Archive / November, 2012

Charlie Brown and the ‘Little Rock Nine’

Originally posted at American Thinker

In 1957, outside Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas, a white mob, together with the National Guard ordered there by Governor Orval Faubus, attempted to block nine black students from entering school.  A federal court injunction ordered police to escort the African-American students, known as the Little Rock Nine, into the high school.  In response to a letter from the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., President Eisenhower instructed the Arkansas National Guard and federal troops to protect the students for the remainder of the school year.

Subsequently, Ernest Green became the first African-American to graduate from Central High School.  In protest, Governor Faubus decided to stop integration by closing all four of Little Rock’s public high schools.  In 1959 the Supreme Court ordered the schools to reopen and proceed with desegregation.  The rest is history.

Now, 55 years later, Little Rock is involved in another school-related controversy.  This time it’s over religious freedom, the “war on Christmas,” and an absurd interpretation of state-established religion by God-hating control freaks.

Reminiscent of the patron saint of activist atheists, Michael Newdow, Arkansans have been blessed by the Arkansas Society of Free Thinkers, an organization of secularists whose motto is: “Are you good without a god?  Hey, so are we!”  With those words as inspiration, Thinkers volunteer to “promote public acceptance of nonbelievers” and are committed to “defend science education and the separation of church and state.”

Now, in place of the NAACP and Thurgood Marshall doing the good work of protecting the rights of black students, a half-century later, the Arkansas Society of Free Thinkers are crusading on behalf of schoolchildren.  This Christmas, “free thinkers” are defending the parents of pupils who attend Terry Elementary School who supposedly are upset about narrow-minded teachers daring to sanction youngsters attending a presentation of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at a nearby Christian church.  So much for free thinking.

Nevertheless, although the group approves of placing a Winter Solstice display at the Arkansas State Capitol, its mission is to deny religious believers things like the right to place a Nativity scene on the village green.  In addition to misinterpreting the true meaning of “separation of church and state,” zealous Thinkers are religious about promulgating scientific theory as if it were gospel.

Adding to the controversy surrounding “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” a spokesperson for the free-thinking society, Anne Orsi, Esq., has voluntarily stepped forward on behalf of those parents “reluctant to speak up” about wanting their children to remain outside the four walls of the church building during school hours.  Orsi claims that some parents are anxious “because they are concerned about their kids being singled out and bullied” by young people whose parents have no problem with a public event being held at a church whose name means “unconditional love” in Koine Greek.

According to Orsi, holding “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at the Agape Church translates into “sponsoring field trips to evangelical churches,” which in free-thinking circles is apparently more ominous than filling up a shuttle bus and transporting the kids to Planned Parenthood for their Christmas special.

The late Charles M. Schulz‘s “A Charlie Brown Christmas” first appeared on CBS just eight years after the Little Rock Nine marched into Central High School, and it has aired every year since.  And while Grinch Orsi concurs that “[e]veryone loves Charlie Brown,” she feels that the “religious content of the program is a problem, as is the trip to a church to see it.”

In the season of “Peace on earth and good will towards men,” what’s sorely needed right about now is a modern-day Martin Luther King, Jr., who declared in 1957 that desegregation was a “great opportunity for the longings and aspirations of millions of peoples of good will” to be realized.

Think of it this way: in the same way that Orval Faubus tried to prevent a white high school from being infiltrated by black students, Ms. Orsi’s group is simply attempting to protect vulnerable elementary-school children from being negatively influenced by a Peanuts Nativity play, talk of the commercialization of Christmas, and cartoon characters reciting fantastical, mind-bending Bible verses.

Similar to Arkansas enforcing parental notification laws, what Orsi and her band of outraged atheists conveniently failed to mention is that, in fact, parental consent was required to attend the Christmas production.  According to Pamela Smith, communications director for the Little Rock School District: “Because it will be held at a church, as some public events often are, a letter was sent home with students so parents who took exception and wished to have their children remain at school could do so.”

