Talking Points

December 26, 2006

Enviromental Wacko’s get theirs

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 4:54 pm

Table turns on environmentalists – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

 At great ideological battle of our times is taking place over a little patch of land.  About five years ago the environmentalist wackos picked a fight with off-road drivers who enjoyed riding their vehicles in Surprise Canyon which lies near Death Valley. 

A successful mining town once operated in the canyon, which is home to a waterfall and a lively water stream.  So the wackos sued and they won; and the canyon was declared off limits to off-road vehicles. 

Think that’s the end of the story?  Nope. 

Eighty or so of the off-riders began to purchase small partials of land around the top of the canyon; and they are suing the Federal Government for access to their land.  The foundation of their argument is a Civil War era mining law, putting the rights of the feds behind public access rights of local governments and private individuals. 

Well, the wackos are livid!  They are demanding to be allowed to intervene in the off-roaders lawsuit claiming the canyon will be destroyed if the property owners prevail. 

Its going to be years before this is settled – but its being watched closely. The fate if thousands of acres of land, in the west, declared off-limits by over zealous liberals may hang in the balance. 

Win or lose, those of you who are off-roaders – you are fighting a good fight.  You did not lay down and get run over (no pun) by these wackos – you used their favorite weapon – the courts (who are probably run by liberal judges) to give them a surprise that they will never forget, which I say, YES! 

And that’s the memo 
Read the article


December 24, 2006

One Child Starts an Anti-Santa hat Controversy

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 9:19 pm

Political Correctness runs amok – again – this time pointing right to Santa – that the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

It was only last week that we learned of the sad situation at a Needham, Massachusetts, high school where one parent (one mother) who had three kids complained to the school principal that the fact that two of her kids didn’t make the honor roll was causing trouble in the household because the school published a list, and so the principal took it under advisement, thought about it for about a half minute, and canceled the whole notion of publishing the honor roll list. 

They didn’t want to make people feel uncomfortable.  Okay 

Now, a Long Island school bus driver by the name of Kenneth Mott; he has a white beard, he looks a lot like Santa Claus, and he was driving the bus with a Santa Claus hat on. Newsday reports: “Mott said that he was told that a parent of a child complained to the district about Mott’s Santa Claus hat, saying that the child doesn’t believe in Santa Claus and was bothered by the hat.”

So a guy with a beard wearing a hat who looks religious — although Santa Claus is not a religious figure per se — is minding his own business, driving the bus, upset a kid!  

So what else? Does this kid not get to go to the mall? If you see Santa Claus somewhere, does this upset the kid? What does the kid do at the sight of anything that reminds him of Christmas? “Company officials nevertheless told Mr. Mott to remove his Santa Claus hat,” and he refused. Kenneth Mott stated, “‘Nobody is going to tell me what I can do and can’t do.’ He doesn’t pretend to be Santa Claus while driving, nor does he play Christmas carols or decorate his bus. ‘This is America. I’m not hurting anybody,” said Mott.  

Things have sure changed when I was a kid. Teachers would dress in Christmas theme clothes.  I remember a history teacher in my grade school who wore a Santa hat – and no one was offended. It was in the spirit of the times, the spirit of the season. It was cute, and it was fun to see somebody get in the holiday spirit, and it used to be that way when we were kids. If you get on the bus and Santa Claus was driving the school bus, if the driver wearing a Santa Claus hat, nobody would run around, “Oh, my God, I’m offended! I’m bothered by that!” One person, one kid goes home and tells his parents about it.

This is political correctness run amuck, which it’s hard to pick one occasion or example to say that political correctness has run amuck. Jack Kemp, who was a contributor to says, “This farce, the type of thing one sees in the plot of a $7 Christmas movie you can buy off the rack at a drugstore chain, has mercifully ended for now. It seems there are two major schools of thought about unusual people with odd hats. One is that we should all learn about other cultures and be tolerant of them.” 

What if the guy had been wearing a turban? Let’s forget the Santa Claus hat. What if the bus driver had been wearing a turban, and what if a kid had complained? Do you think the kid would be sent to sensitivity lessons? Damn right, he would be! The kid wouldn’t be allowed to drive on the bus, and I guarantee you that turban would not have come off. Mr. Mott, if he chose to wear a turban, would be riding around wearing a turban today and the kid would be off somewhere getting his mind right, learning how not to be discriminatory and bigoted. But put a Santa Claus hat on, and Mr. Mott is approached by his bosses and told what-for, and he denied them.


So we’re either taught to be tolerant of other cultures and to learn all about them. The other school of thought today “is that we now in America have the Guaranteed Right not to be made uncomfortable by anything that doesn’t suit our fancy, be it a person with an unusual hat or a guy with only one leg or who is obese or doesn’t wear designer jeans — or is obese AND wears designer jeans.

 “These two opposing viewpoints are increasingly headed for confrontations. And the winners will be those who come to the conclusion that we are all entitled to our reasonable public displays of our culture that don’t interfere with public safety,” but I think it goes deeper than that. It goes back to The Offended. It is almost a registered group now: The Offended. If there are people out there who are personally bothered, they think they have a right not to be. They have a right not to be offended; they have a right not to be bothered, and they are given power because they are a minority. In some cases, such a small minority, they are one person. So if one person is bothered, one person is offended, then all hell breaks loose, and the majority, obsessed with guilt over being the majority, says, “Okay, okay! Well, we don’t want to hurt your feelings, and we don’t want you uncomfortable and we don’t want you offended.”

Then go to Mr. Mott, or the principal cancels the publishing of the honor roll or what have you, and the process repeats. It was very vivid in the days after the 9/11 attacks in New York City at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. An august bureaucracy, no less than the state department convened a series of forums on the subject: “Why Do They Hate Us?” meaning the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Why do they hate us? And, of course, why you going to ask that question? You’re only going to ask it if you want an answer, and why do you want the answer? Well, you want the answer because you think the answer might help you to convince them to stop hating us. Which, in a war, is a serious dereliction of responsibility, an absolute distraction. It doesn’t matter why we’re hated. There’s nothing that justifies blowing up two of our buildings. There’s nothing that justifies blowing up the Pentagon and trying to blow up another building in Washington — we don’t know if it’s the White House or Capitol. Nothing.

There are enough people in this country who say, “We are guilty! We have brought pestilence and syphilis, racism, sexism and bigotry, the white people did, when they conquered this land that was once dominated by the great Indians who are at one with nature. Of course everything was pristine back then, but we came along, we destroyed it; kicked them off their land.

Now we rob and steal the other people of the world all their oil, all their gold, all of their diamonds — which are now called ‘conflict diamonds’ — and we put these baubles around our necks and on our fingers and we put their oil in gasoline in our cars and we air-condition our homes while the rest of the world suffers, and so we deserve this kind thing.” This has been building for a long time. I call it “the tyranny of the minority,” and it’s getting bad now when one person, particularly a child, can be made to feel offended or uncomfortable (gasp!) and the guilt of the majority is the only thing — even if it’s adults versus children, it’s the guilt of the majority that is the only thing — that permits the minority to get away with this kind of intimidation.

 And that’s the memo.

(Note: Links on this blog may become inactive over time)

December 16, 2006

Tis the Season…..

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 4:17 am

How New York Stole Christmas, that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

Well, the Supreme Court punted. The justices were supposed to decide weeks ago whether or not to hear a blatant example of anti-Christian bias in New York City. But still no decision. 

The case concerns a policy by the New York City public schools to allow displays of the Star and Crescent flag for Ramadan and the Menorah for Hanukkah, but to ban the Nativity scene at Christmas time. The decision makes no legal sense, as the federal courts have previously ruled that so-called “religious” displays can appear on public property, as long as there is no preference given to one religion over another. 

I have been up front about how liberals and the ACLU have waged a war on Christmas in the public and in some cases the private arena, and I must say that I am tired of it all. There is no need to deny students a Nativity display. Don’t they get enough of history being re-written and anti-Americanism as it is, do they really need to be told that Christmas is bad? I mean, how threatening and offensive can a baby, two loving parents, and three wise men really be? 

All the polls say that most Americans believe as I do: That the traditional signs of Christmas are a good thing. So leave them alone, okay? 

The Supreme Court, of course, could have made things a lot easier by taking the case, discussing it for ten minutes, then ruling that New York City school officials are in strict violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution  that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Would that be so hard to do?  But then we are talking about the Supreme Court; that’s as bad as dealing with the ACLU. 

But no, the Supreme Court justices are now on their Christmas break – opps, I mean winter soltus, and have left the country adrift once again. The anti-Christmas forces are still clinging to the bogus separation of church and state argument that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would mock these secular fools and then retire to his Virginia estate for Christmas dinner. 

The good news is that despite the cowardice of many public officials and the anti-Christian bias of many in the media, the forces of Christmas cheer are winning in America. Most retail stores are saying “Merry Christmas” again, and the ACLU is mad as hell that they can’t stop them. 

Again, all of this is so stupid it hurts. With so much strife and evil in the world, why can’t we have a celebration that honors a baby who grew up to espouse “love your neighbor as yourself?” So what if it has spiritual overtones? Why can’t we introduce children to Christian philosophy in a joyful way? Everything about Christmas is positive except the commercialism. And that can even be looked at positively – its called Capitalism. Entrepeneurialism. Making the economy strong. 

Here’s the bottom line: If you’re offended by Christmas, you have a problem. See somebody or tough it out. But enough with the petty nonsense. When Christmas images have to be decided by the Supreme Court, you know things are out of control.  I mean my God, we have people in this world who have sworn their lives to kill us, and we’re spending time defending Christmas!  How nuts is that!  Wake up America!

 So give Jesus a break – give Christmas a break and enjoy the season no matter how you celebrate it, and be thankful you live in a country where the philosophy of peace on earth, good will toward all people is honored with a federal holiday. 

And that’s the memo

December 1, 2006

Conservative vs. Liberal Charity Donations

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 3:23 pm

A recently published book outlines the difference between Conservative and Liberals who donate to Charity – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo. 

So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called “Who Really Cares” by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.

The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about “nurturing” people who need help. The “tax the rich” crew can’t yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.  

That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is “income redistribution;” that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed “economic justice,” things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.

But a funny thing happened on the way to liberalism. Americans who believe in “income redistribution” give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential. I believe this is a religious thing. Liberals believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it’s all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street.

But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge “help your neighbor” guy. For Christians, it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession.

The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here’s another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation’s blood supply would rise 45%.

So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don’t like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, sexist, racist, bigoted homophobes who are cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden.

But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little.

So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned Dr. Brooks book. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing.

What’s left is – well, liberalism.

And that’s the memo.

Blog at