Senator Fetterman - Really?

 

If you don’t know that name, you should learn all you can about it.  John Fetterman is the current Lieutenant Governor of the state of Pennsylvania.  His previous political experience was being mayor of the tiny hamlet of Braddock, Pennsylvania, which boasts a total population of about 1,600 people.  That ranks Braddock as the 12,065^th largest city in the United States.  And his stint as mayor there can hardly be described as a rousing success since the population of Braddock showed a steady decline in population during his tenure.  Braddock was a dying town when he became mayor and Mr. Fetterman did nothing to reverse that trend.

This same John Fetterman is now running for the US Senate seat, being vacated by Republican Pat Toomey, against TV personality, Dr. Mehmet Oz.  This is a hugely important seat in the US Senate since it would represent a pick-up for Democrats in a year when they will be struggling to keep control of that chamber in November.  Oh, just another small detail, John Fetterman suffered a stroke just five days before the end of primary elections in PA in May, but still managed to win that primary.  Since that stroke, John Fetterman has displayed many of the classic symptoms that the Johns Hopkins Medical Center suggests are common after a stroke, such as:

-Problems with speech or understanding language (this is called “aphasia)

-Impaired ability to do math or organize, reason and analyze things.

-Impaired ability to read, write and learn new information and memory problems.

 

While I am sympathetic to John and hope that he someday recovers and lives a long life, he clearly has not recovered yet and that was painfully evident in his one-and-only debate with Dr. Oz on Oct. 25^th.  Many commentators, even on the Democrat side, described Fetterman’s performance as painful to watch, horrific and even disastrous. He began the debate by saying “Goodnight” to the viewers and his answers only went south from there.  About halfway through the debate, one of the moderators asked Mr. Fetterman to explain his contradictory statements on fracking, a huge industry in Pennsylvania.  During this campaign, Fetterman said, “I have always supported fracking” yet in a 2018 interview he had said, “I don’t support fracking at all, and I never have.”  

When asked to explain this obvious contradiction, Fetterman first paused for an awkward amount of time and then stammered, “I’ve always supported fracking.  I do support fracking.  I do support fracking and I don’t, I don’t.  I support fracking.  I stand and I do support fracking.”  Now, before you think that was a huge series of typos, that is an exact quote and a demonstration of Fetterman’s inability to either grasp the meaning of the question or to communicate an appropriate answer.  And this is just one of many examples of his poor comprehension and communication skills that he demonstrated during the debate.  Don’t take my word for it.  I’ve attached a link to the entire debate at the bottom of this article.  Just copy the link into your browser and watch for yourself.

The point is, this man should not be in the US Senate.  He is incapable of performing the duties of that job.  A member of this, most deliberative body of our Congress, must be able to understand complex issues and have the skill to debate, defend and negotiate complicated solutions to our nation’s most difficult challenges.  There are only 100 people in our country that have gone through the rigors of statewide campaigns and proven themselves proficient enough to perform the duties of a US Senator.  John Fetterman should not be one of them, yet it is possible that he will be elected.  Why?

First, the Democrat Party hid John Fetterman from public scrutiny as best they could for this entire campaign.  Fetterman did only four national interviews during his campaign and all were done on the friendly airwaves of MSNBC.  Also, Fetterman only begrudgingly agreed to one debate on Oct. 25^th, almost a month after early mail-in voting began.  Sadly, over 700,000 votes have already been cast before this one-and-only debate took place.  

The Democrat Party, however, does not care if John Fetterman can understand the issues or communicate effectively.  They simply want Fetterman to vote as he is told and then fade away into oblivion. If he is elected, I predict that he will not serve his full six-year term.  Dems are hoping that the probable new Democrat Governor, Josh Shapiro, will be able to appoint his replacement.  And first in line for that appointment is John Fetterman’s wife, which explains why she was willing to put John through the torture of this campaign and the embarrassment of last week’s debate.

The good news is that 82% of the people who watched this debate agreed that Mehmet Oz won.  My question is, who are the 18% who can’t admit the obvious.  And now the lamestream media is accusing anyone who suggests that John Fetterman is not qualified to perform the Senatorial duties of being “ableists” (prejudice against people with disabilities).  This, of course, is not “ableism”.  It is merely “realism”.  If Pennsylvanians send John Fetterman to the US Senate, they will be doing Pennsylvania and the entire country a huge disservice.  We need bright, capable, honest people in the Senate and John Fetterman is none of those things.

