This isn't so much a review of what happened this year as it is my thoughts about the year and some of its happenings. The reviews here are those of the author alone.
-- I guess Rahm Emanuel finally confronted a crisis that he couldn't use to his advantage. Pesky little thing having a cop mercilessly gun down an unarmed teenager, on camera, right before an embarrassing runoff election in a town thought to be his. I can't wait for him to be anointed as Cankles' running mate.
-- I'm not sure which was a bigger waste of bandwith, printer's ink and airtime: The unfortunate shooting by a dentist of a lion in Africa or the courageous transformation of former Olympic gold medal winning decathlete from a man to a...well, I'm not quite sure.
-- Using a riding lawn mower was more fun than I ever expected it to be.
-- Visiting Kentucky anytime of year is fun.
-- The President's policy toward ISIS was embarrassing in the extreme. For someone who has the intellectual arrogance that he does, it's surprising he can't see the forest for the trees.
-- For that matter, why the POTUS persists in calling it ISIL is beyond me. If he wants to be perfectly correct, it should be Daesh.
-- Continuing that theme, I'm interested to see what Anonymous has up its sleeve for next year.
-- I'm not necessarily comfortable voting for Donald Trump for president, but he's far less offensive to me than Cankles.
-- I can't deny it: Practicing law is fun to me.
-- My only regrets about getting married this year is that I didn't find Karen early enough in life to have a family with her and that Mom wasn't here to know her.
-- One of these days, it would be nice to see the western half of this country.
-- On that note, why would anyone willingly choose to live in California, given its ever-present threats of wildfires, mudslides, droughts, earthquakes, illegal immigrants, crazy Ninth Circuit rulings, Jerry Brown and Hollywood?
-- Chris Rock is irrelevant but hasn't gotten the memo. He should have realized that after Grown Ups 2 was released.
-- No matter what year it is, New Year's Eve is nothing more than Amateur Night.
-- If a white actor had said something as provocative as Samuel L. Jackson recently did about the San Bernardino massacre, there would be boycotts nationally of the movies in which the actor appeared.
-- Likewise, I'm tired of liberal blacks tarring conservative blacks for being conservative. Just like feminists, I thought the idea was to allow people -- blacks and women -- to think for themselves.
-- Books are the ideal Christmas gift for me.
-- Nothing is so fun and interesting as local radio during long car rides.
-- The quality of television shows back in the 1970's makes me cringe.
-- For the first time ever, I saw Rocky Horror Picture Show this year. Other than seeing Susan Sarandon in her underwear before she became an obnoxiously outspoken political activist, I don't understand the attraction.
-- It was amazing to see brainless actresses stand up in support for Planned Parenthood descrying the attack on women's health when the wretched videos surfaced of Planned Parenthood executives showing negotiations for fetal body parts.
-- Seeing D.C. for the first time was interesting, but it didn't compare with being at Gettysburg.
-- The Black Lives Matter movement was hijacked by the likes of Al Sharpton and was just as quickly abandoned by them once it became apparent that the BLM movement had ulterior motives that had little to do with social justice.
-- That so many women are ready to vote for Cankles despite her obvious lack of achievements and ethics must make Susan B. Anthony spin in her grave.
-- The number of Arab immigrants in Europe is an invasion.
-- I'm almost done buying gun parts for my AR-15. I need to win the lottery so I can buy another rifle and get enough ammunition.
-- People really need to learn how to drive in bad weather. Or good weather for that matter.
-- College campuses have become about the most intolerant places in the country.
-- How the MSM keeps a straight face when it tries to sell itself as unbiased and impartial is beyond me. Consequently, it represents the gravest threat to this country.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
--
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Monday, December 14, 2015
Best Weekend Ever
Life is short, as we all know. It's filled with successes and failures, highs and lows, the expected and the unexpected. When the positives occur at the same time or one right after another, we often say that the planets aligned properly. When the negatives happen together or successively, we look for a full moon. Both phrases, I'm sure, are rooted in paganism to some degree. Whatever the reason, this past weekend is by far the best weekend of my life, for the simplest to the grandest of reasons.
Simple things make me happy. So do the more complex, but more for their complexity, typically, than the end result. In a way, that speaks volumes about me, but it's true. I don't care for the elaborate, the ostentatious, the grandiose. I remember a scene from the third Indiana Jones movie where the real holy grail had to be chosen from among various vessels, and Jones has to choose the one chalice correctly:
But I digress.
My fantastic weekend ended with finding a brown sweater. I've been looking for a brown sweater -- that isn't a cardigan -- for nearly two years. Like Little Red Riding, every brown sweater upon which I came was either too small, the wrong kind or unavailable in my size. No longer. I found my brown sweater and even had a $20 coupon to use on it, making the purchase even more palatable. About the only downside to the purchase is that I can't use it yet, despite this being December 14, because it's over sixty degrees outside. Nevertheless, my quest for the brown sweater has ended.
The bookend to the best weekend ever happened last Friday. Against high odds, the Chicago Cubs outbid their rival St. Louis Cardinals and several other teams for the services of Jason Heyward. The signing is excellent on several different levels. First, the Cubs get an excellent player at the beginning of the prime of his career. Second, they didn't overspend to get him. Third, they took him away from a hated division rival and in so doing, weakened it. Fourth, it gives the Cubs a good player who does things they need done well.
For those of you who haven't been or aren't Cubs fans or don't understand baseball, all I can say is: 1908 and 1945. We haven't won a World Series title (championship) since 1908 and not even been in the World Series since 1945. Since 1984, we've been mildly competitive a time or two, but nothing that's set the sports world on fire. In part, this is due to the feckless ownership we had. Another reason is that we've had incredibly bad luck. Either way, the Heyward signing, combined with the team's unexpectedly premature performance this past season, has us inching our way closer and closer to the promised land. I just wish my Mom and Grandma were still around to see it.
Neither of those results, however, compare with what happened in between. For I married my one true love, the light of my life Karen, on Saturday. The event didn't go off without a hitch, of course, but we just laughed off the glitches. The ceremony was quaint and meaningful to us, surrounded most of the people who mattered to us. The reception afterwards was a throwback to an easier time, almost European in its structure. No fanfare, no fancy food, no ceremony. Just food, family and friends in a convivial atmosphere.
Karen and I have known each other for around six years. I fell in love with her the moment I heard her voice and talked with her. I knew that I'd found the right person for me, albeit in trying circumstances. We've weathered many a storm together, some medical, some financial, some personal. Yet there's no better person with whom I'd rather go through life. Smart, beautiful, fun, playful, generous, kind, supportive -- there's no use listing all her wonderful attributes because I could fill the page with them and still need more pages.
She is the best thing to happen to me. I am undeserving of her, but God has seen fit to give me to her. Accordingly, it is my responsibility to take care of her as best I am able. I will love her and nurture her and comfort her and lift her up. I will be there for her, however she needs me, whenever she needs me. Since I've known her, my life has unalterably been improved in ways seen and unseen. I am truly the most fortunate of men.
So now I have someone with whom I can wear my much sought after brown sweater and with whom I can cheer my Cubs on to the improbable victory that has so far best the law of averages. I will go to my final resting place confident in the knowledge that I will spend all eternity with the best person whom I've ever known.
And I will love my Karen Sue beyond the end of time.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Simple things make me happy. So do the more complex, but more for their complexity, typically, than the end result. In a way, that speaks volumes about me, but it's true. I don't care for the elaborate, the ostentatious, the grandiose. I remember a scene from the third Indiana Jones movie where the real holy grail had to be chosen from among various vessels, and Jones has to choose the one chalice correctly:
But I digress.
My fantastic weekend ended with finding a brown sweater. I've been looking for a brown sweater -- that isn't a cardigan -- for nearly two years. Like Little Red Riding, every brown sweater upon which I came was either too small, the wrong kind or unavailable in my size. No longer. I found my brown sweater and even had a $20 coupon to use on it, making the purchase even more palatable. About the only downside to the purchase is that I can't use it yet, despite this being December 14, because it's over sixty degrees outside. Nevertheless, my quest for the brown sweater has ended.
The bookend to the best weekend ever happened last Friday. Against high odds, the Chicago Cubs outbid their rival St. Louis Cardinals and several other teams for the services of Jason Heyward. The signing is excellent on several different levels. First, the Cubs get an excellent player at the beginning of the prime of his career. Second, they didn't overspend to get him. Third, they took him away from a hated division rival and in so doing, weakened it. Fourth, it gives the Cubs a good player who does things they need done well.
For those of you who haven't been or aren't Cubs fans or don't understand baseball, all I can say is: 1908 and 1945. We haven't won a World Series title (championship) since 1908 and not even been in the World Series since 1945. Since 1984, we've been mildly competitive a time or two, but nothing that's set the sports world on fire. In part, this is due to the feckless ownership we had. Another reason is that we've had incredibly bad luck. Either way, the Heyward signing, combined with the team's unexpectedly premature performance this past season, has us inching our way closer and closer to the promised land. I just wish my Mom and Grandma were still around to see it.
Neither of those results, however, compare with what happened in between. For I married my one true love, the light of my life Karen, on Saturday. The event didn't go off without a hitch, of course, but we just laughed off the glitches. The ceremony was quaint and meaningful to us, surrounded most of the people who mattered to us. The reception afterwards was a throwback to an easier time, almost European in its structure. No fanfare, no fancy food, no ceremony. Just food, family and friends in a convivial atmosphere.
Karen and I have known each other for around six years. I fell in love with her the moment I heard her voice and talked with her. I knew that I'd found the right person for me, albeit in trying circumstances. We've weathered many a storm together, some medical, some financial, some personal. Yet there's no better person with whom I'd rather go through life. Smart, beautiful, fun, playful, generous, kind, supportive -- there's no use listing all her wonderful attributes because I could fill the page with them and still need more pages.
She is the best thing to happen to me. I am undeserving of her, but God has seen fit to give me to her. Accordingly, it is my responsibility to take care of her as best I am able. I will love her and nurture her and comfort her and lift her up. I will be there for her, however she needs me, whenever she needs me. Since I've known her, my life has unalterably been improved in ways seen and unseen. I am truly the most fortunate of men.
So now I have someone with whom I can wear my much sought after brown sweater and with whom I can cheer my Cubs on to the improbable victory that has so far best the law of averages. I will go to my final resting place confident in the knowledge that I will spend all eternity with the best person whom I've ever known.
And I will love my Karen Sue beyond the end of time.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, November 27, 2015
Silent Moderate Muslims
The recent massacre in Paris has brought again to the fore the question of what so-called moderate Muslims are doing to rid their religion of the cancer that is radical Islam. In the aftermath of the mass murders, there has been nary a word spoken by moderate Muslims condemning the atrocity.
There are several instances where moderates within the Islamic community stand by and approve of the machinations of ISIS by their unwillingness to speak out against them. Whether this unwillingness is fueled by fear or reprisal or tacit approval of what ISIS is doing, it's tantamount to support of the aims and methods employed by ISIS to establish a caliphate based on sharia law throughout the world.
When the mass exodus out of Syria began, women and children featured in the pathetic throngs that were doing whatever they could, however they could, to escape what many in the West believed was certain death. But as time wore on, the long lines of refugees began to look frighteningly similar: Men of military age outnumbered women and children to the point that almost none were seen in the long lines that approached European borders and train stations. Either all the women and children had been left behind or something else was afoot.
It's easy to work on the sympathy of peoples whose natural inclination is to help others. This is yet another of the cynical tactics employed by ISIS to infiltrate the West with the goal of ultimately establishing their caliphate. Rather than scrutinize the worn and tattered refugee groups, the Europeans and to a lesser extent the Americans are turning a blind eye to a tactic made famous by Homer. Once in the more permissive societies they seek to conquer, ISIS foot soldiers will wreak havoc on their refuges in the hopes of weakening them to the point that they can then bring them down and put the caliphate in their place.
The troublesome part in this charade is that moderate Muslims, when confronted by the press, say all the right things about how they loathe the oppressiveness of sharia law, how they reject the bloodlust that is being used to install sharia law and how open they are to living in a pluralistic society. Yet they do next to nothing to combat radical Islam, going so far as to remain silent about ISIS infiltrators among their ranks as they cross borders.
It's been shown that at least one or two of the murderers in Paris crossed into Europe with refugees. Did not one actual refugee recognize this plant somewhere along the way? Was he too scared to report the infiltrator to the authorities? How is this even possible?
In this country, I haven't heard one notable American Muslim speak out about the outrages committed by their correligionists. Before I began this post, I looked up Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to see whether he'd spoken out about ISIS. His point -- that ISIS is no more a representation of Islam as the KKK is of Christianity -- has some merit. Yet he last spoke about this issue a year ago. Since that time there have been several atrocities committed by ISIS with nary a word uttered by Mr. Abdul-Jabbar. There are several athletes in this country who have converted to Islam and I don't recall hearing any of them speaking out against ISIS. But if Trayvon Martin is gunned down by an overeager neighborhood watch person, or Michael Brown is killed while attacking a copy, we hear from these athletes in one form or another. Which is the bigger threat: Rogue cops or ISIS?
The notion that moderate Muslims can stand by silently and claim innocence will be tested if and when ISIS accomplishes its goal. To mix religious affiliations, I mention the Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, who penned the unforgettable poem that is as applicable to moderate Muslims as it was to all those who took no action against the Nazis more than fifty years ago:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Moderate Muslims live in the West because of the freedoms we have. If they hope to continue to enjoy those freedoms they'd better start speaking up, or their moves to the West will have been for naught.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
There are several instances where moderates within the Islamic community stand by and approve of the machinations of ISIS by their unwillingness to speak out against them. Whether this unwillingness is fueled by fear or reprisal or tacit approval of what ISIS is doing, it's tantamount to support of the aims and methods employed by ISIS to establish a caliphate based on sharia law throughout the world.
