Archives January 2014

IRS PROBE: A DISGRACEFUL INVESTIGATION

     How do you hide from an obvious scandal?  Pretend it isn’t there and let the time run out the clock.

     Benghazi, Fast & Furious, harassing news agencies, and the IRS targeting select groups because of their conservative politics. The list goes on.

     When Nixon and Clinton were slammed with serious questions concerning possible crimes and the integrity of a sitting president, independent special prosecutors were rightfully assigned to conduct the investigation and , if necessary, reach a legal conclusion holding the guilty parties accountable for their egregious actions.

     This will not happen in the Obama administration. We, the people, are not privileged to basic honesty in government.

     Consider this:  The humongous IRS investigation – in which evidence exists that the government was ordering special targets for non-profit status and audits based on conservative leanings – has been assigned to a top trial lawyer in the Justice Department for investigation. Her name is Barbara Kay Bosserman. She works directly under Eric Holder.

     So what? You say?

     Barbara Kay Bosserman is a major contributor to the Obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012, now with personal donations of over $6000 invested in assuring her a $160,000 a year job. Is this not the ultimate in conflict of interest? As a loyal presidential bootlicker, there is NO WAY she can conduct an independent and objective investigation into the actions of the IRS, and hold the guilty parties accountable, particularly if they are close to the president, or the president himself.

     That would be like assigning a lawyer for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) the role of prosecuting the Muslim Brotherhood. They’re all part of the same ideology.

     Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to echo the democratic mantra that these are all “phony” scandals. The administration says they have more important and pressing issues to attend to.  In other words, let’s all drop it. That’s old news. Forget about it. Let time pass. “What difference does it make?” (Shhh – maybe it will go away)

     We can let time pass but it doesn’t make the people in the administration and less culpable in their roles of obstructing justice. If anyone has been obstructing justice, it has been the Attorney General himself, who has been caught lying to congress more than once in his efforts to protect the president.

     It is eight months since the scandal became public. So far, zilch. No one is being held responsible.

     For the American people, this is a simple act of arrogance: A classic, ‘In Your Face.’ The appointment of  Barbara Kay Bosserman is one of the most audacious acts perpetrated by Holder. She is a devout follower and contributor of Barack Obama who at the very least, cannot be objective and neutral, and at the worst, can rightfully be perceived as a protectorate who will go to all lengths to prevent disgrace to cloak the White House.

     The disgrace, in fact, belongs to the White House for approving a grossly biased investigation. This is not seeking justice. It’s obstructing it.

     Americans: Where are your voices?

        Click here: 2013 IRS scandal – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Click here: JUSTICE: Feds pick Obama supporter to lead probe into IRS tea party targeting – Washington Times

SENSELESS KILLING AT A TAMPA MOVIE HOUSE

This article appeared in four newspapers along the Treasure Coast on January 26th.  I know some of my readers will take issue with a couple of the comments, but that’s what blog forums are for, discussion, disagreement, new ideas and such.

Marshall Frank: Electronic devices bad, but not enough to get shot over

Sunday, January 26, 2014

The Tampa movie-house killing of an annoying text messenger allegedly by a retired cop is a senseless tragedy that also raises a number of ancillary concerns. For certain, gun control advocates will try to parlay mileage from the incident as an example for restricting gun ownership. That’s not a valid answer.

But it does beg a question: Why would anyone carry a loaded .380 semi-automatic weapon to the movies? I’m a retired 30-year cop, fully aware of the dangers of crime. I possess a gun permit. But I use considerable discretion about carrying on my person, and certainly do not bring a gun with me to entertainment venues.

The court and/or jury will decide if 71-year-old Curtis Reeves should go to prison. Based on what we know, it doesn’t look good for his future. For sure, if Mr. Reeves did not have his gun handy, Chad Oulson would be alive today, perhaps with a black eye, instead of a bullet.

Sometimes, the mere possession of a gun, however lawful, emboldens the owner into sense of omnipotence. I knew an off-duty police woman who was confronted by an armed robber in a parking lot. He wanted her wallet. She reached in her purse and pulled out her .38-caliber revolver instead. The robber shot her dead. Had she not brandished her weapon and simply parted with her money, she’d be alive today.

