Showing posts with label Bloomberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bloomberg. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

The Fourth of July


It took the modern world two days to catch up to President John Adams’ enthusiasm for a national celebration. On July 3, 1776, Adams wrote, “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more."

Three of the country’s first five presidents died on the Fourth of July. Ideological rivals during their politically formative years and after, owing largely to an election that is still considered one of the most disreputable in the nation’s history, Adams, the second president of the United States, and Jefferson, drew close together after both had put aside active politics. Adams died at 90, Jefferson at 83, hours apart on July 4, 1826. Before he breathed his last, Adams whispered – almost a prayer -- “Jefferson still lives.”

Five years after the deaths of Adam and Jefferson, the fifth President of the United States, James Monroe, died on July Fourth. The much underrated Calvin Coolidge was born on the Fourth of July, 1872.    

The Fourth of July marked a turning point in the Civil War after Confederate General John Pemberton surrendered to Union forces at Vicksburg, Mississippi on July 4, 1863. Two years later, Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant after the Battle of Appomattox Court House.  Following General Pemberton’s surrender at Vicksburg --  which severed the trans-Mississippi states of Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas from the rest of the Confederacy, thus depriving its army of much of the food, supplies and thousands of men that those states had provided -- the town declined to participate in Fourth of July celebrations for the next 78 years.

Vicksburg has since relented, according to an announcement published in June of this year that promises: “The City of Vicksburg presents a Fireworks Extravaganza ‘Red White and Blues’ featuring Mr. Sipp ‘The Mississippi Blues Child’. The event starts at 7:00 pm. Fireworks show starts at 9:00 pm. There will be a special tribute to Willie Dixon (July 1, 1915- January 29, 1992).”

Next year in New York, if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way, the Four of July will be less memorable, solemn and celebratory than Adams initially had hoped.  The mayor, who is coming to resemble former Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in his instinctive aversion to all things joyous, has called upon New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to veto a bill that would legalize SPARKLERS outside the precincts of New York City. Presently, sparklers and all other fireworks are banned in the city; Bloomberg’s ban would extend the city’s ban to the rest of the state. Following Bloomberg’s ban on “Big Gulps,” the sparkler ban is likely to prove incendiary. Already, the mayor has been called a “dope” by Fourth of July patriots.

The mayor’s spokesperson alleges that the state-wide ban is necessary to protect the city from terrorists “such as failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, who bought a package of legal M-88 from out of state to help ignite his dud bomb in 2010.” Mr. Bloomberg’s critics point out sparklers contain no gunpowder -- you numbskull.

Congress made the Fourth of July a national holiday about 100 years after John Hancock boldly signed the Declaration of Independence in a large and imposing script, so that the King of England could not fail to see it; this at a time when the King’s forces were violently suppressing an insurrection in Boston.

Samuel Adams’ doom upon those of his fellow citizens who hung back in the shadows and did nothing while the king’s agents were harrying Boston citizens was as scorching as a Fourth of July firework: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

It is the much neglected Samuel Adams, rabble rouser and pamphleteer, who is the great herald and apostle of American liberty.

Just listen to him: “It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”

The right of the people to exult in their God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – this is the fire than ran hot in the blood of our political prophets. Let it erupt this Fourth of July in displays of patriotism that would gratify the founders who gave us our deposit of liberty in trust.

“We have given you a Republic,” said Ben Franklin to a woman outside Liberty Hall in Pennsylvania after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, “if you can keep it.”

Monday, February 6, 2012

The Politics Of Abortion

A Connecticut political commentator noted on his blog that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave a trifling gift of $250,000 to Planned Parenthood in the wake of its jihad to force the Susan G. Komen Foundation to reconsider its momentary pledge to cut its own grants to the nation’s premier abortion provider.

Not to be too obvious, but Mr. Bloomberg is multimillionaire Democratic POLITICIAN, and supporting Planned Parenthood is advantageous politics for liberals and progressives.

Planned Parenthood is not new to politics. The commentator pointed out that the politically muscular abortion provider “jumped into the 2010 Connecticut U.S. Senate campaign against pro-choice Republican Linda McMahon. Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal’s press staff member Marcy Stech sent an October 22, 2010 email to seven others seeking ‘mysoginistic photos of women and WWE. Planned Parenthood wants to hit LM hard on it. What do we got?’ Stech was doing the bidding of Democratic consultant Andrew Grossman who appears to have had information from inside non-profit Planned Parenthood.”

