go.  It’s all Bush’s fault!  Order is restored, and the government can get back to doing what it does best:  taxing our patience.

(Next time:  Tax Credits for Green Initiatives … but only if no one earns $250,000 because of them.)

*****

Copyright © 2010 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Wicked Leaks

There appears to be some new, subversive organization whose name escapes me, but they’re apparently into releasing highly classified information through what can best be described as “wicked leaks.”  So, for the sake of expediency, let’s just refer to the organization as “Wicked Leaks.”

Wicked Leaks has been raising a lot of eyebrows in the name of “freedom of speech.”  Its leader … I think his name is Julian Estranged … has, in fact, estranged a lot of people.  He encourages well-meaning individuals to gather sensitive information and share it with the public.  Most of these “do-gooders” are apparently outdoorsmen.  They all seem to have some sort of ax-to-grind along with a broken moral compass.

Of course, there are those who see Mr. Estranged as a crusader for truth.  After all, he tells us that he is doing this to ferret out the secrets of the unjust.  Come to think of it, he does look a little bit like a ferret!

Mr. Estranged and his supporters routinely invoke the First Amendment to justify their altruistic ideals.  When Amazon stopped hosting Wicked Leaks today (possibly at the behest of Congress), the site went down for several hours before it became available through its previous host in Bahnhof, Sweden.  Wicked Leaks was quick to tweet:  “… servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free--fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe.”  Wow!  That “free speech” zinger really hurts, and the economic threat could further damage the U.S. economy … particularly in light of the fact that Wicked Leaks professes that all of its employees are unpaid volunteers.

Then, it really slammed Amazon by tweeting:  “If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books.”  Poor grammar aside, I’ll bet that Amazon is quaking in its boots.  That being said, my books are still available on Amazon, so let’s hope that it survives!  If I’ve offended any Wicked Leaks supporters, I suggest that they all buy my books and burn them in a powerful act of defiance.  In fact, they should do it daily until I surrender my will and take a more favorable view of their cause.

Of course, once the Constitution is invoked, as the Common Sense Czar, I have no alternative but to address the subject.  I find it interesting that Mr. Estranged wraps himself in the protection of the Constitution of the United States … since he’s an Australian.  Perhaps, had he been raise here as our President was … okay, bad example … he would know that the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech.  I address this very issue in The National Platform of Common Sense in more detail, but suffice it to say that speech is not protected when it is either untrue or creates an undo threat.

With regard to the former, let’s give Mr. Estranged and Wicked Leaks a pass and assume that everything they publish is “true.”  Let’s restrict our discussion to whether their actions pose a threat; and to do that, let’s put a few things into perspective.  If you worked for a company and published its “trade secrets,” you’d be subject to prosecution because your actions would potentially have damaged the company.  Now, let’s make it a little more personal.  Let’s say you were running for President and someone released your birth certificate or college transcripts against your wishes.  That would be almost treasonous!  Now, let’s bring the concept a little closer to home.  Let’s say someone released some extremely embarrassing information about you.  How would you feel about that?  Perhaps you made a glaring mistake at some point in your life:  an incident involving alcohol … adultery … drugs … or even voting for someone who wasn’t on your party’s ticket.  Would you really want that type of information being globally disseminated without your permission or knowledge?  What if some clinical Narcissist decided to play God and put your life at risk?  How would you feel about that?

You see, there are laws against what Mr. Estranged and Wicked Leaks are doing … even if Attorney General Holder doesn’t seem to be able to find them.  18 USC 793(e) states: “Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”  That seems to accurately describe the behavior in question.  And by the way, those who gave Wicked Leaks the classified information are subject to a similar fine and twenty years in jail under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Okay, so it’s almost certainly illegal activity, but what’s the real harm … assuming you can overlook putting our troops, hundreds of operatives, and a few diplomats needlessly in harm’s way?  We found out that the Saudi government would like the United States to intervene and aggressively end Iran’s nuclear program.  Does it surprise you that they would like to live in a more stable region?  Would you be shocked and appalled if I were to suggest that the Saudi’s might even condemn our actions after the fact.  Wow!  That would be a bombshell (no pun intended).

And what about the revelation that even the Chinese government thinks that North Korea’s leadership is a card short of a full deck?  Similarly, was anyone really astonished to learn that Pakistan’s government might be corrupt or that there are a lot of “backroom deals” going on around the world?

Today, Mr. Estranged challenged Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to resign.  "She should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up," said Estranged.  There are those of us who live in the real world who might think she should resign if she didn’t order “U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations.”  News flash for Mr. Estranged:  the United Nations is filled with diplomatic figures who routinely engage in espionage.  Are you kidding me?  You didn’t know that?  Then again, in retrospect, I might actually be inclined to side with Mr. Estranged on this one.  Think about it!  If we applied his resignation mandate equally to every country (not just the ones that Mr. Estranged doesn’t like), the United Nations might rapidly fade away like its predecessor, the League of Nations.  There wouldn’t be anyone left.  If you’ve read The National Platform of Common Sense, you know that’s a plan I could readily support.

I’m beginning to feel that maybe I’ve been too harsh on Mr. Estranged and Wicked Leaks.  Perhaps I should reconsider the value that their “intellectual incontinence” brings to the world.  I actually read several articles and blogs (along with their associated comments) that were wildly supportive of this crew.  Many “journalists” praise him as a brave new hero who is standing up to the establishment and defying censorship for the good of mankind.  That sounds like a worthy goal … particularly since those same journalists don’t seem to be as keen to pursue it on their own.  I guess it’s easier for them to embrace the ambition when someone else is placed at risk … sort of as Mr. Estranged and Wicked Leaks are comfortable doing to others.

These same pundits also laud Mr. Estranged and Wicked Leaks for their commitment to “transparency and accountability” … regardless of the cost.  That must be why Mr. Estranged lives in several countries and is constantly moving about in a clandestine manner.  That must also be why Wicked Leaks may have to relocate to Switzerland or Iceland; the only countries in which Mr. Estranged feels Wicked Leaks may be safe to operate.  Better yet, why not try Antarctica?   Then, no one will question whether you’re presenting the cold, hard facts.

It seems to me that Mr. Estranged and Wicked Leaks have become what they profess to oppose:  a non-transparent individual and organization that do everything they can to avoid accountability.  I find it to be somewhat ironic that Mr. Estranged supposedly fears for his life and, as a result, suppresses information about his own whereabouts; yet, he has no problem “outing” others for whom such risks might be far more probable.

In honor of Wicked Leaks, I looked up “accountability” on Dictionary.com (I thought it should be done online), which says that “accountability” is “the state of being accountable, liable, or answerable.”  So, what could be more perfect than for Mr. Estranged to surface in the United States and test the waters of whether his (and Wicked Leaks’) speech is indeed protected?  Would he prefer to test the waters in Iran … or Afghanistan … or, perhaps, China?  At least in the U.S., he won’t be stoned to death, have his tongue cut out, or just “disappear” for being a dissident.  Our current Administration ran on the promise of being completely transparent and accountable; and besides, it doesn’t like to prosecute people anyway … just States.  This has got to be his best chance.

Otherwise, it would be interesting if someone were to “leak” embarrassing information about Mr. Estranged and identify where he is.  Maybe, in a weak moment, he drew a derogatory picture of a religious prophet.  Or, perhaps, he released information that was damaging to a drug cartel.  Who knows?  It’s easy to treat the lives of real people as if they were expendable inanimate objects when you don’t know them … and don’t care.  It’s even easier if you can hide behind a “cause” to justify your cognitive dissonance.  But when you experience it directly, it elevates your personal appreciation for the consequences of your actions.  I can only hope that Mr. Estranged finds a more productive way to “expose” the establishment without needlessly sacrificing the careers and lives of others.  Until then, it’s common sense to believe that all of his leaks will be wicked.

*****

Copyright © 2010 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Thanksgiving Musings

It’s Thanksgiving!  I heard that the President pardoned a turkey today.  I’m not sure what gaffe Vice President Biden made, but it’s nice that the President is such a forgiving individual.

Consider how delighted the Pilgrims would be to live in our times.  No, not because there have been so many advancements or that our lives are less difficult … but because they could wander down the streets of Washington, D.C., turn in an any direction, fire their muskets, and have a great chance of hitting a “turkey.”  Whether you spell it “fowl” or “foul,” there have never been so many “turkeys” at one place in time as there are in our Nation’s capital. 

But enough about politics!  It’s Thanksgiving, so let us “give thanks.”  I don’t know about you, but I like holidays that give me an idea of what I should do when they arise … and perhaps no other secular holiday does this as well as Thanksgiving.  Look at it through the eyes of a child (to preserve some degree of purity), and you’ll see what I mean.

When I was a child, I knew that New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day were specific days, but their names didn’t give me a clue as to what they represented in the adult world (i.e., a Bacchanalian night of revelry followed by a day of recovery while watching football).

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day didn’t even exist until 1983 … a date well past my childhood years.  Even so, it doesn’t exactly give us much guidance as to what we should do.  It clearly recognizes the life of an individual, but there isn’t any clarion call to celebrate that life in any specific way on that day.

When I was a child, we had Abraham Lincoln’s birthday George Washington’s birthday almost back-to-back with Valentine’s Day sandwiched in between.  With regard to the birthdays, I knew that they singled out Abraham Lincoln and George Washington as particularly great Presidents … but again, what was I to do?  Of course, in the 1980s, the two birthdays were consolidated into Presidents Day to honor the two of them simultaneously (as Lincoln’s birthday was never really a Federal holiday but made for a great retail sales opportunity).  Today, the holiday’s name is so nebulous that I’ll bet most children think it applies to all Presidents … sort of in the nature of the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality that is so prevalent today.  And hence, some children sing, “Mmm Mmm Mmm … Barack Hussein Obama!” … even though the day doesn’t technically celebrate Presidents in general.