While texting is certainly no reason for anyone to be shot, it illustrates how much of a nuisance electronic devices have become in today’s world. It is no laughing matter. These little hand computers have evolved into the neo-addiction of the modern era. Not only do they present a danger on the road, they incense neighboring people in restaurants, concerts and movie houses.

I recently attended a King Center concert by child phenom, Jackie Evancho, where theater announcements clearly admonished the audience from using devices. Regardless, some folks could not resist. Attendees were repeatedly disturbed by video-takers and security officers scurrying to snatch devices from violators. It angered many who paid $100 a ticket to enjoy a concert without the nuisance of camera/texting addicts.

While such irritation is understandable, shooting people is another dimension. Guns are not just annoying, they are deadly devices and their misuses bring deadly results.

For those who are lawfully permitted to carry firearms, restrictions still apply in many types of venues, including bars, sports arenas, schools and government buildings. Perhaps those prohibitions should also extend to crowded theaters where emotions can run high. It would not violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Mental illness, not guns, ranks as the greatest threat to public security, but we have regretfully abolished all systems to treat and track people with serious psychotic disturbances.

According to a consensus of recent studies, nearly 43 percent of American households are in possession of a firearm, and up to 75 million people currently own a gun, half of which are handguns. If only one-tenth of one percent of gun owners are mentally unstable, that equates to some 40,000 lawful gun owners who are potentially dangerous.

While we’re at it, more prohibitions should be legislated for electronic devices as well.

SHOULD THERE BE A "GAY" REALITY BACHELOR?

     I consider myself a fairly liberal minded person in regards to many social matters. But the “gay” issue has somehow gone out of control.
     I have a gay granddaughter. My wife and I have gay friends. I think gays are entitled to the same “rights” as any American, particularly in the areas of jobs and services, and etc.
     However, I don’t think gay boys should be permitted into female bathrooms because they “feel” like a female. (See link, below) I don’t think taxpayers should be burdened with medical costs if some convicted murderer in prison wants a sex change operation. (See link, below) I don’t want to know about the sexual orientation of every celebrity or politician in America, as though that defines people. I don’t care about their preferences about where and with whom they exchange sexual pleasures. Why does their sexual business have to be my business?
     I don’t think the issue of gay-versus-straight should ever be raised in the Boy Scout membership inductions, because once that becomes publicly important, it loses to focus of the Scout program. And, because of media and social pressures we are basically validating boys preferences regarding their private activity with their genitals. It becomes known, when we don’t need to know it.
     When a boy of fourteen announces he is gay, he is saying, “I like sexual contact with other boys.”
     Why do we need this?
     Sorry folks, like it or not, but to be gay is to be “different” than straight, and vice versa.  Call me homophobe if you want, I object to seeing a female in the Walmart men’s room, because she feels like a male. And neither do I want to see boys in the Walmart lady’s room, and I think most women would agree.
    Though he made nearly seventy films, Rock Hudson’s legacy is not as an actor, it’s the revelation that he was a gay man, after all.  Coming out of the closet basically erased his movies from the cable archives because folks could no longer perceive him as a leading man actor having romance with a woman. Yes, he was just acting, and we know that intellectually. But emotionally and psychologically, fans could no longer perceive Hudson as a heterosexual, leading man figure. And now that Jody Foster is out of the closet, I seriously doubt we’ll see any more movies with her in a straight, romantic role.
     This brings me to the controversy concerning the reality TV show, The Bachelor, which I never watch. Somehow, this egomaniacal girls-chase-boy extravaganza recently found its way into the news, not because of anything occurring in the show, but because of a few off-show comments by the Bachelor himself.
     Some ignorant reporter asked 32-year-old Juan Galavis the dumbest question: “What do you think about having gays on this show, or a gay version?”
     Who said, Don’t ask the question if you don’t want to hear the answer?
     First of all, it was a loaded question which received the desired results: Controversy. The reporter was looking for a “Gotcha.” It was also asked of the wrong person, who has nothing to do with producing television shows. Third, Galavis is just a pawn in the reality show industry, doing his assigned role, why back him against the wall with such a question?
     Galavis, a Venezualan who struggles a bit with English, responded that he thought it was a bad idea…not a good example for kids…”  And then this comment:  “There’s this thing about gay people… it seems to me, and I don’t know if I’m mistaken or not… but they’re more ‘pervert’ in a sense. And to me the show would be too strong… too hard to watch.”
     After reading the outraged responses by people and the networks, one would think he praised Hitler.
     He is a 32 year old man with his own opinions. Those opinions are shared by millions. He is entitled to his opinions. He apologized later saying he didn’t mean the term “pervert” as it was heard, that his command of English is not all that good.
     The Bachelor is a show about dozens of girls who seek the affections of one man. That happens to be a heterosexual-based premise. Galavis was raised in another country and another culture where views may not be the same as Americans.  Regardless, he is now being condemned by the pro-gay army and the media while the show’s producers are tap dancing with a torrent of apologies.
     It’s time to get real. I believe in equal rights for homosexuals, particularly when it comes to the rights afforded in the constitution. We’ve had wonderful gay people in the arts, the political arena, sports, and all other walks of life. That’s a good thing. But it’s not a good thing when someone is condemned for expressing a candid view, particularly when they were asked. There’s nothing wrong with a person who might feel that gay people are not exactly like himself.
     Like it or not, there is a difference.
 Outnumbered: Juan Pablo Galavis is the first Hispanic to lead the love charge on The Bachelor, but he doesn't feel the show has room for gays
 
