Hillary Rodham Clinton and Her Sycophants Need to Get a Grip: Mitch McConnell's Joke was Just Fine.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Her Sycophants Need to Get a Grip: Mitch McConnell's Joke was Just Fine.

Dear IDC Colleague:

I'm not sure who posted the DCCC drive to condemn Mitch McConnell for saying that Hillary Clinton is one of the Golden Girls of the Democratic Party but I do have a comment for Facebook and the blogosphere.   

The DCCC quote is: “He recently singled out Hillary Clinton as one of the "Golden Girls" of the Democratic Party…Hillary Clinton has had a long a distinguished life in the service of this country. It's reprehensible that Mitch McConnell would resort to these petty attacks…Denounce Mitch McConnell's sexist attack on Hilary (sic) Clinton.”

This is certainly “Much Ado About Nothing”.  This is not a sexist attack but a benign attempt at some light-hearted humor at a political event.  Given the fact that Rue McClanahan was 51 when she accepted a leading role on The Golden Girls, it hardly seems out of place to name Hillary Clinton a Golden Girl at 65 years of age. 

Indeed, to claim that “Hillary Clinton has had a long a distinguished life in the service of her country” is a stretch even among her DCCC sycophants.  In my opinion she has been a genuine phony so much so that it’s hard to even know how to address her.

After Wellesley and Yale Law School she moved to Arkansas to marry a certifiable shirt caser in 1975.  She insisted on maintaining her maiden name or more accurately her father’s surname, Hillary (Rodham), at least until her husband lost re-election for governor in 1980.  She then became the softer Hillary Clinton until 1993 after Bill Clinton was elected president.  She finally transformed into Hillary Rodham Clinton the feminists’ icon.  All three names must be said in order to be politically correct.

Yet what type of feminist icon looks the other way with a philandering husband?  It’s amazing that she didn’t trip over Bill and one of his many conquests in the governor’s mansion.  Mrs. Clinton then proceeded to lead the attacks on the “bimbo eruptions” like a seasoned mafia
Don(na).

So is Hillary Rodham Clinton truly a trail blazing feminist?  Let’s examine the facts:

1. She is named a law partner in the Rose Law Firm while her husband is the current Attorney General of Arkansas in 1979 – coattails to the rescue.
2. She was a member of the board of directors of Wal-Mart Stores in Arkansas while her husband was the Governor of Arkansas.  More coattails seal the deal.
3. She proved to be a Second Rate First Lady of the United States – there was no style and little substance.
4. She is nominated for U.S. Senator from New York.  It’s interesting to note that she did not live in New York at the time, had never held elected office in New York, and had no executive experience in the private sector.  Of course her husband was President of the United States – possibly that was a factor in her nomination and subsequent election to the senate.
5. According to Carl Bernstein’s 2007 A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she had decided to run for president in 2003 after just two years of elected office experience.
6. Bill and Hillary Clinton had amassed $100 million dollars by 2008 after starting their marriage without any real wealth.  There is nothing illegal in this fact just evidence that they were able to parlay their celebrity into a fortune.  It seems that Mrs. Clinton was a member of the 1% the DCCC hate.

In summary, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a bright, ambitious, hard working woman.  But she is not the feminist icon that the DCCC proposes.  She proved to be a Victorian woman, sullied by her husband’s feverish infidelities, but apt at feigning the martyr when in fact she was steely in her resolve and ruthless in her ways.  If young Democratic women are looking for true strong women they need look no further than Smith College alumnae Gloria Steinem, Founder and publisher of Ms. Magazine, and Betty Friedan, Author of the “1963 book The Feminine Mystique (which) is often credited with sparking the ‘second wave’ of American feminism in the 20th century. In 1966, Friedan founded and was elected the first president of the National Organization for Women…”

Mrs. Clinton is similar to Condoleezza Rice in that both were nurtured and promoted by powerful men – the difference being that Miss Rice does not pretend to be a feminist icon, rather she is a grateful and accomplished American.

Carl Bernstein grappled with the subject of his biography on Hillary: “Since her Arkansas years, Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth... [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid.  It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share… Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician…(b)ut when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

This latest antic by the DCCC is nothing more than a stale attempt to again portray Mrs. Clinton as the proverbial Victorian female martyr.  As they say in Arkansas, Hogwash!  Word Total: 886

Geoffrey G. Fisher is a federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher working in southwest Florida as a guest teacher.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

www.theamericanthinkingcap.blogspot.com.