When the mass exodus out of Syria began, women and children featured in the pathetic throngs that were doing whatever they could, however they could, to escape what many in the West believed was certain death. But as time wore on, the long lines of refugees began to look frighteningly similar: Men of military age outnumbered women and children to the point that almost none were seen in the long lines that approached European borders and train stations. Either all the women and children had been left behind or something else was afoot.
It's easy to work on the sympathy of peoples whose natural inclination is to help others. This is yet another of the cynical tactics employed by ISIS to infiltrate the West with the goal of ultimately establishing their caliphate. Rather than scrutinize the worn and tattered refugee groups, the Europeans and to a lesser extent the Americans are turning a blind eye to a tactic made famous by Homer. Once in the more permissive societies they seek to conquer, ISIS foot soldiers will wreak havoc on their refuges in the hopes of weakening them to the point that they can then bring them down and put the caliphate in their place.
The troublesome part in this charade is that moderate Muslims, when confronted by the press, say all the right things about how they loathe the oppressiveness of sharia law, how they reject the bloodlust that is being used to install sharia law and how open they are to living in a pluralistic society. Yet they do next to nothing to combat radical Islam, going so far as to remain silent about ISIS infiltrators among their ranks as they cross borders.
It's been shown that at least one or two of the murderers in Paris crossed into Europe with refugees. Did not one actual refugee recognize this plant somewhere along the way? Was he too scared to report the infiltrator to the authorities? How is this even possible?
In this country, I haven't heard one notable American Muslim speak out about the outrages committed by their correligionists. Before I began this post, I looked up Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to see whether he'd spoken out about ISIS. His point -- that ISIS is no more a representation of Islam as the KKK is of Christianity -- has some merit. Yet he last spoke about this issue a year ago. Since that time there have been several atrocities committed by ISIS with nary a word uttered by Mr. Abdul-Jabbar. There are several athletes in this country who have converted to Islam and I don't recall hearing any of them speaking out against ISIS. But if Trayvon Martin is gunned down by an overeager neighborhood watch person, or Michael Brown is killed while attacking a copy, we hear from these athletes in one form or another. Which is the bigger threat: Rogue cops or ISIS?
The notion that moderate Muslims can stand by silently and claim innocence will be tested if and when ISIS accomplishes its goal. To mix religious affiliations, I mention the Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, who penned the unforgettable poem that is as applicable to moderate Muslims as it was to all those who took no action against the Nazis more than fifty years ago:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Moderate Muslims live in the West because of the freedoms we have. If they hope to continue to enjoy those freedoms they'd better start speaking up, or their moves to the West will have been for naught.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Cankles and the Truth
So the latest Benghazi hearings have concluded, and Cankles is being hailed as a victor in some parts. She has, according to the brainwashed masses, proven her mettle and shown the politically-motivated Republicans what she's really made of.
Well, yes...and no.
To begin, she's not shown that she didn't make mistakes, or that she didn't lie, or that she's capable of taking responsibility for her guilt of omission. She pandered to her base, mugged for the camera and condescended to duly-elected officials. The later release of emails by the State Department contradicted her testimony in part. The trouble is that Marco Rubio's right: Cankles has the biggest Super-PAC of them all, the MSM.
It matters now how clear-eyed the electorate may be. The MSM is going to spin Cankles' story so that it can be there if she's elected the first woman president in the country's history. Nevermind that she's a compulsive liar and narcissist. She's a woman, and the MSM wants to ride the glory train with her like it did with Mr. Obama.
Allow me to state it once more: I fully support the notion of a woman president. It's overdue. As with any other first, however, the right person has to be that first whatever president. George Washington was our first president, and the choice was inspired. Mr. Obama was (nominally) our first black president, but the choice wasn't inspired so much as it was pre-packaged.
The list of indiscretions -- to choose a less-than-inflammatory word -- connected to Cankles is sordid:
-- Benghazi
-- Email server and FBI statements about the investigation
-- Clinton Foundation donations
-- Various misstatements, e.g., dodging sniper fire in Sarajevo
-- Lack of accomplishments
-- Husband getting preferential treatment from State Department
-- Huma Abedin issues
-- Side-stepping issues
-- Roping off the press
-- Lying about policy stances
This doesn't include her less than stellar tenure as a senator or first lady, but that would be piling on.
It's not going to get much better over the next few months before primary season begins in earnest. The movie about Benghazi is coming out in January, right before the Iowa caucus vote, and more emails will be released. The FBI investigation will continue with who-knows-what revelations that will provide.
Add to all this is the fact that Cankles isn't exactly the most likeable candidate out there and that she faces formidable opposition from a number of potential Republican nominees and it's easy to see that Cankles' coronation is far from certain. At the root of her problems, however, is her relationship with the truth. Cankles plays lawyers' games with the truth to suit whatever story she's trying to peddle. The American people deserve better than that. The presidency isn't a ceremonial position that looks good on a resume. One doesn't run for the office simply for the sake of history. If that's the intention, she should tell us now, because her words are empty and meaningless, given the inaction that usually precedes or follows. Cankles' relationship with the truth is devoid of any meaning, and that's not good for this country or her citizens.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Well, yes...and no.
To begin, she's not shown that she didn't make mistakes, or that she didn't lie, or that she's capable of taking responsibility for her guilt of omission. She pandered to her base, mugged for the camera and condescended to duly-elected officials. The later release of emails by the State Department contradicted her testimony in part. The trouble is that Marco Rubio's right: Cankles has the biggest Super-PAC of them all, the MSM.
It matters now how clear-eyed the electorate may be. The MSM is going to spin Cankles' story so that it can be there if she's elected the first woman president in the country's history. Nevermind that she's a compulsive liar and narcissist. She's a woman, and the MSM wants to ride the glory train with her like it did with Mr. Obama.
Allow me to state it once more: I fully support the notion of a woman president. It's overdue. As with any other first, however, the right person has to be that first whatever president. George Washington was our first president, and the choice was inspired. Mr. Obama was (nominally) our first black president, but the choice wasn't inspired so much as it was pre-packaged.
The list of indiscretions -- to choose a less-than-inflammatory word -- connected to Cankles is sordid:
-- Benghazi
-- Email server and FBI statements about the investigation
-- Clinton Foundation donations
-- Various misstatements, e.g., dodging sniper fire in Sarajevo
-- Lack of accomplishments
-- Husband getting preferential treatment from State Department
-- Huma Abedin issues
-- Side-stepping issues
-- Roping off the press
-- Lying about policy stances
This doesn't include her less than stellar tenure as a senator or first lady, but that would be piling on.
It's not going to get much better over the next few months before primary season begins in earnest. The movie about Benghazi is coming out in January, right before the Iowa caucus vote, and more emails will be released. The FBI investigation will continue with who-knows-what revelations that will provide.
Add to all this is the fact that Cankles isn't exactly the most likeable candidate out there and that she faces formidable opposition from a number of potential Republican nominees and it's easy to see that Cankles' coronation is far from certain. At the root of her problems, however, is her relationship with the truth. Cankles plays lawyers' games with the truth to suit whatever story she's trying to peddle. The American people deserve better than that. The presidency isn't a ceremonial position that looks good on a resume. One doesn't run for the office simply for the sake of history. If that's the intention, she should tell us now, because her words are empty and meaningless, given the inaction that usually precedes or follows. Cankles' relationship with the truth is devoid of any meaning, and that's not good for this country or her citizens.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Gun Control Hypocrisy
This is becoming redundant, almost like it's scripted. There was another shooting at a college last week, this time at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. Almost immediately a few things were clear:
-- The President was going to call for gun control
-- The MSM was going to assail white Republicans for the shooting
-- Little attention was going to be paid to the issue of mental health
It's getting tiresome. Sure, the killings were tragic, but so are deaths by car accident, drug overdose, suicide and cancer. What's more, there are plenty of things that are used to kill people, some much more than firearms. And as of this date -- at least I haven't heard -- it still isn't clear that the shootings were committed with the use of a long gun or a pistol, yet the drumbeat for the control and confiscation of long guns is growing louder and louder.
There are millions of firearms owners who legally possess and operate, for lack of a better term, their weapons. I count myself among them, proudly. Most of these firearms are used either in home defense, hunting or sport shooting. The deaths caused by firearms, according to statistics, come from weapons used by people with mental issues or criminals, not people legally allowed to own firearms. And most of these deaths are caused by handguns.
But one would never know it given the White House and MSM's blitz. Although nine people were killed in the Oregon shooting, the twenty-one deaths over the weekend in Chicago barely merited mention by the MSM and were completely ignored by the White House. It's gotten so bad that pundits are taking shots -- figuratively, of course, at the White House:
There are two reasons the White House and its press organ -- the MSM -- refused to acknowledge the plague of gun deaths in Chicago: To do so would shine a light on the fact that the city with one of the most stringent set of gun control laws has one of the highest rates of gun deaths in the nation, and it would cast a pall on one of the President's favorites, Rahm Emanuel. Nevermind that innocent and not so innocent civilians are dying from firearms that were, in all likelihood, illegally obtained. The Oregon shooter apparently had obtained his weapons legally. The problem with him is that he had mental issues. But to quote Mr. Obama's good friend Rahm Emanuel, why let a good crisis go to waste? Blasting a white shooter (although he's actually biracial) for killing people in a school is infinitely sexier than taking black thugs from Mr. Obama's old neighborhood to task for shooting up the 'hood.
The political thrust of all this is transparent. This president has no interest in being fair or playing by the rules. He only cares about creating a legacy for himself.
It'll be interesting to see how, when Mr. Obama's shrine to himself is built on the South Side of Chicago, how many armed guards there are around his pleasure palace.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
-- The President was going to call for gun control
-- The MSM was going to assail white Republicans for the shooting
-- Little attention was going to be paid to the issue of mental health
It's getting tiresome. Sure, the killings were tragic, but so are deaths by car accident, drug overdose, suicide and cancer. What's more, there are plenty of things that are used to kill people, some much more than firearms. And as of this date -- at least I haven't heard -- it still isn't clear that the shootings were committed with the use of a long gun or a pistol, yet the drumbeat for the control and confiscation of long guns is growing louder and louder.
There are millions of firearms owners who legally possess and operate, for lack of a better term, their weapons. I count myself among them, proudly. Most of these firearms are used either in home defense, hunting or sport shooting. The deaths caused by firearms, according to statistics, come from weapons used by people with mental issues or criminals, not people legally allowed to own firearms. And most of these deaths are caused by handguns.
But one would never know it given the White House and MSM's blitz. Although nine people were killed in the Oregon shooting, the twenty-one deaths over the weekend in Chicago barely merited mention by the MSM and were completely ignored by the White House. It's gotten so bad that pundits are taking shots -- figuratively, of course, at the White House:
There are two reasons the White House and its press organ -- the MSM -- refused to acknowledge the plague of gun deaths in Chicago: To do so would shine a light on the fact that the city with one of the most stringent set of gun control laws has one of the highest rates of gun deaths in the nation, and it would cast a pall on one of the President's favorites, Rahm Emanuel. Nevermind that innocent and not so innocent civilians are dying from firearms that were, in all likelihood, illegally obtained. The Oregon shooter apparently had obtained his weapons legally. The problem with him is that he had mental issues. But to quote Mr. Obama's good friend Rahm Emanuel, why let a good crisis go to waste? Blasting a white shooter (although he's actually biracial) for killing people in a school is infinitely sexier than taking black thugs from Mr. Obama's old neighborhood to task for shooting up the 'hood.
The political thrust of all this is transparent. This president has no interest in being fair or playing by the rules. He only cares about creating a legacy for himself.
It'll be interesting to see how, when Mr. Obama's shrine to himself is built on the South Side of Chicago, how many armed guards there are around his pleasure palace.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Bernie, Cankles and Trump
Since I last posted, a lot has blown up regarding the ongoing presidential primaries. It would seem that the world has been turned on its political head with the doings involving Bernie Sanders, Cankles and Donald Trump. We'll look at each in turn.
Mr. Sanders is a self-professed socialist, although for convenience's sake he flies under the Democratic banner. Socialism doesn't have the best reputation in a capitalist society, and with purely socialist and communist countries dying on the vine it's probably best that Mr. Sanders hew to a more traditional party. From relative obscurity in Vermont to the United States Senate, Mr. Sanders has emerged as a contender for the Democratic nomination for President. This rise, unexpected as it was, has gone on in relative silence, given the lack of attention from the MSM. Sure, they note his rising numbers, but only in connection with the downtrending numbers of the putative Democratic nominee, Cankles. His one moment in the sun came when that scurrilous movement Black Lives Matter interrupted a rally at which Mr. Sanders was to give his socialist pablum to the masses. Ironically, his message would be to help those in the Black Lives Matter movement more than most, but what did they care.
If Mr. Sanders wins the Democratic nomination for President, the Democrats are in trouble. Perhaps with an eye to that eventuality the Democrats, with their other eye trained on Cankles' problems, are beginning to search for other viable alternatives, namely Uncle Joe and Al Gore. It's beginning to look like retreaded major league managers in the Democratic ranks.
My opinion is that Mr. Sanders, should he get the nomination, doesn't stand a chance of becoming President unless there's a violent revolution in this country. That being said, conservatives, and not liberals, own most of the guns here, so I'm not too worried.
