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

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

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

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

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

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

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