As for Valentine’s Day, I was terribly conflicted as a child, and its name gave me little direction.  I knew about the candy and cards, but I also heard about a certain massacre that happened on the same day.  As a result, I recall thinking that if you didn’t give your sweetheart a nice card and some candy that she liked, she might have you killed!  That’s quite a burden on a child.  Why don’t they just rename it “Support Hallmark, Brach’s and the Rip-Off Florist-of-Your-Choice Day?”  Then, we’d all instinctively understand what it’s about.

Then, there’s Memorial Day.  As a child, I recognized that I was supposed to remember something or someone, but I wasn’t quite sure what or who.  While it has grown to be a very meaningful holiday from my perspective, as a child, it would have been helpful to call it “Say a Pray for Fallen Veteran’s Day” or something like that.

And how about Independence Day.  Was I supposed to ignore my parents and act like I was “independent?”  I didn’t know.  I was just a kid!  And today, it’s even worse.  Children don’t even know that it’s Independence Day.  They just think it’s the Fourth of July.  Well, duh!  And the next day is the Fifth of July!  Adults are soooooo stupid!  I think we should rename the holiday, or at least tie the “Independence” back to our country in some way.  Otherwise, we should just rename it Fireworks and Picnic Day, since that’s pretty much all that children think it is at this point.

I have to admit, Labor Day always confused me.  If it’s “Labor” Day, why do adults get to take the day off work?  Shouldn’t they be “laboring?”  It never really made any sense to me … and it really still doesn’t.  I think they just inserted it into the calendar to give children a break from their first week or two of school.  Nobody should have to return to school on a full-time basis after a three-month vacation without some sort of break-in period.  To this day, I believe that’s why the holiday actually exists.

Next, we have Veterans Day.  As a child, this caused a lot of confusion for me with respect to Memorial Day (although I’ve noticed that a lot of adults seem to confuse Memorial Day with Labor Day as well).  I could never really understand why we celebrated the armed forces twice a year.  It was easier for me when Veterans Day used to be called Armistice Day because I could tie it to an event in history.  However, even that didn’t give me a lot of direction.  I just knew that we would go to a store and I was supposed to wear a paper poppy boutonniere for the rest of the day.

I won’t get into religious holidays other than to say that most of them aren’t particularly descriptive either.  Luckily, they’re marketed better, so most children quickly embrace their “retail” definition … if not their actual significance.

Then, there’s good old Thanksgiving!  Even as a child, I could wrap my mind around that one.  Oh sure, my elementary school teachers may have butchered the actual history of the holiday; and it was years before I knew that it didn’t officially exist on an ongoing basis until 1863 when Lincoln proclaimed it as such (which may be why he got his own day for awhile); or that it changed under FDR from the last Thursday in November to the fourth Thursday in November in 1939 to better separate the two holiday seasons for retail sales purposes; or that it only took another two years for Congress to ratify his recommendation (proving that some things never change); but I love it for its simplicity.

So, take a little time to reflect upon your blessings this Thanksgiving … and “give thanks” for them.  If you seriously can’t think of a single blessing … perhaps you should give thanks for the fact that, by your own definition, your life can only improve.  For those of you who have less trouble identifying your areas of good fortune, please “give thanks” … and hope that the same grace might be shared by others.

And for those of you who ask, “give thanks to whom?”  … I really don’t care.  Most people will “give thanks” to God.  If that doesn’t suit your set of beliefs, then “give thanks” to the universe … or nature … or your pet rock … or cell phone.  You’ll have accomplished two things:  first, you’ll have taken time to reflect upon your life and to put it into a positive perspective; and second, you have acknowledged that you are not alone in this world.  How hard can it be, I had enough common sense as a child to figure it out … just from the name.

So, Happy Thanksgiving to you … and please know that I count you among my blessings!

*****

Copyright © 2010 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Be sure to subscribe to get The Common Sense Czar delivered to your e-mail.  It's free!

Swamp Thing ... The Sequel

Have you read the Op-Ed piece by Nancy Pelosi in USA TODAY?  (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-10-column10_ST2_N.htm)  It’s great stuff and I agree with almost everything she says.

Her article touts the accomplishments of the 111th Congress over which she presided; stating that unnamed “Congressional experts” consider it to be “the most productive Congress in a half-century.”   You know me … I wanted to make sure that I completely understood the meaning of the word “productive,” so I looked it up.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “productive” as “having the power or quality of producing especially in abundance.”   In that regard, I agree with the assessment.  The 111th Congress produced a lot of things in abundance including, but not limited to pork-barrel deals for votes, a ridiculous number of new agencies and, of course, an unconscionable level of debt.  Nice job!

Nancy is so proud that she’s holding a reception “honoring the Accomplishments of the 111th Congress on Wednesday, the tenth day of November, two thousand ten at three thirty in the afternoon, Cannon Caucus Room 345, Cannon House Office Building.”   Somehow, my personal invitation must have gotten lost in the mail, but I’m sure she meant to send one to me.  I have a history of missing great events like this.  I’m told that George Armstrong Custer felt the same way about his 7th Cavalry and was planning a similar fete … or should I say fate.

Come to think of it, Custer and Pelosi have a lot in common.

• Both rose through the ranks; Custer was brevetted to Major General during the Civil War, and Nancy became the first female Minority Leader and then Speaker of the House.

• After the war, Custer remained in the Army and was appointed to the lesser military grade of Lieutenant Colonel; after the mid-term elections, Nancy is lobbying to become the new Minority Leader.

• Custer was sure that his forces would overwhelm the Indians at the Little Big Horn; Nancy chastised Press Secretary Gibbs (back in July) for even suggesting that there was a possibility that the Democrats could lose the House in the mid-term elections.

Of course, that’s where the similarities end.  Custer lost his own life as well as that of all his men.  Nancy was able to win reelection while the Democratic Party merely suffered a loss of its 77 member advantage in the House and move toward a 49 member disadvantage.  From Custer’s perspective, that’s hardly a flesh wound!

Interestingly enough, the prevailing thought back in 1874 (according to the Secretary of War) was that the Government’s largess of “coffee, sugar and beef”  had “taken the fight out of the Indians.”   Surely, if you give people something for “free,” they’ll “mellow out” and become complacent.  Political elitists are surely safe to verbally dismiss an apparent “grass roots movement” as nothing more than “Astroturf.”   Isn’t it funny how history repeats itself?  As George Santayana stated in Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  By the way, nice title, George!  But I digress.

Back to Nancy’s Op-Ed piece.  Nancy is all smiles (no big surprise there) about 111th Congress.  It’s a little bit like Custer taking the position that he would have won the Battle of the Little Big Horn if only he wouldn’t have run out of men before the Indians ran out of ammunition. 

America’s Sweetheart tells us that “President Obama and this Congress were job creators from Day One, saving the country from the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression”  and that “The Recovery Act created or saved more than 3 million jobs, and America is moving forward. October marks the 10th straight month of private sector job growth.”  That’s why unemployment has plummeted to below 8 percent just as the President stated it would.  If you feel a Wizard of Oz moment coming on, just go with it …“Ignore the man behind the curtain.”  And while we’re at it Madame Speaker, you may want to get in line in front of the Scarecrow.

Nancy asserts that “Our Democratic members took tough votes to support America's working families, putting the American people before politics and thinking of the next generation, not the next election.”  Again, just ignore all the behind-closed-doors meetings and pork-barrel deals that were proffered during her reign.  They had nothing to do with politics.  And the $13+ trillion deficit?  It’s all for the next generation … really!

She incorporates the traditional “Wall Street” versus “Main Street” theme that has become so popular, a “Make It in America” phrase, and an allusion to “the largest investment in student aid in our nation’s history, reducing the cost of loans to families” that somehow apparently has the impact of “reducing the deficit.”

For comic relief, Nancy adds, “And we did all of this while restoring fiscal discipline to the Congress by making the pay-as-you-go rules the law of the land.”  That must explain the Congressional spending spree that amassed a $13+ trillion deficit that exceeded the debt of every prior Presidency … cumulatively.

“We are proud to have passed historic health insurance reform that includes a Patient's Bill of Rights to lower health costs and improve quality,” she continues.  Of course, we have no empirical evidence that health care costs have been lowered or that the quality of health care has been improved, but she wouldn’t mislead us … she’s a politician!

Let’s have some fun and parse in a few comments to the rest of her Op-Ed piece (much like I do in my books, The Left isn’t Right and The Right is Wrong).  I’ll use bolded text to distinguish the comments of the Common Sense Czar from the "non-bolded, italicized quotations of the Speaker."

“Democrats will continue to put forward innovative ideas, engage in entrepreneurial thinking and work to create the jobs for middle class prosperity.”  Notice, I said “continue” as if we’ve actually been doing this for the past two years … much less for the four years that we’ve in fact controlled the House.  Under my leadership, we’ve pursued the “innovative” idea of spending well beyond our means with every intention of taxing our way out of the problem; and our idea of entrepreneurial thinking includes nationalizing industries while giving ownership to special interest groups that deliver money and votes to our campaigns.  Oops!  I mean unions that support the American way of life!  And we’re looking for ways to create “jobs for middle class prosperity.”  Screw poor people!  We’ve figured out that there aren’t enough of them that vote to get us reelected.

“Republicans and Democrats must work together, with President Obama, to prepare for our nation for the 21st century while creating clean energy and infrastructure jobs.”  Oh sure, some of you might point out that we’re already a tenth of the way through the 21st century, but it’s just a rhetorical expression.

“As we go forward, we welcome Republican ideas about job creation.”  Let’s face it … we have to!  They killed us in the last election, and we’ve got about as much of a chance of cramming through legislation as Charlie Sheen has of being a positive role model.

“Though they elected a new majority in Congress, Americans did not vote for the special interests.”  That’s exactly why we lost! 

“They voted for jobs.”  Which again is why we lost!

“Democrats remain committed to fighting for the people's interests, not the special interests.”  Okay, we’re just kidding.  We still intend to support unions as well as every “oppressed minority” we can identify and get to believe that we’re their champion!

“While the election is over, the urgent needs of the American people remain.”  Those "needs" remain because we did little to eliminate them during our reign.

“Over the past several days, I have spoken with my Democratic colleagues about where we go from here.”  Apparently, a lot of them are packing up their offices and moving back to their home States.  Maybe we can get unemployment benefits extended again because those guys are going to need them.

“I have heard from Americans across our country who are relying on us to continue our fight to create jobs, hopefully in a bipartisan way, and move our nation forward.”  Just between us girls, I think that was really their message in this past election.  We’d better start working together in a bipartisan way and move our nation forward.

“We will begin the 112th Congress with talented new colleagues, and also with a renewed dedication to fighting every day for jobs, economic recovery and the middle class.”  Notice that while we eschew “special interests,” we always single out the middle class.  The rest of Americans don’t count because there aren’t enough of them to restore us to power.

So ends the Speaker’s Op-Ed piece and the Common Sense Czar’s running commentary.  It seems to me that Nancy hasn’t learned a lot from her recent experience.  For the past two years, she’s gotten a “pass” for the 110th Congress that was also under her leadership.  You know … the one that passed the legislation that precipitated a lot of our current economic turmoil.  While it’s more fun to blame the President (be it Bush or Obama), the reality is that the real legislative power resides with the House and the Senate (read about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution in The National Platform of Common Sense), and Nancy has been in charge of the House for two consecutive terms.

Still, you’ve got to admire our outgoing Speaker.  Who can forget her memorable quote from 2006, “You must drain the swamp if you are going to govern for the people.”   Just this Summer, she triumphantly stated, “Drain the swamp we did, because this was a terrible place.”  Democrats Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters (both reelected by overwhelming majorities) confirmed her assertion on their way to their respective ethics hearings.  Apparently, a large number of Americans didn’t get the memo and decided to do some additional cleansing on November 2nd. 

In all fairness to Nancy, as the old saying goes:  "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's sometimes difficult to remember that your mission was to drain the swamp."  Personally, I think the “swamp” could still use a little more attention on both sides of the aisle.  Maybe we should put in a call to Wes Craven for a sequel.

***** 
Copyright © 2010 Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Trick or Treat?

My apologies for not having written anything last week, but I was in the midst of a book tour that ended in Washington, D.C. the day after the mid-term elections.  Let the record show that I flew into D.C. on October 31st from my tour in Ohio, and the President flew to Ohio that same morning … probably to repair any damage I may have done from his perspective.  Luckily for me, he doesn’t have to fly commercial, which allowed him to return D.C. that same day.

I say “luckily for me” because I was determined to trick-or-treat the White House that evening … both to celebrate Halloween and to test the effectiveness of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (i.e., the Stimulus Bill).  How, you may ask, would “trick-or-treating” the White House provide insight to our Nation’s economic recovery?  Well, I figured if the President was passing out the BIG candy bars, it would be a clear indication that our economic recovery was indeed proceeding as well as he has been suggesting.  Conversely, if he was just passing out a lousy piece of bubble gum (and no, I don’t mean the type that Paris Hilton seems to confuse … I mean real bubble gum), then all the reported success of the program might just be political spin.

I even had a plan to penetrate the defenses of the White House’s perimeter if the Secret Service had designs on restricting visitors that evening.  I asked my wife, who is a tall blond, to dress in a red sari.  I, in turn, was going to dress in a tuxedo, and the two of us were going to go as Michaele and Tareq Salahi.  Hey, they got into the President’s first State Dinner that way.  Who knows?  It might have worked for us as well.  Besides, the costumes would at least be appropriately “scary” to Washington insiders!

Alas, no disguise was needed as the President and the First Lady graciously greeted visitors … at least until the paparazzi left.  Much to my chagrin, there was to be no portent of economic indicators that evening.  Only the balance of power was on display for all to see.  By that, I mean that the pecking order appears to be the First Lady … followed by the President of the United States.  You see, the President and First Lady were handing out dried fruit.  Dried fruit!  It apparently had something to do with the First Lady’s quest to resolve childhood obesity in our country; a laudable goal, but certainly not the equivalent of allowing the President to send a clear and convincing message to our citizens concerning the success of his economic initiatives.  Besides, it really didn’t satisfy my sweet tooth.  I was hoping for the best of both worlds:  to score a full size candy bar to satisfy my craving; and to receive strong evidence of our economic recovery.  But nooooooo!  All I got was some dried fruit!

Washington, D.C., is apparently turning into another San Francisco … which, days later, officially banned Happy Meals.  Our Nation is apparently in decay … or perhaps trying to avoid it from a dental perspective when it comes to candy.  First it was candy; then it was toys.  Where will government intervention stop?  What’s next to destroy “childhood” as we once knew it?  No presents at Christmas?  We’re already not allowed to display trees or to sing carols except under cloak of darkness.

Hang on a second … I’ve got some dried fruit caught in my teeth.

Okay, I’m back!

Well, the answer came just days later … and in resounding fashion.  “We, the People” spoke.  We’re apparently tired of getting dried fruit on Halloween!  Sometimes it takes an issue of that magnitude to wake up the American public.  On November 2nd, the electorate spoke, and the President and his cronies had to listen … well, at least the cronies who still had jobs in Washington, D.C., or in their State or local assemblies.

Luckily, while the vast majority of voters expressed a whole new wave of “Change You Can Believe In,” we retained a modicum of the status quo.  Many of us remained “uninformed” and only voted on emotion.

Case in point:  the incumbent Congressman from the 4^th District of Georgia was reelected by a 76% to 25% percent margin.  Impressive!  Equally impressive:  this is the same Congressman who thought Guam might “tilt over and capsize” if we built a naval base on one end of it (visit http://vimeo.com/10644839 to experience the intellectual capital that’s assessing our 1000+ page bills).

California joined in the action as well … and on several levels.  First of all, many of its voters were too stoned to vote “Yes” on Proposition 19 to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.  When they regained a degree of lucidity, they must have been saying “Bummer, dude!”

Then, California voters elected Democrat Jenny Oropeza to the State’s 28^th Senate District.  She defeated Republican John Stammreich by a 57.8 to 36.3 percent margin.  My congratulations go to Jenny in spirit, and my sincere thoughts and prayers go to her family and friends.  You see, Senator Oropeza unfortunately passed away two weeks before the election.  Of course, that just may have extended her base to include all the dead people who traditionally register and vote in California elections. 

While John Stammreich may have run an ineffective campaign, he wasn’t alone.  California’s most prestigious elections involved two women who enjoyed enormous notoriety:  Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman.  Both enjoyed distinguished records of success in the “Old Boys’ Club” known as “Big Business.”  Surely, they would bring a refreshing and pragmatic view to a State whose economy had been decimated over the years by politicians who apparently thought that Proposition 19 had already passed.  To make it even easier, they were running against Green Party candidates, Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown, respectively.

What?  You say that Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown were running as Democrats.  Well sure they were running as Democrats, but they really had to be considered to be members of the Green Party.  I mean, can you think of two candidates who were more “recycled” than these two? 

True to her name, Barbara “Boxer” won a split decision over a “game” but inexperienced opponent in Carly Fiorina.  Fiorina fell behind on points and didn’t try for a knockout when she needed one to win.  Boxer “cut” Fiorina in the middle rounds with ads that emphasized Fiorina’s dastardly tour of duty as CEO of Hewlett Packard during which she cut jobs and “shipped them overseas.”  Rather than fighting back by explaining that those cuts were necessary to remain competitive as well as to expand HP’s global business, Fiorina just keep taking Boxer’s political punches.  She easily could have pointed out that at least she had to make those kinds of decisions, while Boxer had been comfortably padding her record with 28 years of ineffective service.  It would have been a more interesting match had Fiorina asked two questions:  “Tell us Barbara, can you name 28 significant accomplishments you have achieved in your 28 years as a Senator?” … and “Barbara, just out of curiosity, what job do you think a Fortune 10 company would deem you to be qualified to perform?”  Boxer’s silence would have been deafening, and I personally think a referee would have had to stop the bout to prevent Boxer from absorbing any more unnecessary punishment.

That brings us to the Gubernatorial race.  In the last Presidential election, Californians thought John McCain was “too old” to lead our Nation.  So, could there be any doubt that a 71 year old Jerry Brown wasn’t going to be linked to Lady Gaga as he was “back in the day” to Linda Ronstadt?

Interestingly enough, Jerry Brown’s ads were virtually devoid of any reference to the Democratic Party other than in their fine print.  Immediately below his name, they proclaimed his “independence.”  In several of his ads, he stated that at his age, he can finally exercise “independent judgment” … giving credence to the fact that he was just a Party “puppet” since he began his political career in 1969; the same year that Man first landed on the moon and Ted Kennedy was still learning to drive.

He did run what I thought was the most effective campaign ad I’ve seen in years:  the Twins ad that tied Meg Whitman to Governor Schwarzenegger (whose was polling high “negatives”) by mirroring their campaign phrases and finishing her off with her head superimposed on Danny Devito’s body in the famous movie poster.  Very clever … and high marks to Governor Brown’s marketing team!   Meg Whitman’s response?  An ad that featured a dour Meg Whitman, emotionlessly saying something alone the lines of “I know I’m a billionaire with no political experience and that you think you’ve got two poor choices for Governor … but I’m the lesser of two evils.”  If Meg Whitman were a vampire, she’d drive a stake through her own heart!  That level of stupidity deserves to lose … and did … by a lot.

And speaking of vampires, I can confidently say that Christine O’Donnell was unfairly maligned as a “witch.”  As she self proclaimed, she is “not a witch.”  I know.  I was in Washington, D.C. on election night (and the next day) after O’Donnell had been handed her proverbial broomstick in a 17 point defeat … and not a single Senator or Congressman was turned into a toad.  Had she actually been a witch, no one would have been safe.

Speaking of which … or is that “witch” (I get the two confused) … my wife and I did stop by former Speaker Pelosi’s office to see if she wanted any assistance in packing up her office, but she wasn’t answering her door.  She apparently wasn’t feeling well.  Staff members said that she felt like a House had fallen down upon her … and that she also couldn’t receive us because someone had stolen her ruby slippers.

Oh well, in the world of politics, as much as things seem to change … they also seem to stay the same.  A contrite President boarded his plane for a 10-day swing through the Pacific rim as my wife and I boarded our commercial flight to return home.  Conservative media fanned the flames of dissension by asserting that the President’s entourage was projected to cost $200 million per day, which seems like a ridiculously inflated number to me … particularly during these tough economic times.  I’ll bet the President’s trip will barely cost a tenth of that (or $200 million total).  Of course, perhaps the money could be spent more effectively.  I mean … for $200 million, I might stop examining our political system and applying common sense to it, which in turn would spare our politicians from the inevitable embarrassment they suffer at the hands of the Common Sense Czar.  Then again, $200 million might not be enough to get me to cease and desist.  After all, I’m still a little bit miffed about not getting a candy bar at the White House on Halloween; so much so that I spited the First Lady by purchasing a Happy Meal at Reagan International before I boarded my plane to fly home.

*****

Copyright © 2010 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Are You Scared?

Are you scared?  This seems to be the pressing issue of the day as we draw closer to the November elections.  This past Saturday, no less of an authority of our national emotions than the President of the United States pronounced that, “Part of the reason that our politics seem so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared … and the country is scared.”  I don’t know about you, but I’m scared … and common sense tells me that I should be!

I think the President is right:  “facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day …”

FACT:  the President made a campaign promise to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

FACT:  on May 27, 2010, the House voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

FACT:  on September 21, 2010, the Senate failed to act upon legislation that would have sent the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the President for his signature.

FACT:  on October 12, 2010, a Federal District court held the policy to be unconstitutional and issued a worldwide injunction against it.

FACT:  the injunction could have essentially ended the issue and fulfilled the President’s campaign promise, which had garnered great political support within the gay community.

FACT:  on October 20, 2010, the Department of Justice swiftly filed for the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals to issue an emergency order to lift the injunction (which the Court quickly did).

Now, keep in mind this is the same Department of Justice that hasn’t been able to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who has admitted to planning the attacks on 9/11) since his capture in 2003.  It’s also the same Department of Justice that apparently hasn’t been interested in vigorously prosecuting election fraud or intimidation.  Yet, in just eight days, it successfully filed for an emergency order because of the Constitutional implications of the lower court’s action.  … All facts!  If the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could have peacefully passed away on October 12, why resuscitate it on October 20?  Unless, of course, the court’s action took away from the political victory that could have been won had the Legislature and the President repealed the policy.  If that’s the case, then let’s not pretend that those two entities really cared about protecting the equal rights of all citizens; let’s just admit that the policy was used as a pawn to attract votes … and that it will continue to be used for such purposes.  Are you scared yet?

Then, there’s the issue of Juan Williams.  If you don’t listen to National Public Radio (NPR), which is partially funded by your tax dollars, or you don’t watch Fox News, you may not know who Juan Williams is.  In a nutshell, Juan Williams is a Democratic political pundit who strongly supported Barack Obama during the Presidential campaign.  He has hosted a show on NPR since 1999 and regularly appears on Fox News as a counterpoint to its generally conservative perspective.  In the latter capacity, he dared to express an honest opinion while serving as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor.  As a result, he was fired by NPR.

The controversy began as a result of Bill O’Reilly’s appearance on The View.  Co-hosts, comedians and “noted political experts,” Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the show when their “arguments” pertaining to the proposed Mosque in New York City didn’t “win the day.”  Poor Juan Williams had the misfortune of being cast into a panel that discussed the issue on O’Reilly’s show on October 18.  Williams said, “When I get on a plane ... if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.”  Now, he went to great lengths to make it clear that he was not transferring guilt for the 9/11 terrorist attack to all Muslims.  He merely was honestly admitting to his own personal feelings. 

NPR was contacted by at least one Muslim group after the show aired.  Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations commented, “NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats.”  NPR did!

NPR’s CEO, Vivian Schiller, and Senior Vice President for News, Ellen Weiss, released just after midnight:  "Tonight we gave Juan Williams notice that we are terminating his contract as a Senior News Analyst for NPR News.  Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret.  However, his remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR.  We regret these circumstances and thank Juan Williams for his many years of service to NPR and public radio."

Yes, it seems that National Public Radio (which derives about 6% of its budget from our tax dollars) believes that Juan Williams needs to be censored.  After all, he’s a reporter and should only “report.”  I’m sure no one else on NPR has ever proffered a personal experience … or, at least, told the truth.  Are you scared yet?

I do away with “political correctness” in The National Platform of Common Sense because of situations like these.  In today’s world, “political correctness” has become a cancer that has eaten away at the heart of the Constitution.  Consider the First Amendment.  It says, ““Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assem­ble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  It would seem that Juan Williams’ statement should have been protected on two counts:  “freedom of speech” and “freedom … of the press,” but it apparently made NRP uncomfortable with respect to its lack of perceived “political correctness.”

Juan Williams, who provides a refreshing balance to Fox during his guest appearances, fired back by saying, "(NPR) used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought."  Since Juan appears to have been “the only black male on the air,” maybe he wasn’t really fired for his comment on The O’Reilly Factor.  Maybe he was really just fired because Vivian Schiller gets worried and nervous when she sees him.

As an aside, Juan’s comment about the dangers of “one-party rule and one sided thinking” reflect upon why I wrote The Left isn’t Right and The Right is Wrong … to get people to consider both polar extremes and make a rational decision.

I wonder if NPR would have fired Mr. Williams had he indicated that he felt a similar discomfort when observing white men wearing pillowcases over their heads with eye holes cut out of them.  Hmmm, let’s see.  While he clearly wouldn’t be attributing Klan membership to every Caucasian on Earth, the comment would be racially specific.  Yep, I’m pretty sure NPR would have to fire him if an Imperial Wizard or two called the station to complain.

Then, there’s the President’s latest discovery.  “Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations.  So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won't tell you where the money for their ads comes from.”   The comment references the Chamber of Commerce and its support of the Republican Party.  I think he’s finally exposed the “big business” chicanery we all feared.

FACT:  the Chamber has spent tens of millions of dollars on ads that predominantly support Republican candidates.

FACT:  the Chamber tends to support Republican candidates because Republican candidates are more pro-business.

FACT:  the Chamber does take money from foreign corporations.

FACT:  the Chamber has yet to release its donor list.

I just knew it!  But wait …

FACT:  the unions have spent tens of millions of dollars on ads that predominantly support Democratic candidates.

FACT:  the unions tend to support Democratic candidates because Democratic candidates are more pro-union.

Hmmm …

FACT:  foreign corporations constitute and contribute a comparatively minuscule percentage of the Chamber’s membership and funding

FACT:  the President has accepted more money from the British Petroleum’s Political Action Committee than any other federal official.  In fact, in his two successful campaigns and the 143 days he served as a Senator, he accepted more than any other legislator took from the BP PAC in the past 20 years.

FACT:  the President’s 2008 presidential campaign committee was challenged for accepting massive sums of foreign and otherwise tainted contributions (first alleged by Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee and then reiterated by John McCain’s); all because the President’s campaign committee chose to disable Internet donation verification protocols that were designed to verify addresses and United States citizenship; two critical elements required to preclude foreign contributions as well as the evasion of campaign donation limits (through the use of false names) … not that names that appeared on his donor list like “Good Will” or “Doodad Pro” should raise any flags.

FACT:  the President’s 2008 presidential campaign committee also elected to accept prepaid credit card donations, which essentially precluded any ability to trace the identity of such donors.

But, unlike the Chamber, at least the President’s campaign committee released its donor list (fictitious names and all).  Of course, we’re all still waiting for his birth certificate and college transcripts … but those things take time!

Oh … and for those of you who are into irony:  the fundraiser at which President Obama first explained that we all were just “scared” and not thinking “clearly” … was at the private residence of a wealthy CEO of a New England hospital chain (can you say, “Health Care Reform?”) … and cost $15,200 (or 423 sets of my books) per person to attend.  Believe me:  my books would have been a better deal!

Come on … tell the truth.  If you weren’t scared before … you are now!

*****

Copyright © 2010 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.