Cankles has stepped in it. She's stepped in it so deeply that not even her erstwhile husband, Slick Willy, has been heard from for the past couple of weeks. People are likening the server to the blue dress. I don't think that Cankles will pull out of the race, being too vainglorious for that. She'll go down in flames and blame it on a vast right-wing sexist conspiracy.
Besides Slick Willy's disappearing act what surprises me most about Cankles's campaign is that it continues to draw people to it like moth to a flame. Are these people dumb, deaf and blind? Seriously: The woman can't be trusted for a second, she has all the charisma of wet paper and the rumors are that she treats people around her like crap, yet there are still people championing her cause. And don't forget the hypocrisy: She made $25M last year but wants to boost the little guy. Yeah, right. And I'm GQ's next cover model.
The next few months will be interesting, what with congressional hearings, movies and who knows what else popping up to keep Cankles off her game. And that's just the start of it. She may actually be confronted by someone who won't be cowed by her and her nonsense.
Which brings us to Donald Trump.
I'm not awed by celebrity. Yeah, I watched The Celebrity Apprentice, but not for him. It used to drive me nuts seeing people fawning all over him, referring to him with his title. Like Mr. Sanders, I don't believe Donald Trump will be President...but then again, he may be. He reminds me of a former boss who used to have commercials running on television every hour of the day. One day, while I was in a consultation with a client, Pete walked in, which almost caused the client to keel over. You're the guy in the commercial!, he shouted as he pointed to him. It was as if the Second Coming had been manifested in the unlikely personage of an egomaniacal, coke-snorting lawyer on his third marriage who believed the movie Primal Fear was based on his career (because the Richard Gere character was a lawyer and drove the same kind of Mercedes; I' m not kidding).
Trump is a bombastic, egomaniacal blowhard who, like Pete, comes up with some good ideas sometimes. I do appreciate how he's willing to speak his mind. I like that he's not politically correct. And I like that he won't be using tax dollars for his campaign. But that's where my admiration ends for the man. He may well be the Republican nominee, which would put me in a quandary. The last thing I want is someone unable to spell tact calling Vladimir Putin and calling him names. At the same time, if the majority elects him, who am I to object?
We've had worse. Just this week former President Carter announced he has brain cancer, which is sad. Unfortunately, his dilemma is almost a metaphor for what's going on in our political arena these days. He has four spots on his brain affected by cancer. We the American public have a socialist, a liar and a blowhard with other incompetents (Uncle Joe and Mr. Global Warming) waiting in the wings.
All this does is prove Plato's theory about democracy correct.
Heaven help us.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Mr. Sanders is a self-professed socialist, although for convenience's sake he flies under the Democratic banner. Socialism doesn't have the best reputation in a capitalist society, and with purely socialist and communist countries dying on the vine it's probably best that Mr. Sanders hew to a more traditional party. From relative obscurity in Vermont to the United States Senate, Mr. Sanders has emerged as a contender for the Democratic nomination for President. This rise, unexpected as it was, has gone on in relative silence, given the lack of attention from the MSM. Sure, they note his rising numbers, but only in connection with the downtrending numbers of the putative Democratic nominee, Cankles. His one moment in the sun came when that scurrilous movement Black Lives Matter interrupted a rally at which Mr. Sanders was to give his socialist pablum to the masses. Ironically, his message would be to help those in the Black Lives Matter movement more than most, but what did they care.
If Mr. Sanders wins the Democratic nomination for President, the Democrats are in trouble. Perhaps with an eye to that eventuality the Democrats, with their other eye trained on Cankles' problems, are beginning to search for other viable alternatives, namely Uncle Joe and Al Gore. It's beginning to look like retreaded major league managers in the Democratic ranks.
My opinion is that Mr. Sanders, should he get the nomination, doesn't stand a chance of becoming President unless there's a violent revolution in this country. That being said, conservatives, and not liberals, own most of the guns here, so I'm not too worried.
Cankles has stepped in it. She's stepped in it so deeply that not even her erstwhile husband, Slick Willy, has been heard from for the past couple of weeks. People are likening the server to the blue dress. I don't think that Cankles will pull out of the race, being too vainglorious for that. She'll go down in flames and blame it on a vast right-wing sexist conspiracy.
Besides Slick Willy's disappearing act what surprises me most about Cankles's campaign is that it continues to draw people to it like moth to a flame. Are these people dumb, deaf and blind? Seriously: The woman can't be trusted for a second, she has all the charisma of wet paper and the rumors are that she treats people around her like crap, yet there are still people championing her cause. And don't forget the hypocrisy: She made $25M last year but wants to boost the little guy. Yeah, right. And I'm GQ's next cover model.
The next few months will be interesting, what with congressional hearings, movies and who knows what else popping up to keep Cankles off her game. And that's just the start of it. She may actually be confronted by someone who won't be cowed by her and her nonsense.
Which brings us to Donald Trump.
I'm not awed by celebrity. Yeah, I watched The Celebrity Apprentice, but not for him. It used to drive me nuts seeing people fawning all over him, referring to him with his title. Like Mr. Sanders, I don't believe Donald Trump will be President...but then again, he may be. He reminds me of a former boss who used to have commercials running on television every hour of the day. One day, while I was in a consultation with a client, Pete walked in, which almost caused the client to keel over. You're the guy in the commercial!, he shouted as he pointed to him. It was as if the Second Coming had been manifested in the unlikely personage of an egomaniacal, coke-snorting lawyer on his third marriage who believed the movie Primal Fear was based on his career (because the Richard Gere character was a lawyer and drove the same kind of Mercedes; I' m not kidding).
Trump is a bombastic, egomaniacal blowhard who, like Pete, comes up with some good ideas sometimes. I do appreciate how he's willing to speak his mind. I like that he's not politically correct. And I like that he won't be using tax dollars for his campaign. But that's where my admiration ends for the man. He may well be the Republican nominee, which would put me in a quandary. The last thing I want is someone unable to spell tact calling Vladimir Putin and calling him names. At the same time, if the majority elects him, who am I to object?
We've had worse. Just this week former President Carter announced he has brain cancer, which is sad. Unfortunately, his dilemma is almost a metaphor for what's going on in our political arena these days. He has four spots on his brain affected by cancer. We the American public have a socialist, a liar and a blowhard with other incompetents (Uncle Joe and Mr. Global Warming) waiting in the wings.
All this does is prove Plato's theory about democracy correct.
Heaven help us.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Planned Parenthood, II
Another week, another series of disgusting, undercover videos. Almost as disgusting as the videos themselves have been the attempts of apologists to justify what the videos depict.
There's an old saying in the law that goes something like this: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. There's a lot of table pounding going on on the Left these days.
Starting at the bottom, actress Debra Messing was so upset about the shooting of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe by the misguided (literally, it would seem) dentist that she took to Twitter to vent her outrage: SHAME ON HIM! I want them to take his citizenship away. I'm ashamed and horrified by what he did.
A quick perusal of Ms. Messing's Twitter feed (if I did it right; I'm not a Twitterer) shows no such outrage for the Planned Parenthood scandal, but plenty of follow up Tweets about Cecil the Lion, including his last photograph.
Interestingly, Ms. Messing is a graduate of Brandeis University and NYU. Justice Louis Brandeis, for whom her alma mater is named, once famously wrote that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Ms. Messing has taken that to heart, shining a bright light on the lion controversy but keeping the abortionists baby parts scandal hidden conveniently in the dark part of her Twitter.
Next on the hit parade of idiots conflating issues so as to deflect from the real matter is actress Kristen Bell. Take a gander at her proud stance in support of the abortionists/parts dealers:
Yep, that's what this is all about. There are so many different ways to approach this -- hair color, profession, age -- but I revert to the age old dictum res ipsa loquitur.
Countless other actresses trying to seem resolute and erudite have joined the crusade to save funding for the abortionists/parts dealers: Kerry Washington, Scarlett Johansson, Lena Dunham, Julianne Moore and Elizabeth Banks, among others. In every case, they've taken up the battle cry to protect women's reproductive rights, as if that is what the issue is.
Not to be outdone, Leftist politicians are leading the charge, claiming as do their acolytes that the fight is really about women's reproductive health. Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and that noted weather vane Hillary Clinton are urging supporters to stand with Planned Parenthood. Their rallying cry is to protect funding for women's reproductive health. They;re even calling for investigations of the people who surreptitiously filmed the discussions over prices. Funny, they never called for an investigation over the guy who filmed Mitt Romney when he made his ill-advised comment about the 47%. Then again, why would they?
Let's be clear on one thing: This has nothing to do with overturning Roe v. Wade, outlawing abortion otherwise or meddling with women's reproductive health. Logically, when the marketing of an aborted baby's body parts is at issue, the reproductive part of the equation is over. This has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose what is being done to or with her body. This has everything to do with the dismemberment and sale of an aborted child's remains.
If anything, I'm shocked that the attack isn't about the right of the mother to share in the profits of her aborted child's remains. Taking their illogical argument a step or two further, it would make more sense if they were arguing that Planned Parenthood ought to be forced to cut them in on the profits. After all, isn't this a product of their actions? Why should Planned Parenthood get to profit?
Spare us the sanctimonious call for fetal research. This is about the gruesome and ghoulish practice of dismembering human remains of children who were killed as insensitively as were the Jews by the Nazis.
I'm not surprised by the Left's attempts to deflect attention from the central issue. It saves them from explaining their support for abortion.
No matter how it's sliced, this is disgusting and not worthy of civilized society.
Unless, of course, it depends on what civilized means...
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
There's an old saying in the law that goes something like this: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. There's a lot of table pounding going on on the Left these days.
Starting at the bottom, actress Debra Messing was so upset about the shooting of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe by the misguided (literally, it would seem) dentist that she took to Twitter to vent her outrage: SHAME ON HIM! I want them to take his citizenship away. I'm ashamed and horrified by what he did.
A quick perusal of Ms. Messing's Twitter feed (if I did it right; I'm not a Twitterer) shows no such outrage for the Planned Parenthood scandal, but plenty of follow up Tweets about Cecil the Lion, including his last photograph.
Interestingly, Ms. Messing is a graduate of Brandeis University and NYU. Justice Louis Brandeis, for whom her alma mater is named, once famously wrote that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Ms. Messing has taken that to heart, shining a bright light on the lion controversy but keeping the abortionists baby parts scandal hidden conveniently in the dark part of her Twitter.
Next on the hit parade of idiots conflating issues so as to deflect from the real matter is actress Kristen Bell. Take a gander at her proud stance in support of the abortionists/parts dealers:
Yep, that's what this is all about. There are so many different ways to approach this -- hair color, profession, age -- but I revert to the age old dictum res ipsa loquitur.
Countless other actresses trying to seem resolute and erudite have joined the crusade to save funding for the abortionists/parts dealers: Kerry Washington, Scarlett Johansson, Lena Dunham, Julianne Moore and Elizabeth Banks, among others. In every case, they've taken up the battle cry to protect women's reproductive rights, as if that is what the issue is.
Not to be outdone, Leftist politicians are leading the charge, claiming as do their acolytes that the fight is really about women's reproductive health. Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and that noted weather vane Hillary Clinton are urging supporters to stand with Planned Parenthood. Their rallying cry is to protect funding for women's reproductive health. They;re even calling for investigations of the people who surreptitiously filmed the discussions over prices. Funny, they never called for an investigation over the guy who filmed Mitt Romney when he made his ill-advised comment about the 47%. Then again, why would they?
Let's be clear on one thing: This has nothing to do with overturning Roe v. Wade, outlawing abortion otherwise or meddling with women's reproductive health. Logically, when the marketing of an aborted baby's body parts is at issue, the reproductive part of the equation is over. This has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose what is being done to or with her body. This has everything to do with the dismemberment and sale of an aborted child's remains.
If anything, I'm shocked that the attack isn't about the right of the mother to share in the profits of her aborted child's remains. Taking their illogical argument a step or two further, it would make more sense if they were arguing that Planned Parenthood ought to be forced to cut them in on the profits. After all, isn't this a product of their actions? Why should Planned Parenthood get to profit?
Spare us the sanctimonious call for fetal research. This is about the gruesome and ghoulish practice of dismembering human remains of children who were killed as insensitively as were the Jews by the Nazis.
I'm not surprised by the Left's attempts to deflect attention from the central issue. It saves them from explaining their support for abortion.
No matter how it's sliced, this is disgusting and not worthy of civilized society.
Unless, of course, it depends on what civilized means...
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, July 24, 2015
Planned Parenthood
This is a mess. As should be evident by now, I'm against abortion on demand, unless it is deemed medically necessary for the life of the mother or if the child will be born with a lethal or fatal illness that will kill it shortly after birth.
Planned Parenthood traces its lineage back to Margaret Sanger, a pioneer in birth control and a known bigot. The irony is that people knowingly support the organization despite the fact that Sanger made statements that were clearly directed at reducing the number of minorities and Jews in the population. That untidy bit of information is glossed over by the desire to raise women's right to control their own bodies over all.
Recently, guerrilla videos taken of Planned Parenthood executives negotiating the sale of fetal tissue and organs. Incredibly, the executives approach the negotiations as if they were selling car parts from a chophouse, even joking in one instance that the goal is to buy a Lamborghini. The callous way they discuss the methodology of harvesting the body parts or tissue is chilling. The unborn children have no life. They are simply chattel to these people, something with which they can earn money.
I'm not going to rehash my objections to abortion. Ultimately, it comes down to whether a person believes the unborn child is human prior to birth or whether it becomes human only after delivery although, unbelievably, there are those who argue that even terminating a pregnancy shortly after birth is acceptable. No, what this involves is yet another version of man's inhumanity to man.
