About Me

Name: Richard Larsen in...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Why the Left Loves Castro, Guevara, and Chavez

Posted by Richard Larsen in Idaho on Monday, March 31, 2008 11:00:38 AM
By Richard Larsen
 
Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/30/08
 
Those we look to as heroes speaks volumes about whom we are, and our character. Most of us identify heroes who exhibit qualities of character that we admire and we desire to emulate ourselves. Such character is manifest by actions, and what our heroes do to deserve such respect and veneration.
 
The recent passing of the dictatorial baton in Cuba from Fidel Castro to his equally totalitarian brother Raul provides a case study in hero worship. Fidel was the revolutionary who deposed Cuba’s corrupt dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Yet Castro became much worse than the ruler he led a revolution against, torturing and executing more than five times as many Cubans as his predecessor. He nationalized business interests in the country, abolished freedom of religion, took over the media, erased free speech, and turned the tropical island into a totalitarian “paradise” stripped of human rights and freedom. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Cuba trails only China in the number of journalists and reporters behind bars.
 
Political prisoners are beaten, starved, denied that acclaimed Cuban medical care, locked in solitary confinement, and forced into slave labor. Castro long ago eliminated due process of law, and the right to leave the country.
 
Freedom House, the international human rights watchdog, rates Cuba with the lowest possible rating for civil liberties and political rights. It shares that inauspicious ranking with North Korea and Sudan as the most repressive regimes.
 
In short, under Castro, a once-flourishing island paradise has been transformed into a poverty-stricken, desolate hellhole where basic human liberties do not exist.
 
In spite of all this, American media and the Hollywood left heaps praise and adulation on Fidel. Norman Mailer, for example, proclaimed him “the first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the Second World War.” Oliver Stone has called him “one of the earth's wisest people, one of the people we should consult.”
 
The paragon of objective documentarians, Michael Moore, holds up Castro’s health care system as the preeminent example. I guess if you don’t mind being stripped of all liberties and can survive the firing squads, the Cubans have something to look forward to.
 
Why is it that to the left a ruthless mass-murderer and totalitarian dictator would be so adored and worthy of emulation?
 
For that matter, why is Castro’s primary executioner of the revolution, Che Guevara, still lionized by the left? Even today, kids wear t-shirts with his gnarly image emblazoned on them. Even Angelina Jolie has a Che tattoo, which is immensely ironic considering she travels the world denouncing violence as a U.N. ambassador of good will.
 
Che longed to destroy New York City with nuclear missiles. He promoted book burning and signed death warrants for authors who disagreed with him. His racism against blacks makes Jeremiah Wright’s racism against whites pale by comparison, yet he’s a hero to Jesse Jackson. He persecuted homosexuals, long-haired rock and rollers, and church-goers. Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering “several thousand” executions during the first few years of the Castro regime. He carried out Castro-ordered executions on a more expansive scale per capita than Hitler’s Nazi Germany did, prior to implementation of the Final Solution.
 
We can even lump Hugo Chavez into the mix, for he is well on his way to doing to Venezuela what Castro did to Cuba, and he is receiving the characteristic leftist praise for it.
 
When analyzed logically, the left in America should hate Guevara, Castro, and Chavez. After all, they did all the things they accuse George Bush of doing: torture, capital punishment, imprisonment without due process, elimination of freedom of speech and the press. They’re probably fine with the elimination of freedom of religion.
 
So why is he so adored by them? What is it about Guevara, Castro, and Chavez that captures the left’s imagination like none other?
 
There are two possibilities. All three revolutionaries hate, or hated in the case of Guevara, the United States. In 1957, Castro wrote in a letter, “War against the United States is my true destiny. When this war’s over [the revolution], I'll start that much bigger and wider war.” Maybe the reason the radical left loves those murderous dictators and Castro’s executioner is because they share a disdain for this country.
 
The other possibility is that the left more frequently judges people for their intent than their actual accomplishments. The current presidential campaign illustrates this aptly, as Clinton’s “experience” seems to have no match for Obama’s “hope.” It doesn’t matter that neither one has really accomplished anything of substance, it’s their intent that matters most.
 
