Tuesday, March 05, 2013

A Democrat who hates the poor

Chicago alderman orders Salvation Army to stop feeding the poor in his ward and says "It's for their own good" that the Sallies not feed them

Chicago's Uptown neighborhood, which is mostly covered by the 46th Ward, has had a large homeless population for decades. The North Side ward is represented by Ald. James Cappleman. The Democrat and get this--social worker--is kicking the Salvation Army food trucks out of his ward that feed the homeless.

Mark Brown reports in the Chicago Sun-Times:

"Cappleman gave the social service agency one month to find a new North Side location — outside his ward — before ceasing operations, said Capt. Nancy Powers, who oversees the Salvation Army's homeless program in Chicago.  "He decided he felt the unit was pulling homeless into the area, and he does not want us to feed them," Powers told me.

This ought to clear up any lingering doubts as to Cappleman's motivation in seeking to close the Wilson Men's Hotel, one of the city's last two cubicle hotels, the subject of several recent columns.

He's obviously decided to rid the 46th Ward of unsightly poor people — with a not entirely dissimilar approach to the one he has employed to disappear pigeons.

The alderman says he's fine with the Salvation Army dispatching his fellow social workers in his ward, but not the food trucks.

Powers dismissed that gesture, telling Brown that the trucks are a calling card so her organization can promote its other services, such as substance abuse treatment. The Salvation Army operates food trucks in four other city locations--but none of those are on the North Side.

Chicago is messed up on so many levels. For starters, there are too many alderman--50 of them. That number should be cut at least by half. And the individual legislators have too much clout. Chicago's alderman are intoxicated by power--which partly explains why 29 of them have been convicted of crimes since 1972.

Here's my idea: Have Cappleman introduce a bill in the City Council that boots the Salvation Army food trucks out of the 46th Ward--and if the Council approves, see if Mayor Rahm Emanuel signs it.

Last year Emanuel said that Chick-fil-A, whose CEO is a family-values conservative, didn't reflect "Chicago values."  Just what are "Chicago values?"

Oh, can you imagine the nationwide howling that would occur if Cappleman was a Republican?

For more on Cappleman and pigeon napping click here. And click here to learn about the evil social worker's battle against the Wilson Men's Hotel.


“It’s a boy…err…girl…err…to hell with it, who knows?”

By Steve Deace

Journey back with me, if you will, to a simpler time. To a dark and ominous period known as American history up until now.

An oppressive period when society actually believed the genitals you left your mother’s womb with determined your gender. A tyrannical time when parents actually parented according to the acknowledged moral standard of the universe, rather than enabling and validating their offspring’s unhealthy tantrums and desires.

Thankfully we’ve progressed past that now.

We are entering a brave new world. A world where a 6-year old boy in Colorado Springs demanding he’s actually a girl isn’t thought to require discipline and guidance from his mother and father, but rather is a victim of natural selection run amok. Clearly his 6-year old mind is more qualified to determine how and why he was made the way he was made then that antiquated notion of a Creator, who he probably never heard of at his public school in the first place. When I was six I thought boogers and paste tasted good and the Super Friends were real, which just goes to show how much more progressive and enlightened we’ve become.

A world where a 6-year old boy can be rejected and killed by his own parents before he is even born, and the culture barely bats an eyelash. But should his parents allow him to be born then suddenly his quest for self-actualization also becomes theirs.

A world where a 6-year old boy demanding to use the girls’ bathroom at school isn’t spanked by his father for causing a disruption for the rest of his fellow first grade students and his teacher, but rather is a victim of a puritanical Colorado school district who actually still thinks in terms of male and female.

A world where a mom might stop her 6-year old son before he poses for pictures with purple hair because he looks ridiculous, but instead helps him dye the hair so it looks more professional—and then complains that he’s “bullied” when his peers make fun of him for it.

A world where just six years ago a doctor told his proud parents “it’s a boy” when tiny Coy Mathis was born, but six years later the news media refers to Coy as a “she” as it covers the story of his unchecked acting out.

I’m glad that old world of moral certainty, discipline, and accountability is gone because it was clearly holding us back from realizing our full potential. Left to our own devices we can become so much more powerful. Able to create alternative realities all of society and every more must succumb to at the ripe, old age of 6 even.

I think I like this brave new world so much we’ll homeschool.


Tories in turmoil as British PM vows 'no lurch to Right' then signals curbs on migrants using NHS

Senior Conservatives last night urged George Osborne to ‘change direction’ in this month’s Budget – amid mounting alarm about both the economy and ‘incoherence’ at the top of the party.

David Cameron’s former tax adviser Lord Forsyth said a package of radical tax cuts was needed to stimulate Britain’s ‘flatlining’ economy.

And Mr Cameron himself also came under fire for potentially confusing the public after pledging the party would not ‘lurch to the Right’ following the party’s dire showing in last week’s Eastleigh by-election.

He made his comments just as ministers signalled new crackdowns on immigration, health tourism and human rights laws clearly aimed at pleasing the discontented grassroots.

The mixed message frustrated senior party figures already unnerved following Eastleigh, where the Tories were pushed into third place behind the Liberal Democrats and the UK Independence Party.

With an eye on the March 20 Budget, Lord Forsyth said Mr Osborne should ‘spend less time talking about an age of austerity and more time explaining how we can get back to an age of prosperity’. He added: ‘Out there in the country people are hurting, their living standards are falling – they’re finding it difficult to pay for their gas and electricity bills, the amount that’s left in their pay packages after stoppages is getting less and less, and to coin an old clichĂ©, it’s the economy stupid, and George has actually got to change direction.

‘He’s got to put a touch on the tiller, he’s got to start cutting taxes and encourage enterprise to invest, because at the moment we are flatlining and we’re spending far more than we are bringing in income and the electorate understand that.’

Former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell also warned that the Budget could trigger a dangerous phase for the Chancellor and Prime Minister unless they could convince increasingly rattled backbenchers they had a recipe for restoring Tory fortunes.

Former minister Tim Loughton said the Government needed to start ‘doing some of the thing that people voted Conservative for at the last election. That’s about reducing taxes rather than coming up with new taxes, it’s about recognising families are having a tough time and recognising marriage and families in the tax system which we said we would do and haven’t.’

Mr Cameron insisted yesterday that he would not respond to the growing Ukip threat by adopting a string of new Right-wing policies.

He said he recognised that people felt Britain’s problems were ‘not being fixed fast enough by the Government I lead’. But he added: ‘The battle for Britain’s future will not be won in lurching to the Right, nor by some cynical attempt to calculate the middle distance between your political opponents and then planting yourself somewhere between them. That is lowest common denominator politics – and it gets you nowhere.

‘The right thing to do is to address the things people care about. It’s not about being Left-wing or Right-wing – it’s about being where the British people are. And where the British people, rightly, are on all these issues is where the Conservative Party is, too.’

Despite his comments, ministers signalled initiatives that appeared designed to appeal directly to disaffected Tory voters, with a pledge to scrap the controversial Human Rights Act and to tackle health tourism.

Tory MP Mark Field said the conflicting messages showed there was ‘incoherence at the top’. He said: ‘We’re saying one thing and thinking we can somehow convince the voters, yet actually the voters are not fools.’

It was ‘taken as read’ that Tory rebels plotting a challenge against Mr Cameron would hold their own post-mortem of the disastrous Eastleigh result. He added: ‘If the Coalition doesn’t last and if we are back in opposition in 2015, then clearly there will need to be a fundamental change of direction of where the Conservative Party goes.’

Asked if the Tories were moving closer to losing power, he said: ‘It’s going to be 2015 – I am under no illusions about that.’

Nick de Bois, secretary of the backbench 1922 Committee, accused Mr Cameron of pursuing a ‘flawed political strategy’ by focusing on ‘divisive’ issues, such as gay marriage, that alienate traditional voters.

‘The Government seems recently to have been focusing on what some have described as these rather metropolitan, elite, brand-conscious ideas, such as wind farms and whatever,’ he said. ‘We need to be connecting and speaking directly to those people who are living in the very sharp and harsh real world.’

Ukip leader Nigel Farage said voters no longer believed Tory promises. ‘Their own supporters look at a Conservative Party that used to talk about wealth creation, low tax and enterprise and it now talks about gay marriage and wind farms,’ he said.


One way to know that you're doing the right thing

Is to look at peoples' reactions to what you're doing. If, for example, you decided that you wanted to clean up the MPs' expenses system and every MP then started howling about how we mere ignorant citizenry aren't supposed to control them then we'd know that we were on the right track. Similarly, if every criminal in the country (to the extent that this is a different group from MPs) starts to complain about the length of sentences after just and righteous trials then you would at least begin to suspect that you might have created sentences which have a deterrent effect.

And when you're doing supply side reforms to the economy if you start to hear loud wailing from those suppliers being reformed then you've got a pretty good indication that you are achieving your goal. As with this letter to the Telegraph:

"As doctors and health-care workers, we are concerned about the Government’s proposed secondary legislation (under Section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act) to force virtually every part of the English NHS to be opened up to the private sector to bid for its contracts. These regulations were proposed on February 13 and will become law on April 1 unless MPs first insist on a debate and then vote them down. Parliament does not normally debate or vote on this type of regulation, but it is possible. We urge parliamentarians to force a debate and vote on this issue to prevent another nail in the coffin of a publicly provided NHS free from the motive of corporate profit."

There then follows 1,000 or so signatures. Which is, as I say, a signal that something is going right. The aim and point of the NHS reforms is indeed to introduce a market. Competition among suppliers that is. The reason for doing this is that in the absence of competition the producer interest will dominate, not that of the consumer. This is why we insist upon more than one electricity supplier in the economy, welcome that there are many sources of food (whether trivially in shops or more importantly from many different farmers and producers), sell off four licenses for mobile telephony at a time, not just one.

We desire to have this competition because it stops that producer interest from ossifying and then taking over the entire system. Very much to the detriment of the consumer who is the person we're actually concerned with.

As a result we've got those producers howling about how just ghastly it is that people will be able to compete with them. Screaming about how undignified it is that such august personages might have to consider what consumers want rather than what producers might deign to provide.

Great eh? It's working!



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICSDISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: