SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (20001)5/17/2007 9:24:12 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Jerry Falwell -- Say Hello to Ronald Reagan!
by Ann Coulter (More by this author)

Posted: 05/16/2007
No man in the last century better illustrated Jesus' warning that "All men will hate you because of me" than the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who left this world on Tuesday. Separately, no man better illustrates my warning that it doesn't pay to be nice to liberals.

Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men, hating sin while loving sinners. This is as opposed to liberals, who just love sinners. Like Christ ministering to prostitutes, Falwell regularly left the safe confines of his church to show up in such benighted venues as CNN.

He was such a good Christian that back when we used to be on TV together during Clinton's impeachment, I sometimes wanted to say to him, "Step aside, reverend -- let the mean girl handle this one." (Why, that guy probably prayed for Clinton!)

For putting Christ above everything -- even the opportunity to make a humiliating joke about Clinton -- Falwell is known as "controversial." Nothing is ever as "controversial" as yammering about Scripture as if, you know, it's the word of God or something.

From the news coverage of Falwell's death, I began to suspect his first name was "Whether You Agree With Him or Not."

Even Falwell's fans, such as evangelist Billy Graham and former President Bush, kept throwing in the "We didn't always agree" disclaimer. Did Betty Friedan or Molly Ivins get this many "I didn't always agree with" qualifiers on their deaths? And when I die, if you didn't always agree with me, would you mind keeping it to yourself?

Let me be the first to say: I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell.

Actually, there was one small item I think Falwell got wrong regarding his statement after 9/11 that "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians -- who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle -- the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

First of all, I disagreed with that statement because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and "the Reverend" Barry Lynn.

Second, Falwell later stressed that he blamed the terrorists most of all, but I think that clarification was unnecessary. The necessary clarification was to note that God was at least protecting America enough not to allow the terrorists to strike when a Democrat was in the White House.

(If you still think it isn't Christ whom liberals hate, remember: They hate Falwell even more than they hate me.)

I note that in Falwell's list of Americans he blamed for ejecting God from public life, only the gays got a qualifier. Falwell referred to gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle.

No Christian minister is going to preach that homosexuality is godly behavior, but Falwell didn't add any limiting qualifications to his condemnation of feminists, the ACLU or People for the American Way.

There have always been gay people -- even in the prelapsarian '50s that Jerry Falwell and I would like to return to, when God protected America from everything but ourselves.

What Falwell was referring to are the gay activists -- the ones who spit the Eucharist on the floor at St. Patrick's Cathedral, blamed Reagan for AIDS, and keep trying to teach small schoolchildren about "fisting."

Also the ones who promote the gay lifestyle in a children's cartoon.

Beginning in early 1998, the news was bristling with stories about a children's cartoon PBS was importing from Britain that featured a gay cartoon character, Tinky Winky, the purple Teletubbie with a male voice and a red handbag.

People magazine gleefully reported that Teletubbies was "aimed at Telebabies as young as one year. But teenage club kids love the products' kitsch value, and gay men have made the purse-toting Tinky Winky a camp icon."

In the Nexis archives for 1998 alone, there are dozens and dozens of mentions of Tinky Winky being gay -- in periodicals such as Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The Washington Post (twice!), The New York Times and Time magazine (also twice).

In its Jan. 8, 1999, issue, USA Today accused The Washington Post of "outing" Tinky Winky, with a "recent Washington Post In/Out list putting T.W. opposite Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, essentially 'outing' the kids' show character."

Michael Musto of The Village Voice boasted that Tinky Winky was "out and proud," noting that it was "a great message to kids -- not only that it's OK to be gay, but the importance of being well accessorized."

All this appeared before Falwell made his first mention of Tinky Winky.

After one year of the mainstream media laughing at having put one over on stupid bourgeois Americans by promoting a gay cartoon character in a TV show for children, when Falwell criticized the cartoon in February 1999, that same mainstream media howled with derision that Falwell thought a cartoon character could be gay.