 

Letter to College Friend on Citizens United

Letter to College Friend on Citizens United

Dear David:

This case is a difficult read, but the court by a narrow 5-4 margin came down on the side of free speech, one of the great values of the American people.  You might remember that the United States Supreme “Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions (that were indirect). The nonprofit group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").”

The troubling part for me was the Court calling corporations or unions people.  I must disagree with your enthusiasm to amendment the constitution over this issue.  Just take the 27^th amendment from 21 years ago: (Ratified May 5, 1992)

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

This was simply a grandstanding effort on behalf of ambitious congressman and in my opinion it has no place in the constitution.  Your proposal for a 28^th amendment simply does not have the gravitas to muster inclusion in our venerable constitution.  I would recommend a new challenge that is more focused on the money in politics and not the free speech issue.  Remember that Citizens United “…did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which REMAIN illegal in races for federal office.”  

Best, from your South Street friend, Geoff Fisher

Goodbye to Ed Schultz as MSNBC pursues Bill O'Reilly: A letter to a Liberal Friend from College

Goodbye to Ed Schultz as MSNBC pursues

Bill O'Reilly:

A letter to a Liberal Friend from College

Dear Rommy:

I never cared for Ed Schultz because of his caustic rhetoric but I know he spoke for many liberals such as yourself.  I find it interesting that he was unceremoniously dumped for the younger Chris Hayes.  According to the New York Times, “Mr. Hayes, 34, will be the youngest host of a prime-time show on any of the country’s major cable news channels, all of which seek out youthful viewers but tend to have middle-aged hosts and a core audience made up of senior citizens (like us, Yikes!).” 

In many respects, the move is one more attempt to go after Bill O’Reilly.  Since the big O arrived on Fox News, 20 anchors from MSNBC AND CNN have tried and failed to top O’Reilly.  Again the NYT: “But taking over that hour is a difficult assignment for Mr. Hayes, given Bill O’Reilly’s commanding grip on the time slot. Mr. O’Reilly, the biggest star on the Fox News Channel, routinely doubled Mr. Schultz’s delivery of 25- to 54-year-old viewers last year, much to the chagrin of Mr. Schultz, who parodied his rival on a regular basis.”  Personally, I don’t think Mr. Hayes has a shot of touching O’Reilly – Hayes seems to be an androgynous interpretation of Rachel Maddow.  Even Ms. Maddow would lose and she is the best that MSNBC has.

In my opinion, MSNBC would be better served with Michael Moore or Connecticut’s own Alec Baldwin as the host.

Best, Geoff Fisher

The Voting Rights Act of 1965: A Letter to a Silly Democrat

Voting Rights Act of 1965: A Letter to a Silly Democrat

The author of this editorial has developed a case of selective amnesia.  Bashing the Republican Party as the Jim Crow party is both nasty and silly.  Remember that the Confederacy was chuck full of Democrats with no Republicans at all.  The Republicans after seeing victory during the Civil War pushed through the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th amendments to the U.S. Constitution with little to no help from the Democratic Party.  Also remember that in the 1860s and 1870s, the Democrats founded the KKK with the explicit purpose of keeping white and black Republicans from voting. 

Both the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965 only passed with the help of Republicans like Senator Everett Dirksen  Look at the voting tally for the 1965 Voting Rights Act – notice that the Republican positive % was higher in both chambers of Congress.

Senate: 77–19

·                                 Democrats: 47–17   (73%-27%)

·                                 Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6%)

House: 333–85

·                                 Democrats: 221–61     (78%-22%)

·                                 Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18%)

Finally it was Republican George W. Bush who reauthorized the Voting Rights in July of 2006.

Lyndon Johnson, when he was not misleading the American public about the War in Vietnam can take credit for pushing both the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress but don’t deny the history of the Republican Party when it come to civil rights. 

As to revising section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, let a calm and deliberative debate ensure with a vitriolic assault on one party.