We are left to conclude that the radical left is totally ignorant of history, and devoid of logic, or their mutual contempt of the United States trumps all else.
 
Apparently the Obama campaign is attracting that type of ideologue. When his campaign office was opened in Houston before the Texas primary, the volunteer director had a Cuban flag with the image of the Communist mass murderer Che Guevara’s face printed on it. I can only pray that that’s not an omen. And next time you see someone with a Che shirt on, ask them why. Their answer may be illuminating.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Comparing Religious Perspectives, Obama and Romney

Posted by Richard Larsen in Idaho on Monday, March 24, 2008 1:56:05 PM
By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/23/08
 
Perhaps it was inevitable that the Clinton vs. Obama showdown for the Democratic nomination would devolve into a race-baited contest. What couldn’t have been foreseen, at least for many, is Barack Obama would be, if not the initiator of it, at least the perpetuator of it.

Some of the highly incendiary sermons of Senator Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright of The Trinity United Church of Christ came to light this week. In a move at damage control, Mr. Obama made a speech this week to address his church and his relationship with the pastor. He instead made it a speech about race.

This is becoming increasingly uncomfortable. It’s easy to foresee a time when, if Obama is elected, any discussion about policy will be contorted to a discussion about race in order to obfuscate or at least blur the issue at hand.

Granted, the kind of black liberation theology that is proselytized by Rev. Wright and his church is inextricably linked with the culture Obama has tried to associate with in order to establish his bona fides as a black politician, according to Juan Williams of PBS. This is understandable to an extent since he was raised by a white grandmother, whom he threw under the bus in his speech for being “a typical white person” herself, and was not raised in the environment characterized by his church.
 
Since Wright’s controversial statements were made in the context of sermons from the pulpit, and fit a pattern of such diatribes against white people and America in general, it should be safe to say that his comments reflect part of his church’s belief system, or theology if you will. Such a characterization would be true to black liberation theology.

Mitt Romney was theologically crucified over his Mormon Church teachings. While still a candidate, he was constantly grilled about his faith, its theology, and their influence on him. This required Romney to deliver his landmark speech in Houston last fall about religion in America. Pundits were divided over whether he addressed sufficiently the issue of inculcation of his faith by his Mormon parents. Many praised his speech, while his detractors claimed he sidestepped the issue.

In the case of Obama this week, he not only sidestepped the issue, he contorted and twisted the issue from one of faith and religious association to one of race. This was not surprising considering the tenets of his church and his pastor are anathema to mainstream Americans.

Romney is now out of the race. But in the spirit of fairness, let’s engage in a little comparative religious analysis of just two tenets from Obama’s church and Romney’s.

According to Rev. Wright, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God d—- America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d—- America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d—- America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

From Romney’s spiritual leader, Mormon President, Gordon B. Hinckley, “Bless this chosen land that it may remain forever free, that peace and liberty may bless the lives of its people, and that righteousness may reign in the land.”

Regarding the attacks of September 11, 2001, Rev. Wright yelled to his congregation, “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.”
 
President Hinckley in October, 2001, “You are acutely aware of the events of September 11, less than a month ago. Out of that vicious and ugly attack we are plunged into a state of war. For the first time since we became a nation, the United States has been seriously attacked on its mainland soil. But this was not an attack on the United States alone. It was an attack on men and nations of goodwill everywhere. It was cruel and cunning, an act of consummate evil.”
These are just two examples, but the pattern should be clear. In short, there is little in Mr. Obama’s theology and belief system to indicate he’s a unifier. The hate speech spewed forth by his minister of twenty years is racist, hateful, divisive, and anti-American. Next to Obama’s church and its racism and hate, Mormon teachings sound downright orthodox.
 
In light of this, I think I would much rather have a Mormon President, or even neighbor for that matter, than someone from Obama’s church, including the Senator. I think we’ve heard enough hate this week from Rev. Wright to last a lifetime. We don’t need any more.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bannock County Budget Gone Wild

Posted by Richard Larsen in Idaho on Monday, March 17, 2008 2:23:24 PM
By Richard Larsen
 
Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/16/08
 
When government reaches the point where the apparent function is to perpetuate the interests of the government itself, rather than looking after the people’s interest, something critical is lost in our democratic system. When government leadership reaches the point where it no longer seems answerable to the electorate it is sworn to serve, it’s time for change.
 