During her campaign against present U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, Mrs. McMahon staked out what she considered to be a moderately reasonable position on abortion. “I am pro-choice,” she said, “however, I oppose partial-birth abortion and federal funding of abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake. I'm in favor of parental notification/parental consent legislation.” Polls consistently show that her position aligns with majority opinion in the United States.

Mr. Blumenthal’s views on abortion were more encompassing and very much in line with that of Planned Parenthood, which is why the “non-politicized” organization threw its backing to Mr. Blumenthal in his successful journey from his position in Connecticut as attorney general to the U.S. Senate:

“I will fight to protect a woman's right to choose and ensure that abortion remains safe, legal and rare. I have strongly and consistently opposed measures infringing upon women's reproductive rights.
While abortion in the United States certainly is legal, it is not rare. The number of abortions performed per year in the United States as of 1996 were 1.37 million. Black women were more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women were roughly 2 times as likely.

During his campaign, Mr. Blumenthal boasted, “I brought the first lawsuit to enforce the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it a crime for demonstrators to use force or block access to reproductive health facilities. I obtained a permanent injunction against protestors who refused to comply with a court order to keep away from clinic entrances in Connecticut… I filed suit to halt enforcement of the so-called Provider Conscience Rule. When Walmart announced that it would ban "Plan B" emergency contraceptives in its stores, I worked to ensure that no Connecticut retailer could refuse to stock emergency contraception.”

The “emergency contraception” to which Mr. Blumenthal refers is Plan B, Plan B One Step, Next Choice and Ella “morning after” pills. The controversy over whether
“emergency contraceptives” may in some circumstances act as abortifacients continues to rage across the fruited plain, from sea to shining sea. Those who argue that “emergency contraceptives” may be aborifacients point out that fertilization – the union of a female ovum or egg and male sperm, considered by most scientists as the beginning of human life – occurs in the fallopian tube. If emergency contraception chemicals are ingested after fertilization has occurred, the lining of the uterus is altered in such a way as to cause the woman’s body to reject the living human embryo, implantation is prevented, the birth cycle is fatally interrupted, and natural development of the embryo is aborted.

The discussion may seem to some academic if the prospective mother chooses to avail herself of the services of Planned Parenthood, because the premiere abortion provider in the country utilizes other means to prevent even late term birth.

Mrs. McMahon was not alone in objecting to a procedure characterized by the late U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as “virtual infanticide.” Fully 70 percent of Americans consistently disapprove of a “health service” that would treat a nearly born infant as if it were the remains of a meal to be ground up in a waste disposal unit. A ban on partial birth abortion was signed into law by President George Bush in 2003, over the hearty objections of former President Bill Clinton and President Obama when Mr. Obama was an Illinois state Representative.

As an Illinois state Representative, Mr. Obama voted “present” on seven votes concerning issues relating to abortion. A “present” vote effectively functions as a “no” vote in Illinois because legislative rules specify that only “yes” votes count towards the passage of a bill. Voting “present” therefore is a backdoor, cowardly way of voting since “present” votes make it difficult for opponents to use such votes against candidates in campaign advertisements.

Here is a full list of Obama's seven 'present' or “No” votes on issues related to abortion, as reported by the Washington Post:


“In 1997:

“SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.

“HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.

“In 200: HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.

“SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.

SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.

“SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.

“SB 1095 Bill defining ‘born alive’ defines ‘born-alive infant’ to include infant ‘born alive at any stage of development.’ Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.”
As attorney general, Mr. Blumenthal has been spared the indignity of voting for or against bills that would require infants born alive during “botched” abortions to be allowed to die from medical neglect. Mr. Blumenthal has not yet covered himself in ignominy by voting on such measures; his likely votes on similar bills can only be deduced from his fulsome support of Planned Parenthood’s agenda.

Most political watchers would be very surprised if Mr. Blumenthal drifted very far Mr. Obama’s thus far successful attempt by executive fiat to impose on observant religious laypeople Planned Parenthood measures that most certainly will cause faithful believers to choose between intolerable “health care” dictats and their own religious obligations. A number of Mr. Blumenthal’s comrades in Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional delegation fully support the president; though, lucky for them, it will not be necessary to effectuate an executive department dictat through the usual democratic legislative process.