Pro-Lifers Are Today's Abolitionists

Pro-Lifers Are Today’s Abolitionists

What a difference 40 years can make.  On January 22, 1973 the decision of Jane Roe et al. v. Henry Wade was announced - abortion surgery was legal nationwide thanks to the United States Supreme Court.  This was the height of the Second Feminists’ Movement, Gloria Steinem’s successful Ms. Magazine was celebrating its first anniversary in publication and Australian singer-songwriter Helen Reddy had just received the Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance for the Feminist Icon Anthem I am Woman. 

The seminal issue of Modern Feminists movement at that time was Abortion.  Gloria Steinem went so far as to publish the “honor” role of prominent women who had had abortions including Steinem herself at the age of 22.  The issue then was liberty: “Keep you hands and your laws off of my body.”  Steinem would never go on to have children.

Of course 1973 was also the start of another movement – the Pro-Life Movement where the seminal issue was the right to be born after conception.  The movement was dismissed in every quarter of our society at the time.  The morality of killing a development human being was ignored with a sense of self-delusion similar to the ability of educated Christian southerners to delude themselves by seeing a proper place for slavery in southern society.  Blacks were considered inferior in every way - educated blacks were dismissed as freaks of nature.  Slavery was a peculiar institution. 

The parallels between the Popular Sovereignty argument to support slavery (let the white people decide) and the Pro-Choice argument (let women decide) is striking and incredibly consistent.  Look at the following slogans supporting the right to an abortion vis-à-vis the right to own a black slave.

----- 2013-----

 DON’T LIKE ABORTION?

DON’T HAVE ONE

-----1863-----

DON’T LIKE SLAVERY?

DON’T OWN ONE

These slogans only make sense if morality and science are dismissed as Inconvenient Truths.  Of course unborn children are human just as black Americans were fully human then as well as now.

 

Fast forward 40 years to today and the issue is now coming into focus as an issue of life due in part to modern medical technology – today we cannot turn our backs on the truth as the feminists did in 1973.  We can see the unborn child sucking his thumb, we can see the fingernails on the little hands, and we can see a developing heart beating.  Indeed, doctors can now perform surgical procedures on fetuses correcting a host of deformities including prenatal surgery for Spina Bifida as reported by NPR.  Today we know this surgery is on a developing human being.  The Universe of the womb now resonates in some families with Mozart piano sonatas played by mothers convinced it will benefit their unborn child in years to come.

It must be remembered that the abolitionists persevered for 77 years to remove slavery from the Constitution.  William Lloyd Garrison published The Liberator, An Abolitionist Newspaper for 35 years.  Listen to his rhetoric from issue number 1 in 1831: “I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice…but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

Since 1973 the Pro-Life Movement steadily gained converts including the Roman Catholic Church, Evangelical Christians, and the base of the Republican Party.  In 2013 the Pro-Life movement has converts from virtually every segment of American society.  By contrast, the Pro-Choice movement now resides on the most liberal fringes of American Society.  As the Democratic Party in the 1850s embraced Popular Sovereignty today it warmly embraces the Pro-Choice position on the Right to an Abortion by any woman who wants an abortion.  President Obama has voted twice to let fetuses from botch abortions die on the operating table.

In 1857 the United States Supreme Court stumbled into the issue of slavery with the disastrous decision of Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford.  Chief Justice and Maryland slave-holding Democrat Roger Taney speaking for the majority ruled that blacks were inferior by nature and therefore never were citizens – that is they had no legal standing under the constitution.  This went far beyond the 3/5ths compromise of 1787.

 

Just as popular opinion eventually migrated to the abolitionists so too are today’s Americans migrating to the Pro-Life view.  For the first time since 1973 more Americans now identify themselves as Pro-Life by nine percentage points according to the Gallup Poll of May 2012: 50% Pro-Life to 41% Pro-Choice.  Even Jane Roe, Norma Leah McCorvey (née Nelson) is now a fervent Pro-Life Activist.

Today’s Democratic Party is not budging however.  32 year old abortion supporter Sandra Fluke was prominently featured at the Democratic National Convention in 2012 after she appeared on the cover of Ms. Magazine.

This darling of the left needs to answer this question: “Ms. Fluke, what month during the pregnancy do you become Pro-Life?”  This newly minted lawyer would have to resist saying the normal pro-choice line never because nearly every pro-choice proponent realizes that at some point in the pregnancy the developing baby deserves the state’s intervention of protection.  If she insisted on saying it is a woman call for all nine months then her disintegration would be complete – a young attractive monster with a law degree and a Dorothy Hamill haircut. 

