Posts Tagged ‘Cowardice’

Doctor, My Eyes

Wednesday, June 9th, 2021

I love most of the doctors who’ve ever rendered care to me and mine in my times of need, whether routine check-ups or things of a more serious nature. Unfortunately, every doctor cannot be the most competent doctor in the practice, the clinic, or in the hospital. Not every surgeon can be the most skilled, talented medical artist. Not every person in any segment of the medical fields can be the most able in their specialty. Human skills and talents simply aren’t distributed that way. Unfortunately, neither is indispensable virtue of courage.  What this “pandemic” has taught me, perhaps more than anything, is that rather than being the people most trustworthy in my world, I now trust the medical profession only slightly more than politicians, reporters, and bureaucrats.  What the medical community has done over the last eighteen months is astonishingly scandalous.  Some people, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, at the upper echelons of the medical bureaucracy should go to jail for their misfeasance or malfeasance, but in the main, the biggest failure in the medical professions has been among the group we ought to have been able to trust above all others:  The doctors.  Physicians should have observed their Hippocratic oaths.  Doctors should have been the tempering speed-break that stilled the panic and gave reason in the midst of madness. A very few brave souls tried, but they were demolished for their efforts.  They were ostracized and silenced in social media, and in the media generally.  Those few gave a valiant effort, and they are to be commended.  If you’re looking for the assistance of a physician, seek one of them out, because only they dared tell the truth. This story isn’t about them, however, or the good works they performed.  It is about the failure of their brothers and sisters in medicine, who failed, who fell to their knees in supplication before the juggernaut, and bent science to the will of a political mob.  This is not a story about the brave few who stood against the storm, but instead, about the greater number of them who faded and faltered, betraying their patients in the greatest calamity every visited upon the field of public health in human history.  It has been a man-caused catastrophe.

For me, it began early on in the so-called pandemic.  I already had begun to fear that this was being exploited for political purposes.  I saw how the media was behaving, and I knew instinctively that there was something terribly wrong with the narrative we were being fed.  For one thing, the narrative kept changing.  For another, the recommendations seemed almost random at times, and they didn’t seem to comport with simple science and basic logic.   I, along with countless others, began to ask questions like: “Do we have an antibody test for this contagion?” Alternatively, “Do masks even work?”  “What good is social distancing?”  Then people began to research the PCR test, and it was discovered that the PCR test was likely to generate high false positive rates, maybe greater than ninety-five percent.  Even the Lancet admitted it was probably at least 50-75%.  Questions along this line were dismissed.  Hospitals began to shut down all “elective surgeries,” which isn’t merely face-lifts and so on as some people seem wrongly to believe. If you’re stable but waiting on some very serious surgeries, for very serious conditions, they can be rated as “elective” even though without them, eventually, the condition requiring the surgery may well kill you. Large numbers of hospital employees were furloughed. Whole wards were shut down. None of it made any damned sense. It was as if they were waiting for the wounded to come in from a terrible battle, but the terrible battle hadn’t happened.

Then people began to notice oddities in the reporting. People were being reported as COVID deaths, who died in hospice facilities. They were in the end stages of terrible cancers, and they were tested daily, sometimes many times daily for COVID, and even if the damned PCR test never did give a positive result, they’d get a doctor to “diagnose” it based on symptomology and call it a contributing factor in the inevitable deaths. One elderly gentleman who lived very near me pulled out in front of a tractor-trailer hauling a load of gravel on a 75mph highway. There wasn’t much left of his folded-up pickup truck, but they managed to swab his lifeless body and declare him dead of COVID. These stories happened all over. People who blew their brains out with shotguns were tested “positive” with PCR swabs and their deaths recorded as COVID deaths. People who fell off buildings were diagnosed as COVID deaths. In one recent “adjustment” to statistics, Alameda County California admitted it had at least 441 cases scored and counted as COVID deaths that most assuredly were not, reducing the county’s COVID death count by twenty-five percent!  This whole gruesome fraud went on, and in most places, is STILL happening. Where are our scientific professionals? Where are the doctors? Why weren’t they speaking-out?

