Thursday, February 4, 2010

Lech Walesa Speaks To America-No One Listens

The last real survivor of the generational of leaders who won the Cold War spoke here last week and the so-called alert media here stretched its arms upward sleepily and emitted a huge yawn. A key member of a quartet that smote Communism…Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher…Walesa is the last healthy survivor of those hardy leaders (Thatcher is seriously enfeebled). But the media, evidently populated by callow 24-year-old assignment editors unacquainted with world history (Lech who?) declined to cover him notably in favor of the really vital stories.
Such as: how many graves were overturned in Burr Oak cemetery while Dan Hynes dithered…who found the TV tape of Harold Washington’s 1987 statement why he fired Pat Quinn as city revenue director…how many bucks Andy McKenna was “loaned” by his wife to keep his campaign going…did a last minute conversation with Jacqueline Heard of the mayor’s office concerning Michael Scott’s overspending on his expense account lead him to kill himself?
Enduring journalism, brother.
Not only were the 24-year-old assignment editors unimpressed with Walesa, the so-called top political reporter-pros of Chicago political reportage—from the Tribune, Sun-Times, Channels 2,5,7,9 and 11 were stonily unmoved. After all, who cares that Walesa, in danger of losing his life, managing against Communist orders a 1978 occupational shipyard strike that engulfed all of Poland causing Gen. Wojciech Jaruzsselski to declare martial law? Peanuts next to the real political story here:
Gay activist Senate candidate Jacob Meister withdrawing from the race after raving that an opposing candidate mentioning his marital status was homophobic because Meister can’t marry his boyfriend?
A major reason why the press didn’t cover Walesa, of course, was that the former Nobel Peace Prize winner…a recipient of the award when it really meant something…came here to support Adam Andrzejewski for governor, a social conservative as is Walesa. The glorious Tribune whose major editors live in tony DuPage suburbs want to appeal to ages 28 to 37 where the marketing dollars come from: and they don’t want to hear about stodgy old John Paul II gripping Walesa in a man-hug, supporting the first non-communist government in the Soviet sphere of influence. That story bores Carol Marin who really and truly…passionately, little college-girl-like with misty-eyed dedication…wants more women, more women to be involved in politics: by which she means liberal, pro-abort women.
And that icky message from Walesa that: the United States no longer leads the world politically…that America is slipping into socialism…that there is a cultural decadence here. All these things are un-trendy and rather embarrassingly old-hat…possibly racist…since they can be taken as criticism of the Lord High Jehovah Barack Obama. God, we wouldn’t want that! So no Carol Marin covering it with her TV camera from either NBC or WTTW…no Mike Flannery who gesticulates so outlandishly on camera on issues that REALLY MATTER…about like…Dan Burke’s campaign against Rudy Lozano, Jr…the spurious robo-calls peddling false rumors that Heather Steans gave money to “anti-choice” the p. c. way to describe er,er,er what the unlettered call “pro-life” groups!
These are the determinate big political stories, folks—not the ideas of a 67-year-old Pollack electrician who had something to do with…what?...changing the economic system of Poland to a market-based system? Who cares? Our system’s going the other way and it’s just right—that’s what Paul Krugman endorses in The Times. No editorials written about Walesa. But…hey, give us more about the lobbyist Robyn Gabel who’s seeking to replace Rep. Julie Hamos and who has the backing of Jan Schakowsky! Now that’s meaningful, baby! How about we write an editorial about THAT significant development?
How Did Obama Pass Constitutional Law in the 1st Place?
I’m beginning to understand why this Mystery President’s staff has nixed the idea of anybody getting hold of his grades at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law—the same people who have put a kibosh on the release of his original birth certificate. Aside from a certain gloss and suavity, he is perhaps one of the more illiterate people in the law who have ever held the post of the presidency. Consider now the case of the 11 terrorists who the administration has said should be tried in a federal civil court in New York.
Aside from the perfectly logical answer that as combatants in a war they should be tried in a military court, the Obama people’s arguments have a certain rough idealism. Why not try them in a civil court with all the trimmings of Miranda and the constitutional guarantees so as to show the world that our system of justice can triumph? Makes some kind of twisted sense.

Until you consider the statements that Obama and his press secretary Robert Gibbs have made about KSM—Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged plotter of 9/11. Here’s Obama’s the other day to NBC:
“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”
And here’s Gibbs’ delivered to CNN with similar wording he gave to Fox News last Sunday:
“Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his Maker.”
What these statements do is pronounce an inevitability of guilt at the outset when under the rubric of our civil justice system, a defendant is presumed innocent until found guilty. So if Obama wants to show the world how fair our justice system is, he has just compromised it in the eyes of the world.
Any competent defense lawyer would say that the statements are prejudicial. And if in fact KSM is convicted, the statement of the president of the United States and his press secretary would warrant the conviction being reexamined by the Supreme Court for prejudicial content…with the possibility…just a possibility but existent…that KSM could go free basis the unremitting prejudice exerted to gain his conviction.
It leads me to think this: What in the world is this so-called lecturer in Constitutional law thinking of when he speaks that way…with language that offends the very basis of Constitutional law?
The entire background of this guy defies belief. How could anyone
purportedly even pass Law Studies 101 and be so ungodly dumb? With this
stupid Gitmo campaign promise…made very easy since George W. Bush
agreed (mistakenly) that Gitmo should be closed…Obama has built an issue
that begs to take a major place in the 2010 campaign. We know it occupied
a great role in the Massachusetts senatorial campaign. Now in an effort to
consign it to a military court, the Democrats are saying that the “expense”
of the trial…some $200 million…would be too expensive. Mayor
Bloomberg has said as much—although that really won’t fly. New York is
accustomed to expenses like this…be they full-dress ceremonies for royalty
or just the expenses of safeguarding the presence of the UN.
So it appears the Dems are going to use the “too expensive” route
to get out of the box that Obama has locked them in. But how will they
surmount the Catch 22 he has woven with his own ignorant words…
virtually guaranteeing the conviction and death of terrorists in a civilian
court where presumption of innocence is a central part of our system?
This man…supposedly our “deepest” and “most intellectual president”
is in reality incorrigibly obtuse and stupid—and stupid in the Law he is
supposed to be master of.

No comments:

Post a Comment