Click here: Juan Pablo Galavis Says There Shouldn’t Be a Gay Bachelor | TIME.com
 Click here: All wrong — in California, girls can use urinals in the boys’ restroom | Fox News
Click here: Court affirms Mass. murderer’s right to get sex change in prison | Fox News
Click here: Jodie Foster comes out with emotional tribute to her girlfriend of 14 years | Mail Online

SHOULD THERE BE A “GAY” REALITY BACHELOR?

     I consider myself a fairly liberal minded person in regards to many social matters. But the “gay” issue has somehow gone out of control.

     I have a gay granddaughter. My wife and I have gay friends. I think gays are entitled to the same “rights” as any American, particularly in the areas of jobs and services, and etc.

     However, I don’t think gay boys should be permitted into female bathrooms because they “feel” like a female. (See link, below) I don’t think taxpayers should be burdened with medical costs if some convicted murderer in prison wants a sex change operation. (See link, below) I don’t want to know about the sexual orientation of every celebrity or politician in America, as though that defines people. I don’t care about their preferences about where and with whom they exchange sexual pleasures. Why does their sexual business have to be my business?

     I don’t think the issue of gay-versus-straight should ever be raised in the Boy Scout membership inductions, because once that becomes publicly important, it loses to focus of the Scout program. And, because of media and social pressures we are basically validating boys preferences regarding their private activity with their genitals. It becomes known, when we don’t need to know it.

     When a boy of fourteen announces he is gay, he is saying, “I like sexual contact with other boys.”

     Why do we need this?

     Sorry folks, like it or not, but to be gay is to be “different” than straight, and vice versa.  Call me homophobe if you want, I object to seeing a female in the Walmart men’s room, because she feels like a male. And neither do I want to see boys in the Walmart lady’s room, and I think most women would agree.

    Though he made nearly seventy films, Rock Hudson’s legacy is not as an actor, it’s the revelation that he was a gay man, after all.  Coming out of the closet basically erased his movies from the cable archives because folks could no longer perceive him as a leading man actor having romance with a woman. Yes, he was just acting, and we know that intellectually. But emotionally and psychologically, fans could no longer perceive Hudson as a heterosexual, leading man figure. And now that Jody Foster is out of the closet, I seriously doubt we’ll see any more movies with her in a straight, romantic role.