Money is a powerful motivator, and it’s frequently seen at the root of many human failures of character. Often times, what we perceive as cowardice is only the sort of cowardice born of “fear of a loss of compensation.” For many people, that’s quite enough. Ladies and gentlemen, our medical doctors, for all their education, scientific training, and Hippocratic oaths, are just people, and they’re subject to the same foibles, flaws, and outright failings found in any other segment of our society. The problem is that most of us trust them, because they have the credentials, and they’re employed in hospitals and clinics, or they have their own practices, and we see them as the top of the food chain. Those in their own practices are certainly less subject to pressures of the corporate sorts, but not entirely. That in mind, remember that most of us see doctors employed in vast medical systems, corporate hospitals, and medicals systems.  The bigger the institution, the more prone they are to exhibiting these pressures on their employees, and even on their doctors. Even then-CDC Director Redfield admitted that there is a strong perverse incentive built into the system.

There isn’t a doctor among them who doesn’t know that a virus is many times smaller than the pores in those common masks, never mind the various cloth contraptions people sported throughout the course of the “pandemic.” Not one. In truth, if you want to know whether you can trust your doctor, next time you visit, ask him or her bluntly: “Does this mask I’m wearing provide any protection from airborne SARS-CoV2?” If they give you any other answer than “no,” you can know your doctor is lying. If they tell you something about “virus carried in exhaled particulates,” you might give them a pass if they specify a certain grade of mask, but you should press the issue: “Will this silly cloth mask I’m wearing protect me from inhaling a coronavirus floating around in the air in this room?” If they tell you “yes,” they’re lying to you. The reason for the lie is irrelevant. Whether it’s because they’ve bought the lies themselves, or because they’re following the company line, or because they’ve been squeezed into it by peers and social pressure, the particular motive matters not. All that matters is the net effect: They’ve told you an incredible lie.  I’m not telling you to have a confrontation with them.  Just accept their answer, and know that anything this doctor ever tells you, from that date forward, and probably any time in the past, must be considered as possible false information. You should definitely find another doctor who will not lie to you.  Since the scale of the failure of the medical profession has been so profound, you may have quite the chore before you. If you want to, you can always preface your question with an implicit warning: “Doctor, I need to ask you a question, and I suppose you could consider it a test of sorts, and your answer will remain between you and I alone:  Does this silly cloth mask I’m wearing afford me any real protection from airborne coronaviruses?” At least this way, the doctor will know from the outset that you expect perfect frankness within the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Whatever his or her answer, you’ll know what sort of doctor you have.

Here’s a quick youtube video to demonstrate the difference in scale among viruses, including COVID19, and the masks that allegedly impede them:

I realize there will be a large number of doctors who will spit and sputter in objection after reading what I’ve said here, but let me tell you something else: I don’t care. I’m entitled to my opinion, and by any estimation I’m able to make, any doctor who will participate in all the lies we’ve endured in the last eighteen months isn’t worth a puddle of pond-scum, never mind having the temerity to object to my calling them on it.  Yes, I fully understand the pressure they’re under, but I also expect them, of all people, to have the moral fortitude to reject and overcome the pressure.

Many of these same doctors are being pressured to get you to take one of the available vaccines. I will tell you how I answered one clinician recently:

“Will you and the hospital sign a release accepting all liability for any injury, death, disability, or disease I might suffer as a result of this vaccine you’re recommending?  No?  Then why do you recommend it?  You have your answer.”

You see, one of the principles in medicine is that you, the patient, have an absolute right to refuse treatment of any sort.  It’s also true that you have a right to expect that your doctor will prescribe treatments and medicines that will not cause you unnecessary harm, and no harm they didn’t warn you was a possibility first.  This is called “informed consent.” It’s not simply that you were permitted to choose whether or not to take the medicine/vaccine, but that you were given sufficient information to evaluate its relative safety or danger to your person.  The vaccines currently being used for COVID19 are all being used only under an Emergency Use Authorization, and are in fact only experimental vaccines.  Yes, you’re the proposed Guinea pigs.  I will not tell you what you should do about any vaccine.  You’re presumably adults and if you’re able to find your way to this website, I’m certain you’re able to research vaccines.  I will tell you that under no circumstances I can now foresee, will I be taking any of the vaccines currently offered as alleged preventatives against infections with SARS-CoV2, a.k.a COVID19, a.k.a. the FauciVirus. You do you.