Teletubbies producers immediately denounced the suggestion that Tinky Winky was gay -- though they admitted that he was once briefly engaged to Liza Minnelli. That's what you get, reverend, for believing what you read in The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek. Of course, Falwell also thought the show "Queer as Folk" was gay, so obviously the man had no credibility.

Despite venomous attacks and overwhelming pressure to adopt the fashionable beliefs of cafe society, Falwell never wavered an inch in acknowledging Jesus before men. Luckily, Jesus' full sentence, quoted at the beginning of this column is: "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."

When you can't trace God's hand, you can trust God's heart."
Charles Spurgeon



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (20001)5/17/2007 11:27:15 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
What are you are describing is the essence of conservatism. It involves conserving what is best and using reality based assessment to determine what needs to be changed. This is opposed to emotional judgements that form the basis of those who believe in being liberal with others' money.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (20001)5/17/2007 11:48:22 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
In GOP race, anything's possible
By Donald Lambro
Thursday, May 17, 2007

The unfolding story of the Republican presidential race has become a maddening maze of uncomfortable choices for the GOP's increasingly fractured conservative base.

Each of the front-runners hold positions on bedrock issues that most conservatives agree with 90 percent of the time, but all of them also have something else in their background or record that is a deal breaker.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the hawkish champion of the Iraq war and anti-pork-barrel crusader, hits all the right buttons on issue after issue, until you get to the party's core economic issue of tax cuts. He opposed all of the Bush tax-reduction bills, making him a political pariah among the party's dominant economic conservatives.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, has a record of tax cuts and slashing the city's bureaucracy, fighting crime and leading a besieged city out of the 9/11 abyss in a career that has made his name synonymous with executive leadership.

But Giuliani is out of step with the GOP's long-held positions on abortion, gun controls, gay marriage and other social issues that trigger opposition to his candidacy from the party's social conservatives.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has cloaked himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan, vowing to carry on the tax-cut revolution and slay costly Big Government with his veto pen. But he is a late convert to the pro-life agenda, raising persistent questions about the sincerity of his newly held positions. Nowhere is the conservative angst over its choices in 2008 more amply demonstrated than with former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, the star of TV's "Law and Order."

Thompson, who has yet to say whether he will be a candidate, has all the attributes that die-hard conservatives can love: hawkish on defense, tough on spending, a Reagan tax cutter to the core and good on social issues. But there are disturbing parts in his record, too, that bother many, if not most, conservatives, especially his support of the McCain-Feingold bill that prohibits issue-advocacy groups from running TV or radio ads to express their opposition or support in the midst of an election.

On this issue, Thompson was joined at the hip with McCain, despite the bill's questionable constitutionality that is now being litigated in the courts. It strikes at the heart of one of our most precious freedoms -- the freedom to advocate and promote one's beliefs in the marketplace of public opinion. Dubbed the "incumbent protection act," this law strikes at the very rights of all advocacy groups, especially the social and religious conservatives, that were in many ways one of McCain's key targets, the people he called "agents of intolerance."

The other disturbing part of Thompson's record is what else he did in the Senate: virtually nothing. He led no great crusades, nor did he win any medals for leadership. In fact, when he was called to lead the investigation into illegal campaign contributions from China to President Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign, the Democrats rolled Thompson.

Instead of tenaciously digging into the Chinagate scandal, following the money trail wherever it led, Thompson caved into Democratic demands for a strict time limit on the probe that ended prematurely, with little to show for it. So much for his leadership abilities.

All of this has turned the GOP's presidential sweepstakes into a wide-open horse race where the dominant but deeply divided conservative wing is no longer in full control of the party's nominating process.

The most recent manifestation of the party's political balkanization can be seen in the primary calendar battles that I reported in a recent column. Florida Republicans, thumbing their nose at party rules, have moved next year's primary to Jan. 29, ahead of all but four states, knowing it will result in penalties that would cut the state's 112-member convention delegation in half, reducing its conservative clout in choosing the nominee.

But this is a trade-off that the mega-state's GOP officials and Republican Gov. Charlie Crist are willing to make in exchange for becoming the kingmaker in next year's primary contests.

"Although the convention is important, whoever wins Florida on Jan. 29 will move into the Feb. 5 super primary day with great momentum and resources," Republican state chairman Jim Greer told me. But Crist, Greer and other state-party leaders have another political card up their sleeve that they hope will win them a waiver from the Republican National Committee's primary rules.

"There is some discussion that the nominee of our party could instruct the RNC not to impose the rule. I've heard nothing official, but it is behind-the-scenes discussion," Greer confided. "It would be of interest to see if that is a possibility."

Would the winner of the Florida primary -- where Giuliani is the clear front-runner -- promise state-party leaders such a reprieve to gain the full winner-take-all delegate bonanza if it would put him over the top? In an election cycle where it seems all the traditional party alliances and rules are being turned upside down, inside out, anything is now possible.

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

townhall.com



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (20001)4/22/2010 10:34:05 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Even abusive public employees can't get fired
By: Steven Greenhut
Op-Ed Contributor
April 22, 2010



Some of the most stunning articles I've read in a long while were in the Los Angeles Times' 2009 investigative series, "Failure gets a pass," which documents the near impossibility of firing unionized public school teachers in the massive Los Angeles Unified School District -- even those teachers credibly accused of sexually molesting or harassing their students.

The first article in the Times series, "Firing tenured teachers can be a costly and tortuous task," documented the case of teacher Carlos Polanco, who was accused by the school district of "immoral and unprofessional conduct" for making fun, in front of his class, of a student who had just returned after a suicide attempt.

This is from the school board: "He stated to the student, 'Look you can't even kill yourself.' Mr. Polanco then engaged other students in the discussion of the suicidal student's attempted suicide, which prompted another student to engage in a detailed explanation of how to hit a main artery."

That's horrifying and a good reason to fire this cruel man, who obviously has little concern for the safety of his students and lacks common decency. The school board voted to fire him, but that's just the first part in the firing process in a district that, according to the Times, fires far fewer than one teacher per 1,000 a year.

No wonder. The union-dominated Commission on Professional Competence overruled the Polanco firing.

The Times looked at every case (where records were still available) where the board fired a teacher and that firing was contested to the commission over the past 15 years, and concluded that "uilding a case for dismissal is so time-consuming, costly and draining for principals and administrators that many say they don't make the effort except in the most egregious cases."

The investigation found that classroom performance is almost never a cause for firing. There's virtually no way of getting rid of a teacher who is a really bad teacher, as long as that teacher doesn't molest students or commit major crimes and shows up to class.

The investigation documented one absurd case after another. A teacher drank alcohol in front of kids and made offensive, sexual remarks to students, but he couldn't be fired. Nor could the teacher who was "spotted lying on top of a female colleague in the metal shop" because there was no proof they were having sex.

The Times found that "[a]bout 160 instructors and others get salaries for doing nothing while their job fitness is reviewed. They collect roughly $10 million a year, even as layoffs are considered because of a budget gap."

The article focused on the case of Matthew Kim, who had repeated allegations of sexual harassment lodged against him. He was removed from the classroom seven years ago and has been collecting about $68,000 a year for doing nothing.

The teachers union won't allow the 160 teachers in limbo to do other types of work (clerical, cleaning, chores, etc.), so they sit in a school building -- rubber rooms, as they are often called -- and wait for a ruling.

The commission concluded that Kim had improperly touched three female students, but decided against firing him and mainly criticized the school district for not giving Kim better documentation of the allegations against him. The Times article brought attention to the case, which ended up in Superior Court, which ultimately upheld Kim's firing.

The school board, under pressure after the series, took up the issue of reforming firing procedures. Here's how the Times editorial board explained the backlash on June 15, 2009:

"They put it off. They debated it at length and watered it down. And in the end, the Los Angeles Unified school trustees barely passed a resolution asking the Legislature to make it a little easier to fire teachers accused of serious crimes. Mind you, not the ineffective teachers. ... Just the ones who stand accused of abusing or molesting students."

This system cannot reform itself.

Steven Greenhut is author of "Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives And Bankrupting The Nation," from which this is excerpted.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com