Monthly Archives: April 2015

Here is my comparsion of Clinton and Rubio announcements as published in the Miami Herald on April 16, 2015

Miami Herald

Letters to the Editor

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Rubio is for Real

 On Sunday, Hillary Clinton used a carefully crafted video advertisement to announce her bid for the presidency.

In claiming to get closer to the people, the Clinton campaign used a vehicle that totally insulated her from the public — a sterile television ad. In an effort to “be real,” Clinton was nothing more than a well-scripted actor in a professionally crafted commercial.

By contrast, Marco Rubio took the stage in Miami’s Freedom Tower — a real person in real life.

There was no crew to handle body language and lighting.

There were no retakes. More than 3,000 people came to hear his unedited words. They cheered as he spoke of his vision.

With Rubio, it was like attending a football game, while with Clinton, it was like seeing an ad to buy a ticket to the game.

Larry Horist, Boca Raton

The $20 woman.

No … the headline is not what you think, you naughty minded people.  I am referring to an effort to replace “Old Hickory,” President Andrew Jackson, with a woman on the $20 bill.  Among the prime movers behind the effort is New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen.  This would be the first time a woman graced a United States currency since Martha Washington appeared on the $1 silver certificate way back when.

Since the move is being pushed by liberals, the recommended list of potential women to be so honored is almost exclusively made up of …  well … liberal icons.  Make no mistake.  They are women of significance who have made notable historic contributions to America, but there is one who is by far most deserving.

A liberal group called Women on 20s polled their followers and came up with four finalists.  As one would expect, Eleanor Roosevelt topped the list, followed by abolitionist Harriet Tubman, civil rights activist Rosa Parks and Cherokee Chief Wilma Mankiller.  If you think the selection of Chief Mankiller is a bit out of the league with the others, I agree.  I honestly think she got on the list because the feminists just loved the name so much.

Senator Shaheen would added the first woman Cabinet member, Frances Perkins and Abigail Adams.

The bias of the promoters of the idea is seen in that they skipped over the first female Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — although being still alive can be a barrier.

I like the idea, but I think there is one candidate who stands out above all the rest, and that is Susan B. Anthony.  The constitutional amendment that gave women the vote was known as the “Susan B. Anthony Amendment” at the time.  It was singularly the most important accomplishment for women in American history.  Every woman who has since broken through one glass ceiling or another, owes her accomplishment to Anthony.

I know Anthony is on that obscure $1 coin, but that is almost a dubious honor.  It was never popular with the public and was actually mocked.  Noting that the size of the silver dollar was reduced and the standing of the U.S. dollar against world currencies was diminished at the time, it was said a woman was put on the coin because the dollar was “smaller and weaker.”

My support of the idea is not entirely unbiased.  I would be very happy to see that white supremacist Democrat, Andrew Jackson, replaced with the Republican abolitionist Susan B. Anthony.  Is that so wrong?

Here is my take on Hillary’s media tour as published in the Palm Beach Post on April 17, 2015

This has been edited down a bit, but you get the idea.  In the name of meeting the public, Hillary is merely setting up a bunch of advertising shoots with people brought in to play the foils.  No Questions.  Wouldn’t you like to hear what she would do about the mass murdering of Christians in the Middle East, or her opinion on the Iran negotiations, or the advances of ISIS into Afghanistan?  And look how easy it is for her to sucker in the press.

Palm Beach Post

Friday, April 17, 2015

 Communication for Clinton is one-way

Hillary Clinton did a presidential candidacy announcement, to be followed up by a series of small conversations as a way to get closer to “the people.”

This — and the road trip to Iowa via one-on-one meetings with carefully selected “average citizens” — does not get her closer to public scrutiny. It insulates her from it. It enables her to create a series of carefully crafted commercials, with little opportunity for the press or the public to ask questions. For Clinton, communication is a one-way street. It is the reason she used private email servers — to avoid having her public communications open to review under the Freedom of Information Act.

This high degree of “message control” by political leaders is dangerous to a free society where a high level of transparency and candor is necessary to an informed voting public.


Congress is finally working again … and Hillary may be missing the wave.

When the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate voted 19 to 0 to block President Obama from his go-it-alone strategy in dealing with Iran, it showed the difference between the Harry Reid controlled Senate and the re-emergence of democracy and bipartisanship under Republican leadership.  It is easy to understand that the GOP congressional leadership is finally passing legislation that was blocked by Reid, and Reid alone.  But what brought the Democrats around?

I can think of no other reason than the election shellacking the Democrats took in 2014.  Virtually every Democrat senator who played lap dog to Reid and Obama were booted out of office.  Clinging to the anchor of Obama’s sinking ship proved to be a disaster of monumental proportions.  Not only did Democrats lose the Senate and seats in the House, but they lost thousands of offices in states and cities across the nation.  Though generally under reported by the news media, the GOP victory was one of the most lopsided in American history.

