Posts Tagged ‘Krispy Kreme’

A Big Wind Howling in New Jersey Again

Friday, January 18th, 2013

Christie’s Tired Schtick

It wasn’t hurricane Sandy this time, but once again, Chris Christie has done his level best to aggrandize himself by coming to the aid of his friend Barack Obama, and this time his contrived ire is directed at the National Rifle Association.  According to Breitbart, the New Jersey blowhard couldn’t wait to take on the NRA.  He continued the ludicrous lie first told by the President’s sock-puppet, Jay Carney, when he accused the NRA of attacking the President’s children.  Look, I know this is difficult for thick-skulled RINOs to comprehend, but the NRA’s ad did not attack the President’s children, and did not question the security they’re provided, but merely called into question the President’s hypocrisy demonstrated by his administration’s unwillingness to lend full support to placing armed guards in the schools your children attend.  This was not an attack on the Obama children, or anything of the sort.  Instead, it was all about asking the plainly obvious question:  Aren’t our children deserving of some additional security too?  Let me make this plain to the windy hug-meister: IT IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA’S KIDS!  It’s about support of security for all children at school.

I feel sorry for the people of New Jersey, as they thought they had elected a real Republican elephant but instead elected a stuffed bull-RINO.  As Breitbart reports, the great wind blew and blew:

“To talk about the president’s children, or any public officer’s children, who have not by their own choice, but by requirement, to have protection, and to use that somehow to try to make a political point is reprehensible …. To somehow feel, as it said in the commercial, “Well, the president has armed bodyguards for his children but thinks it’s not good enough for your children,” the president doesn’t have a choice …. It’s awful to bring public figures’ children into the political debate. They don’t choose to be there. For any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe.”

Isn’t it great that Governor Kramden(H/T to Mr. L for the nickname) is concerned for the children?  Unfortunately, when David Letterman was making shameless, disgusting remarks(presented as “jokes”) about one of the Palin daughters, he was nowhere to be seen(a disappearing act equal to any by David Copperfield.)  No, he didn’t have a word to say then, and he’s gone on record since describing Letterman as “really funny.”  I never thought very much of Letterman, but after his attack on the Palins, I considered him disgusting, and pathetic, but never “really funny.”  What’s astonishing to me is that this man is unable to distinguish between a real attack on a politician’s children and a pointed appraisal of a President’s hypocrisy.  He will be hailed in leftist circles as a Republican who stood up to the NRA, but when he could have stood up to real attacks against the children of a notable Republican politician, Mr. Christie was silent.  Instead he pretends a critique of Obama policies is an attack on the Obama children, and for this, he gets his panties in a wad?  Who wants a bombastic, ill-tempered, ill-mannered President, and don’t we have one of those already?

Christie says he believes the NRA ad had been “reprehensible,” but in point of fact, his interjection allegedly on behalf of the President in this case simply underscores the tendency of Christie to seek out attention from media, and I don’t think there’s any doubt but that this was Christie’s entire motive.  Christie wants to distance himself from “the right wing” because he hopes to make hay in the early primary states in 2016, and moving into the liberal end of the spectrum will help him obtain victory, or so he believes.  He’s positioning himself as a moderate, and the whole idea is to get Democrats to crossover to vote for him in the primaries, to help negate any conservative candidate’s support among Republicans. It’s not new.  This tactic has been the favorite of moderate or liberal Republicans for ages.  If they can’t beat their opponents with Republican support, they’re just as happy to get Democrats to help them through the primaries, and Democrats have been only too happy to oblige, knowing liberal Republicans don’t get great turnout from the conservative wing of the party.

Christie’s schtick is getting old, and just as in the past, when his famed YouTube rants stopped drawing lots of clicks, he had to stoop to yet another outrageous rant against some teacher, or bystander, or anybody he could publicly bully.  After listening to him a few times, his act quickly loses its appeal.  He may be bigger than life, but he seems a small man inside, just trying to be noticed.  Any Republican who sides with the left against the NRA, particularly now, is simply grandstanding for the benefit of the crowd with a mind toward future Presidential prospects, and it’s an act we ought to dismiss as that of  political opportunist, and really, it’s fitting since that’s all Chris Christie has ever been.

Advertisements

Flags at Half-Staff for Whitney Houston – What’s Wrong With Chris Christie?

Thursday, February 16th, 2012
https://www.hairbro.com.au

Ruler of New Jersey

The fact that a man is elected to high office does not entitle him to re-order the high standards we set for those who we honor and memorialize by displaying the flag at half-mast.  It’s not a privilege of office to discard what has always been the long-standing tradition of honoring those who have served and died by deciding that a celebrity is due the same respect as those whose service to a grateful nation we thereby honor.  This tradition isn’t intended for every person upon whom we wish to heap recognition, and this act by New Jersey governor Chris Christie reveals more about him than it does about his state or its people.  Whitney Houston was a fine singer, maybe the best, when she had been young and at the height of her singing power, but she died not in service to her nation, but in a bathtub, apparently the victim of her own addictions.

Please don’t misunderstand me:  I admired Houston’s singing long ago when she started out, and as I’ve written, I’d prefer to remember her that way.   How she finished her life is another matter, and while it is sad, it is not worthy of remembrance by lowering the symbol of state to half-staff.   To place her on the same pedestal that we reserve for our deceased leaders and for our national days of remembrance reveals a scandalous disregard for what the gesture means.  It’s not intended to show support, attract attention, or curry favor as a political act.  It’s a sign of respect and in mourning, it is intended to highlight the length of the staff above the flag where nothing is now present, indicating the loss for which the mourning is intended.  As a matter of official mourning, it is proper to display the flag at half-staff:

  • Following the death of the President or a former President, the flag should be flown at half-staff for 30 days.
  • Following the death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice, a retired Chief Justice of the United States or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the flag should be flown at half-staff for 10 days.
  • Following the death of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory or possession, the flag should be flown at half-staff from the day of death until interment.
  • Following the death of a Member of Congress, the flag should be flown at half-staff the day of death and the following day.

The President may order the flag flown at half-staff, and so can the Governor order the flag of his own state lowered. Ordinarily, however, other than the list above, it is only flown at half-staff on the following days of remembrance:

  • Memorial Day
  • Patriots’ Day
  • Pearl Harbor Day

That’s it. Now, as for Governor Christie and his decision to lower the flag to half-staff in memory of Whitney Houston, I am unwilling to listen to his buffoonish, irresponsible answers to criticism because he has not bothered to inform himself of any of the foregoing.  It’s not his place to pick and choose which citizens upon whom to bestow such an honor in such a careless fashion.  It’s not his place to decide that he is the arbiter of what is proper.  We already know what is proper, and Whitney Houston, while a great singer, is not a suitable recipient of this honor.  According to USA Today, Christie said the following:

“I am disturbed by people who believe that because her ultimate demise — and we don’t know what is the cause of her death yet — but because of her history of substance abuse that somehow she’s forfeited the good things that she did in her life,” said the governor during a briefing in northern New Jersey. “I just reject that on a human level.”

This jackass of a liberal disguised as a conservative is simply offering bad excuses.  That he rejects it on a “human level,” whatever that means, is irrelevant, because he is not a dictator, and this is not about his person, or his humanity, or any of those things.  Instead, he is the Governor of New Jersey, and his job in this matter is not to act as the official voice of the state.  The State of New Jersey should remain neutral to Whitney Houston’s death as a matter of official conduct.  Christie’s intransigence to this fact is simply stunning, and the fact that he would inflict his personal preferences on this practice is a shocking display of disregard for his office and this tradition.  Last year, he order the same distinguished honor for Clarence Clemons, the saxophonist for Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band.  What it appears that Christie is doing is to use this as a hat-tip to celebrities of note from his state, or something along those lines, but I think it could be something even more cynical.

USA Today also reports the remarks of an Anna Simpson, who was at the New Hope Baptist Church, where Houston’s funeral will be held:

After Houston became famous she continued to make regular trips to the public school she attended in East Orange and to which her family has directed donations be sent in lieu of flowers.

Simpson said she admires Christie for honoring Houston because “if it were Bruce Springsteen or Jon Bon Jovi, nobody would bat an eye.”

“I don’t agree with a lot of things that he does, but I admire him for that,” she said. “Whoever don’t agree, they will get over it.”

What Anna Simpson is implying is that any who complain are motivated by race.  Leave it to USA Today to dig up such an opinion.  The truth is, Governor Christie shouldn’t be doing this for any celebrity, whatever their race, sex, age, or state of addiction.  That’s not the meaning of this tradition.    One New Jersey woman whose son died recently in Afghanistan is offended over this, and for good reason.  It’s not the role of the state to worship at the altar of pop culture, and I don’t care if it is Bruce Springsteen or Jon Bon Jovi(whoever he is,) so perhaps rather than leading his state like a cheer-leading section for celebrities, perhaps he could impart to his own service in office a bit of the dignity expected of our leaders.  We should expect our leaders to remember with solemn reverence the actual meaning of such official gestures by the state, and one would think Christie would have known better.

Then again, perhaps not.

The Truth About Newt Gingrich and His Ethics “Fines”(Updated)

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

Take Me Out to the Ballgame...On Tax-Payers' Dime

Governor Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie repeated the dishonest line about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich being chased out of office due to ethics violations, and that he had been forced to pay a fine, in his Meet The Press interview Sunday.  Let me state this unambiguously to any who may have been fooled by this line:  Chris Christie is lying.  Period.  The truth of the matter that Chris Christie won’t tell you is that David Bonior, once the Democrat Whip in the House, filed charge after charge as a matter of creating a nuisance.  The Democrats knew that Gingrich was not particularly wealthy compared to many members, and that they could bankrupt him in legal expenses.  This was their way of hounding him from the Speakership, but it was ultimately his own party that did him dirty out of fears they couldn’t explain this to voters. As Christie sits there gulping air and spewing garbage, you might want to consider his ethical lapses, flitting around as he does at tax-payers’ expense to attend his son’s ballgames.

I’m not going to suggest to you that Newt Gingrich is a perfect human being, or anything approaching it, but just as when I defended Governor Romney on the matter of capitalism and Bain Capital, I am going to tell you the truth.  The facts are clear: Bonior and the Democrats conducted a campaign of phony ethics claims against Gingrich in order to tie him up legislatively, undermine his moral authority as Speaker, and to drive him deeply into debt.  The ‘settlement’ reached was essentially aimed at putting it to bed so he could get on with his life.  This should sound particularly familiar to those of you who have followed the attacks on Sarah Palin near the end of her term as Governor.  Gingrich was almost a prototype for what was later done to Palin.

Chris Christie sits there pompously talking about this information as if there is more to the story he’s suppressing by way of doing you a favor, and there is more, but his concealing it wasn’t intended to do you any favors.  The fact is that the sole charge that wasn’t tossed by the ethics committee was investigated by the IRS and in 1999, they concluded there had been no wrong-doing on Gingrich’s part. Of course, that story got little or no play in most media outlets, and the humpty-dumpty donut-horker in New Jersey wouldn’t want to “regale” you with that.

Of course, there are a number of things ‘Krispy Kreme’ hasn’t told you, including what Palin revealed on Monday night’s Hannity show, where she mentioned an episode in which the New Jersey governor used a state helicopter to attend his son’s ballgame.  The point is that while this man goes on about Gingrich, but omits all the important facts, he’s out there doing things that I consider entirely unethical.  I suppose he simply forgot those things.  This line of attack by Romney’s New Jersey surrogate is dishonest, and they know it, but then again, they’re now desperate. Nobody should be surprised.

Mark Levin covered this story on his show Monday evening, and you should hear his take on it.  He gets it exactly right:

(Note: You can check out more of Levin’s show archives at MarkLevinShow.com)

Update: Byron York carried the same facts about Gingrich on Wednesday.