Unlike the exceptions to abortion that I support, terminating the life of an unborn child is simply ghoulish, especially when viewed through the prism of abject capitalism. Putting a price on the unborn's organs and tissues, as if they were bred for that purpose alone, is one step away from Dr. Mengele. I cannot conceive being so callous as to blithely barter body parts for fast cars.
Although I have no way of knowing this for certain, these very same people may well protest against the harm of pets (with which I agree) or be vegetarians or vegans who see the slaughter of animals for our consumption barbaric (with which I disagree). How they justify these seemingly inconsistent beliefs with their support of abortion is beyond me. If it's cruel to harm animals, why is it all right to kill unwanted, unborn children and use them as inventory? Saving a life is one thing, but using the unborn's parts as stock for one's financial gain?
Almost as unbelievable as this dirty capitalism is the reaction of supporters. They've lashed out, claiming that the videos were edited (which they were, but only to shorten them, not to remove content) and, incredibly, calling for the group that produced the undercover videos to be investigated. As if that weren't enough, the people doing this are female politicians, notably Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. In the latter's case, it's not incredible that she'd pull such a stunt. What's unbelievable is that she has support for her position. Deflection is the last argument they have, since they know what is being done is horrible.
I'm fully supportive that federal funding be pulled from Planned Parenthood. My tax dollars shouldn't be used to support something in which I don't believe, and it shouldn't be forced to support what is in essence a for-profit industry. If the Left is insistent that non-profit status should be pulled from churches that, for religious reasons, refuse to perform gay weddings, it's at least fair to require funding to be pulled from Planned Parenthood.
Sanger wouldn't care, though, because those funds come, in part, from the very people she wanted exterminated, Jews and minorities.
Just don't try to remind Cankles and Pelosi of that fact. They'd want to have one investigated for making that assertion.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Planned Parenthood traces its lineage back to Margaret Sanger, a pioneer in birth control and a known bigot. The irony is that people knowingly support the organization despite the fact that Sanger made statements that were clearly directed at reducing the number of minorities and Jews in the population. That untidy bit of information is glossed over by the desire to raise women's right to control their own bodies over all.
Recently, guerrilla videos taken of Planned Parenthood executives negotiating the sale of fetal tissue and organs. Incredibly, the executives approach the negotiations as if they were selling car parts from a chophouse, even joking in one instance that the goal is to buy a Lamborghini. The callous way they discuss the methodology of harvesting the body parts or tissue is chilling. The unborn children have no life. They are simply chattel to these people, something with which they can earn money.
I'm not going to rehash my objections to abortion. Ultimately, it comes down to whether a person believes the unborn child is human prior to birth or whether it becomes human only after delivery although, unbelievably, there are those who argue that even terminating a pregnancy shortly after birth is acceptable. No, what this involves is yet another version of man's inhumanity to man.
Unlike the exceptions to abortion that I support, terminating the life of an unborn child is simply ghoulish, especially when viewed through the prism of abject capitalism. Putting a price on the unborn's organs and tissues, as if they were bred for that purpose alone, is one step away from Dr. Mengele. I cannot conceive being so callous as to blithely barter body parts for fast cars.
Although I have no way of knowing this for certain, these very same people may well protest against the harm of pets (with which I agree) or be vegetarians or vegans who see the slaughter of animals for our consumption barbaric (with which I disagree). How they justify these seemingly inconsistent beliefs with their support of abortion is beyond me. If it's cruel to harm animals, why is it all right to kill unwanted, unborn children and use them as inventory? Saving a life is one thing, but using the unborn's parts as stock for one's financial gain?
Almost as unbelievable as this dirty capitalism is the reaction of supporters. They've lashed out, claiming that the videos were edited (which they were, but only to shorten them, not to remove content) and, incredibly, calling for the group that produced the undercover videos to be investigated. As if that weren't enough, the people doing this are female politicians, notably Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. In the latter's case, it's not incredible that she'd pull such a stunt. What's unbelievable is that she has support for her position. Deflection is the last argument they have, since they know what is being done is horrible.
I'm fully supportive that federal funding be pulled from Planned Parenthood. My tax dollars shouldn't be used to support something in which I don't believe, and it shouldn't be forced to support what is in essence a for-profit industry. If the Left is insistent that non-profit status should be pulled from churches that, for religious reasons, refuse to perform gay weddings, it's at least fair to require funding to be pulled from Planned Parenthood.
Sanger wouldn't care, though, because those funds come, in part, from the very people she wanted exterminated, Jews and minorities.
Just don't try to remind Cankles and Pelosi of that fact. They'd want to have one investigated for making that assertion.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, July 13, 2015
White Lives Don't Matter
I happened to catch this segment on The Kelly File the other night. I'd been thinking about posting this blog but Ms. Kelly beat me to it.
Since Ms. Kelly did such a fine job, I'll only add some embellishments. With Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and the Charleston Nine, the administration jumped at the chance to look into whatever issues the individual incidents presented. Certainly, there were issues that merited attention in each of them, although to the same extent to which the administration involved itself is debatable. But beyond the involvement of the FBI and the DOJ, in each instance the administration, including the President himself, commented on the tragedy.
Yet whenever a white person is killed tragically by a minority the administration is telling silent. Ms. Kelly mentions Kate Steinle, but she leaves out a host of others killed by minorities:
-- In 2014, Dillon Taylor was an unarmed white teenager shot to death by a black policeman in Salt Lake City, Utah.
-- In 2013, Australian exchange student Christopher Lane was shot in the back and killed by three minority teenagers in Oklahoma.
-- Also in 2013, World War II veteran Delbert Belton was beaten to death by black youths in Spokane, Washington.
-- In Moore, Oklahoma, Colleen Hufford was beheaded by a black Muslim convert.
-- Within the last two weeks, Carrie Jean Melvin was killed by a shotgun blast to the back of her head by an unknown black assailant while walking with her boyfriend on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood.
There is also the casual indifference displayed by the administration to other white deaths:
-- After the gruesome video of the beheading of white journalist James Foley, the President made a statement while on vacation and then went golfing within fifteen minutes after his statement, never once calling the family to offer his condolences.
-- When Major General Harold Greene became the highest ranking battlefield casualty since Vietnam, no one from the administration appeared at his funeral at Arlington National Cemetery.
- When Steven Sotloff was beheaded, no attempt was made by the administration to contact the family.
Like the Brown, Gray, Martin and Charleston incidents, these are incidents at least as worthy of the administration's commentary, if not involvement, as are the Brown, Martin, Gray and Charleston cases. When random acts of violence occur that seem to have a racial component, it behooves the President to use them as -- in his words -- a teachable moment. Yet it seems that the only people who deserve a lecture are white people and the only lives that warrant such lectures are black people.
It is beyond disgusting how the administration uses sophistry to worm its way out of talking about uncomfortable minority-on-white crime but has no hesitation about becoming involved on white-on-black crime...even when it is later proven that there is no crime.
Perhaps the Reverend Jeremiah Wright influenced President Obama more than he lets on. But he's supposed to be the President of all the people.
Not just the black people.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Since Ms. Kelly did such a fine job, I'll only add some embellishments. With Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and the Charleston Nine, the administration jumped at the chance to look into whatever issues the individual incidents presented. Certainly, there were issues that merited attention in each of them, although to the same extent to which the administration involved itself is debatable. But beyond the involvement of the FBI and the DOJ, in each instance the administration, including the President himself, commented on the tragedy.
Yet whenever a white person is killed tragically by a minority the administration is telling silent. Ms. Kelly mentions Kate Steinle, but she leaves out a host of others killed by minorities:
-- In 2014, Dillon Taylor was an unarmed white teenager shot to death by a black policeman in Salt Lake City, Utah.
-- In 2013, Australian exchange student Christopher Lane was shot in the back and killed by three minority teenagers in Oklahoma.
-- Also in 2013, World War II veteran Delbert Belton was beaten to death by black youths in Spokane, Washington.
-- In Moore, Oklahoma, Colleen Hufford was beheaded by a black Muslim convert.
-- Within the last two weeks, Carrie Jean Melvin was killed by a shotgun blast to the back of her head by an unknown black assailant while walking with her boyfriend on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood.
There is also the casual indifference displayed by the administration to other white deaths:
-- After the gruesome video of the beheading of white journalist James Foley, the President made a statement while on vacation and then went golfing within fifteen minutes after his statement, never once calling the family to offer his condolences.
-- When Major General Harold Greene became the highest ranking battlefield casualty since Vietnam, no one from the administration appeared at his funeral at Arlington National Cemetery.
- When Steven Sotloff was beheaded, no attempt was made by the administration to contact the family.
Like the Brown, Gray, Martin and Charleston incidents, these are incidents at least as worthy of the administration's commentary, if not involvement, as are the Brown, Martin, Gray and Charleston cases. When random acts of violence occur that seem to have a racial component, it behooves the President to use them as -- in his words -- a teachable moment. Yet it seems that the only people who deserve a lecture are white people and the only lives that warrant such lectures are black people.
It is beyond disgusting how the administration uses sophistry to worm its way out of talking about uncomfortable minority-on-white crime but has no hesitation about becoming involved on white-on-black crime...even when it is later proven that there is no crime.
Perhaps the Reverend Jeremiah Wright influenced President Obama more than he lets on. But he's supposed to be the President of all the people.
Not just the black people.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Questions for the MSM
I am a dire critic of the MSM. I believe that it, not ISIS, is a greater threat to this country's existence. The reasons I believe this are well-documented in this blogspace. The MSM has become a lapdog of this adminstration and is no longer concerned with either investigative journalism or holding our government accountable for the decisions it makes or the actions it takes. Simply put, it wants to play with the cool kids.
Knowing that, I would love to see the day when someone in a position of authority -- say, a network anchor, the head of the news division or some such person -- was put under oath and forced to answer these questions without being able to filibuster. It would be interesting to see what truthful answers were obtained, if any.
-- What does the expression The Fourth Estate mean to you? Does that meaning change depending on which party sits in the White House?
-- Where race is involved in an incident, whether it be a criminal action or merely a social action, how is it decided when to cover the story as racially motivated? Who makes such a decision?
-- Is it the responsibility of the press to further the agenda of one party or one politician over the other?
-- Realistically, how big a role do ratings play in what stories are put on the air and what anchors read the news?
-- Does the press believe in the theory of Chinese walls? To wit, is it acceptable for the head of a network news division to be related by blood or marriage to someone high up within the administration or in another position of power within the government? Do you believe such a relationship compromises the impartiality of the press?
-- When the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred, who made the decision to refer to the shooter, George Zimmerman, as a white man or Hispanic descent given his biracial background and why was that done? Furthermore, wouldn't it then be fair to describe President Obama as a white man of African descent, and why isn't this done?
-- In your opinion, is it more important to be first with a story or to get it right? For example, in the Duke lacrosse case, the Aurora, Colorado shootings and the Ferguson incident, the media was wrong with key elements of the story in the rush to be first with the story. How would you change this?
-- Is it proper to give noted agitators like Al Sharpton a platform to push their political agenda under the guise of promoting diversity?
-- What, for you, constitutes journalistic ethics? What would you have done with Britt McHenry, Brian Williams and Martin Bashir?
-- Do you believe that the MSM has a particular political bent? Explain your answer using examples.
-- Can you explain why none of the major networks and cable outlets, besides Fox News, have kept on the following stories: the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the VA story, the Bowe Bergdahl trade, the AP story, the James Rosen incident, the NSA surveillance and Obamacare? Or do you simply believe that Fox News acts out of spite in covering these stories?
-- Why does the MSM avoid reporting on and questioning stories involving black-on-white crime and the administration's handling of such incidents?
-- Do you believe that a debate moderator's role is to ask questions only?
-- Just how close can the media be with the subjects it covers regularly and still maintain an unbiased approach to its coverage?
-- Should one network take potshots at another network?
-- Should there be proper labels on network shows to differentiate between straight news shows and those that either give nothing but opinions or that editorialize?
-- Who makes the decisions as to what stories to cover and are those decisions arrived at impartially, or is there concern that by covering a certain story access to those in power will be shut down?
-- Does the First Amendment protection allow the MSM to be partial, or should the MSM try to be as impartial as possible for the benefit of the American people?
The answers, elicited by a very good litigator, would quite interesting.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Knowing that, I would love to see the day when someone in a position of authority -- say, a network anchor, the head of the news division or some such person -- was put under oath and forced to answer these questions without being able to filibuster. It would be interesting to see what truthful answers were obtained, if any.
-- What does the expression The Fourth Estate mean to you? Does that meaning change depending on which party sits in the White House?
-- Where race is involved in an incident, whether it be a criminal action or merely a social action, how is it decided when to cover the story as racially motivated? Who makes such a decision?
-- Is it the responsibility of the press to further the agenda of one party or one politician over the other?
-- Realistically, how big a role do ratings play in what stories are put on the air and what anchors read the news?
-- Does the press believe in the theory of Chinese walls? To wit, is it acceptable for the head of a network news division to be related by blood or marriage to someone high up within the administration or in another position of power within the government? Do you believe such a relationship compromises the impartiality of the press?
-- When the Trayvon Martin shooting occurred, who made the decision to refer to the shooter, George Zimmerman, as a white man or Hispanic descent given his biracial background and why was that done? Furthermore, wouldn't it then be fair to describe President Obama as a white man of African descent, and why isn't this done?
-- In your opinion, is it more important to be first with a story or to get it right? For example, in the Duke lacrosse case, the Aurora, Colorado shootings and the Ferguson incident, the media was wrong with key elements of the story in the rush to be first with the story. How would you change this?
-- Is it proper to give noted agitators like Al Sharpton a platform to push their political agenda under the guise of promoting diversity?
-- What, for you, constitutes journalistic ethics? What would you have done with Britt McHenry, Brian Williams and Martin Bashir?
-- Do you believe that the MSM has a particular political bent? Explain your answer using examples.
-- Can you explain why none of the major networks and cable outlets, besides Fox News, have kept on the following stories: the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the VA story, the Bowe Bergdahl trade, the AP story, the James Rosen incident, the NSA surveillance and Obamacare? Or do you simply believe that Fox News acts out of spite in covering these stories?
-- Why does the MSM avoid reporting on and questioning stories involving black-on-white crime and the administration's handling of such incidents?
-- Do you believe that a debate moderator's role is to ask questions only?
-- Just how close can the media be with the subjects it covers regularly and still maintain an unbiased approach to its coverage?
-- Should one network take potshots at another network?
-- Should there be proper labels on network shows to differentiate between straight news shows and those that either give nothing but opinions or that editorialize?
-- Who makes the decisions as to what stories to cover and are those decisions arrived at impartially, or is there concern that by covering a certain story access to those in power will be shut down?
-- Does the First Amendment protection allow the MSM to be partial, or should the MSM try to be as impartial as possible for the benefit of the American people?
The answers, elicited by a very good litigator, would quite interesting.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, July 6, 2015
Gay Intolerance
With the recent SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage in the United States, there's been an outpouring of emotion, especially from the gay community, Given the historic struggles of the gay community, the release of emotions is understandable. From Stonewall to Matthew Shepard to the countless and nameless gays and lesbian who were attacked and beaten for their sexual orientation, the SCOTUS decision was the equivalent of the Jews being freed from Egypt.
On the other side, there has been a mixture of reactions. Some are overtly hostile to the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, others are happy and supportive and a large number are casually indifferent. I'm somewhere between the last two camps, worried about the slippery slope this begins and more supportive of the notion of civil unions. But I digress.
What's troubling me is the reaction from some quarters of the gay community. As with any labeled community, the whole can't be blamed for the parts that comprise it. Yet for a community that, generally speaking, preached tolerance and understanding before Obergefell seems to have forgotten all about that in the euphoria following its issuance.
Three incidents in particular concern me. A young Catholic priest walking by two gay men celebrating the decision spat upon him despite not being provoked by the priest. Admittedly, the priest was probably not supportive of the ruling, but the randomly spit on this man simply for what he represents is no better than a pair of knuckleheads beating the tar out of a gay man simply for wearing a rainbow flag on his jacket. For a group that preached tolerance and understanding to suddenly become what they opposed taints the position they once held.
The more national manifestation of this anger came from a noted gay rights activist and online darling George Takei, who played Sulu on the old Star Trek series. Mr. Takei, not satisfied with the Court's ruling, took issue with the dissent penned by Justice Clarence Thomas and called him a clown in blackface. This isn't the first time that the progressive/liberal/sensitive/thoughtful has used ad hominem attacks on Justice Thomas, a man who raised himself up from humble beginnings to be a member of one of the most exclusive -- not to mention respected, educated and important -- fraternities on earth. During the Anita Hill hearings he was subjected to horrible, scandalous attacks that were baseless to try to sabotage his nomination to the Supreme Court solely because of his conservative bent. To his credit, Mr. Takei did take back the comment and apologize for it, but he could hardly have done otherwise. The outcry was such that it will be a long time before Mr. Takei allows his emotions to take control again.
Here's Mr. Takei in all his indignant glory:
Although Mr. Takei is certainly entitled to his opinion, he's hardly qualified to rate Justice Thomas's credentials...unless, of course, Justice Thomas makes the mistake of appearing as a clown in blackface on an episode of Star Trek.
But even Mr. Takei's outburst didn't disturb me as much as the last example did. Up front, I should disclose that although I'm more conservative that liberal on many things, I was never a fan of Ronald Reagan as President. I admired some things that he accomplished, but I always saw him as playing a part more than leading the free world. That being said, he was still President. At the first gay pride reception held in the White House, certain gay rights activists used the opportunity to express themselves in a manner unbecoming the institution of the White House and the Presidency itself as can be seen in these images:
That they would not be pleased with Presidents Reagan and Bush is understandable. But no matter how much I dislike Presidents Obama and Clinton, when I get the opportunity to visit the White House, I will not be acting accordingly. I may not respect the man, but I respect the rank. These people didn't belittle Presidents Reagan and Bush so much as they lowered their own self-respect. Perhaps they're lionized in segments of the gay community, but I can't believe that mature adults, gay or otherwise, were impressed with this immature demonstration of their displeasure.
It would be interesting to see what Matthew Shepard would say about this.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
On the other side, there has been a mixture of reactions. Some are overtly hostile to the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, others are happy and supportive and a large number are casually indifferent. I'm somewhere between the last two camps, worried about the slippery slope this begins and more supportive of the notion of civil unions. But I digress.
What's troubling me is the reaction from some quarters of the gay community. As with any labeled community, the whole can't be blamed for the parts that comprise it. Yet for a community that, generally speaking, preached tolerance and understanding before Obergefell seems to have forgotten all about that in the euphoria following its issuance.
Three incidents in particular concern me. A young Catholic priest walking by two gay men celebrating the decision spat upon him despite not being provoked by the priest. Admittedly, the priest was probably not supportive of the ruling, but the randomly spit on this man simply for what he represents is no better than a pair of knuckleheads beating the tar out of a gay man simply for wearing a rainbow flag on his jacket. For a group that preached tolerance and understanding to suddenly become what they opposed taints the position they once held.
The more national manifestation of this anger came from a noted gay rights activist and online darling George Takei, who played Sulu on the old Star Trek series. Mr. Takei, not satisfied with the Court's ruling, took issue with the dissent penned by Justice Clarence Thomas and called him a clown in blackface. This isn't the first time that the progressive/liberal/sensitive/thoughtful has used ad hominem attacks on Justice Thomas, a man who raised himself up from humble beginnings to be a member of one of the most exclusive -- not to mention respected, educated and important -- fraternities on earth. During the Anita Hill hearings he was subjected to horrible, scandalous attacks that were baseless to try to sabotage his nomination to the Supreme Court solely because of his conservative bent. To his credit, Mr. Takei did take back the comment and apologize for it, but he could hardly have done otherwise. The outcry was such that it will be a long time before Mr. Takei allows his emotions to take control again.
Here's Mr. Takei in all his indignant glory:
Although Mr. Takei is certainly entitled to his opinion, he's hardly qualified to rate Justice Thomas's credentials...unless, of course, Justice Thomas makes the mistake of appearing as a clown in blackface on an episode of Star Trek.
But even Mr. Takei's outburst didn't disturb me as much as the last example did. Up front, I should disclose that although I'm more conservative that liberal on many things, I was never a fan of Ronald Reagan as President. I admired some things that he accomplished, but I always saw him as playing a part more than leading the free world. That being said, he was still President. At the first gay pride reception held in the White House, certain gay rights activists used the opportunity to express themselves in a manner unbecoming the institution of the White House and the Presidency itself as can be seen in these images:
That they would not be pleased with Presidents Reagan and Bush is understandable. But no matter how much I dislike Presidents Obama and Clinton, when I get the opportunity to visit the White House, I will not be acting accordingly. I may not respect the man, but I respect the rank. These people didn't belittle Presidents Reagan and Bush so much as they lowered their own self-respect. Perhaps they're lionized in segments of the gay community, but I can't believe that mature adults, gay or otherwise, were impressed with this immature demonstration of their displeasure.
It would be interesting to see what Matthew Shepard would say about this.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Independence Day Perspective
Admittedly, it's been awhile since I've posted. Life has a nasty way of controlling things sometimes.
Karen and I went to the eastern seaboard at the end of May and saw our nation's capital, me for the first time. We also saw Gettysburg, Shanksville and the Outer Banks. But the most poignant part of our visit was Washington, D.C.
While we were traveling, the Stanley Cup playoffs were in full swing, and as it turns out, my beloved Blackhawks won their third Cup in six years, much to my happy surprise. As is always the case in such circumstances, part of the tradition involves getting the names of players from the winning team engraved on the Cup itself. There's a byzantine process whereby the number of games played in the regular season or the number of games played in the Finals determines whose name is engrave for posterity on the Cup. It's a big deal. There are plenty of great players whose names are missing from that Cup. In terms of career honors, it's probably as big a deal, if not bigger, to have one's name on the Cup than it is to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
But the contrast with that competition hit me hard after I visited D.C. Although it's true that the players' names will be forever memorialized on the Cup (and in the Hall of Fame, where rings are kept to make room for later generations on the Cup itself), somehow it pales by comparison by the monuments I saw -- and witnessed -- during out trip:
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
The Vietnam Wall, D.C.
The Vietnam Wall, D.C.
Arlington National Cemetery
These images of graven reminders of men's ultimate sacrifices are far more powerful than the engravings on the side of the Cup. Sure, what the Blackhawks did this season was heroic, but only in a very, very, limited sense. The names that are engraved in Shanksville and D.C. are heroic in a much broader sense because these memorialize lives given for freedom and for the safety of others. The people whose names appear on these marble slabs represent the unlimited best that one man can do for others. The Blackhawks, triumphant as they were, would even admit this.
On this Independence Day, when threats to our security abound from ISIS, we should remember what those braves souls did back in the 1700's to set us on the course of the greatest human experiment ever. They faced grave danger themselves, although the names that we frequently associate with Independence Day largely survived unscathed. But it should not be forgotten that the names that appear on these marble and granite markers defended what the Founding Fathers set out to do. They repelled threats to our freedom that was so dearly bought.
Sadly, not every name that died in the cause of freedom is recorded. It's an impossible hope, of course, but a valiant effort was made to recognize those who made the ultimate sacrifice. So as not to be remiss, we should remember those whose final end still goes unanswered:
Although their names may be known only to God, the sacrifices they made are known to a grateful nation. A nation that still allows more freedom than any other country in the world.
May God bless the United States of America on its two hundred and thirty-ninth birthday.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Karen and I went to the eastern seaboard at the end of May and saw our nation's capital, me for the first time. We also saw Gettysburg, Shanksville and the Outer Banks. But the most poignant part of our visit was Washington, D.C.
While we were traveling, the Stanley Cup playoffs were in full swing, and as it turns out, my beloved Blackhawks won their third Cup in six years, much to my happy surprise. As is always the case in such circumstances, part of the tradition involves getting the names of players from the winning team engraved on the Cup itself. There's a byzantine process whereby the number of games played in the regular season or the number of games played in the Finals determines whose name is engrave for posterity on the Cup. It's a big deal. There are plenty of great players whose names are missing from that Cup. In terms of career honors, it's probably as big a deal, if not bigger, to have one's name on the Cup than it is to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
But the contrast with that competition hit me hard after I visited D.C. Although it's true that the players' names will be forever memorialized on the Cup (and in the Hall of Fame, where rings are kept to make room for later generations on the Cup itself), somehow it pales by comparison by the monuments I saw -- and witnessed -- during out trip:
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
The Vietnam Wall, D.C.
The Vietnam Wall, D.C.
Arlington National Cemetery
These images of graven reminders of men's ultimate sacrifices are far more powerful than the engravings on the side of the Cup. Sure, what the Blackhawks did this season was heroic, but only in a very, very, limited sense. The names that are engraved in Shanksville and D.C. are heroic in a much broader sense because these memorialize lives given for freedom and for the safety of others. The people whose names appear on these marble slabs represent the unlimited best that one man can do for others. The Blackhawks, triumphant as they were, would even admit this.
On this Independence Day, when threats to our security abound from ISIS, we should remember what those braves souls did back in the 1700's to set us on the course of the greatest human experiment ever. They faced grave danger themselves, although the names that we frequently associate with Independence Day largely survived unscathed. But it should not be forgotten that the names that appear on these marble and granite markers defended what the Founding Fathers set out to do. They repelled threats to our freedom that was so dearly bought.
Sadly, not every name that died in the cause of freedom is recorded. It's an impossible hope, of course, but a valiant effort was made to recognize those who made the ultimate sacrifice. So as not to be remiss, we should remember those whose final end still goes unanswered:
Although their names may be known only to God, the sacrifices they made are known to a grateful nation. A nation that still allows more freedom than any other country in the world.
May God bless the United States of America on its two hundred and thirty-ninth birthday.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, June 1, 2015
Travel Tidbits
My girl and I took a short, much needed trip out east and saw a host of wonderful things. We also saw some curious things as well. One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that the United States is blessed with many gorgeous, majestic, wonderful landscapes. Sure, there are other places in this world worth seeing, but I owe it to myself and my country to see it more.
With that, then...
-- I wish there was a national speed limit on the interstate highways. This notion of going 60 in some places, then 65, then 70, then back down to 65, then 70 and then back down to 60 is annoying.
-- The concept of a continental breakfast offered by hotels as an enticement to book rooms there is dead. A continental breakfast is supposed to be lighter than a full breakfast, but throwing out stale cereal, fruit that's a day from being rotten and ersatz French toast that isn't remotely appealing won't cut it.
-- The state flag of North Carolina is just ugly. Sorry.
I could have come up with something better than that in kindergarten.
-- Seeing a Muslim pray openly on his prayer mat on the National Mall in Washington D.C., was revealing and jarring. First, no one approached him or ridiculed him in the slightest. I doubt a Christian praying in public in Riyadh or Tehran would be left alone similarly. But what was jarring about it to me was that the young Muslim was facing northeast off of 14th Street, directly across from the Washington Monument. I thought they were supposed to face toward Mecca, which is southeast from D.C.
-- The Pennsylvania Turnpike isn't that bad when it isn't under construction. The Ohio Turnpike, however, is not only boring but vile. Apparently, only certain gas stations and food franchises are allowed on the Ohio Turnpike, which limits choices. I'm not a fan.
-- Gatlinburg, Tennessee, is useful for one reason only: It's close to the Great Smoky Mountains. Otherwise, it's a trashy tourist trap with a decided cornpone edge.
-- I bought MegaMillions tickets for the big lottery tomorrow night in Tennessee and Kentucky. I think it we win it we have to go down there to collect the prize. O' well.
-- It should be a civic duty to visit Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 went down on September 11. It's very, very sad.
-- Being by the ocean is best in the morning. One gets to see all sorts of fauna out at that time.
-- Speaking of Gatlinburg but not mentioning the hotel chain (Days Inn), what idiot thought a great interior design choice would be to have bathtub walls decorated with what resembled smears of fecal matter in swirls? When we walked into the room, I thought I was in Bobby Sands' cell in the Maze.
-- I don't know how we did it, but not until the last day of the trip did we encounter any rain at all.
-- Watching the pure pathos at The Wall in D.C., was humbling.
-- For whatever reason, the Lincoln Memorial seemed smaller in real life than I thought it was.
-- Trust me: Having a mattress that folds up on one like a hot dog bun when one is in it isn't fun.
-- No, I didn't visit the White House. As long as Mr. Obama is the resident, it has no appeal for me.
-- Watching local newscasts is always quite interesting.
-- Listening to the fishing report on the radio in North Carolina tickled me.
-- The eastern portion of mainland North Carolina is a snoozefest.
-- Seeing the actual sites of the Gettysburg battle and the Yorktown siege was amazing.
-- So was piloting a sailboat, even if only for fifteen minutes.
-- Not knowing exactly what day it was was pleasant.
-- I've now visited twenty states.
-- Sadly, I ate an inordinate amount of junk food on this trip. But I will never forget the wonderfully simple yet tasty meals we had at the Blue Moon restaurant in Nags Head, North Carolina. I don't normally care for fish and chips, but this was the best prepared fish meal I've ever eaten.
-- As with universities, apparently T-shirt manufacturers haven't gotten the memo that just as alums get bigger as they age, so do tourists. Topping out at XXL is just stupid.
-- The trip from Pennsylvania to Virginia was so quick I didn't even realize when we entered or exited Maryland.
-- The Virginia towns around D.C. are ugly in a modular sort of way. They're clean, but they're just so built up one can hardly move. It was like a classier version of Gatlinburg.
-- Inside joke time: I wonder when Karen will want to go to another Ross store.
-- Driving to Newfound Gap Overlook and Cades Cove are two of the prettiest drives I've ever made.
-- There is no better traveling companion than my girl Karen. Unfortunately for the rest of you, she's taken.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
With that, then...
-- I wish there was a national speed limit on the interstate highways. This notion of going 60 in some places, then 65, then 70, then back down to 65, then 70 and then back down to 60 is annoying.
-- The concept of a continental breakfast offered by hotels as an enticement to book rooms there is dead. A continental breakfast is supposed to be lighter than a full breakfast, but throwing out stale cereal, fruit that's a day from being rotten and ersatz French toast that isn't remotely appealing won't cut it.
-- The state flag of North Carolina is just ugly. Sorry.
I could have come up with something better than that in kindergarten.
-- Seeing a Muslim pray openly on his prayer mat on the National Mall in Washington D.C., was revealing and jarring. First, no one approached him or ridiculed him in the slightest. I doubt a Christian praying in public in Riyadh or Tehran would be left alone similarly. But what was jarring about it to me was that the young Muslim was facing northeast off of 14th Street, directly across from the Washington Monument. I thought they were supposed to face toward Mecca, which is southeast from D.C.
-- The Pennsylvania Turnpike isn't that bad when it isn't under construction. The Ohio Turnpike, however, is not only boring but vile. Apparently, only certain gas stations and food franchises are allowed on the Ohio Turnpike, which limits choices. I'm not a fan.
-- Gatlinburg, Tennessee, is useful for one reason only: It's close to the Great Smoky Mountains. Otherwise, it's a trashy tourist trap with a decided cornpone edge.
-- I bought MegaMillions tickets for the big lottery tomorrow night in Tennessee and Kentucky. I think it we win it we have to go down there to collect the prize. O' well.
-- It should be a civic duty to visit Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 went down on September 11. It's very, very sad.
-- Being by the ocean is best in the morning. One gets to see all sorts of fauna out at that time.
-- Speaking of Gatlinburg but not mentioning the hotel chain (Days Inn), what idiot thought a great interior design choice would be to have bathtub walls decorated with what resembled smears of fecal matter in swirls? When we walked into the room, I thought I was in Bobby Sands' cell in the Maze.
-- I don't know how we did it, but not until the last day of the trip did we encounter any rain at all.
-- Watching the pure pathos at The Wall in D.C., was humbling.
-- For whatever reason, the Lincoln Memorial seemed smaller in real life than I thought it was.
-- Trust me: Having a mattress that folds up on one like a hot dog bun when one is in it isn't fun.
-- No, I didn't visit the White House. As long as Mr. Obama is the resident, it has no appeal for me.
-- Watching local newscasts is always quite interesting.
-- Listening to the fishing report on the radio in North Carolina tickled me.
-- The eastern portion of mainland North Carolina is a snoozefest.
-- Seeing the actual sites of the Gettysburg battle and the Yorktown siege was amazing.
-- So was piloting a sailboat, even if only for fifteen minutes.
-- Not knowing exactly what day it was was pleasant.
-- I've now visited twenty states.
-- Sadly, I ate an inordinate amount of junk food on this trip. But I will never forget the wonderfully simple yet tasty meals we had at the Blue Moon restaurant in Nags Head, North Carolina. I don't normally care for fish and chips, but this was the best prepared fish meal I've ever eaten.
-- As with universities, apparently T-shirt manufacturers haven't gotten the memo that just as alums get bigger as they age, so do tourists. Topping out at XXL is just stupid.
-- The trip from Pennsylvania to Virginia was so quick I didn't even realize when we entered or exited Maryland.
-- The Virginia towns around D.C. are ugly in a modular sort of way. They're clean, but they're just so built up one can hardly move. It was like a classier version of Gatlinburg.
-- Inside joke time: I wonder when Karen will want to go to another Ross store.
-- Driving to Newfound Gap Overlook and Cades Cove are two of the prettiest drives I've ever made.
-- There is no better traveling companion than my girl Karen. Unfortunately for the rest of you, she's taken.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, May 18, 2015
MSM Bias
For months -- years? -- I've been beating the drum about the self-evident bias in the MSM for liberal candidates and causes. Perhaps I'm the canary in the mineshaft along with my fellow citizens disgusted by the blatant favoritism dressed up at journalism as it's practiced at the major news outlets in this country. Most of the time, people simply yawn and turn away. But recent developments really call for greater scrutiny.
This past week, George Stephanopolous, the moderator of the Sunday morning political talk show This Week and one of the anchors of Good Morning America was discovered to have donated $75,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative for such endeavors as the fight againts AIDS and other noble causes. In and of itself, there's no problem with the donations. But the fact that he never disclosed this fact to the public and continued to act as an impartial interviewer of political themes calls into question his bias. In fact, just before the public disclosure, Mr. Stephanopolous interviewed Peter Scheweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, an expose of the Clintons' ties to big money and usages of those connections. Here's the interview:
Let's not forget: Not only did Mr. Stephanopolous donate money to the Clintons' foundation, he used to work for Mr. Clinton when he was President. If nothing else, he should have recused himself from doing the interview to avoid the appearance of impropriety due to his previous position. To ask Mr. Schweizer about his connections to the Bush White House is almost laughable, especially when the CGI donation scandal was hanging in the air. Mr. Stephanopolous apologized publicly for his omission, and ABC later called it a simple mistake, but for a public that relies on the media to be its watchdog on the government, this is a serious breach of trust.
Earlier, Bob Schieffer, a well-known liberal commentator, announced his retirement from Face the Nation, and CBS quickly named as his successor John Dickerson, the political director for CBS. Mr. Dickerson wrote for Slate magazine and penned this ditty:
Let's not forget that CBS News' President is David Rhodes. He only happens to be the brother of Ben Rhodes, currently the deputy national security advisor for strategic communication. Technically, his title is Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication and Speechwriting.
Well.
Mr. Stephanopolous made a point to question Mr. Schweizer's Bush ties and whether they had anything to do with the book he wrote about the Clintons. Isn't it only fair to question whether Mr. Stephanopolous's ties to Clintons had anything to do with the way he interviewed Mr. Schweizer? Or how Mr. Dickerson will treat the White House during the balance of the Obama administration? Or how CBS reports news about the Obama administration?
How is it that the media is allowed to get away with this? The last time a MSM was this closely tied to government was when Josef Goebbels and Leni Refinstahl worked for the Nazis.
This isn't Nazi Germany. This should not be allowed.
I would love to put any of these flacks on the witness stand under oath and ask them questions about how they conducted their work.
The answers they would give would be sad or they would be scary.
This is un-American. The Fourth Estate, as my liberal friend once presciently noted, is letting down the country.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
This past week, George Stephanopolous, the moderator of the Sunday morning political talk show This Week and one of the anchors of Good Morning America was discovered to have donated $75,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative for such endeavors as the fight againts AIDS and other noble causes. In and of itself, there's no problem with the donations. But the fact that he never disclosed this fact to the public and continued to act as an impartial interviewer of political themes calls into question his bias. In fact, just before the public disclosure, Mr. Stephanopolous interviewed Peter Scheweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, an expose of the Clintons' ties to big money and usages of those connections. Here's the interview:
Let's not forget: Not only did Mr. Stephanopolous donate money to the Clintons' foundation, he used to work for Mr. Clinton when he was President. If nothing else, he should have recused himself from doing the interview to avoid the appearance of impropriety due to his previous position. To ask Mr. Schweizer about his connections to the Bush White House is almost laughable, especially when the CGI donation scandal was hanging in the air. Mr. Stephanopolous apologized publicly for his omission, and ABC later called it a simple mistake, but for a public that relies on the media to be its watchdog on the government, this is a serious breach of trust.
Earlier, Bob Schieffer, a well-known liberal commentator, announced his retirement from Face the Nation, and CBS quickly named as his successor John Dickerson, the political director for CBS. Mr. Dickerson wrote for Slate magazine and penned this ditty:
Go for the Throat!
Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.
Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.
... A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon.
... The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.
... Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.
... This approach is not a path of gentle engagement. It requires confrontation and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president demonstrated in the first term. He can't turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official second-term photograph: smiling, but with arms crossed.
The president already appears to be headed down this path. He has admitted he’s not going to spend much time improving his schmoozing skills; he's going to get outside of Washington to ratchet up public pressure on Republicans. He is transforming his successful political operation into a governing operation. It will have his legacy and agenda in mind—and it won’t be affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, so it will be able to accept essentially unlimited donations. The president tried to use his political arm this way after the 2008 election, but he was constrained by re-election and his early promises of bipartisanship. No more. Those days are done.
It is unthinkable that a person writing a blueprint for the destruction of a political party can in any way be unbiased when it comes to reporting or interviewing. That anyone believes the MSM is impartial and unbiased is living in an earlier time and under a rock.Let's not forget that CBS News' President is David Rhodes. He only happens to be the brother of Ben Rhodes, currently the deputy national security advisor for strategic communication. Technically, his title is Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication and Speechwriting.
Well.
Mr. Stephanopolous made a point to question Mr. Schweizer's Bush ties and whether they had anything to do with the book he wrote about the Clintons. Isn't it only fair to question whether Mr. Stephanopolous's ties to Clintons had anything to do with the way he interviewed Mr. Schweizer? Or how Mr. Dickerson will treat the White House during the balance of the Obama administration? Or how CBS reports news about the Obama administration?
How is it that the media is allowed to get away with this? The last time a MSM was this closely tied to government was when Josef Goebbels and Leni Refinstahl worked for the Nazis.
This isn't Nazi Germany. This should not be allowed.
I would love to put any of these flacks on the witness stand under oath and ask them questions about how they conducted their work.
The answers they would give would be sad or they would be scary.
This is un-American. The Fourth Estate, as my liberal friend once presciently noted, is letting down the country.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Liberal Idiocy
Apologists, from what I'm gleaning from various reports, are trying to suggest that the jihadi attempt in Garland, Texas, that was foiled heroically by an off-duty police officer, could have been avoided had the cartoonists not poke the Islamofascist bear by exercising their First Amendment rights. I'm stupified.
There very same apologists try to say, at the same time from the other side of their mouths, that they support the concept of Free Speech. Although there is a philosophical argument that can be made in a vacuum that the right to exercise one's freedom of speech includes the right to withhold said exercise, in reality the two are mutually exclusive.
To not engage in the freedom of speech intended by the cartoonists who were going to have a contest to see whose depiction of the prophet Mohammed was deemed the best would have been, necessarily, to curtail freedom of speech due to fear. Liberals love to declare freedom of speech when the speech they support bothers conservatives, but when speech such as this contemplated in Garland, Texas, is supported by conservatives, they make excuses for why it shouldn't be exercised.
The utter hypocrisy of the situation is galling. Where were these voices of restraint when Robert Maplethorpe was displaying his very graphic sexual photos that offended so many Christian people? Or when artwork was making the rounds involving a crucifix in a jar of urine. Where were the apologists suggesting that this artwork shouldn't be displayed? Nay, they were championing freedom of expression and lecturing the rest of us to restrain our impulses, the same impulses jihadis act on now.
Just because Christians don't put people to death whom they believe blaspheme what they believe doesn't make their offense any less valuable. Muslims may well take great offense to what the cartoonists were doing, but that doesn't entitle them to silence the cartoonists by killing them. And that the cartoonists' actions provoke howls of disagreement is beside the point; just as we Christians had to restrain ourselves when the other putative artists were poking at us, so too must Muslims behave in a civilized manner -- or leave the country.
Liberal apologists miss the point: The First Amendment especially protects offensive speech. The only limitations on free speech are those that time, place and manner impose because of the dangerous nature of the speech, e.g., yelling out Fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Just as Christians had to endure the blasphemous works of so-called artists, so too must Muslims -- and their liberal apologists -- sit on the sidelines and seethe quietly. As loathesome as the Westboro Baptist Church expressions have been, they are allowed -- with time, place and manner restrictions, but still allowed. The same must hold true for cartoonists and others whose speech offends a segment of society.
Muslims are emboldened by our failure to depend the Constitution. Their bellicose threats and transparently false grievances allow them to push an agenda that is unacceptable to the vast majority of people here. No bacon in restaurants because it isn't halal. Neither is it kosher for orthodox Jews, but no one sees them threatening Subway shops. It's ludicrous that we kow-tow to their demands in the name of political correctness unaware of what it's doing to the very essence of our Constitution.
Yet, I'm not surprised by this. The liberal mantra -- do as we say, not as we do -- underlies the liberal approach to all things constitutional in this country. So if the majority of this country is offended by their urgings of restraint of freedom of speech, we should just sit back and say nothing. If we're offended by someone else's free speech, we should sit back and say nothing.
Soon enough, with the imposition of sharia law, it won't be a question of choosing to remain silent.
We'll either be quiet or have our heads lopped off.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
There very same apologists try to say, at the same time from the other side of their mouths, that they support the concept of Free Speech. Although there is a philosophical argument that can be made in a vacuum that the right to exercise one's freedom of speech includes the right to withhold said exercise, in reality the two are mutually exclusive.
To not engage in the freedom of speech intended by the cartoonists who were going to have a contest to see whose depiction of the prophet Mohammed was deemed the best would have been, necessarily, to curtail freedom of speech due to fear. Liberals love to declare freedom of speech when the speech they support bothers conservatives, but when speech such as this contemplated in Garland, Texas, is supported by conservatives, they make excuses for why it shouldn't be exercised.
The utter hypocrisy of the situation is galling. Where were these voices of restraint when Robert Maplethorpe was displaying his very graphic sexual photos that offended so many Christian people? Or when artwork was making the rounds involving a crucifix in a jar of urine. Where were the apologists suggesting that this artwork shouldn't be displayed? Nay, they were championing freedom of expression and lecturing the rest of us to restrain our impulses, the same impulses jihadis act on now.
Just because Christians don't put people to death whom they believe blaspheme what they believe doesn't make their offense any less valuable. Muslims may well take great offense to what the cartoonists were doing, but that doesn't entitle them to silence the cartoonists by killing them. And that the cartoonists' actions provoke howls of disagreement is beside the point; just as we Christians had to restrain ourselves when the other putative artists were poking at us, so too must Muslims behave in a civilized manner -- or leave the country.
Liberal apologists miss the point: The First Amendment especially protects offensive speech. The only limitations on free speech are those that time, place and manner impose because of the dangerous nature of the speech, e.g., yelling out Fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Just as Christians had to endure the blasphemous works of so-called artists, so too must Muslims -- and their liberal apologists -- sit on the sidelines and seethe quietly. As loathesome as the Westboro Baptist Church expressions have been, they are allowed -- with time, place and manner restrictions, but still allowed. The same must hold true for cartoonists and others whose speech offends a segment of society.
Muslims are emboldened by our failure to depend the Constitution. Their bellicose threats and transparently false grievances allow them to push an agenda that is unacceptable to the vast majority of people here. No bacon in restaurants because it isn't halal. Neither is it kosher for orthodox Jews, but no one sees them threatening Subway shops. It's ludicrous that we kow-tow to their demands in the name of political correctness unaware of what it's doing to the very essence of our Constitution.
Yet, I'm not surprised by this. The liberal mantra -- do as we say, not as we do -- underlies the liberal approach to all things constitutional in this country. So if the majority of this country is offended by their urgings of restraint of freedom of speech, we should just sit back and say nothing. If we're offended by someone else's free speech, we should sit back and say nothing.
Soon enough, with the imposition of sharia law, it won't be a question of choosing to remain silent.
We'll either be quiet or have our heads lopped off.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, April 24, 2015
Treason and Traitors
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
So says 18 U.S.C. §2381, the federal statute that defines treason and its consequences. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. §2385 states:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
To me, it seems pretty clear what treasonous and seditious activity is. Lately, with the recent revelations that two turncoat Americans, Adam Gadahn and Ahmed Farouq, were killed in drone strikes, there's been a lot of handwringing about the lack of due process afforded these traitors prior to their executions. From a purely legal standpoint, there's probably some truth to the concern. A duly sitting court of law with the traitors represented by counsel before the obvious verdict is handed down never existed for these two (and a couple of others before them, it should be noted). Technically, this is wrong according to our constitutional guarantee.
At the same time, I have no trouble with what happened to them. Nevermind the collateral deaths of two hostages -- that's another topic for another day. These two traitors were clearly bent on the overthrow of our way of life and the installation of sharia law, a medieval way of life that elevates Islamic men over all others, with serious consequences for anyone not an Islamic man or one not following sharia law to the letter.
It's antithetical about everything I believe as an American, an attorney and a human being. Were the most heinous criminal in American history, caught on tape doing his crimes, to be brought to justice, I would insist that he first have the benefit of his constitutional guarantees. But these traitors are a different breed apart. They threaten not only our lives, but our way of life and all that we hold dear. They want to convert the entire world into an Islamic caliphate.
I don't claim to know a lot about the Koran. I have a copy -- know they enemy, they offered to send me a free copy, probably thinking I would be happy to convert once I read their truths -- and intend to read it to decide for myself whether it's the religion of peace as they claim. In the meantime, these two traitors, whether they've bought into a radical version of Islam or the real thing, meet the defintions set forth in the United States Code as traitors. Since trying to round them up to bring them to justice as we'd expect under our system of justice is problematic, I have no issue with them being eliminated without due process. For my money, they've forfeited their right to constitutional protections through their treason. What's more, by actively waging war outside the country against us, they necessarily don't have the same level of rights as they would were they in the country. In other words, were they caught here planning terrorism, or if they'd carried out an attack here and were caught, then they'd have to get their constitutional rights. But outside the country, they enjoy no such privileges.
It's hard, it's indifferent and it's fundamentally wrong, but I have no trouble with my position. They wouldn't hesitate to kill me and mine because we're Christian. I have no hesitation killing them because they're traitors.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
So says 18 U.S.C. §2381, the federal statute that defines treason and its consequences. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. §2385 states:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
To me, it seems pretty clear what treasonous and seditious activity is. Lately, with the recent revelations that two turncoat Americans, Adam Gadahn and Ahmed Farouq, were killed in drone strikes, there's been a lot of handwringing about the lack of due process afforded these traitors prior to their executions. From a purely legal standpoint, there's probably some truth to the concern. A duly sitting court of law with the traitors represented by counsel before the obvious verdict is handed down never existed for these two (and a couple of others before them, it should be noted). Technically, this is wrong according to our constitutional guarantee.
At the same time, I have no trouble with what happened to them. Nevermind the collateral deaths of two hostages -- that's another topic for another day. These two traitors were clearly bent on the overthrow of our way of life and the installation of sharia law, a medieval way of life that elevates Islamic men over all others, with serious consequences for anyone not an Islamic man or one not following sharia law to the letter.
It's antithetical about everything I believe as an American, an attorney and a human being. Were the most heinous criminal in American history, caught on tape doing his crimes, to be brought to justice, I would insist that he first have the benefit of his constitutional guarantees. But these traitors are a different breed apart. They threaten not only our lives, but our way of life and all that we hold dear. They want to convert the entire world into an Islamic caliphate.
I don't claim to know a lot about the Koran. I have a copy -- know they enemy, they offered to send me a free copy, probably thinking I would be happy to convert once I read their truths -- and intend to read it to decide for myself whether it's the religion of peace as they claim. In the meantime, these two traitors, whether they've bought into a radical version of Islam or the real thing, meet the defintions set forth in the United States Code as traitors. Since trying to round them up to bring them to justice as we'd expect under our system of justice is problematic, I have no issue with them being eliminated without due process. For my money, they've forfeited their right to constitutional protections through their treason. What's more, by actively waging war outside the country against us, they necessarily don't have the same level of rights as they would were they in the country. In other words, were they caught here planning terrorism, or if they'd carried out an attack here and were caught, then they'd have to get their constitutional rights. But outside the country, they enjoy no such privileges.
It's hard, it's indifferent and it's fundamentally wrong, but I have no trouble with my position. They wouldn't hesitate to kill me and mine because we're Christian. I have no hesitation killing them because they're traitors.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Get Americans Home
What with the Iranian nuke deal and the Bergdahl trade, one would think that the administration would be eager to combine the two and combine its questionable negotiating skills to make political hay and get back four Americans being held in Iran. Thus far, at least publicly, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to link the negotiations to the fate of the four captive Americans, but the public outcry has been met with yawns and denials that anything other than sanctions or nuclear weaponry would be included in the agreement with Iran.
The administration has a very curious approach to negotiations and getting Americans released from jail in foreign countries. Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi took a wrong turn at a border crossing in California and spent four months in a Mexican jail because he had weapons in his car that he was lawfully carrying -- in the United States. What should have been a very quick diplomatic resolution dragged on for months. Contrary to assertions that the administration did the right thing by not pressing for Mr. Tahmooressi's immediate return, there are scores of such incidents involving citizens from both countries who mistakenly cross the border and are returned with reasonable dispatch. Such was not the case with Mr. Tahmooressi.
Then there is the journalist, the Marine, a pastor and a tourist reputed to be a CIA agent being held by the Iranians. Three of the cases seem like slam dunks: The journalists and the pastor, at least, should be returned. I suppose each of them could be a covert agent, but there is little evidence beside the Iranians' assertions in support of such a thesis. The pastor, Saeed Abidini, is a Christian, which seems the only plausible reason for his incarceration. The journalist, Jason Rezaian, is of Iranian descent as is Pastor Abidini. He's been charged with security-related offenses, probably espionage, and awaits trial. The Marine, Amir Hekmati, obtained permission from the Iranian government before his trip so he could visit family in the country. He's also been charged with espionage. The fourth, Robert Levinson, was an FBI employee investigating cigarette smuggling in a region that doesn't require a visa to visit. Iran has denied Mr. Levinson was in its country, but the state-run Iranian press has acknowledged the government's involvement in his disappearance.
If nothing else, we should hold up the nuke deal until the fates of these men are settled, preferably with repatriation. But for some reason, the government is proving itself feckless and refuses to include their cases in the nuclear deal.
This is both typical and unusual at the same time. Remember the trade for Bowe Bergdahl? The administration created a cover story that Bergdahl was a serviceman who had served with honor and distinction and that under the rubric of leaving no American behind, we had to get him back. At the same time, it served the President's purpose of emptying Gitmo to trade five hardened Taliban terrorists for him. The political implications were transparent, only to blow up in the administration's face when the Army later brought court martial charges against Bergdahl for desertion and misbehavior with the enemy.
It would seem like a no-brainer: Either we get out American citizens back or there's no deal, the sanctions will continue and Iran's economy will be ruined. Yet the administration seems to be hell-bent on restoring the country that is the foremost exporter of terrorism, one with whom we are in a proxy war in Yemen, to the league of nations and will not allow four Americans' lives to get in the way. The chances of Iran ever having the capability to send an intercontinental nuclear weapon to the States are slim, but lifting sanctions and getting Iran to slow down its effort to build the bomb are more important than Americans' lives. Just as emptying Gitmo and ridding ourselves of five terrorists in exchange for a deserter whom the President could turn into political fodder is more important than keeping the terrorists locked up.
History will be the best judge of this. Perhaps there are things to which we aren't privvy at this time. But unless there's some shocking revelation in a history book in the future, these missteps involving Americans' lives will paint a shameful picture of our government.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
The administration has a very curious approach to negotiations and getting Americans released from jail in foreign countries. Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi took a wrong turn at a border crossing in California and spent four months in a Mexican jail because he had weapons in his car that he was lawfully carrying -- in the United States. What should have been a very quick diplomatic resolution dragged on for months. Contrary to assertions that the administration did the right thing by not pressing for Mr. Tahmooressi's immediate return, there are scores of such incidents involving citizens from both countries who mistakenly cross the border and are returned with reasonable dispatch. Such was not the case with Mr. Tahmooressi.
Then there is the journalist, the Marine, a pastor and a tourist reputed to be a CIA agent being held by the Iranians. Three of the cases seem like slam dunks: The journalists and the pastor, at least, should be returned. I suppose each of them could be a covert agent, but there is little evidence beside the Iranians' assertions in support of such a thesis. The pastor, Saeed Abidini, is a Christian, which seems the only plausible reason for his incarceration. The journalist, Jason Rezaian, is of Iranian descent as is Pastor Abidini. He's been charged with security-related offenses, probably espionage, and awaits trial. The Marine, Amir Hekmati, obtained permission from the Iranian government before his trip so he could visit family in the country. He's also been charged with espionage. The fourth, Robert Levinson, was an FBI employee investigating cigarette smuggling in a region that doesn't require a visa to visit. Iran has denied Mr. Levinson was in its country, but the state-run Iranian press has acknowledged the government's involvement in his disappearance.
If nothing else, we should hold up the nuke deal until the fates of these men are settled, preferably with repatriation. But for some reason, the government is proving itself feckless and refuses to include their cases in the nuclear deal.
This is both typical and unusual at the same time. Remember the trade for Bowe Bergdahl? The administration created a cover story that Bergdahl was a serviceman who had served with honor and distinction and that under the rubric of leaving no American behind, we had to get him back. At the same time, it served the President's purpose of emptying Gitmo to trade five hardened Taliban terrorists for him. The political implications were transparent, only to blow up in the administration's face when the Army later brought court martial charges against Bergdahl for desertion and misbehavior with the enemy.
It would seem like a no-brainer: Either we get out American citizens back or there's no deal, the sanctions will continue and Iran's economy will be ruined. Yet the administration seems to be hell-bent on restoring the country that is the foremost exporter of terrorism, one with whom we are in a proxy war in Yemen, to the league of nations and will not allow four Americans' lives to get in the way. The chances of Iran ever having the capability to send an intercontinental nuclear weapon to the States are slim, but lifting sanctions and getting Iran to slow down its effort to build the bomb are more important than Americans' lives. Just as emptying Gitmo and ridding ourselves of five terrorists in exchange for a deserter whom the President could turn into political fodder is more important than keeping the terrorists locked up.
History will be the best judge of this. Perhaps there are things to which we aren't privvy at this time. But unless there's some shocking revelation in a history book in the future, these missteps involving Americans' lives will paint a shameful picture of our government.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, April 20, 2015
The Iran Nuke Deal
Admittedly, I haven't been following the capitulations negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal with rapt attention. But I do watch the news. And not surprisingly, I'm not impressed by what our negotiators have accomplished.
First of all, as with many Americans who are not part of theStar Chamber inner circle of this administration, I do not know for sure what's in the agreement. I'm sure this is by design for a couple of reasons. To begin, to ape what Nancy Pelosi infamously declared about Obamacare, we need to agree to it to find out what's in it. This administration seems to feel that the best approach to governing is akin to shooting first and asking questions later which is antithetical to our deliberative style of government. I believe that is more likely this time because, first, the President is confronted with a Congress that he no longer controls and, second, he is trying to couch the agreement as something that doesn't require Congressional approval.
Under the Constitution, certain kind of treaties require two-thirds concurrence by the Senate. Mr. Obama rightfully fears he would never get that approval, given the way he's handled Republicans with his approach to bipartisanship (which means, you agree with me or else). Of course, there are different kind of agreements, or treaties, and the Hair-Splitter-In-Chief is trying to claim that this is an Executive Agreement that doesn't require Congressional approval. The only problem with that approach is that Congress already put in place sanctions that would, were this agreement to be binding, would undo those sanctions without Congressional approval.
Faced with a testy legislative body, last week the White House agreed to give the Senate thirty days to review and pass the agreement...once it's reduced to writing. That's another interesting part of the story.
Since nothing was reduced to writing, we don't know for sure what the agreement is supposed to be. Interestingly, Washington and Tehran disagree, apparently, on an essential term in the agreement, that of the timing of the lifting of sanctions. Washington claims that they will be phased in gradually, while Tehran says that they are to be lifted immediately. How there can be an agreement when one of the crucial elements of the agreement isn't even agreed upon makes one wonder.
Then there's the whole Death to America/Death to Israel facet, where our opposites continue to chant the former and pledge the latter. How can one negotiate with an opponent who is trying to liquidate its opposite?
The Russians then muddied the waters this past week, finally allowing an agreement reached in 2007 to supply advanced anti-aircraft defense systems to Iran to go through. As a form of realpolitik, this makes sense: Although none of the rhetoric directed at the West has been directed at the Russians, with former Soviet territories largely populated by Muslims, and with a nuclear Iran sitting on its southern border, it makes little sense to allow Iran to get nukes. Then again, giving it the capacity to defend itself against air attacks would seem to be counterintuitive to that rationale, my suspicion is that there's something underhanded in approving the deal at this late date.
Finally, there's the tangled, complicated real world situation in the Middle East. As I understand the way things are right now, Iranian Shi'ite militia are helping American-trained and -equipped Iraqi forces combat ISIS forces that American warplanes bomb while Iranian-backed Yemenis have overthrown the American-backed regime, which has prompted the Saudis to bomb Sana'a. That makes for tremendously strange bedfellows indeed. It also makes for a hopelessly confused backdrop for a putative agreement coming from an administration this is as transparent as mud.
Is it any wonder we're not respected or feared anymore?
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
First of all, as with many Americans who are not part of the
Under the Constitution, certain kind of treaties require two-thirds concurrence by the Senate. Mr. Obama rightfully fears he would never get that approval, given the way he's handled Republicans with his approach to bipartisanship (which means, you agree with me or else). Of course, there are different kind of agreements, or treaties, and the Hair-Splitter-In-Chief is trying to claim that this is an Executive Agreement that doesn't require Congressional approval. The only problem with that approach is that Congress already put in place sanctions that would, were this agreement to be binding, would undo those sanctions without Congressional approval.
Faced with a testy legislative body, last week the White House agreed to give the Senate thirty days to review and pass the agreement...once it's reduced to writing. That's another interesting part of the story.
Since nothing was reduced to writing, we don't know for sure what the agreement is supposed to be. Interestingly, Washington and Tehran disagree, apparently, on an essential term in the agreement, that of the timing of the lifting of sanctions. Washington claims that they will be phased in gradually, while Tehran says that they are to be lifted immediately. How there can be an agreement when one of the crucial elements of the agreement isn't even agreed upon makes one wonder.
Then there's the whole Death to America/Death to Israel facet, where our opposites continue to chant the former and pledge the latter. How can one negotiate with an opponent who is trying to liquidate its opposite?
The Russians then muddied the waters this past week, finally allowing an agreement reached in 2007 to supply advanced anti-aircraft defense systems to Iran to go through. As a form of realpolitik, this makes sense: Although none of the rhetoric directed at the West has been directed at the Russians, with former Soviet territories largely populated by Muslims, and with a nuclear Iran sitting on its southern border, it makes little sense to allow Iran to get nukes. Then again, giving it the capacity to defend itself against air attacks would seem to be counterintuitive to that rationale, my suspicion is that there's something underhanded in approving the deal at this late date.
Finally, there's the tangled, complicated real world situation in the Middle East. As I understand the way things are right now, Iranian Shi'ite militia are helping American-trained and -equipped Iraqi forces combat ISIS forces that American warplanes bomb while Iranian-backed Yemenis have overthrown the American-backed regime, which has prompted the Saudis to bomb Sana'a. That makes for tremendously strange bedfellows indeed. It also makes for a hopelessly confused backdrop for a putative agreement coming from an administration this is as transparent as mud.
Is it any wonder we're not respected or feared anymore?
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Ugly Studs
Since I wrote a blogpost on women who are held out as beauties whom I find less than appealing, I think it's only fair that I do the same for men. The problem, of course, in that writing this piece, I expose myself to multiple but competing charges: One, that I'm jealous of these men and the women they attract and two, that I'm gay. I'm neither jealous of any of these men nor am I gay...not that there's anything wrong with that.
There are guys who end up with beautiful women that leave me scratching my noggin. By no means am I in the class of George Clooney or Brad Pitt, but some of these guys...let's just say they must have other endowments that recommend them to women. Sure, athletes and musicians and rich people necessarily attract women no matter what they look like. But that doesn't mean we have to hold them out as being among the handsomest men around. It just means they have the wherewithal to attract beautiful women no matter how ludicrous it would be if they lacked the athletic prowess, celebrity or wealth with which God endowed them.
Here, then, is my completely arbitrary list totally devoid of envy:
Tom Cruise: Please. The man's 5'7" to begin with. He has the profile of a shark. He's batsh*t crazy and a Scientologist to boot. The only thing he has is a smile and a healthy head of hair.
John Travolta: By no means nearly as obnoxious with his Scientology as the man above him, I've just never understood this one. He seems like a nice enough guy, but he too is weird. With that nose that never ends and his penchant for dressing absurdly, I just don't get it.
Jake Gyllenhaal: This guy looks like a neanderthal. Sure, he can bulk up for a role, but that face? His jawline has the contour of a shovel. And he has questionable taste in women, what with that whole Taylor Swift dalliance.
Adam Duritz: Courtney Cox. Mary Louise Parker. Monica Potter. Emmy Rossum. Even Jennifer Aniston, whom many believe is gorgeous. This guy looks like an oversized furball some cat coughed up. He may be the nicest guy ever, but for crying out loud...
Anthony Kiedis: Another of the great unwashed, his features are better suited to character actors than Lotharios. Still, it's the bad boy musician thing.
David Schwimmer: This is the Friends effect. Both he and Jennifer Aniston benefited from being on that show. At least Ms. Aniston can act. Mr. Schwimmer reminds me of the goofy guy in high school who tried out for plays so he could get girls, because that was about the only way he was going to get close to them.
Bradley Cooper: Mr. Cooper's not unattractive, he's just not as attractive as he's made out to be. He seems like a nice enough guy, and he's a good actor. But he's no Adonis.
Joe Jonas: Just because.
Donnie Wahlberg: Contrary to what anyone thinks, no matter how hot Jenny McCarthy is, I'm not jealous of this guy. I just don't see how he's attractive in the slightest.
Adrian Grenier: If things were any different, he could be a hot ethnic woman. He's not a good looking man. Just sayin'.
John Cusack: I'm not sure he's regarded as handsome, but I know there are women who drool over him. His face is pinched and I hear he's not exactly the nicest guy.
Javier Bardem: Despite my love of all things Spanish, this guy is not remotely attractive. Sure, Penelope married him, but that was almost a dynastic arranged marriage. He's another one who would be better cast as the heavy in movies rather than the love interest. Great actor, though.
Tommy Lee Jones: Just kidding.
Dennis Quaid: On what level is this guy good-looking. No, I'm not confusing him with his uglier brother Randy. I just don't see it. As with Mr. Gyllenhaal, he has a shovel face that doesn't say male perfection to me. His choice in women is also questionable.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
There are guys who end up with beautiful women that leave me scratching my noggin. By no means am I in the class of George Clooney or Brad Pitt, but some of these guys...let's just say they must have other endowments that recommend them to women. Sure, athletes and musicians and rich people necessarily attract women no matter what they look like. But that doesn't mean we have to hold them out as being among the handsomest men around. It just means they have the wherewithal to attract beautiful women no matter how ludicrous it would be if they lacked the athletic prowess, celebrity or wealth with which God endowed them.
Here, then, is my completely arbitrary list totally devoid of envy:
Tom Cruise: Please. The man's 5'7" to begin with. He has the profile of a shark. He's batsh*t crazy and a Scientologist to boot. The only thing he has is a smile and a healthy head of hair.
John Travolta: By no means nearly as obnoxious with his Scientology as the man above him, I've just never understood this one. He seems like a nice enough guy, but he too is weird. With that nose that never ends and his penchant for dressing absurdly, I just don't get it.
Jake Gyllenhaal: This guy looks like a neanderthal. Sure, he can bulk up for a role, but that face? His jawline has the contour of a shovel. And he has questionable taste in women, what with that whole Taylor Swift dalliance.
Adam Duritz: Courtney Cox. Mary Louise Parker. Monica Potter. Emmy Rossum. Even Jennifer Aniston, whom many believe is gorgeous. This guy looks like an oversized furball some cat coughed up. He may be the nicest guy ever, but for crying out loud...
Anthony Kiedis: Another of the great unwashed, his features are better suited to character actors than Lotharios. Still, it's the bad boy musician thing.
David Schwimmer: This is the Friends effect. Both he and Jennifer Aniston benefited from being on that show. At least Ms. Aniston can act. Mr. Schwimmer reminds me of the goofy guy in high school who tried out for plays so he could get girls, because that was about the only way he was going to get close to them.
Bradley Cooper: Mr. Cooper's not unattractive, he's just not as attractive as he's made out to be. He seems like a nice enough guy, and he's a good actor. But he's no Adonis.
Joe Jonas: Just because.
Donnie Wahlberg: Contrary to what anyone thinks, no matter how hot Jenny McCarthy is, I'm not jealous of this guy. I just don't see how he's attractive in the slightest.
Adrian Grenier: If things were any different, he could be a hot ethnic woman. He's not a good looking man. Just sayin'.
John Cusack: I'm not sure he's regarded as handsome, but I know there are women who drool over him. His face is pinched and I hear he's not exactly the nicest guy.
Javier Bardem: Despite my love of all things Spanish, this guy is not remotely attractive. Sure, Penelope married him, but that was almost a dynastic arranged marriage. He's another one who would be better cast as the heavy in movies rather than the love interest. Great actor, though.
Tommy Lee Jones: Just kidding.
Dennis Quaid: On what level is this guy good-looking. No, I'm not confusing him with his uglier brother Randy. I just don't see it. As with Mr. Gyllenhaal, he has a shovel face that doesn't say male perfection to me. His choice in women is also questionable.
(c) 2015 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)