     This brings me to the controversy concerning the reality TV show, The Bachelor, which I never watch. Somehow, this egomaniacal girls-chase-boy extravaganza recently found its way into the news, not because of anything occurring in the show, but because of a few off-show comments by the Bachelor himself.

     Some ignorant reporter asked 32-year-old Juan Galavis the dumbest question: “What do you think about having gays on this show, or a gay version?”

     Who said, Don’t ask the question if you don’t want to hear the answer?

     First of all, it was a loaded question which received the desired results: Controversy. The reporter was looking for a “Gotcha.” It was also asked of the wrong person, who has nothing to do with producing television shows. Third, Galavis is just a pawn in the reality show industry, doing his assigned role, why back him against the wall with such a question?

     Galavis, a Venezualan who struggles a bit with English, responded that he thought it was a bad idea…not a good example for kids…”  And then this comment:  “There’s this thing about gay people… it seems to me, and I don’t know if I’m mistaken or not… but they’re more ‘pervert’ in a sense. And to me the show would be too strong… too hard to watch.”

     After reading the outraged responses by people and the networks, one would think he praised Hitler.

     He is a 32 year old man with his own opinions. Those opinions are shared by millions. He is entitled to his opinions. He apologized later saying he didn’t mean the term “pervert” as it was heard, that his command of English is not all that good.

     The Bachelor is a show about dozens of girls who seek the affections of one man. That happens to be a heterosexual-based premise. Galavis was raised in another country and another culture where views may not be the same as Americans.  Regardless, he is now being condemned by the pro-gay army and the media while the show’s producers are tap dancing with a torrent of apologies.

     It’s time to get real. I believe in equal rights for homosexuals, particularly when it comes to the rights afforded in the constitution. We’ve had wonderful gay people in the arts, the political arena, sports, and all other walks of life. That’s a good thing. But it’s not a good thing when someone is condemned for expressing a candid view, particularly when they were asked. There’s nothing wrong with a person who might feel that gay people are not exactly like himself.

     Like it or not, there is a difference.

 Outnumbered: Juan Pablo Galavis is the first Hispanic to lead the love charge on The Bachelor, but he doesn't feel the show has room for gays

 

Click here: Juan Pablo Galavis Says There Shouldn’t Be a Gay Bachelor | TIME.com

 Click here: All wrong — in California, girls can use urinals in the boys’ restroom | Fox News

Click here: Court affirms Mass. murderer’s right to get sex change in prison | Fox News

Click here: Jodie Foster comes out with emotional tribute to her girlfriend of 14 years | Mail Online

A FRANK MOVIE REVIEW: "HER" = 4/10

If you like boring movies, don’t miss “Her” starring Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson as the computer voice of Her.
     Phoenix plays the role of a 40ish lonely fellow living in NYC, on the verge of divorce, trying to find some connection to the world. He works as a computerized letter writer and plays video games in his apartment to kill time, which he has plenty of. Meanwhile, he hooks into a relationship with a voice via O.S. (Operation System) where he meets a sultry Samantha which develops into a virtual romance, between a man with a body and a woman’s voice with no body.
     There must have been at least forty scenes where Joaquin is depicted in close-up pondering alone, walking alone, sitting alone, looking out a window alone, to the point where it simply became one long uninspiring film in which the ending could not come soon enough.
     The scene where Joaquin makes virtual love with a voice on a cell phone might have been imaginative to some, but it was terribly contrived and plain stupid, listening to the female voice reaching an orgasm by telephone with no body to begin with. Sorry, it just didn’t fly.
     The message of the film was grim, thinking about the future of mankind who stop feeling for one another with our mind and bodies and rely totally on electronics to fulfill our needs. We can look around restaurants, schools  and other public places and see that happening right now. One wonders where it will lead us to as a culture in another 50 years.
     Phoenix is normally a great actor, and so is Johansson. The wonderful Amy Adams plays a small part as an old friend of Phoenix in the movie. It was great to see her without makeup or sultry dress. But the acting did not stir the interest in wanting to see the picture to the end.
     Her is one of the movies nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture.  I must have missed something. I give it a 4 out of 10.
Click here: Her (2013) – IMDb