The problem is that for these so-called “free thinkers,” opting out just doesn’t suffice.  For them, free thinking means denying children the freedom to attend, period.  Maybe Orsi and the Free Thinkers would back off if Agape Church agreed to secularize Charlie Brown’s Christmas, hold the production at a Little Rock Health Clinic, and decorate that spindly little tree with assorted age-appropriate birth control devices.

In the end, it seems fairly clear that what’s going on in Little Rock is part of an orchestrated war on Christmas being waged by a minority whose views are every bit as distorted as those of Governor Orval Faubus.

Bye-Bye, Fried Twinkies

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

In a “shared little-known facts about herself” interview, which revealed that besides sleeping with her dog when the President is out of town, the first lady admitted she partakes of the foods she forbids her husband to eat.  Michelle told US magazine that while out campaigning she’s tried “[e]verything from local farmers’ market produce in North Carolina to fried Twinkies in Iowa.”

Yet, prior to Barack Obama setting out on his summer Midwest bus tour, Michelle forbade him to indulge in fried Twinkies at state fairs. Now, Hostess, the makers of Ding-Dongs, politically incorrect Ho-Hos, Wonder Bread, and friable Twinkies, is officially out of business.  Therefore, thanks to Mrs. Obama’s dietary restriction, the President of the United States may never be able to enjoy a battered, deep fried specialty on a stick.

Although the iconic snack cake manufacturer had “already reached a contract agreement with its largest union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,” it was too late.  According to Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn “thousands of members in [its] second-biggest union went on strike late last week after rejecting in September a contract offer that cut wages and benefits.”

Rayburn apologized to dedicated Sno Ball fans, saying, “We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike. Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders.”

Hopefully the Hostess buyout doesn’t end up going to another Chinese bidder because somehow Rinkies and Fing Fongs just don’t sound as appetizing as Twinkies and Ding Dongs.

As for the 18,000+ ex-Hostess personnel, “Most employees who lose their jobs should be eligible for government-provided unemployment benefits.” Laid-off snack cake workers can now line up behind the thousands of other Americans who overwhelmingly decided to continue moving FORWARD on the unemployment line for four more years.

Hostess said its “wind down would mean the closure of 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes and 570 bakery outlet stores in the United States.” Besides leaving flour, sugar and unused hairnets behind, the demise of Hostess will also mean that state fairs will no longer get mass deliveries of Twinkies to fill those deep fryers.

As luck would have it, state fair concession stand owners still have time to hoard Twinkies because distribution centers “will remain open for several days to sell already-baked products.”  Stale Twinkies are not a problem because, urban legend or not, the spongy cakes do have a reputation for extended shelf life.  Just ask Roger Bennatti, a Science Teacher at George Stevens Academy in Blue Hill, Maine. Roger “wanted to find out just how long a Twinkie could survive, so he left one sitting on his blackboard for three decades.”

Unlike this past year, when Barack’s state fair tasting tour was limited by Michelle to the “chocolate moose ‘butter cow’ statue,” if a few Twinkies are secured for posterity there’s a glimmer of hope that Obama may be allowed to indulge, just one last time, in what’s now a historic delicacy.

Either way, thankfully, “Twinkies were included in the U.S. Millennium Time Capsule representing an object of enduring American symbolism.”  Good thing, because in the words of the Gregory Rayburn, thanks to Hostess’s second-biggest union, “It’s over. This is it.”  Sadly, the same can be said of Barack Obama’s America.

So the next time a time capsule is loaded up with iconic American symbols, it might be appropriate to bury a fried Twinkie alongside the no-longer-indestructible American flag and a copy of the recently outmoded U.S. Constitution.

Obama-Induced Unemployment and America’s Libido

Thanks in great part to randy American women clamoring for free birth control, at least for now, Barack Obama’s slippers can remain parked beside the bed in the living quarters of the White House. So, after the election, as company after company began firing workers, I got to thinking:  “Do unemployed people even feel like having sex?” I sure do hope so, because it would be a huge waste of the taxpayers’ money if all those free contraceptives Barack Obama promised to dole out sat idle.