As Republicans can now put forward legislation popular with the people, we will see a lot more bipartisanship.  Will congressional democrats stand in opposition to the upcoming GOP reforms of the IRS? Will they risk further erosion from minority voters by opposing choice in education?  I think not — especially those Democrat legislators up for re-election in 2016.

The number one Democrat  with the biggest problem is Hillary Clinton.  She will not have a chance to cover her past’s bad record with new votes or policy positions.  She must either follow the lead of the congressional Democrats by breaking with Obama, or try to wallpaper over her past with empty rhetoric delivered in expensive commercials.

For many months, Hillary has been considered the pre-emptive Democrat nominee for President.  That has largely been for lack of competition.  She is good at beating no one, but what happens when she comes up against a serious challenge?  She will certainly do so in the general elections.  That is why a lot of Democrats are hoping for a serious challenger to oppose Hillary in the primaries.  If she is a paper tigress rather than a dragon lady, they would like to find out before the main event.

My take on Charter Schools … as published in the Palm Beach Post, March 5, 2015

Let freedom to start charter ring

State Sen. Jeff Clemens, D-Lake Worth, is proposing legislation that would prevent the establishment of charter schools in districts if the proposed school does not clearly demonstrate that it would meet needs the district does not or cannot provide. This would make it a political decision, to be made by the same local authorities who have a vested interest in keeping charter schools out.

This is another example of government assuming the decision-making authority over the will of the people — especially the parents of school-age kids. Rather than make charter schools better, this is nothing less than legislation designed to keep charter schools from being established.

The only true test for the need of an alternative educational opportunity is, and should be, the parents, whose opinions are readily observed — look at the number of charter-school applicants. It should be up to parents to determine if they are satisfied with their traditional public schools.



Things never to call Hillary … my op ed published in the Florida Sun Sentinel, March 31, 2015

When publishing this letter, the Sun Sentinel did not publish my last paragraph.  I added as an addendum.

Clinton backers seek limits on criticism

Just when you think the far left has reached the nadir of idiocy, along comes something even nuttier. One of Hillary Clinton’s support groups, HRC Super Volunteers, has admonished the media to not use 13 “sexist” terms to describe Hillary. They are: polarizing, calculating, disingenuous,   insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over-confident, secretive, will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch and tone deaf.

No, I am not making this up. Of course, none of these descriptions are sexist. What Super Volunteers is doing is signaling to their friends in the media not to use words that are critical of Hillary.

The logic of the group is a bridge too far. In fact, many believe that every one of these terms is descriptive of Hillary.

In proposing this list, Super Volunteers is exposing the left’s authoritarian tendency to curb free speech when it comes to criticizing their icons.

Larry Horist

Boca Raton


“This got me to thinking, however.  What would be 13 truly sexist terms that should be avoided in describing Hillary?  I propose banning: sweet, feminine, cute, well-dressed, motherly, nurturing, shrinking violet, demur, fashionable, smarter than men, charming, better half, and seductive.  And as a bonus, we could always add the most obvious one, sexy.”

The Savage-ing of America

Yesterday’s news carried a report that ABC/Disney is offering a show to Dan Savage. I was hoping it was an April Fool Day prank.

If you are not familiar with Savage, he is a rabid, hateful and exceedingly vulgar gay rights activist.  My lack of respect for him has nothing to do with his being gay or promoting the gay agenda.  Since I lean to the libertarian side, I have more or less a live and let live attitude on that issue.

I disrespect Savage because he is a hater.  He represents and encourages the worst elements of the gay community.

The well named Savage has made his reputation by writing advice columns so peppered with vulgarities that they are unfit to print in any mainstream publication.  He expresses his atheism through an unbridled hatred the religious community.  He uses the vilest language to spew his verbal venom at the Bible and its believers.  Anyone who takes exception to his version of gay rights is subjected to the crudest available language.

Savage has won his fame on his vulgarity, not his intellect.  He seems incapable of expressing a thought without a proliferation of pornographic prose — a form of what I call “liberal Tourettes.” He appeals to low IQ types who, in their retarded maturity, find dirty words to be funny, or worse, empowering.

Apart from the targets of his ignorant and sophomoric attacks, Savage is an embarrassment to the gay community.  To prop him up as a leader is to invite derision from the general population and the many good and intelligent gays – just as Al Sharpton’s racist rants undermines the cause of racial harmony and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s extremist rhetoric discredits the reputation of Islam.

Those who lead by provocation and outrageous rhetoric are not intent on bringing about intellectual understanding or social harmony, but thrive and prosper on creating hostility and division.

The fact that ABC/Disney would engage with Savage is blight on the once wholesome Disney brand and evidence that political correctness only applies to criticism of the left.