I had always hoped that the medical profession was populated with people of amazing skills and talents and moral courage.  While there is undoubtedly no shortage of skill and talent, what I’ve learned over the last eighteen months is that the people in these fields are no less apt to fall prey to the same sorts of moral and ethical failings as anybody else.  The Hippocratic oath, if taken as seriously as intended, ought to imbue its professors with at least an elevated sense of the criticality of their honesty in dealing with patients, but as in so many other fields where a higher standard ought to be expected, the practitioners often fail to clear the bar.  What we have seen with some of the disclosures of the Fauci emails is that “science” is just a corruptible and corrupted as any endeavor into which greed and political power are introduced.  Peer-reviewed science has made a mortal blow to its own credibility, and just like with the Climate Change hogwash, what we find is that in pursuit of the research grant dollars, or for the approval of the mob, or for the sake of simply keeping one’s job, science is eminently corruptible.  What the last eighteen months ought to have made plain, to our disappointment and disgust, is that the medical profession is steered and swayed by these same forces, and always to the detriment of real medical science and honest patient care. Your lives and liberties were at stake, and in the main, to the largest extent, the medical profession failed you, and mostly because doctors would not stand on their feet, stick their chests out, harden their jaws, and take the punch, unyielding and unafraid.  This is another area in which we are going to need to force a clean-up, since at least to date, the profession at large has shown no such inclination.  It’s crushing.  It’s a little like discovering that the spouse you’ve loved and cherished for decades has been routinely stepping-out on you every week throughout the course of your whole marriage.  Some people I know trust their doctors more than their spouses.  It’s one more instance of betrayal in a year’s worth of them.  If you’re a physician, and you feel like this is aimed at you, maybe it is.

 

Editors Note: I realize that there are many people other than doctors in the medical sciences, but it is the doctor with the lab-coat and the stethoscope that has come to symbolize the profession, in large measure because they are the accepted, learned authorities in the field, and because it is upon their recommendations that we follow courses of care and medication. Nobody sets out to make an appointment to see a nurse, or an x-ray technician, or a phlebotomist. Those are generally people we interact with along the path to seeing, or after having seen a doctor. Pharmacists don’t write prescriptions. The whole of the medical field revolves around the physicians. It is in they who we place our trust and our lives. It is to they to whom we entrust our children’s care. It is they who should lead the way in cleaning this mess up, and it should start immediately.

I know there have been a number of good physicians who’ve stood against the tide. I know how they’ve suffered. Rather than endlessly listing all the doctors here who’ve failed you in the last eighteen months, I’d prefer that any such comments list only doctors who didn’t fail. I would prefer that if you’re going to name doctors in the comments here, you focus on those who stood and did the right thing, if you know any.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Texas Liberty: Lost to History?

Sunday, December 22nd, 2013

As readers will remember, I’ve covered the case of Army Master Sergeant Christopher “CJ” Grisham, who was arrested, tried, re-tried, and finally convicted of a misdemeanor charge of “interfering with a public servant,” in Bell County, Texas.  The case arose out of a ridiculous case of officer over-reaction in a rural area of Temple, Texas, where Grisham and his son were on a hike for a merit badge for the boy’s scouting pursuits.  What bothers me most about this case is a circumstance that should cause every American to recoil in anger: Here was a man committing no crime, threatening no person, but an officer showed up and made a criminal of him by acting in outrageous fashion.  I’m not going to re-argue the case, as it is currently under appeal, but there is a subtext to this story that makes me ill.  Persons in the community claiming to be conservative, yet taking the side of the law enforcement officer in this case are cowardly fools.  There should have been no case.  There should have been no arrest.  There should have been no initial call from a passerby who observed the “armed subject.”  We live in a nation of cowards, and some of them claim to be “conservatives.” This wretched, skulking view of liberty sickens me. We have now supposed “conservatives” who pose as advocates of liberties they would rather you not exercise, and of all places, in Texas.

Let me assert from the outset that an armed person hiking along the rural roadways of Texas really ought not be a matter for law enforcement.  There is no law in Texas against openly carrying a long gun, whether rifle or shotgun, and Grisham was not threatening any person.  He wasn’t brandishing the firearm, or waving it around, or otherwise doing anything that would indicate any aggressive action.  Sadly, the mere presence of the firearm suggests to some very dim-witted persons a threat that does not exist.  These same nit-wits do not flinch at the presence of firearms on the persons of law enforcement officers, but slung from the neck of a citizen, it’s another matter.  It is either cowardice or malice that leads to such calls to law enforcement.

On the side of malice, there are those in every community who hate firearms, largely because they live in fear.  They are participants in a nonsensical agenda aimed at disarming the country, believing that some Utopia is possible absent guns.  These are the same dolts who supported the enactment of Obama-care, or who are happy to vote for every statist that promises them a paradise on Earth, free of want and fear.  These are the overt enemies of liberty, and Texans, of all the people in America, should shun them as reprobates.  They fear liberty as they fear life itself.  They are not fit to live among civilized people, and therefore seek to reduce civilization to a world of mandates and dicta from on high.

As bad as the open enemies of liberty may be, there is another group I estimate to be perhaps worse.  There are those who proclaim themselves “conservative,” but who are no less fearful or debauched in their thinking.  Actual conservatives do not live in fear of bogey-men.  They do not live in fear of inanimate objects or tools. They do not pretend to themselves that a society in which guns are forbidden from public view, or forbidden altogether will be somehow safe from harm.  All the evidence gathered about crime and guns over the last half-century demonstrates convincingly that the more citizens are armed, the safer their communities will be.  In stark contrast, the fewer citizens who are armed, the more common it will be for people to fall prey to monsters and madmen.  Those claiming “conservatism” as their general ideology should know better, and reason should be their guide, but what we really have is a number of people who don’t really believe anything except that “liberals are bad.”  They don’t adhere to principles, and they don’t really know why they’re “conservatives.”

One of the arguments you hear from this crowd is that “Grisham was only carrying to prove a point.” This bizarre logic would have you believe that somehow, if only for the sake of doing what the law permits, Grisham would be guilty of some crime.  What they are too cowardly to understand is that to retain our freedoms, we ought to exercise them openly and in full light of day as the means by which to reinforce their validity.  What they mistakenly believe is that we ought to have rights, but never to exercise them.  This bastardized view of liberty has led nation after nation, and civilizations from time immemorial to utter collapse and tyranny.  A right not exercised out of a fear of persecution is no right at all.  What one can learn from the Grisham case is that while many politicians and persons in Bell County Texas may claim to support liberty and gun rights, the truth is that they don’t support their exercise. In much the same fashion, Phil Robertson is being persecuted for his beliefs. None will dare say that he isn’t entitled to them, but too many will shrink from his right to state them.  So goes “free speech” or “free exercise of religion” in modern America.

There exists also some abiding but misplaced sense of fealty to local law enforcement.  I love the people who earnestly take up the defense of our lives and liberties, but I strenuously oppose any who would abuse citizens under color of law.  More, those who speak out about this subject are often ostracized for what boils down to simple boat-rocking.  Speaking out in a Texas community against the actions of law enforcement officers in some particular cases is tantamount to becoming a leper in the community.  It is the preposterous proclamation of the idea that “we have rights, but we ought never exercise them” that emboldens those with tyrannical mindsets to such actions.  Why did the officer in this case seek to disarm Grisham, who was doing nothing illegal, threatening no one, and harming not a soul?  Why did he do so without warning?  Why did he take on the power of the state as an aggressor?  The reason is simple: He believed he would be safe in so doing.  He believed he would get away with it, and thus far, the legal farce in Bell County courtrooms stage-managed by visiting judge Neal Richardson have borne out his belief.

What we really have here is a simpler question, truth be told: Was Grisham out to “interfere with a public servant,” or was a public servant out to interfere with a citizen’s free exercise of liberty?  I would conclude in this case that it had been the latter, but so many of my fellow citizens seem to fear such a “revolutionary” idea. Each year, Texans celebrate their own independence, and remember the Alamo, but then quietly and meekly ignore the meaning of those things they claim to hold dear.  Each and every time they participate in one of these sham trials against a citizen who had really done nothing but exercise the liberties they claim to support, they mark themselves as frauds and pretenders. “Don’t mess with Texas,” they’ll say in imitation of the state’s anti-littering campaign, but “go ahead and mess with Texans,” they’ll meekly admit.

When I decided with my family to remain in Texas after my military service, it was based on the idea that we would become Texans.  We wouldn’t try to re-shape the state or its people into the form or image of what we had escaped, but instead adopt to ourselves the history and culture of a freedom-loving place.  I believed that meant something special, which is to say that I believed at the time that Texans were fiercely protective of their freedoms.  Nowadays, seeing what passes for “conservatism” in so much of the Lone Star State, I’m no longer certain my assessment had been correct.  Texans may like the imagery of prideful independence, but slowly and surely, they are joining many of their fellow Americans in the slide into servitude.  I know there are still a number of Texans of the sort I had hoped to become, but their number is dwindling fast, much too fast, as it becomes increasingly fashionable to spout about liberty but never to exercise it.  It is this sort of cowardice that is uncharacteristically un-Texan, and yet it seems to grow like a cancer, metastasizing through the entire body of the state, undermining the appearance of independence still claimed by its residents.

Supposed “conservatives” in Texas who enable this decline are the more objectionable to me.  On the federal level, we have one conservative Senator, Ted Cruz, and one cowardly Senator, John Cornyn.  Cruz actually fights to the limits of his ability. Cornyn pretends to fight for us, but all too often fights against conservatism, joining with the left in their various plots and plans.  At the state level, it’s much the same. We have a number of crony capitalists who claim conservatism, but only a few hands-full of actual conservatives.  You might wonder how this could be the case in Texas, of all places, but the answer is clear: Too many supposed conservatives among the voting populace are similarly opposed to boat-rocking because too few really want freedom complete with its ups and downs; its rewards and risks.  We’re losing our culture, and it’s sad that having discovered the freedoms of Texas at twenty-five years of age, and having the courage to make of it our new home, I now find that the courage that had attracted me to the people and places of Texas is slowly bleeding away.  When I see shoddy argumentation demanding a surrender of rights while claiming to possess them, I know that this is not the Texas with which I had become so enamored in my youth.

Texas needs new leaders, and it needs them soon, but to get the sort of men and women who can save the state, we will need citizens with the courage and will to do so.  Texans invest a lot of time proclaiming their pride in this state, and what it purports to be, but the truth is that nowadays, that’s more boast than fact.  From the statehouse to the local governments, Texans are yielding liberty at an astonishing pace, as our “independent school districts” run wild, spending outrageous sums on unnecessary things, our local governments grow and become more reliant on the state, that in its turn becomes merely a localized, branch establishment of the federal leviathan.  CJ Grisham’s case is just one among many, as the cowardice of too many alleged conservatives comes to dominate our polity.   Everywhere, government entities are clamping down on liberties long-enjoyed but less and less frequently exercised.  We’re told by our neighbors and friends that we should not exercise them, for fear of retribution or rocking the boat, but one must ask what sort of sinking ship of freedom we’re aboard, that we no longer dare evince these rights by carrying them into execution.  Don’t speak out, or you will be ostracized.  Don’t walk in public with a firearm lest you be arrested for contrived causes.  Don’t be a Texan, whatever you may claim, because real Texans are going extinct, like the dinosaurs, and good riddance, it seems.