Neither Mr. Blumenthal nor any of the Democrats in Connecticut single party congressional delegation are clamoring to vote up or down on the measure, because they do not wish to put their fingerprints on such a divisive ruling so close to an election. What a pity these timid legislators have not been allowed to vote “present.”

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Mr. Blumenthal, This Is Your Wake Up Call

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s lead, a robust 40% when he first entered the U.S. senate race, has now been whittled down to 7%. The whole of the loss cannot be attributed to his casual relationship with the truth, and only part of it can be put down to Linda McMahon’s millions.

The lady sure knows how to advertise.

Mrs. McMahon’s considerable fortune permits her to sidestep the usual power brokers, including the mainstream media (MSM), who recently stepped up, to little avail, to revive former Rep. Rob Simmon’s moribund and penniless campaign. The MSM has contracted McMahonphobia in part because she is rich. The MSM has always suffered from pecuniaphobia. Note to the reader, if there is a reader: Don’t bother to look it up. The word has been newly minted from the Latin "money" (pecunia) and "fear of" (phobia) and, as its step-father, I fully expect to be credited whenever it is used.

This annoying sidestepping steams the MSM because they want a hand at determining events. In the old days, when the good old boys in the smoke filed rooms determined the make-up of political tickets, esteemed representatives of the MSM were in the room with the rest – political bosses, captains of industry, union leaders, campaign financiers -- smoking up a storm and determining the fate of state and nation.

Times change.

But why does it make sense, some Blumenthal watchers are asking, for the patron saint of citizens oppressed by lawless capitalism to pass his campaign days drowsing in a coffin and declining to confront Mrs. McMahon at every possible opportunity?

Mr. Blumenthal is a perfect target for ad-battering – ONLY if he absents himself from frequent direct engagement. Eventually, even given the support of the MSM he has earned during 20 years of truckling to it as attorney general, that 7% will be whittled away to zero, at which point people are bound to wonder: What are ya a’feared of Mr. Blumenthal?

As attorney general, a righteous wind of 200 and more lawyers at his back, Mr. Blumenthal has been a familiar actor on Connecticut’s political stage for two decades, and no one, during his many press conferences, has seen him blanched, timid, hanging back, drooping with anomie, listless, non-confrontational, docile.

Is this sad sack, some are now wondering, the battling attorney general who brought the cancer causing tobacco industry to heel, fearlessly confronted the makers of Fruit Loops, and valiantly protested erotic service ads on Craig’s list but not, unaccountably, in Connecticut’s Advocate newspapers?

When, Mr. Blumenthal’s fan base is asking, will Achilles come out of his tent and do battle? What the deuce is all the moping about?

Although Mr. Blumenthal has been running for U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd’s soon to be abandoned seat ever since Mr. Dodd threw in the towel months ago, there is not a single person in Connecticut who could tell you what Mr. Blumenthal’s position is on an array of important issues. His thin soup U.S. Senate campaign site is full of the most glittering generalities.

President Barack Obama, the nominal head of the national Democratic Party, announced on August 14, during an Iftar meal at the White House for Muslims breaking their Ramadan fast, his position on the siting of an Islamic mosque and cultural center close to the cavity in New York where once stood the World Trade Center towers destroyed on 9-11 by jihadist terrorists. The issue certainly is a matter of some importance to Connecticut and other states contiguous to New York. Many Connecticut citizens died in the attack.

Mr. Obama said the United States could not deny a recognized religion, Islam, the same constitutional rights that other religions in the United States enjoy. Muslims, he said “have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," which includes “the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan… This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are." New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who favors the building of the Mosque and cultural center, dubbed the president’s remarks a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion."

One looks in vain for a similar clarion call in Mr. Blumenthal’s campaign site, which is passing strange, since 9-11 directly touched hearts and minds in Connecticut with its red tooth and claw. Mr. Blumenthal also has a direct family connection to important properties in New York. His wife’s family owns the Empire State Building and other significant properties in the city. In addition, Mr. Blumenthal, as attorney general, has prided himself on a thoroughgoing understanding of both property and constitutional law.

It is a little disconcerting for those who admire such a bold and active attorney general to watch his mind and heart break down as he moves from his present position towards the U.S. congress. If five months before possibly being sworn in as Connecticut’s junior U.S. senator, Mr. Blumenthal cannot venture an opinion on matters of such moment to Connecticut, why should anyone trust him to come down on the right side of all the other important issues unaddressed on his campaign