The issue has always been more complicated than feminist doctrine admitted since the issue was always a body within a body - there would be no debate if a woman wanted to simply remove her pancreas.  The true debate here is one of balance - should a woman be compelled to carry her unborn child to birth?  The physical and emotional stress of the woman versus the life of the unborn baby.  This is not an easy call but the life of the unborn child that is, the Right to be Born, trumps the right not to carry a child to birth.  It’s life, liberty, and then the pursuit of happiness.

It took the 13^th amendment in 1865 to finally and unequivocally end slavery – possibly it will take the 28^th amendment to end the senseless killing of unborn children, the most vulnerable humans among us.

The national Democratic Party finds itself once again defending political convenience and calculation over morality – shame on them.  Word Total: 1086

Geoffrey G. Fisher is a Federally designated Highly Qualified state-certified history teacher working in southwest Florida as a guest teacher.  He holds a BA in History from the University of Connecticut and a MA in Public Policy from Trinity College in Hartford, CT.  In addition to teaching he is a former elected official and speechwriter.  Mr. Fisher now writes the political blog: THE THINKING CAP at  

www.theamericanthinkingcap.blogspot.com.

The 2nd Amendment Discuss with my former College Professor

Dear Jane:

Your posting caught my eye and my ear.  There was something in the subtitle that sounded funny: “The real reason for the Second Amendment's ratification was to preserve slave patrol militias in the South.”  I checked the background of both the author and the publication and found them to be left of Mother Jones - I also read most of the article and it sounded like a term paper from a wide-eyed high school sophomore. 

Changing just two words would bring this article back into a safer orbit: “(An additional) reason for the Second Amendment's ratification was to preserve slave patrol militias in the South.”

The occupation of the City of Boston by the British Regulars starting in 1773 was the real and earnest reason for the 2^nd amendment.  The Bill of Rights including the 2^nd Amendment was widely supported because of a general fear of centralized government, that is, anything that sounded like the rule of George III.

Indeed, the memory of that affront lent itself to the third amendment: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”  The idea of being forced to give room and board to army soldiers when your daughter was done the hall was repugnant.

In addition, the author of your article, Thom Hartmann, notes that the word state was used over central government, this is also weak.  Listen to the beginning of the 2nd amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”  Madison et al were writing about a free nation – nation and state are commonly interchanged in prose.  As Webster’s Dictionary puts it: state is “a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign.

Although I find the argument interesting for its nuanced interpretation of the background to the impetus of the 2^nd amendment, it remains loopy to suggest that some type of cabal was in force to simply give guns to the white slave-owning Democrats.  Word Total: 351

Best, Geoff Fisher

Black Family is Under Seige: 72% Illegimate Births

Dear Danny:

I am unfamiliar with the movie you cite but I am very familiar with the general topic of the modern black family and I disagree with your premise that the topic of unwed mothers in the black community will reinforce a false stereotype.

The fact of the matter is that the black family has been blown to smithereens by the social welfare state since the mid-1960s.

Rate of Black Unwed Mothers Soars to 72 Percent, by Jesse Washington

“Statistics show just what that fullness means. Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.

The black community's 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent.

Jesse Washington covers race and ethnicity for The Associated Press. He is reachable at jwashington@ap.org.

I do not doubt your sincerity for a moment but when 72% of black children are being raised in an environment without fathers, action is needed not excuses. I worked exclusively for six years in the Hartford Public Schools and I saw first hand the dislocation of the black family.  The number of pregnant high girls that I saw walking the halls was mindboggling. 

In fact during the president’s run for U.S. Senator in 2004, his wife introduced him to a rally as follows:

“Ladies and gentleman, it is my  privilege to introduce to you the next United States Senator from the State of Illinois, my husband, my honey, my man, my babies’ daddy, Barack Obama.”  This of course was in poor taste and was a bungling attempt to project street cred to her husband’s supporters.

So Danny if you’re trying to say the phrase is insulting, I agree, but if you’re trying to sweep a chronic problem under the rug in the name of political correctness, we must part company.  Word Count: 360

Best, Geoff Fisher