All hope is not lost, but it’s time to re-evaluate our position.  Christians now hide their faith lest they be publicly pilloried for it.  Conservatives refuse to be conservative, lest their noncommittal acquaintances think the less of them.  Men and women are now chastised for speaking of freedom, never mind exercising it.  Over the last several years, there has been talk of “the wussification of America,” but no place in the country has it become more evident of late than in Texas, perhaps precisely because of the contrast provided by its peoples’ former strengths. Where once dwelt a vast majority of rugged individuals among the blue-bonnets, we now find a population increasingly composed of shrinking violets who dare not stand for the right.  Any right.  We must endeavor to fight this slide, and we must do so in the city council meetings, the counties’ commissioners courts, and in the legislature.  Time for a resurgence of liberty in Texas is growing short.  The most important places in which we must make a stand are among our friends, families, and neighbors, among whom the number of gone-wobbly seems to increase daily.  It’s time for the voices of freeborn men and women to be heard, and if not in Texas, one must wonder where those voices will resound again.  It’s a damnable shame that as Texas begins the approach to its bicentennial, we may find ourselves in a state where our claims to liberty are all hat but no cattle.  Stand up Texans!  You have a famous heritage based on the bold and courageous, but so must your children and their progeny beyond.  We must exercise our rights, or yield them, surrendering them forever more.  One new Texan’s final diary entry must be our guide:

“No time for memorandums now. Go ahead! Liberty and Independence forever. “– David Crockett, March 5th, 1836

Mitt Chickens Out

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

Hiding From Issues?

Perhaps we shouldn’t be astonished, and maybe we should have expected this from the Republican “presumptive nominee,” but I don’t understand it: Why is Mitt Romney unwilling to take a stand on something so obvious as the matter of Chick-fil-A?  Todd Starnes has reported that Mitt Romney has decided to avoid the issue, rather than confront it, and that while he was at it, he declined to comment on the case of Michele Bachmann’s interest in seeing certain people in the Obama administration investigated as to their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Honestly, I can’t imagine why Mitt Romney has decided to demur on these two issues, apart from the cowardice that has generally characterized his overall campaign.  Tweeting about the matter, Starnes said he thought Romney needs a new communications team, but to be blunt about it, I don’t think one can fix this problem by changing his communications team.  This is about the candidate himself, and his unwillingness to touch anything with the first hint of controversy attached to it.  Will this be the manner of a Romney administration, and if so, for what purpose are we electing him? To run and hide?  To “chicken-out?”

I realize that a candidate for President is trying to walk a tight-rope between public opinion and attention, but this seems to me to have been a no-brainer, particularly where the Chick-fil-A matter is concerned.  One might guess that Willard doesn’t want to risk alienating potential voters who find the personal opinions and convictions of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy objectionable, but one wonders if that’s the point.  After all, the matter of Chick-fil-A is more about free speech, freedom of conscience, and the attempt of the fascists of the left to bully a company into submission, and the Appreciation Day, a wild success on Wednesday, was all about standing up against this sort of philosophical dictatorship.  It was also a blow against those who attack business in any case, applying politics as a wedge against companies and those who run them.  That Mitt Romney was unwilling to go on the record on this issue is a matter of pure cowardice that demonstrates Romney’s unfitness for the office.  How can you lead the free world if you are unwilling to take a stand on free speech, freedom of religion, and harassment of businesses on the basis of their owners’ beliefs?

The issue of the conservative five, with Bachmann taking the brunt of the pro-Jihadi attacks, is another disgusting matter of surrender, but this one pervades the entirety of the GOP establishment, because it steps on too many toes.  None seem willing to take on tax-reform advocate and friend of Islam, Grover Norquist, and his influence within the Republican establishment causes many insiders to squirm about the issue of radical Islamists making inroads into our government, our culture, and our polity.  This writer grimly notes that while John McCain was attacking Michele Bachmann for daring to ask a question about Secretary of State Clinton’s top aid, Huma Abedin, Mitt Romney neither defended Bachmann nor would even acknowledge the issue.  Why not?  This is a matter of national security, and that ought to be something about which a would-be President should be concerned.  Instead, from Romney, we get obfuscation.

I don’t expect a Presidential nominee of the Republican party to respond to every issue, but it would be nice that when serious issues arise, the “presumptive nominee” might find his…voice… and say something useful on the subject.  This has been the repetitive behavior of Mitt Romney since he announced his campaign, avoiding the issue of the debt ceiling increase until it was a fait accompli, and refusing also to discuss the criminality of Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious until such time as virtually every other living Republican had come out to denounce Holder and finally call for his resignation.  Romney is being careful, to the extent that he has begun to run what looks like an NFL “prevent defense,” intended to prevent any game-changing mistakes late in the game, but almost invariably leading to defeat by an accumulation of a series of lesser mistakes, any of which would be insignificant on their own, but that in the aggregate prove lethal.

I am desperately afraid for my country, because we now enter the last few months of this election cycle, and it is imperative that we remove Barack Obama from office, but my fear is multiplied by a candidate who seems unwilling to confront the wider base of political philosophy upon which his arguments ought to have been based.  Worse, as he is frittering away opportunities to speak on behalf of the American people in criticism of leftists and their collaborators, he seems also to be directing Congress to undertake anything at all that would be necessary to avoid a significant conflict.  This showed up not only in the matter of the appointments bypass bill, but also in the latest continuing resolution.

My suggestion to Mitt Romney is one he will ignore.  One of his best moments thus far had been when he took on the President’s nonsense about capitalism, and the idea that “you didn’t build that.”  What he should do is to man-up, and start confronting these issues.  If he wants to get the conservative base to the polls on his behalf in November, he’d better begin to attack on a wider range of issues.  He needs to ridicule President Obama, often and savagely, because only in Washington DC, in academia, and among leftist groups is Barack Obama anything but a truly broken figure.  He should begin taking on the broader philosophical base of the left, addressing the wide and varied issues that signify not only our economic morass, but also our cultural decline.  If he doesn’t begin to do this, and soon, he will begin to lose ground, as many conservatives continue to wait, more desperately each day, for a candidate whose voice echos their concerns.  Thus far, Mitt Romney is an incomplete candidate, and it his preternatural fear of losing that may prevent him from victory in November.  At this stage in the game, chickening-out simply won’t do.

 

 

 

 

The Predictable Result of Moral Cowardice (UPDATED)

Friday, October 14th, 2011

Denver Reacts Properly

It’s now being reported by CBS-2 in New York that some violence has broken out between the Occu-Pests and the NYPD.  This is what you can expect when the Mayor won’t do his job in controlling a mob.  This is what you get when you compromise with thugs.  This is the result of the moral cowardice of those who have refused to stand for their own rights.

There is no right to assemble on property belonging to others, but when the Mayor (Michael Bloomberg,) and the property owners of Zuccotti Park ( Brookfield Office Properties) decline to exercise their rightful authority in deference to a mob, what is accomplished is to embolden the thugs.

Nobody should be surprised at this, and it is only in this environment of moral surrender to thugs that such a thing is possible.  This is why one cannot compromise with evil.  Evil will merely take advantage of your surrender, using the opportunity to advance, but worse, become encouraged at your surrender.  It’s like pointing out the chinks in your own armor.  This is disgusting, and the Mayor is a fool.  If people become injured or wounded, or worse, the people who yielded to these thugs in the first instance will have been responsible in the second.

Meanwhile, the city of Denver, Colorado is showing the way.  Whatever else may be wrong in Denver, it appears that they’ve tired of playing the political-correctness game. They’re cleaning out the Occu-pests.  Good for Denver. Let’s hope the Mayor of Denver stands by this. Maybe Bloomberg can learn something:

“This is about health, safety of the Occupy Denver protestors, and the public,” Mayor Hancock said during a joint news conference at the State Capitol. “I know there’s economic pain, but even though I empathize, my job is to uphold the law and keep Denver safe.”

Meanwhile, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper seems committed for the moment too:

“No one appreciates the 1st Amendment as much as I do,” said Hickenlooper, “but they can’t continue to stay there overnight.”

It’s time to recognize that one cannot win an argument or a war by moral surrender, and that applies as much to politics as it does to policing our streets. It’s sad that so many people are willing to surrender to these thugs.

You can watch video of Denver’s clean-up here.

Now it is being reported that Brookfield Office Properties received threatening calls from Politicians to stop the clean-up.