Notwithstanding one of the President’s more ardent same-sex constituencies, women usually prefer men as sex partners and vice versa.  With that in mind, after being laid off following Barack’s inspirational post-election victory speech, one can’t help but wonder if men forgot the dread of joblessness, cast aside those pink slips, and got down to business with those ladies still orgasmic over Obama’s reelection.

Let’s face it – with Barack Obama in charge, in the casual sex department, men have it pretty good here in America.  Think about it – what greater aphrodisiac is there for a woman than knowing the man in the poster hanging on the ceiling over her bed cares so deeply about her reproductive rights?

Unfortunately, Obama’s free birth control also comes with unemployment checks, food stamps, and foreclosure notices, which has made me curious about the state of America’s libido. After all, if the promise of consequence-free sex is what kept the President in the White House for another term, it would be a tragedy if interest in copulating waned because standing on an unemployment line put a damper on ardor.

So, with that in mind, I decided to do a little research of my own on the subject.

Because sex sells, I figured that just about any semi-trashy women’s magazine would hold the answer to my query.  I was also of the belief that the Cosmo set would certainly support a job killer like Barack Obama if he promised them free accoutrements to facilitate the killer sex these publications are always talking about.

I chose Glamour magazine because for one of his many hard-hitting pre-election interviews, Glamour editor-in-chief Cindi Leive secured a face-to-face with Mr. Obama. On behalf of Glamour’s large female audience, in an article that appeared in the magazine’s November issue, Leive broached the subject that unemployment is higher for women since the President took office in 2009, but then predictably segued from joblessness into abortion and contraception.

Regrettably, Ms. Leive never thought to bring up the possible effect being unable to put food on the table or gas up the car might have on libidos of the female recipients of the free birth control Obama is always peddling, or their sex partners.

Instead, the general gist of Leive’s article suggested that even though 12.5 million people are currently unemployed – many of whom are women – depression and dumpster-diving do nothing to diminish the need for readily available government-funded contraceptive devices.

Quite frankly, if I were doing the interview I would have asked the President how women standing on unemployment lines find the time to fit fornication into their busy schedules.  Understandably, I was not the one posing that question to Mr. Obama.

However, before Ms. Leive interviewed the provider of female prophylactics, maybe she should have checked some of the blog entries of her own sex-crazed magazine, and more specifically the contributions of “Sex, Love & Life” blogger Gena Kaufmann.

In the February 2012 issue of Glamour, Kaufmann posted an article entitled “Ugh, The Stupid Economy Is Still Ruining Everything, Including Your Sex Life. In it, Gena makes the following observation:

With the upcoming presidential election, I’m hearing a lot of conflicting statements about the state of the economy in various political ads and debates. I don’t know if it’s really any better or not, but it appears one thing is still down in the dumps and unfortunately, it’s libidos.

Ya think? Just ask the Greeks. Anyway, Ms. Kaufman even cited her own “Economic Sex Woes.”  According to Gena, her libido went south after a sluggish economy forced her to move back home with Mom and Dad.

Offering solutions on how to rev up an economically-suppressed sex drive, the author suggested that her temporarily celibate readers “[r]emember to spend time together and make each other feel good, even if you’re both feeling pretty crappy over unemployment or money problems.”

I can’t say for sure what happened on November 6th at the Ohio polling place where Gena cast her vote.  However, based on her admiration for the first couple, I would venture a guess that Kaufmann, who gushed, “Gah, I’m just crazy about these two,” likely cast a vote for the same guy whose sex life-demolishing policies forced her back onto her parents’ couch.

Nonetheless, as a result of my research project, I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama’s female supporters have yet to fully grasp the fact that birth control is probably the last thing they’ll be needing in the days ahead.  Like it or not, Barack Obama’s ongoing fiscal nightmare will continue to negatively impact America’s libido to such an extent that even Sandra Fluke’s need for contraceptives is about to take a nosedive.

So if Americans are wondering why, less than a week after the reelection of Barack Obama, so many people are being laid off, it’s because an impressive number of the women who voted were more concerned with free contraceptives then they were jobs. What those women fail to recognize is that the man promising to facilitate hours of baby-proof sex is also the overseer of an economy that even Obama-loving women’s magazines admit is ruining their chances for realizing the sex life they seek with anyone other than chronically unemployed men.

Outsmarting a Chicago Smarty at His Own Game

Originally posted at American Thinker

It’s a week since the 2012 election, and personally, I’m totally disoriented.  I mistook Friday for Wednesday; I live on an island destroyed by hurricane Sandy; and my overall mood borders on despondent.  For me, anyway, it’s depressing that left-wing academes, women in vagina suits, illegal aliens, liberal progressives, 85% of all Muslims living in America, and Hugo Chávez, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all equally ecstatic about the re-election of Barack Obama.

While disconcerting to most, those types of accolades have not been wasted on the president.  He has mistaken a non-mandate for a mandate and is wasting zero time frenetically fast-tracking policies guaranteed to further limit the constitutional freedoms of every American, including those who were twirling around like Deadheads after the November 6 election was called.

And even though the Republicans retained control of the House, in the bleakness and disappointment that remains, there seems to be little hope left for those who thought the election would turn out differently.

The truth is that while the last vestiges of freedom hinge directly on state representatives who attest to conservative principles, hearing Barry’s favorite golf partner John Boehner saying that ObamaCare is now “the law of the land” has made many, including myself, want to throw ourselves off that “fiscal cliff” that’s currently the topic of alarmed discussion.

On the day following the election, Speaker Boehner politely acquiesced to the effect that the people’s choice indicates that indeed this is Barack Obama’s “moment.”  However, Boehner did maintain that while he’s committed to assisting the president in reining in entitlement programs and is anxious to support serious spending cuts, Congress is not open to punishing small business owners — i.e., “the rich” — with tax increases.

Sorry, but John Boehner feigning bravado coupled with Barack Obama’s self-assured swaggering has only added to the pervading depression that has gripped half the country.  What America is currently being subjected to by Barack Obama is the same “I won” attitude he had in 2009 when he proposed and implemented his failed $787-billion stimulus package.

Nonetheless, John Boehner has encouraged the president to take the lead.  Yet for the sake of the future of America, at this juncture, John is the one who should be doing the leading.

Instead of immediately extending an olive branch, what the speaker of the House should recognize is that he’s the one who holds the power when it comes to everything the cocksure Obama believes he now controls.  If Mr. Boehner spent more time paying attention and less time at the tanning salon, he might realize that the key to hamstringing Barack Obama’s goals is to outsmart a Chicago smarty at his own game.

How?  Well, before election week ended, the retired four-star general/civilian CIA director General David Petraeus admitted to an extramarital affair and promptly stepped down.  Petraeus’s shocking resignation took place one week prior to being compelled to testify before Congress about the seven-hour terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans on the anniversary of September 11.

As a group, most Obama voters have proven to be generally oblivious to the more serious issues facing America’s future.  Perhaps David Petraeus’s suspiciously timed resignation will be the thing that finally captures the attention of those who, thus far, have been more concerned with Big Bird and birth control than an American ambassador being raped, tortured, and killed.

Therefore, instead of allowing the haughty Barack Obama to continue calling the shots, House Republicans could use General Petraeus’s resignation as a catalyst to wrest control from the president and place it back into the hands of the American people.

To do so, it would be necessary for congressional Republicans to muster up the temerity to use the Benghazi cover-up as clout; then, once they’re hit in the paycheck, even those who supported the foolishly reelected Two-Term Terminator will be demanding answers about what went down in Libya.

In lieu of Petraeus’s testimony, the first step would be for Republicans to promptly petition the White House to hand over all correspondence relating to the Benghazi event.  John Boehner could then demand pertinent evidence including e-mails and videos from the Situation Room, from which place the terrorist attack was taped as it unfolded in real time.  If Barack Obama and his minions choose to continue to stonewall, the speaker will be justified in countering the president’s refusal by publicly refusing to comply with budgetary negotiations, including discussions about tax cuts, rates, and revenue.

If Mr. Boehner manages to effectively utilize the incident in Benghazi for political leverage and the nation subsequently careens forward over the “fiscal cliff,” the president can then be held accountable.  Moreover, Boehner will at least have a fighting chance to make the argument that the nation’s economic woes are a result of the White House refusing to come clean.

In other words, if, on behalf of the American people, Republicans in Congress suck it up and grasp the optimal set of circumstances currently before them, then, caught between a “fiscal cliff” and Benghazi, Barack Obama will be the one doing the surrendering, not the other way around.

John Boehner Should Get Out of Obama’s Way

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Based on the dismal state of the union and after four years of doing exactly what Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that he would do, by any thinking person’s standards President Barack Obama has indeed “failed.” Yet, despite the catastrophe, on Election Day the American people inexplicably invited the President to spend the next four years beating the dead horse that he killed during his first term.

The next day, after being MIA for months, Speaker of the House John Boehner crawled out of the tanning bed long enough to publicly assure the President that House Republicans plan to work with him on his sole first-term accomplishment – the looming “fiscal cliff.”

Wait a minute, wasn’t it way back in 2008 that Barack Obama told America that “this is the moment” when good jobs would be provided for the jobless, the rise of the oceans would slow, and the planet would begin to heal? Why then, as America drowns in an ocean of debt and sinks in a sea of unemployment, would the Speaker of the House tell Obama “This is your moment…we want you to succeed?”

Reminiscent of candidate Obama exalting himself while on the campaign trail in 2008, Boehner said:

Mr. President, this is your moment. We’re ready to be led not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. We want you to lead not as a liberal or a conservative, but as the president of the United States of America. We want you to succeed. Let’s challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us.

In addition to those comments, did the Speaker of the House really say that “If there’s a mandate in … [the election] results it’s a mandate for us to find a way to work together on the solutions to the challenges that we all face as a nation?”

Well, what Boehner may not have anticipated is that come January working together on solutions will likely include figuring out how to prevent the President’s ardent supporters from melting down when they realize that voting for him did not exempt them from the middle class tax increase that’s due to hit hard when the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

Nonetheless, one way Republicans can still embrace our intrepid leader is by supporting automatic cuts in defense spending.  After all, as a Russian nuclear submarine trawls the waters off the east coast of the US, cutting defense spending will help Barack Obama deliver the flexibility he promised comrade Vladimir Putin.

Moreover, if “reaching across the aisle” is the Speaker’s genuine objective, maybe as an inaugural gift congressional Republicans can hand the Biggest Big Spender in American history a no-limit charge card by agreeing to increase the debt ceiling.

John Boehner did claim that the post-election plan is to help Barack Obama move the country FORWARD. But, by the Speaker continuing to insist that raising the top tax rate in a bad economy would hurt small businesses he threatens the elusive “common ground” that he seeks.

However, if Boehner believes that this is truly Barack Obama’s “moment,” why not just let the President do whatever he wants? Republicans in Congress should politely step aside and allow Obama to finish what he started. In so doing, they will inoculate themselves against any ensuing liability as well as avoid becoming the object of Obama’s notorious blame game.

And so, as conciliatory bipartisanship is cultivated and John Boehner encourages Barack Obama to forge ahead, one can only hope that the newfound collegiality in Washington DC includes Republicans helping our determined liberal leader to aim that big ole’ policy gun he has pointed at America’s head downward toward his own foot.

%d bloggers like this: