|
Excerpted from an interview with the SDUT: Gavin Newsom said… "The folks closest to me held me to a high level of accountability on it. The newspaper did, on a weekly basis, called Shame of the City series. Every week when I was mayor... chronicling our successes and failures, our setbacks, our triumphs, our overpromising, our under delivering, our under promising and over delivering, depending on the category, but I feel very strongly unless the state intervenes, your mayor down here, Mayor Kevin] Faulconer, is not going to solve it on his own. Mayor Garcetti is not going to solve it on his own. Mayor Libby Schaaf, you want a problem, go to Oakland, you can’t even get off the freeway. I mean they’ve literally taken over lanes as you get off the freeway into the streets. It’s that bad. It has to be regionalized and we have to have a statewide frame and we need the federal government to get involved because again we’re manifesting a national problem disproportionate on the streets of the state." He is admitting that California is a mess and he is crying for help from the Federal Government because the Democratic Regime in California has totally lost control, and continues to exacerbate the problem with open borders and sanctuary city policies. Now he wants California to put him in charge so he can push even more idiotic Peoples Temple-style solutions until we collapse like Venezuela….  Caring is overrated. There are just too many things to care about. If you spread your caring too thin, the result is not helping any cause enough to make a difference. Worse yet, it seems that people are stressing over the demands of caring. From the moment we wake up till our head hits the pillow, someone, some cause or some issue is demanding that we care about it. The Politics of Caring is what the Progressives feed on. Caring about our dystopian future, the overheating planet, refugees of war, immigrants seeking asylum, discrimination against women, people of color and animals. We are told we must care about secondhand cigarette smoke, how much gluten we eat, how we use words, so as to avoid hurting anyones feelings. No matter what the issue is, Progressives always claim to 'care' more than conservatives. It is Argumentation 101: Assume the upper hand of the emotional side of the discussion. Leftists use their definition of 'caring' as a tool to disrupt our culture. They have hijacked the emotion because caring is a universal motivator. It transcends many levels of political persuasion. Who doesn't care about the environment, or what happens to abandoned children? We all worry about what kind of world our children will inherit. Anyone who dissents, for any reason, is an extremist. The question is, how do we focus our caring and to what extent are we willing to forgo other important goals to achieve a particular end? And is 'caring' in and of itself a solution? Some people have become so overwhelmed by the tsunami of media hatred and anger towards President Donald Trump, that they have decided to just tune out the endless cacophony of talking heads on radio and TV, in movies and in newspapers and current event magazines. In a world of enormous diversity and endless news events, our media has been obsessed with Trump for nearly two years! And who would feel more sensitive to the destructive nature of the media's assault than the First Lady, whose husband has been the target of relentless character assassination, fake news stories designed to undermine his administration, and threats of violence from high profile celebrities? So Melania incorporates her sensibilities in a fashion statement. Something she knows a lot about. She wouldn't wear a silk screened tee shirt, nor would she don a cotton gym hoodie. No, she puts her message on the back of a fashionable Zara military-style overcoat, painted to look like pop art graffiti. The FrankenMedia had a field day, linking the phrase "I don't care, do u?" to the illegal immigrant issue, since she was simultaneously visiting the Mexican border. But, as usual, they fell right into the Trump Trap. While they focus on the politics, and whining about 'divisiveness', 'bigotry' and her 'lack of sensitivity', she is focusing on the demonstrable dishonesty of the media. And the jacket is the perfect metaphor. She is playing to the Trump Base. Like everything else about the past 18 months, there are two ways to look at the controversy: The media wants to paint her as uncaring, rich and anti-immigrant. She, on the other hand, says the message was to suggest she was no longer going to give any attention or energy to the 'Fake News'. Like so many folks, she is burned out on 'Trumped Up' BS. There have been a number of articles and sound bites about how so many people are turning off the news and tuning into lightweight entertainment. I read a story by Claire Suddith at Bloomberg News, where she recorded some comments by a systems designer from Massachusetts who says she gave up watching the news and watches travel shows instead. “Basically, a drone just flies over and tells you cool things about pretty landscapes,” she says. “It’s way more relaxing than reading about Melania’s terrible jacket choice.” Where did she see the story about Melania? Why did she react to "Melania's choices" so negatively? Was it her opinion that wearing the jacket was a 'terrible' choice, or was she just parroting the media's analysis? Isn't hating Melania a little presumptuous? After all, Melania speaks five foreign languages, is herself an immigrant, and has personally been extremely successful in business. Isn't she the ultimate poster child for women's empowerment? If the woman from Massachusetts was seriously disengaged from the news cycle, how would she know about the incident and why would she care? You can't really have it both ways, can you? And if she doesn't really care anymore, isn't she in agreement with Melania's provocative silk screen? Oh well, who cares?  Americanism: The world is a better place because of it. It was, and is, a miracle that it ever happened. “What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom ‘to’ and freedom ‘from’.” - Marilyn vos Savant As appears on the History Channel website: "From 1774 to 1789, the Continental Congress served as the government of the 13 American colonies and later the United States. The First Continental Congress, which was comprised of delegates from the colonies, met in 1774 in reaction to the Coercive Acts, a series of measures imposed by the British government on the colonies in response to their resistance to new taxes. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened after the American Revolutionary War (1775-83) had already begun. In 1776, it took the momentous step of declaring America’s independence from Britain." "For over a year, the Continental Congress supervised a war against a country to which it proclaimed its loyalty. In fact, both the Congress and the people it represented were divided on the question of independence even after a year of open warfare against Great Britain. Early in 1776, a number of factors began to strengthen the call for separation. In his stirring pamphlet “Common Sense,” published in January of that year, the British immigrant Thomas Paine (1737-1809) laid out a convincing argument in favor of independence." "On June 7, Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee (1732-94) complied with his instructions. Congress postponed a final vote on the proposal until July 1, but appointed a committee to draft a provisional declaration of independence for use should the proposal pass." The History Channel continues: "The committee consisted of five men, including John Adams and Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) of Pennsylvania. But the declaration was primarily the work of one man, Thomas Jefferson, who penned an eloquent defense of the natural rights of all people, of which, he charged, Parliament and the king had tried to deprive the American nation." "The Continental Congress made several revisions to Jefferson’s draft, removing, among other things, an attack on the institution of slavery; but on July 4, 1776, Congress voted to approve the Declaration of Independence...Though the vote for actual independence took place on July 2nd, from then on the 4th became the day that was celebrated as the birth of American independence." The Continental Congress proved inadequate to deal with the problems the new nation confronted after the Revolutionary War. From that hellacious mess (immense debt and an unstable economy, combative and unorganized states, and insurrection) came a decision to restructure the planning documents of the Union. Starting with the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, two years later the Constitution of the United States of America was born in 1789. The United States of America committed its future survival to an idea that had never really been tested or successful in the history of the world. British royalty thought it was arrogant and preposterous! Since then, millions of Americans have given their lives to promote and protect that idea, that all humans were created as equals and have a God-given right to seek happiness and to organize their political affairs free from authoritarianism. It really is just an idea that has become known as Americanism, because no other country has ever been able to duplicate it. The DNA required to accomplish what we have established and managed to protect for 242 years is unique to our petri dish. There are those that have come to 'hate' Americanism, but they all have one thing in common: none of them have had to live under any other form of government. They emote from a place of ignorance. “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America." - President Bill Clinton Happy Birthday America! |
Subscribe to my Substack
(it's Free) Click Here
Archives
January 2025
|
RSS Feed