Link to debate: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/pennsylvania-u-s-senate-debate-between-mehmet-oz-and-john-fetterman-transcript?fbclid=IwAR2zPTY4vbPS6UVaPnUG772MJVYFil9eLZt6-9_a41Cx42AaTqpHgFhJe6o

Don't Be a Buzzkill

 

From the beginning of our Republic, politics has been a rough-and-tumble business.  Adams and Jefferson were bitter enemies as they vied for their Presidencies way back in 1797 and 1801.  While they became friends in later life, they viciously attacked one another during their campaigns.  Jefferson’s camp accused Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character (possessing both male and female characteristics) which has neither the firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”  In return, Adams men called Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian Squaw” which was an insult at the time.  As the slurs piled up, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal and a tyrant while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist and a coward.  This was pretty brutal stuff at the turn of the 18^th century.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft were best of friends.  Taft was actually Roosevelt’s hand-picked replacement for President when he decided not to run in 1908.  But in 1912 when Roosevelt decided to create the Bull Moose party and run for President again, he and Taft famously went after each other.  Taft called Roosevelt unethical and egotistical to which Roosevelt responded by calling Taft a fraud and disloyal.  In 1964 Lyndon Johnson portrayed his opponent for President, Barry Goldwater, as an out of control warmonger with his finger on the nuclear bomb button.  No facts.  All emotion.  But LBJ won the election.

Most of us remember the relationship between President Reagan and Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill back in the 1980’s as cordial and maybe even productive.  But when they were at odds, the political gloves came off.  Tip O’Neill thought that President Reagan didn’t possess a sufficient understanding of the legislative process and called him the most ignorant man to ever occupy the White House.  In return, Reagan once compared Tip O’Neill to a Pac-Man because he was a round thing that just gobbled up money.

But what do all of these political attacks of the past have in common?  They all featured candidates or rivals attacking each other.  That practice changed however for the first time in 2016 when Hillary Clinton decided to attack not only her opponent but even American citizens who dared to vote for that candidate.  In her notorious “Basket of Deplorables” statement, Hillary attacked tens of millions of her own constituents and called them “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic (and) Islamophobic”.  These were the very people that Hillary hoped to represent as President.  She obviously doesn’t even like many or arguably most of the American people.  This statement not only lost her the election (in my opinion) but also paved the way for today’s fiercely divided country.

Sadly, Joe Biden has decided to continue this new tradition of attacking and demeaning the very people he represents.  First, he stated that “white supremacists are the greatest terror threat in America”.  Of course, he never explains how he and his national security operation came to that conclusion or exactly how many of these “white supremacists” there are out there.  This allows every person of color to suspect every white person (especially conservatives) of this pathetic mindset and further divide the country, which I believe is his real motive.  Since he made that statement I have seen no evidence that this group, which I believe is a tiny sliver of the American populous, is a threat to our country.  In fact, during the “summer of love” in 2020, dozens of people were killed and billions of dollars in damages were inflicted on cities across the country in riots instigated by Antifa and BLM.  You would think he and his security experts might show some interest in those groups, but no.  

Then, Joe turned his scorn onto the Trump voters, or the entire Republican Party.  He accused all MAGA supporters of being “semi-fascists”.  First of all, what the heck is a “semi-fascist”.  It doesn’t really matter.  Once you attach the word “fascist” to anything it conjures up visions of Hitler and Mussolini from WWII.  Then he made it clear, “It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy”.  So, anyone who believes we should be trying to make America great again is a fascist?  Does Joe even know what fascism is?  Fascism is an authoritarian government, headed by a dictator that forcibly suppresses its opposition.  That sounds more like the Democrat Party today, but even I won’t go so far as to suggest that all Democrats want Hitler or Mussolini running our country today.  Comparing tens of millions of Americans to fascists is both dangerous and reckless, unless your goal is to turn Americans against each other.

And wokism is the exact same philosophy executed by the general public.  If anyone disagrees with you, they must be demeaned, ridiculed and crushed (canceled).  They certainly can’t be listened to.  But the good news is that it appears the entire country is getting weary of these tactics in politics and in everyday life.  Even Barack Obama suggested that Democrats can sometimes be “a buzzkill”.  He added that people in America don’t want to have to walk around “on eggshells” in fear that they might say something that a Democrat might disagree with (or a Republican).  In fact, I enjoy a good debate and have many friends who are willing to have those debates with me without questioning my patriotism, sanity or the content of my character.

If you agree with Barack Obama and me, the solution to eliminating this new phenomenon of selective character assassination is simple.  In politics, don’t vote for these self-serving narcissists.  If you hear a politician demeaning or attacking huge swathes or even undefined numbers of American citizens, don’t vote for them.  I can assure you that their accusations are unfounded.  My opinion of the average American is pretty high.  It is only the extreme elements of both parties (maybe a total of 10% of the country) who bash our citizens relentlessly for their own political gains.

Finally, we must ignore the wokists out there who cannot tolerate opinions different than their own.  Since this intolerance of opposing opinions is being taught throughout our college campuses these days, this will be a challenge.  But if we all continue to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of their behavior, we will eventually set them straight, for as the Bible says in John 8:32, (they) shall know the truth and the truth shall set (them) free!