That seems to be symptomatic of what’s happening in Bannock County. The County budget for 2008 represents a pillaging of the citizenry for a $10 million increase that will have to come from taxpayers and fees to cover an out-of-control county budget that increased by 27% this year alone.
 
This is troubling enough on its own. But coupled with the adamant rejection of a $20 million bond to renovate Holt Arena because of the added property tax burden it would impose, the actions of the county commission represent an egregious breach of trust, horrible judgment, and a severe detachment from the realities of our financial environment.
 
Of equal consternation is the inexplicable reticence on the part of local media to cover this. It shouldn’t be the job of a lowly columnist to bring these things to light; it should be the duty of an attentive and objective local media.
 
The principle source of revenue to cover for this budgetary blunder would have to be property taxes. That’s the only source I can imagine for the funds. That being the case, a little background and history may help in understanding how they could get away with this.
 
The Legislature met in special session in 2006 and passed the Property Tax Relief Bill. The purpose, in part, was to remove maintenance and operations costs for schools from property tax funding. In lieu of that, a 1% sales tax was tacked on for Idaho tax payers to support the maintenance and operations of our schools. The effect of the bill was to reduce property tax levels since they have been rising to the point where those on fixed incomes were unable to keep pace with the increases from year to year.
 
The effect on property taxes was to be a three-tenths of one percent decrease in the property tax rate at the local level. Too many people get hung up on the property tax levy rate. The levy rate itself just determines how much of the total tax bill is paid by individual property owners. Remember, the county and municipalities set budgets based on what they want, and then assesses the tax collections to support those wants, which is where they arrive at the levy rate. Since they can factor in new construction on top of the maximum 3% increase per year, they can “doctor” the levy rate quite effectively, and make it look like we’re paying less per household while really the tax-payer is being taken to the cleaners.
 
Well, let’s see what has happened in actuality. In 2005, the Bannock County budget was $38.2 million. In 2006, it rose just slightly to $38.3 million. In 2007, after the Property Tax Relief went into effect, the budget dropped to $37.2 million. But for 2008, the budget will be $47.2 million. That’s nearly a 30% increase from 2007 to 2008!
 
As I understand it, when Jim Guthrie, Craig Cooper, and Steve Hadley were serving on the County Commission, they did all they could to keep expenses low, and they collected just enough in property taxes to keep the County solvent and in a position to meet it’s obligations and provide the services required.
 
The current commission, however, voted two to one, Larry Ghan and Lynn Whitworth in the majority, against Steve Hadley in the minority, on the current budget. The vote would have undoubtedly been the same to utilize a look-back feature called a “foregone” amount that allows local entities to recapture any lost property tax revenue they had not collected for prior years. With the fiscal discipline exercised by Guthrie, Cooper, and Hadley, there were a lot of savings for those years they ran the County. It would appear that the current commission has recovered all those savings from previous years, and along with other sources including fees, to pay for a $10 million budget increase.
 
I’m sure the prevailing commissioners can spin a wonderful tale for why their budgets are skyrocketing as they are. One of our commissioners thinks Bannock County should be on a par with Ada County. Well we can’t afford a mini-Ada County in Eastern Idaho!
 
It truly seems the perspective of county officials has become distorted. Rather than government serving the people, in a convoluted twist of priorities, the people are now subservient to the county.
 
I had hoped to delve into the finances of the cities of Pocatello and Chubbuck as well, but just didn’t have the wherewithal to do so. I don’t think the city fathers have been quite so egregious in their abuse of the local taxpayers, but it may make for some interesting reporting for an enterprising and not-easily-hoodwinked investigative reporter.
 
It’s no wonder Commissioners Ghan and Whitworth don’t want underlings running for their jobs. A county employee would have insights into the machinations of county government that could blow the lid off what’s really going on down there.
 
