The peculiar thing about all of that is that none of the candidates, including those who held office for decades, have objected to much of it. One would think that the best way to differentiate oneself from the pack would be to espouse or emphasize something that would highlight the differences, but they all seem determined to do what college kids did 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and today: that is, prove their non-conformity by conforming to those around them. It is beyond us why one of the candidates hasn't been wise enough to call out the enormously expensive, economically foolish, counter-productive, and just plain harmful proposals, and to stand up for the policies, attitudes, and values that made America the great country it is. Candidates have always managed to find things wrong with current policies without chucking the whole structure away, but the current crop seems intent on radical transformation that would leave us with a completely different system, and would guarantee everything. Too bad not even one of those Democrats has the good sense to ask where the money comes from when our tax rates hit 70% and employers have to pay $15 an hour and grant multiple other goodies, and the government somehow makes up the difference; and we still have to maintain an Army, Navy, and Air Force, highways, parks, a court system, and all those other things government does. As Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have said, socialism works until one runs out of other people's money. And while a lot of these proposals might not be "pure socialism," they definitely trend in that direction, and enlarge the public sector by shrinking the private sector. We are hopeful that at least one will tell the others that all of those wish lists are impossible, but so far our hopes have been unrealized.
BY JOHN SHAFFER Last week we referred to a few of the ideas that the Democrat candidates for president have been floating to outbid their fellow candidates. These include "free" everything it seems, from health care, child care, day care and college to guaranteed parental leave, vacations, jobs, and don't worry, whatever else one of them comes up with to pander to this or or that group, another of them will top it with an even wilder proposal.
The peculiar thing about all of that is that none of the candidates, including those who held office for decades, have objected to much of it. One would think that the best way to differentiate oneself from the pack would be to espouse or emphasize something that would highlight the differences, but they all seem determined to do what college kids did 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago, and today: that is, prove their non-conformity by conforming to those around them. It is beyond us why one of the candidates hasn't been wise enough to call out the enormously expensive, economically foolish, counter-productive, and just plain harmful proposals, and to stand up for the policies, attitudes, and values that made America the great country it is. Candidates have always managed to find things wrong with current policies without chucking the whole structure away, but the current crop seems intent on radical transformation that would leave us with a completely different system, and would guarantee everything. Too bad not even one of those Democrats has the good sense to ask where the money comes from when our tax rates hit 70% and employers have to pay $15 an hour and grant multiple other goodies, and the government somehow makes up the difference; and we still have to maintain an Army, Navy, and Air Force, highways, parks, a court system, and all those other things government does. As Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have said, socialism works until one runs out of other people's money. And while a lot of these proposals might not be "pure socialism," they definitely trend in that direction, and enlarge the public sector by shrinking the private sector. We are hopeful that at least one will tell the others that all of those wish lists are impossible, but so far our hopes have been unrealized. BY JOHN SHAFFER "Tradition" is a fine old Broadway song, but to the modern progressive, its disqualifying word would be "old." And they pretty much have the same complaint about some key parts of our system of government --they're just so OLD!
Examples abound, but just as the candidates for the Democratic party's nomination for president are scrambling to outflank each other by proposing more and more giveaways and free stuff (including, but not limited to, health care, child care, day care, college, vacations, parental leave, abortion, guaranteed employment, no border walls - including the removal of the onesie already have), they also are outdoing each other on which Constitutional provision they would eliminate first. This reminds us of another Broadway song, "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better." The various candidates want to eliminate the Electoral College; recast the Senate to reflect population; modify the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and various other parts of the Bill of Rights; and probably a lot more. All this because their chosen candidate didn't win in 2016. BY JOHN SHAFFER Special Counsel Robert Mueller has released his report on his investigation of the accusation that President Trump colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election, and has delivered that report to Attorney General William Barr, who has released a four-page summary of said report.
Here is the most important point: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Well, we guess that means exactly what it said, and that if after an investigation that lasted 22 months, employed 19 lawyers, assisted by 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff; that issued over 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers; made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witness, couldn’t find any evidence of conspiracy or coordination with the Trump campaign and Russia that there was no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. All of those Democrats, news media types, and Obama administration officials who declared that not only was there “collusion” but that they had seen evidence of it should be explaining why the Mueller team somehow managed to miss whatever it was that they saw. And most of those folks continue to believe, with a faith that truly is defined as the “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Well, the Book of Hebrews wasn’t referring to the Mueller report, but that verse sure fits the tenacious way the Democrats et al continue to cling to their belief that “Trump bad” and therefore “Trump colluded.” They all hoped for it, and, bless their little old hearts, they continue to hope for it even after no evidence has been found after 22 months, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, etc. etc., etc. BY JOHN SHAFFER The mass murder by a white racist who killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand has prompted more calls for gun confiscation or bans. Of course, the President of the United States is being blamed for the incident because the murderer called President Trump “a symbol of renewed white identity.” The President has issued a statement in support of the victims and for the people of New Zealand.
The killer also said that he hated conservatives and was not one, and also was disparaging of blacks, but when he sarcastically claimed that black conservative Candace Owens was one of his inspirations, the left failed to see that he was spoofing and being provocative, and blamed her for the attack as well. The killer certainly hated Muslims, but according to the manifesto he published online, he hated a lot more, and killing Muslims was not his only motive. He claims to be an “eco-fascist,” is a huge believer in “global warming,” warns of the dangers of “overpopulation,” and says that communist China is his “ideal state.” He intentionally chose his weapons for the purpose of causing disruption in the United States, hoping to provoke politicians to call for confiscating weapons, thus leading to armed resistance and a civil war; and it goes one step further – he wanted that civil war in order to divide America racially and regionally, hoping that it so weakens our nation as to prevent the US from defending its interests. BY JOHN SHAFFER Last week this column discussed the national debt/deficit issue. We would call it a crisis except that’s a word the progressives don’t use except for “climate change” and “the Trump presidency.” But whatever one calls it, the $22 trillion debt and annual government budget deficits that are in the range of a trillion dollars are a problem, and one that is getting worse. We think that addressing the expenses of government, including mandates and entitlements is the best path to get a handle on the issue. The progressives, most Democrats, and quite a few “big government” Republicans don’t support most spending cuts or entitlement reforms, but would address the issue from the revenue side, that is, by raising taxes.
Presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris has said that “we can change human behavior,” and the “we” in that sentence means “the government.” One way it does change behavior is through the tax system. As has been pointed out numerous times, if a government wants more of something they will subsidize it (for instance, wind power, electric cars, college education); if they want less of something (or lessen its use) they will tax it (for instance, luxury items, gasoline). BY JOHN SHAFFER The US Senate voted in favor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act last week by a margin of 53-44. The Act came about in reaction to the recent push by several elected Democrats concerning infanticide. Had Virginia Governor Northam not ruminated aloud about the possibility of killing babies who survive after a late-term abortion, perhaps no one would have thought it necessary to pass a bill attempting to save those babies. Other Democrats and commentators came out in support of Gov. Northam, and New York and other states have taken steps to legalize abortions to the point of delivery, so it is not hard to understand why Senators who are appalled at the prospect of elected officials giving sanction to killing babies who survive abortion would want to take legislative action. Back in 2002, the Senate approved by unanimous consent the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act”, which stated that a baby born alive after an abortion is legally recognized as a human person; therefore it is without question that killing such a baby clearly is infanticide and therefore is a practice that already is illegal, yet apparently that illegality had not stopped the support for the practice.
BY JOHN SHAFFER Most of us have heard of the Jussie Smollett case. The Chicago police have charged him with faking a “hate crime” which he attempted to blame on some unidentified supporters of President Trump but which was, they charge, perpetrated by Mr. Smollett himself and people he hired. The details of the story as first presented by Mr. Smollett always smelled a bit fishy, and the local Chicago media and most conservatives who commented on the original story pointed out inconsistencies and circumstances that made it unlikely that the incident took place as the “victim” claimed. Supporters of Mr. Smollett, and the national mainstream media believed him at that time, and some still do, but the significance of this story is not that someone faked a “hate crime,” because such crimes have been faked by the hundreds in the last couple of years. Even one actual “hate crime” or politically motivated attack is too many, and the country does not need additional ones hoaxed up by the political right or the political left.
The significance of this story is that many who believed Mr. Smollett’s account weren’t satisfied with wanting to bring the perpetrator of that alleged assault to justice, or even with standing in solidarity with Mr. Smollett as a victim. No, those “believers” immediately and with certainty blamed President Trump and his supporters for the outrage committed against Mr. Smollett. And it wasn’t only activists – many Democratic politicians, including several who are running for president, unquestioningly accepted that the story was true, and did not hesitate to blame the President and those who support him. Those candidates, and the mainstream news media, did not even qualify their opinions with the word “alleged” or one of its variants. They believed Mr. Smollett’s words and charges, and were never skeptical or suspicious of any detail, and the media and the candidates used the the story to hammer the President, a man whom, for all his faults, was not out on the streets of Chicago that night with a noose and “an unknown chemical substance” prowling for Mr. Smollett or anyone else. He could not possibly have committed the attack, yet was blamed for it anyway. And it bears repeating that: A) the incident that Mr. Smollett claimed took place was manufactured by him and people he paid; and B) the President and people wearing MAGA hats had nothing to do with it. BY JOHN SHAFFER We traditionalists lament the loss of many qualities and conditions that once were common but have been disappearing in recent years, but there is one American tradition that never seems to go away, and that is the mounting US national debt, which just crossed the $22 trillion mark. President Trump and the Republicans, not without merit, clobbered President Obama for the ballooning debt during his eight years in office – but we have surpassed the $20 trillion, the $21 trillion and now the $22 trillion marks since President Trump took office, and the annual deficit for the current fiscal year may come in around $900 billion, which should be pretty embarrassing for any President, especially a Republican one.
Sad to say, it doesn’t seem to make much difference what party controls Congress or has the White House, the debt climbs anyway. Furthermore, we consider it a “victory” when a year’s budget deficit is less than the previous one – even though all that means is that the debt continues to rise. We had a brief period during the second term when Bill Clinton was President and Republicans controlled Congress when there were budget surpluses, but in the Bush years they soon disappeared with the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and, later, with the prescription drug benefit, and continued to grow in the Obama years with Obamacare, the auto bailout, the stimulus package and much more. BY JOHN SHAFFER The first time we wrote about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was after she unseated 14-term Congressman Joe Crowley in the 2018 primary election. We were aware that she represented the leftward course of the Democrat party, but we had no idea that she would become the intellectual, spiritual, moral, and public relations face of the party so rapidly. A media favorite, she has already reached the iconic level of being known by her initials, same as FDR, HST, DDE, JFK, and LBJ. She is the “go-to” person for every issue imaginable, and as the de facto leader of the Democrats in Congress and everywhere else, her public statements have been frequent and highly-sought. The “freshman class” of the present US House of Representatives includes 59 Democrats and 29 Republicans. We doubt if the other 87 in combination have received as much media attention as AOC has.
AOC’s latest public pronouncement is “The Green New Deal,” which in keeping with the current fashion we will identify as “GND.” AOC, assisted by extreme progressive Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, introduced GND, and it almost immediately was endorsed by most of the big name candidates for the Democrat nomination for President. By the way, almost all of these folks also have endorsed “Medicare for All,” and are undaunted by that $32 trillion price tag over ten years, and also want to end private insurance, so it should come as little surprise that the cost of GND is something that doesn’t concern its sponsors. by John Shaffer ~ editor@myweeklysentinel.com Last week we wrote about New York State’s recently enacted Reproductive Health Act, which legalizes abortions up to the point of delivery. This makes the Governor of that state and the legislative advocates of the measure appear pretty callous toward unborn life, but they must be at least a little troubled by the idea of killing a baby at the point of delivery, because they defend the practice by declaring that although legally late-term abortions can occur for any reason, most of them are due to severe fetal deformity or imminent threat to the life of the mother. The main problem with that claim is that the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-abortion group, states: “Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal abnormality or life endangerment.” We add that if a baby is killed as it is being delivered, it still must be delivered, meaning that whatever risk there was to the life of the mother because of delivery, it would continue to exist.
The most unchallengeable opinion we have heard on the subject comes from Frank Stephens, a man who has Down Syndrome, who in his testimony to Congress eloquently defended his life, and who this week told an interviewer “I don’t want to make abortion illegal. I want to make abortion unthinkable.” We emphasize that Mr. Stephens has a condition which, if the laws introduced by the Democrats are enacted, would perhaps make a future Frank Stephens a candidate for an abortion. by John Shaffer editor@myweeklysentinel.com The hot topic this week is the incident at the Lincoln Memorial, which actually was a very insignificant event, sort of like a Seinfeld program, “about nothing.” Oh, the allegations were ferocious and played into the prejudices of “good people” all over the country, but the truth was something very different indeed.
First, the sensational allegations of a bunch of “MAGA-Hat wearing, privileged, white Catholic kids” from Covington, Kentucky, in Washington for the March for Life, “mocking and harassing” a “serene Native American, Vietnam combat veteran.” The progressive left jumped in with both feet, as did the mainstream news media, the anti-Trump faction of the Conservative movement, even the Catholic Diocese representing the Covington group. They saw ninety seconds or so of video which showed one of the Covington kids “smirking” as he was “in the face” of the Native American, who was pounding a drum as part of a ceremony. Of course, the full version of the tape showed precisely the opposite: that the Covington Kids were essentially minding their own business on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, when a small group of progressive activists began shouting insults, most of which are so vile they cannot be repeated here. The Kids did not attack their harassers, nor return insult for insult, but, with the permission of their chaperone, sang their school’s fight song. This went on for some time, and then the Native American advanced toward the Kids (not the other way around), “got in their faces” (not the other way around) and pounded his drum quite close to the face of the “smirking” youth. Who, by the way, responded by “smirking” and nothing else – he nor any of the other Kids did not commit assault, battery, mayhem, threaten, attack, insult, ridicule or otherwise disparage the drummer. By J0hn Shaffer Everyone from the compassionate left to the hard-nose right is weighing in on “the Wall.” One side fears its existence; the other fears what would happen without it
Many of us absolutely believe that the generous benefits that Americans enjoy – such as safety, a robust economy, education, and health care are very attractive, as is the welfare to which illegals apparently are entitled. But we don’t have thousands of Canadians storming our northern border, demanding entrance to the USA. Why not? Because Canada itself provides all of those attributes. Canada, and America, have many things that most citizens in the rest of the hemisphere can only dream of: rule by the consent of the governed; an independent judiciary; honest police officers; militaries that do not insert themselves in the choice of governments; peaceful exchanges of power after free elections; freedom from an oppressive government; the protection of basic liberties and civil rights – not merely in words but in actual practice; a free exchange of ideas; free economies; fair tax rates; and hundreds of other traits that we take for granted but are but dreams for much of the rest of the hemisphere. BY JOHN SHAFFER You may have heard that the “government” is shut down, due to the inability of Congress and the President to agree on a budget. The sticking point is “the wall,” which President Trump believes is essential to stem the flow of illegal immigration (and in addition, drugs, criminals and communicable diseases) into the United States.
There are some competing schools of thought on the realities of a shutdown. While no one really wants a shutdown, the conservatives who believe in limited government, and smaller government, tend to believe that shutting down an intrusive, expensive, and officious government for a couple of weeks is not necessarily a bad thing; while the progressive liberals who believe in big government view shutdowns, even brief ones, as unmitigated disasters – because they tend to believe that government is essential to control our economy, our happiness, and our daily lives. The truth can be found somewhere in the middle, but it is instructive to take a brief glance at the history of government shutdowns, so we can get a better idea of how beneficial or disastrous they might be. There was a 10 day shutdown in 1976, when we had a Republican President (Gerald Ford) and both houses of Congress controlled by the Democrats. That lasted 12 days. In 1977 there were three shutdowns, all between Oct. 1 and Dec. 8. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats, but there was a Democrat in the White House (Jimmy Carter). Two of those shutdowns lasted eight days and one 12 days. There was one shutdown in 1978 and one in 1979, again with the Democrats controlling both houses and President Carter in the Oval Office. In 1978 the shutdown lasted 17 days; in 1979, 11. By John Shaffer This is the last Sentinel for 2018, and as we look ahead to 2019, we also can check the rear-view mirror to review the year now drawing to a close. As far as the newspaper goes, our biggest event was the sale of the paper. We could not have done for thirty years what we did without the the community, and we hope that you continue to provide the same levels of cooperation, support and guidance to the new owners that you gave to the old ones. The transition from one owner to another always brings with it some changes, some growing pains, some nostalgia, and some differences; but the Sentinel has been around since 1871, and each successive owner did things a bit differently from his predecessor, but the paper continued to grow and to thrive with fresh ideas and outlooks and perspectives. We are appreciative that the community embraced us as it did and gave us the opportunity to learn and grow and be a part of your lives. We know you will be as kind and understanding with the current owners.
The year 2018 was full of many big events – fires and natural disasters; terrorism; political upheaval and change; triumphs on playing fields and in science and exploration. The stock markets rocketed upwards, and in the past few weeks have tumbled downwards, causing a lot of anxiety and trauma; but patience is no less a virtue now than it was last year, and the wise investor will not be panicked by bad markets just as he should not be in euphoria over good ones. By John Shaffer ~ editor@myweeklysentinel.com It wasn’t that many years ago, back in 2002 during the G W Bush presidency, when Attorney General John Ashcroft was ridiculed for “censoring” the statue of “The Spirit of Justice” in the Hall of Justice in the US Department of Justice. It seems the statue (a classic sculpture with breasts exposed) was to be in the background of a photo-op and the Attorney General’s office was concerned over the sniggering that would inevitably come from the progressive left were there to be a “topless woman” (aluminum, not actual flesh) in the same picture as the A-G. So, rather than relocating the photo-op, the office purchased some $8,000 for drapery to cover the 18-foot tall statue.
Well, the Attorney General was in a no-win situation. The statue was covered, so there was no embarrassing photo, but instead of enduring some mild sniggering, Mr. Ashcroft was excoriated as a puritanical bluenose with no appreciation for the finer things in life (statuary, that is, not undressed women). Let us flash forward to 2018, when the progressive left that was prepared to smirk and scorn at Mr. Ashcroft now seeks to ban the song Baby, It’s Cold Outside, because it is either sexist or encourages bad behavior, etc. |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|