This same mentality that now dominates in Bannock County has nearly ruined New Jersey and Michigan; the age-old concept of taxing until it either becomes too painful or the citizenry rises up in revolt to declare that enough is enough, and “we’re not going to take it any more!” They never seem to know how to cut spending, just increase it, and then tax commensurately. I submit that we’ve reached the point where we shouldn’t take it any more. The national clarion call in politics is for change. It should be obvious that it’s time for change in Bannock County. We can’t afford any more years like this one.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Common Sense and the Idaho Legislature

Posted by Richard Larsen in Idaho on Monday, March 10, 2008 2:18:48 PM
By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/09/08

            When my father, Allan Larsen, was first elected to the legislature in 1967, the legislature was constitutionally required to meet for no more than 60 days every two years. He argued that we would be better off if the legislature only met for two days every sixty years. His rationale was simple, that the longer and more frequently they meet, the more time they have to pass laws that infringe on our liberty and the more money they spend that they have to collect from us. He admonished his family and his constituents to be vigilant and watch their wallets and watch their freedoms, for they were both at risk whenever the legislature is in session. The same principle holds true at the Federal level, although Congress is much more proficient at assaulting our liberty and our wallet.

            He was of the enlightened opinion that, in spite of the potential for damage inflicted on Idahoans by the legislature being in session, that it was an anomaly when that occurred. He maintained that so many of Idaho’s legislators come from an agrarian background that they’re steeped in common sense, and their education is practical, having had to fight the system and bureaucracy and idiotic laws every day in eking out their subsistence. As the state becomes more urbanized, that tradition is less dominant, which demands increasing vigilance on our part. 

            Because of that common sense based history, trust is easier to foster for our state legislature than it is for the Federal Government, or even for our local governments as far as that goes. You’d think it would be easy to trust our local entities since they’re much closer to us and affect our daily lives more in so many ways. But it’s hard to have full faith in local entities that set budgets based on what they want, and then assesses the tax collections to support those wants, versus the state process which projects tax receipts, and then establishes a budget based on reasonable expectations for state revenue.

            The legislature has engaged in some good common sense based legislation this year, although there are an increasing number of anomalies. Perhaps of little interest to more urban citizens, the passage of H0557 making provision for farmers to burn off crop residue after it had been declared “illegal” by the Berkeley-based ideologues of the Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals. The effort, led in the Senate by Sen. Steve Bair from Blackfoot, illustrates how common sense can prevail even on environmental issues.

            It appears that a similarly logical solution is in the works regarding the wolf management issue. Senate Bill 1374 passed the Senate unanimously allowing for livestock owners, and domestic animal owners to “dispose” of wolves that are threatening or molesting their animals, without fear of being thrown in jail for doing so, or even requiring a permit from Fish and Game. That issue still dredges up considerable angst when I think about how the problem came to be. If wolves were so good for the ecosystem, why didn’t Congress also require their reintroduction into the New England states where they were also indigenous? Of course we must remind ourselves that such an order was made by the same legislative body that illogically prevented hydro-electric production because of a snail and nearly destroyed the logging industry because of an owl. Such legislative idiocy is to be expected when bills are passed because it makes the legislators “feel good” instead of making sense.

            Common sense prevailed in the defeat of SCR128, the greenhouse gases bill. In essence it called for something as innocuous as a report (which is already in the works anyway according to Toni Hardesty, DEQ Director) to be submitted to the Governor by mid-summer on greenhouse gas emissions as they relate to state energy policy. But the philosophical basis of the bill was so fallaciously founded on mythical assumptions, universally acclaimed yet unproven non-scientific premises, and unwarranted presuppositions regarding man-made global warming as to make the legislation untenable.

            The so called “green building” bill, HB422 that calls for all state buildings to be 30% more energy efficient than comparable buildings should be of concern to us as taxpayers. The bill itself claims there is little cost difference in such energy-conscious construction. However, further research reveals that the construction costs to achieve even 25% greater efficiency can increase as much as 40%. That means that a $10 million building could cost as much as $14 million. Granted, energy efficiency would eventually offset much of that increased construction cost, but after how many decades? Gratefully the Senate version seems to recognize the inefficiency and impracticality of the House version, and as amended now states “to the extent it is practical and feasible” that 10-30% efficiency should be sought for state building projects.
 
            For the most part, we get the quality of government we deserve, or vote for. Consequently, the imperative that we be as informed as possible is as applicable at the state and local level, as it is on the Federal level. For as Edward R. Murrow said, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Real "Hope" Afforded by the Obama Candidacy

Posted by Richard Larsen in Idaho on Monday, March 03, 2008 10:34:56 AM
By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/02/08
 
Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, said at a rally in Milwaukee last week, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” The comment was made in the context of the “hope” generated by her husbands’ campaign for the presidency.
 
At first blush such a comment is inscrutable. How could any American at 44 years of age, not feel pride in anything about our country? After all, this is still the most free country in the world in spite of Congressional efforts to limit our opportunities with increased taxation, and their efforts to limit our individual liberty in the name of global warming, gun control, political correctness, and the “nanny state” mentality afflicting the majority in Congress. The good that has been accomplished by this country in medicine, human rights, technological advancement, space exploration, global magnanimity in times of crisis, and the freedoms afforded to millions in other lands by our military are innumerable. The accomplishments that might foster pride in our country are literally limitless.
 
The Obama campaign attempted to mitigate the damage by spinning the statement with numerous clarifications and explanations, all of which rang hollow and belied a typical left-leaning animus of America on the part of the candidate’s wife.
 
This has provided justification for some to question her patriotism, akin to when her husband quit wearing his flag lapel pin last year. That hardly seems proper, as everyone has their own way of showing their love of country. Those on the left think they show their patriotism best when they criticize and demean America and its leaders when they’re of the opposition party. In a perverse sort of way, maybe she was expressing her patriotism.
 
However, my perception was altered significantly when I heard a gentleman explain it from his perspective. He was in his mid 40’s and his explication put the comment in a completely different light. He said, “I can understand that [what Mrs. Obama said]. Not up until 9/11 did I consider myself a patriot. I just felt like, what was so great about America? I never felt like I was taking part in the American dream, and capitalism, and all that. The opportunities have just never been there for me.”
 
He continued, “I’m black, and I feel like that’s the reason I’ve never really completely felt like an American. I’ve just never felt like the opportunity was really there. I’m a conservative, and believe in free markets and less government, and less taxes so I can support my family. And I realize I have more freedoms here than I would have had anywhere else. Under President Reagan, I tried to apply his principle of ‘pull yourselves up by the bootstraps’ and I feel like I started to see my opportunities for what they were; that there really was no limitation beyond my own vision for myself. But still, the doors weren’t open for me; I had to kick them open.”
 
He then explained how he understood where Michelle Obama was coming from. “I don’t think she was trying to say America is not a great country. It’s just that, the frustration as an African-American, you just don’t feel like you’re part of this country. Like we’re not just Americans, we’re African-Americans. We’re qualified with a hyphen. We’re patronized and pandered to all the time like we’re inferior somehow. We even have black leaders. What other racial group has a leader? I don’t see a ‘white’ or ‘Hispanic’ leader out there. But we as blacks have ‘black leaders,’ like Jackson and Sharpton, and I don’t agree with them. But now, to see a black man running for the President of the United States and has a real chance to win, is just liberating to think that’s possible. I have no intention of voting for him, I disagree with what he stands for on almost all the issues, but he has broken through the limitations that I feel society has placed on us. His success to this point has changed my feelings about America and what we stand for. Even if he loses now to John McCain, he has changed how I feel about America. For the first time, I really feel like I’m an American.”
 
The fact that he was a conservative lent even greater credence to his argument. I can see how the call for hope rings true for many people who feel marginalized by being hyphenated Americans, or for some other reason feel like they’re not part of the America that the rest of us love and cherish. This man’s perceived social limitations trumped his ideology as it related to his sense of belonging.
 
This seems to be the legitimate hope afforded by the Obama candidacy. His hope is not founded in his policy positions, for they’re right out of a socialist playbook. But by having a legitimate shot at the presidency, he seems to some at least to have shattered racial barriers, whether real or perceived, that have allowed so many to feel alienated in their own country. If this is the case, then the greatest good that can come from the Obama “hope” has already been accomplished.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »